Maybe I'm just so damn good at dodging and most of the melee I've played with sucks at it? Because short of a few people that I know who are really damn good at monk and dragoon, I see lots of monks and dragoons getting flattened.
Seems pretty unlikely, because I'm almost certain that if I stopped playing black mage and started playing monk or dragoon, I'd be right there with those people getting flattened.
On a training dummy, melee should absolutely do more raw DPS than ranged. In an actual encounter, they should be almost exactly the same if all played well and correctly, because melee, despite having higher DPS, will have far lower uptime than ranged. That's the "risk" I'm talking about. If your average uptime is lower on actual encounters then your average snapshot DPS should be higher to compensate. The end result is that everyone does around the same when you take an average across the entire fight (unless the encounter requires some damage dealers to intentionally lower their DPS to deal with mechanics, such as monks using Arm of the Destroyer to keep mini-ADS from using High Voltage).
Uptime can be shortened by being forced to dodge, or by being flattened by an angry monster and then having to be raised and deal with reduced attributes for 90 seconds.
This is why a raw DPS hierarchy needs to exist. It has to. When you're doing theorycrafting on a training dummy and ranged is beating melee, what do you think is going to happen in a real raid encounter?
The hierarchy is based on risk of loss of uptime, whether that loss comes from being squashed by a mob or by avoiding an attack. As a result, the DPS hierarchy should be a scale from "highest DPS, lowest uptime %" to "lowest DPS, highest uptime %."
So we should see MNK > DRG > BLM > SMN > BRD on training dummies. I think Square is heading in that direction. These latest changes got us a lot closer, by nerfing bard and summoner, both of whom were doing more damage than they should for their uptime, and by buffing monk and dragoon, who were doing less damage than they should for their uptime.
Seems pretty unlikely, because I'm almost certain that if I stopped playing black mage and started playing monk or dragoon, I'd be right there with those people getting flattened.
On a training dummy, melee should absolutely do more raw DPS than ranged. In an actual encounter, they should be almost exactly the same if all played well and correctly, because melee, despite having higher DPS, will have far lower uptime than ranged. That's the "risk" I'm talking about. If your average uptime is lower on actual encounters then your average snapshot DPS should be higher to compensate. The end result is that everyone does around the same when you take an average across the entire fight (unless the encounter requires some damage dealers to intentionally lower their DPS to deal with mechanics, such as monks using Arm of the Destroyer to keep mini-ADS from using High Voltage).
Uptime can be shortened by being forced to dodge, or by being flattened by an angry monster and then having to be raised and deal with reduced attributes for 90 seconds.
This is why a raw DPS hierarchy needs to exist. It has to. When you're doing theorycrafting on a training dummy and ranged is beating melee, what do you think is going to happen in a real raid encounter?
The hierarchy is based on risk of loss of uptime, whether that loss comes from being squashed by a mob or by avoiding an attack. As a result, the DPS hierarchy should be a scale from "highest DPS, lowest uptime %" to "lowest DPS, highest uptime %."
So we should see MNK > DRG > BLM > SMN > BRD on training dummies. I think Square is heading in that direction. These latest changes got us a lot closer, by nerfing bard and summoner, both of whom were doing more damage than they should for their uptime, and by buffing monk and dragoon, who were doing less damage than they should for their uptime.
attractive enmity device
