Can anyone clearly explain "job homogenization" in this game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

So, the question again becomes, what would it actually take for jobs to feel different?

---

Like one works with positional only, or another works with jump lock.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

I wasn't going to comment in here, but now I have to.

Using the above, yes, you could say, look, they are the same. But some commonalities between jobs is required. Just using the graphic, a ranged attack, gap closer and basic AoE is going to be needed for all tanks.

Going onto defensives. It is, again a necessary evil. Make ones that are stronger than another, since the aim is for every job to be able to clear all content, the 'weakest' one still has to be able to mitigate the damage, with the higher mitigation ones only helping if it actually saves on healer resources. I could go more in depth, but having the tanks have similar defensives for similar situations should (in theory) help out fight design. Again, necessary evil. Same is true for raidwide mitigation (how often is PoA actually useful in changing how a healer would have healed if the PLD had not been there?)

So, going back to the graphic (which I suspect is going right back to ShB), Fight or Flight, No Mercy, Inner Release and Delirium. Fight or Flight and No Mercy are the same (even down to procing another GCD), however, Inner Release and Delirium are different to both of those and they are infact different to each other. Yes, they both provide free access to Fell Cleave/Scarlet combo, but Inner Release helps build to Primal Wrath and allows access to Primal Rend/Ruination, the Scarlet combo gives the DRK Blood and MP, with no way to spend Blood during it, meaning you need to be careful before you press it. It also does not give access to a stronger attack like Primal Rend/Ruination or build up to an oGCD like Primal Wrath.


etc.

---

Sure you can say they are necessities for every job of that role, and that the differences are the nuances like if a skill has a cc effect or a different combo end. I think it could be more creative than that though. I also don't think mitigation skills have to be that similar on similar cooldowns. But is also boils down to fight design being made in a way that supports these cooldowns and mitigation % required.
I also think "balance" is bad for fun. This game is usually very very balanced, down to a few % or sub %. It really doesn't matter to the average player if 1 job would be stronger for 1 patch or addon. It just matters for the few % who raid and want to have it easier. But they impact the "fun" of all others then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CNitsah

Now do the same for ranged, magic and melee. Using the tank role where the problem obvious to tell ninja, samurai, dragoon and Reaper or Red Mage, Picto and SMN play the same is really bad faith. Reading this thread, I came to see some point of view on the general design I can understand even if I don't agree on the importance. But the 1 on 1 sill works only for tanks and maybe some healers.

---

Sadly not everyone can play damage dealer. Some poor souls have to play tank and healer and have fun with that. Healer feeling useless, because often their "healing" is not required. And tanks feeling bored because 90% of the content they cannot die easily even when stacking 8 vulnerability stacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Commander_Justitia

Sure you can say they are necessities for every job of that role, and that the differences are the nuances like if a skill has a cc effect or a different combo end. I think it could be more creative than that though. I also don't think mitigation skills have to be that similar on similar cooldowns. But is also boils down to fight design being made in a way that supports these cooldowns and mitigation % required.
I also think "balance" is bad for fun. This game is usually very very balanced, down to a few % or sub %. It really doesn't matter to the average player if 1 job would be stronger for 1 patch or addon. It just matters for the few % who raid and want to have it easier. But they impact the "fun" of all others then.

---

CC like? You cannot do anything that will disrupt the bosses patterns as you could potentially break a fight, same with anything that slows down cast times. Heavy could be something, but that could also disrupt boss movement if they every give it back to tanks to control more, so, what can you really do that could be classed as CC that, if it affected bosses, wouldn't completely break fights?

Different combo end? Warrior already does that, wouldn't that just bring things closer to the fabled homogenisation just in a different way? Make them all have different effects you say? Well, don't the combos already do that? What are we really gaining from this? I would argue PLD and GNB have no room for a second combo and if you were to give DRK one, doesn't that just bring it even closer to WAR than people say it already is?

The problem is, people have favourite jobs and if SE decides its your turn to be the black sheep, what do you do? You could say play another job, but I want to play this one. But people don't want me because of the job. There is also the whole thing of balance can be measured objectively and fun is measured subjectively. These are things you cannot really use to shape job design around. Some might find it fun that their job is overpowered this patch and hate it the next when it is under-tuned, whereas someone else would prefer all jobs to be more balanced so they can more easily mix up their play experience without feeling like the job they are playing is impacting the run as much. This isn't just a raider vs everyone else, everyone has to be taken into account.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exmo

The argument that all the jobs are being excessively homogenized somewhat collides with the fact that every fifth thread on these forums is someone either complaining about or celebrating how a change to a job makes the job feel different to play. If ask the jobs felt the same, people wouldn't be so invested in the specificities of certain jobs.

I'm not saying there is not a process of standardisation occurring across all the jobs, but surely it mustn't be so severe and detrimental given the material evidence to the contrary.

---

If we're after material evidences, even Yoshida has admitted it was a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exmo

[...] but surely it mustn't be so severe and detrimental given the material evidence to the contrary.

---

^

To my knowledge Yoshi-P has not said homogenization is a problem.

