Red Mage: Potential adjustments

I can confirm playing RDM for 2 expansions has gotten boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tulzscha

For one, different people have different ideas on what's solid or fun. Everyone's different and there's no pleasing them all, even if they all have similar levels of passion or interest for the same job.

---

Yes, you're absolutely right about individual differences and preferences. But let's put that aside because individual differences aren't something we can do anything about, and it ultimately doesn't change the merits of this exchange:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

Jobs that are in a good place don't need to be changed every expansion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tulzscha

keeping a job the same for a long time will make it boring for most, some change is required to maintain interest and because everyone's different some people will like those changes and some will not.

---

Keeping a job the same for a long time will make it boring for whom? The people who want change. And who will not like the changes? The people who liked the job the way it was. This begs the question, "Why weren't the people who want change playing a different job in the first place?"

If the answer is, "But they were playing a different job," then why did the job need to change to appeal to them? They already had other jobs they wanted to play instead. "So other people can enjoy the job too." Not everyone has to enjoy every job. The whole reason we have multiple jobs is because it's assumed not everyone is going to like any given job.

If the answer is, "They were playing it because they like it," then they will continue to like it until they decide they don't like it anymore, and then there are twenty other jobs they can play.

And so I stand by my point. If a job has no glaring flaws, it doesn't need to change at every expansion.

Right now, it seems like we have fairly widespread agreement that RDM's AoE mode is irreconcilably flat. Because it's just (1a/1b > 2) spam until it's time to (3) spam. Change that.

However, in single target, where lie the devs' primary interests in preserving balance and ensuring fun, RDM is a sound job.

"RDM is boring."
So play a less boring job. And if someone has a problem with me telling someone who is bored with a job to play a different job: there is no universe in which "play something else" is an inappropriate response to "this is boring."

Besides some improvements to AoE, RDM doesn't need any adjustments that could be better served by playing something that isn't RDM.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tulzscha

When it comes to a new expansion in particular they need selling points and a fresh coat of paint on a stale job is a good one.

---

They don't need to change every single job to sell each expansion. The expansions sell for their new jobs, new locations, and new story. In fact if you don't buy the expansion, you'll still get the changes that they made to the jobs, up to the old cap level that you still have access to.

But besides this, making changes to every single job for the next expansion quickly becomes an unwieldy development task. We're at 20 jobs now. They cannot continue to add new jobs in the future if they spend too much time revamping old jobs. If they want to continue to add new jobs, they need to start leaving the good jobs alone. We've already seen cuts made to many areas of the game because they wanted to spend the dev time elsewhere. Would you like them to spend time modifying existing jobs that people already enjoy playing at the cost of not having any new jobs in one of the expansions? I would rather they add new jobs and leave the good ones alone.

I have nothing of value to add except to echo Rongway's post above because it's extremely correct.

Quote:

---

Keeping a job the same for a long time will make it boring for whom? The people who want change. And who will not like the changes? The people who liked the job the way it was. This begs the question, "Why weren't the people who want change playing a different job in the first place?"


If the answer is, "They were playing it because they like it," then they will continue to like it until they decide they don't like it anymore, and then there are twenty other jobs they can play.

---

Well, as I said earlier, I have been getting bored of RDM in ShB despite it being one of my favorite classes. Change doesn't mean doing something entirely different. What I want, not speaking for others, is for high level red mage to feel like a proper evolution of level 50 RDM. Right now it plays basically the same, no interresting new mechanic to manage or play around with.
Also the argument "well play something else" is stupid. I love red mage, I want to keep playing it. But as it is now, it started to feel stale. So I want it to become more enjoyable. Who are you to tell me to go play something else and shut up?

Quote:

---

Keeping a job the same for a long time will make it boring for whom?

---

Everyone, eventually. Just a matter of time.

Quote:

---

...there are twenty other jobs they can play.

"RDM is boring."
So play a less boring job. And if someone has a problem with me telling someone who is bored with a job to play a different job: there is no universe in which "play something else" is an inappropriate response to "this is boring."

---

And if they don't want to? Should everyone else just go play a different job or game so something you like can stay the same?

Just look at the dozens of SMN threads in these forums. There are lots of people who love SMN and want to play SMN and have completely different ideas of what SMN should be and how it should change and why it should stay the same. Thing is there's no right answer, just a bunch of opinions.

It may not be inappropriate to tell the bored players to play something else as it certainly is an option but it is ignorant.

Quote:

---

They don't need to change every single job to sell each expansion.

---

I never said they did. A few certain jobs that need it, sure. A job that hasn't seen any changes for a couple expansions, maybe. Changes don't need to be complete reworks, they could be something like the AoE improvements you suggested or as small as a fancy new 2 minute cooldown. Regardless people like getting shiny new toys, that's the point I was making.

Quote:

---

They cannot continue to add new jobs in the future if they spend too much time revamping old jobs. If they want to continue to add new jobs, they need to start leaving the good jobs alone. We've already seen cuts made to many areas of the game because they wanted to spend the dev time elsewhere. Would you like them to spend time modifying existing jobs that people already enjoy playing at the cost of not having any new jobs in one of the expansions? I would rather they add new jobs and leave the good ones alone.

---

If FFXIV continues to see growth they could hire more devs to handle everything. Cuts will always happen no matter what that's just part of the business. That aside when it comes to new jobs vs modifying existing jobs... personally I'm leaning towards the latter, I like the jobs that I play and don't mind them changing things up every so often to a degree. Job aesthetic and identity is important to me so I tend to pick a couple I like and stick to them. That's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grimoire-M

If that were true Monk would never have been a problem.

---

Tbf, it wasn't a problem... until they went out of their way to break it, rather than polish it. Until then it was rough and/or undertuned, rather than an outright problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

That puts RDM at about 38 actions per minute, which is probably within ±2 APM of seven of the other sixteen jobs. Considering that during about half of our GCDs we have to do a quick arithmetic calculation to decide whether to Veraero or Verthunder in addition to the normal buff and cooldown tracking that every job has to do, I think where we sit on the APM spectrum is fine.

---

Raw APM has almost never been a good indicator of pacing, though, let alone who is likely to be engaged by the job or how. When and in what way APM spikes or lulls is far more important than the average.

I agree with each of your rebuttals, however. Again, though, the useful lines of discussion here seem more likely aimed at HOW the sword usage ought to be presented (e.g., more than being merely a liabilities-added Foul equivalent) rather than one portion of eGCDs it ought to encapsulate, or what kind of additional thinking/engagement ought to go into the job's playflow rather than merely what technical-yet-generic mechanic out to be slapped atop the kit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Tbf, it wasn't a problem... until they went out of their way to break it, rather than polish it. Until then it was rough and/or undertuned, rather than an outright problem.




Raw APM has almost never been a good indicator of pacing, though, let alone who is likely to be engaged by the job or how. When and in what way APM spikes or lulls is far more important than the average.

I agree with each of your rebuttals, however. Again, though, the useful lines of discussion here seem more likely aimed at HOW the sword usage ought to be presented (e.g., more than being merely a liabilities-added Foul equivalent) rather than one portion of eGCDs it ought to encapsulate, or what kind of additional thinking/engagement ought to go into the job's playflow rather than merely what technical-yet-generic mechanic out to be slapped atop the kit.

