Damage "taxes" deserve serious reconsideration

[magzillas]

Acknowledging my bias as a RDM main and SMN secondary, I'd like to evaluate what I see as the three main "taxes" in the current state of dps balance, why I think they're problematic, and what can/should be considered in response.

Ranged Tax
Theory: Ranged damage-dealers, including ranged physical and casters (and paladins, apparently), should deal less damage because they are always able to hit the boss. Melee, by contrast, will have periods of downtime where the boss is out of reach.

Problems:

• By SQEX's own admission, recent encounter design has intentionally minimized melee downtime, and reduced difficulty with positionals.
• Ignores the inherent downsides of ranged jobs, such as lower hp pools, and for casters, hard-casting requirements
• Additionally questionable given that ranged players are in just as much danger (if not more, due to lower hp) when handling mechanics compared to melee, along with the fact that, at default, most ranged players operate within melee range to ensure they don't miss heals/buffs.

Commentary: With current encounter design, being "ranged" doesn't seem to have much meaning other than doing less damage. Casters in particular are further stung (perhaps less so SMN) because their damage relies on at least some periods of time where they have to stand still. The advantage of being ranged means very little when encounter design ensures that players can be functionally in melee range at all times.

Proposals: Either ranged damage needs to be increased across the board, or their ability to operate from range has to actually mean something to compensate for the damage inherently lacking in their rotation, compared to melee.


Utility Tax
Theory: Jobs which bring utility skills (raid buffs, defense, raises, etc.), should deal less damage to compensate.

Problems:

• Arbitrary valuation of one job's "utility" compared to another's
• Players who enjoy a job for reasons other than its utility can feel "punished" for having it available
• Obviously inconsistent application of this tax in the current scheme of job balance

Commentary: I'll never suggest that RDM should be doing more damage than BLM. But I'd also argue that the valuation of "utility" can be very murky. Does SMN having access to raise justify a 5-10% hit in damage? Should MNK be paying a tax for their party healing buff? Why is MCH doing some of the lowest damage, while having very minimal party utility?

Proposals: "Valuation" of party utility needs rethought across the board. Players shouldn't feel "punished" for wanting to play a class that happens to come with utility. I'd advocate for every class having its own thematically unique utility, but barring that, the numbers for the supposedly "selfish" MCH and BLM at least need a review.


(continued)