How could you do this to AST?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

This is not necessarily the case. Often times the devs seem to overreact or remain incredibly stubborn. Bard and Monk are two shining examples of this, with the former having been unanimously the most popular DPS throughout Stormblood while the latter was heavily criticised. What happened? They completely gutted all nuance from Bard, making it a Ranger with songs. Meanwhile, they praised their apparent rework of Monk... except it literally keeping every single aspect people's feedback said they hated. As of 5.4, Bard is among the least played DPS now and Monk went through a panic buff and a full tear down recently.

Dark Knight is another job people have routinely criticised, particularly Living Dead. Before it was Dark Arts spam, which resulted in them just deleting Dark Arts entirely and turning it into a uninspired Warrior clone while LD still remains the bane of tank invulns.

---

This is why I don't like some of the kinds of complaints people make, people who don't play certain jobs disliking how at its core plays complaining about it so that SE addresses it. I feel like the advantage of multiple jobs was to suit multiple playstyles and preferences. Like with DRK, I loved DRK when it was technical and had MP management, it was a part of the appeal, before HW I used to tank with WAR, if I wanted to stay with WAR, I'd have stayed playing WAR but I didn't because I liked the technical aspect of DRK and that interested me more. If people didn't like DRK from conception, then you had WAR instead.
If you didn't like SCH's DPS management or its shield focus, you had WHM instead. And I'm seeing another thread with a non-MNK player complaining that MNK has too many positionals, when it's one of the things that's appealing about MNK, when you have SAM, NIN or DRG who have fewer of them, it's better to play those. Why appeal to people who don't like the job from conception at the cost of those who love it at conception? If people are finding no job meets their needs and are complaining, then try to make something that appeals to them or to accommodate it in an existing design if it fits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saefinn

This is why I don't like some of the kinds of complaints people make, people who don't play certain jobs disliking how at its core plays complaining about it so that SE addresses it. I feel like the advantage of multiple jobs was to suit multiple playstyles and preferences. Like with DRK, I loved DRK when it was technical and had MP management, it was a part of the appeal, before HW I used to tank with WAR, if I wanted to stay with WAR, I'd have stayed playing WAR but I didn't because I liked the technical aspect of DRK and that interested me more. If people didn't like DRK from conception, then you had WAR instead.
If you didn't like SCH's DPS management or its shield focus, you had WHM instead. And I'm seeing another thread with a non-MNK player complaining that MNK has too many positionals, when it's one of the things that's appealing about MNK, when you have SAM, NIN or DRG who have fewer of them, it's better to play those. Why appeal to people who don't like the job from conception at the cost of those who love it at conception? If people are finding no job meets their needs and are complaining, then try to make something that appeals to them or to accommodate it in an existing design if it fits.

---

The problem is that people don't *only* play for the job design, but visual aesthetics, as well.

Also I never really heard of people wanting to have DRK me WAR lite; the major complaint in StB was that you pressed Dark Arts button way too much - MP management could have been kept, but it was the dev team that decided to solve the problem the way they did. Don't villify people for having an opinion on a job they want to play.

Maybe saying "I don't like people making these complaints" was a bit much, so I'll take that bit back as I ended on the note that Devs should either try to make a job that suits them or find a way to accommodate both if possible.

But I feel like if they've designed a job a certain way and it's not broken then that's the design philosophy they should stick with because they've given it it's identity. You're gonna get people who fall in love with it, sure, try to accommodate more people but don't trample on those who were already happy. They will struggle to please everybody and I think it makes more sense to be consistent. At least then people know what to expect. Taking the current healer position, we know for the pure/shield healer distinction to work we'd need to revive the old design philosophy where it worked, we don't know if they'll revert to that or continue with the new one we currently have which won't work for what they want to do or whether we get something new entirely to accommodate it.

When really we should have a consistent vision for what each job is and where they fit in the grand scheme of things. By not doing so, they're now in a position where it's about "who do you please?" At least with staying consistent with design you make the decision more easily, because you've already made the decision in design. And then see who you can accommodate on top of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saefinn

This is why I don't like some of the kinds of complaints people make, people who don't play certain jobs disliking how at its core plays complaining about it so that SE addresses it. I feel like the advantage of multiple jobs was to suit multiple playstyles and preferences. Like with DRK, I loved DRK when it was technical and had MP management, it was a part of the appeal, before HW I used to tank with WAR, if I wanted to stay with WAR, I'd have stayed playing WAR but I didn't because I liked the technical aspect of DRK and that interested me more. If people didn't like DRK from conception, then you had WAR instead.
If you didn't like SCH's DPS management or its shield focus, you had WHM instead. And I'm seeing another thread with a non-MNK player complaining that MNK has too many positionals, when it's one of the things that's appealing about MNK, when you have SAM, NIN or DRG who have fewer of them, it's better to play those. Why appeal to people who don't like the job from conception at the cost of those who love it at conception? If people are finding no job meets their needs and are complaining, then try to make something that appeals to them or to accommodate it in an existing design if it fits.