---

It is true that the sword for now feels a bit off sometimes. But after all, RDM is a caster first and the sword is kind of a side-weapon, the main one is the catalyst. (Which is why I hope for a job with the opposite balance someday). I kind of wish RDM was a bit more 50/50 between magic and swordplay, but it'd likely make it impossible to work in a lot of trial and raid mechanics where you need to either be melee or ranged to bait mechanics and stuff. It already feels awful when you have your combo ready have *have* to stick to range because of mechanics.

Also yeah, APM isn't that good of a measuring tool when 80% of those actions are the exact same 4 you cycle through (VerThunder/Fire/Aero/Stone and Jolt) since you've unlocked the job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

Ancient Magic Mastery[...]

---

This is most likely to happen and I would be totally okay with it.

SqEx has a history track of changing burst window timing to align with each other, usually 60s, 90s, 120s and 180s. RDM melee combo (burst) window is roughly every ~40s. Shortening it to ~30s, adding an additional melee combo overall seems like an appropriate approach. Whether this will make RDM more engaging/fun or not, may be another story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

Ancient Magic Mastery basically analagous to Lance Mastery so we can do Enchanted Combo > Verflare > Verholy+ > Scorch, or E.Combo > Verholy > Verflare+ > Scorch. This alone would put us 9~12 mana ahead of where we would be after each of our current combos (21 mana gained, minus the cost of an extra GCD during which we would have cast another spell anyway), plus guarantee both procs.

---

My main issue with this concept is that it's very backloaded, balancing our average B/W Mana Generation per minute around something our very first combo cannot benefit from.

Granted, if we had a simple change like higher resting B/W Mana, then... sounds decent. Dull, as it's just extending our combo and/or effectively removing B/W Mana choices, but decent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalaam

It is true that the sword for now feels a bit off sometimes. But after all, RDM is a caster first and the sword is kind of a side-weapon, the main one is the catalyst.

---

Red Mage has been a caster first and melee-er as a side-deal since FF1. You never brought in a RDM to slash things, and its slashes were never, in the history of the franchise, a reason to bring them.

Once FF5 hit, RDM's identity as the machine-gun-caster-of-small-spells was solidified. This is the identity it's had since, and the one they used for FF14.

Quote:

---

(Which is why I hope for a job with the opposite balance someday).

---

Absolutely, they should definitely make a rune fencer/templar/temple knight job.

They don't need to remove decades of identity to make RDM that job.

Quote:

---

I kind of wish RDM was a bit more 50/50 between magic and swordplay, but it'd likely make it impossible to work in a lot of trial and raid mechanics where you need to either be melee or ranged to bait mechanics and stuff. It already feels awful when you have your combo ready have *have* to stick to range because of mechanics.

---

Exactly! RDM is already too tied to melee as it is, and encounter design has to literally be wrapped around it. When you get a fight where it doesn't fit, it feels awful. Making RDM MORE melee would only make those fights awful. Further, RDM doesn't want to be in a position where it's competing for a melee slot, that isn't good for us. Being a caster and being balanced around being that caster slot is a good place for us to be.

Quote:

---

Also yeah, APM isn't that good of a measuring tool when 80% of those actions are the exact same 4 you cycle through (VerThunder/Fire/Aero/Stone and Jolt) since you've unlocked the job.

---

Yarp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kalaam

I kind of wish RDM was a bit more 50/50 between magic and swordplay, but it'd likely make it impossible to work in a lot of trial and raid mechanics where you need to either be melee or ranged to bait mechanics and stuff.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gruntler

Exactly! RDM is already too tied to melee as it is, and encounter design has to literally be wrapped around it. When you get a fight where it doesn't fit, it feels awful. Making RDM MORE melee would only make those fights awful. Further, RDM doesn't want to be in a position where it's competing for a melee slot, that isn't good for us. Being a caster and being balanced around being that caster slot is a good place for us to be.

---

So, just some quick food for thought:

Those constraints have far less to do with the portion of swordplay than the bankability of sword skills. The reason RDM has such constrained melee play is that it only has 2-4 GCDs of bankability on an effectively single 4.2-GCD attack (the first two sword skills are 3/5ths GCDs), with thereby massive punishment for starts that cannot complete.

Change that and you could have far smoother, less constrained melee play even if 2/3s of your GCDs were melee, as one could effectively have Bard-like mobility with only a modicum of forethought in balancing out swings vs. casts.

That's not to say I want that much melee, only that, again, the portion is mostly irrelevant. Personally, I just want RDM's sword to feel like a feature, rather than a liability -- a way to improve uptime rather than limit it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

So, just some quick food for thought:

Those constraints have far less to do with the portion of swordplay than the bankability of sword skills. The reason RDM has such constrained melee play is that it only has 2-4 GCDs of bankability on an effectively single 4.2-GCD attack (the first two sword skills are 3/5ths GCDs), with thereby massive punishment for starts that cannot complete.

Change that and you could have far smoother, less constrained melee play even if 2/3s of your GCDs were melee, as one could effectively have Bard-like mobility with only a modicum of forethought in balancing out swings vs. casts.

That's not to say I want that much melee, only that, again, the portion is mostly irrelevant. Personally, I just want RDM's sword to feel like a feature, rather than a liability -- a way to improve uptime rather than limit it.

---

There are a few ways to do that:
1) Reduce the cost of melee combo to give more leniency in mana. This is the easiest but also increases the number of melee combos you have access to per fight. Has potential conflict with Manafication. Likely would lead to a melee nerf.
2) Provide a ranged alternative to the start of the melee combo at a slight DPS loss. This is more difficult as it would have to be balanced around those 4 GCDs of leniency.
3) Adjust mana generation to be overall less than current iterations, limiting the potential number of melee combos and therefore conflicts.
4) Shift the melee combo’s purpose to a gauge dump by nerfing the DPS it provides to match that of Red Mage’s GCD filler. Probably the worst but most effective option. Needs another layer to Mana generation and spending to justify its existence.
5) Increase the current Mana cap. Easiest and most boring solution. Affects manafication but otherwise doesn’t conflict with anything.

The fifth is likely the best option of the bunch as it allows more focus on other Red Mage problems, like the lack of lossless mid-fight movement options relative to the other two casters and a slight bump to the complexity of their filler GCDs. Ideally I’d like the damage on Displacement and Lunge moved off of both with Engagement getting removed entirely. Maybe have Contre Sixte and Flèche build up towards a new ability to replace it.

I also still would like to see Chainspell implemented as a cooldown, but it’s partially because it solves RDM’s opener issue as well as acts as an extended movement cooldown, if given charges. It could reduce the cast time of all damage spells by 5s and it’d work perfectly, Dualcast works as intended already with Swiftcast.

Sorry, Grimoire, I lost my previous post due to some sort of "thread ticket"(?) error, so I'm going to skip past my 1-5 comments this time and go straight to what, consequently, I'd be looking for.

