View Poll Results: Do you want?

65. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I want the current GMS Patch

    15 23.08%
  • Yes, I want any GMS specific differences

    41 63.08%
  • No, I don't care.

    6 9.23%
  • I don't use the %/s tables

    3 4.62%
Results 1 to 17 of 17
  1. Default Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    I don't play GMS. I hardly play KMS, actually. But seeing as how NexAm is so intent on "fixing" new jobs, would people be interested in me including GMS specific differences (Luminous, Kaiser, presumably whatever they do to rape Angelic Buster, Jett God forbid) in my %/s tables?

    Would you want tables for the current GMS update, i.e. Tempest, alongside the current KMS update, i.e. Unlimited as well? Or is old news old?

    I ask this because if there's actually no interest, then I won't care (read: waste my time) to evaluate what GMS does to their jobs like how they screwed with Luminous.

  2. Donator Straight Male
    IGN: ShinkuDragon HoukaPhoenix BoshokuRaven
    Server: Scania
    Level: 152
    Job: Batman
    Guild: IDissOrtis

    Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    personally i'd appreciate it, although i only care for the warrior classes and the current flavor-of-the-month OP class, KMS or GMS.

  3. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    I would love GMS-specific tables, but you don't feel it's worth it, I would be okay with just having archived versions of "old" KMS tables so we can trace back to GMS. It would be nice to compare a class pre- and post-nerf, for example.

  4. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    Since you asked for opinions... I think %/sec tables are the biggest waste of time you can find here. Well, not so much the tables themselves, just the tools who continually argue about whether or not they are correct. Nobody will ever be able to play so perfectly that they can actually HIT those numbers, so who cares if they might be off a tick?

  5. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    I don't really care about %/second so much, it's hits per second that matter more to me. So your call, really. That and I don't really care about any other classes right now other than kaiser.

  6. Donator Straight Male
    IGN: ShinkuDragon HoukaPhoenix BoshokuRaven
    Server: Scania
    Level: 152
    Job: Batman
    Guild: IDissOrtis

    Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    well, because as you said, the tables by nature are unreliable, so let's reduce that unreliability as much as possible by having it come only fro outside sources.

  7. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    Personally I would find it helpful to add ones for differences in GMS. I don't think you need to add all of them, just stuff that is different or not in KMS.

  8. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    It would be good to have GMS tables, assuming it does not actually take too much effort (like... half a day for a set of tables might be too much...). For one, you'd have to estimate the delay for Spectral Light e.g. using Fraps since it's not a true rapid-attack despite the skill tag.

    We KNOW that those tables are theoretical maxima. You can ask JoeTang how he does the simulations, because he factors things in such as RNG and buffing times. YOU have to decide if numbers matter more or hps matters more or practicality matters more (e.g. cap vs uncapped; standard vs mini/Boss-tagged mobs; Reflection vs Apocalypse mechanics).

    Sorry I don't think I catch you here. Also, what's the point you're exactly trying to make?


  9. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    My point is that the information itself is largely insignificant in actual gameplay, yet the folks who typically frequent the DPS threads in the various Job sections really go overboard in arguing about minor discrepancies in their own comparative calculations. It becomes an e-peen competition over information that very few people will ever use. The discussion almost invariably becomes a matter of "This class is OP" or "There's no way your INSERTJOBHERE is better than this INSERTOTHERJOBHERE because you didn't make the DPS chart right."

    Having said that, a rough idea of DPS is still nice to have and I would like to see it happen. The one thing the average person can glean from it is a method for maximizing one's own output. (For instance, a person can decide if they want their primary 4th Job Lumi attack skill to be Apocalypse or Reflection based on the output numbers.)

  10. Nuclear testing facility Straight Male
    IGN: VerrKol
    Server: Zenith
    Level: 204
    Job: Bowmaster
    Guild: LegacyReborn
    Farm: Kolville

    Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    So you want to take away the only empirical class damage comparison? Just because someone uses information incorrectly doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. There will always be idiots on the internet.

    I would personally find tables for current GMS patch or even references to the equivalent KMS patch extremely convenient. It's kind of a pain for me to read through the whole thread to find old KMS tables for current GMS patches not too mention sorting through the occasional differences.

    If that's too much work I would at least like tables for any GMS changes to classes like Lumi and Kaiser.

    Thanks again for all your hard work JoeTang

  11. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    You can blame the users referencing the tables rather than the tables themselves. Joe's charts helped me figure out whether twilight or ultimate drive was better for mobbing, how much better rapid fire was for 1v1, and that the phantom nerf was ~40% at 1v1 dps. It's a useful tool, just leave it to idiots to misuse a tool.

