New Missaphenchair video makes great point about the direction of job design

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

You'll be fighting the status quo in either case, and creating a talent system is far more resource intensive than simply unpruning and/or revising skills for increased use-cases and increasing gap between a kit's floor and ceiling (as to be "easy to use, difficult to master").

---

True, but again, they've already decided not to take that road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

You won't avoid protests of "<X player/class/job/spec/build> that requires more work can produce more than me/my job/my build!!!" regardless.

---

True, but by removing the subjectivity and the by-player variance from the comparison points, it'd go a long way towards mitigating such complaints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Better then, to have mostly accessible kits, a few skills among which more casual players just bemoan the complexity of and leave untouched or off their bars than to simply have one's pick of working harder for roughly the same throughput or leaving complexity equally low as, if not lower than, it is now.

---

Again, this is sidestepping the entire concept - we aren't talking about a few niche skills - we're talking about meaningful changes to how the job plays that either removes or adds complexity on a per-skill basis. If someone loves playing bard, but hates managing dots, having a weaker dot that they never have to refresh is a much more accessible alternative to "just don't use dots then I guess". Likewise, such a player might hate having to manually manage their song rotation - maybe there could be an option where the songs just rotate automatically - 100% uptime, but at the loss of optimizing the right song for the right situation. There are endless examples of how the game could be dumbed-down, and the reason to give them as options is to prevent them from being forced on us as non-options, which is what the trend has been. Your argument is essentially that they can add depth and nuance via good design, and you're right, but that isn't what they've been doing - they've been looking for a happy medium between 2 disparate player groups, and my suggestion is that instead of looking for a middle ground, they could just give both groups options and let players self-select their desired complexity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjbeagle

True, but again, they've already decided not to take that road.

---

They also already long since decided not to take the customization route.

Though leashed slightly for a bit due to player protest, that was the first change Yoshida wanted to make: He immediately removed the "Build your own job" concept that originally anchored the Armory System (and its initial separation of Proficiency Ranks on classes from the player's more general Character Level) in favor of standard jobs whose largest viable choices involved trading out one auxiliary, barely useful utility for another (say, Featherfoot for Keen Flurry).

Quote:

---

True, but by removing the subjectivity and the by-player variance from the comparison points, it'd go a long way towards mitigating such complaints.

---

But this wouldn't mitigate those complaints. No more greatly or uniquely, at any rate.

If one's job/build has a higher skill ceiling for which one can be rewarded, the aforementioned type of player complain of having things expected of them that they don't want to bother with.

If another's job/build has a higher ceiling and therefore outperforms, the aforementioned type of player will complain about either (A) imbalance or (B) that they are expected to switch to a job that would expect of them things they don't want to bother with.

If one's job/build has a higher skill ceiling for which it is not rewarded, a majority of players may well complain about being expected to play a job/build they like less (because its in-practice performance is expected to be higher during progression due to its having greater ease of play despite equal throughput).

Quote:

---

Your argument is essentially that they can add depth and nuance via good design, and you're right, but that isn't what they've been doing - they've been looking for a happy medium between 2 disparate player groups, and my suggestion is that instead of looking for a middle ground, they could just give both groups options and let players self-select their desired complexity.

---

And, again, my concern is simply that such is not any more a middle ground than simply better designing jobs to have a more accessible floor and a higher ceiling. Both will be complained of.

Depth is something the actual battle/job devs have appeared to be against, though it is admittedly difficult to tell where intent ends and miscalculation begins. But builds are something that even Yoshida himself was explicitly against, considering convoluted and foolish, since 1.x.

Quote:

---

Again, this is sidestepping the entire concept - we aren't talking about a few niche skills

---

Agreed. I mentioned the "niche" skills as, after revision in the style of "lower (skill/effort-requirement) floor, higher ceiling", what the most complaintive players could most point fingers at and yell "bloat!" for... simply having not remotely figured out how to utilize them. That would not be the whole of the change, merely the necessary salient thread... that some would inevitably tug on.

Quote:

---

If someone loves playing bard, but hates managing dots, having a weaker dot that they never have to refresh is a much more accessible alternative to "just don't use dots then I guess". Likewise, such a player might hate having to manually manage their song rotation - maybe there could be an option where the songs just rotate automatically - 100% uptime, but at the loss of optimizing the right song for the right situation. There are endless examples of how the game could be dumbed-down, and the reason to give them as options is to prevent them from being forced on us as non-options, which is what the trend has been.

---

A tangent: Of late, one would think of late that all but one part of this would already be addressed by plugins...

I get what you mean. I would perhaps argue, though, if a particular tool is so dispensable from a kit that the job would feel fine and thematic in a build that avoids it entirely... perhaps it ought not to be core and obligatory.

Let's take Bard's DoTs, for example. Though minor (only ~190% of a filler's damage each, reapplied only once per 45s), they will be obligatory and their maintenance (even if not their damage, exactly) core so long as their only resource cost is filler ppgcds. But consider if, say, they consumed Wild Quiver or whatever sort of shared resource. You could then, potentially, flex towards or away from using DoTs. It won't provide for sighs "Oh, thank god, I don't even have a DoT in my Actions & Traits pane," true, but it would allow one to ignore it, keeping it equally (or more) minor contributor for those who'd rather not DoT even while allowing it to be and feel more potent to those who do want to make use of them -- and also actually making DoTs more interesting by way of competing usage.

They're two different approaches. I don't think either is any more likely than to other to be put into practice. I suspect we'll just each end up following/advocating our own preferences in this.

It already takes zero effort to play any of the current jobs passably enough to clear normal. Just ignore all optimization then. Hell, ignore your rotation beyond your GCD combo, press cooldowns totally randomly. It doesn't matter if you don't keep dying to encounter mechanics, there are no DPS checks to speak of. How much more simple can you possibly want? Because you aren't actually asking for it to be easier. You are asking not to feel bad for playing worse than players who do put in the effort.

The only thing you can do super wrong as a DPS is using single target attacks in dungeon pulls. That's it. Go play easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

They're two different approaches. I don't think either is any more likely than to other to be put into practice. I suspect we'll just each end up following/advocating our own preferences in this.