Personally, I'd set the goals... something(?) like this...:

• Slightly accelerate the first melee combo only, likely by reducing the melee combo cost and then reducing the MP rewarded by Verholy, Verflare, and Scorch.
• If possible, try to either standardize or ramp up Enchanted skills' MP costs, such as all to 20 or 25, or the combo to 15-20-25 or 20-25-30. Standardization makes it more intuitive, while ramping costs helps with leveraging partial combos (below).
• Find a way to leverage partial combos. For instance, perhaps Enchanted skills could proc Dual-Cast or even Chain-Cast. Perhaps have this be how Verholy/Verflare and later Scorch are made instant-casts. Additionally, we can find ways to decrease the ppgcd costs of said partial combos through potency adjustments on the combo skills themselves.
• Redesign AoE slightly for greater available nuance and, ideally, intermixing with sword skills. If we wanted to go really crazy with this, we could even have Moulinet get a combo of its own and for the two to both progress one another (such that you could ST->AoE->ST->Flare/Holy->Scorch).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

[*]Redesign AoE slightly for greater available nuance and, ideally, intermixing with sword skills. If we wanted to go really crazy with this, we could even have Moulinet get a combo of its own and for the two to both progress one another (such that you could ST->AoE->ST->Flare/Holy->Scorch).[/LIST]

---

I too like abilities that exist to handle content that doesn't exist.

We don't have the button room to add combo bits to the AoE to satisfy people for whom 6 buttons isn't enough. So what are we giving up for this?

And why would single-target/I need AoE but only for this one gcd/back to single target be a needed burst phase in any content in this game, and if that content were to exist, how is that problem not solved by 'Contre Sixte exists, is more flexible, and does a better job'? (This goes for people who want 'an AoE Finisher' after the single target combo, seriously what situation is this remotely useable?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gruntler

We don't have the button room to add combo bits to the AoE to satisfy people for whom 6 buttons isn't enough. So what are we giving up for this?

---

You realize RDM already has among the lower button counts, right? And, we definitely have the room for even the most button-anxious players... if we just didn't go out of way to waste it.

We've already consolidated Verflare, Verholy, and Scorch, but there's zero reason for the melee chain itself to take up separate keys. That's a further 2 saved right there.
There is zero reason to have Veraero II and Verthunder II when you could accomplish more nuance with, say, just having Scatter duplicate the last cast at 50% AoE damage atop a base potency. That's another 2 buttons saved, and more nuance available atop a unique focus-target capacity.
Further, if, as above, we had ways to leverage partial combos, there'd be no need for Reprise as a mere combo-delaying skill. That's a fifth button.

But let's just stick with the 4 for now. That gives us plenty of room. Heck, even with just the melee combo consolidated, we'd still have the fewest required buttons of any job, iirc.

Quote:

---

And why would single-target/I need AoE but only for this one gcd/back to single target be a needed burst phase in any content in this game

---

Virtually nothing is technically "needed". Being able to charge your melee combo off Moulinet would just means that you're no longer screwed out of Verflare/Verholy if you happen to need burst AoE damage instead of ST damage. It's an AoE and fluidity buff; plain and simple.

Quote:

---

and if that content were to exist, how is that problem not solved by 'Contre Sixte exists, is more flexible, and does a better job'?

---

I wasn't aware that Contre Sixte dealt 600-800 AoE potency and was bankable, rather than a CD that almost always ought to be used on refresh.

Quote:

---

(This goes for people who want 'an AoE Finisher' after the single target combo, seriously what situation is this remotely useable?)

---

Usually, the request is merely that Verflare, Verholy, and Scorch deal 50% of their damage as AoE, but okay... It would usable any time you can combo ~1.8 GCDs before adds are gathered. Given that it often takes ~1.8 GCDs for adds to be tightly gathered around a longer-term or focus target, that's pretty often. Like, literally any dungeon pull with a higher HP mob near its end. Rather than ripping threat off the tank mid-gather, you dive the far target and charge back-to-back heavy AoEs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

but there's zero reason for the melee chain itself to take up separate keys.

---

So you want to remove the melee combo buttons to add a melee combo button to a place where it matters less? That makes no sense.

Quote:

---

no need for Reprise

---

....reprise's job is more for movement when you can't stutterstep.

Quote:

---

But let's.... .

---

But what is the gain? You make raids worse for raiders, and you make dungeons worse for dungeon-grinders, by moving complexity from where complexity is rewarded, to where complexity is not desired.

Quote:

---

It's an AoE and fluidity buff; plain and simple.[/B]

---

There's no need for this 'fluidity.' The content where you'd use this does not exist.

Quote:

---

I wasn't aware that Contre Sixte dealt 600-800 AoE potenc

---

In AoE situations the gcd you use Contre Sixte in does, in fact, do 620-867 potency per 2.5 seconds. RDM is better AoE than a summoner, in 2021. If you hypothetically needed to hold on to it for a couple seconds for a sudden AoE pack it would kill, you'd hold on to it--or just let someone else do it.

Quote:

---

Usually, the request is merely that Verflare, Verholy, and Scorch deal 50% of their damage as AoE

---

Useless. There's no use for this except in two-enemy packs. Only one exists in expert roulette right now, and none in anything harder.

The damage this would cause to the game, however, is it would become a 'false choice.' Players would opt into using single target damage because 'Verholy/Verflare/Scorch are my AoE' which will make your dungeon experience worse overall.

Quote:

---

~1.8 GCDs

---

You lose 150 AoE damage from the resources you piss away.

That's the problem--you'd have RDMs giving up 1220 AoE damage in 10 seconds to do 650 because 'finishers feel cooler.' Traps are bad.

We'd be better off with a different concept.

Introduce a second resource, which would be built by the use of Moulinets, and the ogcd attacks. Gather enough, and you'd be able to use one spell--that spell would be a big blap that would have potency sufficient for both aoe and single target situations. It would also consume Verstone/Verfire Ready for a bit of extra damage and balance guage--this would make it a tool for not only being a cool blast, but also a lossless way to clear procs going into melee so that we never need to overright procs again.

That one button would actually solve problems that exist, while adding gameplay, rather than tricking players into bad gameplay to solve encounters which don't meaningfully exist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gruntler

Introduce a second resource, which would be built by the use of Moulinets, and the ogcd attacks. Gather enough, and you'd be able to use one spell--that spell would be a big blap that would have potency sufficient for both aoe and single target situations. It would also consume Verstone/Verfire Ready for a bit of extra damage and balance guage--this would make it a tool for not only being a cool blast, but also a lossless way to clear procs going into melee so that we never need to overright procs again.

That one button would actually solve problems that exist, while adding gameplay, rather than tricking players into bad gameplay to solve encounters which don't meaningfully exist.

---

Removing the need to manage what might otherwise become waste for a "big blap" that is only charged by doing what you would have done anyways is "adding gameplay"? I mean if it's as bankable as Foul, then maybe, but all it takes is being stuck with tuning similar to Apex Arrow (the closest equivalent to that charged-up secondary resource) and its window of optimal use will be very small indeed.

Quote:

---

But what is the gain? You make raids worse for raiders, and you make dungeons worse for dungeon-grinders, by moving complexity from where complexity is rewarded, to where complexity is not desired.

