Potential Solution to Job Balance?

[RobinBobobbinGoblin]

It would be up to the developers to place what DPS belongs in what category but, wouldn't this be a potential step in the right direction to addressing job balance for the future of the game? Obviously Supportive DPS will still be doing damage but, you can balance against the other supportive DPS based on say, how much utility and buffs to the party they bring. And for damage dealers they can simply focus on the rotation and damage of these jobs.

You can go a step further and introduce support focused jobs in the future with unique actions and so on. I'm not sure of the ramifications it would take to do this but, I felt it would be a great discussion. Instead of what we have now with multiple DPS roles.

Or the other option is to just put all the DPS under the DPS role instead of having Phys Range, Caster and Melee.

[SaberMaxwell]

That is one solution; one that would drastically change the game and aggravate a number of players, but probably worthwhile in the long term. Once in the support section the supporters can be given actual supportive abilities too.

If it were me, I'd swap RPR or DRG with NIN and return NIN to its more StB incarnation of being support-heavy.

[Archwizard]

... I'm curious what the differentiation is between Support and Damage Dealer, overall.

Like, every DPS besides BLM and SAM has party buffs. Sure I probably wouldn't call MCH a support if you put a gun to my head since it offers nothing the other Phys Ranged lack, but that just makes the question, where IS the line?
SMN has oGCD healing skills while Phoenix is active, as well as its own Raise, but you class it as Damage Dealer here. DRG's buffs are strictly useful for increasing damage output, but you class it as a Support here.
And then RPR, NIN, and MNK are kinda in a nebulous space in the middle depending on your definitions. Would their assignments be arbitrary?
Would Role Actions still be sensible given this extra categorization of jobs?
What would such divisions mean for jobs that have Raises? It seems right now the devs have mercifully given up on the "Raise Tax" since Raises are self-taxing, but if you pit some Supports with it against others without, would they have to be brought back into consideration?

I think this invites more challenges than it necessarily solves.

[Duskane]

I don't think this is a solution when problem really lies with the developers adding,another DPS category would not solve them neglecting jobs,strange design choices or unnecessary buffs/changes.

when they double down on grouping up jobs it never works out.

[Shurrikhan]

What would this possibly solve, though? You're just arbitrarily splitting one role (DPS) in two around a delineation that, unlike the melee distinction, has no actual impact in encounter design... all while increasing queue times by making matchmaking more stringent and forcing people onto what are, for many, duller jobs (Physical Ranged, especially).

You still have the exact same job performance and gameplay issues as before. You're just doubly obliged to take the hit and ignore them (by sub-roles being fully required instead of incentivized via a 1% stat bonus).

[Azuri]

Ah, yes, let's take all the already underperforming jobs and shove them into a second rate citizen category so we have a convinient excuse to just ignore their complaints.

"What do you mean you want to bring comptetitve damage and not feel bad about playing a job you enjoy?! Silly, you are a sUpPoRT, your damage is supposed to be garbage. You get that oh-so-cool gimmick that has a use in one fight once a year!!!11!!...maybe. Because we literally designed the game to make none of those things besides damage matter. We are so smart!"

Asinine.

[RobinBobobbinGoblin]

It does. The other option was just to remove things like Caster, Physical Range and Melee and just place them all under the DPS label in my head.

[UkcsAlias]

I don't think this is a solution when problem really lies with the developers adding,another DPS category would not solve them neglecting jobs,strange design choices or unnecessary buffs/changes.

The problem is mostly with the healer job, because it has a lot of conflicts within the desired balance. But at least some issues can be resolved with this:
- No reliable fallback, which means a dead healer can often result in a wipe (unless you have a dps with a resurect). Having a support group with a revive here can cover this part making sure there are always 2 roles available for a revive (the healer on that can be the one using it more often)
- As the healer is supposed to heal. It often means reduced damage, this damage reduction is enforced to avoid healers deliberately missing a healing GCD in favor of damage. As healer damage now doesnt exist, they are forced to heal again. But again, if a support can cover some of this, this GCD balancing on a healer can become viable again, which allows higher damage as a result.
- This can be used as a finetuning aspect in 8man duties in which it will always ensure at least 1, but keeps the rest flexible. If for whatever reason such support job is needed then, you can be sure there is one. It allows balancing towards the existance of them (and scale damage/healing/mitigation requirements with it).

But it has flaws.
- By having 4 categories, it can be used as a balance factor in 4man duties. This however has a downside that some categories can get even longer queue times. Since support roles are usualy less liked than pure dps. Even if they effectively do the same in damage, the name 'support' is an issue. I think a diffirent category could be better here. Idealy one that doesnt relate towards support or buffing. But I know the term flex is quite popular in moba's, so maybe some sort of term like this works by simply making it sound more elite like (if it sounds cool, its more likely to be popular after all). Plain support however is unlikely to truly work as that just sounds like a healer.
- Once its a category, its often demanded that all jobs within the role end up with similar capabilities. This could remove the variety we have now.
- As most damage in the game is delivered in a quite static way, variety in these classes and synergies (which normaly can make things interesting) is generaly not going to work well. Its often down to raw output in certain aspects. Even with this new role, synergies are a very dangerous aspect to show up, and a support role is even more likely to cause these issues, since its now no longer 1 class facing this potential issue, but 2.

[Azuri]

It does. The other option was just to remove things like Caster, Physical Range and Melee and just place them all under the DPS label in my head.

Right, so now we have a guaranteed 4 melee comp with no drawbacks. You really have no clue what you are porposing, aren't you?

[RobinBobobbinGoblin]

Right, so now we have a guaranteed 4 melee comp with no drawbacks. You really have no clue what you are porposing, aren't you?

It's a stupid question sure, but I felt it was worth asking anyway. It wouldn't work in the current iteration of the game obviously, but maybe it's something to think about moving forward and they could balance around it. How? I'm not sure I'm not a game developer just someone giving their thoughts on the matter. You can also do a split between Just Melee and Ranged DPS. MCH and BLM being near the top in their respective category and SAM and maybe MNK at the top in theirs with Bard and DNC near the bottom in theirs. As far as I'm aware that's what most people bring in parties 2 melee and 2 ranged. Casters in essence are still ranged. That would invite other discussions like should they have raise or not and other things but, that's is the rabbit hole I'm suggesting discussion around.