Is it 2006, or am I just the worst PLD on Cerberus?

[machiko]

For all those DRKs that don't have Apocalypse, how exactly are you DDing these high end mobs? Souleater and Dread Spikes?

Only thing Apoc does is give the haste boost for recasts and some hp back when you WS, DD potential is pretty much the same. Relics are not omgwtf damage increases over regular normal weapons.

[Odin'sLaw]

For all those DRKs that don't have Apocalypse, how exactly are you DDing these high end mobs? Souleater and Dread Spikes?

had a guy who used relic sword for his drk, i found this strange because i could out damage him on war and RR would kill any damage he put out, so i asked why he'd tank on drk and why he picked Ragnarok over apocalypse, his simple reply

"because i can use it on war and pld if i wished to even if its less on pld and gimps me on drk"

so...logic from a simple man that can still tank HNMs

[Limlight]

Only thing Apoc does is give the haste boost for recasts and some hp back when you WS, DD potential is pretty much the same. Relics are not omgwtf damage increases over regular normal weapons.

just stop now

[aduidarnenye]

Wrong. People do blindly accept formulas on these forums. Remember when Starr was here complaining about the disparity between his parses and the average damage from formulas? We didn't suddenly question the formulas (Not that we should); we argued that it was due to external errors (Dia on only some mobs are so forth). In short, you cannot simply join a merit PT and expect to conduct an experiment on formulas because there are external factors that will interfere with the outcomes.

That said, let me ask you a question. On BG, people ask about marginal gear choices. When people answer these types of questions, it's typically based on a formula the respondent has learned or derived. The person asking the question either accepts or denies the answer. Typically, when the latter occurs, it's because the one posing the question does not like the answer (Often times it's because of the cost). When they accept the answer, they place faith in the fact that the person responding is correct. Since these are marginal differences, it's unlikely you can go outside and instantly tell which one is better. If you could, there would be no need to ask the question in the first place. Similarly, in these social shells, individuals ask fellow members questions about gear and playstyle choices; often times, it's because they cannot test it themselves. Consequently, there is great similarity in both situations presented (Asking on BG and asking in a social shell). Aren't both of these individuals placing blind faith in the individual they're posing the question to if they accept the answer?

You're forgetting that most of the theories and strategies disseminated down to and through social shells tend to originate on BG. The people who originally devise high level strategies do so with the intent of adding a minute amount of damage on top of what they're already doing. They also tend to have the gear and experience to be able to do so.

This is what BG wants to do, add those three extra points of damage to an attack so they can turn 1998 into 2001 and break 2k damage (or 3k, or 4k, or whatever the norm is these days). Most "less-than-BG" people just want the event to be successful to the point where they get cool gear and don't care about those few extra damage points so reject new theories and stick with the reliable ones.

People who read BG and want to do the optimization route want those extra points of damage, people who stick with Allakazham just want to see a treasure pool so are happy with strategies that work (and ditch the ones that don't work first try right away). People in BG will be quicker to reject older theories for new ones while people on Allakazham will stay with the old strategies longer.

I think that when you say that people often reject theories due to cost of gear that you are correct. However, that doesn't mean they reject the theory itself, just that they place the value of "elitist" on the theory. A lot of people (e.g. Allakazham) reject anything that smells of elitism immediately.

[Cleverness]

Majority of people on Alla are retards with some of the topics I see on there, don't use that as an example <_<

[Ned]

For all those DRKs that don't have Apocalypse, how exactly are you DDing these high end mobs? Souleater and Dread Spikes?

I'm a bit confused too -I haven't seen a DRK main tank and don't get it!!

RDM and PLD tank can not only spam hate spells but also cure themselves for hate and also simply to stay alive. Surely DRK tanks mean the backline get a lot more hate and have to use a lot more MP?

If a DRK can TP then a PLD can - is the damage the DRK is doing while spaming these spells for hate (therefore gaining TP slower and doing lower DOT compared other DDs) really going to do more than atonement + PLD hate toys + curing?