---

Agree to disagree on a bunch of points guess, but to be clear my preference would be the same as yours - the only reason I'm even suggesting something like this is because the devs aren't doing it. I understand that they chose standardization over "builds", but the biggest reason to do that would be to ensure solid balance between jobs, and having ease vs performance choices within a job doesn't compromise cross-job balance - or really even intra-job balance - the inequalities are intentional and based on a singular variable independent of the rest of the "build", so they'd be trivial to tune. Regardless, it's all moot anyway - not like they're going to implement more player choices one way or the other. Thanks for the volley - I appreciate when people actually reply thoughtfully even when (especially when?) we disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

They also already long since decided not to take the customization route.

---

I would have loved this.

" Ya, but instead of Skill-trees FFXIV has Job swapping" great, less depth and zero choice. I'll take Samurai as example with optional skills/options you could toggle on and off. Examples

• Tenka Goken Circular or Cone ?
• Shoha Cone or Single Target ?
• Guren radius longer or wider hitbox ?
• Want Different Animations for specific skills?
• Or want Classic animations for specific skills?
• Yaten backdash to be further or shorter?
• Shinten potency increased or decreased?
• In exchange for Gyoten potency increased or decreased?
• Gyoten cooldown decrease or its range increased?
• Want potency increased passively on skills? and Kaiten removed?
• Or not? and deal slightly more damage with Kaiten casts?

Entire new skill-tree's? No. Small personalized customizations within a Job. Example, I hate Tenkan Goken Circular AoE update, I prefer to keep Cone. Give me that option. You prefer new Circle? you can choose, win win. Why can't we choose? Why can't summoners choose to summon the eden versions of their summon or Eden instead of Bahamut ( i don't freaking know... btw I play SAM =__=; )

Is every option going to be viable? yes. Optimal? no. Close in performance? if kept simple, yes. BiS skilltree? probably. Just a hint of options and choice.But the direction = Simplicity and it has benefits. Such as

• Optimal Balancing benefit
• Optimal Development benefits
• Optimal less Testing skills needed to be tested
• 1 optimal way to gear jobs
• 1 optimal way to play jobs

But there's no choice.

I cannot pick within a Job on how I want certain skills, I just can't. I am not talking about Midare hitting for 20.000 potency cutting the moon in half from Limsa... no... I mean that we have to accept every change, without option of keeping what we used to have, even tiny things. That's just what it is. And it sucks when an update to your skill(s) or job(s) arrive and you don't like them? but there's no option in that Job to go for. You're stuck with those changes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CelestiCer

" Ya, but instead of Skill-trees FFXIV has Job swapping" great, less depth and zero choice. I'll take Samurai as example with optional skills/options you could toggle on and off. Examples:

---

Please forgive me if some of these seem nit-picks, but many of these examples illustrate many of the pitfalls likely within customization at the fine/minute end.

Quote:

---

Tenka Goken Circular or Cone ?

---

Why not just give a skill for each, circular and conal? (You know, for those who'd rather sacrifice range for... well, not really anything of value? Weirder VFX, I guess?)

We could then put the conal one on our hotbars if we want conal. Put the circular on our hotbar if we want circular. Or slot both for all anyone cares.

Quote:

---

Shoha Cone or Single Target ?

---

This ultimately just ends up just having a best choice each for dungeons or raids. Take <AoE option> for <content in which having the AoE option could shave more time than having the ST option>. Otherwise, take <ST option>.

(If done in typical XIV fashion, look forward to going to the inn and spending a consumable each time you want to swap between having an AoE meditation spender or your full ST/raid dps.)

Quote:

---

Guren radius longer or wider hitbox ?

---

Same as above, though at least no one would have (reason) to bother with it.

Quote:

---

Want Different Animations for specific skills?

---

Skill glams could still be done without having builds/gameplay built around them.

Quote:

---

Or want Classic animations for specific skills?

---

Same as above.

Quote:

---

Yaten backdash to be further or shorter?

---

Or... or, find a way to allow us client-side cancel fixed-distance dashes wherever (i.e., at whatever distance) we want.

Quote:

---

Shinten potency increased or decreased? In exchange for Gyoten potency increased or decreased?

---

There are only two truly viable possibilities here: (A) choosing to increase Gyoten's potency is a net damage increase, so it's then obliged to be used on cooldown but at cost to mobility (essentially, your damage decreases whenever you hold Gyoten for mobility) or (B) the Gyoten buff is never worth taking. This is a case where the given "small personalized customization" can be detrimental unless given enough context and weight to actually be appealing, rather than merely "Do I want a complete toolkit, or a smidgen more damage?"

Quote:

---

Gyoten cooldown decrease or its range increased?

---

Not really a relevant choice to any context. Two charges, though, might be.

Quote:

---

Want potency increased passively on skills? and Kaiten removed?

---

Now we're talking. That choice makes sense. Its extensive and impactful enough to feel complete and doesn't outright sacrifice functionality.

_____________

However, that last one is also probably the only one for which talents or talent-like customization make sense. Skill glams need have no connection to it. Nor do AoE shapes. And the remainder end up as either auto-picks (A for dungeons, B for raids) or pointless.

Generally, if you want to include customization beyond mere skill-shaping (the likes of "minor glyphs" in WoW), it's best to do so in a more curated fashion such that the options do not sacrifice functionality (hamstringing any general capacity within the kit) but are also at least decently significant and (self-)fitting changes.

__________

Quote:

---

And it sucks when an update to your skill(s) or job(s) arrive and you don't like them? but there's no option in that Job to go for.

---

The more direct lesson there is to not force unasked for changes of zero benefit upon one's players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amh_Wilzuun

It’s okay that some jobs aren’t for everyone

---

I don't like that statement just as blunt. It sucks if you really LOVE a job's aesthetics and fantasy but can't play because the skill floor is too high, let alone the ceiling.

