Class/Skill Improved MM Feedback Thread!

Zak: This is a nice QOL improvement. I personally feel a late game mm isn’t too concerned about zak, but it could just be me and my bunch of friends. There isn’t anything I hate about this change. It's nice to have.

Shaolin: I don’t think mms actually have any problem with shao. We can split clones easily if we want to, or we can just have frostprey out which makes it easy for a nl and us to target the actual boss. (I’ve duoed on my mm with a nl and once we killed the boss without even killing any clone (no split)). About clones exp… eh. Sometimes even if all clones are 10% hp left my party just leaves cos we can’t be bothered with the minor exp. But sure, if you prefer to kill it that’s all good too. But nothing super game changing, nothing super advantageous unless you simply like killing clones, which most don’t care about. Still a nice thing though. If they implement shao changes to spread the boss exp around the clones instead, this would be nice.

Core blaze: no one really cares about imperial guards, they spawn bottom and you don’t even have to stay bottom (I hit at the top right with my party). I even prefer they spawn so hopefully we reach max limit and the flying mobs stop spawning. The flying mobs are the annoying ones, and they’re squishy. Anyone can kill them quickly. It’s nice to be able to kill them with PA but I’ll equate this to only somewhat better than being able to kill zak spawns with PA if you time it nicely. Nice but meh.

Spoiler: HT: click for stupid amount of text

In a perfect world, you’re dpsing all 3 heads at the same time. But heads are actually in wep cancel probably half the time (or a bit less maybe, but let’s go with half to make it simple because I can’t really math even tho I’m asian). With strafe, I’ll just go ahead and assume you’ll be hitting the equivalent of 1 target all the time (either you crash cancels, or you alternate A/B/arm, thought the meta now is that there’s pretty much always a pala/crash mule somewhere).

With piercing arrow it’s something like:

1) With no crash, you’re hitting something like 1.5 heads on average, but you’re using a (probably) lower damage skill since I assume strafe is going to be hitting much more than your multi target skill.

2) With crash on A only (A is always free to hit), you’ll be hitting something like 2 heads on average (B/C are up half the time or so)

3) With constant crash on A/B, you’re hitting something like 2.5 heads which sounds great, except no one bothers to crash B for me when I am hitting both A/B or B/C on my shad… (also both heads have to be synced to crash both at the same time) so I doubt it is easy to make happen

…and suddenly things sound a lot less amazing than wow I can hit 3 heads at once!!

If,

1) You’re hitting 1.5 targets on average: you’re better off just using strafe normally. It’s probably more damage, and your party probably wants A down asap so they can cross or move on to the next head.

2) You’re hitting ~2 targets on average, which is the most likely scenario: it seems… passable…? Like maybe it’s more dps overall which is always a great thing, but it doesn’t feel significant enough to want to do so rather than focus on the head your team is on. When hitting heads on my shadower (or from what I see with other shadowers), we always use our single target skill (assassinate) instead of the multi target combo on heads (even when both are not wep cancelled) - even though we can easily hit B along with A/C - it just makes sense to focus on whatever your team’s trying to get down.

3) you’re hitting 2.5-3 targets on average: pretty much almost never. Unless you have people work their weapon cancel crashes around you, which is once again pretty much never since it’s not worth the trouble to wait for both heads to cancel before crashing them (also waiting is dps loss for everyone!)

How about sending mms to go hit wing+arms then? Consistently hitting two targets MIGHT be better dps, but is it worth it?

1) if you already have a hero/dk/shad you’ll probably just leave it to them to kill so they can maximize their dps (unlike you it actually hurts their dps when their amount hittable of targets drop), and you’ll want to help the rest of your team with focusing heads quickly instead.

2) there’s no hero/dk/shad. Okay, then maybe you can consistently hit two targets here, but if a shad possibly takes 30 mins of bstep to kill wings you’re gonna take even longer, and your sair/nl party members probably don’t appreciate having wings up for 40mins just so you can do a bit more damage. Wings are annoying, and can also make it more unsafe for the bishop. In most cases the party will just work together down wings before even moving to heads so… yeah, nope.

