I don't know why, but when I read "happy middle ground for both sides," I thought of something interesting. It's an unrefined idea, and would need a lot of talk, but what if Bard got their own "Diurnal Sect" and "Nocturnal Sect"? I'm going to call them: "Hunter's Rhyme" and "Minstrel's Rhyme."Quote:
Originally Posted by wild-eyes
Hunter's Rhyme is basically what we have now: Has you using actions like Apex Arrow, Refulgent Arrow, Empyreal Arrow, and Pitch Perfect to do higher selfish DPS like an Archer.
Minstrel's Rhyme changes these actions to musical abilities that support like how Dancer functions. You lose out on a large chunk of selfish DPS, but you gain a lot of additional DPS through padding.
I can immediately see this being a tightrope of a balancing act as you would want them both to essentially contribute an equal amount of DPS ultimately, but this strategy could be done without needing to add another job. Just make Bard able to flex between a bow-focused fighter and a song-focused fighter.
A Bard Thought
Printable View
-
08-13-2019, 05:44 AMty_taurus
-
08-13-2019, 06:13 AMLunaFaelynOMG! This is brilliant! Both sides win! Please let SE see this to get their creative juices flowing on how to fix what I am calling "the bard community divided".Quote:
Originally Posted by ty_taurus
-
08-13-2019, 06:24 AMVivi_BushidoThis sounds great on paper but wouldn't end very well. First and foremost, DPS are selfish. It's just the honest blunt truth. It would be like RDM with Embolden all over. Bards would try to stay in Hunter's Rhyme for as long as they're physically able to before someone calls them out to change. People already hate how DNC has to stop DPSing to buff everyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by ty_taurus
-
08-13-2019, 06:27 AMCetonis
Oh god please no. There's no need to run all the way to the most extreme, craziest ideas possible.
The masses were content with Stormblood Bard, flavor wise. You don't need to do anything more extreme than SB Bard. And all SB Bard was, was a music-themed archer, with some support skills that that provided the second or third-most added raid damage.
That's all they need to do. Keep it as-is, add some ~400-800 dps worth of support via abilities that are interesting and engaging to use, buff the other ranged in turn because all three are behind anyway. Maybe do some QoL cleanup, do something for those poor badping MCHs, call it a day. Easy. -
08-13-2019, 12:10 PMty_taurusFirst of all, yes there are a thousand ways this could end badly because the two forms need to be on equal footing otherwise the players that choose the weaker path will be chastised for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi_Bushido
But I do want to challenge you on the selfish DPS aspect. I love Dancer. I love stopping to DPS in order to dance. I don't want to play a selfish DPS. That's not the kind of player I am. And that's not the kind of player that the fans of the Bard identity are either. They also want to focus on support. I posted several ways to include a separate job so that both selfish DPS rangers and support DPS bards can both have their fantasy job without needing to compromise. This is another way that could be handled if done correctly. It wouldn't be easy, and it would need A LOT of planning to make it functional, but I promise you there would be a lot of people who would play in Minstrel's Rhyme exclusively in a world where it functions equally to Hunter's Rhyme.
"Content" and "Tolerant" aren't the same as "Happy with" though. We've become accustomed to current Bard, but that doesn't mean fans of the Bard Fantasy don't want to see an actual Bard get introduced. As I mentioned several times before, I don't want to erase the Ranger-in-Bard's Clothing build we have because there are players who want to have a dedicated Archer. All I want is for there to be a future where both fans of archery classes and fans of music classes can both have something they're happy with without needing to compromise a portion of their fantasy so that the other can have theirs. I'm tired of this tug-of-war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cetonis
-
08-13-2019, 02:56 PMLunaFaelynThank you. You put into words what I was thinking. I often have trouble conveying my thoughts into words. But I'm going to try a little.Quote:
Originally Posted by ty_taurus
I don't want to be a selfish dps either and that comment just irritated me. I don't hold on to embolden as a red mage either. I hit it when melees do there buffs even if I can't do my melee combo. I hated dancer at first because it felt like it took away all the things I loved about bard. But then I gave it a chance and got dancer to 80 and I finally had the joy of being a support dps back. I love healing and buffing the group. It makes me happier than any big damage I could do myself. I tired them all and bard and astro was where I felt best up until ShB.
