Best bow for ARC/BRD

[Enfarious]

I find that it makes sense in my opinion. If it were simply base damage, then there would be no reason to ever use low delay weapons the way everything else works in game. The Damage is balanced by the delay ONLY for AA. In the case of WS, they have their own cooldowns and TP limitations to keep them in check and thus are unaffected by delay directly in any way, so lower delay weapons would have very soft hitting WS which would result in them being incredibly inferior. This is in fact the reason why everyone thought the Garuda weapons would be crap when their stats were first revealed.

DPS however gives a solid measure of how much damage the weapons will put out compared to others with AA, and by making it so it is the primary stat that effects WS damage it becomes consistent. This way, one can chose high delay/high damage weapons, such as the GC and HDcraft weapons, or low delay/low damage weapons based on personal preference.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that, and I do appreciate the idea of balancing them on DPS so that you can look at other factors in the weapons, i.e. +/-acc, +/-str, and what have you, without getting to caught up in whether or not you'll be nerfing your dmg overall. Just 7ish years of XI is a bit hard to shake. Even more so on other jobs where AA is such a small % of your overall dmg.

[Spider-Dan]

I find that it makes sense in my opinion. If it were simply base damage, then there would be no reason to ever use low delay weapons the way everything else works in game.

Instead, we have a system where high DPS weapons almost completely obsolete high DMG weapons, so it's 6 of one or a half-dozen of the other. I prefer a system where you choose between slow, hard-hitting weapons or faster, lighter weapons, but when the faster weapons also hit the hardest, it kind of kills the comparison.

Anyway, a few things bear mentioning:

- DPS never accounts for anything but DMG/delay; this means that the ATK+30 on Ifrit (or whatever you have melded to Sarnga) will not factor in. Given that Garuda has no real +damage bonuses, Garuda's DPS is not quite representative.
- Verdant Shortbow's DPS is significantly higher than Ifrit, and the DMG is slightly better than Garuda (along with having DEX+3 and ATK+5). Might be worth considering.
- Does Sarnga+1 even have better DPS than Garuda? Melds should easily push it over the top, but still...

[NoctisUmbra]

Instead, we have a system where high DPS weapons almost completely obsolete high DMG weapons, so it's 6 of one or a half-dozen of the other. I prefer a system where you choose between slow, hard-hitting weapons or faster, lighter weapons, but when the faster weapons also hit the hardest, it kind of kills the comparison.

Anyway, a few things bear mentioning:

- DPS never accounts for anything but DMG/delay; this means that the ATK+30 on Ifrit (or whatever you have melded to Sarnga) will not factor in. Given that Garuda has no real +damage bonuses, Garuda's DPS is not quite representative.
- Verdant Shortbow's DPS is significantly higher than Ifrit, and the DMG is slightly better than Garuda (along with having DEX+3 and ATK+5). Might be worth considering.
- Does Sarnga+1 even have better DPS than Garuda? Melds should easily push it over the top, but still...

What you're saying makes little sense, since high DPS weapons can also be high Damage weapons. The point of making WS damage based on DPS is so that you can chose between faster and lighter hitting weapons versus slower and harder hitting weapons.

A good example is the Sarnga +1. The HQ increases the Damage value enough to push the DPS above that of Garuda's Spine, although marginally. At the same time this is a weapon that is slow and hits hard like Ifrit's Bow.

As for your mentioning the Verdant Shortbow, it's DPS value is 38, whereas Ifrit's Bow DPS value is 36.74. So indeed going by the logic behind why I suggest the Spine, the Shortbow may seem like it can have an edge over Ifrit's, however there's still the large attack power buff to overcome as well as the additional fire damage. While on most weapons the fire damage may not amount to much, on a job/class where most of the damage comes from Light Shots it is worth noting. That all being said, Garuda's Spine has a DPS value of 40.96, which is greater than Verdant even more than Verdant is greater than Ifrit's. On top of that it also has additional wind damage comparable to Ifrit's fire damage.

That all being said, while DPS may be the primary factor when it comes to determining a weapon for DoW, ARC/BRD may follow a different path due to it's deviation in the distribution of damage between AA and WS compared to the rest. I won't argue if reputable players that have done thorough testing say they prefer Ifrit's Bow due to the higher Damage value bolstering their Light Shots being that the testing I have done has not been methodical or very thorough. I can say that the difference isn't very large between Ifrit's and Garuda's when it comes to BRD I suppose.