Note: I’m comparing with shadowers because that’s what I have experience with, and mostly cos they’re in the same boat of meh/okay/decent single/multi target damage with the flexibility to swap between the two and do decently (kinda sounds like what is being discussed for mms). Mms have se though, so I’d expect them to be even weaker than shadowers in both aspects if we’re going down that path. I wouldn’t expect to suddenly become more viable for ht as a mm (over a bm) just because my already worse (than bm) damage can be boosted by a little bit more than usual and only when all 3 heads are up and conditions are good… also we STILL need si to actually be decent.

edit: when my guildie told me sairs would have better dps using torpedo(?) on 4 body parts at right side if smoke is up, I asked two lvl 200s sairs in my ht what they thought. It was something like they don't do it because it doesn't really feel like much more dps, or they just want to focus head asap instead because it's annoying and they want to move on. That's more or less what I think about hitting heads in HT with a mm, but of course we don't have any numbers to make any comparisons here lol. As a sair main, what do you think, Nivi?

I do not really mean to say that piercing arrow buffs are useless, or that there are no situations in which it does give advantages. In fact I would really like PA QOL improvements but I really think they would amount to nothing more than that – small QOL improvements, and not amazing to the extent of “mms will be great as long as you fix PA!!” as what some people seem to be implying would be enough. I would advocate for PA buffs, but I don’t think the bm/mm gap can be bridged by buffing PA (which is nice but I cannot see to be game changing) and calling it a done day. We would still be sadder bms. My point is more that these changes are nice, sound really nice, but are not AMAZING and will not solve much, not that I am against it/would hate to see these changes take place. Why would I be against any sort of buffs? I’m only against the idea that these buffs will be enough for mms to not feel outclassed by bms, or that it allows us to fulfill some sort of niche that would actually feel relevant enough.

this post is so long i don't know why it's so long ;_;

 

To everyone saying Piercing Arrow wouldn't work, tell me how removing the charge and perhaps increasing the vertical hitbox slightly wouldn't make it a completely viable skill.

Also, there would obviously need to be extensive testing done, and making Piercing Arrow viable wouldn't immediately make MM god tier, but I think its an interesting direction to take seeing as we've been unsuccessful for over 7 years now balancing their single target DPS.

 

I would love for the vertical hitbox to be improved, the skill is super annoying to use now. It's a good direction, but imo not enough to make up for their sad single dps and isn't a reason to not try to balance it.

 

I agree. The idea of adjusting MMs into a class that excels at ranged-multi target but suffers at single-target is creative, but the reality is that the number of scenarios where this playstyle would have more advantage than buffing single target DPS is few and far between. I enjoyed the comparison of a MM excelling at multi-target in bosses as being like mages excelling at weapon cancel in bosses. It's humorous but absolutely true - also, if you want to bring a multi-target class that excels at zak arms, bring a arch mage! Unfortunately they're not invited to zak, because their single-target is abysmal compared to their attacker competitors. Which is the same brush MMs will be tarred with if their class identity becomes 'good at multi-target, bad at single-target'.

A further obstacle is simply how difficult it would be to properly balance a new meta based on balancing the relationship between damage done in multi-target components and single-target components of a given boss run. The general sense I get from some of the above posts is an idea that dps during multi-target opportunities could be increased via pierce buffs to offset the dps loss compared to bm during single-target phases. For starters, this optimal balance depends on the proportion of multi-target / single-target opportunities, the number of targets in the case of pierce, the length of time spent in each phase, and the difficulty of positioning to hit multiple targets at once compared to single-target damage, all of which vary from boss to boss. So even though +% pierce and range might be clean on the surface, the resulting changes would be difficult to predict and also completely useless at helping MMs perform at bosses like krex.

For me, the problem facing MMs is poor scaling of single-target DPS due to snipe damage being fixed. This problem is easily, clinically, solved by increasing damage to strafe, without having to use a roundabout method in hijacking a skill meant, I think, for grinding mobs, to carve out a new niche and identity of the class. These changes are not nostalgic. But this approach is certainly more flashy!

Viable where? In bosses, pierce generally isn't viable.

When grinding mobs like at ToT? It's absolutely viable. Use freeze and puppet to aggro the mobs away, snipe the lone one that spawns behind you and charge up your pierce. Piercing Arrow is meant to be a callback to Iron Arrow (2nd job) which has the same sized vertical hitbox. I'm not saying a vertical hitbox increase wouldn't be nice, but there's a reason it's the size that it is. There are components to MMs and the way they play that are lost if the charge is removed. If you tap the key, you shoot a weak arrow. I use this all the time when at low level mobs for quests or grinding cards. The range is farther in the x direction than arrow eruption and casting the tap version doesn't lock you in place as much as Iron Arrow does. There is a certain satisfaction in charging a pierce to max and letting it go, knowing you're going to see big numbers if there's a group of 6 mobs in front of you. To be able to use piercing arrow effectively with the charge, you must be able to be effective in using your other skills to corral the mobs with freeze and puppet so that you get the maximum benefit of the skill. These aspects of MM gameplay are lost if you remove the charge and replace it with a battleship torpedo-like skill.