No, surely he must have said that they couldn't address job identity before 8.0 and brought up the issue out of pure academical curiosity. The bit about engaging jobs in a modern video game was probably just rambling and nothing more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

No, surely he must have said that they couldn't address job identity before 8.0 and brought up the issue out of pure academical curiosity. The bit about engaging jobs in a modern video game was probably just rambling and nothing more.

---

You have two courses of action, my friend. Look up what "severe" and "detrimental" mean. Then reflect on why you're wasting time antagonizing people online over a topic you evidentially believe will be addressed in the natural course of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Connor

I mean, the real question from that is, if they can have different animations per job for a role skill, couldn’t they have different particle effects per job to match with visuals anyway? Maybe we could have both. Then skills like Troubawhatever could actually become something interesting that adds to the class itself. I mean it’s not like the role skills need to be super flashy either so I don’t see why they couldn’t do it.

[...]

I just don’t understand their idea of standardising jobs in so many but then completely ignoring the role skill category that was supposed to exist for the purpose of standardising certain crucial skills across a role I.E Swiftcast. Personally I’d rather they did that and actually developed each job with its own identity gameplay etc. Like I’d rather have Swiftcast shared between casters as the same skill if it meant they could get their own unique gameplay stuff lol.
But instead they just keep creating equivalents of so many abilities with extremely minor differences, instead of just putting those in the role skills and using the extra job ability space on reinforcing said job’s actual identity and gameplay.

[...]

---

That makes me wonder, what should be the line for when a skill should be a role action instead? I agree the physranged party mit should be a role action at least, since they're literally the same besides the level learned (which we also agree is irrelevant) and even overwrite eachother.

But with stuff like the healer dots and spam, cure/benefic/diagnosis/physick, or all the tanks' second defensive cooldowns? There's nuanced differences but their use case is largely the same, and that really can't change. They could add more differences to diversify them a bit more, but like you say perhaps it's just worth folding them into one role action to make room for more unique skills (not sure if I trust the devs to actually fill that room, though). Like the tank defensives could just be folded into Rampart by making it have charges and/or shorter cooldowns.

The mobile game seems to have gone ahead and just turned filler spells and combos into a single attack button on every job, even.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

CC like? You cannot do anything that will disrupt the bosses patterns as you could potentially break a fight, same with anything that slows down cast times. Heavy could be something, but that could also disrupt boss movement if they every give it back to tanks to control more, so, what can you really do that could be classed as CC that, if it affected bosses, wouldn't completely break fights?

Different combo end? Warrior already does that, wouldn't that just bring things closer to the fabled homogenisation just in a different way? Make them all have different effects you say? Well, don't the combos already do that? What are we really gaining from this? I would argue PLD and GNB have no room for a second combo and if you were to give DRK one, doesn't that just bring it even closer to WAR than people say it already is?

---

I just stated how it is at the moment, or was a bit more in the past. CC is mostly irrelevant in this game for some reason, I am not a fan of it. I think it is part of almost every RPG to have bleed/poison/stun/silence/bind/pacify-unarmed/resistances. Most our skills now just have potency...and bosses with big HP or small HP bars...And everything gets put out linearly, there is no snapshotting anymore with skills at below 20% HP Boss HP, there are barely any dots left, so there isn't anything to manage than doing your rotation over and over again in the same way. There is no piercing resistance or slashing down debuff, there is no tankstance swapping out to deal more damage for some time, but take increased damage. Did they adjust mob attack when considering that everyone has now a permanent tankstance as tank? No, probably not, enjoy 20% more mitigation over all content. In other games you need to kite adds, to delay the enrage for example, giving them a slow. You had structures in Alexander raids to use like the monkey/gobwalker things.
I don't think having a different combo end is particularly entertaining, it was also more a negative example. Paladin used to have Goring Blade as a difference side combo, but it was a as dot, now I am forced to use it whenever I burst as just another high potency skill to fit into the burst window. Warrior used to have a dot too. Darkknight had one, they also had delirium that decreased 10% int for aoe damage spells from the boss, also removed because it required the player to play smartly. Now everyone has a reprisal, why? Just even more mitigation on demand for everyone.

And somebody mentioned at the start what other type of job styles you could have. I don't think we have a real buffer class. We also don't have talent trees to mix up how one job could be played. And no, it is not really too difficult to balance. Imagine having a fire blackmage spec here. Or a Paladin that is focused on regen heals and reviving. Or a Warrior that can carry 2 Axes while sacrificing maxHP or something. Or a healer who can reduce his amount of heal skills permanently for more damage spells. This is what I mean with uncreative. You are arguing about nuances inside a mental cage, when devs could go wild with it like they do in Eureka or Bozja. But they are scared of it. Scared it could go wrong. So they probably never will and do the same like every year until nobody plays this game anymore.

If the toolkit is not enough for ultimate fights, then they should probably nerf the incoming damage a little. Instead of making every job so powerful that all older content becomes trivial, as it is now, because they want every job to perform as good as the other.
Let us say you want to balance skills, but the only way you balance is to buff every job over the years to the next damage level, instead of nerfing all or a few jobs a little. MCH for POTD is a good example for that. MCH may be balanced with other dps, but on lvl 60 it is now stronger than ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Connor

Going to be harsh here but if we’re taking these extremely minor differences between abilities as evidence that they’re each unique and interesting things and not effectively the same thing with a different coat of paint, we really deserve everything we’re getting from the devs right now.