---

...How the hell is hitting Riposte, Zwerchhau, and Redoublement via separate buttons "rewarded complexity"? It's literally bloat, so long as they've no separate actions to be performed. And where's the consensus that RDM AoE is perfectly engaging and satisfactory and certainly could not fit the slightest bit more nuance?

Quote:

---

So you want to remove the melee combo buttons to add a melee combo button to a place where it matters less? That makes no sense.

---

No. I haven't added a single button. What are you on about? There's a button for melee single target (Ri->Zw->Re) and a button for melee AoE (Moulinet). That's it. I'm just saying that if 21 buttons makes so terrifying large a toolkit, it can easily be shrunk to 17 with zero loss in depth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gruntler

Useless. There's no use for this except in two-enemy packs.

---

You've literally just stated a use, nevermind that delaying a melee cycle, desyncing from raid buffs, can have potency consequences of its own. Not to mention the tremendous amount of potency you've left out of the equation. (See below.)

Also, it's three targets. It comes out ahead at three targets. Single-target damage is still adding to total damage. When there are targets enough for the difference in AoE damage to eclipse the difference in single-target damage beyond said AoE, the pure AoE option comes out ahead; short of that, it falls behind.

Quote:

---

You lose 150 AoE damage from the resources you piss away.

---

In 4.1 GCDs you will have done 2280 ST potency, 650 AoE potency, generated 35 Mana, and forced a proc.

Having spent the same 80 gauge on 4 casts of Moulinet would, indeed, have done 800 AoE potency, but also have generated no Mana or procs.

That would indeed be 150 AoE more per gauge expenditure, but at the cost of nearly 2 Moulinets further Mana generation and another 1480 potency to the primary target. At 3 more targets, even accounting for time spendable elsewhere, the melee combo comes out ahead.

Quote:

---

That's the problem--you'd have RDMs giving up 1220 AoE damage in 10 seconds to do 650 because 'finishers feel cooler.'

---

Alright, let's review.

10 seconds. The melee combo takes 10.2 at 0 SpS. The closest pure AoE use of that time is 11 seconds for Moulinet x4 and 2 standard AoE GCDs. Let's adjust for those slight differences in frame later.
The melee combo, again, would deal 650n + 1630 potency while generating 35 Mana and a proc. The pure AoE play would deal 1140n potency while generating 10 Mana. That is a difference of 490n potency.

1630/490 = 3.33. Until 4 targets struck, even ignoring the added mana generation, the melee combo would come out ahead. And that's before we even standardize them to 10 seconds, whereby the actual ppgcd of the pure AoE option is only 93% of what's listed, relative to the melee combo, which would place it nearer a breakpoint of 3.6 targets.

Yes, that means that common "50%" suggestion is overpowered, at least relative to the current Moulinet values (which are themselves rather pathetic, as they deal less than 40 ppgcd over a standard AoE gcd when accounting for their own opportunity costs in mana otherwise generated for their own use). But it's absurd to say a use case is necessarily limited to 2 targets, let alone impossible.

Quote:

---

In AoE situations the gcd you use Contre Sixte in does, in fact, do 620-867 potency per 2.5 seconds.

---

"In", not "per". You've an average of 170n ppgcd (120->220) and 3-5 Mana/gcd, which amounts to 7-11 additional potential potency via potential Moulinet use charged. You can add CS's 400 potency to any one of those GCDs, not to each.

That still, however, will not get you to 867 even for the single GCD unless multiplying it per Maim and Mend II (which would be utterly pointless, as we're comparing these potencies only others also on RDM), or raid buffs, which will be variable among CS casts. So I'm not sure what mathematical hoops you've leapt through to arrive at 867 sharp.

But, fair enough: Under Brotherhood, Lord of Crowns, Embolden, Chain Stratagem, Battle Voice, and benefiting from your Dance Partner's Standard Finish, and multiplying for Maim and Mend II, you'd manage 975-1180 effective potency in a single AoE GCD if having added Contra Sixte. Which, sure, sound high until you realize BLM can there do 930 off a mere Foul, which is available more frequently than even the traited Contra Sixte and is far more bankable. Provided sufficiently low ping and SpS, meanwhile, a Summoner can actually fit 1370 effective AoE potency into a GCD under those same conditions. For all any of that matters.

Not everyone only does raids.
We'd ALSO like raids to have adds sometimes so AoEs become more useful.

Dungeons are a big part of the experience, AoEs are needed and the RDM ones should be improved so they allow a full interraction with its core mechanics.

Looking at the OP, I can sort of see what you're trying to do, though I'm not seeing the "why" for it. Is the goal to just make the melee combo more powerful (the only reason why one would change Fleche to turn each combo hit into a multi-hit skill)? Saying "change how the melee combo behaves" is too vague for me.

Also, I advise against adding more resource bars as I think having to manage two bars is enough as is. If you want to turn Fleche into a cooldown, I'd suggest making it melee Acceleration: pop buff, get 3 stacks that affect each combo hit. That said, I think it's something that could be implemented as a new skill, though mechanically it doesn't make much sense to me to create a cooldown that only interacts with the spender phase.

I don't see much of a point to your suggested change for Contre aside from making the melee swings have a greater effect range and deal AoE damage. The AoE part is already covered by Moulinet, and the effect range isn't much of a factor since the places where AoE damage is prominent (AKA dungeons and some 25-man raids) you basically stand behind a target and spam away. It'd be a different story if this game's encounter design had several fights where melee can't do anything and only ranged can attack a boss.

Feel free to ignore this next part:

I would probably grab your idea and mold it into a cooldown that breaks the monotony of spellspam by allowing use of the enchanted melee combo without having 80/80 mana and/or consuming mana. Here's a free example:

84 Ensorcell - Allows the execution of three enchanted weaponskills regardless of current mana accumulated. Mana is not consumed while this effect is active. Duration: 15s. Cooldown: 150s.

This would allow a free melee combo, would allow 3 free uses of Moulinet, and could be inserted anywhere. Could use it at the start to do the combo and generate some mana without having to burn Acceleration + Manafication at the start of a fight. Could use it midfight if you're about halfway on each bar to deal some burst damage and not lose out on resource generation, or could be used right after a melee combo, then followed up with Manafication if available for even more damage. That said, it also punishes the careless since Reprise would also consume Ensorcell charges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grimoire-M

The fact is Red Mage is tuned around it’s mana generation mechanic and if that core proves too restrictive in its current iteration to manipulate then yes it does need to be reworked. Not on the level that Summoner or other job reworks have gotten, but enough that it can fit more actions or cooldowns into its core rotation.

---

I'm glad people are noticing how restrictive the current design is.

That said, wanting to make adjustments to the base gameplay is easier said than done because of the rules in place for how the job plays. The mana bars limit what you can do because if anything you insert doesn't contribute to them in some way, that's lost DPS potential in the long run. Anything you add also cannot interfere with Dualcast because that is a key part of how RDM generates resources. Add that the toggle between regular weaponskills and enchanted weaponskills is automated instead of something the player has control over. This is why I push more for procs and oGCD skills since they're the only things that play within all those rules. I'm not opposed to having to make major changes, but I think the devs are afraid (and rightfully so) of another bowmage scenario.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

I absolutely don't want any additional melee single target actions; we're already fighting for melee spots in some fights and it would only be a detriment if our rotation to require more melee time.

