All your opinions are wrong

[Carighan]

The idea that MCH is less competitive (on standard single target bosses) than its rphys counterparts is relatively wrong for once this tier (unlike all of Endwalker). It's rphys that's in the gutter as a whole.

I mean I've not seen 7 or 8 yet, but neither 5 nor 6 are "standard single target bosses". Quite far from it. So maybe we need a better metric anyways, like "class feel" or "fantasy realization" (where MCH fails so hard it could serve as a "Don't do this"-topic at GDC, only rivaled by how wet-noodle BLM has been basically since forever when it's meant to be the big scary handling unstable powers boom boom mage).

[Valence]

What do you mean 5 isn't a standard single target boss?
I'm specifically using this example where MCH shows competitive within the rphys bracket, if we talk about pure numbers. It's in the gutter in 6 though, because it is, indeed, not a single target fight.

[Valence]

I seem to have been baited by fflogs. M5S if anything seems to be the oddity, and MCH doesn't seem to perform as well in 7 and 8. All the more reasons to fix this dumpster fire of a job anyway.

[Valence]

Keep digging. It's entertaining.

Edit: to clarify, I'm certainly not saying that BRD is hard, but saying that it's on the same level than DNC when it has to manage PP procs, to manage dots, to manage songs vs downtime, to manage song timers and EA drift and positioning to the second specifically, making the rotation extremely rigid, finicky and sensitive to small changes, all of this which is not something that DNC has to worry about, is pretty unhinged.

[Lanvaldear]

While I agree to an extent, the problem with buffing MCH to be on par with the other greedy dps is that that point, BRD and DNC would be even *more* useless than they already are. The 1% buff they bring already is barely, if at all, worth the dps loss they bring compared to adding a 3rd melee, or running double caster double melee.

The real problem is is that Squeenix seemed fixed on the idea that ranged HAVE to have less dps than melee just because of a raise, despite the fact that melee have just as much support as the "supports" do.

IMO, Strip melee of all their non damaging support abilities; Mantra, arcane crest, feint, ect., and give them to the ranged/casters.
Get rid of the BS "raise" tax, especially after buffing Swift Cast and bring RDM/SMN to more of a level playing field as PCT/BLM. Having that extra raise is simply *not* worth the 1,000-2,000 dps Squeenix seems to think that it is anymore.

Phys ranged in general simply need to do more damage across the board. They're just bad.

[Carighan]

The real problem is is that Squeenix seemed fixed on the idea that ranged HAVE to have less dps than melee just because of a raise, despite the fact that melee have just as much support as the "supports" do.

Although I will say, I would fix this from the other side:

* Caster DPS should deal realistic DPS 10%-20% lower than their target-dummy one, because of interrupted and missed casts due to having to move.
* Melee DPS should deal realistic DPS 20%-30% lower than their target-dummy one, due to a combination of having to disengage and not being able to move to the right spot for a positional (which really ought to come early in combos and abort them).
* Support abilities get meaningful resource costs to offset their use, in return the non-support DPS of support-capable jobs isn't hamstrung by this (not sure what I'd do to offset the ability on non-support jobs yet).

Meanwhile ranged DPS are the one job that always gets to deal their full damage, being both mobile and ranged. This would automatically mean that there's a certain upside an downside to some job roles depending on the fight: The larger the hitbox, the better melee DPS are. In particular in fights without positionals. The more static the fight, the better casters are. The more mobile, the better ranged are. Then rebalance the 1% bonus to work so that you'd always 1 Melee + 1 Caster + 1 Ranged, but the last spot is floating depending on the type of fight.

[Valence]

Personally I'm fonder of the other solution: make melee and caster uptime a potential 99% if the player plays well, but only if they play well. Then find something that requires effort and skill on the side of rphys (and no, it's not casts, else just remove the role and make them part of casters). Seeing how bad the community seems to be when it comes to agency on the spot and DPS execution and rotations (as evidenced by M6S adds and non standard fights), then I'd surmise that adding more complexity and randomness/triaging/priority into rphys would probably generate a pretty steep skill curve in the community already.

[Carighan]

Personally I'm fonder of the other solution: make melee and caster uptime a potential 99% if the player plays well, but only if they play well. Then find something that requires effort and skill on the side of rphys (and no, it's not casts, else just remove the role and make them part of casters). Seeing how bad the community seems to be when it comes to agency on the spot and DPS execution and rotations (as evidenced by M6S adds and non standard fights), then I'd surmise that adding more complexity and randomness/triaging/priority into rphys would probably generate a pretty steep skill curve in the community already.

I don't think that'd work. It'd run into the usual issue in regards to higher-end content:

* Do these jobs, if played well, perform better or not than jobs that don't require as much "skill"?
* If yes, do you balance ultimates etc around them being played well, hard-excluding "non-skill jobs"? Or are they too easy if you bring those jobs and can play them well, because it's balanced around being able to be done with every job?
* If no, how do you prevent players from just excluding "skill jobs" from top-end and progress runs entirely, being a risk but with no gain to show for it?

It's a problem MMORPGs as a whole haven't solved in the past generations of MMOs since organized content first reared its ugly head. I don't think it's going to be miraculously solved by FFXIV, it seems an inherent problem of the genre.

[Valence]

Did I write something badly or? Because I feel like you're arguing against something completely different?

[Carighan]

It's the "if player plays well"-part. What does that achieve? Like, do you become stronger than what the fight was designed for if you do? -> whole slew of further balance issues
Or do you fail the fight if you don't play well enough to keep 99% uptime? -> whole other slew of further balance issues