Evolved Ranged Physical needs Foe Requiem back

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azurarok

If there's any job that does some damage buff in some limited window of time I'm sure the spreadsheeting folks would figure out the best timing to maximize damage of the most jobs and rotations would start pooling resources around that window, while anyone that has trouble fitting in that window could end up being pushed out of the meta.

---

Yep. This right here is the problem, it happened in ARR, and got much worse in every expansion until SE felt compelled to force everyone into the 2 minute meta so jobs stopped being excluded.

If we have Foe Requiem (or The Balance or Technical Step) as a damage buff for the raid during a specific timing window, then any job who can line up their own buffs or cooldowns during it that window will become stronger than others. The meta might not be 2 minutes anymore, but an 80 second, or 45 second, or 72 second, or 90 second, or whatever-the-heck-second meta isn't any better. If some jobs don't fit that mold and are worse-off, then we'd actually somehow manage to make a worse version of the 2 minute meta.

You could argue this is a slippery slope fallacy but given the game's design has already been falling down that slope for a decade I think it's a justifiable concern.

Hoping evolved Radiant Finale is a soup of different buff effects that synergize with BRD's other songs like it could be a mitigation + heal amp + another movement speed that stacks with Paeon, and the heal amp could pair with Ballad or Minuet's barrier.

I hated foes requiem so much as a tank. It was so annoying holding aggro in dungeons back when paladin was in its stormblood incarnation and I had a bard. If it comes back removed the pointless aggro Gen part. Id rather songs got buffs back before foes. Evercold bard is kind of a shell of what made bard great. The stormblood bard action id want back is old troubadour. This new evolved bard having no buffs feels so wrong to me even though I get why they deleted buffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Powercow

Yep. This right here is the problem, it happened in ARR, and got much worse in every expansion until SE felt compelled to force everyone into the 2 minute meta so jobs stopped being excluded.

If we have Foe Requiem (or The Balance or Technical Step) as a damage buff for the raid during a specific timing window, then any job who can line up their own buffs or cooldowns during it that window will become stronger than others. The meta might not be 2 minutes anymore, but an 80 second, or 45 second, or 72 second, or 90 second, or whatever-the-heck-second meta isn't any better. If some jobs don't fit that mold and are worse-off, then we'd actually somehow manage to make a worse version of the 2 minute meta.

You could argue this is a slippery slope fallacy but given the game's design has already been falling down that slope for a decade I think it's a justifiable concern.

---

This is literally why I think people do not understand Foe Requiem, and perhaps explains so many of the replies in this thread.

Foe Requiem was based on MP consumption and could be turned on or off relatively at will. It's essentially the raid buff version of the freeform model that evolved is trying to emulate for individual rotations. The only cap of the skill is the total MP cap, otherwise it can be moved around freely and used in accordance to when jobs of the party composition decide to use their bursts, which if I'm supposed to believe the concept behind Evolved, is going to be a thing: nothing strictly on 2min cd, or 60s, or 40s, or whatever.

The idea that it would bring a meta is born from a misconception around it because Foe used to generally happen at specific times back in HW/SB (something like Opener > 2m > 3m > etc, forgot the exact meta) since it was adjusting to other raid buffs that were all on 60s, 90s, 120s or 180s timers. Without those to stack over, Foe would be the most freeform raid buff you can think of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reginald_Cain

I hated foes requiem so much as a tank. It was so annoying holding aggro in dungeons back when paladin was in its stormblood incarnation and I had a bard. If it comes back removed the pointless aggro Gen part. Id rather songs got buffs back before foes. Evercold bard is kind of a shell of what made bard great. The stormblood bard action id want back is old troubadour. This new evolved bard having no buffs feels so wrong to me even though I get why they deleted buffs.

---

That is because it was actually a room wide enemy debuff which aggroed them.
The solution is pretty trivial and it can be moved to be a party wide buff instead.
It doesn't even have to be "Foe Requiem", it can be Radiant Finale for all I care.

I meant that the spreadsheet folks would find the general best timings to turn it on and the other jobs would be pressured to adjust to it anyways.

Like I believe all the known evolved jobs so far have most of their resources come full circle around every 60s, so I'd think BRD would often get the most out of Foe Requiem by activating it around every 60s (or multiple of it depending on the mp cost) and everyone would start pooling their cooldowns around that.

There is more flexibility to them but unless a fight forces a job to spend some stuff (like Vengeful Jump for the positional or gap closer) there isn't much reason to not try to keep it consistent, and in the cases it does force it I think we're more likely to get complaints about that job having to spend the resource outside the "usual" window rather than BRDs not adjusting. "Damaging Gap Closers should be removed" posts ranting about their 0.1% enrages on their late patch clear parties and whatnot. Should the devs be caving to those complaints? imo, no, but that sure is what they've been doing.

Also any job that has a stronger burst will still benefit more from it than any sustained damage job like how BLM vs PCT was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

This is literally why I think people do not understand Foe Requiem, and perhaps explains so many of the replies in this thread.

---

Oh no they understand it fine. That's why it'd be a problem.