---

I take umbrage with this because I doubt parties are really trying to weigh a RDM vs a NIN, DRG or SAM. Also, almost every fight in this game has people stack directly behind the boss outside of having to handle mechanics, so more often than not RDMs are already standing within sword range of the kill target.

Quote:

---

"Give RDM a DoT"
Adding a DoT just to add a DoT doesn't add anything of value to our Dualcast/ManaManagement mechanics.

---

If we have to make it a spell on the GCD, give it a 5s cast time and pair it with Jolt/Verfire/Verstone. Caveats here are that it'd need a decent duration to not be intrusive (30-50s duration?) and be either magic Higanbana (AKA a decent chunk of DPS) or generate mana.

Quote:

---

"Give RDM a DoT with Mana ticks."
That makes Mana calculations unwieldy and inconsistent.

---

This isn't as big an issue, as it depends on how much mana is being generated per tick. 2/2 mana per tick sounds about right to me. Increase the amount to something like 5/5 per tick if you want to do something like an oGCD DoT with a 15s duration. There have been situations where a DoT generating mana per tick would have saved me one or two spells worth of time to hit 80/80, so I'm not opposed to a DoT that serves such a purpose.

Quote:

---

With a Mana over time effect, two RDMs who do the exact same sequence of actions but just 0.1s apart can end up with different amounts of Mana, which would make such a Mana over time effect a bad design choice.

---

The only time this would matter/be noticed is in 25-man raids and stuff like level cap dungeons and expert roulette. Story mode raids care more about actually killing the boss than how much DPS people are dealing, and I doubt statics doing EX/Savage/Ultimate are running multiple RDMs.

Quote:

---

"RDM is a caster. Give them less melee."
Red Mage is a fighter mage. Sword use is a deeply ingrained feature of Red Mage history.

---

Despite being a melee proponent, I'll say that those asking for this aren't completely in the wrong. FFXIV's implementation of RDM has reduced the sword to "glowy stick you swing 3 times per 18 GCDs". I've argued in the past that the melee combo is so tacked on that you could replace it with a combo of three ranged spells and you'd see little difference in the gameplay (aside from making Corps and Displacement moot). I don't celebrate that, and instead see it as a problem that needs to be addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

This isn't as big an issue, as it depends on how much mana is being generated per tick. 2/2 mana per tick sounds about right to me. Increase the amount to something like 5/5 per tick if you want to do something like an oGCD DoT with a 15s duration. There have been situations where a DoT generating mana per tick would have saved me one or two spells worth of time to hit 80/80, so I'm not opposed to a DoT that serves such a purpose.

---

Still, though, I have to wonder at the point of having a DoT on RDM.

At its most fundamental point of departure, a periodic effect is (1) a soft CD or (2) a means of banking (resource generation afforded through typical play).

Maintained DoTs are skills which outperform direct damage skills after n GCD. Especially when, say, uniquely instant-cast among a particular toolkit, that then gives a level of frequency by which one can use an instant cast against a given target (and increases mobility with target count, up to the point where multi-DoTing is eclipsed by AoE casts, assuming said AoEs are also casted), but doesn't outright prevent otherwise potency-wasteful casts for mobility. In practice, they can therefore function in a surprising clever way so long as some situational advantage is tied to them.

Meanwhile, in the case of Mana generation per tick, one can readily imagine that you might put out a situational (at least, if rapidly-ticking) DoT before you'd otherwise overcap in order to allow for, say, 5 back-to-back Enchanted Moulinet casts.

But if the DoT doesn't have some further allowance, such as the aforementioned mobility-on-soft-CD or opportunities for extended burst/spending, it becomes mere maintenance, and I have to wonder... why we'd necessarily want that. Much like Lead Shot on HW MCH, it just seems like something that'd delay more iconic and engaging gameplay through an incohesive element.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Still, though, I have to wonder at the point of having a DoT on RDM.

At its most fundamental point of departure, a periodic effect is (1) a soft CD or (2) a means of banking (resource generation afforded through typical play).

---

You're neglecting to mention that a DoT is also supplemental damage. Someone could plausibly ask for a DoT just because they want it to contribute to RDM DPS output and there would be nothing wrong with such a request, despite it being just periodic damage and offering no additional functionality. Of course, there is the matter of how the DoT is designed (because we don't want a repeat of Fracture), but the act of making such a request is not inherently wrong.

Quote:

---

Meanwhile, in the case of Mana generation per tick, one can readily imagine that you might put out a situational (at least, if rapidly-ticking) DoT before you'd otherwise overcap in order to allow for, say, 5 back-to-back Enchanted Moulinet casts.

---

Personally, I wouldn't implement a DoT that gives high mana ticks, as not only would it be awkward to use, but would end up being a slower Manafication. I'm more a fan of a "reapply every 45-60s to get 2/2 mana per server tick", as it would be a benefit over time between the supplemental damage and the additional mana gained. Depending on circumstances, this would make the difference between going straight into the melee combo or having to cast one or two more spells (imagine being at something like 76/69 with no Verfire/Verstone Ready; Jolt + 11 mana verspell won't let you do the melee combo, but if you factor in 2/2 mana generated by a DoT you applied earlier in the fight you'd generate the mana to take you to 80/80 by the time you finish casting the 11 mana verspell).

I’m down for literally anything tbh, I don’t want RDM to stagnate for a 2nd expansion in a row. Better clunky and fun than samey and routine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

You're neglecting to mention that a DoT is also supplemental damage.

---

It's no more supplemental than literally other form of damage. And that's mentioned right in the post you've quoted, as a soft CD access to an above-average ppgcd skill.

Quote:

---

(because we don't want a repeat of Fracture)

---

Hell, if it did even half the things for RDM that Fracture did for Monk (adding soft-CD access to a non-positional skill AND a rotational +1 mod, atop a ppgcd bonus, per ~18 seconds), I think we'd be happy. But it's a matter of context. If it does nothing more than the ppgcd bonus, it merely makes RDM feel slower to ramp up.

Quote:

---

but if you factor in 2/2 mana generated by a DoT you applied earlier in the fight you'd generate the mana to take you to 80/80 by the time you finish casting the 11 mana verspell.

---

Again, though, is that fun?

If it is, even just for a narrow portion of RDM players, then we've got something to build on. If not, especially given the annoyance or perceived slowness it'd cause for others, we don't.

One change I wish they do is make vercure a level 50 skill. Because below level 54 rdm has no self healing abilities.

The exact style of DoT I would want on Red Mage is one that allows it to use mana of one type now to gain more mana over time, without interrupting your regular dualcast sequences, giving you a reason to use it over Reprise. My concern with the idea is whether it should rely on two mechanics we don’t have use for currently: intentionally unbalancing your mana, and converting mana of one type into another. The unbalanced state just acts as a punishment mechanic at the moment, but granting access to an ability to immediately escape that state does give it a use case, and would also allow us to apply a soft cooldown to the use of these DoTs to limit their uptime. The ballpark numbers I’d want for such a DoT are spend 15 Black or White Mana, in exchange for 5 Mana + Damage/Tick over 18s. If it converts it from one type into the other would have to be double that to account for the penalty of using it. I’m okay with these replacing Jolt II in their respective states, as you’re unlikely to actually trigger the effect off of a Verstone/Fire proc.