---

It definitely feels like Shadowbringers' philosophy geared more towards trying to entice players who otherwise disliked/haven't tried job x before instead of enhancing aspects of that job for those who already enjoyed it. Which is a fool's errand because now those same players who once enjoyed the job are the ones complaining. I can appreciate wanting to expend each jobs' appeal, but it should never come at the expense of those who already enjoyed it unless the feedback is widely one-sided. Bowmage comes to mind where nearly everyone seemed to despise it, though there were some who actually liked having cast bars.

What it comes down to, and it may be something the dev team dislikes hearing, is you neither can nor should please everyone. Some players simply won't like job x. So... let them play something else. Yes, they'll complain because they want "Ranger". I'm sorry, but... too bad. That isn't how Bard operates, or at least how it didn't. You mention DRK, which has always been a sore spot for me since I adored HW Dark Knight. Instead of telling people who insisted it was "too hard" to simply play PLD or WAR, they've continued to dumb it down into the uninspired husk it is now.

I really hope the sheer amount of vitriol they've received over healers, how poorly received Monk was and how Bard has all but crashed and burn will make them rethink this design philosophy going forward.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

It definitely feels like Shadowbringers' philosophy geared more towards trying to entice players who otherwise disliked/haven't tried job x before instead of enhancing aspects of that job for those who already enjoyed it. Which is a fool's errand because now those same players who once enjoyed the job are the ones complaining. I can appreciate wanting to expend each jobs' appeal, but it should never come at the expense of those who already enjoyed it unless the feedback is widely one-sided. Bowmage comes to mind where nearly everyone seemed to despise it, though there were some who actually liked having cast bars.

What it comes down to, and it may be something the dev team dislikes hearing, is you neither can nor should please everyone. Some players simply won't like job x. So... let them play something else. Yes, they'll complain because they want "Ranger". I'm sorry, but... too bad. That isn't how Bard operates, or at least how it didn't. You mention DRK, which has always been a sore spot for me since I adored HW Dark Knight. Instead of telling people who insisted it was "too hard" to simply play PLD or WAR, they've continued to dumb it down into the uninspired husk it is now.

I really hope the sheer amount of vitriol they've received over healers, how poorly received Monk was and how Bard has all but crashed and burn will make them rethink this design philosophy going forward.

---

I know one person who preferred bowmage, but all other BRD's I know hated it, but then one of those Bards still hates BRD and misses 2.0 BRD. I'm somebody who always hated BRD design but it's the SB and ShB version I enjoy playing. Buuuut my ranged DPS choice is DNC but I totally get why old school BRD's don't like it, heck, I've never asked or expected any BRD design to accommodate what I like, so if they rework BRD again and I hate it, c'est la vie, but I hope people who main it like it, as long as they don't step on MCH's toes of course, I play with 2 MCH's and they're finally happy, don't make them sad again. But mess with my DNC, then I'll write my strongly worded forum posts. :P

With MNK and healers, I hope they do something about it. I play with a MNK and have been using mine lately but, yeah, it needs addressing. And obviously healers I've talked about ad infinitum here. They fix MNK and healers and not break anything else for Endwalker, I think nobody I run content with will complain about their preferred jobs, it'd be a first since ARR. Fortunately, we know both are on their radar...well, I say fortunately...I've not forgotten what YoshiP said at the ShB media tour about MNK...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

It definitely feels like Shadowbringers' philosophy geared more towards trying to entice players who otherwise disliked/haven't tried job x before instead of enhancing aspects of that job for those who already enjoyed it. Which is a fool's errand because now those same players who once enjoyed the job are the ones complaining. I can appreciate wanting to expend each jobs' appeal, but it should never come at the expense of those who already enjoyed it unless the feedback is widely one-sided. Bowmage comes to mind where nearly everyone seemed to despise it, though there were some who actually liked having cast bars.

---

It was sadly predictable the path would lead to this. I knew everything would get simplified once they removed "niche" utility skills rather than improve its benefits and designing content to utilize said skills more frequently. Its the old adage of "lets make our unique concept appeal to others by copying someone else" but failing to see the irony. Bowmage could have worked if Gauss Barrel wasn't so ugly and didn't fit on the gun models (should have just been a silencer imo). It was also not rewarding to play. If you are going to give up mobility you need to increase a jobs damage to necessitate it, i.e. BLM, but even in ShB BLM is pretty mobile so maybe its a design philosophy that's dying.

