Paladin doesn't suck, 2 minute rotations just ruined combat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

What you're describing are the interactions around Holy Power, which have been the case since Holy Power was introduced to the class, not just since Legion. Legion merely traded a previously class-wide CD reset for Art of War (Exorcism) for a spec-specific one (Blade of Justice) while slightly amping Auras in place of Seals. I greatly preferred WoD Retribution, but it wasn't particularly more complex than Legion Ret, especially in PvE.

Ret centers around min-maxing spans of opportunity through minimizing waste uptime vs. performance while retaining later sync with macrorotational elements (Execution Sentence, Crusade, Seraphim, Holy Avenger, etc. -- all more numerous than before). It caps resources quickly, and gambles often but deliberately. Learn to min-max it, rather than sticking to just the Icyveins barebones, and you'll find it's far from "basic of basic," unless nearly every XIV job would fall even lower. Otherwise, you may as well say that BLM is skill-less and offers zero nuance.


What's fun about these two examples, moreover, is that both play more complexly for having removed that button. On Protection Warrior, it obliges one to track their auto-attack timer and to calculate the risk of wasting a Shield Slam reset by hitting another GCD just before an AA goes off. On Havoc Demon Hunter, it obliges offensive mobility usage that then frequently requires knowing to where the mob will be moved next and when the next mechanic would actually require its raw mobility (and from outside of enemy hitbox, without damage, to reach, or available from within it), both of which have a hell of a lot more cognitive load than an actual pure filler attack like Demon Bite or Devastate (and which Crusader Strike, as a CD with multiple available procs, is not).

---

I like those talents for another reason: less button mashing. While some players may like mashing a button constantly whenever there's nothing better to press, some would rather not induce RSIs by having to be constantly tapping 2 or whatever button you had assigned to your free, filler button. This is actually something that annoyed me when I played through Classic to 80 last month, having to almost constantly be hitting my Heroic Strike button in dungeons to dump excess rage. That's one change they made years ago that I wished they'd backported into Classic (yeah yeah #nochanges, miss me with that crap because some of the old stuff was just bad and I didn't need a refresher to remember why it was bad.) It let players slightly customize the way they played the game, and as you mentioned, it actually *increases* optimization opportunities. It's probably a DPS loss for smoothbrain casuals like me, since we'd inevitably do exactly what you're talking about and "waste" a Shield Slam proc because we aren't watching our AA timer, but that's acceptable for folks like me, because it's more convenient.

Anyway. I think you definitely could've made a case for XIV being more complicated to play back around SB and certainly HW, compared to WoW from Legion forwards, but these days? I think they're both almost entirely mindless, especially if you're talking about anything but 90th+ percentile play. They approach in different methods, but I think both are rather simple to play and do well at. In both cases, they focused on making encounters difficult primarily from having to react to mechanics and gimmicks, and not having to balance a tea tray's worth of buttons and memorize a 36-step flowchart to achieve competent DPS. I think this is, ultimately, for the better.

I do think that XIV could take a few notes from WoW, though. I don't think 1-2-3 static, unchanging fillers are particularly interesting, and I also think that the whole "plan out buttons to maximize raid buff advantage" thing has been discarded now that everything automatically lines up anyway. It was fun, having to tinker with rotations if you had a NIN, or things like that. But that time is behind us now. Unless Square-Enix plans on moving away from "2 minute meta," I think the next thing to do in class design is make the ~40-100 sec of filler gameplay between raid bursts more engaging and fun.

In all fairness using ret paladin of all specs as a comparison point is kinda unfair. That's like looking at stormblood white mage and talking about how bad stormblood was. Yeah, that one job sucked back then but generally SB was really good for most jobs. I don't know enough about the nitty-gritty of WoW's combat to really speak on it that much (only played for a few months and only played monk, paladin and priest at endgame) but overall I'd say WoW's class design is in a better spot than 14's jobs. At least tanks and healers in WoW all feel somewhat distinct and not like the same job with different animations. My largest critique of 14's job design is that aside from casters, most jobs are either a copy/paste of another within its role or just plain clunky and boring.

That's my chief complaint, too. I don't play WoW because I feel like retail is a massive cluster because they refused to just start making WoW 2 years ago, but I do like to observe design trends and things they do and they've really hit some home runs over the past few years with different class designs and being able to fit unique class feels and gimmicks into a system that, while not necessarily well balanced, is at least functional... and even if some classes or specs are weak at the top end, they're all perfectly fine for the content that the overwhelming majority of players participate in, which is probably the most important thing, yeah?

I think that designing the game around what parse-fixated players think... despite parses and everything they rely on technically not being allowed by the ToS... was a bad decision and I suppose it goes back to just how *bad* Gordias was. It's like the Square-Enix dev team has some kind of collective PTSD over how badly things went and are terrified of it happening again. I think there's a sliding scale, with something like "balanced" on one end and "unique" on the other, and XIV has maybe strayed too far on one end and it's sacrificing too much for it. I think the problems we're seeing cropping up purely as a result of the "2 minute meta" design shift in EW are indicative of them having gone too far in one direction.

I'm kind of curious to see what they decide for 7.0. I'd love to be a fly on the wall at brainstorming sessions. Yoshida and his crew are pretty good at their jobs, even if I disagree with them sometimes. I'm hoping they'll admit trying to cram everyone into the same box was a mistake, and are thinking about ways to back out of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gserpent

Anyway. I think you definitely could've made a case for XIV being more complicated to play back around SB and certainly HW, compared to WoW from Legion forwards, but these days? I think they're both almost entirely mindless, especially if you're talking about anything but 90th+ percentile play. They approach in different methods, but I think both are rather simple to play and do well at..

---

I feel like you kind of have account for actual attempts at optimization, no? Else you look at chess and end up with checkers, so to speak.

And even now it's difficult to neatly compare the complexity of the two because they're so distinct (and the one, once looking at optimization beyond a one-size-fits-all APL, so quickly complicates itself beyond what can be pithily conveyed). WoW's is predominantly about adaptation and optimizing setups of windows (or, about picking the lesser evil in varying compromises, rather than there ever being an outright perfect option to stick to and keep rolling). XIV's is about maintaining a rhythm with very occasional alterations available to reduce desync or take advantage of a categorical difference (2-target vs. 1-target on MNK or PLD, different movement span lengths on BLM, etc., though that's far less often of note now).

Quote:

---

I do think that XIV could take a few notes from WoW, though. I don't think 1-2-3 static, unchanging fillers are particularly interesting, and I also think that the whole "plan out buttons to maximize raid buff advantage" thing has been discarded now that everything automatically lines up anyway.

---

I think if there were two things I'd like XIV to take from other MMOs, is to stop using pretense of depth in place of actual decision-making, and to stop being so apologetic or contradicting about its class's/job's central tools and their weaknesses.

XIV's "combos" are just yet more DDR, just done with 1234 instead of WASD. There's an entertaining rhythmic element there, but one could still do more in that regard on DRG with 2 buttons for ST than with DRG's 7 currently thus spent (since 2 buttons over 5 GCDs could technically allow for up to 32 separate actions, a 16:1 efficiency), or at least allow for each to be an actual action (rather than all 7 allowing for only 2 -- 1 action per 3.5 buttons). Give it a third button actually used efficiently and DRG's combos would go from DoTC-FillerC-DoTC-FillerC to literally dozens of available combo strings at varying lengths.

But then we look at something like Huton, too. The skill was honestly fine as it was initially, precisely because it had no resets. At 70s, you could manipulate it around downtime (going from 1-in-3 NJs to 1-in-4), so long as you kept it staggered from Suiton. It was still your highest value-per-uptime NJ outside of an 8-man Suiton-TrickAttack. But then we add Hide resets, so now we're "screwed over" by mobs being pulled faintly too soon. We add a barely-rewarding finisher for the sole purpose of not using Huton, merely replacing one mode of optimization with another and turning Huton from a core skill to a pre-fight chore and, on balance, further punishment for dying. Then we spend yet another button on it via Huraijin? Why? At that point Huton may as well be replaced with a more situational no-CD Bunshin, with Wind-Chore itself getting the modern Greased Lightning treatment (-> a trait) and Armor Crush being replaced with a DoT combo. So many skills spent just to make the initial one that much less core or interesting. What other MMO does that?

Quote:

---

Unless Square-Enix plans on moving away from "2 minute meta," I think the next thing to do in class design is make the ~40-100 sec of filler gameplay between raid bursts more engaging and fun.

---

Whether the two are even linked or not comes down largely to semantics. A game can give a ton to do between burst windows while still having meaningful shared burst windows just as assuredly as one can have meaningful damage/healing/mitigation while still having a Limit Break.

We tend not to like underpowered abilities fluffing our APM, but at the same time, engagement/fun isn't typically just a matter of throughput. We could still have bursty damage profiles and have far more APM and many more forms of optimization available between our per-minute and 2-minute bursts even while keeping raid buffs as relevant as they are now.

It's mostly just that most present jobs won't see lulls as preparatory to bursts because they're literally unable to use that time for sync (too rigid of rotational strings, especially in terms of their length), job design is hugely opposed to building around any meaningful adaptation to chance and generally aims for accessibility [with a comfortable pretense of depth] first and ceiling a distant second, and encounters don't demand engagement with active attempts to prep/sync bursts anyways because (unshared/individually varied) downtime is so infrequent now. Neither is a wholly recent trend, but as that trend's rarely ever reversed or sidetracked itself, the extent of it is obviously at its most extreme right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

I feel like you kind of have account for actual attempts at optimization, no? Else you look at chess and end up with checkers, so to speak.