In the ideal world (in my opinion), every job's skill floor should be accessible, with the full potential under a medium to high skill ceiling, and the final rdps being (mostly) dictated by that... Makes sense that a very high skill ceiling is rewarded with better dps, and that's why I like BLM. The actual job is quite simplistic, however I feel that BLM is the hardest job to play because you basically have a separate high skill ceiling for every fight, since your performance is ultimately dependent on knowing when is what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikai

I don't like that statement just as blunt. It sucks if you really LOVE a job's aesthetics and fantasy but can't play because the skill floor is too high, let alone the ceiling.

In the ideal world (in my opinion), every job's skill floor should be accessible, with the full potential under a medium to high skill ceiling, and the final rdps being (mostly) dictated by that... Makes sense that a very high skill ceiling is rewarded with better dps, and that's why I like BLM. The actual job is quite simplistic, however I feel that BLM is the hardest job to play because you basically have a separate high skill ceiling for every fight, since your performance is ultimately dependent on knowing when is what.

---

Every job's skill floor in this game is already accessible. It's the ceiling that varies and that ceiling is what keeps getting lowered.

BLM is almost an unfair example to use for these types of arguments in the game, though. It's a perfect example of floor and ceiling, but that's because it's never been dumbed down for most of the lifespan It's existed for.

Everything else that might've been in that realm of good design has since been altered, shifted, or straight up simplified beyond the scope it had that it's just a shell of it's former self.

SMN and MCH being good dps examples of a job being different. Tanks and Healers being great examples of the floor and ceiling being smashed together until there's just a flat plateau.

Everyone saying there's too much complexity in the game just comes off as not trying enough in my eyes. A game is meant to be played actively. Not passively. If there's no effort, then of course it's not going to go well. I don't mean to meme, but in all honesty all the folks complaining if they really--and I mean Really, want to play the game well, PRACTICE.

Otherwise, as others have pointed out, you can get through 90% of content doing the bare minimum already. That right there is your lowered floor. The bare minimum to succeed. The ceiling is trying to put in effort to do better. Stop asking for that to be lowered with these simplifications.

Oh I think I might've misread some of your post... that came off as really angey/annoyed, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ThorneDynasty

It already takes zero effort to play any of the current jobs passably enough to clear normal. Just ignore all optimization then. Hell, ignore your rotation beyond your GCD combo, press cooldowns totally randomly. It doesn't matter if you don't keep dying to encounter mechanics, there are no DPS checks to speak of. How much more simple can you possibly want? Because you aren't actually asking for it to be easier. You are asking not to feel bad for playing worse than players who do put in the effort.

The only thing you can do super wrong as a DPS is using single target attacks in dungeon pulls. That's it. Go play easy.

---

This is 110% true, spammed nothing but 1 button in content, never got called out for it. It’s worse with healers thanks to how broken tanks like warrior are and still remain broken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjbeagle

You, sir, are exactly the kind of player that makes me think we should have job kit customization via a preference system akin to talents (but nothing like talents seen in most games).

Using bard as an example, would you prefer to have 2 dots, or just 1? If you were to pick just 1, would you pick it even if it meant doing a little lower dps overall?

If you had the option between the 45s dots as they are, or dots that lasted forever so you never had to refresh them, which would you pick? If you'd pick never having to refresh them, would you pick that even if it meant doing a little lower dps overall?

Letting players customize their kits to their preferences in a way that easy is available but hard is rewarding would let players who want easy have easy and players who want challenging have challenging (and be rewarded for it).

It would also allow players to ramp from easy to challenging at whatever rate they're comfortable with (or not at all, for some players).

But more importantly, it would let the devs design and balance in a way that can appease the entire easy-to-challenging spectrum instead of having to find a happy medium - let the players find their own happy medium by adding as much or as little complexity as they want.

---

I do like talents if done right. Rift online or old WoW. But what you thinking, I might know?

I would go for 1 dot but Bard does have iron jaw but to the 2nd part I want to last still last the same as it is. Apply dot 'iron jaw' before a song switch helps with my flow. Just reapply the dots I can forget espelly if I'm running from death. Truthfully, remove of Iron and one dot to be replace with some sort of hard hitting spell would be better I would think but Bard kit need though crit dots. Bard need a rework if that happens.
In other games I've talent different non-meta stuff as it was passive and/or flow better for me.

I thought about what if we had talents/preference system. Get two options on few abilities. About the same damage (balance) give or take what they do.
Let use RDM scorch. Option one put a dot on main target or option 2 small increase damage to target and aoe. As a example.

I agree. Maybe in the future. That idea could help with button bloat. Even not.
I don't hate FF14 or the bloat. I like easy doesn't mean I'll stop playing. I at first hate bard but now it my main and that not because its meta. I just like ish bow/archer classes in game. lol

They don't need to spend a ton of development time making talent trees or anything, they just need to implement a better skill ceiling gradient in the current jobs. 99% of humans are entirely capable of learning and maximizing BLM for example, just 98% don't want to whether they're too lazy, or don't like casting, or whatever other reason. For example complaints like this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikai

I don't like that statement just as blunt. It sucks if you really LOVE a job's aesthetics and fantasy but can't play because the skill floor is too high, let alone the ceiling.

In the ideal world (in my opinion), every job's skill floor should be accessible, with the full potential under a medium to high skill ceiling, and the final rdps being (mostly) dictated by that... Makes sense that a very high skill ceiling is rewarded with better dps, and that's why I like BLM. The actual job is quite simplistic, however I feel that BLM is the hardest job to play because you basically have a separate high skill ceiling for every fight, since your performance is ultimately dependent on knowing when is what.

---

This individual does a good job pointing out BLM as an ideal floor-ceiling gap for a complex-leaning job. However..."can't" play a job because its skill floor is too high? What job has ever been prohibitively difficult for a normally functioning human being? I could accept "I like this job fantasy, but don't want to put in the effort to learn it because it's too hard" because then at least the complaint is honest. Of course my response could easily be: are you playing EX or above? No? Congratulations your performance literally doesn't matter (for dps/tanks, it matters essentially only for healers and the collective party these days).