 

I disagree, Hero and DK have piss poor single target DPS but still get to go on runs because of what they bring to the table (party buffs, seduce, Rush where applicable). I do think that there should be more multitarget focused content for classes like this to shine, but leaving MM single target being poor and dramtically boosting multitarget potential would put them right in line with Hero/DK (high multi target DPS, low single target) plus they have SE.

That being said, I also wouldn't be opposed to further increasing single target DPS to at least be on par with Hero/DK in addition to Piercing Arrow buffs.

 

@ZJZJ you make great points in regards to usability of MM in HT but this is exactly how shad runs started. When I started this server, shads were considered a trash class but, after a lot of experimentation, shads are now top tier in HT.

What I’m trying to say is that a change in pierce should be done because as of right now, it’s useless. Once it’s changed, experimentation can be done for more optimal runs in regards to head cancel and areas to stand. Also, it just doesn’t make sense for MM to compete with BM in single target damage, you said it yourself haha

I’m regards personal anecdotes from other corsairs, I think they should experiment more especially with the use shadower smoke because torpedo hitting 4 targets does way more damage then just using cannon even though the cast time is slower.

 

Can I ask why you don't think it makes sense for MMs to even compete with BMs at single target DPS? The Staff fully intended for these classes to be 'theoretically' balanced at single-target damage (source: here)

 

I might've missed it when I skimmed but I didn't see the part you mentioned in the post. But I don't see why MMs with si buff should not compete with BMs at single target dps UNLESS we actually manage to make them into viable multi target dps in a way that feels that they're actually better than bms in at least something significant, and so far I don't see anything changes to PA being significant enough to make up for it (tho we're still in the early stages of brainstorming). We require si buff, attention to snipe cooldown, can't afk-hurricane at a nice safe spot away from interruptions (in krex), and even at our best we're still much worse. Isn't there no reason to play a mm other than "but I like the class!" then?

At least (I think?) nls and shads started out as totally different things, ranged vs melee classes, and shads with meso guard are much less squishy than nls. It would be interesting to revamp the mm class and give it something else (multi target or whatever) while keeping it's lower single target dps compared to bms, but I would first like to see suggestions as to how we can make it viable because it sounds pretty difficult right now, and not just a matter of buffing the pierce attack skill. It's not like we can just magically make them randomly more tanky or so without much thought (eh, I guess all new se mules will just be tanky mms or something then ezpz) Once again I'm not against against the idea of making them good multi targeters or anything, just skeptical about how we will be able to go about doing it because they are a ranged class.

I guess part of the problem is that even if we want to make mms excel in multi target, the current bosses we have don't really seem to be able to cater to that for mms, sadly. Hopefully whatever 2 new bosses they were thinking about implementing(?) would be a nice place for mm to shine. I think the idea of ranged aoe classes is nice but I also can't find a situation in which they would do particularly well in. My previous posts sounds like I'm nitpicking or so but it's only natural to have doubts about whether things are going to go as well as they sound on paper. Not that I really have better suggestions since I'm trash But if we pick out what sounds like they would be issues then we could work towards remedying those.

 

Ok, a lot to go over, so here we go then.

I agree, MMs dont have any trouble separating clones using power knockback and dragon's breath and keeping the clones pacified behind you with frostprey is easy. I mostly choose to kill the clones because either Im running with drk/hero and killing them is a given or I kill them for fun because I can. If having a marginal improvement on your exp/hour by ignoring clones and finishing 2 minutes earlier is your thing, go for it. I play MM because I like the game mechanics around the job and I want to utilize them whenever I can. Otherwise there is literally no reason to play MM to begin with over a BM. That is why, I tend to use PA here even in its current, broken state. As a sidenote, I think shao clones (and imperial guards) deserve a significant exp boost or maybe part of the boss' exp moved to them. It is a committment to deal with them too and it should be rewarded.