---

Yep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Connor

I mean, the real question from that is, if they can have different animations per job for a role skill, couldn’t they have different particle effects per job to match with visuals anyway?

---

Ehm, I think they were like that in the beginning. If you look at the old skill sets for tanks. Let us look at Darkknight - it had a skill called Shadowwall, which was a cool DRK specific animation for a 20% mitigation buff, so alike Rampart which was Paladin Specific. Warrior had Inner Beast on demand depending on gauge for a much shorter duration, but could be used more often. So all tanks had their own animation, their own skill, with slightly difference cooldowns and effects tied to it. They could have expanded on that. But instead, all 3 tanks have Rampart now. Arguably the most ugly 20% animation of all of 3 I guess.

If you want to go down a road of memory lane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXMTLM19JZw Darkknights removed abilities. Some effects and motions are so cool like PowerSlash or SoleSurvivor or BloodPrice, it makes me sad they are gone over something else what we have now.

Yeah they should do a lot more with shared functions but unique implementations, and I don't just mean having the skill look different and have changed secondary effects like the minor CDs, I mean that you achieve the same result but in a very different way.

Say one tank builds procced charges from autoattacks and expends those to use a scaling self-buff that reduces damage, 4% per charge used, but you can use it whenever you have 1+ charges. It just so happens that you need ~120s to acquire 10 charges on average if you're always autoattacking. Also mess with the percentages, make the engine able to "push" 5PPM, if you get unlucky chance marginally goes up until rate is restabilized (and vice versa) but there will still be minutes where you only have 32% or 36% DR and others where you have 44/48 or so.

And likewise for a lot of things. Find mechanically unique implementations, Paladins cast a spell where a Dark Knight summons a shade (that comes with the usual delay but then works on its own) where a Gunbreaker needs cartridges as ammo where a Warrior... is just angry, I suppose. Dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lorika

It's like saying that two different car models are indentical just because they share the same frame : that's stupid and wrong.

---

And yet that argument is constantly brought up in car reviews since so many cards genuinely share the entire inner workings as for economical reasons the car makers (who are all owned by a handful of groups) share all those components, the difference being entirely in the bodywork, the visual design and what level of premiumness they are willing to sell you in specs (usually you intentionally want to not compete with one another, but sometimes you actually do!).

So yeah... that's actually a good example of the same type of homogenization we have here, yes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

Wait, if VPR is a variant of RPR, and RPR is a melee variant of MCH, does this mean VPR is a melee variant of MCH? Oshi-

---

Yeah but it gets super weird because it's a variant of a version of MCH that no longer exists if we're being pedantic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

snip

---

See this is kinda a microcosm of the problem

“The jobs aren’t identical, sure they have all these things that are the same but that’s fight design/balance/whatever. But they aren’t identical”

If your encounter design is forcing every job into the same hole (it goes in the square hole) then the encounter design isn’t an excuse it’s just one half of the problem alongside the jobs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exmo

You have two courses of action, my friend. Look up what "severe" and "detrimental" mean. Then reflect on why you're wasting time antagonizing people online over a topic you evidentially believe will be addressed in the natural course of time.

---

You probably missed the post where I told someone else that tactile feeling isn't the alpha and omega of job design, pal.

As of this writing there's currently a post in r/ffxivdiscussion titled "Since pct is overperforming in FRU due to the fact it can actually do stuff in downtime segments, should all jobs be given something similar?"

This is why we have homogenization. Because people literally ask for it. Damage numbers for Picto need to be tuned for sure, but can we just let unique mechanics be unique? It's totally fine that we have a job who can take advantage of full downtime better than other jobs. It's not something that comes up in all content. Viper has one of the best (if not THE best) disengage tools among melee job, and I remember seeing people talk about how other melee jobs should have something similar. No, they shouldn't. We need more unique mechanics, not fewer. Viper has zero full downtime tools and buffs which need to be re-applied when they fall off during downtime. It's fine that it can do something better in certain situations to compensate.

What is homogenization? It's every job being tied to the exact same rotational standard. Large burst every 2 minutes, minor burst every odd minute, boring filler in between. That's how they all play. We need more variable gameplay. Abolish the 2-minute window. Unique buffs and utility skills. Variable cooldowns and resource generation. Reactionary mechanics. Fewer party buffs in general between all jobs.

Yeah that's my take, too. People are discussing in the other thread how to properly nerf Picto given this unique aspect, and I'm all "No! Don't pay attention to that! Just nerf it by X%, and let it be marginally stronger if there's lots of downtime - and weaker if there isn't!". Unique elements are good. Jobs need to feel weak at X to make feeling strong at Y be meaningful!

This conundrum will never be solved within the current system. People should look at the bigger picture and actually start wondering whether they're okay with the whole package.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jonimated

As of this writing there's currently a post in r/ffxivdiscussion titled "Since pct is overperforming in FRU due to the fact it can actually do stuff in downtime segments, should all jobs be given something similar?"

