Linear, linear, linear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NanaWiloh

Elderly people are good for such a use. Oh did I say that...oops.

---

Now you know what your life purpose is.Since you will get old,I hope you get the respect you deserve and the bear toys with you for a bit and then mauls you to death .You POS

I'd argue linear vs. nonlinear is merely a choice, one not over the other, and there are strengths and weaknesses to both. But the game needs to be built with that in mind.

From the issues people have with exploration, after removing things that can be chalked up to simple preference, I have seen some criticisms about how the game seems more open than it actually is. Which is an interesting one that I've really only heard about these issues in more modern games.

Perhaps, although linear and nonlinear are both valid choices, presenting as nonlinear is more profitable for a game. I dunno though, just spitballing really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shougun

I don't hate them (zone level designs), just surprised at some of the simplicity or lack of exploration / 'gameplay' wonderment. I say wonderment because sometimes it's a puzzle or some backtrack that makes you go "ah-ha!". I always considered the environment as a non-verbal character of the game, so interacting with it should be a deep conversation- Souls like games have good practice at silent conversations (including environment). I just felt the gameplay elements of the zones in FFXVI didn't really 'silently' talk to me. Visually, including the visual design not just 'graphic quality' of the landscapes talk very well though- I am often pleased with the visual layouts.

Personally I think what bothers me about the open world, and is also just probably a pet-peeve in general which makes it further personal lol, is that there are so many invisible walls. I see a small rock and think I'll hop up on it and the game is like NAH, YOU GO LEFT, OR YOU GO RIGHT, AND IT GOES TO THE SAME SPOT. Me: "how about this cliff". Game: "YOU GO LEFT OR YOU GO RIGHT- YOU GO TO SAME PLACE I TELL YOU, YOU TWIT". Also probably with a preconceived notion on top of that which was they would improve FFXV's open world exploration which did have some stronger movement controls- so I was pre-hoping for smoother environment interactions. The blending from running to hoping over fences is nice, but the jump is uh.. not very useful and you can imagine most of the game as a 2d isometric (in terms of movement, not visuals obviously). Something about being stuck on the ground, essentially, in a 3d world space, really gets to my monkey brain- 404s and dial up noises right away lol.

So I had visual exploration, but I felt I didn't have much tactical exploration. I think this is made a bit worse by the fact that, and you pointed this out I believe, the general rewards for exploring is like 2 gil and some wyrite lol. Doesn't really feel worth it and doesn't really feel like exploring anyways. I do appreciate that chests get their pop-up icon though, otherwise chests would be invisible lol. Next time I hope they can try to add some more interesting rewards, recipes, music rolls, etc. Probably similar to my feeling on quests, most are fairly straight forward (mechanically- tasks/rewards), but when I did the herbal quest that rewards you better potions I was like "now that's cool, worth".

Just finished up a few more hours of play after some MSQ and was like damn, have to wait to do more (till next available time to play).. So that's a pretty good :).

Funny I said I didn't intend to comment much, but it was nice enough to talk to you that I couldn't help have small thoughts while playing XD.

---

That's a great writeup - I enjoy discussion. Haha

Yeah the invisible walls everywhere, it kinda seems like they have good world builders, but not great level designers you know? It's usually a really nice area, and then they just throw shit around and block the way, or it's just a 2ft ledge you know you can just hop up. lol

It can be difficult bringing up Souls, because we know they're the masters of world building and especially environment storytelling. I can never really expect anyone to live up to that. But sometimes.. Maybe try a little?

It's very obvious 0-30% progress suffers from similar issues that ARR does. What I don't understand is how they don't realize this can turn a lot of people off, especially when that period is like 20 hours long. It's kinda like XIII in that regard too.

After that, it's starting to kick off for me though, and I'm enjoying my time the more I play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

I don't think anyone's conflating it with some sort of irredeemable problem so much as just an opportunity not taken (it's more just a... salient symptom, so to speak), in the same way that having no customization, or having little combat depth, or little available range in difficulty, or not having a well-crafted learning curve, or not having a responsive and intuitive UI, or having little story coherence, or having little explorable worldstory or backstory, would all be wasted opportunities that could otherwise positively affect a game's apparent quality.

---

Yeah it's like having 5 acres of land and you never even do anything with it. It's just kinda there, and it's neat to look at. Maybe in 10 years you'll finally build that brick oven and sitting area you've always wanted, but for now you sit on your couch and watch reruns of Friends. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Striker44

Remember, SE has engagement metrics that we don't have. If they continue designing and expanding on things like Variant Dungeons, it's because they didn't fumble them, and people by and large are enjoying and playing them.