---

Kind of? But outside of the actual math involved to ensure DPS metrics are roughly equivalent within roles, if you aren't tuning your encounters to require 90th percentile performance across the board, then does that 90th percentile performance even matter? Particularly in a system wherein so much of that remaining 10% of possible DPS is so reliant on critting the right skills at the right time. Good crits can quite literally turn a purple into an orange and an orange into a pink. I just don't understand the fixation on parsing that some folks have. I like to see a consistent upward trend of performance across a tier, but I don't really care about the numbers otherwise. If I can plot a graph and see a consistent upward trend, and I know that my group has had no substantial issues clearing (or at least none of my making), then I'm fine with whatever the game is doing.

Quote:

---

So many skills spent just to make the initial one that much less core or interesting. What other MMO does that?

---

One that has been too reluctant to redesign things, instead preferring to adopt an ultra-conservative design ethos that only iterates on things and never redesigns them unless absolutely necessary. "5.0 design" has basically meant taking things away from the Stormblood versions of classes. In some cases this is consolidating things, and sometimes they replace one thing with another. But original design of most classes is still plainly visible... it's just been sawn off at the knees and elbows and sometimes they used stick tack to paste on gewgaws here or there.

I do agree that it's some kind of weird idea that complexity is depth, or something? I think they'd be much smarter to reinvent classes along the lines of their PvP system - figure maybe 12-16 buttons *in total* for a class, though not counting consumables or other random things you might add to your bars. Option to break combos up into their separate 1-2-3's for players that prefer that style. Look at Diablo 3 - you can do a *lot* with just eight buttons. WoW shows you another way to turn "few buttons but higher APM" into a thing through the use of procs and just generally shorter cooldowns for a lot of abilities. Guild Wars 2 is another example of few buttons but reasonable depth to gameplay. There's actually a lot of examples out there. I don't believe that Square-Enix is ignorant of them. I think that they've just adopted an excessively conservative development style, for too long, and it's starting to wear through in some places.

I mean, hell. Even before the EW revamp, I still preferred the PvP version of most classes to the PvE versions. And then the PvP revamp in EW proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are absolutely capable of designing interesting and engaging gameplay and classes with very few buttons. But I think they're terrified of having another Gordias, so they're staying very conservative with PvE design.

I agree it feels bad to have fluff/padding in your rotation for the sole purpose of APM padding, but a game with PvE this rigidly scripted can't really make use of empty space. I only hate padding when it's in the form of several different buttons. I don't really mind tapping Shield Slam every 6 sec and occasionally more often than that with procs in WoW. I don't mind tapping Expiacion every 30 in XIV. I'd be fine tapping it every 15 or every 10 or whatever, too. I think sound and visuals matter more than anything to keep rotations *feeling* fun, honestly.

I wonder if they could come up with some animation system that made minor adjustments to sounds and animations dynamically so that you're not always doing the exact same motions over and over? They've got a *ton* of high quality, unused animations in the game files these days owing to all the pruning they've done over the years...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gserpent

Kind of? But outside of the actual math involved to ensure DPS metrics are roughly equivalent within roles, if you aren't tuning your encounters to require 90th percentile performance across the board, then does that 90th percentile performance even matter?

---

I'm assuming here that by "90th percentile" we're talking about getting at least some 90% of either theoretical or, more likely, "reasonably optimistic" levels of optimization, rather than just the ever-escalating/expanding gap of fflogs percentiles (essentially ultimately-player-versus-player PvE)?

If so, then... yes, but with a fair bit of flex, given that there it is a multiplayer game and there's therefore n levers of carrying/being carried, and that it's further complicated by gear acquisition and community feedback loops (see also 'jacking ilvl requirements up to 11').

For instance, let's say there's a fight that's tuned around an "80%" level of play (i.e., about Extreme level given its minimum ilvl requirement), here meaning that on average each must interact with 80% of the means of optimization to some "80%" mastery of each, and/or that ultimately they'll need to put out at least 80% of what their composition is theoretically capable of (yes, .8 x .8 would equal .64, but there are diminishing returns on the value of interacting with minutial optimizations).

That still gives reason enough, for many players, to be cognizant of a "tier" or two higher of player (going a step or two deeper into those diminishing returns on output for effort/learning invested), if only to carry their team. At the same time, though, others may simply insist that everyone grind or buy more gear, allowing it to be cleared at lower average relative performance across the group.

All that kind of depends on a(n un)surprisingly difficult degree of internal balance: for going a step further to feel rewarding, the rewards for further learning can't diminish too quickly, but if the rewards for learning are super linear (or, worse, if one only starts to, relatively rapidly, approach towards theoretical performance after having learned a bunch of less rewarding intro techniques/optimizations), then the game can be overly stratified or outright inaccessible, which crushes its accessible playerbase for endgame activities.

The floor needs to invite players quickly enough towards at least the mainstay ways of optimization in the game and have enough variety therein to attract various player types to engage with 'learning-as-a-game-itself', while the ceiling needs to have depth enough to hold onto players, or even ought to outright provide something in gameplay than no competitors can (even if most content isn't dependent on engaging with its entirety).

Quote:

---

One that has been too reluctant to redesign things, instead preferring to adopt an ultra-conservative design ethos that only iterates on things and never redesigns them unless absolutely necessary. "5.0 design" has basically meant taking things away from the Stormblood versions of classes. In some cases this is consolidating things, and sometimes they replace one thing with another. But original design of most classes is still plainly visible... it's just been sawn off at the knees and elbows and sometimes they used stick tack to paste on gewgaws here or there.

---

While you're preaching to the choir there, so to speak, I feel like I have to caution against hyperbole, at least if we really want to understand what's going wrong. Simply put, "sawn off at the knees and elbows" may roughly describe very particular perspectives on particular jobs as a summary of those changes, but the individual changes will, the vast majority of the time, make sense, especially as a way of addressing stated player concerns. The core of the problem seems instead to be HOW their reiterative cycle is approached, which typically seems too much a "problem-solving" approach rather than a "generative" or "maximizing" one.

Far too many of what changes have negatively impacted job design would seem reasonable "solutions" to problems; the problem is the lack of attention to gameplay depth*. Job A has X problem; new skill Y is added to solve problem; job A now experiences problem X less severely, but also less interestingly.

*This is not to say that all complexity is depth, as much of the later replacements for former depth-adding areas of play quickly show.

We could describe the issue there variously as being under-informed about the actual bones and blood of a given job while plucking away at its "problems" (be they specifically noted about the job or noted across the few job designers as a shared area of potential concern/improvement), as just underexploration/underestimation of mechanics-in-practice compared to what was intended, or however else along those lines. WoW and occasional patches of B&S, GW2, etc., have had similar issues here and there, but it does seem especially part and parcel in XIV's job design -- alongside the usual expansion by expansion "just throw more stuff on there!" (as would lead to a good half of the new HW actions having no good reason to be separate buttons, if only because "New Skills!" sells better than "New passives!" despite the latter's being equally capable of gameplay effect -- depending only on their utilization, just as per active skills).

I'll likely edit this post later with a spoiler block to test my claim above and apply a relevant method for analysis, but this is already getting long and I want to comment on your final, highly enticing note.

Quote:

---

I wonder if they could come up with some animation system that made minor adjustments to sounds and animations dynamically so that you're not always doing the exact same motions over and over? They've got a *ton* of high quality, unused animations in the game files these days owing to all the pruning they've done over the years...

---

This is something I have likewise thought about for a long time, though usually in the context of other MMOs where one would more commonly spam a single key for a bit (e.g., not just BLMs, healers, and SMNs). And I have seen dynamic variance to skills' opacity, size, or specific texture/particle layers thereof (though sometimes via mods alone) work wonders elsewhere.

Ideally, though, you'd want to contextualize it with those skills also actually hitting harder or with additional effects, etc., though, which in turn means building undermechanics that would better allow for open combos... which then already allow for that spam to be shaken up quite a bit. So, in some ways the near-necessary context would diminish the value of building such a system, but... honestly, still seems pretty worthwhile to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gserpent

Square-Enix also routinely ignores healer complaints, so they are apparently just fine with very simple DPS rotations. ...

---

You have missed the point entirely. By over simplifying rotations, you make jobs boring to play and less likely to mess up, especially if you are simplifying it down to 6-8 buttons. You might have the rotation memorised, but can you do it in the midst of combat whilst dealing with boss mechanics? Even if you can, you are still engaging your brain to do it. Take away this engagement, and that is when jobs start to feel boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gserpent

For tank LBs? I dunno, man. You'd have to hash that stuff out. I think you'd probably just make all LBs just do damage in a flashy way, since tying an extra mitigation skill to proper DPS performance wouldn't work well for a lot of reasons. There's a ton of flashy, fancy attacks and spells classes in Final Fantasy have used throughout the generations, I'm sure they could pull from those to come up with something really neat for each class.
...
We've seen from the WAR changes, alone, that most players don't really care about nitty gritty numbers and performance metrics, they care about flashy spell effects and BIG NUMBERS or I'M THE HEALER NOW type stuff. To me, switching things over to a "personal LB" system seems like a slam dunk.

---

Nothing you have said here says it has to be a LB over a long cooldown. Cooldowns can be flashy too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gserpent

As far as "proper DPS performance" goes? It would probably be based on completing action combos, keeping GCD uptime, and things like that. It might be just as simple as having some base level of fill rate (say, 0.5% per sec, so you would charge in 120 sec), and then every time you use an action you get a tiny boost, and you get a slightly larger boost for using job abilities (Fell Cleave, Afflatus skills, etc) or completing weaponskill combo chains. Maybe healers would get a larger boost for using a damage spell, but only once every 5 sec or so (so like one out of every three GCDs) to help reward healers for DPSing? There's a lot of things you could do to softly reinforce proper play, and your reward for playing well (for certain definitions of "playing well" anyway) is you get to pop off your super flashy BIG NUMBERS button that makes a loud noise and spell effect everyone can see.