I just want everyone to get to live out their fantasy in ff14. I'm tired of the tug of war. SE even describes the job as "In time, their impassioned songs came to hold sway over the hearts of men, inspiring their comrades to great feats and granting peace unto those who lay upon the precipice of death." Which sounds like support. I would gladly sacrifice my own personal dps just to get my support kit back. But your idea sounded like a way to please everyone just make stances and you can play the job the way you want to. It's the easiest way to do it without having to make 2 jobs. -
08-13-2019, 03:13 PMty_taurusI will say that having the Archer and Music aspects being two permanent stances is only easier in terms of application. I would argue it would be much harder to balance than adding a new job. Unlike Nocturnal and Diurnal stances, which have two alternate methods of healing, which largely is determined by your co-healer, having two different ways to DPS means that both methods must equal EXACTLY the same amount of DPS, otherwise one stance becomes flat better than the other and players who choose the weaker one will be shamed. With offensive support tools, this becomes nearly impossible to gauge as raising another party member's DPS by X% is a nebulous value whereas flat damage from your selfish stance is clearly defined.Quote:
Originally Posted by LunaFaelyn
I can think of one fairly cheap and easy way to get around this problem: make the support equate to flat damage. Instead of something like Standard/Technical step where you're boosting ally damage by a %, maybe you have songs that do a flat total amount of damage. Let's say we bring back Foe's Requiem and have it replace Refulgent Arrow under Minstrel's Rhyme.
Refulgent Arrow normally deals a potency of 340. So Instead of Foe's Requiem causing the target to take more damage, it applies 17 stacks of Foe's Requiem to the enemy. Whenever the enemy is attacked with a Spell or Weaponskill, a Stack is consumed, dealing 20 potency damage. But then you have to find an extra effect for Foe's Requiem that justifies the 'over time' aspect to the attack. If it's literally just Refulgent Arrow's damage, but over time, then Minstrel's is just slower, i.e. weaker. And if the damage is higher or faster than Refulgent Arrow, then Foe's becomes better.
What I'm getting at is that the stance concept is something that would require a lot of planning to achieve successfully. That, or you move the game into requiring a Support slot so that Minstrel's Rhyme is required when your team doesn't have a Dancer, but that has 2 major problems also. First of all, forcing a support DPS is the opposite of what virtually everyone in the game wants, devs and players alike. Second, it then forces Bards to adapt to the stance based on the team, which is not really the point of the concept. The idea is that you aren't forced to play a ranger when you want to be a bard, and vice versa. -
08-13-2019, 04:54 PMSunivaHey~! I had a similar idea ! I thought it would be crazy, but it's nice to see that I am not the only one reaching for something like this to try and appease both kinds of play styles that have divided the bard camp over the years. I feel that as the game has become more popular since 2.0 and attracted more players, this would eventually come to a boiling point where people want the bard to play more like a ranger simply because of how other games have designed classes that wield a bow and arrow. I, personally, read up on how bard was way back in 1.0-2.0 and decided to go with it because I loved the idea of bringing the supportive element to my group at the cost of my overall dps and was/is completely and totally fine with it. Then you have players that come to the game that are not so much interested in the lore or even the history of "jobs" and just want to see big numbers, them bring the "big d dps".Quote:
Originally Posted by ty_taurus
I don't know. But as someone who has played right after 1.0 destroyed the world of Eoroza up until now, the "bard" player base has seem to have attracted both kinds of players: those who enjoy being and bringing a supportive element to their parties, as the name "bard" implies and those who have enjoyed bow and arrow type ranged classes in other games and like a more "selfish" dps play style. It seems hard to balance but in all honesty, adding a sort of "ranger" form and "bard" form could appease both of the camps without having to do major changes or even adding another class to the game. I find that it would be a nice way to keep both camps overall satisfied. And while I DO see that groups that enjoy pushing through savage content would PREFER an actual "bard" that provides group wipe buffs, it still leaves the ability for those who prefer to be more ranger focused the ability to contribute in terms of their overall dps.
I hope that SE can find a way to appease both sides. This was inevitable as the game became more popular and now we are finally here. I stand firmly on the side of the camp that feels that my overall job identity has been lost to make the class "easier" and appeasing to newer players and very, VERY much dislike it. I want my songs to bring a supportive element to the group, I want to manage songs such as Foe's Requiem in between fights. My opinion is one where I enjoyed the class because of it's unique play style and how we HAD to be aware of how the fights were progressing to "sing" the proper songs for our party depending on the circumstances. I've been playing since our limit break was the group wide rez shared with healers and when it was changed to what is now laughed at how it worthless it was compared to what it was before (Honestly, how many fights have been designed that make a range LB preferred to use rather than a melee one?). I understand that there are many others that may not agree with me, but at the same time, I cannot and will not be satisfied that the class I have played for 6 years has now been reduced to a form of selfish dps for the sake of making it easier to play and more appeasing to newer players. Sorry, but I truly feel that it is completely unfair to ignore a portion of the player base that truly enjoyed bard for it's supportive elements and to nuke it to the ground in order to make way for those who don't.