---

No, this isn't as cut and dry.
Variant Dungeons were already announced for 6.4 and 6.5 before the first one was even released, so having more isn't indicative of their success. It was part of their original planning after all, not exactly something you can cancel in the middle of the expac unless this was a complete disaster which made them lose tons of money.
Also, you could very well imagine a scenario where, despite its poor reception, SE could believe that the system still have potential and only need slight changes. After all, you can't judge an entire new gameplay system with only just one sample (maybe the reception could be better with different rewards, or different lore, or different bosses, etc.)
And lastly, I don't believe it's applicable here, but some features could stay despite their relative unpopularity because they require basically no cost to maintain (like unreal trials).
So no, more variant/criterion this expac doesn't necessarily mean it was well received.
We'll see when they announce the 7.0 features.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kazhar

No, this isn't as cut and dry.
Variant Dungeons were already announced for 6.4 and 6.5 before the first one was even released, so having more isn't indicative of their success. It was part of their original planning after all, not exactly something you can cancel in the middle of the expac unless this was a complete disaster which made them lose tons of money.
Also, you could very well imagine a scenario where, despite its poor reception, SE could believe that the system still have potential and only need slight changes. After all, you can't judge an entire new gameplay system with only just one sample (maybe the reception could be better with different rewards, or different lore, or different bosses, etc.)
And lastly, I don't believe it's applicable here, but some features could stay despite their relative unpopularity because they require basically no cost to maintain (like unreal trials).
So no, more variant/criterion this expac doesn't necessarily mean it was well received.
We'll see when they announce the 7.0 features.

---

I'm curious if you realize the contradictions within that post. You're simultaneously claiming that they would continue making them regardless of how they were received, but also acknowledging they could cancel them even mid-expansion if they really didn't work...which necessarily implies that they're doing fine since they're continuing with the plan to make more of them...

They're better received than HW Diadem was. Maybe Diadem was also a case of the team still being smaller and more responsive, given they had a shorter production schedule, or the feedback was more keenly heard because written letters and live letters were more common and YoshiP wasn't producing another major game at the time, but they also didn't wholesale trash Diadem even though players almost entirely disliked it.

Players asked for more interesting small group content for a long time, and that's why they even tried variant dungeons. Even if they weren't as venerable as deep dungeons or exploratory zones, those things weren't in their first outings, either. They did say they planned to release multiple variant dungeons this expansion, and they're usually good about keeping their promises barring pandemics or industry-wide sales milestones. I think it's reasonable to expect they'll be more given their plan and that most players enjoyed them for at least a little while, and if it didn't meet their goals, I expect they'll try things slightly differently and improve it.

I would be satisfied even if they if just came away from variants discovering some way to breathe life into all dungeons. The miniboss doing different stuff on different versions is awesome imo and keeps things fresher longer on repeats.

I'm sure the poster realizes the contradictions because we're not talking about some kind of rigid ruleset, we're talking about a team of human developers with priorities, schedules and even families. Having a plan is a good plan, but plans aren't written in stone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ghost_of_Ebina

It seems the overall direction to make sure every "required" dungeon needs to be possible to beat with NPC parties, they had to dumb-down everything.
However, even then it seems even the non-required dungeons are largely linear these days.

---

It started long before squads and trusts. Way back in ARR, Snowcloak and Keeper of the Lake were very linear. Probably some earlier, too, but I have a headache.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Striker44

I'm curious if you realize the contradictions within that post. You're simultaneously claiming that they would continue making them regardless of how they were received, but also acknowledging they could cancel them even mid-expansion if they really didn't work...which necessarily implies that they're doing fine since they're continuing with the plan to make more of them...

---

huh... is this an attempt at a gotcha?
I just acknowledged that they could possibly cancel content if it's a big disaster. There's a huge scale between "massive success the silent majority loves it" and "so bad it needs to be cancelled or Square Enix will lose money". Just clearing that later condition doesn't make a content successful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMightyMollusk

It started long before squads and trusts. Way back in ARR, Snowcloak and Keeper of the Lake were very linear. Probably some earlier, too, but I have a headache.

---

While the linear dungeon design started relatively early it is undeniable that the introduction of Trusts and Duty support has made it even worse. We just need to look at the old dungeon redesigns that suck even the last shred of variety out of them so the bots can complete it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurdity

While the linear dungeon design started relatively early it is undeniable that the introduction of Trusts and Duty support has made it even worse. We just need to look at the old dungeon redesigns that suck even the last shred of variety out of them so the bots can complete it.

---

Honestly, I've found a lot of them to be improvements anyway. Does anyone actually miss waiting forever for the first two bosses in Copperbell to actually do anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMightyMollusk

Honestly, I've found a lot of them to be improvements anyway. Does anyone actually miss waiting forever for the first two bosses in Copperbell to actually do anything?

---

Copperbell is probably one of the few examples where I would agree that the changes, at least to bosses, are justified. I personally dislike the removal of the already limited interactions with the environment however.