Even if reaching the ceiling is important to casual players, why should they get to dictate it universally? Why should players who want a job they can put a lot of time into improving be cast aside entirely? The obvious answer is they shouldn't. More jobs should just be designed better. Unfortunately only BLM seems to get this privilege.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Now we're talking. That choice makes sense. Its extensive and impactful enough to feel complete and doesn't outright sacrifice functionality.

---

That's literally the choice that sparked this entire concept btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raikai

I don't like that statement just as blunt. It sucks if you really LOVE a job's aesthetics and fantasy but can't play because the skill floor is too high, let alone the ceiling.

---

I love black mage's aesthetic. I love its animations, how its relics look, and how it flows through battle. But I can't play it because I'm not good enough. You know what my response is? "Oh well, maybe I'll practice it some day." I don't ask on the forums for it to be made easier, I don't beg yoshida to chop its knees off for my sake. The response to someone complaining about the barrier to entry for a job being too high should be a universal "Kick rocks or git gud."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CKNovel

In fact, who asks for free space on their hotbar? As far as I know there's 1 controller player out of 20 who's complaining about not having enough space.

---

The issue with controllers isn't so much space it's more layout. Where to put a skill on the xhb that actually makes sense and flows without requiring a bucket ton of trigger juggling.. one skill can add 4 button presses if you have to release a trigger tap r1 to swap sets. Press the trigger again. And then press r1 again to swap back after activating the skill.

Some jobs feel very well designed around this. Smn for example you can set up the xhb in such a way that you basically never have to let go of r2 or change sets in a fight. Blm at max level can be the same. Though blm is weird in that it's rotation changes a dozen times at various levels. Warrior at 80 was another haven't gotten it to 90.

But then you have jobs like ninja. Where you have things like the raiju skills and nowhere to put them that makes sense. And 1 skill ends up adding several button presses and feeling clunky because it interrupts the flow of combat..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjbeagle

That's literally the choice that sparked this entire concept btw.

---

I'm aware. But that just goes to show what (or, how narrow a) range of in-class customization tends to be fruitful (not too minor, but not so large as to feel like a different class; significant to playflow, yet somehow disposable to theme).

That range sounds quite wide but, in practice, offers bloated non-decisions (talents either to be swapped thoughtlessly based on the type of content or which are irrelevant regardless of content type) more often than not, unless carefully scrutinized (which has yet to be the case among any talent system I've seen).

More simply put, making good talents and talent systems tends to be even harder than making mixed use-case kits with low floors and high ceilings.

And even then, talent systems' product, short of tremendously opening up the themes of a given class to the point they would otherwise have been multiple, separate, and likely more cohesive entities, is only ever either obfuscation --by feigning choice when only the most demanding build has the full throughput-- or barely-rewarded challenge modes --when the most demanding builds has no more throughput than the less demanding builds.


But here, some counter-examples that should mostly mind that span:

Samurai

• Kaiten or Passive Damage Buffs?
  
  
• Utility Hagakure and Passive Damage Buffs or charged, rotational Hagakure (charging up to 20 Kenki per Sen consumed by the 30s mark)?
  
  
• Tsubame-gaeshi or Passive Damage Buffs?
  
  
• Second charge on Tsubame-gaeshi or slightly greater Tsubame-Gaeshi damage?
  
  
• 2-minute Ikishoten and free Kaeshi: Namikiri or 1-minute Ikishoten and Passive Damage Buffs?

Those each constitute decent playflow-affecting choices, though they still offer compositionally-based best answers (use 2-charge TG if in a raidbuff-dense composition; else single) and so even they aren't great.


And in each of those cases, I'd still rather just expand the use cases for Kaiten, TG, Ikishoten, etc., such that anyone and everyone has access to the deepest build of the job, but using those tools only to X extent would still produce pretty decent throughput.

Think of it like the Tornado Kick rotation in Stormblood either for laggier players or if TK hadn't been quite so ridiculously buffed by the Greased Lightning bug; you still had the considerably effective option of using TK less or not at all, to the point that there were still purple parses that ignored the new tech for months.

The only thing the talents do is to remove any... guilt(?) of using only 70, 80, 90, 95, etc. percent of one's kit. But in doing so, you then force the 70% depth kit (likely more like 40% depth, if the "choice" is then used to excuse further options by which to reduce the job's ceiling in those builds) to compete tightly with the 100% depth kit, at which point you're still pushing out the 100% kit or you have the entitled-yet-uninterested up in arms of balance between builds.

If we're going to face that conflict in either case, I'd rather not try, probably in vain, to obfuscate it. Just let each kit be a whole kit, made of easy to use but hard to master parts, and people will each use what part of it they're willing to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Just let each kit be a whole kit, made of easy to use but hard to master parts, and people will each use what part of it they're willing to.

---

Sounds great in theory, but in practice they removed Kaiten. I'd rather such a change be implemented as a preference option that I can opt out of - that's the whole point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjbeagle

Sounds great in theory, but in practice they removed Kaiten. I'd rather such a change be implemented as a preference option that I can opt out of - that's the whole point.

---

And soon, now that you've handed them the reins by calling it a "choice", literally anything else a given player who'd play a job "if only X were gone" might point out for removal from the shared/base kit:

Positionals? A "choice" with no reward value.

Bankables? A "choice" with no reward value.

DoTs? A "choice" with no reward value.

You cannot win that fight just by obfuscating it through "You get your desired choice A and you get your desired choice B" when one choice (if it is to meet the complaints of the given "if only" players) depends on balance despite lower demands and the other choice depends on imbalance enough to actually reward the higher demands therein.

No matter what, you're eventually going to have to sit down those players asking that they get full or nearly full performance for a small part of the effort, to the detriment of skill ceilings directly or in practice (by giving a braindead kit equal throughput)... and tell them "no."

And even then, you'll have spent this effort just to give players the ability to avoid seeing what tools they're not using, making the rest of the kit (chopped up across whatever number of build choices) that much less accessible and setting a subset of players that much more deliberately and divisively against full usage of their job's kit. That's why I don't prefer it.

