Why is everyone anxious about a PLD Rework?

[Shurrikhan]

so if someone happens to think warrior has cooler aesthetics, theme, and animations than DRK, they should just be relegated to dealing less dmg because the devs arbitrarily decided jobs with more buttons should deal more damage?

They should be "relegated" to dealing roughly the same damage in-practice, rather than the simpler and less contextually-punished job dealing less damage in-practice for 90+% of players.

[Melethron123]

They should be "relegated" to dealing roughly the same damage in-practice, rather than the simpler and less contextually-punished job dealing less damage in-practice for 90+% of players.

what were you even trying to say with this reply..?

[Shurrikhan]

what were you even trying to say with this reply..?

That your insistence that every job should do the exact same damage even when perfectly rotated on a striking dummy means that all but the easiest jobs will underperform for all but the best players and all but the jobs least restricted by context (movement requirements, etc.) will underperform in most content.

You are not asking for parity as it would affect anyone but the top 1% of speedrunners. You're just asking for the likes of MCH to be better than everyone else for the vast majority of player skill levels and the majority of content.

The game shouldn't balance for on-paper theoretical performance alone. The game should balance for whatever best expands choice in-practice, and that means giving harder and more vulnerable jobs at least some degree of reward for their added risk.

[Melethron123]

That your insistence that every job should do the exact same damage even when perfectly rotated on a striking dummy means that all but the easiest jobs will underperform for all but the best players and all but the jobs least restricted by context (movement requirements, etc.) will underperform in most content.

You are not asking for parity as it would affect anyone but the top 1% of speedrunners. You're just asking for the likes of MCH to be better than everyone else for the vast majority of player skill levels and the majority of content.

You don't balance for on-paper theoretical performance. You balance for whatever best expands choice in-practice, and that means giving harder and more vulnerable jobs at least some degree of reward for their added risk.

i'm not basing my arguments on striking dummies, i'm basing them on actual raid dmg numbers and the statements from people who have been raiding at a high level for years (some of them since 2.0)

what are you basing your arguments on, if you don't mind me asking?

[Shurrikhan]

i'm not basing my arguments on striking dummies, i'm basing them on actual raid dmg numbers and the statements from people who have been raiding at a high level for years (some of them since 2.0)

what are you basing your arguments on, if you don't mind me asking?

You were arguing just earlier against jobs like BLM having even a theoretical rDPS lead, regardless of how much greater a portion of their damage they would lose to complexity or the constraints of specific fights. How else am I supposed to interpret that outside of asking for parity on-paper instead of parity in-practice (within the contexts of actual fights)?

So long as you're asking for parity in practice, then sure, I'm all for that. Buff non-BLM Casters and physical ranged slightly, so in a typical fight (within such a span of content as any of this would matter, such as no easier than Extreme) with a typical player (but one typically open to learning) they're neck-and-neck.

But you're going to have a degree of imbalance regardless so long as the jobs themselves are imbalanced in terms of complexity and contextual loss (from movement, range, spans of uptime, raid synergy, or whatever else); if the likes of MCH were perfectly balanced against BLM even in BLM's few ideal scenarios, then MCH would necessarily be outperforming it everywhere else, which ultimately means that BLM stops being a competitive option and instead becomes "griefing" or "an ego-pick", with more reliable jobs like MCH being pushed over them.

A typical BLM should likely slightly underperform a typical MCH in fights especially bad for the likes of BLM, but the inverse should also be true; in fights decent/good for BLM, they should slightly outperform MCH. That fight-specific gap shouldn't be so great that you end up with "barred" jobs and/or "must pick" jobs, but so long as the two operate so differently, so should their outcomes differ -- with, yes, BLM coming out ahead at least as often as not.

If we want the likes of MCH to be competitive across a larger gamut of content than that, though, it also needs a larger gamut of gameplay behind it between its floor and ceiling commensurate to that balance.

[Melethron123]

You were arguing just earlier against jobs like BLM having even a theoretical rDPS lead, regardless of how much greater a portion of their damage they would lose to complexity or the constraints of specific fights. How else am I supposed to interpret that outside of asking for parity on-paper instead of parity in-practice (within the contexts of actual fights)?

So long as you're asking for parity in practice, then sure, I'm all for that. Buff non-BLM Casters and physical ranged slightly, so in a typical fight (within such a span of content as any of this would matter, such as no easier than Extreme) with a typical player (but one typically open to learning) they're neck-and-neck.

But you're going to have a degree of imbalance regardless so long as the jobs themselves are imbalanced in terms of complexity and contextual loss (from movement, range, spans of uptime, raid synergy, or whatever else); if the likes of MCH were perfectly balanced against BLM even in BLM's few ideal scenarios, then MCH would necessarily be outperforming it everywhere else, which ultimately means that BLM stops being a competitive option and instead becomes "griefing" or "an ego-pick", with more reliable jobs like MCH being pushed over them.

it's not "theoretical" mate... they're the numbers people are actually doing in actual raids

[Absurdity]

it's not "theoretical" mate... they're the numbers people are actually doing in actual raids

No it's absolutely theoretical, you're talking about how much dps these jobs deal on paper.
Let me give you an example. Dark Knight deals significantly more dps than Warrior, but if all I did was look at the Dark Knights I've had in pugs I'd think they need to buff that job. Now why is that? Because these people aren't playing Dark Knight as optimally as it could be played, so they get outdps'd by a warrior which is about as hard to play as remembering to put on pants.

Dark Knight does significantly more damage than warrior when played by a top 1% player, not when played by your average joe in savage pugs.

If we did what you want and make all jobs equal on paper then the jobs that actually require a degree of mastery would almost always severely underperform, because the people playing them aren't all top 100 players.