The downside is it doesn’t really solve the intended problem of making it easier to delay the melee combo without adjustments there, which again suggests that altering the costs and mana generation is ultimately necessary going forward. If you can’t do much under those constraints, then the constraints need to change.

Can we not tie resource to DoTs please? Especially when said resource is also actively being gained by other sources. The headache to this is that it adds another thing you have to keep track of. Like:
- Will a tick happen while I was going melee?
- Will a tick happen as I was about to use Manafication? If you're at 48/49 and you want to Manafication NOW, the DoT would overcap your mana when you Manafication.

DoTs are obscure and tying it to resource is a headache. That's why other jobs' DoTs are just there for damage. BRD's Soul Gauge is like the only kind of resource similar to this and it's only used for one GCD. Their other Repertoire stuffs have their own specific uses and you don't really have to "calculate" the 80/80.

What I would rather want is a way to easily dump procs when you can't delay your combo too much (E9S PvP phase, or if you have to bait Black Smokers in E3S etc. Spamming EReprise is sad) or like a way to save your good proc luck for when you really need them.

A seperate two hit melee combo that applies a dot. Thats what i want.

A seperate two hit melee combo that applies a dot. Thats what i want.

I love RDM currently as a super casual player but if I could choose the new abilities for Endwalker it would look something like:

Level 82 Moulinet Mastery (Trait)

Each successive use of Enchanted Moulinet will increase the potency with a new Elemental animation. Still one button, but more power and varied elemental fun.

Level 84 Balanced Burst (Ability) 90 Second Recast

Basically a combination of Medica and Ley Lines, this ability would require 50 Black and 50 White Mana to activate. It would heal all party members within a 15 yalm range with a potency of 250. A permanent ground effect would also be created beneath the caster that gives the effect of "Harmony" to the RDM for 30 seconds boosting attack power. The "Harmony" effect can be refreshed by reentering the ground effect area. Ideally this would only be used once for the personal attack buff but the raid wide heal could be used for an emergency too albeit at a heavy dps cost.

(I imagine we would build both our guages to 90 minimum, use Balanced Burst for the buff to drop our guages to 40, and then Manfication to hit 80 for the melee combo. I have no clue how that affects high end raiders tho.)

Level 87 Seek Sanctuary (Ability) 30 Second Recast

Teleport up to 35 yalms to the Balanced Burst Ground Effect. With proper placement it gives the RDM even more options to maintain uptime.

Level 90 Perfect Harmony (Ability) 120 Second Recast

While standing in the Balanced Burst Ground Effect the RDM will be able to revitalize their spirit causing both Black and White Mana to steadily increase. Ability is canceled upon movement or taking a new action.

Basically the same gameplay but shiny new toys in the form of more utility, mobility, and gauge building in down time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Hell, if it did even half the things for RDM that Fracture did for Monk (adding soft-CD access to a non-positional skill AND a rotational +1 mod, atop a ppgcd bonus, per ~18 seconds), I think we'd be happy. But it's a matter of context. If it does nothing more than the ppgcd bonus, it merely makes RDM feel slower to ramp up.

---

Fracture may have been a boon for MNK, but was a waste of a GCD for the class that learned it (MRD/WAR), which is what I was getting at.

Quote:

---

Again, though, is that fun?

---

So this is where you lose me. Fun is a subjective thing, and I consider it a cowardly way to try to justify a design (hence why I've taken umbrage with WoW's devs when they made changes to classes under the guise of "fun", as said changes often turn out to be anything but). Putting something together and expecting people to find it fun is like a professional wrestler that comes up with a gimmick and expects it to get over with the crowd. Neither is a sure thing, and to count on it is basically counting your chickens before they hatch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grimoire-M

The exact style of DoT I would want on Red Mage is one that allows it to use mana of one type now to gain more mana over time, without interrupting your regular dualcast sequences, giving you a reason to use it over Reprise. My concern with the idea is whether it should rely on two mechanics we don’t have use for currently: intentionally unbalancing your mana, and converting mana of one type into another. The unbalanced state just acts as a punishment mechanic at the moment, but granting access to an ability to immediately escape that state does give it a use case, and would also allow us to apply a soft cooldown to the use of these DoTs to limit their uptime.

---

Well, the issues to address are that a) you're currently not going to imbalance unless it's on purpose, b) RDM is already built with not having perfect parity between mana bars in mind because of how Verflare and Verholy are designed, c) messing with mana accumulated has the risk of delaying the spender phase which means lower DPS potential. That aside, it being an alternative to Jolt makes sense, though it might require some adjustments because of the rules RDM is designed around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stormcaster

- Will a tick happen as I was about to use Manafication? If you're at 48/49 and you want to Manafication NOW, the DoT would overcap your mana when you Manafication.

---

Wouldn't the existence of this hypothetical DoT change how people approach Manafication? I mean in that context, instead of waiting to hit 47-49 mana, there's a chance players would adjust to lower numbers like 43-45 to account for the passively generated mana. At least that what I think would happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

Fracture may have been a boon for MNK, but was a waste of a GCD for the class that learned it (MRD/WAR), which is what I was getting at.

---

It was a potency gain at 4-5 stacks of Deliverance, even at 3. Yes, they should have buffed it further with its MRD-specific trait, but the way it was used was far from a "waste of a GCD".

Quote:

---

So this is where you lose me. Fun is a subjective thing, and I consider it a cowardly way to try to justify a design (hence why I've taken umbrage with WoW's devs when they made changes to classes under the guise of "fun", as said changes often turn out to be anything but).

---

Fun tends to apply from more-or-less objective factors, though, such as the average attractiveness of a job's skills executed and/or relevant to the chosen content. Such tends to increase with intuitiveness, cohesion, and sense of decision-making, and decreases with the opposite. "Traps", especially, fair poorly in perceived quality, whether that be in the skill's use whatsoever, or in likely pitfalls in relying on a particular skill.

To me, I cannot expect that there is anything inherently good about "same as normal, except it delayed and following a different pacing".

Such would not be intuitive (especially in that one's sense of time heavily forms around the GCD, which is far from a consistent 3-second server tick), would not -- especially if a frequently used or "maintained" skill, rather than one leveraged for its less direct effects, such as mobility or banking -- likely add to decision making. And while it's not necessarily incohesive, exactly, such is more likely than it feeling cohesive. Worse, the opportunities for it to feel like a "trap" if tightly leveraged (and if one's not doing so, then, it adds even less to the experience) seem like they'd be pretty significant.

And if fun isn't ultimately the goal, then, what's the point of one's game?

Quote:

---

Neither is a sure thing, and to count on it is basically counting your chickens before they hatch.

---

Honestly, this smacks of "Stop saying the job's underpowered or likely to be clunky just because of its simmed performance and playflow. We won't know until we actually play it." Meanwhile, every time such complaints have surfaced from pre-patch notes, they've been echoed by the larger community almost verbatim with the job's actual release.