I hope that they shift back towards the idea of a job's "lacking" features can be compensated by another. However, they seem pretty adamant on that old adage I stated earlier. I just hope AST cards don't get nerfed even farther but I wouldn't even be surprised if they removed the damage dealt and replaced it with critical hit rate all for the sake of "balance". They did it with WAR so why not AST.

soon it be like sch/ sch ast/ast gg lol if all shields gone as ast dirunal regens cant stack with each other.noct regens will work with dirunal regens as dirunal shields will work with noct. Though its not a meta but 2 ast is so godly since then then there can be 7 regen 4 shields total if both use the co/ci/cu neutral stuff at once as they all stack, only cards dont.Think this over SE. Also please can anyone tell me why 2 ast would not be the best comp for alot of things since they can stack up on everything but cards, with their amazing weaving mobility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceBlueNinja

soon it be like sch/ sch ast/ast gg lol if all shields gone as ast dirunal regens cant stack with each other.noct regens will work with dirunal regens as dirunal shields will work with noct. Though its not a meta but 2 ast is so godly since then then there can be 7 regen 4 shields total if both use the co/ci/cu neutral stuff at once as they all stack, only cards dont.Think this over SE. Also please can anyone tell me why 2 ast would not be the best comp for alot of things since they can stack up on everything but cards, with their amazing weaving mobility?

---

LB generation penalties and SCH is genuinely a better healer than a Noct AST in every respect that would matter to a Diurnal AST. SCH is the only one of the three healers that genuinely functions as a good cohealer. Mostly due to flexibility and free passive healing. Despite it being broken historically it’s still designed around supplementing another healer with a large toolbox of cooldowns. I wish SE hadn’t buffed its DPS the way they did for that reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grimoire-M

LB generation penalties and SCH is genuinely a better healer than a Noct AST in every respect that would matter to a Diurnal AST. SCH is the only one of the three healers that genuinely functions as a good cohealer. Mostly due to flexibility and free passive healing. Despite it being broken historically it’s still designed around supplementing another healer with a large toolbox of cooldowns. I wish SE hadn’t buffed its DPS the way they did for that reason.

---

oh understood about the LB part never knew that same jobs makes lb regen slower thanks for that info truely but... the whole sch shield/better than noct not true, cata is only single target and happens only 15% chance while ast can noct field+ noct celestial for 250% entire party immediately. sch need to hope on cat and then have to spread it, ET has a horrible long cd while CO only has 60 second cd, only time aspected benefic noct loses to alqo is if the cata happens because alco has a 300 pot but if it do not crit even aspected benefic slighty win with its already set 250% migi. succor use to win aspected helios via the cata spread tatic but since CO became a shield that even ET shield is losing also the thing that netrual sect boast heals of ast by 20% too. in 60+ content ast is winning naturally on migi as all sch has is succor unless they do a algo and it cata to spread it, then the 80 skill fairy they got , ofc she wont be available at that time to sch strict lvl 80 which maybe they want to probably have seraph at a lower lvl and give sch a new 80 spell. think what would still make succor/alco win noct field/aspected noct is if the sch use that illuminate and disspiate spell which then grants em a 30% heal boost which idk if they do that or not, tried that healer but its just not my cup of tea vs whm/ast itself. I credit those who play it it however I will even throw noct under the bus this rare time because dirunal shields via netrual sect/ci using aspected benfic=450% single migi vs noct field + co for 350% via aspect benefic. Since most say overall regens are better and I acknowledge it, from what I see too most heavy content tends to be whm/ast whether dirunal or noct vs ast/sch whm/sch. Also yes while not the meta indeed cause the slow lb thing dirunal shields and noct ones stack up nicely compared to a sch shield stacking with a dirunal or noct ast shield(ofc field and gal dont since they do not work with each other). SCH won indeed on migi in stormblood but to me barely is on sbh when they gave co shield and added CI for dirunal whos shield too was 250% but they nerf it to 200 % to make up for that sloppy mess 100pot only heal they had put on ast heals e.e

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IceBlueNinja

the whole sch shield/better than noct not true

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grimoire-M

LB generation penalties and SCH is genuinely a better healer than a Noct AST in every respect that would matter to a Diurnal AST.

---

Scholar's healing capability is more than a potency-measuring contest between two GCD shields. Shielding is a niche capability in FFXIV. Your off-GCD heals are what make or break your class most of the time, not the size of your bubbles. Scholar is a better healer than Noct AST because it's better at supporting and enabling its cohealer to squeeze more out of their kit.