Bingo, you've got it. When the loot restriction is removed from Savage you can bet I'm doing the same there too; because the PFs will (hopefully) be easier to find as people farm gear for their alts, since I'm at 312 normal kills as well now and I'd rather farm savage instead because it's naturally more fun than normal.
E: The whole concept of RDPS being the "main" ranked metric is it stopped people getting padded to the top. People should still be smart enough to know in a shit group it's the ADPS thats gonna matter for jobs that rely on RDPS for good ranks.
Last edited by EllieNora; 2020-07-27 at 05:06 PM.
Don't think you ever reached high levels. Combat will be much faster paced due off-GCD abilities to use quite often. What comes to story quality or VA...Well, WoW doesn't have voice acting on 99% of the quests right? The game is alive because the story is praised, especially the one in current expansion, and playerbase keeps growing.
FF14 actually went through two development cycle to be where it is now. If the beginning of the game is so boring and stale and so underwhelming, I am not sure I want to go to the endgame. It is also the reason why I play WoW on and off, I don't think I ever managed to play WoW more than 2 months in a row....well anyways, this is not for me that I am sure of. I am now thinking of going back to WoW only because I saw how they are reworking the entry point of the game and streamlining the leveling content. These slow-mo combat systems as well as slow leveling and unnecessary grinding systems are truly not interesting for me at my age anymore. There are too many things to do and too little time.
Warcraft 3 Reign of Chaos was the game that brought me into gaming. I was 17 years old then, I abhorred gaming before this game. From then on, I became a fan of Warcraft and Blizzard. To see it all go down the drain like this is truly sad for me. No king rules forever but at least some of them went down in history as real badasses. I hoped Blizzard and Warcraft would be one of them but it is no longer possible.
In general.
The biggest flaw is that it takes into account the raid buffs you give to other player - But at the same time disregards the DPS you gain from other players raid buffs. The biggest issue with having it as the primary DPS measurement is that you might be performing everything well, but someone else could be bringing that rDPS value down.
If you're in a low DPS group, then that might give you an rDPS figure that is far below the real-world damage per second you were doing. If you don't bring any of those buffs, the benefit you gain from them isn't considered in your output - Despite the fact that you may have lined up your own cooldowns into that burst window. Using your cooldowns well to get the most use out of them is a skill in itself which rDPS doesn't take into account.
On the other side of the specrtrum having a parse where you, strictly speaking, performed better could yield an rDPS result that is lower simply due to how others were playing. Skilled players that can really take advantage of your buffs could sky rocket an otherwise mediocre preformance.
Thats why I think it's a poor metric to use. It doesn't accurately reflect how well you performed in that encounter. As a result, it's practically meaningless as a tool for self improvement.
As for a solution? I'd just have a number that was a straight forwards damage done/time calculation. That's the important number when you're looking to improve yourself.
Back in WotLK, I stacked an ICC raid specifically to give one of our Mages the #1 parse. We basically kept throwing him every Innervates and he spammed Arcane Blast until things died.
In the end, he got the top spot on about half the bosses, but was never outside of the top 3 except for Syndragosa. Ironically his pathetic magic betrayed him. Go figure.
Hell, I put together a TOGC raid with just 2 healers so we could grab the top HPS spots too. This really isn't a new thing at all. rDPS exists to solve a problem that didn't need solving.
"solving"? "new thing"?
It's supposed to show the contribution of classes that are more support than others and show their impact.
No.The biggest flaw is that it takes into account the raid buffs you give to other player - But at the same time disregards the DPS you gain from other players raid buffs. The biggest issue with having it as the primary DPS measurement is that you might be performing everything well, but someone else could be bringing that rDPS value down.
rDPS is *your* dps contribution.
If you play SAM, it doesn't matter who is in your party or how bad they are. Your rDPS is the same in every group.
If you play DNC, it does matter who is in your party because if the dance-buddy is bad, your rDPS is bad too.
And how is that even different from the aDPS. If your raidgroup times their raid buffs wrong, or are using more BLMS than MNKs/DRGs, you are doing less aDPS? So...what's the problem/difference? It will always depend on other players, no matter what method you choose.
Yes, and that's what aDPS is for, lol . (Aside from the fact that rDPS is important too for supports in terms of "how do I improve with my group", if you play with the same group over and over.)On the other side of the specrtrum having a parse where you, strictly speaking, performed better could yield an rDPS result that is lower simply due to how others were playing. Skilled players that can really take advantage of your buffs could sky rocket an otherwise mediocre preformance.