---

Doing an AoE combo is completing a combo chain and it is shorter, so, will I fil my LB faster because of that? GCD uptime, technically, spamming Throw Dagger is GCD uptime, Job actions? In the case of Afflatus skills, you shouldn't use them if you have no healing to do. Afflatus Misery is currently DPS neutral if you can still hit the boss and a gain if you can't and use the Afflatus heals then. However, this idea would promote healing when it isn't needed, just to charge the LB faster. Seems counter intuitive for a healer. As for other job actions, different jobs use them at different rate, so some jobs are going to fill faster than others, which means the potential for a job to be able to get more LBs off in a fight, which is just going to lead to those jobs being more favourable. This is before we even get into the LBs disrupting your rotation, which potentially causes issues with buff alignment or resource generation. If it was more static, you could at least work around those limitations, but it would then need a static cooldown.

This is obviously also ignoring the facts that, the more you see a flashy skill, the less of an impact it has. If you were to see Final Heaven every 2 minutes for example, do you think it would still feel impactful after seeing it 5 times in a fight? Couple that with seeing Dragonsong Dive, Meteor and Satellite Beam at the same time? Even then, not every job should be all about the flashiness. Monk tended to draw people towards it because it wasn't flashy. Again, personal LBs will not work in the way you envision them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Doing an AoE combo is completing a combo chain and it is shorter, so, will I fil my LB faster because of that? GCD uptime, technically, spamming Throw Dagger is GCD uptime, Job actions? In the case of Afflatus skills, you shouldn't use them if you have no healing to do. Afflatus Misery is currently DPS neutral if you can still hit the boss and a gain if you can't and use the Afflatus heals then. However, this idea would promote healing when it isn't needed, just to charge the LB faster. Seems counter intuitive for a healer. As for other job actions, different jobs use them at different rate, so some jobs are going to fill faster than others, which means the potential for a job to be able to get more LBs off in a fight, which is just going to lead to those jobs being more favourable. This is before we even get into the LBs disrupting your rotation, which potentially causes issues with buff alignment or resource generation. If it was more static, you could at least work around those limitations, but it would then need a static cooldown.

---

Just to chime in, yes, we actually do purposely burn lilies when they're not needed for healing, to make sure we have a Misery ready for the 2min window, because using GCDs outside of raidbuffs to put a Misery into raidbuffs, functionally speaking, is transferring those 3 GCDs into the raidbuff window. Instead of getting 6 GCDs, it's kinda like we sneak 3 extra in there (Don't tell TSA). Now, I mostly don't bother with all that because I'm too scrub-tier to care, I keep forgetting, I prefer to keep the lilies for in case I need to heal unexpected damage, pick your excuse. I don't like the design, I think it's pretty dumb, but it's what we have.

Also in PVP, RPR LB is Enshroud, SMN is Bahamut, SCH is Seraph, and BLMs comes up so often it feels like a regular CD. Not every LB is MCH gun or WHM 'big laser', would we consider moving SCH's Seraph from being a 2min CD to being it's LB for this idea? Because functionally speaking, if 'playing well' gets us Seraph after X seconds, then it has an X second CD. In SB, we had WHM Lilies, the bad ones. They reduced the CD of certain skills, and we hoped to use them on Assize (because more damage), but they also worked on Tetra, Divine Benison, and iirc Asylum. Thing is, we never factored them in to any CD plans. If there was a raidwide at 1:00, then another raidwide at 2:40, and we were going to use Asylum to cover both of them, the fact Asylum just got reduced by 15 seconds because of Lilies was not a factor. We played as if the CD reduction never happened. So I think similar would happen here: The 'optimal play charge time' for the LB would become it's de-facto CD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe

Just to chime in, yes, we actually do purposely burn lilies when they're not needed for healing, to make sure we have a Misery ready for the 2min window, because using GCDs outside of raidbuffs to put a Misery into raidbuffs, functionally speaking, is transferring those 3 GCDs into the raidbuff window. Instead of getting 6 GCDs, it's kinda like we sneak 3 extra in there (Don't tell TSA). Now, I mostly don't bother with all that because I'm too scrub-tier to care, I keep forgetting, I prefer to keep the lilies for in case I need to heal unexpected damage, pick your excuse. I don't like the design, I think it's pretty dumb, but it's what we have.

---

That's something I actually had not considered and it seems...backwards to me (why waste healing when there is no healing to do), but, from a DPS point, it makes perfect sense and, if you didn't need the healing elsewhere, might as well go for the gains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

You have missed the point entirely. By over simplifying rotations, you make jobs boring to play and less likely to mess up, especially if you are simplifying it down to 6-8 buttons. You might have the rotation memorised, but can you do it in the midst of combat whilst dealing with boss mechanics? Even if you can, you are still engaging your brain to do it. Take away this engagement, and that is when jobs start to feel boring.

---

I'm sorry, are you actually arguing that executing muscle memory is engagement? For whom? The newest of new players?

Quote:

---

This is obviously also ignoring the facts that, the more you see a flashy skill, the less of an impact it has. If you were to see Final Heaven every 2 minutes for example, do you think it would still feel impactful after seeing it 5 times in a fight? Couple that with seeing Dragonsong Dive, Meteor and Satellite Beam at the same time? Even then, not every job should be all about the flashiness. Monk tended to draw people towards it because it wasn't flashy. Again, personal LBs will not work in the way you envision them.

---

If that were true, there wouldn't be a thousand and one memes about Warriors and Bloodwhetting and Primal Rend. Or the millions of unga bunga MOAR FELL CLEAVER memes in ShB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gserpent

I'm sorry, are you actually arguing that executing muscle memory is engagement? For whom? The newest of new players?

---

Muscle memory still requires thought, and it is not that hard to prove. Going to an extreme case of a 1 button rotation, you can spam that all you want, basically no thought required, add more buttons, and you do have to think about the right order, even if it is muscle memory. Contrary to the name, muscles have no memory, it is still brain power that influences it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gserpent

If that were true, there wouldn't be a thousand and one memes about Warriors and Bloodwhetting and Primal Rend. Or the millions of unga bunga MOAR FELL CLEAVER memes in ShB.

---

If that is what you mean by flashy and big damage moves, well, good news, you have them. If that is all that you required as a LB, that is a really underwhelming expectation. Even my idea of a long cooldown would be more noticeable than that. Infact, when SB was new, people hated the fact Fell Cleave was used more often as it just made Fell Cleave seem less special. The memes of MOAR FELL CLEAVE was started more as a joke to show the absurdity of what Warrior was becoming, but it has just been doubled down on over time, so Warriors now tend to just embrace it. What are Warriors getting? MOAR FELL CLEAVES.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Muscle memory still requires thought, and it is not that hard to prove. Going to an extreme case of a 1 button rotation, you can spam that all you want, basically no thought required, add more buttons, and you do have to think about the right order, even if it is muscle memory. Contrary to the name, muscles have no memory, it is still brain power that influences it.

---

While I agree that following a precise plan under strict timing can incur engagement, I'm not sure what you're trying to claim from this analogy.

Unless the game lacks the ability to queue skills, thus forcing precise timing, there's just nothing there in a one-button rotation. Turn that into 1-2-3 instead and it likewise quickly becomes subconscious.


"Muscle memory" does not imply that our muscles themselves are now controlling our movements, but rather than one has become cognizant of tactile and physical cues to the point that within a given process it becomes damn near impossible to lose one's place or to have to think through that whole (or even any significant part of that) process. And yes, 123 will so quickly devolve to that point that unless there are reasons to actually shake up that order --a matter of choice, rather than just execution-- the extra buttons to perform that nonetheless singular action will be almost entirely bloat.


Difficulty of execution in a rotation is dependent upon frequency and depth of decision-making. If there are only a few patterns to execute from, then you're not dealing with some 20 actions so much as, in terms of execution, just those few (though in bloated bundles).

To be very clear here, I'm not suggesting that, say, DRG be simplified into a button each for "standard /double-dot rotation [toggle]," "hold bankable oGCDs [toggle]," "Elusive/early Spineshatter [based on range]," and "Stardiver [before last moment of overlapping buffs]," even if that were all it cognitively comes down to. I'm suggesting jobs should have reason and capability to be more than that, that their patterns for skill execution should be capable of (and, for optimal play, subject to) more variation --while still having significant performance gap between those frequently reshaped decision paths-- so that you actually have a lot more going on. Only at that point will the added keys that amount to execution rather than just overlying stratagem amount to more than a brief-lived barrier, instead allowing for a long-term form of potential engagement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

While I agree that following a precise plan under strict timing can incur engagement, I'm not sure what you're trying to claim from this analogy.

Unless the game lacks the ability to queue skills, thus forcing precise timing, there's just nothing there in a one-button rotation. Turn that into 1-2-3 instead and it likewise quickly becomes subconscious.

---

That is what I am saying though, subconscious thought is still keeping your brain engaged and by that nature, prevents you from being bored. The 1-2-3 might be done subconsciously, but it is still brain engagement. I used a very simple example of going from one button to a 3 step combo, just to illustrate the point, however, if you start tacking on watching for your cooldowns, checking your gauges etc. you are still keeping part of your brain engaged with keeping track of it all. Reduce a job to 6-8 buttons, like was suggested, and you lose that one thing keeping your brain engaged.

This is where boss mechanics come into play, these are designed to make you think of something else and make you lose track of where you are, even more so the more things you have to deal with for that mechanic.

To put this in a different way, if you can do a fight, say, last boss of Sastasha, and your mind is wondering off thinking of other things, whilst you are still doing mechanics and your rotation flawlessly, your brain obviously isn't engaged enough. It is bored, as I am sure many veteran players are with Sastasha. However, go to something like a recent Extreme fight, or Savage, or even Ultimate, suddenly, your brain is focused on the encounter and your more complex rotation. Your brain doesn't have the chance to wander off in it's thoughts. This is why alot of groups will take regular breaks, to not only give their body a rest, but also their brains.