---

'Don't nerf PCT, it's well-designed. Buff the other jobs into equivalent performance.' -> 'Don't homogenize other jobs to be like PCT.' -> 'Don't nerf PCT, it's well-designed. Buff the other jobs into equivalent performance.'

This is the standard infinite loop of obstructive non-solutions put forward by every overpowered job in the history of this game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

'Don't nerf PCT, it's well-designed. Buff the other jobs into equivalent performance.' -> 'Don't homogenize other jobs to be like PCT.' -> 'Don't nerf PCT, it's well-designed. Buff the other jobs into equivalent performance.'

This is the standard infinite loop of obstructive non-solutions put forward by every overpowered job in the history of this game.

---

Why just outright lie like this

Literally nobody is asking to not nerf PCT (even me as an example of the usual “mains defend their overpowered job”) people are saying don’t change its design not its damage. As long as you don’t touch its motifs and keep it clear of the rezz casters people would be happy with it literally anywhere else

You've been raising obstacles at pretty much every step.

Everyone knows where the problem is, we've brought it up for months. It comes down to the absence of an uptime requirement to build up to burst. If you change motif design, you solve the problem. A potency nerf would have to be absolutely massive at this point to address FRU, and that in turn will leave PCT underpowered on the next tier. But I suppose that's the next stop.

But it's questionable why any of this balance discussion is of interest to you at all. On the plus side, at least you'll never have that moral high ground in the healer/tank discussion, going forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

You've been raising obstacles at pretty much every step.

Everyone knows where the problem is, we've brought it up for months. It comes down to the absence of an uptime requirement to build up to burst. If you change motif design, you solve the problem. A potency nerf would have to be absolutely massive at this point to address FRU, and that in turn will leave PCT underpowered on the next tier. But I suppose that's the next stop.

But it's questionable why any of this balance discussion is of interest to you at all. On the plus side, at least you'll never have that moral high ground in the healer/tank discussion, going forward.

---

Yes because people don’t want the motif design changed because you can fix it with nerfs. I literally open every post with basically a disclaimer that I support PCT nerfs because no matter how many times I say it you just ignore it for the purpose of acting the way you do. Like do you want me to send you a quote if every single time I say I support PCT nerfs, I physically don’t know how I can say it any other way

You can fix PCT with a 7-8% nerf, that keeps it roughly low mid melee in uptime and near or at the top in ultimate, you don’t have to mess with requiring targets for motifs, literally nobody besides you actually wants this. Even on the subs you get downvoted for this opinion.

It needs a potency nerf, not a muse change

And acting like I’m trying to defend PCT removes my ability to have an opinion on the rank healer discussion is just rude. Like has PCT unhinged you this far, like I physically do not understand why everything with you goes out the window when discussing PCT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

?

---

Just an observation, as you've removed yourself entirely from the tank sustain discussion. I assume that you've realized that the instant you try to make a case around 'fairness/balance' between tank/healer roles again on the tank forum, your stance on the PCT issue is guaranteed to be called into question. You'd never be able to do it now.

This is ultimately a damage profile issue, which is why certain jobs are better at some fights than others. The problem with PCT is that having an extremely burst-focused profile with no uptime requirement to generate that makes it very difficult to balance both extremes of fight design. Potency nerfs will solve one case but not both. The solution for motifs has come up a lot of times, from people other than myself, and there's not just one solution either. The best compromise I've seen is having the palette influence cast times on motifs while requiring a target on motifs.

I think if you're smart about it, you can have balance but also have a controlled redesign happen in a way that creates interesting interactions between job gauge elements. Or you can continue to create obstacles, and eventually the dev team will be so panicked about players leaving that they will reflexively nerf PCT into the ground. The process for this doesn't really matter to me, we'll get to the end result eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

snip

---

Okay I’m honestly trying to reign discussion back in here because I don’t want to keep screaming at you and I feel this post is a bit more mellow than the other ones

Let’s discuss post elements here in a nicer way

1) I haven’t removed myself from the tank sustain discussion it’s just that it hasn’t come up much recently (because of the overwhelming focus on PCT) I don’t think it’s fair to say that I can’t comment there or have a valid stance because of PCT when I don’t want to defend PCT from the perspective of I want to play an overpowered job, I want to defend its internal game design. Like I said to you I would nerf PCT to SMN levels of damage before I would be willing to change the motifs. In my opinion that’s a relatively popular opinion, people don’t want the motifs to change because it’s something that no other job does. You point out that PCT dodges the need for uptime to prepare for a burst. You see that as a strong advantage, others see it as a point of difference. But that’s a fair disagreement

2) potency nerfs will fix it in savage which I think is where most people consider the more important aspect. It’s rare a person who believes that PCT shouldn’t have a niche in ultimate. Do you disagree with PCT being allowed to be top DPS in ultimates (legit question here?). If you gave PCT a 7-10% nerf you would push it down in savage while still allowing it to have top spot in ultimate but not egregiously. That’s not me trying to maintain my job at the top of the table that’s me believing that a job that specifically excels in said niche should be very close to if not at the top when it’s in its niche

3) I don’t think it’s fair to act like the devs will reflexively nerf PCT into the ground because people “put up obstacles” when in reality what you are discussing is simply not wanting to change the core elements of the jobs design. Would you really be opposed to my 7-10% nerf proposal? If so what are your problems with it? Why isn’t it viable? Can you articulate it? I’m not sure why you believe the only solution is changing the motifs

And finally- I’m sorry, I have been acting excessively rude recently and I need to stop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

You've been raising obstacles at pretty much every step.

