So you're telling me..

[Kazimere]

so your solution to them potentially never being at the top at say the 98%+ level is to simply turn them into the class that is literally allways the strongest and than call that balance ?

You can’t reason with these people. They’re going to start screeching soon. I find it funny the one who is talking about people not understanding rDPs, in fact doesn’t understand rDPs. Whatever her name is.

They can’t understand that Samurai being what it was in StB was busted. It was essentially a lock for a spot, and doubling up was even better for parties who weren’t as coordinated. Same goes for BLM in on the ranged front. They were that powerful.

Regarding your opinion that reaper should do less than samurai cause of a 250 heal. Come on man. It’s not breaking anything. Additionally. I don’t think any reaper would care if the only extended to the reaper itself. I’d prefer it that way at this point, just to get these people to shut the hell up. I imagine they’d just move the goal post at that point though.

This is why we can’t have nice things. Back in the day, you HAD to have things like goad. You HAD to have the dog down jobs. So, they took that stuff away to help with variation. Now, we get some nifty utility on a high dps job that isn’t actually needed (it’s really just flavor), and they are acting like the sky is falling instead of advocating for more stuff like that on melee. It’s ridiculous.

[Akiudo]

Regarding your opinion that reaper should do less than samurai cause of a 250 heal.

let me just say that this isn't really my opinion on the matter, at least not necessarely. i do think it has to be taken into account, as much as it is flavor. but i also do think that without it it should be "slightly" above "selfish" classes so in the end in my opinion it should mostly cancel out, if at the end of the day at the 98+ level rpr is 0,5% above or at exactly samurai level i don't care, i'm mostly in the camp of "not arguing for the final 0,5% or so dps" because than we would give an exact value to every kind of utility that is just not feasible.

[tearagion]

I find it funny the one who is talking about people not understanding rDPs, in fact doesn’t understand rDPs.

Ironic, I understand the metric just fine thanks, keep your SB ramblings to yourself they're not relevant in the slightest.


Anyway it's clear to me there are differing balance philosophies at play, I'm not asking for SAM to be an indisputable addition in every comp, or even changed at all really. RPR and MNK are clearly overtuned, DRG, NIN, MCH, and DNC are clearly undertuned, and discussions about the average rDPS of a job based on what it offers to the party are clearly not being met on the same level. I have faith in SE to appropriately balance classes.

[Kazimere]

Ironic, I understand the metric just fine thanks, keep your SB ramblings to yourself they're not relevant in the slightest.


Anyway it's clear to me there are differing balance philosophies at play, I'm not asking for SAM to be an indisputable addition in every comp, or even changed at all really. RPR and MNK are clearly overtuned, DRG, NIN, MCH, and DNC are clearly undertuned, and discussions about the average rDPS of a job based on what it offers to the party are clearly not being met on the same level. I have faith in SE to appropriately balance classes.

I'm rambling now, eh? Ok buddy. It is relevant, considering you're advocating to go back to that. If that's your position, you're entitled to it, but you are just advocating to flip the proverbial coin over. Good job.

[tearagion]

I'm rambling now, eh? Ok buddy. It is relevant, considering you're advocating to go back to that. If that's your position, you're entitled to it, but you are just advocating to flip the proverbial coin over. Good job.

Please learn to read, I'm literally saying I'm not advocating for that in the same post you replied to. You're embarrassing yourself.

[IruruCece]

This is why we can’t have nice things. Back in the day, you HAD to have things like goad. You HAD to have the dog down jobs. So, they took that stuff away to help with variation. Now, we get some nifty utility on a high dps job that isn’t actually needed (it’s really just flavor), and they are acting like the sky is falling instead of advocating for more stuff like that on melee. It’s ridiculous.

Here's the thing: Things like "goad" were taken away because SE as a whole would rather simplify the overall experience. Positionals? Originally nerfed in value, now straight up getting removed from jobs, because SE would rather simplify the overall experience. A job that "doesn't really have a rotation", but rather has "priorities" exists because SE would rather simplify the overall experience.

Dancer? New Summoner? New Monk? Machinists since ShB? All of these things are efforts to simplify the overall experience, so that "everyone" can play a job, even ones they've spent more time complaining about than actually playing to any extent, much less raid with.