The "choice" sounds great in theory, as if each could have their preferences met, but balance does not work that way. You cannot reasonably expect people to play a build as different from another as BLM is to an even-further-dumbed-down-MCH in a high-movement fight... when the two would produce nearly the same performances even when fully optimized. You cannot expect that people would feel fully free to take Kaiten, Senei, TG, and the like, if the simpler alternative, pure Shinten spam, produces the same results. They can no more be real "choices" than simply "choosing" not to utilize one's full kit as it stands already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

And soon, now that you've handed them the reins by calling it a "choice", literally anything else a given player who'd play a job "if only X were gone".

---

I legitimately don't know what you're talking about here - can you clarify?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Positionals? A "choice" with no reward value.

Bankables? A "choice" with no reward value.

DoTs? A "choice" with no reward value.

---

Who said anything about no reward value for any of these? I specifically said the harder options should have a performance bonus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

No matter what, you're eventually going to have to sit down those players asking that they get full or nearly full performance for a small part of the effort, to the detriment of skill ceilings directly or in practice (by giving a braindead kit equal throughput)... and tell them "no."

---

Yep, and like I said, telling them no is perfectly fine as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

The "choice" sounds great in theory, as if each could have their preferences met, but balance does not work that way. You cannot reasonably expect people to play a build as different from another as BLM is to an even-further-dumbed-down-MCH in a high-movement fight... when the two would produce nearly the same performances even when fully optimized. You cannot expect that people would feel fully free to take Kaiten, Senei, TG, and the like, if the simpler alternative, pure Shinten spam, produces the same results. They can no more be real "choices" than simply "choosing" not to utilize one's full kit as it stands already.

---

Agreed - nobody said they should have comparable performance - rather, the repeated note that the more difficult choices should entail enhanced performance clearly suggests otherwise.

Again, I would prefer the "choices" of accessibility to be to simply neglect nuances of a well-designed kit, but again, the devs seem intent on lowering the skill floor to the detriment of the skill ceiling - all I'm proposing is that such changes are optional, while also granting a path to raise the ceiling without touching the floor. Your objections are consistently that this could be achieved through elegant design, and my response to that is simply that they're not doing so - they've chosen to dumb things down instead, so, since I no longer trust their decision making, I'd rather decisions of accessibility vs complexity be left to the players themselves.

If nothing else, having such options would serve as A/B testing so they could try out terrible ideas like the Kaiten removal without actually forcing it on players. Think removing Kaiten is a good idea? Cool, implement it as an "accessible" option and see how many (or few) players end up using it - but in the meantime everyone who loved the job as it was could continue playing it as it was - the addition of such an option would have absolutely no impact on them, but maybe it would appeal to hyper casuals, and undoubtedly it would provide valuable data to SE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cjbeagle

Who said anything about no reward value for any of these? I specifically said the harder options should have a performance bonus.

---

Right, but then it doesn't deal with the problem at hand, (the devs accommodating) those saying they want, at less effort, to reach nearer to the performance ceiling. That problem will still exist as before. It can't be a "solution" to X or really "mitigate" X, if it doesn't actually deal with or slow X, but only change its form.

You'd merely move the choice to use fewer of your skills from in-combat to out-of-combat. Rather than choosing to use only 18 of 24 skills, for instance, you'd simply choose to have only 18 of 24 skills. In which case... why bother with a choice we already had and simply need to continue to fight for, regardless?

That's all. We're going in circles at this point.

Quote:

---

I legitimately don't know what you're talking about here - can you clarify?

---

That was just a distracted typo. My apologies. I had accidentally removed the words "might point out for removal from the shared/base kit" from the end when giving those examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

That problem will still exist as before. It can't be a "solution" to X or really "mitigate" X, if it doesn't actually deal with or slow X, but only change its form.

---

You're right, we're going in circles.

As I already said before, the difference is that it gives the hyper casuals "choice" to self-select into an easier kit. A lot of people would rather do something easy well than do something hard poorly, even if the ultimate outcome is identical. If you won't accept that, then we agree to disagree on a fundamental facet of this issue.

It's also worth noting that you can absolutely solve problems simply by reframing things even if there's no mechanical change. Here are my favorite 2 examples:

- From what I've heard, the concept of "rested XP" for WoW was originally designed as a way to discourage players from playing excessively. You accumulate rested XP just like you'd expect, and during that time you get full XP, but after that time you get half XP (again, to discourage people from playing excessively). As you'd expect, people hated it. Someone had the idea to treat it as "double XP" instead of normal, and when depleted, "normal XP" instead of halved, and just double the XP required to level so that nothing really changed except the optics. Everyone loved it. As a disclaimer, I've never worked for Blizzard and I don't even remember who I heard that from, so maybe it's true, maybe it isn't.

- There was this gun in an FPS that everyone hated, playtest feedback was all over the place, but in general it was just seen as "too weak" compared to other guns available. It got buffed repeatedly until it was objectively overpowered, but people still said it felt weak. The solution ended up being to change its SFX. As soon as its shots were more bass and less pewpew, nobody thought it was underpowered anymore.

This ties back to the idea that some players would rather do something easy well than something hard poorly. The types of people that are vocal about wanting jobs to be easier probably aren't parsers and may not even use ACT - they might not even know how poorly they're doing, but they can tell they're not playing their job well. They might end up doing even less dps with a simplified kit and be happier doing it just because they feel like they're playing proficiently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Please forgive me if some of these seem nit-picks, but many of these examples illustrate many of the pitfalls likely within customization at the fine/minute end.

---

Let me get this right... I present hypothetical examples of what could be fun in the form of freedom to choose, none balance breaking nor impossible to balance. Yet your choices of words were

• sacrifice range for... well, not really anything of value
• Ultimately just ends up just having a best choice
• Not really a relevant choice
• only two truly viable possibilities
• extensive and impactful enough

Your Entire PoV = Optimization

Example: I loved Tenka Goken Cone + Kaiten. Now 6.1 its Circular and no Kaiten? I hate it. I hate it so much that I have not done a singular dungeon or fate that I used to spam out of pure joy of my skills. Is Circular with Kaiten more optimal and it more optimal to press less buttons? What good is all that optimization, if it makes me stop playing.

If its 100% purely about optimization? You can justify removing everything because it can be viewed as a hindrance for performance numbers to the decimal actions per second. Then where is our fun?