I mean, you have both versions to look at, that's just a straight improvement over what has been offered before.
Last edited by KrayZ33; 2020-07-28 at 07:29 AM.
5.3 MSQ speculation
Spoiler:
This is precisely the problem though. The Samurai in your example could line up their cooldowns well, fit everything into and handle boss mechanics well and end up with the same rDPS as another Samurai who just used everything when they're on cooldown.
They could both have the same rDPS while having wildly different actual DPS.
This is a very dangerous set of data to have. By pushing rDPS as the primary measurement you're encouraging players to completely disregard how much actual DPS they're doing to parse well.
It doesn't provide you with any actionable feedback for improvement, barring any major failures, and can be used to hide a multitude of sins. The only useful information it provides is how much DPS came from raid buffs, which while useful to have, is not exactly critical information when you're not hitting an enrage timer.
And the answer isn't something rDPS would provide. It tells you how much you contributed to your party members DPS, sure. What they do with your buffs however is on them, and there are so many variables to take into account that it can't be boiled down to a simple metric.
The answer, however can be served up nice and simple. You don't. How well things improve and scale is on everyone else, not you. Outside of stacking your cooldowns with everyone else, you can only improve your own play and your own actual DPS output - Not that of others.
You are currently trying to tell me that 3 sets of information < 1 set of information (which is also included in the 3 sets from before)
How would *you* read this, knowing I was playing with the same people and classes (AST, RDM, DNC, BLM - GNB, WAR, WHM and ME(SAM))? what would you read if you only had the green box?
btw:
1. No dancer buff
2. Dancer buff
3. Dancer buff
You would have to look at the logs themselves too but you can already read something out of that.
You can clearly read why my individual performance of 3# is so much worse than 1# or even 2# without having to glance at group composition or who has gotten what buff.
Either way, rDPS and aDPS are used to evaluate supporters and how much the group managed to use your supporters.
The SAMs can look at all 3 metrics and understand how much the group did improved him (or how much use he got out of it) and glance over what he did good/bad on his own - instead of literally not having any info about it whatsoever.
since I didn't have a dancer buff in #1, aDPS tells me I did more DPS on my own or I used the raid buffs better,
since rDPS is higher in #1, it tells me the raid buffs weren't really what's causing it, it was me playing better.
since aDPS increased less than rDPS, it means buffs were used more poorly (or have been more poorly applied) compared to 2#
But the difference in DPS is so little, I'd say RNG is involved too.
In the end, you have to look at the individual log anyway, so lets not pretend you can "improve" on just that alone. No matter what metric you use, because, again, what's the difference? You will always depend on other players and how they perform - no matter what you do. And the 3 metrics won't show anything about that.
Last edited by KrayZ33; 2020-07-28 at 10:41 PM.
Whilst on the subject of RDPS. Our Samurai reached the promised land on e7s on reclears last night and I couldn't even fucking join him because our DRG dced on Tornados and the RDM sacrificed himself twice to make sure we could finish the clear.
:blobsad:
I would not read it at all.
DPS number is only a quick indicator to see whether I ended up in the "to be expected" range or whether there might be sth up that I missed during combat.
Any actual analysis and improvements come from looking far deeper into the log.
Try 1 vs 2 have a delta of 230 aDPS. That may be crit luck / having to move at a more inopportune moment etc.
TBH: I wouldn't even bother researching that tiny of a difference. Not worth my time.
Exactly, and when you glance over at #3 and would only look at parsed DPS, you'd think they are equal too.
But aDPS and rDPS show that #3 is much worse than #2 and #1.
As mentioned a few times by now. Neither number will tell you "I have to delay XY by 3 seconds to get the buff in".
But you can see at a glance that something is wrong that is worth looking for if you are interested in finding out what was wrong.