For ARC though, I don't see myself ever allowing an ARC as a DD into a full party scenario over a BRD unless they have a Sarnga (+1) as well as a full Gryphonskin set all melded properly. Being that both the weapon and the entire set come packed with DEX and PIE on every piece and can all be melded coupled with the high Damage and DPS of the Sarnga+1 allowing for heavy hitting Light Shots as well as increased stat caps I can see ARC getting a significant edge in DPS over BRD that way.

[Spider-Dan]

What you're saying makes little sense, since high DPS weapons can also be high Damage weapons.

In exactly the same sense that low delay weapons can have high DMG too, sure. Your argument along this line begins and ends with Sarnga (which BRD can't even equip). One weapon does not a paradigm make.

The point of making WS damage based on DPS is so that you can chose between faster and lighter hitting weapons versus slower and harder hitting weapons.

...except that the slower, "harder hitting" weapons hit softer when it comes to WS! So you are left with one weapon that hits harder on WS and has better damage-over-time on Light Shot, and one weapon that... does neither of those things. The only thing that even makes the comparison interesting is Barrage.

I won't argue if reputable players that have done thorough testing say they prefer Ifrit's Bow due to the higher Damage value bolstering their Light Shots being that the testing I have done has not been methodical or very thorough.

"Reputable players" making claims without data doesn't do much but show their own preferences.

For ARC though, I don't see myself ever allowing an ARC as a DD into a full party scenario over a BRD unless they have a Sarnga (+1) as well as a full Gryphonskin set all melded properly.

The only reason to bring BRD over ARC is the buffs, and even Gryphonskin will not substitute for them. Even without Gryphonskin, BRD-exclusive gear is nothing special compared to AH/melded gear that ARC has had available for a long time. (Unless you are referring to near-full Darklight BRD?)

[Tango]

There are a few exceptional DPS players in my shell who I generally defer any optimization question too. They feel that right now ifrit is superior to spine.

I want to see what DPS numbers an ARC /w Sarnga +1 can put up on a good 2min. Mistress fight, I know a brd doing songs with minor support can still go over 100dps and a pure DPS mnk can do 160+

[Spider-Dan]

Not my fault there aren't more choices in weapons. I'm talking about the DPS focused system versus a Damage focused system. It's better. That is all. Should they release a Garlean bow for BRD next patch that has high Damage and high delay, but the DPS is comparable to Garuda's Spine then voila.

But that's exactly my point: a high DMG weapon is useless unless it also happens to be a high DPS weapon, because weapons with far lower DMG (but high DPS) will quite literally hit harder on WS.

For example, if SE adds a D30 bow with 2 delay, and a D125 bow with 5 delay, the D30 bow would CRUSH the D125 bow in WS damage. That's absurd.

The point is that by basing WS damage on DPS, you remove virtually all purpose of evaluating weapons based on DMG. All that matters is DPS; if the DPS is low, it doesn't matter how high the DMG is.

That's the problem with this system. Instead of weighing the benefits and drawbacks of a weapon that has great "white damage" (i.e. DPS) vs. one that is slow but hits hard on WS (i.e. DMG), you simply look at the DPS and ignore the DMG, because the DMG rating is irrelevant.

[NoctisUmbra]

But that's exactly my point: a high DMG weapon is useless unless it also happens to be a high DPS weapon, because weapons with far lower DMG (but high DPS) will quite literally hit harder on WS.

For example, if SE adds a D30 bow with 2 delay, and a D125 bow with 5 delay, the D30 bow would CRUSH the D125 bow in WS damage. That's absurd.

The point is that by basing WS damage on DPS, you remove virtually all purpose of evaluating weapons based on DMG. All that matters is DPS; if the DPS is low, it doesn't matter how high the DMG is.

That's the problem with this system. Instead of weighing the benefits and drawbacks of a weapon that has great "white damage" (i.e. DPS) vs. one that is slow but hits hard on WS (i.e. DMG), you simply look at the DPS and ignore the DMG, because the DMG rating is irrelevant.

You say that, yet at this very moment on this very thread Ifrit's Bow is being weighed against Garuda's Spine despite the large difference in DPS.

Also, I disagree. Even if the DPS is the same, high dmg vs low dmg is a choice to make each with pros and cons based on the class/job in question.

Also keep in mind if WS damage was based on Damage instead of DPS, there would never be any reason to use a low delay/dmg weapon due to the severely lacking WS hits. That is much, much more restrictive and unbalanced.

[Spider-Dan]

You say that, yet at this very moment on this very thread Ifrit's Bow is being weighed against Garuda's Spine despite the large difference in DPS.