Now, I'm sure we both agree on the point that jobs should not be simplified and that there should be a variety of playstyles to suit a variety of people. That is not where this point originated from. This all stemmed from Gserpent claiming that PvE rotations should mimic PvP rotations in their simplicity. And I've probably gone way too deep into why PvP rotations wouldn't work for PvE but I do feel it was necessary to get the initial point across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

That is what I am saying though, subconscious thought is still keeping your brain engaged and by that nature, prevents you from being bored. The 1-2-3 might be done subconsciously, but it is still brain engagement.

---

Then I will have to fully disagree. If it is wholly subconscious, it is not, to me, engagement. It's merely a result of prior engagement. It's as much engagement as a bruise is fighting.

Now, will even 123 sometimes be done consciously, because of one not having yet gotten it down completely while being shook up by mechanics? Sure. But that only lasts a brief time.

And that brief period, and such meagre engagement even for the time it lasts, doesn't mark an efficient use of buttons (nor job design space). For execution to be an efficient/effective centerpiece, it needs commensurate occasion for decision-making. Think more fighting game combos and less DRG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

And that brief period, and such meagre engagement even for the time it lasts, doesn't mark an efficient use of buttons (nor job design space). For execution to be an efficient/effective centerpiece, it needs commensurate occasion for decision-making. Think more fighting game combos and less DRG.

---

But a fighting game combo is essentially the same as a 1-2-3. If you hit the initial attack, it will have a string of attacks after that does the most damage. There might be a change partway through to potentially knock someone into a wall or off an edge but that is as far as the decision making goes. The hard part is getting a hit to land in the first place that can be comboed from. This is then where you have the decision making process of, my opponent has done this, or I think they will do that, so I should counter with this or that.

However, say we could think of something could resemble this. A random proc on 2 that activates 4 for extra damage, so it is either 1-2-3 or randomly 1-2-4. Maybe proc on both 1 or 2, you know, this is starting to sound alot like Dancer combos. If you look for it, there are jobs with decision making, however, is it really a decision if one route is always more DPS than another? To which the question is, what is considered a meaningful decision in the context of FFXIV combat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

But a fighting game combo is essentially the same as a 1-2-3. If you hit the initial attack, it will have a string of attacks after that does the most damage. There might be a change partway through to potentially knock someone into a wall or off an edge but that is as far as the decision making goes. The hard part is getting a hit to land in the first place that can be comboed from. This is then where you have the decision making process of, my opponent has done this, or I think they will do that, so I should counter with this or that.

However, say we could think of something could resemble this. A random proc on 2 that activates 4 for extra damage, so it is either 1-2-3 or randomly 1-2-4. Maybe proc on both 1 or 2, you know, this is starting to sound alot like Dancer combos. If you look for it, there are jobs with decision making, however, is it really a decision if one route is always more DPS than another? To which the question is, what is considered a meaningful decision in the context of FFXIV combat?

---

Except there AAA, AAB, ABA, ABB, BAA, BAB, BBA, and BBB could all constitute different combos, and the difficulty in combo execution is therefore buoyed by the difficulty in combo selection. Else 12345 rapidly devolves to just "Chaos Thrust [combo]" and 16754 into "Full Thrust [combo]".

Rather than those myriad available executions to actually tax one's ability to execute upon one's choice, because there are only two actual actions (despite investing 7 buttons into them) the execution quickly becomes trivial, unconscious, and unengaging.

Quote:

---

If you look for it, there are jobs with decision making, however, is it really a decision if one route is always more DPS than another?

---

It's a decision if there are consequences to a given choice that will affect the weight of future choices (or, from the opposite but equal perspective, if the decision is itself informed by multiple manipulable factors).

That there is a best decision for a given context and need does not mean that there are therefore no decisions to be made, so long as the context and/or need won't last, unchanged, forever.

Quote:

---

this is starting to sound alot like Dancer combos

---

:: No, Dancer and its procs are not that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Except there AAA, AAB, ABA, ABB, BAA, BAB, BBA, and BBB could all constitute different combos, and the difficulty in combo execution is therefore buoyed by the difficulty in combo selection. Else 12345 rapidly devolves to just "Chaos Thrust [combo]" and 16754 into "Full Thrust [combo]".

Rather than those myriad available executions to actually tax one's ability to execute upon one's choice, because there are only two actual actions (despite investing 7 buttons into them) the execution quickly becomes trivial, unconscious, and unengaging.

---

Even in this example, there would still be an optimal choice as to which order you use them in, which means there isn't really a choice. Going through Monk's forms, you have a choice of 3 GCDs for each one, however, there is still a priority on each one. you have the pure damage, the buff/debuff and then the AoE for that form. Even if you want to say you can use any GCD without restriction or penalty, just looking at single target, you make True Strike useless as, between Twin Snakes and Demolish, you want to use Dragon Kick > Bootshine as much as you can.

Even if you want to have 2 buttons that change depending on whether they are step 1, 2 or 3 of your combo, there still isn't a meaningful decision, it will still be down to a priority system.

Quote:

---

It's a decision if there are consequences to a given choice that will affect the weight of future choices (or, from the opposite but equal perspective, if the decision is itself informed by multiple manipulable factors).

That there is a best decision for a given context and need does not mean that there are therefore no decisions to be made, so long as the context and/or need won't last, unchanged, forever.

---

In a vacuum, if you can manipulate the variables/factors, then you still do not have a decision, there will be an optimal route based on priority. Even if you imagine a scenario where option A is better in fight 1 and option B is better in fight 2, it still isn't a decision you make, it is just that your priority system for actions is fight dependant.

Quote:

---

:: No, Dancer and its procs are not that.

---

Which means I am either misunderstanding what you mean by a 'decision' or I am failing to understand a scenario where one of these 'decisions' might happen. Give me a simple example that demonstrates this idea of a decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Even in this example, there would still be an optimal choice as to which order you use them in, which means there isn't really a choice.

---

Not sure where you're trying to go with this whole "choice doesn't exist" bit....

Again, choice isn't opposed to there being something optimal; it's simply dependent on varying situated frames of reference. Best for the next GCD? For the next string? For sync into the next macrorotational phase? For the fight as a whole? Each requires increasing levels of knowledge that eventually approach a gamble (or, a controlled exchange of risk for reward).

For one to assuredly make the best choice overall, you'd need to know, at minimum, precisely how long the fight will last, up to the points that would threshold which choices would be optimal (far and few between in XIV, but as we've noted, it's not exactly an example of a place with frequent decision-making). For anything party-dependent or party-affecting, you'd also account for said party, up to the weight that'd affect those thresholds in turn. Which, you won't. You'll have a best guess, improving in accuracy and precision with skill and familiarity, but never a perfect one.

Quote:

---

Going through Monk's forms, you have a choice of 3 GCDs for each one, however, there is still a priority on each one. you have the pure damage, the buff/debuff and then the AoE for that form. Even if you want to say you can use any GCD without restriction or penalty, just looking at single target, you make True Strike useless as, between Twin Snakes and Demolish, you want to use Dragon Kick > Bootshine as much as you can.

---

Monk is far from I was describing above, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it as if it were evidence that choice can only ever be illusion. Monk manages string lengths not for varying combos but simply to <minimize wasted TwS/Demo duration> while also trying to <minimize wasted CD potential effective uptime>. The combos themselves aren't the decision; the TwS/Demo string-lengths and PB timings are.

Quote:

---

In a vacuum, if you can manipulate the variables/factors, then you still do not have a decision, there will be an optimal route based on priority.

---

You can manipulate the variables/factors in chess, too, but doesn't devolve the game into non-decisions. Again, what's key is that there isn't a singular APL / frame of reference for priority.

Quote:

---

Even if you imagine a scenario where option A is better in fight 1 and option B is better in fight 2, it still isn't a decision you make, it is just that your priority system for actions is fight dependent.

---

If the entirety of a piece of content follows the exact same APL at all times, then it hasn't met the constraints you just quoted.

Quote:

---

Which means I am either misunderstanding what you mean by a 'decision' or I am failing to understand a scenario where one of these 'decisions' might happen. Give me a simple example that demonstrates this idea of a decision.

---

Making a "decision" is an act of parsing a (best guess at the) best choice wherein

• the outcomes of available choices are real and varied,
• the method by which the best choice may be considered are themselves multi-leveled (one shifts between meta-APLs or the action priority lists compete/are re-weighted directly) and/or varied, and
• one has access to significant, but not the whole body of, relevant information informing the weights of those methods of determination (and therefore the choices themselves).

I.e., it's one where the "best" choice is dependent not just on immediate context, but also on a reasonably but uncertain guess as to what would best pay off in the future. A truly stagnant, unvaried APL cannot meaningfully render choice.

Dancer procs do not, to me, allow for any meaningful decision, since they operate under a single APL. Machinist in the context of ammo while approaching a burst phase nearly reached meaningful choice, and could perhaps have reached it if there were more impact on prepping procced shots in an atypical order on macrorotation (e.g., CD drift) and those atypical orders were less cost costly to ppgcd. Monk's optimal drift vs. double lunar/solar vs. "standard" or SAM's conditional turns towards ad hoc play or varied BLM rotational strings may likewise constitute, to me, actual decisions.

:: To be clear, none of that makes those examples of maximizing button-efficiency, just as Monk was not an example of truly open combos. Those are two separate matters. It's simply that execution tends to have far more long-lived engagement when one has more patterns to learn and execute upon, as compared to just 2-3 of them that get looped indefinitely. Hence Optimal Drift Monk typically feeling harder to execute than lockstep Monk and optimizing BLM in a high-movement fight (especially with at least somewhat randomized timings of those forced-movement events) will tend to have more long-lived engagement in execution, too, than even a NIN in a nonetheless precisely static rotation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

That is what I am saying though, subconscious thought is still keeping your brain engaged and by that nature, prevents you from being bored.

---

That's called "going through the motions."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

That is what I am saying though, subconscious thought is still keeping your brain engaged and by that nature, prevents you from being bored.