  12. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    I think it would be interesting to have it. I'm kind of curious to see the differences between the two Luminous versions. I expect JMS will get the same horrible changes considering their reasoning. If the later class changes are only very small, I would say don't do it, but from what I understand the Luminous changes change a lot about the character.

    If it's too much trouble for you, then I would say don't bother. Don't do anything you don't want to. We all appreciate anything you do do, though.

    @Thorr; So because a few people are idiots and want to argue minor details for no reason, that means we should completely remove all comparing abilities. Yeah, that sounds insanely smart.

  13. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    I agree with shinku. I would appreciate any %/s adjustments you draw up between versions, but i don't necessarily care too much unless it's about a class i'm interested in/am invested in. I do want to see how insane kaiser would be in %/s with wingbeat in transfig though.

    I feel like you're trying to call someone out but can't because of the rules or because your opinion is based off a single isolated discussion.

    Anyway...your only point in this block of text is that people shouldn't be stupid and think they can attack optimally. Ok...?

    Reasons %/s threads are useful in no particular order of significance:

    1) It can extend how people view certain class matchups. Hyper skills did an amazing job establishing some semblance of balance between adventurers/heroes/resistance, and without the %/s threads we wouldn't be able to verbalize that balance in anywhere near the amount of detail we could if %/s wasn't done. It's easy to compare a class with a pro/con list which is how it has been done essentially since beta, but now expanding the aspect of max/s, over/s, and hits/s, which isn't exactly clear cut in all cases, it becomes more complicated to do a pro/con type thing when you're going off of surface details and ignore things that are generally unreported on patch notes, like delays, which knowledge of does a great job at structuring a balance argument.
    2) Provides optimization specifications. Whether it be what attacks are superior, what attacks are superior at what mob count, etc. Also you can use it to compare against your theoretical vs actual which will make you more efficient and cut down mistakes made.
    3) Reading and understanding %/s tables for as long as joe has been providing them makes you less stupid about the game than if you didn't. I think we can all agree this is reason enough to justify the threads.

    It isn't a surprise that theoretical %/s doesn't have a direct effect on actual DPS, but that being true doesn't make the threads "the biggest waste of time you can find here" even if it's true that theoretical %s can have an indirect effect on actual dps.

  14. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    I didn't say remove it. I can't say I personally wouldn't mind see the data as locked stickies, though. @Aflac; demonstrates exactly what the data should be used for (as I mentioned) and it should continue to be available for that purpose.

  15. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    Theoretical charts exist in WoW and they give a great example of how certain class specializations do against each other in certain fight mechanics. That's pretty much how I view the Maple charts. Obviously the charts are based on "No Movement + interruption" fights, and obviously DPS will vary greatly depending on how much movement / interruption there is in the fight itself (Empress Cygnus and Magnus are good examples of this).

    When Joe gives the "Use XYZ with A, B, C, D, E, and F", I see them as "Damage Rotations" for optimal DPS. Yes, not everyone will have perfect play, but it's something to strive / aim for at least.
    Plus, with Joe just updating the Warrior charts, I, and probably everyone else, would have NEVER guessed that Demon Slash is better than Demon Impact, for optimal DPS, when you have 100% PDR Ignore.

  16. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    I'm sorry but I think you're still making yourself clear here. How largely insignificant is the information relative to actual gameplay? Are you talking about that .4% difference, or the method used, or the skillset employed? And yet you say that the rough DPS is nice to have. So which is more significant in your opinion? The exact numbers or the relative numbers? You seem to be telling me that Joe shouldn't do these tables because it makes people argue over tiny discrepencies, while you also want Joe to do these tables because the rough DPS would be useful for you/the average player. So is the you/the average player more important than the incessant bickering?

    Also, the numbers say nothing about practicality and functionality. I daresay that most people would use Reflection more often than Apocalypse in mobbing, but the numbers don't work that way if you actually calculate the raw %DPS. I feel as though you are assuming the average player does not consider mechanistic properties of each skill when adding SP. And you'd probably use Spectral Light more than Reflection anyway in GMS... which brings us back to the point of this thread, doesn't it?

    My own point is: the tables are instructive if you know how to read them. They are theoretical and modelled only for certain conditions, so the reader must know the limitations of these methods. It is a wholly scientific and impartial data. I would say that these tables verify and support skill builds in guides which instruct what SP to add into for whatever circumstances (which is why people read guides!). Joe could probably put a post up on how to use the tables and their limitations (more work!) but the reader is the one doing the interpretations and making the decisions!


  17. Default Re: Do you want GMS %/s Tables?

    You certainly did an amazing job of expressing that earlier with, "I think %/sec tables are the biggest waste of time you can find here."



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts