That's fair.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleImp
But that's also kinda my point.
Okay, I gave you the benefit of the doubt...Quote:
Originally Posted by Supersnow845
...and typed up a rebuttal here...
...but then deleted it. I'm trying to be good here, and I would like it if you would as well. Engage in good faith, and let's keep a good discussion going. You didn't comment on anything in the post itself, so I will say for the sake of argument you agreed with my definitions of filler and non-filler using your DNC example.
I'd like to try and get that nailed down a little better, though, so could you tell me the filler of some other Jobs you're familiar with?
What would you say RDM's filler rotation is? Any Tank's or Melee's? Thank you in advance.
I'm One Of The Filthiests Of Casuals And Even I Can See How Dumbdown FF14 Has Become!
Printable View
-
09-21-2023, 12:34 PMRenathras
-
09-21-2023, 12:42 PMSupersnow845
Ren I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again the reason you don’t get the interaction you want is because of the way you post, you can have the best of intentions possible but the way you post, edit, reply to 56 people at once and then get angry when people miss context from your mammoth posts annoys people
Like in this example you did not make it clear in the slightest that you were specifically looking for examples of filler rather than an overarching definition of filler until after I had already read your post and started typing up a reply, then you act like I’m acting in bad faith because I didn’t read your edits……while I’m half way through writing a response to your comment
Do you see the problem here, I don’t want to argue this point with you any further. Not because I don’t think necessarily that your ideas are bad (though we both agree that we don’t agree on 95% of each others ideas) but because I’m sick of the way you post and the way you reply to people then always act like it’s everyone else’s fault
I’ll have an actual discussion with you sometime in the future if you can actually shorten your posts, not edit them to add 5 more points later and then act like it’s our fault we didn’t read those later points
Until then I’m really not interested -
09-21-2023, 12:44 PMAmiableApkalluSo, at least as far as I and my comment are concerned, the definition of "filler" is less important than what things actually are. There are actions that do not build up anything or towards anything, and that do not themselves have the feel of ending or finishing some sequence of actions. For SMN, that applies to Ruin III and most of the attuned Gemshine actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
So... If someone wants to include Ruin III in SMN's "filler," then it makes sense to me to also include most of the attuned Gemshine actions. If someone (pejoratively) refers to "aspected Ruin III," then I think I know what they mean. :shrug:
Along these same lines <insert vigorous waving of hands>, I care less what exactly defines a "easy job" versus a "hard job", and more that every job have a sufficiently low barrier of entry and yet still provide room for "skill expression" (or whatever people want to call it). -
09-21-2023, 01:03 PMOgruMogruAnd you clearly don't understand how BLM works if you use their entire rotation as an example for filler. I do not need to list off every other job ability in the game to point out your incorrect example of BLM filler.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
-
09-21-2023, 01:11 PMAravell
Since the discussion has become entirely about SMN, and having been vocal about SMN not being great before, I'll just toss my 2 cents in.
SMN is a decent enough design, I just think it's unacceptable as a DPS job. If you took SMN's design and slapped it on a healer, I'd be ok with it. SMN's existence not only hurts the caster role, it also hurts the DPS role in general. The DPS role has only 1 job in combat, do damage, if you make that job as simple as possible, what else do they have to strive for? I get that people want a simple job to get into, but a simple job does not mean it has to have no growth available to it.
Let's look at RPR. It's a very simple job, the concept is simple and the rotation is simple, you can even choose to delay your positionals if you can't hit them. You can mash Enshroud the moment you hit 50 shroud gauge and you'd do fine, but if someone wants to hold gauge and do a double Enshroud during burst, they have that option available to them. SMN does not have that. SMN has no job-specific optimisation, you may be tempted to bring up that you can swap legos around for movement, but that's not job-specific optimisation, that's fight-specific optimisation. Every other DPS job has both types, SMN does not have job-specific optimisation, they only have very specific micro-optimisations to do, there is no point when you play SMN that you would suddenly be struck by an epiphany of "Oh, I should've been doing that instead!".
I believe that no DPS job should be so limited in growth opportunities. Every DPS job is already plenty simple to pick up and stumble through, we do not need one that you can stumble your way through to peak performance on. -
09-21-2023, 01:13 PMRenathras/sighQuote:
Originally Posted by Supersnow845
I really tried, folks.
EDIT: All that follows, in one chunk, unaltered.
This always happens.
Every single time.
I try to have a discussion in good faith, someone makes accusations, I continue to try in good faith, then the person makes more accusations, then I have to go through pages of thread to post specific posts, edit times, what was changed, etc to try and end that canard, but it's all just a red herring. It's all just a way for you, Snow, to derail the thread and not engage in good faith. You're wasting my post count - whether intentional or not - for a resistance to simply answer a question, even once it becomes apparent what the question is. And then you cap it off with a "I always tell you..." ignoring that this same thing goes in reverse: I always tell you that when you are evasive and when you won't answer questions asked and when you look for things in posts to try to avoid the topic, it looks like evasion and bad faith.
Yet here we are again, with me having to give a brief history of events in the thread to defend myself with the HOPE, vain as it always is, that it will (a) put the issue to bed so we can get back to talking about the actual topic (note the post above yours has NO EDITS but you refused to engage with it) and (b) that maybe the NEXT time you or someone else tries to do it, they'll think better and choose to engage the topic in good faith instead of looking for excuses not to...which I know is a vain hope because I know it will happen again.
So here we are and here we go, yet again:
Snow, I gave you a rebuttal, edited for length - I didn't change anything, and the edit was RIGHT when the post was made, so it wasn't any addition. Like I only posted a line and a half, cut off mid sentence, edited to paste the rest, and immediately posted. There was no edit to the content, and I did it so fast you couldn't have seen the post before, and if you had, it would be chopped half-way into a sentence.
After that, because post counts - of which you needlessly burned at least 5 if mine by refusing to answer a simple question - I had to combine into posts to a lot of people. But you weren't really responding to that (as far as I can tell) with post 167 (the one you started with "Filler doesn’t have to not have a fail state"), you were responding, it seems, to the above post with no edits. So the "talking to lots of people" and "edited once posted" aren't acceptable rebuttals.
Next I posted asking SOMEONE ELSE, Ogru, if they could give examples of filler. Something that they have (as of me writing this) not done. I saw your post, so added an edit. The only thing I changed was the part after the dot. That is, the part above the dot was added all at once, so if you were responding to it (which you seemed to), your argument about an edit changing the content is irrelevant. Especially since I didn't ask you a question there, I asked Ogru the question.
I then pointed out your post, which seemed to be you trying to answer the question I asked her, wasn't an answer to the question, and directly restated the question. Note that the part I posted to her WAS NOT EDITED, so if you were trying to answer this question "Can you tell me what you define as filler for OTHER JOBS that you are familiar with which ARE NOT Summoner, please?", there was no edit. Regardless, post 170, you might notice, HAS NO EDIT. I did not change it at all. This was when I asked you the question directly.
Then you posted 172, accusing me of bad faith and trying to get "a cheap gotcha" instead of answering the question. Note the post where I asked you the question WAS NOT EDITED IN ANY WAY. This was your response. There was no justification for it, since the prior post of me asking you the question was not edited in any way, and you didn't mention edits in this post. You just didn't want to answer because you instead wanted to assume I was acting in bad faith. This was before you had ANY reason to do so.
Post 173 I initially made in response to someone else, LittleImp. But I saw your reply so made an edit to tell you it wasn't a cheap gotcha and ask you the same question again. THE ONLY CHANGE I MADE TO IT AFTER THAT was clearly marked: "EDIT: For example, if you DON'T consider Requiescat/Confetti/Swords to be "filler", then Searing Light/Summon Bahamut/Astral Impulse wouldn't be filler. If you consider the latter filler, then you must also consider the former filler. This is why I need to see PRACTICAL EXAMPLES and abilities, not a definition. :ENDEDIT". While perhaps a useful clarification, it was NOT part of the original question, which again was posted in a prior post WITH NO EDIT, and it didn't change the question in any way. It was merely a hope that by more information you might answer the question more fully.