The more I look at this screenshot they gave us, the more hints I see. (or maybe I'm grasping at straws? No spoilers, just my own speculation)
If you count the ancients, it makes 13. The hue of the image suggests the WoL is reliving a memory via the echo. We know the 14th abandoned the group over a difference of opinion on how to deal with the calamity. Could it be we're reliving the point of view of the 14th being stared down by the other 13 convocation members? It was hinted in 5.0 that the WoL was the 14th member of the convocation that left the group, so it could be our own memory of a previous life. But still, knowing Yoshi, it could just as well be the memory of someone else we're experiencing. Like Elidibus. Could Elidibus be the 14th instead? (The new/current Elidibus, not the predecessor that was the catalyst for Zodiark) It's certainly curious when you consider how different Elidibus is from all the other Ascians. He plainly tells Varis that if he wants to kill his fellow dark robed ascians, he wouldn't stand in his way. Makes you wonder.
We're the partially reconstructed 14th member, yes.
That much has been clear since 5.0 when a certain someone recognizes us.
However, we do not have the memories of the 14th, so we don't need to worry about switching to the dark side.
Remember though, Echo does not show our own memory but s/o else's.
It was hinted, but was it definitively confirmed? Hythlodaeus spoke of the 14th leaving the group and also spoke of knowing us and us having a relationship with hades. But while being the 14th would check that box, I think it could be just as possible that that was just Yoshi's usual misdirection to subvert our expectations to surprise us later. It's possible Emet Selch remembers us not for being a peer on the council, but for being a son/daughter instead.
And yes the echo shows someone else's memory. So maybe we're looking through the eyes of the 14th in the screenshot but not necessarily our own.
No, I'm trying to argue that using rDPS as the go-to standard measurement when it comes to rankings is a dumb idea. The fact that you've produced logs where you've done less total DPS, but higher rDPS only helps prove that point.
Additionally, I've been arguing that it's useless as a self-comparative metric because it doesn't take into account how well you've coordinated and worked with your team. It also takes into account other peoples performance into your own if you're a job that can bring a group buff. It encourages blindly performing your rotation without considering how you're going to optimise, and that's a dangerous precedent to set.
The metric that really matters when it comes to determining results is just the straight forward DPS one. I don't think it's coincidental that your fastest kill is also the one where you did the most DPS - Even if it's not the one where you did the most rDPS. The kill you did the most rDPS is the slowest kill. Which, for me, is the biggest flaw with rDPS of all. It correlates with your DPS, but isn't always causal. It's useful to know, but should not be the de-facto default measurement used on FFLogs when it comes to rankings.
It doesn't help at all, because, as mentioned, #2 is a run with a dancer and #1 is a run with the same dancer but he got a different partner
why don't you use aDPS then - which is also used as ranking metric, that will remove single-target buff-padding such as dancer buffs, but will show how well you used group buffs.Additionally, I've been arguing that it's useless as a self-comparative metric because it doesn't take into account how well you've coordinated and worked with your team. It also takes into account other peoples performance into your own if you're a job that can bring a group buff. It encourages blindly performing your rotation without considering how you're going to optimise, and that's a dangerous precedent to set.
No.The metric that really matters when it comes to determining results is just the straight forward DPS one. I don't think it's coincidental that your fastest kill is also the one where you did the most DPS - Even if it's not the one where you did the most rDPS. The kill you did the most rDPS is the slowest kill. Which, for me, is the biggest flaw with rDPS of all. It correlates with your DPS, but isn't always causal. It's useful to know, but should not be the de-facto default measurement used on FFLogs when it comes to rankings.
It doesn't, like - at all.
I mean, you are basically doing the mistake I was talking about. You think the try with the most "green"DPS was my best one.
When it's far more likely (and that's how it actually is) that the performance of the other players was a lot better.
There is de-facto no benefit of having the "green"DPS-metric as the main metric because it does jack shit about telling you how "well" you used group buffs because it doesn't even show how much ST buffs you stacked, and judging from your post, will lead to false assumptions. So if it's not even better in that regard, why even use it?
And *not* pressing cooldowns mindlessly, actually means that Dancers/Classes with buffs (which is the majority), get a better result in rDPS and thus a better ranking. So smart usage (stacking and full time usage) of cooldowns is actually incentivised, not the other way around.
rDPS is group and support oriented, aDPS is slightly support oriented and slightly padding - and DPS is for padding.
You are only looking at things from a SAM/BLM perspective - or Tank perspective.
For classes that actually deliver support, "green"DPS is nearly meaningless.
AST without using cards but spamming a DPS spell would get a better "green"DPS result, but would be a worse player.
And since the Logs aren't supposed to make people stack 2 DNC with 2 DPS for padding reasons, they use rDPS
Last edited by KrayZ33; 2020-07-31 at 06:46 AM.