---

If that were true, people wouldn't absolutely despise doing FATEs or feeling like they "must" engage in non-dungeon/raids combat. But most people will comment negatively about that kind of content, because rotations are so mindless now. If you don't have mechanics to learn and react to, there's very little actually going on in XIV's combat.

At least proc-based gameplay does literally require you to react to stimuli, even if it's very simple. It hits that monkey see button activity center in the brain in the way that mindlessly repeating a 1-2-3 doesn't. There's a lot of reasons WoW shifted towards largely proc-based gameplay over time.

I don't think every class in XIV needs to have procs or otherwise be "proc based" for their filler activity. But if they don't have procs, then they need to have actual decision-making involved in their filler in some way. But the issue with letting players make decisions is that players can and will make the *wrong* decision and lose DPS, and for whatever reason Square-Enix seems to be ardently against that with Endwalker (see: WAR changes.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Not sure where you're trying to go with this whole "choice doesn't exist" bit....

Again, choice isn't opposed to there being something optimal; it's simply dependent on varying situated frames of reference. Best for the next GCD? For the next string? For sync into the next macrorotational phase? For the fight as a whole? Each requires increasing levels of knowledge that eventually approach a gamble (or, a controlled exchange of risk for reward).

For one to assuredly make the best choice overall, you'd need to know, at minimum, precisely how long the fight will last, up to the points that would threshold which choices would be optimal (far and few between in XIV, but as we've noted, it's not exactly an example of a place with frequent decision-making). For anything party-dependent or party-affecting, you'd also account for said party, up to the weight that'd affect those thresholds in turn. Which, you won't. You'll have a best guess, improving in accuracy and precision with skill and familiarity, but never a perfect one.

---

Except it is. Lets go through your list, next GCD? There will be an optimal one. Next String? There will be an optimal one. For the next macrorotational phase? That is something decided in your raid party so that ou can keep the 2 minute buffs lined up. The fight as a whole? Nothing you do at the start of the fight is going to affect you that far into a fight, especially not something that you can effectively make an informed decision on, which makes it a non issue.

Quote:

---

Monk is far from I was describing above, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it as if it were evidence that choice can only ever be illusion. Monk manages string lengths not for varying combos but simply to <minimize wasted TwS/Demo duration> while also trying to <minimize wasted CD potential effective uptime>. The combos themselves aren't the decision; the TwS/Demo string-lengths and PB timings are.

---

When you mention doing either AAA or ABA or BBA etc. that is exactly what Monk's rotation is. You are choosing what to use in each step. Monk's place in the combo is denoted by the form it is in. That is why I compared them as it is exactly what you described.

The actions you do is decided by the TwS/Demo timing for you. You decide to do True Strike because you have enough time left on your Twin Snakes, you Snap Punch BECAUSE you still have plenty of time on Demolish. These choices are made on a GCD basis. The same is true for Dragoon, you decide to use a specific combo based on Powersurge/Chaotic Spring timings. You have the choice of one or the other, however, based on the info, you decide to one one over the other.

This is the same with every job. You have a choice of using any Ninjutsu, however, you use Raiton for single target, unless you are under Kassatsu. You have a choice of an order for Ten Chi Jin, however, you use them in a specific order based on single target or AoE. You have the choice to use Triple Cast now, or you can save it for 10 seconds for the heavy movement phase, that That Thundercloud proc? Useful for a weave. Summoner's Summons? You have the choice in what order you put them in, but you aren't going to use Ifrit when you know a heavy movement phase is coming up etc. All of these are choices and all of them have have an optimal route to go down.

The absolute closest I can probably think of is old old Tornado Kick, when it used to take away your GL stacks. You had the choice to use it just before the boss jumps, but, when is that? and if I used it and I could get an extra GCD in, I lost damage, so really, the risk wasn't worth the reward. Now, you could increase the reward, however, that just makes that option the best and worth going for, so you really don't have a choice there either. I'm using TK as an example, however, this will be true for any risk/reward system. If the risk doesn't outweigh the reward, then there is no point and if the reward far outweighs the risk, then it just becomes part of your rotation.

Quote:

---

You can manipulate the variables/factors in chess, too, but doesn't devolve the game into non-decisions. Again, what's key is that there isn't a singular APL / frame of reference for priority.

---

First, to point out a fundamental difference between FFXIV and Chess/fighting games, you go against a human in Chess/FGs, which you are deciding one decision based on a web of possibilities. FFXIV, being against an AI, there is always going to be an optimal route. Even if you mix up the boss rotation randomly fight to fight, there will still be an optimal way to deal with the encounter.

Quote:

---

If the entirety of a piece of content follows the exact same APL at all times, then it hasn't met the constraints you just quoted.

---

But that is the point, there is no choice, there is just optimal play based on the encounter. Even if you randomise the boss, it will either be rotation A or rotation B.

Quote:

---

Making a "decision" is an act of parsing a (best guess at the) best choice wherein

• the outcomes of available choices are real and varied,
• the method by which the best choice may be considered are themselves multi-leveled (one shifts between meta-APLs or the action priority lists compete/are re-weighted directly) and/or varied, and
• one has access to significant, but not the whole body of, relevant information informing the weights of those methods of determination (and therefore the choices themselves).

I.e., it's one where the "best" choice is dependent not just on immediate context, but also on a reasonably but uncertain guess as to what would best pay off in the future. A truly stagnant, unvaried APL cannot meaningfully render choice.

---

1. And one will be better, meaning you don't have a choice.
2. But there will still be a best way through, negating that choice.
3. Which sounds like progging a fight, since you don't have all the info, and so, you are still learning what the best way through the fight is. eventually, you will find that way, negating all the choice.

But there is nothing uncertain. Even random bosses cannot be truly random otherwise you will screw over groups. The boss can randomly TB every 15 seconds without limits? Your tank's are going to die once they run out of cooldowns, which means there is a cooldown period. The same will be true of anything a boss can do that gives you that choice of A or B. If you have to use option A, then the chance for option A comes up again, you use it, unless it is on a cooldown, then you used it earlier, so tough luck, you don't get it here. Even if you delay, it means you miss it the first time, either way, you missed that chance. You were not given a choice.

If you want to show me a specific example, you need to tell me what the choices are, what the boss is doing to warrant that choice, and how that choice is going to affect you later on in the fight. Nothing vague, I want specifics because so far, everything you have said is not a choice in the moment, but the illusion of choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RyuDragnier

That's called "going through the motions."

---

Call it what you want, doesn't change anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gserpent

If that were true, people wouldn't absolutely despise doing FATEs or feeling like they "must" engage in non-dungeon/raids combat. But most people will comment negatively about that kind of content, because rotations are so mindless now. If you don't have mechanics to learn and react to, there's very little actually going on in XIV's combat.

---

Miss the bit where I mentioned you need engagement on both rotation and boss mechanics to prevent something from feeling dull? What do FATEs and the vast majority of dungeons lack?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

You decide to do True Strike because you have enough time left on your Twin Snakes, you Snap Punch BECAUSE you still have plenty of time on Demolish. These choices are made on a GCD basis.

---

Except even that procedure varies with upcoming CDs unless constraining yourself to a fixed loop macrorotation (which underperforms).

There are points at which the answer to "what's best for the next GCD" diverges from that of "what's best for the next rotational string" which may further diverge for "what's best for the next burst window" which may, though rarely, be different from that of "what's best given <estimate> seconds left in the fight".

That's where it picks up a degree of decision. There's more than a single level of calculation and there is at least a space for (though it will be fight-dependent in practice) an element of gambling.

Yes, any such examples are relatively shallow and incredibly few and far between in this game at present. But they are not theoretically impossible, as you are making them out to be.

Quote:

---

Except [choice is opposed to there being something optimal within a frame of reference, even if there are multiple frames of references that give competing answers from which no best frame can be selected with complete certainty]. Lets go through your list, next GCD? There will be an optimal one. Next String? There will be an optimal one. <snip>

---

That's true only when...

1. each question provides the same answer (meaning that you have only a rigid and unvariable sequence of events / in-combat complexity only in execution with all else being decided pre-combat),
   and/or
2. you have unlimited knowledge and mastery.

Just as there is a time where one is still getting execution down, that period while it's still a form of engagement, there's a period before which one has even a majority of the frames or criteria by which to determine optimal action. Moreover, there is no perfect answer for all but the most practiced of speedruns with a known group for something like "best for the given fight length" unless, again, the kit is too shallow for those different questions to be differently answered.

But hey, if you want to go the full nihilist-gamer route of "Choice can never exist so let us diversify play only by how well we can execute on a single set sequence"... all the power to you? I just want no part of that. There's too little decision-making in the game as is. As difficult as decision-making is to contextualize sufficiently to make those choices real, I'd rather allot resources towards that than be satisfied just with rigid execution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Miss the bit where I mentioned you need engagement on both rotation and boss mechanics to prevent something from feeling dull? What do FATEs and the vast majority of dungeons lack?

---

Yeah, seems I did. It sounds like we're in agreement. FWIW, I've enjoyed reading the back and forth between you and Shurrikhan. Good stuff here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Except even that procedure varies with upcoming CDs unless constraining yourself to a fixed loop macrorotation (which underperforms)...

---

Yes. I have never said you cannot change what you do based on a fight, however, you have changed what you do to maximise your effectiveness. Once this is figured out, you aren't going to go back to the old way as it is inferior to what you were doing. You had the choice to change, but once you decide that is what you are going to do, you aren't going to go back and pick the other option. Once that choice has been made, it no longer becomes a choice for subsequent encounters.

