History repeats itself: Time for the Great Archer Nerf of 2011

[Shampooo]

Victimize II doesn'y hit buffalo's horns. That's why you are having a harder time.

Yes it does http://lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com.../battle02.html

[Xzen]

Victimize II doesn'y hit buffalo's horns. That's why you are having a harder time.

Ummm yes it does. Right Horn: Spinstroke II(GLA); Victimize II(PUG); Bloodletter(ARC)

[Belial]

You can't do anything with a lancer with that power. The title isn't useful if it's on lancer. You can't tell a marauder to get lost. For what...2% parse effectiveness? No, you all are the same. You're brothers. Meleers should all be better DDs than any ranged attacker, because when you put that title on a ranged attacker, they DO something with it--kick the meleers out of the party because they serve no purpose and retain a disadvantage. You don't understand that it's not about being the best on the parser so much as it is negating the use of someone else.

If lancer becomes the top DD, people will not flock to lancer. Marauders, lancers, and pugilists all parse within 2% of each other in party% damage. I know. It's archers who die in the fight, return, fight for minutes while weak...and still come out 5% more damage contribution than the other DDs.

Your argument is supposition without basis.

I can't believe someone is so ridiculously idiotic to think that this is something that only they can be right on.

Don't be pissy with the FF14 playerbase because your mom took her tit away too early.

Also for the sake of arguement and FF14's drive for "realism", I'm pretty sure that during Medieval times archers weren't brought into armies because they "took little damage and do little damage." I'm sure they were brought to war to unleash the most amount of damage, while taking the least amount. So... since you seem to be in the position to claim how right you are, I will take this moment to say, sucks to be wrong, hm?

[DurtiMonkeyToe]

Yes it does http://lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com.../battle02.html

Ooops My bad.

[DurtiMonkeyToe]

I can't believe someone is so ridiculously idiotic to think that this is something that only they can be right on.

Don't be pissy with the FF14 playerbase because your mom took her tit away too early.

Also for the sake of arguement and FF14's drive for "realism", I'm pretty sure that during Medieval times archers weren't brought into armies because they "took little damage and do little damage." I'm sure they were brought to war to unleash the most amount of damage, while taking the least amount. So... since you seem to be in the position to claim how right you are, I will take this moment to say, sucks to be wrong, hm?

Obviously you have never read one of Peregrines threads before

[Physic]

well one real factor, that not a lot of people get is, this game actually has a lot of positional and avoidable weapon skills, and it is actually easier to escape on lancer, as pug, i need to be on top of the monster to hit it, with the new monster sizes actually inside it. When im on lnc i can hit from farther, and when you actually try to avoid aoe, like Tail chase on pterocs, or regurgitate(which is totally avoidable) it is much easier on lancer. also lancer gets close attack shadow with the shortest cooldown
That said the archer still has a big advantage because they dont have to take the damage, or even run away from it. Also people who say archer is weak, this game really has a lot of defensive skills you can steal, that are still effective for taking dmg once in awhile. Archer has a ranged damage shadow, there is a close damage shadow, there stoneskin, there are cure iis, in most situations, an archer can take care of themselves, in fact they were designed to be able to, they stand in a different position for optimal play, which is usually behind thaums, and not close to Melee, which makes them more difficult to heal for thaums and cons.

Btw, people really think that mobs tactics are easy in this game because they outlevel it, fight mobs 15-20 levels higher, and you actually try to avoid aoes, and are aware of your positions, and the positions of your team mates.

I can't believe someone is so ridiculously idiotic to think that this is something that only they can be right on.

Don't be pissy with the FF14 playerbase because your mom took her tit away too early.

Also for the sake of arguement and FF14's drive for "realism", I'm pretty sure that during Medieval times archers weren't brought into armies because they "took little damage and do little damage." I'm sure they were brought to war to unleash the most amount of damage, while taking the least amount. So... since you seem to be in the position to claim how right you are, I will take this moment to say, sucks to be wrong, hm?

Uhhh an arrow is way less lethal than a sword. Having 200 archers at the top of a fort is an excellent strategy, but having 200 swordsmen next to the same targets is way more useful.

The advantage to an arrow is the ability to do dmg with less risk of recieving it, but it is not the ability to do more dmg than a close ranged fighter.

honestly the initial idea of Archer, was a pretty good one. im not saying they should be weaker than everyone, but stronger? uhhhhh no

from the initial website description
"Archers possess a situational awareness in combat which allows them to assault enmeies from great range while simultaneously providing support to thier companions
Though weak at close range limited by their quivers an archers expertise in positioning and arrow selection can easily determine the outcome of battle"

they are supposed to have many more arrows that are useful in specific conditions, magic barrier arrows, ashkin arrows, poison arrows for long fights, large enemy arrows

They are basically supposed to be a utility/dd class that can use specific tactics in one class with no minuses. That vision was a good and unique vision for a discipline that is still usefull, and in specific situations may out dmg people, but not all, I think it would have been a very good direction. Even if it turns out they dont outperform people, i still think it would be a good discipline direction, and they need to follow up on that.

[Shiyo]

Yeah, we're supposed to fight 15-20 levels higher but those mobs don't give more SP, SP caps at +10 :/

[Belial]

Obviously you have never read one of Peregrines threads before

Haha, apparently not. I try to help people out as much as possible, but when I see people posting with this kind of attitude, I can't help but think "Oh my... There's someone I can have fun with."