Quote:

---

Wouldn't the existence of this hypothetical DoT change how people approach Manafication? I mean in that context, instead of waiting to hit 47-49 mana, there's a chance players would adjust to lower numbers like 43-45 to account for the passively generated mana. At least that what I think would happen.

---

Yes, it'd add resource per minute, but so too would increasing any other, less finnicky, source of Mana generation.

And imagine accidentally hitting (would-be Enchanted) Redoublement .2 seconds before your last per-3-seconds MP tick... Or, heck, just the awkwardness of having to wait for the DoT tick before you finish said combo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

It was a potency gain at 4-5 stacks of Deliverance, even at 3. Yes, they should have buffed it further with its MRD-specific trait, but the way it was used was far from a "waste of a GCD".

---

Was this a conclusion reached retroactively? Pretty much everything I saw at the time pointed to not bother with Fracture and just use your GCDs on combo skills for stacks.

Quote:

---

Such tends to increase with intuitiveness, cohesion, and sense of decision-making, and decreases with the opposite.

---

You're attaching metrics like cohesion and intuitiveness to something subjective like fun, which is something I have a problem with. Cohesion and (to a degree) intuitiveness can be measured because a design might end up being clunky (lack of cohesion) or make little sense at a glance (lack of intuitiveness in the design). Both of these are things you can (and should) design for. Fun, on the other hand, isn't because it is a highly subjective thing. You can have the most cohesive design in the world and still end up with something that won't be fun to a player.

Quote:

---

To me, I cannot expect that there is anything inherently good about "same as normal, except it delayed and following a different pacing".

---

Which is a fair sentiment. Saying the hypothetical DoT would delay resource generation is a strong argument against it, or at least enough to prompt the suggestion be taken back to the drawing table.

Quote:

---

Honestly, this smacks of "Stop saying the job's underpowered or likely to be clunky just because of its simmed performance and playflow. We won't know until we actually play it." Meanwhile, every time such complaints have surfaced from pre-patch notes, they've been echoed by the larger community almost verbatim with the job's actual release.

---

That's a stretch. Despite my not being a fan of sims (or designing classes to the point the only way to gauge performance or determine gear upgrades is to sim), even I can't deny that sims are based on numbers (inherently objective values) and whatever the design brings to the table. That's a far, far cry from using "fun" as an argument for or against something.

I guess the overall point is that one should design for cohesion and intuitiveness. Worrying about whether a mechanic or skill is "fun" doesn't help in the long run because it's not something you can really design around, much less predict from your playerbase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

Was this a conclusion reached retroactively? Pretty much everything I saw at the time pointed to not bother with Fracture and just use your GCDs on combo skills for stacks.

---

No, that was common knowledge among most Warriors I met doing Extreme Trials or higher.

Quote:

---

You're attaching metrics like cohesion and intuitiveness to something subjective like fun, which is something I have a problem with.

---

Then you're effectively barring any meaningful discussion of good design. If aspects like cohesion, readability, intuitiveness, etc., cannot actually connect to whether a design is, on the whole, enjoyable, then they become worthless. There is no other point, ultimately, to design in a video game than for it to be enjoyable -- to be fun.

Quote:

---

Saying the hypothetical DoT would delay resource generation is a strong argument against it, or at least enough to prompt the suggestion be taken back to the drawing table.

---

Honestly, that's one of the few things about it that would be nuetral. After all, every builder-spender system is merely a way to delay throughput. That RDM uses spendable Mana at all, instead of merely strapping a CD onto its melee combo (or, say, 4 charges each consumable by any GCD of the melee combo or Moulinet) is deliberately delaying a vital, iconic part of RDM's playflow.

Quote:

---

That's a far, far cry from using "fun" as an argument for or against something.

---

I'm not pretending to know whether it will, for each person, be fun or not. But we absolutely can guess reasonably at likelihoods, based on what has been well or poorly received both generally and in this game.

Have you met anyone who actually enjoyed getting stuck (seemingly at random or otherwise outside of their control) with a full 2.99-second wait before their first Umbral Ice MP tick, back before Ice spells were made free during AF3 via the Aspect Mastery trait (lv.72)? That is very, very similar to what your MP-ticking DoT would likely cause, in that it uses a separate server tick that therefore does not scale with the GCD (and thereby punishes Spell Speed even more than usual), frequently forcing one among (A) a 3rd-party tracker and specific delays, (B) less-than-optimal play to stay safe, or (C) throughput per rotational string badly skewed any which way by issues of sync that felt outside the player's control.

Look at what people say they like about RDM in practice. Look at what they say they like about it conceptually. Does reliance on server-ticks to milk a maintenance skill align with any of those points of favor? If so, then it may be worth the effort of polishing to get around its likely issues. If not, though...

Quote:

---

Worrying about whether a mechanic or skill is "fun" doesn't help in the long run because it's not something you can really design around, much less predict from your playerbase.

---

I fully disagree. You both can and should predict as much to a worthwhile degree, and both can and should design towards what will more likely be fun.

While you cannot judge the result for any particular individual, you can make reasonable predictions for large enough groups, especially among those with preferences in common. To simply throw your hands into the air and toss random mechanics into the mix, without proportionate regard for the aspects likely to contribute to their users enjoyment, because it "can't be predicted" is merely preemptive failure. It's a shit excuse that acts merely to let developers less understand their players or their designs produced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Then you're effectively barring any meaningful discussion of good design. If aspects like cohesion, readability, intuitiveness, etc., cannot actually connect to whether a design is, on the whole, enjoyable, then they become worthless.

---

A system can be recognized as out of place without having to factor anything other than the elements that compose said design. This is how you notice something feels clunky or doesn't fit in with other gameplay elements and/or the rotation.

Quote:

---

That is very, very similar to what your MP-ticking DoT would likely cause, in that it uses a separate server tick that therefore does not scale with the GCD (and thereby punishes Spell Speed even more than usual), frequently forcing one among (A) a 3rd-party tracker and specific delays, (B) less-than-optimal play to stay safe, or (C) throughput per rotational string badly skewed any which way by issues of sync that felt outside the player's control.

---

Fair enough. I hadn't considered getting stuck waiting for server ticks the way BLM used to wait for Umbral Ice ticks.

Quote:

---

I fully disagree. You both can and should predict as much to a worthwhile degree, and both can and should design towards what will more likely be fun.

---

Since we're disagreeing with each other, I'll share a bit of my thought process with you in hopes of showing you where I'm coming from. When I put any of my designs together, I never ask myself if something will be "fun" because, as I said, fun is a subjective thing. This is what I ask myself:

1) What's the concept of the job I'm trying to build?
2) Are there any precedents to how this class has been implemented?
3) Are there any solid foundations that can be used as a starting point?
3a) Are there any ideas/mechanics from other media/games that can be used as inspiration for this design?
4) How many additional systems (if any) should be attached to the foundation?
5) What do I want the final gameplay to look like?
6) Do the pieces I've picked come together into a cohesive whole?