It still falls under baby's first dungeon and while I never had an issue with the add fights (I still remember when they didn't die in a single hit) it is understandable that they were replaced with an introduction to what boss mechanics are going to look like.

The fact that modern fights can be boiled down to stack, spread, dodge the cleave, is a different discussion entirely.

Open world does not always make for a better experience, personally speaking the open world element actively put me off games like Dragon Age Inquisition. Currently playing and really enjoying FFXVI, and I like that its a more linear experience... that said, I do have issues with it. There is enough space in most maps to explore but it often feels unworthy to do so unless you have a quest, and tiresome before you get a mount. What rewards you do find from going off the path are little more then crafting items, and given how weak that system is in the game, its unfortunate. Perhaps it will change when I am deeper into the game.

As for FFXIV, I would like more reasons to explore the open world, though with dungeons I am fine with how they are, mostly because the MMO mindset of most players is to do things quick and swiftly. Players will always find a way to cheeses things to make them faster, or take the moist ‘optimum’ route no matter what incentives there are. Its the same with every other MMO I have played. At least SE do not put important, unrepeatable quests and dialogue moments in its dunegons… yes, that was a dig at you ESO. I love ya, but hate how MMO you are. If anything I would rather we get more variation in bosses then dungeon layout, like some fights that have puzzle elements or involve NPCs etc. Always boggle my mind that Bardam's Mettle is like the only one with a boss fight that does not have a combat element to it. More like that I say!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurdity

Copperbell is probably one of the few examples where I would agree that the changes, at least to bosses, are justified. I personally dislike the removal of the already limited interactions with the environment however.

It still falls under baby's first dungeon and while I never had an issue with the add fights (I still remember when they didn't die in a single hit) it is understandable that they were replaced with an introduction to what boss mechanics are going to look like.

The fact that modern fights can be boiled down to stack, spread, dodge the cleave, is a different discussion entirely.

---

Funny how Toto-Rak was also one of the most bleh dungeons to run through before the change.

Granted its still bleh with the recent change but at least you dont have to deal with photocells or slowdown goo or getting grumpy if the group doesnt take the optimal path.

I wish they set dressed the instance a little bit more interesting though. Its such a shame they didnt take the opportunity to put more cool looking Gelmorran structures to make the linearity at least more interesting visually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMightyMollusk

Honestly, I've found a lot of them to be improvements anyway. Does anyone actually miss waiting forever for the first two bosses in Copperbell to actually do anything?

---

I actually do think the changes to Copperbell removed a fair bit of the dungeon's character. Two "bosses" that weren't simply the now-standard tank-and-spank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmiableApkallu

I actually do think the changes to Copperbell removed a fair bit of the dungeon's character. Two "bosses" that weren't simply the now-standard tank-and-spank.

---

True but those bosses were terrible at setting up the expectations of fight design in later content as it never goes that unique ever again. Besides Im pretty sure nobody was singing those two bosses their praises back when they were still there.

The first boss was waves of dull slow-spawning trash ending with one slightly stronger gigas. The second boss was a lot of standing around waiting for that bloody lever to turn back on. I don't miss either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMightyMollusk

The first boss was waves of dull slow-spawning trash ending with one slightly stronger gigas. The second boss was a lot of standing around waiting for that bloody lever to turn back on. I don't miss either.

---

NOW GRANTED, if CBU3 actually kept with the unique boss encounter design where later boss fights were more than just tank and spank then yeah those old boss designs would've made sense to keep as tutorials even if they were were lame and boring.

Lets face it, the linearity didnt start with EW. Its started as soon as the game went to Heveansward as dungeons and bosses became more and more streamlined as the expansions rolled by. Is this a good thing? weeeelll part of me enjoys the consistency in content being simple and familiar to the point you dont need to whip out a wiki or dungeon guide to come prepared for every single dungeon and encounter in the game. That would get frustrating and old real fast, but I do wish they at least dabble in just a few twists here and there that still keep the encounters simple but give them something unique to it.

One notable example is the 2nd boss in Bardam's Mettle. I like the idea that the whole thing is just dodging its AoEs. Not every boss needs to be that subversive like that but its stuff like that I wish the team would explore at least for dungeon content

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drtasteyummy

Let me tell you something that isn't linear, bear attacks, they're no joke. I mean, you're out there in the wilderness, right? You're in their home. It's not like they're coming into your living room, knocking over your TV and raiding your fridge. No, you're stepping into their world. And these creatures, they're majestic, but they're also terrifying. They're like nature's perfect killing machine, but they're not doing it because they're evil or something. They're just trying to survive, just like you and me.

Now, some people, they'll tell you, 'Oh, just play dead, the bear will leave you alone.' But let me tell you something, that's not always the case. You play dead with a grizzly, maybe it works. But you play dead with a black bear, it might just start eating you. It's not about comfort, it's about understanding the situation, the struggle, the reality of nature. It's about respect, man.

