More Transparency for Job Design Decisions

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeeqbit

If you see similarities between jobs, maybe it's because whenever there is a difference, someone complains "well that job doesn't have what the other job has" so SE addresses it (like with the Shake It Off-Divine Veil example). Before tank mitigation was made more the same, they had issues like "physical-only" mit with parry, blocks and physical defense on a lot of major cooldowns and the fix made them all the same.

---

Again, for the third time, I am not asking for Shake and Veil to be the exact same thing. I am criticizing the explanation, not the changes. "Shake It Off is buffed due to Warrior not having percentage mitigation such as Passage, Missionary, or Heart of Light, making it particularly weak against DoT raidwides. Warrior has no solution to this scenario and therefore we buffed it". This is an explanation I disagree with, but I would understand where it is coming from.

I'd rather the topic stop getting warped around tank discussion, so I pose this question. What kind of changes would you like in regards to messaging job philosophy and changes? Do you think the current system is fine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rozeee

Again, for the third time, I am not asking for Shake and Veil to be the exact same thing.

---

That isn't too relevant to what I was saying anyway. I was making the general point that they make these changes in response to the community asking for "balance", then get attacked by said community for "homogenizing" everything.

Quote:

---

I'd rather the topic stop getting warped around tank discussion

---

My greatest experience is with tanks, so it is easier to use what is most on my mind as an example.

Quote:

---

What kind of changes would you like in regards to messaging job philosophy and changes? Do you think the current system is fine?

---

They could explain it in a little more detail on the job action list linked in the patch notes, in patch notes directly, since it's a little vague.

But tbh, if it's just a technical change that doesn't affect casual players, I think the players who want to know it will find out about it regardless even if it's only explained in a live letter. If it's a major rotation change, like PLD's, I feel like a casual player should get some sort of message in the game to explain why the entire thing changed mid-expansion... because it is the sort of thing that could pull the rug from under them.

It doesn't bother me personally too much if they don't explain it a bit better, because I feel like we know what their general philosophy is just from when they mention it in keynotes and expansion live letters. They want to make the rotations more approachable, more comfortable, easier to track what's going on instead of relying on status effects.

And if we didn't know that from keynotes and live letters: it's just kinda obvious. They don't want a player to feel stress, and that isn't just what Yoshi-P said recently, it's just obvious from how things like Blood of the Dragon, Greased Lightning, Darkside, Huton have been turned into traits over the years and positionals reduced. Or they want it to be balanced with another job. Or they did it for a raid reason that many raiders seem aware of (like how PLD's DoT-reliance was a problem with phase changes and having lots of ranged attacks wasn't a gain anymore).