Quote Originally Posted by Renathras View Post
This is irrelevant, and I say so just about every time I see this argument.

Imagine if they didn't add RPR and SAM. There'd be less Melee than Ranged Jobs. But suppose there were more Melee PLAYERS than Ranged players. Should there still be more dedicated Melee slots or less?

The number of Jobs in a role isn't relevant. It should be more based on the amount of players, paying attention to the fact that the "standard party" already has likely impacted that number from what it naturally would have been. Back when 2 Casters or 2 Ranged was considered more viable, this argument didn't hold any water, either.

There are 4 DPS slots. Not 2 Melee, 1 Ranged, 1 Caster. They're all DPS. You want one of each for the % bonus, then one wildcard slot. That slot shouldn't be reserved for Melees.

What's next, there are only 4 Tanks and there are 6 Melees, so the 8 man party composition should be reduced to 1 Tank to make another Melee slot? It's just not a good argument.
I didn't say it was a good argument, I am merely stipulating a sensible line of logic for a balance team to consider when balancing for an individual patch. Can you imagine the groaning if parties start demanding SMN and RDM consistently, because they've been buffed to do the same damage as melees? I can, and I imagine someone in charge of balancing the game would want to avoid it. I don't like how the game is presently balanced please stop trying to argue with me, I don't want to.