[Dev1235] Job Adjustments

[Dale]

You're both doing it. Shut up already.

Why don't you shut up

You need to work on your manners. If you don't like my posts, just put me on ignore or something.

[Dale]

The reason why I kept replying your post because you kept twisting the meaning of my post into something else. I've never_ever say anything about I want max(do you even know what this word means?) efficiency, I only said I don't agree with purposely choosing a playstyle that's obviously ineffective(like a shield WAR) in endgame event. I even said I played BLU in yorcia several times....which is obviously not the most efficient job. But not using the most efficient job is not the same as using an ineffective playstyle. The bolded part clearly pointed out the fact that you completely misunderstood what I meant.

I don't NEED max efficiency, that doesn't mean I can accept a pt member CHOOSING to do 50% of dmg purposely when you have the potential to do a lot more. That is not the same.

I'm not trying to "convince" you to think otherwise nor change your opinion, but if you want to twist my motivation into something else, of course I'd have to defend for myself.

Tbh, if I only ever want max efficiency, I wouldn't even reply 10 pages of posts here talking about the job warrior, I'd just write 1 sentence and gtfo: You're doing wrong if you invite a WAR to endgame.

But I'm not twisting what you are saying. At least not purposely.

You just identify words like help and now play-style and then apply how you mean these words and then think I'm trying to twist what you saying simply because I have a broader interpretation. For example: to me a person's play-style can include what job they choose to play. To me a person can be considered helping even when they may stand to get something out of it. See what I mean? We are getting hung up on semantics.

Anyway, I'll try to be as concise and clear as possible here and use only words we can agree on and ask you this:

When a player you view as a DD assists you with a play-style that is les-efficient in terms of their damage potential while inside a raid or grind you are participating in: do you or do you not view this as punishing you and the rest of your group - even if you can still be successful and the raid or grind is completed?

And that's all I'm asking. Forget about the warrior and his shield for a moment because that has nothing to do with this singular question I am asking you. Take it as a whole and having a context all to its own.

And if you answer yes to this question: that is what I have a problem with and what this debate between you and me has really been about. Because I think that is a destructive way to look at this game. It helps lead to players alienating a lot of different yet successful play styles simply because they do not do as much damage as other play-styles.

And if you answer no to this question: then I have just fundamentally misunderstood everything I have seen you post on these forums.

[Byrth]

It's reassuring that the community is still large enough that two people can meet and discuss the totally irrelevant minutiae they each care intensely about. I was afraid that FFXI's "word game circle jerk" era was over.

Thanks for proving me wrong.

[Dale]

It's reassuring that the community is still large enough that two people can meet and discuss the totally irrelevant minutiae they each care intensely about. I was afraid that FFXI's "word game circle jerk" era was over.

Thanks for proving me wrong.

I will be the first to admit the debate did devolve into irrelevant minutiae.

But I think the central point of it is still very important and one that should be heeded. Because it identifies the source of why so many job adjustments are constantly called for to begin with in an effort to make this game more inclusive.

If you really want to fix this issue job adjustments alone aren't going to cut it. You need to combat the actual mentality that is at the root of the problem.

[Byrth]

The system defines the approaches people take. If the general player"mentality" is a problem (whatever that means), the system is at fault.

SE needs to address fundamental game mechanics issues to enable varied playstyles.

Enmity

Forced delay

Accuracy/Magic Accuracy

Additional effects

Pet mechanics


These are issues that either scaled poorly from 50-99 or are problematic in some way (particularly when they intersect with the Haste. cap.) The haste cap is a near constant in group content now. These needed to be adjusted years ago.

[Dale]

The system defines the approaches people take. If the general player"mentality" is a problem (whatever that means), the system is at fault.

SE needs to address fundamental game mechanics issues to enable varied playstyles.

Enmity

Forced delay

Accuracy/Magic Accuracy

Additional effects

Pet mechanics


These are issues that either scaled poorly from 50-99 or are problematic in some way (particularly when they intersect with the Haste. cap.) The haste cap is a near constant in group content now. These needed to be adjusted years ago.

No the system doesn't. At least not in regards to what I am referring to. Individual players do.

There is nothing in the system that demands players obsess over doing as much damage as possible else they are an impediment or a punishment to the group. It's not necessary nor does this game force players to do this. I complete difficult content on this game all the time with jobs and play-styles that don't do the most damage as efficiently as possible. They do not impede my progress in any significant way, nor do they punish me. In fact their assistance is valued and enables me to improve my character by allowing me to complete content I otherwise could not do on my own. And that is what I meant when I say the mentality is the problem. Not the gameplay.