Everyone knows where the problem is, we've brought it up for months. It comes down to the absence of an uptime requirement to build up to burst. If you change motif design, you solve the problem. A potency nerf would have to be absolutely massive at this point to address FRU, and that in turn will leave PCT underpowered on the next tier. But I suppose that's the next stop.

---

Well after suggesting constantly to delete rphys from the gameby making them into casters, you're at least consistent with your usual position of homogenizing everything to balance a system that has no variables left for balance, I'll give you that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

my 7-10% nerf proposal

---

I am surprised by this statement. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't you say in the past that one of PCT's "unique" qualities was its extremely strong burst? That this is one of the things that made the job?

A 10% nerf would put it fairly close to the rezz casters, something I recall you fighting against in the past (and to be clear I do believe it makes sense that PCT is balanced to deal similar damage to the melee/BLM group).

I also recall (not from you in particular) plenty of discussion denying that PCT would break the Ultimate, that it was fine, that the Savage numbers didn't mean that much and that the difference wasn't that high... despite the fact that there was quite a bit of worry on the jobs' strength from the very beginning of the expansion: these numbers are still the ones the job was released with!


And PCT's niche is not just Ultimates, it's literally any fight with downtime, which is quite many of them: any dungeon, any Ultimate, any normal/Extreme/Savage fight with downtime... even stuff like treasure or deep dungeons! Getting benefit from downtime is hardly a PCT exclusive thing, the job simply takes it to another level.

Downtime is not a rare occurrence unlike something like 2-target boss fights, which are found mostly in Ultimates. PCT also benefits a lot from those, particularly if stacked, but the job also has line attacks to rake in extra potency in such cases where the targets are spread!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aco505

snip

---

When I said “extremely strong burst” I meant that its damage profile is strongly tilted to its burst; it does like 50+% of its damage in the 10% of the total encounter that constitutes the time starry muse is active. A flat potency nerf doesn’t change that. Nerfing the aetherhues by 10 potency and the muses by 100 still gives you the same burst profile just at a lower total damage

And the range of 7-10 is precisely because looking at PCT between FRU and savage is a bit wonky right now because the upper echelons of players aren’t doing savage right now so most jobs max and 80+ percentile parses for 7.1 actually went down despite most classes being buffed. Trying to compare PCT’s 7.05 numbers to other classes 7.05 numbers + a percentage increase represented by their 7.1 buff is about the clearest image we have where currently PCT is ahead by about 1-2% in full uptime with the remaining melee and BLM making up a 5-6% spread with the support DPS about 5% below them. So a 7-10% nerf puts PCT around low end of melee in full uptime fights but still clear of the rezz casters, but like I said this is a bit finicky on the maths. 10% is probably a bit much because RDM is doing quite well now but 7% may not be enough, I just put it roughly in a range that would keep it in melee range in savage but blunt its dominance in FRU. If 7.1’s balance is looked at in isolation then yes you are right 10% is too harsh

I say PCT’s niche is ultimate because actionable downtime that PCT massively benefits from really only exists in ultimate for content where balance has meaning. Savage and extreme these days barely have downtime and if they do it’s really only 1-2 motifs across the fight at most, it’s not nothing per say but it’s close to basically soulsow level in that range. Below that downtime and AOE are basically always unbalanced, like they just simply don’t balance AOE these days, it just kinda exists. Dungeon balance shouldn’t be ignored (I mean I still say bloodwhetting should be nerfed in dungeons despite dungeon balance not mattering per say) but it has less meaning here and that could be fixed by something as simple as giving motifs a higher falloff as while hammer is rather weak PPS wise in single target it’s a beast in AOE. But that’s kinda beyond the scope of my point, I honestly don’t even know how the DPS rank against each other in dungeon style AOE

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aco505

...

---

It's always remarkable how 'ignoring the rules as they apply to everyone else' ends up being an 'identity'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

...