• Higanbana 1 min dot removed, less restrictive
• Tsubame removed, less restrictive
• Ogi Namikiri only hits once, less restrictive
• Kenki gauge removed, less restrictive
• SAM buffs apply on Hakaze, less restrictive
• Jinpu Shifu removed, less restrictive
• Crits removed, less variences less restrictive
• Postional bonuses removed, less restrictive
• Yaten / Gyoten costs no, less restrictive
• Rebalance everything with increased potencies
• No more managing nothing
• 100% performance and optimized

You might argue " well Celesti you taking it a bit far ", am I? cause that's what that logical view point is heading towards.

• Less Buttons
• Less APM
• Less Bloat
• Less Choices
• All Streamlined
• 100% Performance
• 100% Optimized

No line to be drawn with optimization

And we can go further by focusing optimization of " accessibility of content ". Suddenly you justify homogenization of difficulty. Simplifying not just jobs but also the content. Cause why optimize 5% of the player base finishing high-end content, that isn't as optimal as having 100% finish it doesn't it? see where this is going?

You can advocate for Low Skill-floor / High Skill-Ceiling, but I don't see the logic in your Reponses. You're advocating purely optimization -> and that leads to simplification of everything.

I vouch for Balance, totally okey. But not to turn the game into how little keystrokes I need to push or how dumbed down people want to advocate to make our jobs, in support of deleting skills, streamlining everything to the point I see no difference in any job.

How about instead of that, Optimize our fun <- I think this is less difficult and not even impossible to do while maintaining game balance.

Now. I'll go back a little what I said before in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tearagion

are you playing EX or above? No? Congratulations your performance literally doesn't matter.

---

And some people still like to preform the best they can as if they were playing ex and above even though they don't. I like being useful to my team, meaning i'm going do my rotation best I can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExcogEnjoyer

I'll practice it some day.."

---

Some people can practice all day for a week and never get good. Why.
Some people may not click and/or flow with said classes/job. Though some might understand said class more.
I love melee but I don't click with them like I do with range. Throw me a bow or a gun class and 80% time I will be decent enough to raid (if I raided that is)

The other day I wanted try Sam. Now my sam only level 50. So the start. Even so, I set up hotbar and went and practice on a dummy. Get the flow, move skill around. Wasn't feeling it still. After some time I went do a trial to practice on a moving target. A lvl 50. It just didn't click and Sam get more skills. If I unable to get lvl 50, 90 be a nightmare.
Back to practicing. Practice on a dummy is useful. I use them. But a dummy not going teach the doing of bosses throwing junk at you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CelestiCer

Let me get this right... I present hypothetical examples of what could be fun in the form of freedom to choose, none balance breaking nor impossible to balance. Yet your choices of words were...

---

If this cherrypicked selection is what you take away from that exchange, then, that seems neither the result nor goal.

My words, noting simply what degree of choice tends to have both palpable gameplay effect and managed to have multiple truly viable options (rather than a single real choice per content type), were all prefaced with:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Please forgive me if some of these seem nit-picks, but many of these examples illustrate many of the pitfalls likely within customization at the fine/minute end.[/B]

---

...which was the point of discussion in the post you quoted just before laying out those suggestions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CelestiCer

Example: I loved Tenka Goken Cone + Kaiten. Now 6.1 its Circular and no Kaiten?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Why not just give a skill for each, circular and conal?

We could then put the conal one on our hotbars if we want conal. Put the circular on our hotbar if we want circular. Or slot both for all anyone cares.

---

I'm not sure how you took away from "We could do this even now to produce a win-win, without need to visit rest areas and swap talents" solely a joke about the "benefits" of the circular AoE as if it were a jab at your suggestion specifically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CelestiCer

If its 100% purely about optimization? You can justify removing everything because it can be viewed as a hindrance for performance numbers to the decimal actions per second.

• Higanbana 1 min dot removed, less restrictive
• Tsubame removed, less restrictive
• Ogi Namikiri only hits once, less restrictive

---

You're strawmanning. I've not recommended removing restrictions. Yours is literally the first post in this thread to even use the word or its synonyms.

I only noted that if there's talent choices tend to be wasted if (A) there is a definitive best answer (as the case for having any AoE output from meditation spender or not) or (B) if neither option makes any palpable difference whatsoever (as per sacrificing Gyoten range for cooldown).

Apart from that, you are simply seconding what I already mentioned: if you allow a reduced kit as would be permitted through talents meant to give the options to remove depth from a kit to then compete with the unreduced kit, you provide significantly less reason to use the depth. And if you don't, you merely replace skill envy ("I don't yet know how to fully play this job...") with build envy ("Why does their build get to do more than mine if mine's supposed to be a legitimate choice?"), complete with further barriers to growth (as now one has to swap out of their allotted head-in-the-sand comfort zone in order to even try out the other tools available to a job).

Quote:

---

No line to be drawn with optimization

---

You're really milking a twist on "Choices should be competitive (to a degree commensurate with effort)" into "We should only ever care about optimization" for all it's worth. If a DRK were to have asked for more sustain and functioning immunity in 6.0, would they likewise be "optimization-obsessed"?

Quote:

---

You can advocate for Low Skill-floor / High Skill-Ceiling, but I don't see the logic in your Reponses. You're advocating purely optimization -> and that leads to simplification of everything.

---

In what possible way is "No, let's just keep jobs interesting and deep, instead of opening up job to yet new ways by which those who don't play them can demand changes" equates to "simplify everything"?

"No, let's not give players the option to nuke their kits, because the next step will inevitably be complaints of imbalance between dumbed down jobs and their real counterparts, ultimately leading to reduced reward for making use of one's full kit" =/= "Let's nuke every job's kit."

What possible part of this (below), for instance, makes it sound like I want to simplify every kit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Such is complicated, though, so let's try to contextualize this concretely lest it remain just nebulously theoretical.

Take a skill like Shadewalker.