A pure DPS, that doesn't offer ANY utility or group buffs, should be a valid option for a raid group. It should bring damage to justify that it offers nothing to the rest of the team, and only benefits from what the team brings. It should be a trade off that players of the group choose to make, and they shouldn't have a nagging feeling that maybe they'd be doing better if they stacked four dps that all brought some sort of raid utility with them. So in a sense yes, SAM, BLM, AND MCH should be the A Number One Buttkickers of their respective roles, from a personal DPS perspective, because of how little they provide to other DPS in a team. That's the trade off.

The problem facing Samurai now is similar to the problem Monk faced in Heavensward, being ostensibly the top melee dps, but not actually desired by anyone at the high end of play because there's other jobs with better synergies. And SE has a TERRIBLE track record with Monk in their efforts to try and kitbash in some utility without actually considering both the identity and the actual act of playing the job, failing to address longstanding issues repeatedly across multiple expansions, and ultimately giving up and remaking the design in hopes of driving up player population for the job. That failed, by the way. It failed big and it failed ugly. But somehow, I can see SE doing the exact same thing to Samurai in the future, and like Monk it will be a problem they created for themselves.

[Akiudo]

snip

dps buffs are NOT utility. Utility buffs are utility and should be treated as such (meaning something that is not dps but still valuable to the group, i.e. it should be counted against their dps to a reasonable degree). dps buffs however are just that, dps. people more often than not however are arguing that dps buffs should be a reason to do lower rdps, and that argument realistically boils down to

"you buff the group for 1500 dps so you should personally do 1700 dps less yourself" which yes, sounds incredibly stupid if you phrase it like that, but that's because it is.

[IruruCece]

dps buffs are NOT utility. Utility buffs are utility and should be treated as such, dps buffs are dps.

We've already established that you don't know what words mean, there's no need to reiterate.

[Ransu]

dps buffs are NOT utility. Utility buffs are utility and should be treated as such (meaning something that is not dps but still valuable to the group, i.e. it should be counted against their dps to a reasonable degree. dps buffs however are just that, dps. people more often than not however are arguing that dps buffs should be a reason to do lower rdps, and that argument realistically boils down to

"you buff the group for 1500 dps so you should personally do 1700 dps less yourself" which yes, sounds incredibly stupid if you phrase it like that, but that's because it is.

Uh, what? DPS buffs that apply to the entire raid are absolutely utilities.

[Akiudo]

Uh, what? DPS buffs that apply to the entire raid are absolutely utilities.

let me rephrase it just so we don't argue on the meaning of words.

buffs outside of dps=those have a value for the group which is hard to measure in exact numbers, it is fair to argue that classes that offer those compared to those that don't should be penalized in their dps, the question is "what is a reasonable amount".

buffs that effectively do nothing but dps=these allready give us exact numbers, penalizing classes that offer those compared to those that don't by a higher value than what these buffs actually offer is stupid, if buffing the group by 1500 dps gets penalized by a personal 1600 dps loss than "buffing the group" is not only actively useless but a detriment.

because one has a definite value (dps buffs) whereas putting a dps value on others (shields, regens, movement buffs, dispells...) is subjective it makes no sense to act like both are the same, they are not, and when discussed that should be kept in mind.

no the point i take issue with is this, given that perfect balance at all levels is impossible and buff classes generally have a higher dps drop the further down they go than if having a dps buff (again, purely dps buff here) is to be penalized there are 3 ways this can go.

a) you penalize the class for clearly less than it buffs, the result is the buffer allways being stronger.
b) you penalize the class for clearly more than it buffs, the result is the buffer allways being weaker.
c) you penalize the class on a level thats somewhat less than it buffs at the highest level while punishing it for more than the value of its buff the lower you go, leading to a situation where the buff is usefull at the top end but in exchange a detriment the lower you go.

c) leaves us with a situation where "whats best" actually changes depending on group composition aswell as skill level. version a) and b) on the other hand just let one side allways be stronger, it doesn't matter which of those extremes, both are equally bad by themselves.