---

I'll argue for parity and fairness, just as I've promised. Snow is all set to push for PCT's ongoing dominance, just as they've promised. And you'll continue to be a long-suffering Physical Ranged player in the name of defending the status quo, just as you've promised. So we're all raiders of our word, really, except for Snow, who is, in fact, roleplaying a raider.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

I say PCT’s niche is ultimate because actionable downtime that PCT massively benefits from really only exists in ultimate for content where balance has meaning. Savage and extreme these days barely have downtime and if they do it’s really only 1-2 motifs across the fight at most, it’s not nothing per say but it’s close to basically soulsow level in that range. Below that downtime and AOE are basically always unbalanced, like they just simply don’t balance AOE these days, it just kinda exists. Dungeon balance shouldn’t be ignored (I mean I still say bloodwhetting should be nerfed in dungeons despite dungeon balance not mattering per say) but it has less meaning here and that could be fixed by something as simple as giving motifs a higher falloff as while hammer is rather weak PPS wise in single target it’s a beast in AOE. But that’s kinda beyond the scope of my point, I honestly don’t even know how the DPS rank against each other in dungeon style AOE

---

Saying that getting even 1 motif is like Soulsow... come on, you barely want to use Harvest Moon in full uptime unless you need the disengage. It's not even useful in burst anymore under normal circumstances. Motifs provide way more DPS and build Moogle/Madeen while HM is just a stronger basic GCD.

But the thing is that you often said "don't nerf PCT because of Ultimates. The job shouldn't change because of this one piece of content!" and now the goalpost is moved and what you say is that downtime in Ultimates is the only one that matters. I disagree. It all matters. One thing is for a job to excel at specific stuff like 2-target fights or being strong at a certain niche such as level 60 in PotD (RDM, MCH) or level 70 Ultimates (SMN) and another is being the best at literally everything (except level 70 Ultimates, where it's still quite good, just not the strongest).

Criterion Savage dungeons matter as much as a normal dungeon in which the PCT decimates the pull before the other party members can barely act. Of course, this doesn't mean the job should be looked at solely due to the latter but it also matters. The point is not necessarily for them to balance its AoE due to something like a leveling dungeon but we're talking about a job that is best or at worst great at single target, AoE and cleave damage across all levels and content types.

I don't know if nerfing all potencies by 10% will be the solution and I agree motifs requiring a target shouldn't be the fix either. What I do know is that I'm not sure if the devs will find the proper solution to this situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

It's always remarkable how 'ignoring the rules as they apply to everyone else' ends up being an 'identity'.

I'll argue for parity and fairness, just as I've promised. Snow is all set to push for PCT's ongoing dominance, just as they've promised. And you'll continue to be a long-suffering Physical Ranged player in the name of defending the status quo, just as you've promised. So we're all raiders of our word, really, except for Snow, who is, in fact, roleplaying a raider.

---

Okay I give up. I physically don’t know what else to tell you. I’ve tried to explain how I’m fine with PCT nerfs, I’ve tried to explain why certain PCT nerfs are not what I want, I’ve tried to explain to you that I do raid and I’ve tried to explain to you my reasoning for everything and it just goes in one ear and out the other ear while you skip over my posts to reply to someone going “funny they never do what (insert what I just did replying to that person)”. Like it’s hilarious you are trying to claim I’m “promising to maintain PCT’s dominance” when the post of mine you skipped over trying to reach out to you involves me asking your thoughts on a TEN PERCENT NERF. Like is it just your inability to act like anything like your own solution is viable (even though the person you replied to insult me doesn’t want that solution either)

Use me as your example of the big mean PCT main who wants to maintain the job as it is (because you can’t actually find anyone who holds that stance because in reality nobody actually holds that stance you just have to warp everyone’s stances to pretend like PCT mains don’t want changes. Like how you are trying to bend this thread into a “caster mains oppress physical range mains but I’m the nice melee who supports you dragging casters down to phys range level”) I don’t know what to do anymore. Continue your vendetta against PCT, I’m out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aco505

snip.

---

That’s what I’m saying look at dungeon AOE balance it’s all over the place. They simply do not care about dungeon balance in any way shape or form. If PCT is overperforming in the trash in criterion savage (I wouldn’t be surprised if it was) motifs can easily be given harder falloff if this is an actual balance concern but like I said that kinda goes beyond my original point as I was just looking at the axis of savage vs ultimate. PCT performs well in multi target, like everything but it’s not really the core of its problem. AOE can be fixed with motif falloff (that’s why I don’t really give much acknowledgment to it). Outside of that niche content has weird balance anyway, WAR is almost the best POTD class and WHM dominates Bozja, it’s hard to balance that area but yeah if PCT excels at almost all multi target areas then sure nerf its motif falloff you won’t hear a complaint from me

As for “don’t nerf PCT just because of ultimates” that was in reference to to lyths “targeted muse changes” but if that was misinterpreted that was my mistake and I’ll own that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

I say PCT’s niche is ultimate because actionable downtime that PCT massively benefits from really only exists in ultimate for content where balance has meaning. Savage and extreme these days barely have downtime and if they do it’s really only 1-2 motifs across the fight at most, it’s not nothing per say but it’s close to basically soulsow level in that range. Below that downtime and AOE are basically always unbalanced, like they just simply don’t balance AOE these days, it just kinda exists. Dungeon balance shouldn’t be ignored (I mean I still say bloodwhetting should be nerfed in dungeons despite dungeon balance not mattering per say) but it has less meaning here and that could be fixed by something as simple as giving motifs a higher falloff as while hammer is rather weak PPS wise in single target it’s a beast in AOE. But that’s kinda beyond the scope of my point, I honestly don’t even know how the DPS rank against each other in dungeon style AOE

---

Sidenote on people that like saying that dungeon balance doesn't matter, it actually does a great deal as well. It's extremely frustrating being paired with another DPS that flatlines a whole pack before you can even finish your own burst. It used to be the case with SMN last expansion (frontloaded in nukes), it's the case with PCT today... I know some people like being done with dungeons as fast as possible to escape that dullness, but maybe they wouldnt be as dull with less bullshit like this to be honest, and it's not different from WAR being a one man army in there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

I'll argue for parity and fairness, just as I've promised. Snow is all set to push for PCT's ongoing dominance, just as they've promised. And you'll continue to be a long-suffering Physical Ranged player in the name of defending the status quo, just as you've promised. So we're all raiders of our word, really, except for Snow, who is, in fact, roleplaying a raider.