Let's go about this in a different way. lets make the assumption there is someone who has perfect knowledge on their job, but they cannot predict what is about to happen. At all points in a fight you have a choice as to what to do, ranging from the best case DPS to absolutely absurd things, like /playdead. We can rank these in some sort of order based on how much it helps in a fight in that situation:

[A,B,C,.....,Y,Z]

Now, as a general question, I give you a marker. You can place this anywhere on this list of choices. Everything to the left of the marker is something that could be a valid choice, on the right, everything that is not. /playdead isn't going to help, using Throw Dagger isn't going to help when still at melee etc. Fo rthe vast majority of the time, you will have 1 choice, Chaotic Spring after Disembowel, followed by Wheeling Thrust, then Fang and Claw etc.

However, once a mechanic comes out, say, the boss becomes untargetable, then you do suddenly have choices. Your decision marker is going to shift. In this hypothetical, say there is 3 potential choices you can make, so, your marker goes after those 3 choices :

[A,B,C,|,D,......,Z]

You are going to ignore everything to the right, and are left with choice A, B or C. Bear in mind, we don't know what is going to happen after said mechanic. Mechanic happens, and it turns out, option B would be better, by that, you move the marker to reflect this:

[A,B,|,C,...,Z]

We are now down to 2 potential routes to take, now imagine this perfectly logical person finds A, you move the marker and suddenly, you only have option A to the left of the marker. What started out as a choice has now devolved into this one option.

Now, this was done on the premise that the human was perfectly logical. Obviously, this isn't true in any way, however, a similar things can be done for actual human minds. You see a mechanic for the first time, you decide how to best approach it based on where you are in your rotation and what is going to happen after, and you change what you do to follow that. Your choices become more and more limited based on your knowledge of a fight.

Quote:

---

But hey, if you want to go the full nihilist-gamer route of "Choice can never exist so let us diversify play only by how well we can execute on a single set sequence"... all the power to you? I just want no part of that. There's too little decision-making in the game as is. As difficult as decision-making is to contextualize sufficiently to make those choices real, I'd rather allot resources towards that than be satisfied just with rigid execution.

---

There is nothing nihilistic about what I have said. I am merely saying there is no point where you can be given a choice that cannot just be reduced to an optimal option. I have asked several times for you to give a generic example where such a choice could matter, however, you have yet to provide one. It is even more frustrating when I am trying to use different choices based on known jobs, but you keep coming back with, 'that isn't what I meant'. Provide an example of what you mean. Show me there is a scenario that choice matters, prove me wrong. I want to be proven wrong because that is how knowledge is gained. That is how our understanding grows. Prove me wrong.

You people care more than SE do it seems

Well we can afford to spend all day navel gazing, and we don't have to do any of the actual work. But I do sometimes wonder if Square-Enix needs to assign more veteran oversight to the class design teams to ensure consistency of results and things like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lustre

You people care more than SE do it seems

---

Not sure why that'd shock anyone? There are what, three(?) job devs who regularly fail to imagine optimal play for the jobs they've designed (or, alternately, to imagine in the practical issues that'd have the job perform below what they wanted) and tens of thousands of players each who main those jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gserpent

I do sometimes wonder if Square-Enix needs to assign more veteran oversight to the class design teams to ensure consistency of results and things like that.

---

Of all the issues with job design, though, I don't think consistency has ever been a major issue.

That would only make slight changes like PLD being moved from a spread per-minute job to a 2-minute burst (a change probably coming soon) rather than simply being tuned up to make up for its typically lost burst windows (and therefore faintly overpowered in a low-buff comp party like SGE|WHM|SAM|BLM|MCH|+2).

Otherwise, at most certain jobs seem to be treated as early testing sites for certain things, like button consolidation or longer combos, with those things then quickly being spread across all. That fixation on consistency, if anything, is why Fracture and Touch of Death, in SB and ShB respectively, were pruned with most other DoTs for being "bloat" (that also would frequently exceed the XIV's status effect cap, pathetically low for a game with 24-man content) despite their functioning very differently in that context (also situationally as soft-CDs that could be used to deal with inability to position and a means to additional SkS tiers' rotations), etc.

Which perhaps is sadder still, in that the apparent solution to those oversights are people who actually play (at varied and significant levels of optimization) the jobs they design for, which is more staff-intensive than merely adding supervision and coordination. The coordination already seems to be there, with only (apparently minor, to the devs) concerns like identity holding it back for brief spans at a time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Yes. I have never said you cannot change what you do based on a fight, however, you have changed what you do to maximise your effectiveness. Once this is figured out, you aren't going to go back to the old way as it is inferior to what you were doing.

---

There isn't just an "old" way or "new" way, though. Those situations are fluid, as would be your estimation of which situation was current. One was better in situation A. Another was better in situation B. And you had no certainty which situation you would be in. At minimum, therefore you had to not only follow an APL but select the best from multiple APLs based on your best guess of what situation was occurring.

You're not always or simply creating a 180-step rotation and executing it precisely. You are tracking the criteria by which one decision may be favored over another and executing accordingly, each of which adds cognitive load that burdens execution in a way that makes it take that much longer to become wholly subconscious, passive, and thereby unengaged. Something you do wholly subconsciously is not engagement; it at best merely burdens other areas in the hopes that they will be more active or significant forms of engagement.

If you want execution not to be one-and-done, it and its surroundings need, in sum, enough cognitive load for that challenge to actually last a while (perhaps even with some players never getting to where that engagement goes obsolete), and the less surrounds it, the more quickly the execution itself can be focused down and solved, rigidly and finally. Once solved -- once there is a rigidly best solution -- it is done. As done as any cheesed-but-optimal way of handling a mechanic with perfect reliability. At most thereafter rotational execution can only modestly contribute to the fight's mechanics' engagement, just as the mechanics of the hundredth farm speedrun with a static on a new job can at most (for a while) modestly contribute to rotational engagement.

The more meaningful decision-making, the longer engagement lasts. And the difference, especially when starting from such a low floor as XIV's, is huge.

Quote:

---

Now, as a general question, I give you a marker. You can place this anywhere on this list of choices. Everything to the left of the marker is something that could be a valid choice, on the right, everything that is not. /playdead isn't going to help, using Throw Dagger isn't going to help when still at melee etc. Fo rthe vast majority of the time, you will have 1 choice, Chaotic Spring after Disembowel, followed by Wheeling Thrust, then Fang and Claw etc.
<snip>
...based on known jobs...
<snip>

---

Which is because our actions are typically (A) bound in rigid sequences and (B) have usually zero interaction beyond universal damage amp windows. They are literally designed to minimize choice. That is their point.

My entire complaint has been that the game lacks real choices (those being found basically only --and only rarely even then-- on MNK, SAM, and BLM).

You ask me to define a "real choice." I do that.

Your response, then: You demand I point at the real choices in game when my entire point was that there are almost no real choices in this game and that such is why execution so quickly goes stale here despite the game's relatively high button count.


Me: "I'd like some seasoning. Most items have zero seasoning and the remainder, next to none. Which is probably why the meal so quickly tastes bland."

You: "Oh really?! Point at the goddamn spice, John! Point at the goddamn spice! You show me where that spice is significant or so help me god–"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

There isn't just an "old" way or "new" way, though. Those situations are fluid, as would be your estimation of which situation was current. One was better in situation A. Another was better in situation B. And you had no certainty which situation you would be in. At minimum, therefore you had to not only follow an APL but select the best from multiple APLs based on your best guess of what situation was occurring.

---

Except it is. You go into a fight and the boss becomes untargetable just as you apply your DoT, you aren't going to do that next time, might as well get the direct damage in. There is the old choice and the new, updated choice. Bear in mind, all boss fights happen based on the bosses rotation and not time or HP% (unless it is a major phase transition), otherwise, you end up with the old HW thing of 'Skip Soar'. Even in this example of 'skip soar', your party either meets the requirements, or it doesn't. You then have the route through the fight where you skip soar and one where you do not. You haven't made the choice.

Quote:

---

If you want execution not to be one-and-done, it and its surroundings need, in sum, enough cognitive load for that challenge to actually last a while (perhaps even with some players never getting to where that engagement goes obsolete), and the less surrounds it, the more quickly the execution itself can be focused down and solved, rigidly and finally. Once solved -- once there is a rigidly best solution -- it is done. As done as any cheesed-but-optimal way of handling a mechanic with perfect reliability. At most thereafter rotational execution can only modestly contribute to the fight's mechanics' engagement, just as the mechanics of the hundredth farm speedrun with a static on a new job can at most (for a while) modestly contribute to rotational engagement.

---

This is the point, there is no choice. How far people go in terms of optimising is different for each player, but that is a choice separate from any encounter.

Quote:

---

You ask me to define a "real choice." I do that.

---

Not once have you provided an example of a 'real choice'. All you have done is provide a vague statement to the fact. You have not given specifics. It is more akin to someone asking for DPS concept and asking how it will do damage and the answer is, press buttons. Great, I could have told you that, but how do you want the player to press buttons. That is what I am after, the how. How do you want to give players that meaningful choice. By the way this has been going, it also has to be a choice where you cannot just optimise away, something to make you think. Maybe I should have worded it better in asking for what I want. I want the how, not the what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

<snip>

---

So, your response here is purely a matter of semantics? Honestly, that just seems needlessly hair-splitting.

That seems the likes of... <Cold doesn't exist (only molecular average speed) and shouldn't be used even in shorthand.> / <We are all fish (or virtually nothing is).> / <There is no 'right' or 'left' side of the computer, only its faceplate or backplate, even if everyone else is plenty able to contextualize which is meant given where the item in question is located.> Etc., etc.

I think you'd have guessed full well that the term is being used as an asymptote. A theoretically perfect player will break even theoretically perfect contexts for decision-making, but you still build worthwhile decision-making for real players. Some will eventually exceed it. Others never will. We need only ensure that all players are at least thus engaged for quite a while, not forever. [/SIZE]

But fine, let us replace the word "decision-making" with "cognitive load sufficient to, for the average player participating in the present content, reach at least a point at which adding further cognitive load no longer creates an outsized (above-linear) effect on the time it takes for a player to render execution of a given sequence into a subconscious action -- typically/ideally situated in junctures where nearly no players could track all the information necessary to make a perfect estimate of the best possible outcome and must instead make a gamble that in turn compounds future criteria."

