Can we close the gap between Ranged/Melee and Casters before criterion dungeons?

[Keichi]

Normal is on savage lvl?
Mäh, sound like to hard or not worth the time for me (how should this be even possible, with no need of specific roles?).

At last isnt savage something for me.

[Ransu]

Normal is on savage lvl?
Mäh, sound like to hard or not worth the time for me (how should this be even possible, with no need of specific roles?).

At last isnt savage something for me.

Yoshi-P also said the most recent alliance raid and EX4 would be more difficult than usual and that turned out to be false so I highly doubt normal mode will be savage level of difficulty. I love Yoshi-P, but he does tend to exaggerate sometimes lol.

[Satarn]

Normal is on savage lvl?
Mäh, sound like to hard or not worth the time for me (how should this be even possible, with no need of specific roles?).

It's about the normal mode Criterion dungeon, which is going to be role-restricted and meant to be difficult - although it's still probably some exaggeration, as Yoshi P has oversold the difficulty or just about every content he's bragged about since 5.0. I wouldn't be surprised if the dps checks and mechanics were actually no different between normal and savage Criterion, with the latter just getting its extra difficulty from the timer and removal of variant-rez and AoE indicators. Would explain why they recommend it to people who've cleared the savage tier, as you're basically meant to "speedrun" it due to the timer-based buffs - which I imagine is indeed going to be a shiteshow with current DPS balance.

What you're thinking of is the Variant dungeon, which allows for any roles and gives you variant-actions that compensate for any holes in your party comp. Variant is the casual one with multiple routes and story, while Criterion is a sort of "challenge mode" in both versions.

[Keichi]

It's about the normal mode Criterion dungeon, which is going to be role-restricted and meant to be difficult - although it's still probably some exaggeration, as Yoshi P has oversold the difficulty or just about every content he's bragged about since 5.0. I wouldn't be surprised if the dps checks and mechanics were actually no different between normal and savage Criterion, with the latter just getting its extra difficulty from the timer and removal of variant-rez and AoE indicators. Would explain why they recommend it to people who've cleared the savage tier, as you're basically meant to "speedrun" it due to the timer-based buffs - which I imagine is indeed going to be a shiteshow with current DPS balance.

What you're thinking of is the Variant dungeon, which allows for any roles and gives you variant-actions that compensate for any holes in your party comp. Variant is the casual one with multiple routes and story, while Criterion is a sort of "challenge mode" in both versions.

Ah ok.
i dont care much about this underground dungeon (yet), and thinked, that criterion is simply the name for this kind of content.

[Lyth]

I think that equalizing rdps across all DPS subtypes is an excellent idea and encourages fair competition.

That being said, I think that they should scrap the physical ranged/magical ranged distinction and merge them into a unified 'ranged' role, with two slots for melee and two slots for ranged in 8 player content.

[Supersnow845]

I think that equalizing rdps across all DPS subtypes is an excellent idea and encourages fair competition.

That being said, I think that they should scrap the physical ranged/magical ranged distinction and merge them into a unified 'ranged' role, with two slots for melee and two slots for ranged in 8 player content.

They would have to equal buff job rDPS to selfish job aDPS otherwise selfish jobs will always be better because rDPS subtracts DPS from the class getting buffed

Otherwise I agree with all your points

[Satarn]

That being said, I think that they should scrap the physical ranged/magical ranged distinction and merge them into a unified 'ranged' role, with two slots for melee and two slots for ranged in 8 player content.

They should just get rid of the "sub-roles" within the DPS role, period. All they bring are excuses for bad balance ("well, they're balanced with other jobs in their sub-role!"), concealment for blatant issues (phys ranged being taken, but only for the stat buff), homogenization (several of the oh-so-precious hotkey slots taken by the copy-pasted role skills) and limitation of job design (because they need to fit in with their "roles" somehow).

There used to be some merit to the sub-roles in the past, melee/ranged division especially, since the raids were usually designed with 4 "melee positions" for mechanics, but that concern seems to be gone now, as are the bait mechanics which made use of the phys-ranged mobility.

While I think it would be way better to also go back to the raid design which did in fact make uptime and movement important, I'd like to believe that we're smart enough to distinguish between "melee" and "ranged" jobs if need be, without the artificial categories being forced upon us. Especially since those divisions don't even work that well in some cases - like when you wanted to put a RDM or DNC in a "melee position" because their close-range skills lined up with the mechanic or just didn't want to force your BLM to run to Narnia, while they could've spent that time casting.

[Lyth]

All DPS jobs should provide the same rdps, as rdps attributes the damage gain from a buff to the job that supplies it, rather than the job being buffed. As such, it doesn't matter whether you're a 'selfish' job or not, because your specific contribution to the team for being present is being evaluated. It all comes out in the wash.

[Supersnow845]

All DPS jobs should provide the same rdps, as rdps attributes the damage gain from a buff to the job that supplies it, rather than the job being buffed. As such, it doesn't matter whether you're a 'selfish' job or not, because your specific contribution to the team for being present is being evaluated. It all comes out in the wash.

It has to be rDPS=aDPS for selfish jobs otherwise it will unfairly balance selfish jobs

If you are in a party with a DNC RDM RPR BLM DRG AST and SCH and in this party the BLM and RDM are doing exactly the same damage then put the same BLM in a party consisting of a SAM MCH WHM SGE SMN and BLM then the BLM will do more damage because in the original example the BLM is having damage subtracted off it because it is getting buffed but is not buffing others, so when no buffs apply to it it would be too strong

[Lyth]

I think that most players prefer to be at range if you give them that option and that's reflected as well in the job numbers if you remove the artificial 'physical/magical' ranged distinction. And as you noted, things naturally get dicey when you have more than two melee competing for space around the boss. I think that most groups would opt for either a 1/3 or 0/4 melee/ranged split if you gave them the option.

Right now a 2/2 split is enforced through rdps considerations alone. I agree that the rdps distinction shouldn't be there, but I also wouldn't want to see the standard shift towards predominantly ranged compositions. I like the fact that half of your team plays in melee range and half plays at range, even when you include supports into the mix. If they ever start releasing ranged tanks and melee healers, then that might be a different story.