Yea you're right, the effective status isnt hitting 3 targets on average because of weapon cancel. However it is the current meta to bring at least 2 crashes to an average HT run, so I would say a fair estimate is to say one of the heads is on cancel at a given time. This does not correlate to hitting 2 targets though because of PA's increasing power after each successive hit. Even if one of the in-between targets is a '1' damage, the following damages are still increased. Taking this into account, I'd say it's fair to correlate to an average of 2.5 targets hit per PA. And when 2 heads are on cancel at the same time, I switch to using snipe+strafe and single target focus the head that is not on cancel OR do the following (see answer to the next quote):

Thanks for bringing this up actually. Currently MM has the longest attack reach in the game and I would speculate it is possible to PA left arm, wings AND right arm giving 3 targets with an ideal shot. Again, with the QoL restriction of not being able to hit close enemies this cannot be done currently as you'd have to stand on the closest platform to the wings. Again, might be hard to execute, but I cant really say how optimistic this is without trying. Regardless, if it works, it's huge.

This is very interesting actually, but a bit off-topic here. I often refer to smoke as "sair heaven" in game as it enables corsair damage to a high degree and makes life way easier. 4-target torpedo is indeed superior to cannon, but considering you'd only get bullseye bonus on one of those lines (comparing to all 4 lines of cannon having bullseye bonus) and that it's highly situational and would require setup from the whole party to enable you, I'd say not worth it. I dont see this as being similar to PAing 3 heads. Parties often go for ABC and ACB regardless, it would only replace MM sniping and strafing head A over and over. It does not require another party buff (smoke) to be enabled and doesnt change the head order either.

Im not advocating that it'll solve every issue, but it's a step in the right direction and allows us to fiddle with PA to balance the class. Currently, snipe and MMB have been adjusted several times already and the problems with the class still persist. We can continue doing this ofc, but could we enable another tool in the toolkit as well? I dont think anyone can argue that PA is utterly broken atm.

I dont mind at all. Always nice talking with you ZJ ^^

Im all about this. We can never know how enabling whole playstyles will interact with the meta. But having more variety is never bad. And again, Im not against adjusting snipe and MMB once again, but could we get a usable PA as well? Please?

 

This is not quite true, heroes and DK both outperform MMs (DKs by a significant margin, in fact) at single target DPS using their multi-target DPS skill.

And be knocked off every 3 seconds

On average one of the heads will also be ducking out of range since pierce hits in a straight line.

The other issue I have with pierce is that this is a skill that never reaches its full potential in the bossing scene. It’s scaled to have most dps when there are 6 targets, which is virtually never the case anywhere in bosses aside from a personal satisfaction seeing 384k lines on wyverns at HT, accepting the fact that I lose what little dps I have by helping clear mobs instead.

 

Well, this is glad to hear and makes things a lot more hopeful. I still don't know what to do about possible positioning and not falling off, if only they'd add a nice platform for us to shoot from but that's not gonna happen haha, not to mention how it'd affect other classes. If there are ways to make it easier for mm to adopt another playstyle, I'm for it, but truthfully I have no idea where to even start changing it. Stance? Avoid? Something else? It feels kinda strange to just spring this onto a ranged class but ideas are welcome. But if we want to have mms be able to switch between the single/multi target playstyles depending on the situation, it does sound difficult to balance well.

Seems like the discussion productivity is falling since it's just about "it's nice if it works" vs "it won't work", but no one has any ideas on HOW to make it work (tbh it sounds difficult to). I kinda got started on this whole that's not gonna work thing (oops, though I still stand by what I said about it not going to work that well at all), and I don't really know where to proceed from here, but it would be nice if the discussion could also move towards how to (possibly) make multi target viable, if anyone has better ideas, or if we should toss out this idea entirely and work on single target once again.

 

I see potential in buffing puppet, though how implementable it is on our client is unclear. For instance, diverting all attacks to puppet while its active and increasing its HP but introducing a cooldown would improve an archer’s ability to stay in one place and maximise dps.

It is worth noting that none of the previous balancing changes have fundamentally changed the way classes are inherently designed in this game (with the possible exception of buccaneers, but even then the iframe mechanic has stayed the same). Most classes saw a direct damage output buff in similar iterations to each other. I am personally against introducing some avoid/stance type mechanic to archers because it will fundamentally change how this class is designed and lean them towards an inferior version of a different class, but suffice to say some passive change to make them more practically playable is crucial if we want the metagame for archers to shift.