Oh, you can weigh Ifrit against Garuda. You can also weigh Ifrit vs. Crab Bow if you really want to. That doesn't say anything about the results.

Also keep in mind if WS damage was based on Damage instead of DPS, there would never be any reason to use a low delay/dmg weapon due to the severely lacking WS hits.

Sure there is: any situation in which you either don't want to spam WS (due to some other factor in the fight, e.g. LNC vs. Ifrit) or a situation in which you are spamming auto-attack fast enough to take advantage of the extra DPS. That's why it's a tradeoff, as opposed to the current situation where higher DPS weapons are simply better, period.

There are hundreds of examples in FFXI of making choices between faster weapons vs. harder hitting weapons; bow vs. gun vs. crossbow was an ongoing debate among XI RNGs for years, and the faster weapons were by no means disqualified just because they had lower WS damage. In this game, the fastest weapons also hit the hardest on WS... no thought necessary.

[NoctisUmbra]

[QUOTE=Spider-Dan;699034]Oh, you can weigh Ifrit against Garuda. You can also weigh Ifrit vs. Crab Bow if you really want to. That doesn't say anything about the results.[/quest]

Are you even reading. The results are that they have comparable damage output and some even saying Ifrit's performs better. Instead of arguing here you're welcome to test the difference yourself and make up your own mind.

Sure there is: any situation in which you either don't want to spam WS (due to some other factor in the fight, e.g. LNC vs. Ifrit) or a situation in which you are spamming auto-attack fast enough to take advantage of the extra DPS. That's why it's a tradeoff, as opposed to the current situation where higher DPS weapons are simply better, period.

There are hundreds of examples in FFXI of making choices between faster weapons vs. harder hitting weapons; bow vs. gun vs. crossbow was an ongoing debate among XI RNGs for years, and the faster weapons were by no means disqualified just because they had lower WS damage. In this game, the fastest weapons also hit the hardest on WS... no thought necessary.

XI is a different game Spidey. From what I recall TP generation was in fact different based on the attack delay of weapons. That's a game changer. In XIV that is not the case. If TP generation changed with delay, then there would be a trade-off to speak of with WS damage being based on Damage. Since that is not the case, DPS makes sense.

Also your example use for it makes little sense to me. In Ifrit or whatever fight you are in for where AA damage or WS damage matters more you'd still want a high DPS weapon. DPS is important for AA damage just as much as for WS damage. That's the point. For WS it's a direct value to tell you how strong the base damage of your WS will be, whereas for AA it's a measure of how much damage you'll be doing over time. I wouldn't chose a low Damage weapon with low delay for Ifrit just because it has low delay. If the Damage value is shit each AA hits like a wet noodle anyway. I'd chose a weapon with the highest DPS so that over time I'm putting out more... you guessed it.. DPS.

[Spider-Dan]

Are you even reading. The results are that they have comparable damage output and some even saying Ifrit's performs better.

I have yet to see any actual data on the comparison.

Furthermore, I can post up plenty of parses of me beating Ifrit users with a melded Crab Bow+1 (back in 1.20). Does this mean that Crab+1 was arguably better than Ifrit back then?

From what I recall TP generation was in fact different based on the attack delay of weapons.

TP generation is different based on the attack delay of weapons in XIV, so I don't see your point.

You can argue that the curve is more linear in XIV than in XI (and that's true), but in no way does that mean that DPS was somehow devalued in XI; it just meant that certain weapon+gear builds needed to be optimized for the specific number of hits to reach 100 TP (for a WS). And when you get right down to it, XIV has the same issue: a weapon that returns 500 TP per hit is superior (from a TP generation standpoint) to one that returns 550 or 450, because you reach 1000 TP in exactly two rounds (instead of 3 rounds like a 450 TP weapon), and you do so more quickly than a 550 TP weapon (which has longer delay).

All of the above are nuanced factors that come into play when evaluating light/fast vs. heavy/slow weapons. However, in XIV, the light/fast weapons are also the heaviest when it comes to WS. That unbalances the comparison.

In Ifrit or whatever fight you are in for where AA damage or WS damage matters more you'd still want a high DPS weapon. DPS is important for AA damage just as much as for WS damage. That's the point.

Yes, that is the point: in a fight like LNC vs. Ifrit (even if WS is based on DMG), a high DPS weapon will be preferable because the vast majority of your damage is coming from autoattack. Again, that's a tradeoff that is not present in the current system. In the current system, if you need a weapon that has strong autoattack damage output, you find something with good DPS, and if you need a weapon that hits hard on WS, you find... the exact same weapon. The tradeoff doesn't exist.