And the time you spend spamming spells and shadows (i assume these are drk/nin??) other DDs are not and doing more damage and pull hate anyway??

.. I'm not disputing it... just dont get it and i'll happily tank on DRK instead of PLD if i can see why & how its better.

[Gadritan]

For all those DRKs that don't have Apocalypse, how exactly are you DDing these high end mobs? Souleater and Dread Spikes?

We DW rid/jugg and use SE for r33t vorpals yo.

[remdynex]

Some one mentioned that they think viki/tamtu are from pfa when they are really from lbr with tamtu having his own show. As for the pld discussion, i got nothing, i'm a terrible pld.

[Sylvrdragon]

Get the fuck off of this FF13 shit :/

Huh? I've never played FF13. Is the phrase Paradigm Shift somehow associated with it? If so, know that the phrase has been around FAR longer and was indeed being used correctly in the comment that you quoted.

[Tsuko_Asura]

I'm a bit confused too -I haven't seen a DRK main tank and don't get it!!

RDM and PLD tank can not only spam hate spells but also cure themselves for hate and also simply to stay alive. Surely DRK tanks mean the backline get a lot more hate and have to use a lot more MP?

If a DRK can TP then a PLD can - is the damage the DRK is doing while spaming these spells for hate (therefore gaining TP slower and doing lower DOT compared other DDs) really going to do more than atonement + PLD hate toys + curing?

And the time you spend spamming spells and shadows (i assume these are drk/nin??) other DDs are not and doing more damage and pull hate anyway??

.. I'm not disputing it... just dont get it and i'll happily tank on DRK instead of PLD if i can see why & how its better.

Unless you're drastically undersupported, no RDM/NIN tank should be making a habit out of curing themselves. Its essentially the least MP-efficient means to gaining hate. Likewise, as much as the elite PLD community likes to argue it, the case is pretty much identical.

And I always see this kind of backwards logic. The point of having a DD tank isn't to be doing just as much damage as they would be if they weren't tanking. We know they'll be doing quite a bit less than if they were just filling a damage-dealing position. They point is that they deal more damage than a PLD.

[Draylo]

Huh? I've never played FF13. Is the phrase Paradigm Shift somehow associated with it? If so, know that the phrase has been around FAR longer and was indeed being used correctly in the comment that you quoted.

It's a system in FF13 to change jobs or w/e.

[Yugl]

You're forgetting that most of the theories and strategies disseminated down to and through social shells tend to originate on BG.

Do you have any proof of this? Even better, what does it mean for a strategy to originate from BG? Does that mean someone who happens to post on BG created the strategy? Does that mean that the person who originated the strategy posted it on BG first? Lastly, how does this counter the fact that people on BG and people in social shells both have a majority of people blindly accepting facts?

The people who originally devise high level strategies do so with the intent of adding a minute amount of damage on top of what they're already doing. They also tend to have the gear and experience to be able to do so.

You'll have a difficulty trying to prove that. First, the ones who originally devise a strategy are not necessarily the ones to post it or gain credit for making the strategy. For that reason, you're making a correlation between an individual's personal experience (i.e. devising the strategy on their own) and their capability to pull off the strategy (Gear and experience). However, unless you can read minds, you cannot make such an assertion. On the other hand, you may refer to people that post strategies without testing them or people that have already tested and are sharing a strategy. The latter makes your argument redundant. It is essentially saying that people who are capable in every way of making a strategy work make the strategy work. The former places a slew of counterexamples towards your argument; namely, the AV thread.

This is what BG wants to do, add those three extra points of damage to an attack so they can turn 1998 into 2001 and break 2k damage (or 3k, or 4k, or whatever the norm is these days). Most "less-than-BG" people just want the event to be successful to the point where they get cool gear and don't care about those few extra damage points so reject new theories and stick with the reliable ones.