So long as Enmity remained just a basic table that summed a product of total damage and healing and their respective modifiers, it was almost entirely bloat; its unique affordances were limited to add grabs for which a NIN's burst damage would outpace his fellows'. In all other cases, it simply, rather directly, became tank rDPS, supplied on CD. There was, for the party as a whole, no difference between your having Shadewalker or just having, say, 10 more potency on Gust Blade.

But that is true only for a narrow span of play in which most of its value would be wasted. Imagine, instead, for instance, a situation in which it'd make sense to place Shadewalker instead on, say, a sprinting Ranged DPS, for altogether more mitigation. That, too, would ultimately end up as rDPS, of a sorts, but so long as the use cases vary noticeably in their synergy, the skill's value, too, would vary greatly, with competing uses providing risk and reward: Do I simply use it on cooldown for this simpler <Affordance A>, or hold for this later opportunity for potentially far greater <Affordance B>?

Or, imagine if Ninja had actually built around use of Shadows. Now, Shadewalker is a more noticeable buff, sacrificing some resource on your part to give some further affordance to the target ally or affordance against a target enemy (which ought to be the rarer use case, as not to make it the default). You can now switch-teleport with the Shade you leave on the target, leaving a shadowy simulacrum in your place as you teleport behind the target. When using Dream Within a Dream, you and every Shade you've left now linear-AoE gap-close to the target of Dream Within a Dream. Etc., etc.

While you'd have only ultimately added a line of text to Shadewalker --"Attach a shadow of your martial soul to the target, transferring to them the benefit of Shadeskin if allied or converting that benefit to Shadows' Eyes if an enemy"-- you've expanded its use cases tremendously. And rather than needing, out of combat, to swap between which single capacity or set thereof you'd wish to eventually use, you'd have access to all of them. It'd just be up to you to learn which you can, in the given context, leverage best, in combination with the best choices among the rest of your kit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CelestiCer

Optimize our fun

---

Allowing for optimized fun is not separate from balance, though. Yes, build for fun first, balance later. I'm not against that. I will have and will continue to advocate for that. But a "choice" which can be taken in isolation and in which one option is always better than the other is not a choice. Since you've allowed the choice, per your examples, to be made discretely --no longer bundled with anything else-- there will be no use cases for the option that is inferior within a given context (say, forgoing an AoE ability for extra ST damage or vice versa).

Moreover, the customization idea as it was presented is literally, unless you quoted the prior conversation by mistake and your post therefore had no connection to what you quoted, about the degree to which we specifically sanction players to strip away depth from their kits.

To use your earlier examples, my preference would just be to outright revert the SAM changes.

If some nebulous, barely-seen group of players who nonetheless have the devs' ears make enough of a racket about Tenka cones, you do either of two things: Ideally, you tell them the conal is here to stay because it was designed always to be conal and the kit works better when it's conal, but grant basic QoL in the form of conals (and linear AoEs) no longer requiring a target and having the player option to snap their aim to target or retain player facing. Barring that, you simply give players their choice of cone or circular Tenka via the Actions and Traits menu, rather than involving a whole new talent system, its costs, and its limitations just to manage one's preferred AoE shape.

If some nebulous, barely-seen group of players who nonetheless have the devs' ears would demand the removal of Higanbana, the devs should not find a new way to attempt to briefly reframe and thereby postpone the problem but rather just make clear that this is the kit, and they can use it fully or not.

That, more than chopping up jobs into piecemeal in the name of placation, is how you protect (or, as you put it, "optimize") fun.

Tl;dr: My position is simply that rather than lowering the skill ceiling of the jobs and/or giving players the choices by which to strip their jobs of depth --and pretending that MCHs (with a comparatively shallow kit) don't already complain about BLM rDPS outperforming them or that build variance would surely never be subject to similar complaints-- you just stop accommodating that bull. You leave kits interesting and capable of high ceilings, repairing what cracks and mending what cuts have already been put into them.

It's absolutely fine if the floor is lowered so long as it's moved by a far greater amount than is the ceiling, but in at least a majority of new expansions, the ceiling should increase to compensate, rather than changes going in only one direction. Conal/line AoEs no longer requiring a target? Totally fine. Hypercharge using ammo instead of a duration? Totally fine. A skill notoriously slow to activate and with no use cases for its delay losing that arbitrary distinction? Fine. Awkward lockouts that even those managing well get no kick out of (e.g., Searing Light pre-change)? By all means, sure, get rid of that bit of awkwardness, especially if the change would allow surrounding skills more flexibility and therefore use cases.

But do not accommodate requests that would nearly so greatly affect the skill ceiling. Don't do it through a talent system that you'd later be obliged to balance, thus defeating the point and at most slightly delaying the issue. Don't do it through trimming the base kits. Just don't do it. Period. It's as simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverSkyway

And some people still like to preform the best they can as if they were playing ex and above even though they don't. I like being useful to my team, meaning i'm going do my rotation best I can.

---

Then learn, or if you are unwilling go to an easier job. Acquiescence will only deteriorate gameplay further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverSkyway

Some people can practice all day for a week and never get good. Why.

---

I refuse to believe more than a tiny fraction of the population would legitimately have this issue. A week of effective practice at an entry level will see significant progress in any skill, let alone a not-overly-difficult video game.

What if every job is hard?
I can try and level any melee (which I still need do to see the role quests). Practice and all that. I wouldn't get it. Again. It wouldn't click. Would I understand how the job work, yes. But play it at a decent, what I think is decent level. No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

But do not accommodate requests that would nearly so greatly affect the skill ceiling. Don't do it through a talent system that you'd later be obliged to balance, thus defeating the point and at most slightly delaying the issue. Don't do it through trimming the base kits. Just don't do it. Period. It's as simple as that.

---

Why?

I just think people should accept that some classes should be easy while others should be harder. Rn we only get jobs simplified and they all just become more and more easy and boring in some case (Looking at you SMN). People should just accept that if, let say, BLM look to hard to play, then maybe it not the class for you and you should play another class rather than the class changing for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

But do not accommodate requests that would nearly so greatly affect the skill ceiling. Don't do it through a talent system that you'd later be obliged to balance, thus defeating the point and at most slightly delaying the issue. Don't do it through trimming the base kits. Just don't do it. Period. It's as simple as that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverSkyway

Why?