This has been the thought process for pretty much every writeup I've done here and elsewhere. Do I hope someone will enjoy the design? Definitely. What I don't do is go into these with the mindset that it's going to be fun or that people are gonna love it; that would be delusional at worst and limit one's receptiveness to feedback at best. And as you may know, I like receiving feedback.

inb4 "lol you're not a developer so your methods don't matter"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

inb4 "lol you're not a developer so your methods don't matter"[/HB]

---

Haha, nah. That's a pretty great procedure, so far as I can guess (as I am, likewise, not a developer).

I just tend to add onto it a fair bit more "in practice" stuff:

7) If I were to play this through fights A, B, C, D, E, or F (with these being about as different among serious content as I can imagine, and at least 1 of them adding very new mechanics I'd like to futureproof for)? What would its moment-to-moment decision making be like? What unique affordances might it carry, in practice?
8) Where/what are my major fixtures of attention? How does their prevalence affect what feels particular <job>-like about its playflow?
9) What are some iconic moments likely? How do those, too, influence the apparent "character" of the job as seen through its playflow?
10) What binds, "traps" or notable annoyances might tarnish its resultant playflow?

Quote:

---

A system can be recognized as out of place without having to factor anything other than the elements that compose said design. This is how you notice something feels clunky or doesn't fit in with other gameplay elements and/or the rotation.

---

This is probably down to semantics at this point, but just to clarify....

The way I look at is that you can, but if you take out any respect (as in looking back towards X, or letting X influence your view) for those other areas as you suspect they will proportionately affect player enjoyment, you can easily spend a long time fixing something that won't really matter.

For instance, clunk(iness) sucks regardless, but there's a huge difference between -- to use pre-ShB BLM as example again -- clunk as a threat (chance of being stuck unable to do anything for up to 2.99 seconds) and clunk as something basically unavoidable (or, worse, only faced when optimizing, and with (unlike when you could more or less swap at will between B4 and straight-fire rotations on HW BLM, and could thus plan out when, in a mana tick, your fire rotation would end) little agency in countering the clunk itself, let alone in any engaging sense of said agency.

So, yeah, I'll target those areas of cohesion, identity, etc., separately, too, but I just try to keep in mind what I expect to what extent each is important for the particular thing in question. If big, meaty, deliberate hits is what 90% of players are looking for in a given class, I have to keep that in mind in my improvements towards responsiveness, etc., else the separate factors (responsiveness, cohesion, etc.) might total higher, but I'll have lower engagement overall, at least from my veteran players of that class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duelle

Wouldn't the existence of this hypothetical DoT change how people approach Manafication? I mean in that context, instead of waiting to hit 47-49 mana, there's a chance players would adjust to lower numbers like 43-45 to account for the passively generated mana. At least that what I think would happen.

---

On the topic of fun, this is the opposite of fun. RDM already has a layer of doing 'quick maths' on the go to predict where you'll end up after the next pair of actions. It doesn't need a 'Balance Gauge Over Time' effect on top of that to make that more 'fun.'

I like knowing what my resources are, and how much hitting a button will change that resource, and seeing that resource change.

Having a BGoT will not improve that gameplay. And having a BGoT (something that is not fun) in order to justify the addition of a DoT (which is not fun) sounds like bad design that doesn't fit the flow of the job.

Shirrikhan nails the problem immediately:

Quote:

---

Yes, it'd add resource per minute, but so too would increasing any other, less finnicky, source of Mana generation.

And imagine accidentally hitting (would-be Enchanted) Redoublement .2 seconds before your last per-3-seconds MP tick... Or, heck, just the awkwardness of having to wait for the DoT tick before you finish said combo.

---

To add to this. Whether or not your Redoublement is enchanted is based not only on server ticks but latency, because your client also has to know you're at the right balance guage in order to set up the right ability. So you have Server Ticks AND Latency as issues to contend with! You end up in a situation where you either risk the server tick or you potentially overcap.

This is just begging for 'feelsbad' gameplay. Heavensward Design died with Heavensward, let's not ressurect it, guys!

RDM are fine with RDM not having any significant changes, they don’t wanna evolve as they think they’re job is as good as it’ll ever be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gruntler

On the topic of fun, this is the opposite of fun. RDM already has a layer of doing 'quick maths' on the go to predict where you'll end up after the next pair of actions. It doesn't need a 'Balance Gauge Over Time' effect on top of that to make that more 'fun.'

---

And so we bring the subjective back into the discussion instead of discussing changes to the design.

It'd be nice if we could move past nebulous terms and discuss mechanics. If a DoT is a bad idea (aside from trying to use "fun", the fact that it'd slow down mana generation and the issue with server ticks are solid arguments against it), then let's come up with alternatives. I have some in mind, but I'll let someone else make suggestions for this round.

PS: You know what's not fun to me? Seeing the sword & spell hybrid of the FF series spam magic most of the time. Since RDM is currently designed around only swinging its sword once an arbitrary resource milestone is achieved during gameplay (something I hope changes in the future), anything that reduces the number of GCDs spent spamming magic means the part I enjoy will happen more often. Of course, there are some issues that need to be hammered out related to this, on top of addressing how what one finds "fun" may not be "fun" to others. See why trying to use "fun" as an argument leads nowhere?

I think Red Mage is in a good spot honestly. Its fun to play, with a simple rotation but one you need to keep an eye on. I hope, as with all DPS classes, they do not decide to add more blotage to the rotation just for the hell of it.

That said, the one thing I would want is an extra combo to go with AOE. It feels kinda strange, doing our melee combo and then launching our big nukes… yet for AOE, we just get one Spamable attack and thats it. Perhaps they could add in somthing like… doing four Enchanted Moulinet in a row would turn Impact into a much bigger, Shatter-like AOE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archwizard

In RDM's case, just to pick at a few plausible (but not strictly "necessary") openings: expanding Moulinet into a combo (or pseudo-combo), dual-Mana procs or oGCDs to accelerate the main combo without imbalance, or virtually any spell that could fit into our Shortcast-Longcast casting model. All that without having to add a second gauge (and we're one of the few jobs that doesn't have one, or any timers like DoTs or sustained buffs).

---

Two traits, "lingering winds" and "lingering thunder"

Lingering wind leaves a DOT on the ground where you cast verareo 2
Lingering Thunder leaves a DOT on the targets of Verthunder 2


The Aoe's need a tiny bit of spice, maybe this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

[*]Ancient Magic Mastery basically analagous to Lance Mastery so we can do Enchanted Combo > Verflare > Verholy+ > Scorch, or E.Combo > Verholy > Verflare+ > Scorch. This alone would put us 9~12 mana ahead of where we would be after each of our current combos (21 mana gained, minus the cost of an extra GCD during which we would have cast another spell anyway), plus guarantee both procs.[*]A trait that replaces Veraero II and Verthunder II with Verwater and Verblizzard. For example, casting Veraero II could have a 50% chance to upgrade your next Veraero II to Verwater, dealing higher damage and generating 2 extra mana.[*]A mastery trait that upgrades the single target spells to tier III versions for additional damage.

---

What if the upgrades only happened while the bar was above 50% So we'd have to pick, do we use the combo NOW, or get a hit or two more in, specially if the upgraded spells have useful bonuses....