I’ll entertain one more possibility to pierce - and that is to change how it works entirely to replace strafe as the primary attacking skill for marksmen.
- I think reversing pierce to make it hit the first/closest target hardest, coupled with removal of its charge time could make this viable
- Its damage output will need to be tweaked so that even when there’s only one target the skill retains competitive damage output, but gets a modest buff the more targets you add
- Snipe will need to retain its unique utility so whether that means increasing the number of lines lmao

 

I dislike the idea of stance/avoid mechanic too, it feels strange personally to have archers become some tanky/sneaky ninja class kinda thing, though I guess snipers irl are something sneaky like that hmm. Working on existing skills seem like the right way to go.

I wasn't too clear on what you meant by this. Do you mean the first target hit would be dealt x damage, then subsequent targets a fraction of that damage based on number of targets hit? Or something like x would be buffed by a certain amount based on targets hit (i.e. 3 targets: x-> 1.5x total damage) but spread/split across the targets? If the latter, then how does the game define a target hit, even if there's wep cancel (you do 1 dmg) does it count as a hit, and does the damage get divided across the targets and get wasted (if it hit a wep cancel target or random mob).

 

The first target will be hit x damage, then every subsequent target gets hit less than that of the previous target.
The more targets you hit, a small(er than current) multiplier gets applied to all targets.
Weapon cancel would be the same as it is now - it counts as a target but subsequent targets use an independent formula to deal x amount of damage, which would be less than if they were the first target hit.

It’s 4am so ^ is a relatively convoluted iteration of what I had in mind, but essentially the reverse of what pierce currently does.

How I imagine a revamped metagame for marksmen with the pierce update I’m suggesting:
A marksman use pierce 6-7 times between snipe, rather than strafe
This will give marksmen niches unique to its ranged counterparts because
- it gives MMs the consistent ability to kb bosses such as scar/tar, NMM, royal guard, and auf
- it will have multi-target damage output in bosses such as Horntail, Zakum, Shaolin, CWK without imposing conditions
It will also virtually nullify the concern of buffing strafe causing 3rd job snipers being too overpowered

Potential disadvantages:
- the mechanic I’m suggesting is relatively similar to chain lightning even though pierce hits in a straight line
- paladins may find themselves filling a similar but not identical niche as they are the other class that rely on single line damage output

 

This is a bit of a tough sell - fewer lines between snipes reduce the importance of critical hits for the class, a core feature of MMs. It also makes SE less important as a self-buff. And pierce would have to be seriously modified (to not shoot flat, no charge, reverse damage order) which would be tricky to implement. The concerns about strafe buffing making 3rd job too strong can be addressed by having the strafe buff present in a 4th job skill and not in strafe itself. I see where you're coming from with this suggestion but this change would be a pretty drastic shift from the mm bread and butter strafe/snipe combo.

 

I don’t have an issue with Pierce’s hit box actually so there would be no need to make it not shoot flat.

The gist I seem to be getting from a number of marksmen in this thread is that they want to see a change in the metagame of how marksmen play the game. Your points regarding critical hits and SE are valid concerns but the change I’m proposing shouldn’t in theory alter their DPM because the proportion of critical hits shouldn’t change even if their frequency is reduced by up to 75%.

At the end of the day, your damage output per minute in this game is nothing but a combined average of a selection of numbers generated from a formula, and numbers are relatively straightforward things to manipulate here - you yourself demonstrated the numerous ways we can go about buffing someone’s dps/dpm.

Snipe is definitely bread and butter for marksmen but I’m not convinced strafe has to be.

Anyway, this is just a suggestion that attempts to address some issues with class design that were raised in this thread (and others). Irrespective of what the end decision is I’d maintain that both a DPS improvement as well as a QoL improvement are warranted for both archer classes, with a bigger margin for MMs to make their attractiveness for players a competitive one.

 

I've made suggestions to puppet but not in this thread. The only real way to improve them would end up being op and they would need cooldown to use them in bosses. They just would need a huge hp boost but 1/1 would ruin it, making the cd time wasted.

As for avoid, I'm not asking to give the class even NL Levels of avoid, no way. MM already have blind and it works on mobs, even at max, 30% lowered acc combined with mm decent avoid from high dex is not at all the same as direct avoid, any high lvl mm can try it out. It would only equate at most as I proposed -15% on bosses, which is not the same as avoid 15% of all attacks, it would be slightly less.