---

Because it denies you content.

It's effectively the same as asking that Savage and Ultimate be removed from the game just because you don't want to bother with it.

You have no need, in the content you do, to touch the more difficult to utilize parts of a given kit. But it is there, available to you, if you later decide you'd like to try it out. That is, unless you remove it.


_________

Tangent: This is, again, why I prefer to avoid depth-trimming options in customization. It's like presenting the player with "Are you the kind of person who'd ever touch Ultimate? Savage? Extreme? Alliance Raids? No? Then here, we'll pretend they don't exist. To decide to be a different type of player, you must visit your inn room." It merely adds unnecessary, obfuscating steps and frames itself around the points of division we'd be better served by getting over than placating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverSkyway

What if every job is hard?

---

Sounds like a you problem, to be honest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverSkyway

What if every job is hard?
I can try and level any melee (which I still need do to see the role quests). Practice and all that. I wouldn't get it. Again. It wouldn't click. Would I understand how the job work, yes. But play it at a decent, what I think is decent level. No.




Why?

---

You can stop doubling down on your incompetent whining, but hey, keep doing that. It's fun watching literally everyone eviscerate you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverSkyway

What if every job is hard?
I can try and level any melee (which I still need do to see the role quests). Practice and all that. I wouldn't get it. Again. It wouldn't click. Would I understand how the job work, yes. But play it at a decent, what I think is decent level. No.

---

The more you say things like this, the more inclined I am to say that's not the game's problem at that point. Because it really doesn't sound like you're trying at all. That or you're trolling because of how frequent these threads have gotten, in which case.. not cool.

Time to meme: Git Gud or Git Gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Magikazam

I just think people should accept that some classes should be easy while others should be harder. Rn we only get jobs simplified and they all just become more and more easy and boring in some case (Looking at you SMN). People should just accept that if, let say, BLM look to hard to play, then maybe it not the class for you and you should play another class rather than the class changing for you.

---

I don't disagree with that but aesthetics is a huge factor in htis game.. the problem is with the jobs your heavily limited on choice.. if you like big bad battle axes, there's only one hob to play. If you like bows only 1 job. If you like hand to hand.. just one job. So in many ways playing another class isn't really an answer. Because aesthetics is such an important factor in this game and the devs know it. Its exactly why they made darkk knight a tank. Because its an aesthetic many people wanted shoved into a role they didn't.

I love bows but don't really play bard much the singing dancing aesthetics doesn't appeal to me. But if they added a new bow job. A more traditional glass cannon "ranger" job. I'd pick that up in a heartbeat

The other issue comes from a level of hypocrisy.. players want balance balance balance. But at the same time its OK if some jobs are harder to play than others... but players also want jobs that are harder to play to perform better or reward that hard work.. why should a job thats braindead easy do the same dps as my job that takes a phd in rocket science to master. which then breaks the balance. Because those jobs would then be the only ones anyone ever wanted in there parties..i

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzian

I don't disagree with that but aesthetics is a huge factor in htis game.. the problem is with the jobs your heavily limited on choice.. if you like big bad battle axes, there's only one hob to play. If you like bows only 1 job. If you like hand to hand.. just one job. So in many ways playing another class isn't really an answer. Because aesthetics is such an important factor in this game and the devs know it. Its exactly why they made darkk knight a tank. Because its an aesthetic many people wanted shoved into a role they didn't.

---

But that is the game's core design: weapon decided what class you were. It's how you change classes/jobs. They tried to give a weapon two different jobs but it didn't work out and they dropped the idea. Regardless I would prefer core job mechanics over aesthetics any day of the week.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dzian

The other issue comes from a level of hypocrisy.. players want balance balance balance. But at the same time its OK if some jobs are harder to play than others... but players also want jobs that are harder to play to perform better or reward that hard work.. why should a job thats braindead easy do the same dps as my job that takes a phd in rocket science to master. which then breaks the balance. Because those jobs would then be the only ones anyone ever wanted in there parties..i

---

But doesn't fun factor count for something? Also difficulty is subjective in its own right. Some people are more prone to gravitate toward certain job design than other.

Edit: I take it back, sadly people are just lazy and want to take the easy path regardless in whether they are enjoying the experience. As watered down as SMN, people seem to enjoy it based on aesthetics alone. I weep for the future.

Well that was refreshing to hear to say the least. I truly wish the devteam considers community feedback and opinion on that specific matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverSkyway

The other day I wanted try Sam. Now my sam only level 50. So the start. Even so, I set up hotbar and went and practice on a dummy. Get the flow, move skill around. Wasn't feeling it still. After some time I went do a trial to practice on a moving target. A lvl 50. It just didn't click and Sam get more skills. If I unable to get lvl 50, 90 be a nightmare.
Back to practicing. Practice on a dummy is useful. I use them. But a dummy not going teach the doing of bosses throwing junk at you.

---

Wrong. Practicing and being able to do your entire rotation in a 10 minute loop without dropping anything will make it so much easier to play that job in content. And lets be real, unless you're doing EW or higher content it literally doesn't matter what DPS you're doing.

Optimize our fun
Honestly, more of this please. I don't care about top dps or world firsts. I just want to enjoy my game.

Not true on doing EW content. People do old content all the time. Savage or not..
That the problem. In that practice loop. I drop the dot, I miss positionals. When I did the trial I felt I wasn't on top of target a lot of time. That was at lvl 50. Leveling and getting to 90 add more spells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SilverSkyway

Not true on doing EW content. People do old content all the time. Savage or not..
That the problem. In that practice loop. I drop the dot, I miss positionals. When I did the trial I felt I wasn't on top of target a lot of time. That was at lvl 50. Leveling and getting to 90 add more spells.

---

No one said that nobody plays older content. What they said was that older content doesn't need perfect play like what you seem to be whining about wanting through easier design.

If you want to play older and easier content, go right ahead. Stop advocating for everything to be simplified because you can't bring the effort to try at it.

It isn't difficult.

Says the elitist.
Some people can't or handycap, and yes want easy. Not everyone going be a pro at games.

Good day.