FF14 5.X Alternative Raid Buff Alignment and Openers

[ReiMakoto]

I don't think timelines would help when people have told you multiple times that most of these openers are not as optimal as the balance ones. Whilst you probably have the noblest intentions with these openers, I feel like creating more rescources to draw eyes to them will just further spread misinformation.

[Oxdarock]

I don't think timelines would help when people have told you multiple times that most of these openers are not as optimal as the balance ones. Whilst you probably have the noblest intentions with these openers, I feel like creating more rescources to draw eyes to them will just further spread misinformation.

The reason I've continued with these openers is because none of the people who've claimed that the balance openers are always optimal have been able to address the holes in said openers in a raid setting. By making a timeline of each opener detailing where abilities line up, even someone who doesn't have knowledge on classes other than their main can look up potencies on the FF14 Job page and do simple math to find the result.

The only optimal point that the Balance openers have in common is that an earlier burst phase can lead to more/avoid the loss of uses overall. However, this is a case-by-case basis, the primary and well-known example being the GNB opener for E3S, which goes into it's Gnashing Fang combo much earlier than usual. This is done so that they don't lose a full GF combo due to Maelstrom. However, this is the only case (that I know of anyway) where this happens. For every other fight, despite being able to use their burst so early, the standard GNB openers call for them to delay their burst to line up with other raid buffs.

The raid alignment of this list follows a similar logic in that, if there's no dire need go into a burst phase early, then it's better to line it up with as many raid buffs as possible. That said, people want proof, and while it's relatively simple to pull up a calculator and do some quick addition and multiplication using values given the FF14 Job page and other resources, an extremely small amount of people have the patience to figure out the timestamp of the openers for even their main class, let alone every other class in the game. So I figured removing that tedious step would allow people to more easily see the logic behind these openers.

[Izsha]

The reason I've continued with these openers is because none of the people who've claimed that the balance openers are always optimal have been able to address the holes in said openers in a raid setting. By making a timeline of each opener detailing where abilities line up, even someone who doesn't have knowledge on classes other than their main can look up potencies on the FF14 Job page and do simple math to find the result.

The only optimal point that the Balance openers have in common is that an earlier burst phase can lead to more/avoid the loss of uses overall. However, this is a case-by-case basis, the primary and well-known example being the GNB opener for E3S, which goes into it's Gnashing Fang combo much earlier than usual. This is done so that they don't lose a full GF combo due to Maelstrom. However, this is the only case (that I know of anyway) where this happens. For every other fight, despite being able to use their burst so early, the standard GNB openers call for them to delay their burst to line up with other raid buffs.

The raid alignment of this list follows a similar logic in that, if there's no dire need go into a burst phase early, then it's better to line it up with as many raid buffs as possible. That said, people want proof, and while it's relatively simple to pull up a calculator and do some quick addition and multiplication using values given the FF14 Job page and other resources, an extremely small amount of people have the patience to figure out the timestamp of the openers for even their main class, let alone every other class in the game. So I figured removing that tedious step would allow people to more easily see the logic behind these openers.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You repeatedly state your openers are better and there are 'holes' in the standard openers. So do the math. how much % damage will i gain? how much more damage does your opener do than the standard one? Throwing a bunch of icons in a line and then saying "this is a stronger opener, if you dont believe me, do the math" means nothing. You make the claim. You provide the evidence. All you have done is make wild claims against the accepted knowledge base without any supporting evidence.

It is entirely possible that the establishment is wrong. People thought the world was flat, until someone stubbornly proved it wasnt. But they didnt do that by saying "the Earth is ROUND! Dont believe me!? Go measure it!!". That's just a madman raving. You show up with your notes, measurements, and research then people will hear you out. Otherwise your just a doomsayer in the town square yelling at people.

[Oxdarock]

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. You repeatedly state your openers are better and there are 'holes' in the standard openers. So do the math. how much % damage will i gain? how much more damage does your opener do than the standard one? Throwing a bunch of icons in a line and then saying "this is a stronger opener, if you dont believe me, do the math" means nothing. You make the claim. You provide the evidence. All you have done is make wild claims against the accepted knowledge base without any supporting evidence.

It is entirely possible that the establishment is wrong. People thought the world was flat, until someone stubbornly proved it wasnt. But they didnt do that by saying "the Earth is ROUND! Dont believe me!? Go measure it!!". That's just a madman raving. You show up with your notes, measurements, and research then people will hear you out. Otherwise your just a doomsayer in the town square yelling at people.

*sighs*

Yeah. Guess that's the only thing I can do at this point. It's a lot of work, but I've already spent 3-4 months on this. What's 3 more? Besides, I already did something similar in my recent edit of the 5.0 TK guide I made. I fully believe in the simple math I've done, so now I just need to show it.

Thanks for the advice. I know multiple people have said the same throughout this thread, but this response was worded in a way that seemed to click with me somehow. Guess I'll start breaking down the issues piece-by-piece and posting them in another thread. So get your torches, pitchforks, and calculators ready!