Far as enmity mechanics - it think it's fine. This game is meant to be more strategic in nature. It doesn't rely on reflex-driven game play. Skilled damage dealers and healers can manage it to the point tanks can be utilized, and that is what's important.

I play a paladin. And it's easy for me to tell the skilled damage dealers vs the unskilled ones who just to go all out and often die instead of the the cautious and intelligent ones who know how to control their enmity and damage. And I prefer a system like that that rewards intelligent thought - rather the ones like in modern MMORPGs where the tank can basically just spam some enmity move all the time and everyone else just goes all out with no fear of pulling threat. A system like that gets boring quick to me.

I believe gameplay should reward intelligent thought and decision making. Not just maximizing rotations so you crank out bigger numbers. I don't like this kind of style.

Forced delay I'm not sure what you mean. So I won't comment on that one.

I don't agree that there is anything wrong with the Accuracy/Magic Accuracy] mechanics on this game. They seem pretty solid to me. And I like how evasion and magic evasion is actually a factor on this game. It allows stats like accuracy and magic accuracy to actually mean something as it relates to the gameplay and forces the player to make strategic decisions about what their priorities are. So I don't see anything wrong with that. It's much better than on these modern games where missing an enemy basically isn't even a factor you have to consider.

Additional Effects I may agree with you on. Much of the weapons/armor I have tested with additional effects have - for lack of a better word - sucked. They just don't happen enough to matter. So I wouldn't mind seeing some attention paid to that if that's what you mean.

Pet mechanics - I'm not qualified to comment on. I don't play pet classes. Though I did attempt to play a Beastmaster once a long time ago and I kept getting eaten by own pets. It was such a miserable experience and I haven't touched the job since. So I'm inclined to agree with you here and admit jobs that use pets could probably use some love.

[Afania]

But I'm not twisting what you are saying. At least not purposely.

You just identify words like help and now play-style and then apply how you mean these words and then think I'm trying to twist what you saying simply because I have a broader interpretation. For example: to me a person's play-style can include what job they choose to play. To me a person can be considered helping even when they may stand to get something out of it. See what I mean? We are getting hung up on semantics.

Anyway, I'll try to be as concise and clear as possible here and use only words we can agree on and ask you this:

When a player you view as a DD assists you with a play-style that is les-efficient in terms of their damage potential while inside a raid or grind you are participating in: do you or do you not view this as punishing you and the rest of your group - even if you can still be successful and the raid or grind is completed?

And that's all I'm asking. Forget about the warrior and his shield for a moment because that has nothing to do with this singular question I am asking you. Take it as a whole and having a context all to its own.

And if you answer yes to this question: that is what I have a problem with and what this debate between you and me has really been about. Because I think that is a destructive way to look at this game. It helps lead to players alienating a lot of different yet successful play styles simply because they do not do as much damage as other play-styles.

And if you answer no to this question: then I have just fundamentally misunderstood everything I have seen you post on these forums.

You used the word "successful playstyle", which is a completely different scenario from previous shield WAR discussions. I'm not against successful playstyle, I'm only against ineffective ones.

Byrth just summarized my opinion in 1 sentence....you have a problem with me/playerbase or w/e, but it's game design issue.

If a "playstyle" is successful, then it's not a punishment, if a "playstyle" is ineffective(like shield WAR), then why would a player choose that "playstyle" to begin with?

When I said "effective", I don't mean "do more dmg" at all. Wearing a PDT- set or /NIN is also a "do less dmg" playstyle, but it's effective in certain situation. Therefore I'm not against /NIN or PDT- set at all.

If you can find a "playstyle" that's effective, show it to the community and explain why. I'm pretty sure some ppl are still willing to try...I try new playstyle all the time, except I don't use ineffective ones.

Whether you're winning or not is not exactly relevant to this discussion. You can technically clear yorcia 6 NM with 3 ppl doing the job and 3 afk players anyways. But you're spending more time in an event with no gain. When you merc a win you're also wasting client's time for lower service quality....so less client for your group in the long run cuz everyone else would just find a faster group to buy win. You know, merc group has reputation as well.

I know you hate to play a vid game like doing a business, but that's the truth about FFXI that there's nothing you can do to change it unless it become an offline game....players are human, they act and make choices like irl. It's not that I enjoy the game this way, I just observe and analyze the fact. If certain "playstyle" clearly doesn't work, there's nothing I can do to change that except post on SE forum. I can only point out "This play style doesn't work" here.

If you have problem with FFXI like this, that's too bad. There's nothing I can do to help you anymore.

So the real yes/no question should be like this:

Am I ok with a different playstyle that works even if it does less dmg? Yes. I'm ok with inviting a DNC, COR or BLU to DD pt. I'm ok with DD/NIN in AA BCs.

Am I ok with a different playstyle that doesn't do anything? No. If a WAR uses a shield, I'd be confused.

It's as simple as that.

[Dale]

You used the word "successful playstyle", which is a completely different scenario from previous shield WAR discussions. I'm not against successful playstyle, I'm only against ineffective ones.

Byrth just summarized my opinion in 1 sentence....you have a problem with me/playerbase or w/e, but it's game design issue.

If a "playstyle" is successful, then it's not a punishment, if a "playstyle" is ineffective(like shield WAR), then why would a player choose that "playstyle" to begin with?

When I said "effective", I don't mean "do more dmg" at all. Wearing a PDT- set or /NIN is also a "do less dmg" playstyle, but it's effective in certain situation. Therefore I'm not against /NIN or PDT- set at all.

If you can find a "playstyle" that's effective, show it to the community and explain why. I'm pretty sure some ppl are still willing to try...I try new playstyle all the time, except I don't use ineffective ones.

Whether you're winning or not is not exactly relevant to this discussion. You can technically clear yorcia 6 NM with 3 ppl doing the job and 3 afk players anyways. But you're spending more time in an event with no gain. When you merc a win you're also wasting client's time for lower service quality....so less client for your group in the long run cuz everyone else would just find a faster group to buy win. You know, merc group has reputation as well.

I know you hate to play a vid game like doing a business, but that's the truth about FFXI that there's nothing you can do to change it unless it become an offline game....players are human, they act and make choices like irl. It's not that I enjoy the game this way, I just observe and analyze the fact. If certain "playstyle" clearly doesn't work, there's nothing I can do to change that except post on SE forum. I can only point out "This play style doesn't work" here.

If you have problem with FFXI like this, that's too bad. There's nothing I can do to help you anymore.

I asked you a simple question yes or no question and you couldn't do it. You instead want to debate the semantics about what different words mean. As usual.

The bottom line is different play styles do work and they can be successful. The fact they may do less damage and clear content slower doesn't change this important fact.

And my problem isn't with the way FF XI is. I have a problem with the way you view other play-styles in this narrow prism of how much damage they do and how fast they can clear content because you see a video game like a business. And if you can't understand that important difference, there is nothing I can do to help you anymore.

[Afania]

I asked you a simple question yes or no question and you couldn't do it. You instead want to debate the semantics about what different words mean. As usual.

The bottom line is you are wrong. Different play styles do work and they can be successful. The fact they may do less damage doesn't change this.

And my problem isn't with the way FF XI is. I have a problem with the way you view other play-styles in this narrow prism of how much damage they do. And if you can't understand that important difference, there is nothing I can do to help you anymore.

I didn't answer because the question you asked was completely different from your previous POV. Your previous POV was all about role playing and respecting ppl with different playstyle, even if it's ineffective. Now you suddenly changed to "different playstyle that does less dmg can work" So how can I answer that? Of course I'd accept a different playstyle that works, except shield WAR doesn't work.

I never argue that "different playstyle that do less dmg" doesn't work, I only argue that "certain playstyle" doesn't work.

DD/NIN do less dmg and it works, DD using a shield doesn't. This case by case, you're the one who's wrong if you think I'm against ALL playstyle that does less dmg.

[Dale]

I didn't answer because the question you asked is completely different from your previous POV. So how can I answer that?

I never argue that "different playstyle that do less dmg" doesn't work, I only argue that "certain playstyle" doesn't work.

DD/NIN do less dmg and it works, DD using a shield doesn't. This case by case, you're the one who's wrong if you think I'm against ALL playstyle that does less dmg.

I told you specifically to view that question in its own context. What ever you think my previous POV doesn't matter. I was merely looking for a simple yes or no to a question I asked as directly and clearly with as much detail as I am capable of doing.

I'm not interested in debating which play-styles you may or may not have meant or what my point of view was. I have moved passed that.

I take your point that you were not saying all play-styles that do less damage don't work. But that's not what is really at question. The crux of the matter is if you view them as being a punishment to the group or not. Not merely just that they work. Because that is the central point of our disagreement. The rest is mostly just semantics and a misunderstanding of what different words mean to us.

Because you see in my mind if the play-style works then it can't be considered a punishment to a group.