Battle High

[Silhart]

I understand where people are coming from suggesting a +damage taken modifier, but I don't think it would turn out as expected. All it would do is bring us back to the ranged meta; a melee job with BH5 would not be able to get close without getting blown up. I can also foresee people using Return to switch jobs then switch back to reset their BH and get the target off their back. Scholars would become broken too, because 1) their spread DoTs would benefit from both types of damage increase (imagine a BH5 SCH spreading off a BH5 target, whew), and 2) they only need to be in range for 1 GCD to do all of their damage, so they are never in danger of dying.

The inherent danger of having two enemy teams turn against you for being a threat should be the negative to balance it out. It is possible for BH5 teams to collapse and ultimately lose to a well-coordinated pinch - ask any premade and I'm sure they have plenty of stories like these. Though most of the time people lose confidence when they see BH5 on the enemy team--and if they had the game sense to coordinate a pinch, they probably wouldn't have let the winning team build so much BH in the first place. I don't know. I can see the issue, but nerfing or outright removing BH isn't my most favourite idea because I feel like a lot of its issues could be mitigated if people in general put more thought into their gameplay (not a dig at anyone here; I really mean that the wider community and their mindset towards PvP needs to change, but that's a topic for another day).

I do agree that Recuperate being tied to BH is ridiculous. That is the one thing I would change - other than that, I'm mostly fine with BH. Though I'm all for removing it if the PvP devs can think of something more interesting to replace it.

[Valence]

I understand where people are coming from suggesting a +damage taken modifier, but I don't think it would turn out as expected. All it would do is bring us back to the ranged meta; a melee job with BH5 would not be able to get close without getting blown up. I can also foresee people using Return to switch jobs then switch back to reset their BH and get the target off their back. Scholars would become broken too, because 1) their spread DoTs would benefit from both types of damage increase (imagine a BH5 SCH spreading off a BH5 target, whew), and 2) they only need to be in range for 1 GCD to do all of their damage, so they are never in danger of dying.

The inherent danger of having two enemy teams turn against you for being a threat should be the negative to balance it out. It is possible for BH5 teams to collapse and ultimately lose to a well-coordinated pinch - ask any premade and I'm sure they have plenty of stories like these. Though most of the time people lose confidence when they see BH5 on the enemy team--and if they had the game sense to coordinate a pinch, they probably wouldn't have let the winning team build so much BH in the first place. I don't know. I can see the issue, but nerfing or outright removing BH isn't my most favourite idea because I feel like a lot of its issues could be mitigated if people in general put more thought into their gameplay (not a dig at anyone here; I really mean that the wider community and their mindset towards PvP needs to change, but that's a topic for another day).

I do agree that Recuperate being tied to BH is ridiculous. That is the one thing I would change - other than that, I'm mostly fine with BH. Though I'm all for removing it if the PvP devs can think of something more interesting to replace it.

In my opinion melees innate DR is completely bullshit and it should be a lot lower. It's piss easy to just go in, go out with barely a scratch and I'm not even talking about the fake melees like NIN or DRG that can just play at range perfectly fine.

But yes, a diminution of DR (or % vuln) would need to be really, really small, which would already be big on its own. If a BH5 melee gets a 10% vuln, that's already plenty enough to me and it still makes them tougher than a base DNC. I do agree that it's a tool that can go wrong very fast. But what's best, a melee meta or a ranged meta? Cause currently it seriously looks like a melee meta to me.

I do not vibe much with the idea of sandwiching the winning team. I've seen it work, but usually it does vs winning teams full of solo BH5 players, not teams full of premades. Every time I've seen it happen, or actually field commanded it, both attacking teams got kitchen sunk and annihilated completely, even with the winning team having some casualties. it just fed them even more than if we hadn't attempted anything. Every, damn, time. You need premade tools and tactics to deal with premade teams.

[Aravell]

I do not vibe much with the idea of sandwiching the winning team. I've seen it work, but usually it does vs winning teams full of solo BH5 players, not teams full of premades. Every time I've seen it happen, or actually field commanded it, both attacking teams got kitchen sunk and annihilated completely, even with the winning team having some casualties. it just fed them even more than if we hadn't attempted anything. Every, damn, time. You need premade tools and tactics to deal with premade teams.