Sorry if you read this and don't agree with me. But at the end of the day, after all is said and done, I want bard to BE a bard, and not a ranger. If I wanted to bring "big d dps" I would play a class more focused on doing just that, like machinist, or monk, or dragoon. (Take a look at my character if you want and see for yourself.) -
08-13-2019, 05:07 PMHyoMinParkThe issue with you advocating for AST-like Sects on BRD is that they would never be balanced. That is something AST has struggled with since it was released in 3.0: Diurnal is always better than Nocturnal unless one is solo-healing Savage/Ultimate, where shields would be needed. Your idea would likely leave BRD in a similar state, where one stance is always preferred and the other is blatantly underpowered by comparison (Noct Sect is essentially a trash, less MP-efficient SCH; where as Diurnal is as decent as a WHM).Quote:
Originally Posted by ty_taurus
You can’t have a heavily support-oriented “Sect” without risking it affecting the balance currently between the physical ranged—which has been an issue in the past. MCH wasn’t terrible in SB, but it didn’t offer nearly the same kind of rDPS contributions that BRD could. Coupled with how god-awful it could be to play at higher latencies, BRD was blatantly favored because it could do everything a MCH could and more. And it had the bow & arrow aesthetic people love while not feeling horrible to play at higher ping. Giving BRD an rDPS buffing/padding stance risks upsetting this balance and tilting the scales in favor of the job while leaving the other two sort of hanging out on the sidelines. Conversely, if they don’t make the rDPS stance “worth it enough”, then it becomes the useless stance (Nocturnal), and you will be required to use your damage stance more often than not.
You could also end up with the DNC situation: where your personal damage is much lower to compensate your rDPS contributions. DNC can provide 1,600+ in rDPS buffs compared to BRD’s ~400 with Battle Voice, but their personal damage is much lower. Almost to the point where some players are dissatisfied because they feel weak, and others harbor misconceptions that the job cannot clear content and begin locking them out of Party Finders (unfortunately, I have seen instances of this already on Aether in E3S and E4S PFs—they’re doing the same thing with NIN, as well). Trick Attack is directly hurting NIN right now because of “how much it can give”, and it’s to the point where a lot of NINs are asking for it to be removed entirely.
In short, there is a huge balancing act required for this sort of idea. And, unfortunately, it’s not as easy as it seems. Given the way developers want to tax high rDPS with lower pDPS, I would hate to see them push BRD into a position like what DNC and NIN are in currrently: where their utility is either bordering on or actively hurting the jobs (in other words: DNC could stand potency buffs to bring it up a bit and NIN is just in a right state at the moment). I think this design philosophy is flawed—because I think you can find better ways to balance; and I think one can have decent rDPS contributions without taxing pDPS too heavily. But I’m not a game designer. I also know that AST has struggled with these two different stances/identities since its inception, and I don’t feel confident that your BRD wouldn’t undergo the same struggle.
Your declarations of wanting an “actual BRD” are unlikely to happen—because I’m interpreting “actual BRD” as something similar to XI, where they were closer to pure support as opposed to the hybrid that they have been in XIV. This game could not fit in a pure support-type role, nor would I want it to.
I’d be more than happy with an iteration of BRD similar to 4.x BRD: bring back Foe’s, allow it to be flexible in terms of function; and I’d honestly be happy with a bit more resource management on BRD as they had in the past (e.g., MP recovery a la Refresh) but I know that that’s unlikely to happen given how most jobs seem to be responsible for their own resource management now. Add in some QoL adjustments like charges on BL and maybe EA, as well as a functionality change on Apex, and I’d be fairly happy. I don’t have any desire to be 100% support. -
08-13-2019, 05:27 PMSuniva
True. There is no denying that savage groups would overall prefer to bring a player that is comfortable with playing in bard form; however, it would still give the player base a kind of wiggle room to play the class however they wish to play it and still make it viable. SE has already stated and it has been demonstrated that you don't HAVE to bring one specific class or another to clear savage content. I personally feel that it should not be necessary to change since bard is named bard and therefore their core identity is to provide supportive elements to their party at the cost of personal dps. Period. No ifs ands or buts. But I also understand that there are others that play the class and while they enjoy the play style, don't agree with the supportive elements because of how they are used to bow and arrow type classes in other games.
There has got to be a way for us to find a sort of equilibrium between the two play styles and while this idea may be rough around the edges, it seems to be something that would overall be easier to implement rather than adding a whole new class or massive reworking of our tool-kit.
:shrug: