Devolution.
Combat has lost so much depth. And never had much in fact to begin with.
Like elements nearly didn't matter. And then were removed.
Balance is poison for fun.
Printable View
Devolution.
Combat has lost so much depth. And never had much in fact to begin with.
Like elements nearly didn't matter. And then were removed.
Balance is poison for fun.
I really don’t know why I apparently have to defend the use of hyperbole, it was exceedingly obvious what I meant by that comment and so it doesn’t detract from anything, as was pointed out it’s just another way of saying “much much easier”
Ren button counting means nothing when it comes to job difficulty, forgive me if I don’t fully trust how you “feel” on a job after previous incidents on the healer forums, WAR is universally considered by far the easiest tank, arguing on the necessity of hyperbole in a statement doesn’t change you know that’s exactly what that comment was meant to evoke
Tbf, unless we're talking about 1.x here, elements truly have never mattered; it just made it so --for one whole... patch-- Foe Requiem buffed only BLM and WHM, instead of affecting SMN or SCH.
Yes and no. Targeting overly narrow parity (e.g., between ability X on Job A and the nearest analog on Job B) tends to constrain things so tightly that fun is often lost in the process, but balance itself does not degrade nor harm fun.Quote:
Balance is poison for fun.
Heck, the ability to have fun amid difficult content typically relies largely on balance, else you end up replacing "Normal, Savage, Ultimate" with the likes of simply "SMN, RDM, BLM", where all but one job per role just functions as intentional self-sabotage / bonus challenge at best. Such works in a single-player game, but rarely in a multiplayer one, as the difficulty setting would then be a composite of each person's difficulty modifiers (7 out of 8 of whom each player has no control over).
Which will have all of... what... difference in gameplay?
Look, I agree with you that gameplay has devolved over recent expansions. I'll agree it never had much depth to begin with. I agree that it should be capable of more. But let's not pretend that a bizarre on-paper descriptor actually comes through in gameplay.
Having elements "matter" in 1.x just meant that you picked between 6 different identical actions each based on the enemy type, meaning that it took 12 buttons just to support the simple filler + single DoT gameplay that healers have now.
The extent of having elements "matter" at the very start of ARR just meant that Bard could not interact with SMN or SCH, meaning that in a quarter of all compositions, Foe Requiem was useless, and in three-quarters of composition it was half-useless.
Unless you specifically add mechanics to differentiate it, "poison" is just a DoT. Unless you specifically add mechanics to compliment it, "evasion" is just passive RNG-based mitigation.
"Differentiation" on paper does not necessarily, or even typically, cause difference in practice/gameplay.
Does the game still use Pierce, Blunt and Slashing damage types in the calculation?
Was there not some bosses who took more or less damage depending on the weapon type?
They still exist, they just don't come up very often (or at all in new encounters).
T2 has examples of resistance to all physical damage types, and BLM can for instance benefit from BLU's Condensed Libra.
If it's not expressly conveyed via a buff or debuff, there's probably no difference (unless we're talking BLU again, in the Carnivale enemies have elemental affinities).
Does no one else see the typo in his graphic?