Thanks for proving my point? If people choose to continue using a strategy that they cannot employ, then are they not blindly following what someone on BG told them to do? How is that different from someone in a social shell telling a new player to play a certain way, with adamant compliance, despite suboptimal outcomes?

People who read BG and want to do the optimization route want those extra points of damage, people who stick with Allakazham just want to see a treasure pool so are happy with strategies that work (and ditch the ones that don't work first try right away). People in BG will be quicker to reject older theories for new ones while people on Allakazham will stay with the old strategies longer.

Newsflash: Anyone can read BG. People that frequent Alla can read BG. While there may be limiting factors determining who reads BG, that's something you'll never be able to prove unless you're psychic. Moreover, optimization of strategies does not lie in damages. It lies in strategies that are more rewarding to the group through gear. If it were about damage, we would advocate sending the max number of people to every event possible. We wouldn't advocate doing events with six or less people. Ironically, you have it backwards. BG is about getting the most out of rewards : members distribution and maximizing gear choices (Not necessarily towards damage output) follows suit.

I think that when you say that people often reject theories due to cost of gear that you are correct. However, that doesn't mean they reject the theory itself, just that they place the value of "elitist" on the theory. A lot of people (e.g. Allakazham) reject anything that smells of elitism immediately.

Read carefully. My post regarding the acceptance and rejection of gear choices was specifically tailored towards BG. In my experience, people that reject the answers they receive on this forum do so because of the costs, fashion, or random inconvenience (Dusk).

Overall, this is all tangent to my original point. You're trying to make a distinction between BG and Alla players based on existing stereotypes. However, my earlier comment specifically bypassed this stereotype by finding similarity in the people that post on BG and people within social shells. You're stepping outside of the discussion to make irrelevant arguments.

[Narol]

In my experience, people that reject the answers they receive on this forum do so because of the costs, fashion, or random inconvenience (Dusk).

I've had huge, long arguments with people who "don't like the negative stats" on Errant/Mahatma gear and don't like to macro specific gear (including staves) in for casts, so I know exactly how that feels.

On the subject of only going with strategies that work, I ran into exactly that with my former Dynamis shell. Each and every run played out like the leader was constantly alt-tabbing to a strategy/pulling guide written in 2004 or 2005, and I was fairly consistently (but not constantly) shot down in suggesting better ways to do things. The few things I did manage to bully people into doing (I forced the BRD to give March/March over Minuet/Madrigal, for instance) made runs far more efficient.

So I dunno where this "strategy they cannot employ" thing's coming from, unless you mean experimental new strategies being theorycrafted on these forums. I'll admit that even I'm suspicious of some new strategies until I see them in action and can see why they'd work. I do, however, fully agree that many players are fully content with 2004 strategies so long as they produce a treasure pool/area clear/whatever, to the point of not even updating basic approaches to playing this game which have been proven time and again by parsing, such as by placing a higher emphasis on haste than players once did.

2004 players weren't stupid compared to players today. Just ignorant compared to modern players who avail themselves of six or seven years of research. People who stick with the first, yet not necessarily most efficient strategies and don't update them as new things are discovered engage in willful ignorance, which is exactly what the OP was complaining about.

[Yugl]

\
So I dunno where this "strategy they cannot employ" thing's coming from, unless you mean experimental new strategies being theorycrafted on these forums.

Strategies they cannot employ means exactly that. For example, some people on BG are capable of soloing the Aern weapon NMs. Despite reading the strategy posted by the individuals, there are people incapable of soloing the NM themselves whether that be due to technical limitations (PS2/No windower), gear limitations, or skill limitations.

Recall that in my original post, I'm stating that people on BG, like people in social shells, blindly follow people. He states that people on BG continue to utilize strategies even when they do not work the first time. That signifies a blind belief in the poster because they trust that the person posting the strategy is not presenting false evidence and that their strategy works. Similarly, you can have the same experience in social shells when higher up leaders state they've tanked something and other members comply with the strategies they give.

[Narol]

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the idea of continuing to use a failing strategy, provided that you can identify where the strategy failed and adapt accordingly.