---

Yeah I guess you could say I'm defending the statu quo when I've literally been calling for the whole battle system to be scrapped and restarted over, and tried to look at the bigger picture and why every attempt at finding solutions always inevitably fails otherwise. How very conservative of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

Sidenote on people that like saying that dungeon balance doesn't matter, it actually does a great deal as well. It's extremely frustrating being paired with another DPS that flatlines a whole pack before you can even finish your own burst. It used to be the case with SMN last expansion (frontloaded in nukes), it's the case with PCT today... I know some people like being done with dungeons as fast as possible to escape that dullness, but maybe they wouldnt be as dull with less bullshit like this to be honest, and it's not different from WAR being a one man army in there.

---

Yeah as you say, it’s interesting that the general community vibe is ‘screw dungeon balance nobody cares’, then they wonder why expert roulettes / general content is so relentlessly mind numbing lol. Like we’re literally just giving devs license to be as lazy as possible with this approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

Yeah I guess you could say I'm defending the statu quo when I've literally been calling for the whole battle system to be scrapped and restarted over, and tried to look at the bigger picture and why every attempt at finding solutions always inevitably fails otherwise. How very conservative of me.

---

I find it hilarious that people trying to remind others that phys ranged is a role that exists and has major problems…get called ‘phys ranged’ as a slur and basically told to piss off because the precious Pictomancers are talking. Also the sheer fact we’re still using ‘phys ranged’ as an insult lol…

You cannot silence this Bard! I can use Esuna it takes 45 seconds lol

Going back to the core premise of the question the thread was asking I guess there is an interesting distinction between “the fix is actually bringing true utility back into the game” and “the fix is a change in phys range design to “justify” its damage against the other roles”

I personally lean towards the former simply because true utility would upend the entire system which the game needs. We already see how hard SCH warps the game around it and SCH has the most minor utility in the grand scheme of things. This isn’t to say I want this because I want phys ranged to do less damage but more so because I miss true support in this game (which is what BRD originally was) this also leans into mechanics specifically being designed around differences in different jobs uptime considerations. I want mechanics to exist that force me away from the boss and keep me constantly on the move. Really play into the mechanic making it feel like only you can solve it (and if you have to make the caster and healers do other things to ensure this I’m all for it)

I admit I have spent too much time here discussing PCT and I’m sorry for that. But I really do want to see changes in the physical ranged role but I also understand I’m not a main so if this change design is unpopular can people explain to me why you personally don’t like that change

Edit turns out I thought this was the phys ranged thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

I personally lean towards the former simply because true utility would upend the entire system which the game needs.

Edit turns out I thought this was the phys ranged thread

---

Honestly I feel exactly the same about how they should move forward and I think phys ranged could benefit massively from it, possibly healers as well if it means their gameplay is no longer limited to ‘deal direct damage’ or ‘make HP bar go up’.

And, while it may be the wrong thread I still think it’s relevant to the topic lol. I feel like standardising phys ranged into essentially being ‘melees but with range’ (Viper is that you? lol) or ‘casters with no casting’ is ultimately going to result in even more job homogenisation within the role. Especially in regards to things like support and utility, where the devs always balance it based on personal dps output. So if they rebalanced phys ranged along those lines, they’d inevitably lower/remove their support capabilities, which I’d argue is the most important aspect of the role’s identity (sorry MCH lol).

Designing the game to actually accomodate ‘true utility’ / ‘supportive’ gameplay and combat design opens up the floor for them to actually design phys ranged as having a unique supportive role, rather than simply homogenising their gameplay with other roles to justify higher personal dps outputs. And naturally, being a ‘supportive’ role doesn’t necessarily mean Machinist can’t still be a primarily offense-oriented class, so they don’t need to be left out or turned into something people might not want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

Going back to the core premise of the question the thread was asking I guess there is an interesting distinction between “the fix is actually bringing true utility back into the game” and “the fix is a change in phys range design to “justify” its damage against the other roles”

I personally lean towards the former simply because true utility would upend the entire system which the game needs. We already see how hard SCH warps the game around it and SCH has the most minor utility in the grand scheme of things. This isn’t to say I want this because I want phys ranged to do less damage but more so because I miss true support in this game (which is what BRD originally was) this also leans into mechanics specifically being designed around differences in different jobs uptime considerations. I want mechanics to exist that force me away from the boss and keep me constantly on the move. Really play into the mechanic making it feel like only you can solve it (and if you have to make the caster and healers do other things to ensure this I’m all for it)