[Duelle]

Look at Greg Street, the lead systems designer of WoW. For the last several years he has tirelessly balanced classes for WoW and I think anyone that's been paying attention can conclude that it's been a fruitless journey. The endless cycle of nerfs and buffs just aggravates everybody. The dev team is spinning in circles. And the ideas that could have been developed or content that could have been implemented will never be. Class balancing is just one huge nerf to the entire game. So why not be ok with who you are and nerf the need to keep comparing yourself to other people, in light of course, of the conclusion of point #1.

You present only half of the story. The reason for the buff nerf rollercoaster in WoW is because someone in upper management has had a hard on for arena being the focus of balancing since the Burning Crusade. Why? Because they had the delusion that arena matches and tournaments would be integrated in MLG and get blizzard more money from associated publicity and sponsors. PvP and PvE have been at odds with each other when it comes to class design since that expansion hit. They've also been making lousy decisions and at times don't even bother to listen to people who parse and test endlessly. Even recently they decided to make a statement on their developer blog to say that the test server is not a large enough sample for them to make changes (making more than just a few people wonder why the hell they bother to have a test server in the first place if that is their mentality).

It's a very complicated issue, but its not because balancing classes for PvE damage is hard.

[Peregrine]

No meleeing DD should be below any ranged attacker in output, because in the fights that matter ranged status confers AoE invincibility. If you do not put all ranged attackers under the power of any DD, that DD becomes a pointless liability in important fights. None of archers weaknesses are real, and in fact are far from the truth. They aren't glass. They're invincible. DD aren't tougher. Aerial Wing hurts them dearly. I can outparse a marauder by about 3% in an 8 man party, and I don't get stomped. That's not fair. As lolsy as conjurers are the only reason we're not at risk of being amassed and thrown at the next Fafnir is because obviously Thaumaturge would be thrown first. Technically we both need nerfs.

This is how the damage profile for jobs should go:

Marauder=pugilist=lancer. The top power jobs. Has to be. Has to. Each of them can bring something unique to the table, but all of them have to be equal in damage output and none of their "other advantages" can outweigh any other's, or their advantages actually NEED each other to be more effective. You can NOT have a thief in that mix, parsing 8% behind them, with the excuse that their other abilities make up for it. They don't. They won't. They can't. All meleers need equal damage output, or people start calling jobs gimp and marginalizing them. Lesson in history number 2.

Followed closely by: gladiator. Why? Because archers are wrong when they say the above tank. The above DON'T tank, which is the only reason gladiator is invited. However, it'd be disastrous for gladiators if they could. If the player population discovers a way to combine the DD power of the above with the hate-retention of a glad, there is no use for a glad. A glad becomes a waste of a party slot. Right now our DDs parse 18-24% party damage while the gladiators parse 1%. They are at risk of being dropped off the map if the players find a way to tank well with the other DDs. Why? Because we already know a ninja tank, which DDs and contributes to faster kills, is better than a paladin, who doesn't do damage. You get more SP/Hour by ditching the high-defense, low output job. Certainly in a sp party that focusses on kills per minute, gladiators are already disadvantaged. Can you argue that if gladiators were good damagers, there'd be no point in the other DD? No, of course not. Only one gladiator can use its defense advantage at a time. There is no point in amassing seven gladiators if only one of them uses their advantage at a time but six of them are not as effective at DD as six other meleers. So it will not be done.

So the meleers, followed closely by the tanks. Followed by who?
The ranged attackers. Ranged attackers do not need to be cured. They don't risk dying to powerful AoE. As already stated, ranged attackers USE that benefit every time they go out to party. They pay for arrows, but gil has already been proven to be insufficient price to pay for that tangible advantage, an advantage that no amount of gil can buy on a meleer. It simply is not enough price. You must put ranged attackers at a performance level that they cannot make up for by paying gil, or they will pay the gil and claim they deserve it, and "lolmeleer".

Followed by who?
The mages. God, the mages what more dangerous group of players to balance. Let's just cut the pretenses and make them the lowest-damaging jobs in the game. Straight off. I know that's crazy, but listen. They have everything AoE if they want. They have sleep. Hello, anyone ever used sleep to an advantage? They have healing. Crazy healing. They can do everything, and they can do things no one else can. There isn't even a question that they should be at the bottom of the damage profile until almost all of their other advantages get taken away.

A black mage that can't ever sleep anything, can't dispel, can't heal, can't do anything but damage--only THEN does a black mage deserve to be where archer is. Their arrows are free but limited renewable resource. Equal tradeoff. A DD mage should be exactly like a ranged attacker. No functional difference. You should be able to blind the results of a parse and not be able to tell who is the archer and who is the black mage, because theyr'e the same job essentially. Ranged DD. Just as mrd=lnc=pug, blm=archer. They can have small party benefits that are unique, but none so broken as sleep. It STILL doesn't EVER deserve to be at the top with the meleers. Why? Because they too avoid AoE like archers.

So.
Meleers>tanks>ranged attackers>mages.

Has to be that way. Has to. Otherwise, the displaced group becomes a useless valley on the graph that just gets cut out.