It kind of depends on how organised each team is. I've seen 3 outcomes happen when a team gets sandwiched:

1) The team that's getting sandwiched backs up and the 2 teams that are trying to sandwich end up slamming into and fighting each other instead.
2) The team that's getting sandwiched just backs up and lets the 2 enemy teams flow together and then annihilates them.
3) The sandwich actually works and the team being hit gets wiped.

[Valence]

It kind of depends on how organised each team is. I've seen 3 outcomes happen when a team gets sandwiched:

1) The team that's getting sandwiched backs up and the 2 teams that are trying to sandwich end up slamming into and fighting each other instead.
2) The team that's getting sandwiched just backs up and lets the 2 enemy teams flow together and then annihilates them.
3) The sandwich actually works and the team being hit gets wiped.

I'll add a 4) that is actually pretty frequent in my experience, while 3 almost never happens: both flankers attack at the same time, the premades wipe one side out while their solo casual players serve as meatshields on the other side, and then either they withdraw and bail out, or they just kitchen sink the second team once they're ready again.

[Commander_Justitia]

In my opinion melees innate DR is completely bullshit and it should be a lot lower. It's piss easy to just go in, go out with barely a scratch and I'm not even talking about the fake melees like NIN or DRG that can just play at range perfectly fine.

But yes, a diminution of DR (or % vuln) would need to be really, really small

I still see 2.x 3.x frontline as standard what they should aim for. The modifier existed back then too, just way smaller. The difference was that our dmg ouput was a lot smaller too, and our big gamechanging buffs (that were part of our rotation, not limit breaks) had high cooldowns. So you slowly died and had time to counter it, this aspect is gone now, and it is more a "you better die before you can click your heal and get out of the stun".

So I advocate to reduce healing and dmg ouput a bit, but! give PvP jobs skills/buffs to increase and mitigate dmg on a higher cooldown, 40s-2min I am thinking. But that would mean adding 1-3 new skills, something I am afraid is against their design philosophy.

Then you wouldn't have to care about these DR as much, instead of passive DR factor to even it out, it should be an active factor - pressed by the player at the right time, to even it out - similar like Guard, but not so restricting...more like old safeguard. Guard with 5s is not long enough for frontline. Which again boils down that PvP for 5vs5 and 24vs24vs24 should be treated separately.

[Taliriah]

Slippery slope mechanics (the more you win -> the more you are empowered -> the even more you win) are trash in pvp. Battle high is bad.

(see https://www.sirlin.net/articles/slip...etual-comeback for a more in-depth article on the topic)

[Mistress_Irika]

Slippery slope mechanics (the more you win -> the more you are empowered -> the even more you win) are trash in pvp. Battle high is bad.

(see https://www.sirlin.net/articles/slip...etual-comeback for a more in-depth article on the topic)

I would agree if it was just 2 teams, but we have 3...I would say something about sandwiching, but I think we all know how majority plays the game. I'm a bit conflicted with that statement of yours.

[Ecto478]

That PTSD when a lone ninja with BH4 can kill a group of losing team easily, where that said team cant even kill that ninja

[Kuroka]

I hate it, always did.

As pointed out it snowballs easily and while im all in for a rewarding system, the chance of others feeding our enemy and reducing our chances to 0 just sucks.

IMO change it so you cant have it within the first few minutes of a battle, increase the needed amount of kills the higher your teams rank goes and finally, limit how many battle highs you can have at once.

[Bonoki]

What if we introduced a time limit to Battle High? Picture it as a dynamic buff, where each subsequent kill or assist extends its duration. This adds a layer of strategy and urgency, as players must continuously prove their prowess to maintain their advantage. Without securing kills, the effect naturally dissipates, encouraging active participation and fostering a more dynamic, competitive environment. Expanding on this idea, I propose incorporating objective-based gameplay to further enhance the Battle High experience. Alongside kills and assists, securing strategic objectives, like claiming nodes in Seal Rock, could also prolong the duration of Battle High.