My first target is the NIN opener! Get ready for it!

[Izsha]

*sighs*

Yeah. Guess that's the only thing I can do at this point. It's a lot of work, but I've already spent 3-4 months on this. What's 3 more? Besides, I already did something similar in my recent edit of the 5.0 TK guide I made. I fully believe in the simple math I've done, so now I just need to show it.

Thanks for the advice. I know multiple people have said the same throughout this thread, but this response was worded in a way that seemed to click with me somehow. Guess I'll start breaking down the issues piece-by-piece and posting them in another thread. So get your torches, pitchforks, and calculators ready!

My first target is the NIN opener! Get ready for it!

I'm looking forward to it. While I doubt all openers everywhere will be upended (though its possible everyone who has worked on them has missed something, but the odds are pretty small that many people didnt see something big), there is almost certainly some room for iterative improvement tailored to specific situations. For example, in different fights as War i will use my 2nd inner chaos before my IR window because i know that 2.5 seconds on IR/Upheaval recast wont gain anything because of a boss jump (Levi in this case) so I pump out 1 more big hit during (old) TA, etc. There is always room for some type of increased optimization, even if its for specific niche situations and youre efforts may contribute to that. More math is always good and i'm glad to see another theorycrafter taking up the mantle.

[EONX_]

Optimization is not as simple as looking up tooltips and saying "Hey this has higher potency!". It requires very in-depth math on both potencies yes, but also long term scenarios on an encounter and how other jobs and their buffs might provide to your rotation. A solid example for this is the BRD opener. In an isolated encounter with only your own personal buffs, Barrage can be used very quickly if not immediately after DoTs have been applied on the target as there are no other buffs to factor in. BRD delays their Barrage (assuming no unexpected downtime that might become a problem to this) in the Raging Strikes window in their openers to get more raid buffs on it.

My other problem is with how you're presenting this. My real concern is the affect that this might have on newer players to this game that might see this and go "Oh so this is how I'm supposed to be playing my job!" These openers are mathematically proven to be less optimal than the current ones, yet you insist these are superior than the current openers, OR can be used as alternatives with similar results. By continuing this insistence, you're pushing these openers to new eyes and potentially to people that don't know that these openers are A; not optimal and B; line up horribly with the other openers because of how delayed the raid buffs are. Whether intentional or not, you're harming the player base by pushing non-optimal openers to the eyes that may use them without knowing any better.

Also as a side note, does BRD not use Sidewinder in your opener at all or am I missing something? That's a free 300 potency you get every 60s. Seems like a bit of a waste not to be using it.

I admire your dedication and passion to put a lot of work into something you very clearly care deeply for (it's something I admittedly struggle with), but enough is enough. These are at least far better than they were the first time you tried this, but they're still not optimal or very practical to use. Facts are facts, and it is a fact that these openers are not optimal.

[Oxdarock]

snip

Well yeah, if it was that easy, it wouldn't have taken me so long to get to this point. Didn't think anyone would have an issue with the BRD opener since it still fills the requirements of both RS and BV fitting within WM. Still, your point in how it can use its buffs immediately is similar to the GNB example I use. Both can use their buffs and burst really early, but opt to line up with the party and other raid buffs.

I wholeheartedly believe in the concept I've been running with and the math that backs it up. I just had too much faith that people would be willing to put in time to try it out themselves. So, thanks to the recent analogy somehow clicking in my head, I'll be making a doc and sheets that put all my logic and reasoning to bare one-by-one over the coming months. If it somehow still gets proven suboptimal, then I'll have no choice but to give up the ghost (mind you, if it is proven, it'll have to make it's way to me somehow since the only counter-arguments that have reached me were via these OF threads and all of them have fallen short of the mark).

As for the BRD opener missing Sidewinder... Whoops, lol! Thank you for pointing that out. It's a silly mistake and I'm surprised no one has pointed it out for so long. I'll be sure to update it in the future, but as a quick fix, it should be used before the 2nd Bloodletter. Sorry about that. ^^;

[HyoMinPark]

People have been providing reasons why the standard openers are better and why yours are not. Mathematically, there is no reason to delay your opening burst. None at all. Your decision to delay bursts in these openers is arbitrary—it serves no purpose. Do you not think that the theorycrafters have already tested the standard openers, and tried to find the most optimal way to align raid buffs? If they had found a second, optimal way to perfectly align raid buffs like the ones you continue to preach, do you not think that we would be using it because it’s mathematically optimal?

And different people on here and in the Balance have contested your openers, both in terms of design and function. On each occasion that you have attempted to present them.

Just give it a rest, dude. I can appreciate your dedication, but your openers—no matter how much you try to explain them and make infographs and Google Docs—will not be mathematically superior to those that theorycrafters have already figured out. And I don’t think there’s any need for you to continue spreading these openers around as if they’re viable. All you will do is confuse players.

[aqskerorokero]

I have only one rule, squeeze everything possible during my own buff window.

[Izsha]

I have only one rule, squeeze everything possible during my own buff window.

Drks: 'What's a buff window?'