But archers do have decent avoid, giving them both (I mentioned focus and concentrate giving avoid buffs) a little boost would help them because of falling/positioning. only sairs and mages don't have this advantage, and even sairs suffer a bit less from the knockback, all warriors get stance (and buccs have stance and hella iframes), all thieves have shifter. This just gives them more dpm, I'm not asking them to be invincible ninjas.

As for the pierce debate, again, PA in ts current form is not viable for bossing. And unless the skill was totally changed, a multi hit archer class would still be arguably worse for bossing than mm currently, and all the realistic examples are given.
I just want pierce to not cancel when hit, and for mm to have improved 1v1 in late game bossing [because they are strong early, and this is why I suggest dovetailing these buffs into late max skills such as blind, FP, or conditional buffs]. If pierce could be charged independently and fired indendently while still using strafe/snipe, that would be great, otherwise the skill has to entirely change just because like two people really want mm to suddenly be multi-hit bossers

Also people would love the flashy pierce animation holding, it's like the hurricane wings, but you can move around and still strafe/snipe, but lose it when you release. Holding/not using would drain mp+slow your char to balance it, then mm could juggle three skills

 

@whitemagejames
If you take a look at the skills of a BM, you notice that the only viable attacking skill they have is single target (hurricane) at 4th job. If you look at MM, they have PA and Snipe (multi+single). Personally I believe in class diversity. If you balance MM to be equal to BM in single target, then you fill the same niche which makes PA useless. That’s why it just makes sense to spec MM into a range multi target role.
Regarding the citation of the DPM chart, every class is being compared at a single target. Personally, I don’t like this DPM chart because not every boss is single target (Note: Zak, CWK, HT, Scarga). The comparison is unfair to multi target classes (Shads, Warriors, sometimes Bucc).

On another note, I feel I forgot to mention that the micro gameplay of MM is just terrible due to macros only being able to slot 3 skills in a row. We need to manually count every strafe in between each snipe which differs with SI. Another problem is server lag for the cast time of snipe. I find that a higher ping makes MM even worse as you get spammed in chat logs even if you count your shots correctly and also delays each cast of snipe lowering our single target DPS. Personally, this is what killed the class for me and my other MM friend.

Some changes that would be interesting would be to decrease the cast time of snipe by half so it fires even faster and feel smoother. I’m not sure what else can be done to snipe for proper balancing as it just feels weird to have 2 lines on snipe and reducing the CD would maybe make them too strong.

Another interesting change would be to also add a short CD to PA (2~3 sec), no charge, and also implementing @Joez suggestion of reversing PA damage to front load the most damage to the front rather then the back (Think Iron Arrow). This kind of includes @Cooler suggestions of having PA “Charge” while also attacking. Some damage tweeks need to be made but I think it would be interesting to have their new macro be PA > Strafe > Snipe

 

I like Joe's suggestion, but it's a bit of a drastic change to the current skillset. All I've been advocating for is:

This. This is what makes pierce unusable. Giving PA the shooting in air and shooting close to enemies flags would be the simplest and easiest way to allow us to use it in its current form. Whether that form is still underwhelming or not I do not know without trying it out extensively, but I'd love to have a chance to do so. I realise MM's damage output might still be underwhelming for another update cycle, so I wouldnt be opposed to buffing MMB/snipe again as well to bring MM single target on par with heroes to make everyone happy.

This is a bit off topic again but sair's knockback issues are notorious. My max level corsair has a bit over 200 avoidability while both my archers have double that. Saying sairs suffer less from this is a bit of a strech. It's an alright drawback for the high single target damage though.

 

I agree. I don't think anyone is against giving PA some improvements to make it easier to use, even if we aren't agreeing on where we want the direction of the class to go. I'm of the opinion it won't make mms significantly more relevant or that it's a priority/gamechanger, but I think we can decide on other mm improvements later as Nivi says. I think it's fine to push for a QOL improvement for PA, then deciding again where we want things to go after with regards to mm's poor dps. It's worrying that we don't know how much the developers are listening to/working on any feedbacks/when any changes will come so each side wants to prioritize what we think is more important, but it might be easier to do this in small steps and then seeing where things go from there.

"we improved PA, but mms are still horrible, so let's work more on single target" sounds more convincing that when we're all torn between which to improve

On that note, what kind of improvements (or none) would we like to see in piercing arrow? Do we want to keep the charge (but let it be less prone to missing due to various reasons), reduce the charge (and how long, if we want to maintain a good PA/snipe ratio, when applicable), or do we prefer it to have no charge and spammable/have a cd like snipe?