It's when you hammer your head against a wall by repeating the exact same thing every time because someone got lucky once that there's a problem.

[Yugl]

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the idea of continuing to use a failing strategy, provided that you can identify where the strategy failed and adapt accordingly.

It's when you hammer your head against a wall by repeating the exact same thing every time because someone got lucky once that there's a problem.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. I said they're blindly following an individual. You only think I'm saying there's a problem with it because you associate blind followers with negative connotations.

That said, I wonder how you distinct your last sentence from what goes on when someone repeats a strategy they've seen work on BG for the first time and cannot get to work for themselves.

[Narol]

Same as when they hammer their head against the wall with a strategy they read on Alla, or on wiki, or heard from an LS mate. BG isn't some Jesus forum that has all the answers. It just has a higher average level of skill.

[Yugl]

Same as when they hammer their head against the wall with a strategy they read on Alla, or on wiki, or heard from an LS mate. BG isn't some Jesus forum that has all the answers. It just has a higher average level of skill.

Thus, why I stated there's no difference between people on BG, Alla, or social shells.

Edit: Higher average level of skill I disagree with depending on how you determine who is in the BG and Alla category.

[aduidarnenye]

Thus, why I stated there's no difference between people on BG, Alla, or social shells.

Edit: Higher average level of skill I disagree with depending on how you determine who is in the BG and Alla category.

I apologise, I meant to use the BG and Allakazham categories as a humourously stereotypical characterisation of the end game player and the social game player in terms of the whole discussion.

I think it is pretty safe to say that most, not all but most, end game strategies do originate in these forums some way.

For the most part I do agree with you, I'm just saying that when it comes to strategies end game people tend to do a lot more different things and change strategies faster than social players because the latter just wants success and relaxation while the former likes to do things efficiently.

Also, people on BG, ahem, the high level end gamers tend to require a lot more proof of concept before they'll take on a strategy. Either that, or someone goes out of their way to completely disprove it just to tell someone off. The other sort don't really do that kind of thing and just use strategies that they read someplace (dare I say where?).

In the end, it's not really that important and I've practically forgotten what the entire point was in the beginning anyway.

[Yugl]

For the most part I do agree with you, I'm just saying that when it comes to strategies end game people tend to do a lot more different things and change strategies faster than social players because the latter just wants success and relaxation while the former likes to do things efficiently.

Before continuing with this argument, you have to ask yourself whether this argument is redundant or if you have proof of this. It's easy to say "end game people", but what does that really mean? Anyone that has, will, or is doing endgame activities? If so, I would deem the statement false since a majority of players that I've met and meet the aforementioned definition prefer victory over efficiency as an increased risk of wipe. On the other hand, you could just be redundant and say anyone who is willing to take these risks in the first place is willing to take them. Either way, this is unclear and depending on what you meant to say, incorrect.

Also, people on BG, ahem, the high level end gamers tend to require a lot more proof of concept before they'll take on a strategy. Either that, or someone goes out of their way to completely disprove it just to tell someone off. The other sort don't really do that kind of thing and just use strategies that they read someplace (dare I say where?).

I don't see how when we have threads like "Randomest Question" and "What's Better". We often direct people to those threads rather than allow them to make a new thread. Furthermore, the nature of those threads is often a "Ask and get spit out an answer" setting. Arguing and debating is often exempt because such scenarios would qualify for their own thread. Consequently, we're seeing pull (Deletion of standalone threads for a single question) towards these threads that do not encourage proof of one's assertions. For example, consider Tsuko who stated that he doesn't feel providing proof is necessary because it's been proven millions of times. The people who accept his responses (The ones that do not provide proof) and strategies are doing exactly opposite of what you claim BG people do. I think the real issue is that people are so fixated on making this distinction between BG and Alla that they're willing to make distinctions that are simply untrue. It only appears different because blindly following Kaeko is perceptually more acceptable than blindly following Pchan. However, both are instances where people do not demand proof before accepting an answer.