The problem isn't actually around nerfs themselves.
SE uses an upward balance. If a job is doing too much damage relative to the others, they will buff the potency of every other job rather than dropping the potency of a single problem job. The net effect is the exact same in the long term, but everyone instead cheers on Yoshi-p as he hands out buffs to everyone in the room ('You get a buff, and you get a buff...') A pure upward balance is not sustainable. So to counterbalance this everything gets reset between expansions, and this is typically where stealth nerfs happen. This is where jobs that have historically been really powerful over the past expansion get addressed. The problem is that jobs that offer high reward for low effort will also be very popular. So when players of such jobs go into the next expansion and catch on to the nerfs, then we start seeing complaints rolled out on the forums en masse during the lead in to the x.1 patch.
Jobs with a more vocal playerbase tend to get buffs more often. We saw this during Endwalker as well. WAR was nerfed in the Endwalker transition, but progressively became more powerful over the course of the expansion, until we reached the point that we're at today. The same thing will almost certainly happen in DT as well.
Splitting the playerbase does two things, as you mentioned. When those stealth nerfs go out at the start of the expansion, there's no longer any pushback against them, because of the split. Some people will stick to what they have known for years, and others will be lured by a fresh take with a similar aesthetic. That allows you to retain the balance that you achieved with the expansion launch. It also redistributes the player base, so that every raid group isn't running the same comp for years on end.
Imbalances on the tank and healer roles are a byproduct of having small numbers of job options historically. Splitting the population over a larger number of possibilities means that a single job isn't going to stay on top for expansions on end, reinforced by popular demand. As I said earlier, a much simpler solution is to just say 'no', but there's likely an internal reason why they try to avoid doing this openly. There will always be imbalances, and there will always be a few jobs that tends to outperform the others in the short term. The important thing is that it's not the same job for years on end. It's been 10 years, but we're just about starting to move away from that.



Reply With Quote





