This! I'd love to be able to save 2 keybinds reserved for Play and Crown Play!
Since there's no gameplay reason to not play a card you're holding (and if you really want to, you can use undraw), I'd love to see these streamlined.
Printable View
If it is 100% optional, is guaranteed to not give an advantage or disadvantage and turned off by default, I don't see how more options hurt anyone.
However, I do have less trust in the programming. For example, many Fighting Games that added block or dash buttons (which is usually done with the D-Pad or equivalent) had those not using these play sub-optimal due to suddenly possible option selects caused by unprecise programming. So unless 100% parity is guaranteed, I'd rather we not take the risk. But assuming it could be achieved, nothing wrong with options.
As for how I personally feel about it: In dungeons and other content that doesn't require me to have a brain to begin with, I'd rather have a more involved rotation cause it is the only thing preventing you from falling asleep right then and there. Meanwhile, in high-end content, being able to minutely manipulate your rotation is usually what optimisation ends up being all about. So I would hate having my abilities condensed, which is why it would be so important to give parity and make it optional only.
To use DRG as an example since it was brought up: Sure, it has some of the longest combos in the game, but that actually gives it the ability to pull some neat optimisation in non-faceroll content. For example, one of the two common TEA openers would abort its combo after a few GCDs in order to be able to place a DoT on the Liquid Hand the moment it appeared. To optimise damage before that, a DRG would do the first half of its DoT combo and then the first half of its non-DoT combo.
All of this kind of makes me wonder whether removing direct access to those buttons altogether, even if optional, would be a good idea, since in that situation people playing with condensed combos would actually be at a disadvantage. The devs would have to come up with some smart system to prevent that from happening.
On a side note, sure, DRG has long combos, but it's not like it suffers from button bloat so I don't think they should tackle that one first.
My setup has multiple Dragon Sight buttons, multiple potion buttons, LB, separate buttons for High Jump and Mirage Dive cause I don't use the new condensation of those, and bring two True Thrusts to separate my combos more neatly and I still have enough empty spaces on my hotbar to cleanly separate different areas on it.
Meanwhile, on AST even with just role actions, LB and a single ress button I have 3 space left, with not potions anywhere in sight. Though I suppose AST doesn't have any combos that could be condensed, other than perhaps draw buttons being rolled into one...
Ah, the legendary "Go play [X]".
That is always a salient point to make. Why even bother having the boards? Unless we meet your backwards and arrogant expectation, you're not allowed to have an opinion. Get off your high horse, you intellectual deficit. We both know Savages have been consistently poorer and poorer with how loud your lot cries it out. And it's not like basic pattern recognition is some monstrous task.
I beat Malenia in Elden Ring, so I'm going to say that compensates for the "difficulty" of "move slightly to the left and 1-2-3 1-2-3 1-2-3" and call you a brainlet. Easy come, easy goes.
I'm ok with it being optional as long as folks who request it don't go further and go "since we have free slot on hotbar now give us more actions to press" then screw some players like me who like the feel of 1-2-3 pressing.
I don't think healers want 1-2-3 either, is the thing. They simply want more to do in general. In fact, it's likely this problem won't be solved with a 1-2-3 combo either because they'd still be in the situation of pressing Glare, but in more steps. More situational buttons or buttons with more impact is usually what's desired as opposed to mountains of oGCDs that do the same thing. The 1-1-1 of healers is more the method of the problem, but not the root of it.