THEN, post 174, you accused me of editing "excessively long posts" (all the posts in this chain to this point that you'd been replying to were not edited for length, so they fit within the post limit and thus were not "excessively long"), AFTER having just gotten through accusing me of a bad faith "gotcha" attempt without cause. So at this point, you were probably already acting in bad faith and looking for an excuse to derail the thread and attack me instead of engaging in good faith. I'll also note here that YOU edited THAT post after posting it. And UNLIKE me, you don't document your edits. So you're outright guilty of this very crime you are accusing me of in your effort to not engage in good faith discussion.
Post 178, I pointed this out, asked you to calm down, and did so respectfully without making accusations other than noting I had asked this question multiple times at this point. This post was edited, immediately when posted, for length, though I realized after I didn't need to (it originally included the rest of your quote as an artifact and once I cut that out, was under the character limit). Regardless, nothing in this post was actually changed by the edit other than me removing the extraneous partial quote. In this post - pre-edit, I'll add, since I put that all up at once - I analyzed what you presented, gave my take, and asked you directly if you could give other examples from other Jobs and if you agreed with my RDM one. I'll note you have, thus far, refused to answer these questions.
Then I posted the above, 181. Note again, short post, NO EDITS. I asked you, yet again, if you could give examples from other Jobs, specifically asked about RDM, or for a Tank or Melee, and politely thanked you in advance.
.
How did you respond to all that?
You accused me of being the problem "because of the way you post", accused me of editing (when you can see above several of my posts have LITERALLY no edits, the other cases clearly mark the edits, and two of those cases the edits were right when posted so you probably weren't responding to the initial post of a half-sentence, and in no cases were the edits material to what was asked of you), "reply to 56 people at once" (something I've never done in ANY post), "and then get angry when people mix context from your mammoth posts" implying I'm the one angry after I pointed out you were mad and am currently completely neutral AND that ALLLLLL of the posts you were replying to were not "mammoth posts" as they were all under the character limit and several didn't require editing at all.
I made it very clear I was looking for "examples of filter" from the time I posted "Can you tell me what you define as filler for OTHER JOBS that you are familiar with which ARE NOT Summoner, please?", which was early on, in a short post, without edit. In other words, your excuses and what you're accusing me of here were not an issue.
.
I DO see the problem here: You don't want to answer the question. You made an argument "all of SMN's rotation is filler" that was wrong to begin with, and you don't want to appear weak or defeated by admitting you spoke in hyperbole and overstated your critique of SMN. It had nothing to do with you being "sick of the way" that I post and reply to people, since my posts were all short (that you were replying to), and many of them were outright unedited. You just were refusing to engage. And yes, in this case, it LITERALLY is your fault because you didn't want to answer the question, and instead of just saying you might have been wrong or overstated your case initially, tried to dither and distract, and finally, when that FAILED, tried to turn it around into an attack on me here in post 182.
"I'll have an actual discussion with you sometime in the future if you can actually shorten your posts, not edit them to add 5 more points later and then act like it’s our fault we didn’t read those later points" is hard to take seriously when this was the post that started this whole thing:
...no edit, no reply to multiple people, and I would like you to tell me how that post ISN'T short.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
I can't make a post that replied to only you, had no edits, and was all of two lines long shorter, replying to less people, and unedited.
.
It strikes me you don't want to engage in good faith, and you don't want to admit you overstated your critique of SMN. I gave you ample benefit of the doubt and you repaid me with scorn, and YET AGAIN I have to go through the post history to show why YET ANOTHER attack on me here is unfounded.
And you know the best part? Your post will get several likes despite it all and you will feel you were justified when you should be apologizing for not willing to engage in good faith, looking for any excuse not to, and settling on attacking me AND turning it around on me "acting" like it wasn't my fault when, in this instance, it literally was not.
.
And in a week or two, we'll do this same song and dance again.
Because you won't want to answer some OTHER question and will look for a way out, and that way out will be attacking me instead of answering the question.
.
God...damnit... this gets so old.
I try to give you the benefit of the doubt, make short posts, direct replies to you only even though it eats through my post limit, no edits, cordial, polite, and this is the thanks I get.
Maybe I post the way I do because people like you post the way you do. Have you ever considered that? -
09-21-2023, 01:22 PMOgruMogru
-
09-21-2023, 01:22 PMRenathrasPhew, any port in a storm...at least you're engaging with the topic. You have my thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmiableApkallu
I think the definition is important if we're trying to pin down what it is as a point of argument. If we're going to use it as an argument against SMN, we need to know what "it" is. I think you give something, though, your own definition: " There are actions that do not build up anything or towards anything, and that do not themselves have the feel of ending or finishing some sequence of actions."
I feel like an issue is that is pretty subjective (for example, I tend to use Garuda as G,G,G,G,AF), and the Slipstream Astral Flow feels like a "cap" on that part of my rotation. Likewise, I tend to use Ifrit with the hardcasts first to get them out of the way, though this is more situational. But as I noted, that still wouldn't include the Demi-Primals, as they ARE the thing you are going towards, but in their own way, refresh the gems to go into the Primals. I also think the problem with "aspected Ruin III" is, not only does it not really express useful information, it's derisive. When one is using needlessly derisive terms in an ongoing topic of contention, it tends to increase contention and animosity.
As for your last point:
I somewhat disagree.
I do not think every Job needs a high skill ceiling, nor do I believe every Job needs a low skill floor. I think it's acceptable for some Jobs to have a high skill floor - as long as it's not EVERY Job. And I likewise feel it's acceptable for some Jobs to have a low skill ceiling - as long as it's not EVERY Job. Provided players have options if they'd rather the different ones, I think that's good game design. It's when there are no options that it becomes a problem.
BLM exists, so SMN existing is fine to me. If BLM didn't exist, I'd think that was bad. If SMN didn't exist, I'd think that was bad.
If nothing else, I'm "equal opportunity" on the issue.
EDIT: From here and below, but edit being done as I post, so no additions or changes
As I say above, I suppose this comes down to individual belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aravell
I think it's good as a DPS, since there are other Jobs that don't work that way. Consider the alternative - if every job was like SMN. That would be bad as well. For my part, I think diversity of options is key. Any heavy limits on that, I consider negative. (I also contest RPR is "a very simple Job" but that's neither here nor there and I haven't played with it enough yet; about to, though, since it's the only Job I have left to get the story from so leveling it to at least 80 because I want to do all its story quests...)
Yet anther person in bad faith. Either answer the question or don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by OgruMogru
EDIT2: I am NOT wasting a post on this:
Ah, Stormpeaks. Don't ever change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stormpeaks
Also: It's "he", not "them", just so you know. Thanks. And again, please DO tell me how THIS POST is "giant novels that could be tldr'd":
Maybe realize your canned ad hominem attack on me, this once, isn't justified.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
-
09-21-2023, 01:25 PMStormpeaksHonestly it's better to just ignore them at this point, they have been told the same thing times and times again, they don't care, 99% of people don't have the time or dont want to read giant novels that could be tldr'd to a few sentences, it just ain't worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supersnow845
-
09-21-2023, 01:34 PMRenathrasHey.Quote:
Originally Posted by VentVanitas
Thank you for the good faith post, too.
I might reply to it later, but I've got a really sour taste in my mouth right now about this whole discussion. Hope you can understand. But I do appreciate your post and some of your points. Thanks for sharing.