I admit I have spent too much time here discussing PCT and I’m sorry for that. But I really do want to see changes in the physical ranged role but I also understand I’m not a main so if this change design is unpopular can people explain to me why you personally don’t like that change

Edit turns out I thought this was the phys ranged thread

---

Both aren't mutually exclusive, the second option I just don't agree with the solutions offered by people that just consists into deleting the role and making it casters (and they conveniently look the other way when DNC comes into question... because the idea of making it cast is just ludicrous, so what do we do with DNC once everybody is an universal ranged role?). It's totally possible to imagine rotations complex and intricate enough to prove enough to justify a damage upgrade, and possibly rotations that aren't a scripted piece of memorized sheet to regurgitate ad vitam either but to adjust on the spot instead with actual maintenance and choices like it used to be, or more.

As much as I want them to reinfuse complexity into the battle system with true, required utility in the game, I know this is unlikely to happen because they just don't have that vision for their game and have decided to get rid of everything that predated Stormblood when this expansion dropped. But if uptime is a source of difficulty, either from melee uptime, positionals, or caster cast times, then surely there is room for complex rotations to be a source of difficulty as well. HW MCH used to be the most complex dps job in the game for example, and that's not even talking about the cast times, there is a reason it stayed a meme in the community until late SB even though its SB version was easier to manage (but more punishing I guess).

And I'm saying that as someone that would actually get crippled by something like this, because I already crumble under some modern encounter mechanics (based on memory or fast visual puzzles), so even if I absolutely strive into a more demanding battle system and complex job toolkits, it would certainly not help me to have even more of my attention turned away from encounter mechanics that my mind just wants to gloss over because they're DDR garbage.

What kinds of utility could they do, though? I know MP/TP recovery used to exist, while current fight designs basically erased debuffs like bind/heavy. Not that they couldn't go back to that, but I'm not sure if they're willing to.

Give buffs that reduces cast times? Extend the range of a melee? Slap on debuffs that make positionals always hit?

Definitely gonna be a take, but I think that trying to avoid homogenization at all cost is a similar creative trap as only wanting to make 'original' things. Like you will just hit dead end after dead end trying to avoid any kind of influence for the sake of trying to be 'original' -- trying to avoid homogenization. Like yeah, they should take care to minimize derivative designs, but jobs should be taking influence -- should be stealing from each other if it makes them stronger, and better to play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azurarok

What kinds of utility could they do, though? I know MP/TP recovery used to exist, while current fight designs basically erased debuffs like bind/heavy. Not that they couldn't go back to that, but I'm not sure if they're willing to.

Give buffs that reduces cast times? Extend the range of a melee? Slap on debuffs that make positionals always hit?

---

Why not all of the above? I mean, they’ve been extremely uncreative with ‘support’/‘utility’ recently, but that doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. On top of debuffs like bind/heavy there’s also actual stat debuffs, reduces damage dealt by enemy, critical resistances, etc. More things to interrupt and Esuna could/would help too.

Plus there’s always novel ways they could introduce further utility to phys ranged. Like if Dancer got a channeled ability where it dances and every ally restores HP on hit / a portion of damage dealt by enemy/ etc. Like XI’s Drain Samba. Or if they turned Warden’s Paean into a party wide ‘aura’ that drains MP while singing to protect against all ailments. Machinist auto-turrets could have hp shield effects like PvP and debuff enemies offense/defense. Resurrection capabilities are a utility too but that’s a bit more controversial.

I’d say there’s plenty of ways for them to reinforce utility on support. And frankly I also think maybe they’ve went a bit too far in the ‘every dps has utility’ direction lol. Like, did Monk really need an AoE heal? Or Reaper with that regen thing it does lol. I wouldn’t be surprised if Viper gets a raid buff next expansion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Connor

Why not all of the above? I mean, they’ve been extremely uncreative with ‘support’/‘utility’ recently, but that doesn’t mean it has to stay that way. On top of debuffs like bind/heavy there’s also actual stat debuffs, reduces damage dealt by enemy, critical resistances, etc. More things to interrupt and Esuna could/would help too.

Plus there’s always novel ways they could introduce further utility to phys ranged. Like if Dancer got a channeled ability where it dances and every ally restores HP on hit / a portion of damage dealt by enemy/ etc. Like XI’s Drain Samba. Or if they turned Warden’s Paean into a party wide ‘aura’ that drains MP while singing to protect against all ailments. Machinist auto-turrets could have hp shield effects like PvP and debuff enemies offense/defense. Resurrection capabilities are a utility too but that’s a bit more controversial.

I’d say there’s plenty of ways for them to reinforce utility on support. And frankly I also think maybe they’ve went a bit too far in the ‘every dps has utility’ direction lol. Like, did Monk really need an AoE heal? Or Reaper with that regen thing it does lol. I wouldn’t be surprised if Viper gets a raid buff next expansion

---

I mean yes, but I was strictly speaking of utility that's not directly mitigation or healing or essentially a raid buff