
Originally Posted by
DolphinsFan
Admittedly I haven't played much fl this patch because I'm tired of trying 5X as hard on pld only to do something like 800K damage, and I'm trying (and failing) to learn cc, but as a regular player in 7.0, I'm a bit surprised at the narrative that it was such a melee dominated meta. I think it's dangerous to suggest so, as it implies a correction needed to be done based on melee-ranged lines rather than on an individual job basis. I don't think ranged were at that much of a disadvantage in 7.0, and I think it's a bit revisionist to say that the meta was dominated by melee when astro was still an absolute menace back then. There were outliers in the form of drk and brd that certainly contributed to the narrative, but most ranged were able to effectively contribute as much as most melees. Smn and Blm were able to hit the two million damage mark easier than any melee, whm was a master of disruption with poly and I've seen some disgusting things being done with its lb, dnc probably had the most unfair ability in the game with its lb, and sch stacks despite being a bit of a meme were the only things that could generate more aggro than Olivia Lugria.
As for good melee players being un-killable, I'd argue that they often died more than bad melee players. A good melee player would leverage their increased survivability as much as possible and put themselves in more dangerous positions to make their team safer and use their kit to its fullest potential. A bad melee on the other hand would keep to their backline, ignore their melee abilities, and run at the first sight of danger. Yeah, they wouldn't die, but they also wouldn't do any damage and their team would probably rack up more deaths instead. I think only ninja really allowed for a true ranged playstyle while effectively using its kit, but while it excelled with single target and getting kills on its own, I wouldn't call it much of a meta pick because it didn't have anything special when it came to aoe.