Will that do the trick?

We've already collectively clarified, repeatedly, the idea that yes, if all players were divine entities, there'd be no "choice," sure, but they're not. They're people. The game need only have enough contextual complexity (from kit, party, or content) to push them out of certainty (even with outside advice/tools) and for those choices to be near and/or interdependent enough for no single answer to be the best an absolute majority or more of the time. XIV doesn't typically have that, but that is the complaint.


The better players get, the more "decision-making" they will leave behind, replacing that instead with relatively passive tracking that informs merely execution, which will in turn eventually becomes entirely passive. My point was that as you have fewer things to shake up fixed sequences in non-fixed way (e.g., not a mechanic that affects player actions in the same way each time), the more efficiently one makes execution passive.

Whereas adding an extra step to execution may make a roughly linear difference to how quickly one learns and makes passive the execution of a given (macro)rotation, adding complicating context to it make a largely quadratic difference. That's what I mean by complexity in (or, approaching) "decision-making" being synergetic with longevity of engagement through execution.

It's also why, for a typical player, choice isn't just what's optimal. Many a Monk, for instance, may opt into an closed loop rotation for a while during early progression despite knowing that it is inferior in order to remain at a level of cognitive load they still find enjoyable. Now, that difference won't be enough to meet that ideal definition of "decision-making", but it's worth keeping in mind.

Quote:

---

Not once have you provided an example of a 'real choice'. All you have done is provide a vague statement to the fact. You have not given specifics. That is what I am after, the how. How do you want to give players that meaningful choice. By the way this has been going, it also has to be a choice where you cannot just optimise away, something to make you think. Maybe I should have worded it better in asking for what I want. I want the how, not the what.

---

You asked earlier for a generic example. The model is that (the qualities that define the genera, literally a generic example). While that constitutes the "what" of a real choice, it is equally "how" a real choice is situated. It is the criteria that makes a real choice a real choice, the quality present in any and all of them. Given that we were trying to look at the bounds of what is possible, that seems the place to start, no?

Given that the "how" (the process or, as you seem to be asking for, the product), and the "what" (likewise either the process or product) differ only in contextual semantics, it's difficult to guess at what level of concreteness would pass muster for you. Again, here in XIV those examples rare --and not great even when they do form-- so I'd need to do a relatively from-scratch mock-up. They also require tremendous context (with precise balance) to actually exist, so it will take time to craft an example.

May I ask how many example moments of decision, and what degree of interrelation, would make the case for you? I'd rather not have to craft a 5-page mock-up.

I'll do for now what I can be relatively sure won't go to waste. The rest will have to wait until later.

An initial tentative attempt:

Normally, there would be three facets of context for complexity and therefore decision-making (or, the portions of cognitive load typically called "decision-making"):

1. the toolkit,
2. content-interaction, and
3. party-interaction.

For brevity, as it is the densest area, we'll mostly ignore the last for now, pretending it synergizes with, or at least does not conflict with, the toolkit and content-interaction.

To be clear, obviously not all are required to make for what I have so far called a "decision". There need only be enough complexity for there to be multiple relevant frames of reference (next weave, next GCD, next string, next burst, etc.) with competing answers to what would be best and for all but the best players to be able to definitely estimate a most productive frame of reference.

In XIV, this complexity has been typically drawn from content-interaction, since party-interaction has been made basically foolproof and automatic (even prior to simplification and consolidation, due simply to either pre-fight configuration as per set comps or the best choice being too far from the next best to be overshot in any situation). Even content-interaction, though, has diminished over the years, with fights behaving increasingly like target dummies, though not always for that great a loss to complexity; they had already rarely ever met the breaking points within a kit precisely enough to offer choice, prefering instead to offer waves of differing actions with a more obviously correct choice, as per interrupting distinctly AoE phases in an otherwise ST fight.)

Of course, all is bottlenecked by the opportunities available to a given kit (a duo of targets means nothing if you have no DoT [combo] and your AoE has no relevant advantage whatsoever until 3+ targets), so I'll try to cover that, too, specifically but generically.

Yes, party interaction and such can also reduce complexity. If you would have done something differently in order to survive but an ally could just throw onto you and otherwise wasted shield anyways, they may get some greater access to complexity in that context, but you will have less. Your would-be choice becomes theirs unless your choice is the more efficient and theirs the backup that is nonetheless better spent on you than someone else. Etc., etc.

As such, let's just assume that if the example below takes a cross-role action like protecting itself from unavoidable AoE damage or briefly gathering or tanking adds, that the party has no competing option of greater efficiency.

Some general factors contributing to complexity that may, if sufficiently balanced, contribute to decision-making. For now, axe those low-hanging fruit of universal undermechanics that would be beyond XIV.

• Stagger Systems (Damage can function also as mitigation and/or --granularly or at certain dynamic thresholds-- damage amps, offering less fixed competing tempos for optimal use.)
  
  
• Resource Managment (Usually requires granular resource effect, such as having less throughput as one has less Stamina. Requires a toolkit balanced sufficiently to allow for burst vs. sustained action. For this to result in complexity, there must be a desync (between the burst/sustained phases enticed by resource management and what the kit would oblige on its own) balanced sufficiently for the best choice to be situational. May or may not include effects for/from %HP that ["artificially"] raise the value of defensive play, especially just before one's own throughput bursts.
  
  
• Behavioral Manipulation (Mobs have, by species, a different behavioral script by which to determine target selection and their own "optimal" action, usually in accordance with base-threat-time-script-multipliers. Mobs may, as an action, change scripts or their threat coefficients may themselves be influenced by existing total threat, unit-specific threat, %HP, lead threat's %HP, etc.)
  
  
• Physics-based Effects (Being able to knock enemies up, back, down, etc., based on action weights, positioning, and mob context. Often granular. Slightly redundant with stagger systems in terms of complexity, but often complementary to overall gameplay feel.)
  
  
• Elemental Effects (Like physical effects, but using instead manipulable spectrums like Heat, Shock, Saturation, Mass. Complementary with behavioral manipulation and physics-based effects, but with some diminished returns regarding complexity.)
  
  
• Factors Affecting Uptime (Boss jumps. Movement requirements. Boss-radial AoEs of greater than melee range. Proximity based AoEs. Almost never offers any meaningful choice in itself but can allow for it if there are sufficient complementary factors.)
  
  
• Factors Affecting Target Count (Add spawns. Almost never offers any meaningful choice in itself but can allow for it if there are sufficient complementary factors.)
  
  
• Factors Affecting Relative Damage-per-Action (See Ravana Red/Green/Blue phases. Sometimes redundant, sometimes usefully competing with party interaction.)
  
  
• Randomization (of the selection, target selection, frequency, and timings of mechanics).
  
  
• "Tethers" / "Baits" (being able to bait mechanics or otherwise force their target selection -- relevant only if they spawn away from the otherwise best positioning for their ideal recipients, at an opportunity cost in movement that neither obliges nor forbids their getting said tethers).
  
  
• DPS/Healing/Mitigation checks (relevant to complexity only when competing with otherwise optimal actions, such as STing during AoE opportunities to burn down a dangerous mob or not using CDs or bankables during a certain raid bursts in order to deal with a DPS check soon after).
  
  
• Unavoidable damage that would situationally force non-free personal defensives. (Technically not in XIV anymore, but we've had them, or near enough to them, for some jobs at some points. Most relevant if they affect the flow of burst phases, but that's pretty much only been a quarter of a real thing in XIV, maybe per Stormblood DRK's TBN if its Blood spenders had carried gameplay-affecting additional effects.)

Okay, so we basically are allowed just DPS checks, boss jumps, AoEs that'd force at-cost movement (so, not a thing for decision making it itself for XIV Physical Ranged jobs), add spawns, tethers, randomization, and maybe painful-but-not-too-painful-AoEs if the kit has a way of addressing those mechanics.

Alright, that's our ceiling. Now, we need a kit that can interact with them. I'm just going to use a DPS as my example kit because those are the most numerous jobs and have the highest portion of independent complexity.

Where that kit gives a clear, straightforward fit to a given feature of a fight, we have only engagement through execution and there is little cognitive load. Where it fits less cleanly, usually via some degree of inertia (an AoE also having a higher degree of guage generation, which is more bankable, or AoE bankables being more efficient relative to their ST equivalents than AoE GCDs are to their equivalents, etc., so a next-GCD decision can affect a capacity for an upcoming mechanic), there's greater cognitive load (approaching a "decision").

• 4 enemies? No conflicting DPS check therein? No decisions, just dance.
• 6 GCDs against 2 adds, between ST dps checks wherein the boss reappears and would nearly wipe the party unless his cast-HP is burned down (and where one's 2-step AoE combo falls slightly short of their 3-step ST combo in ppgcd but has higher gauge generation)? Nearer to a decision.

  One could (A) just AoE spam so the boss arrives on an AoE opener (and can spend bankable oGCDs as AoE or ST, more flexibly), (B) downclock 1 GCD and prep the AoE finisher for the check, or (C) AoE twice and then prep an ST finisher for the boss's brief dps check. The best answer therein will depend on one's party (their gear, attention, bankables), any prior mistakes/irregularities (overspending bankables, simultneous mechanics, etc.), and the severity of the dps check (including whether it's all-or-nothing).

<Ran out of time. Releasing now in hopes for a bit more detail on what degree of concreteness you want. Will be back later.>

This whole discussion has stemmed from the fact you want decision making in a job's rotation, with the implication that you would have to carry out this decision every single time you do the fight. This is compounded by the fact you use Chess and fighting games as an example where decision making has consequences and you need to keep making decisions for the whole game.

However, my claim is that you cannot have such a system in a PvE environment. Every boss rotation an mechanic will get solved and there will be a 'best' way to handle it.

In theory, you could turn to RNG to make the fights more like a PvP environment, where you have to make decisions based on what the boss is doing, however, I have explained that even there, they would have to put restrictions on what the boss can do and, depending on what the boss can RNG around, it could lead to a case where you are rewarded for being lucky, which is then frustration if you are unlucky.

However, you keep saying it is possible to construct a mechanic in a fight that will require on the fly decision making. This is not something that requires pages and pages of mock-up, this isn't something that needs to be finely tuned for the sake of this discussion. It is just a mechanic where I can't pre plan what to do and go down either option A or option B, depending on who get targeted, or the shape of the AoE based on the name. Ultimately, it would be a mechanic that has no solution, a complete mess of things going on, but even then, it will still be solved and the decision making will be lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

<snip>

---

So, what, you're just back to just "complexity is illusory (could eventually be theoretically solved given sufficient information) so don't bother trying"? ???

You realize computers have since solved Chess, too, right? Yet it doesn't stop being a worthwhile and engaging game for those still playing it.

Quote:

---

Ultimately, it would be a mechanic that has no solution, a complete mess

---

It would have no single perfect solution, but still have multiple nonetheless competitive ones. That does not make those decisions "a complete mess". The difference is simply that they're far more involved (and, typically, open to prior and/or external influence, from prior decisions and/or elements of relevant randomization in one's kit or one's kit). You hedged your bets on the first moment of decision, and it has cascading effects. An event outside your complete control occurs and now part of your hedging pays off and others do not and that has yet more cascading effects.

Will an AI that would beat the best of all players in every circumstance have the best solution? Sure. Will some players eventually learn their way past any complexity that can be given them? Sure. But that's not your average player, nor does that engagement need to be infinite (nothing is), only longer lasting than can be done with just base execution.

The difference is whether the solution is as simple as a independent and simple question (such as "Are there 3+ enemies?") vs. multiple criteria with one's decisions influencing future decisions.


With very few exceptions, XIV follows incredibly simplistic and static execution. It has quite a few buttons, but most of them do next to nothing to actually provide any real duration to engagement because it is so damn static and so much of it is just bloat (see XIV's "combos", so many of the attacks being long CDs -- let alone that one interacts with them almost purely on CD, per 2 minute bursts, or just in terms of "don't overcap" with 4+ GCDs of lenience).

And if that's great to you... cool? But to say that wanting anything more cognitively engaging could only ever devolve into a crapshoot seems fallacious at best.


Tl;dr:
If you just want simple (or, lots of buttons but to minimal lasting engagement or interactiveness with content) on the mere basis that you think any engagement beyond a minimum in execution would be a bloated waste, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'd much rather have all jobs offer at least as much as, say, Monk and BLM do, and fights to include learning the optimal kit interactions for those fights beyond, at most, which of 2-3 openers to use and maybe to remember not to slightly hold one burst cycle. I'd rather have multiple combos to choose from and which for which that choice follows non-rigid and contextually-varied priorities/sequences than just spend 7 buttons in fixed order on "do single-target", etc., etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Tl;dr:
If you just want simple (or, lots of buttons but to minimal lasting engagement or interactiveness with content) on the mere basis that you think any engagement beyond a minimum in execution would be a bloated waste, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I'd much rather have all jobs offer at least as much as, say, Monk and BLM do, and fights to include learning the optimal kit interactions for those fights beyond, at most, which of 2-3 openers to use and maybe to remember not to slightly hold one burst cycle. I'd rather have multiple combos to choose from and which for which that choice follows non-rigid and contextually-varied priorities/sequences than just spend 7 buttons in fixed order on "do single-target", etc., etc.

---

Whilst a fight will alter your rotation you have learned on a striking dummy, the next fight changes it again, and the next one changes it after that. The engagement comes from having to memorise and change how you do each fight. Whilst each fight is fixed, across the game it is not.

Also, you can have a job like that, do what you want, however not every job should be like that. Everyone is different, everyone likes different things. That is why we have jobs that play differently, that is why we have different roles. Saying every job should be a fluid, multi combo rotation is forcing every job into a small hole that will alienate some people. Some like a more rigid rotation after all.

Also, as for the whole chess thing, of course an Ai can easily beat a human, you can make an AI that will always beat you in a fighting game, but that isn't fun. Playing against a human is where the fun is because the fun comes from forcing your opponent into an unfavourable situation or putting pressure on them so that they can make a mistake and you capitalise on it. The only mistakes that happen in FFXIV are player made ones, however, the boss doesn't respond to your mistakes, it just continues as it was programmed. Entirely different circumstances, which is why it was a bad analogy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

Whilst a fight will alter your rotation you have learned on a striking dummy, the next fight changes it again, and the next one changes it after that. The engagement comes from having to memorise and change how you do each fight. Whilst each fight is fixed, across the game it is not.

---

Compared to most games, though, it is incredibly static and only typically affects one's opener. Thereafter, one simply hits their CDs on CD or remembers maybe once or twice per the odd/rare fight to hold CDs because the boss will jump away almost immediately.

Quote:

---

Also, you can have a job like that, do what you want, however not every job should be like that.

---

The only change I've asked for across all jobs is that they have at least the macrorotational skill ceiling of MNK and BLM (or, say, ShB Paladin). More than just 2 openers, more openness to adjustment so that a given fight can produce actual differences. That's it.

And my focus each time has been equally or more on context, such as encounter design. Encounter design determines the ceiling of complexity; job design is the bottleneck by which that can be leveraged.

If most jobs are stuck in 10-step rigid loops with no ability to overclock or underclock their macrorotations, then there is far less that the encounter can do to actually produce any result that would change how you fight on a target dummy vs. how you would fight the given boss. That in turn removes any point of creating that variance in encounters because it doesn't produce anything engaging; what was a space that challenged uptime management becomes simply an arbitrary delay because there's nothing left to do with/around it.

Quote:

---

FFXIV... the boss... just continues as it was programmed.

---

Because it's overly static, which is in turn because we removed most ways of leveraging variance into anything interesting in how we handle a given fight.

The boss doesn't need to depend on our mistakes. But there does need to be enough to a fight that optimizing it (A) isn't 90+% of the time the same as for a striking dummy and (B) isn't instantly obvious. But designing encounters towards that goal isn't going to be lucrative unless you also have job kits that are flexible enough to actually do something with that. The two are interlinked. The more hyper-rigid jobs (and here GCDs will matter a whole lot more than bankable oGCDs, as the latter essentially better let you avoid any complexity beyond "don't overcap" and level out difference in approach against the likes of short DPS or heal checks) you have, the less the flexible ones can be leveraged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

the macrorotational skill ceiling

---

The usual pseudointellectualism aside, every job has fight-specific tricks that get used in optimization, and this has always been the case. The most interesting tricks are not usally about rotation so much as they are about positioning and movement. While this depends partially on us seeing more devious movement skills (Ingress/Egress is S tier, let's see more of this sort of thing in the future), you also need content in which tanks are actually required to position mobs correctly.

For starters, that means fights that aren't using either arena-sized hitboxes or that aren't just wall bosses. I realize that a big reason for this is that most melee don't trust tanks to position bosses correctly, and rightfully so. But it is a team based game, and I think that's the place to start adding more interesting variety to fights. Let tanks actually tank bosses, rather than being simplified melee with the occasional tankbuster-swap mechanic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyth

The usual pseudointellectualism aside, every job has fight-specific tricks that get used in optimization, and this has always been the case. The most interesting tricks are not usally about rotation

---

Claim: Most fights, for most jobs, rarely make any changes to one's rotation¹, or especially macrorotation², outside of one's choice of opener and holding CDs before boss jumps. Thereafter one just hits the CDs on CD outside of a (singular) pause per fight.

¹ Rotation - The order by which one performs what the job generally considers the primary "loop" of that job, such as from Demolish to Demolish, Fang and Claw (Chaos combo pt 5) to Fang and Claw or Chaotic Spring to Chaotic Spring, start of AF cycle to the start of the next AF cycle, etc.

² Macrorotation - The span of the largest possible loop of a given job --such as from Phantom Rush to Phantom Rush, Life of the Dragon to Life of the Dragon, etc.-- with whatever adjustments to smaller rotations therein may be needed to best leverage that larger loop or maintain it despite interference (downtime, death, etc.).

Response: Ahh, but every fight changes what you do... it just rarely changes your rotation.

???

When have I said we do nothing with movement? We do, sure, but the claim was about rotation. Unless that movement actually changes your attacks, too, and in a way you can actually account for or make use of in approaching your next burst cycle... it is literally not affecting your rotational complexity.

MNK? That movement can affect it rotationally and may affect setup for its next burst cycle.
SAM? That movement can affect it rotationally and will affect setup for its next burst cycle.
BLM? That movement can affect it rotationally and may affect setup for its next burst cycle.
NIN? That movement can affect it rotationally (but not in a way it need leverage for its next burst).
SMN? That movement may affect its initial sequence of summons.
PLD? That movement may affect its opener.

But for the rest? The movement either doesn't force any changes whatsoever (as per physical ranged outside of Heavensward) or the kit has no way or need to leverage/optimize it anyways.

Quote:

---

For starters, that means fights that aren't using either arena-sized hitboxes or that aren't just wall bosses.

---

Quote:

---

I realize that a big reason for this is that most melee don't trust tanks to position bosses correctly, and rightfully so. But it is a team based game, and I think that's the place to start adding more interesting variety to fights. Let tanks actually tank bosses, rather than being simplified melee with the occasional tankbuster-swap mechanic.

---

You can have both of these things, though, without movement having effect on the rotations of only 6 of 19 jobs (and rotational adjustment only on 3 of 19). The majority being affected is how we started, after all, just like more frequent manually positioned bosses and less regularly shaped arenas.