And that's what it's all about, right? Respect. Respect for the power and the beauty of nature, but also the danger. It's like life, man. It's not supposed to be comfortable all the time. You're supposed to struggle, to face challenges, to push yourself. That's how you grow. That's how you learn. So, next time you're out there in the woods, remember that. Respect the bears, respect nature, and respect yourself.

---

You know what they say.
If it's brown, play dead.
If it's black, fight back.
If it's white, pray to your gods, because you are gonna meet them soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

True but those bosses were terrible at setting up the expectations of fight design in later content as it never goes that unique ever again. Besides Im pretty sure nobody was singing those two bosses their praises back when they were still there.

---

I guess I'd view that as a problem with "later content" not actually doing anything interesting or doing anything outside of a tiny, formulaic box.

Why is it a problem that content piece X has a mechanic that's seen no where else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AmiableApkallu

I guess I'd view that as a problem with "later content" not actually doing anything interesting or doing anything outside of a tiny, formulaic box.

Why is it a problem that content piece X has a mechanic that's seen no where else?

---

There's nothing wrong with it. Its just the mistake of having those mechanics be present as the "tutorial" bosses. If they've applied those designs to a later boss (which arguably would probably fair better) down the road then it'll be great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CerusSerenade

This misconception that non-linear is somehow always superior to a linear game needs to die. There are plenty of linear games that have proven to be masterpieces.

---

Like???

God of War?

And how did they make their linear dungeons? With puzzles. Alternating paths. Varied enemies that require the player to use different tactics. Environmental interactions. Verticality. I can go on and on. All of these, FF14 and FF16 have not achieved.

That's why GoW is a 94 and a 9.1 in User Score while FF16 has a 7.9 User Score.

Because they mastered the art of non-linear design in linear dungeons: that is, breaking the gameplay loop into chunks of walk forward, do puzzle, attack enemy, dodge, interact with environment, attack enemy, do puzzle, find hidden path etc. What you're actually engaged in while in a GoW dungeon that is actually incredibly linear when you look at the map, is highly non-linear gameplay.

What is there in FF14/FF16? Press W and smash Square/AoE combo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheDecay

Like???

God of War?

And how did they make their linear dungeons? With puzzles. Alternating paths. Varied enemies that require the player to use different tactics. Environmental interactions. Verticality. I can go on and on. All of these, FF14 and FF16 have not achieved.

That's why GoW is a 94 and a 9.1 in User Score while FF16 has a 7.9 User Score.

Because they mastered the art of non-linear design in linear dungeons: that is, breaking the gameplay loop into chunks of walk forward, do puzzle, attack enemy, dodge, interact with environment, attack enemy, do puzzle, find hidden path etc. What you're actually engaged in while in a GoW dungeon that is actually incredibly linear when you look at the map, is highly non-linear gameplay.

What is there in FF14/FF16? Press W and smash Square/AoE combo.

---

User scores on metacritic are a waste of time. A big chunk of the FFXVI user reviews are dumb console warring people review bombing it along with a weird section of people that seem to hate Nomura and somehow think he was involved with FFXVI and its "kingdom heart nonsense" story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atelier-Bagur

Lets face it, the linearity didnt start with EW. Its started as soon as the game went to Heveansward

---

I'M GONNA SAY IT.. Heavensward sucked

*braces for impact*

Okay, not because it's a bad story. But because I think it being an expac garnered general attention and praise as the community itself grew, so CBU:III took that as the expac design being good. Then we kept boiling everything down as sub-versions of Heavensward. This is kinda also where they went "How can we be more different from WoW?" and it almost seemed like they were changing shit just to change shit regardless of it being good or bad.

Basically Heavensward is to ARR as ARR was to 1.0. We can argue the specifics, but we know that's basically true.

It has a lot of pros to me, but that came with a ton of cons too. :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

I'M GONNA SAY IT.. Heavensward sucked

*braces for impact*

Okay, not because it's a bad story. But because I think it being an expac garnered general attention and praise as the community itself grew, so CBU:III took that as the expac design being good. Then we kept boiling everything down as sub-versions of Heavensward. This is kinda also where they went "How can we be more different from WoW?" and it almost seemed like they were changing shit just to change shit regardless of it being good or bad.

Basically Heavensward is to ARR as ARR was to 1.0. We can argue the specifics, but we know that's basically true.

It has a lot of pros to me, but that came with a ton of cons too. :/

---

Wow that's a bold opinion. I felt that a lot of the changes that came with HW were good ones and that the expac was a huge step up from ARR overall.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

Wow that's a bold opinion. I felt that a lot of the changes that came with HW were good ones and that the expac was a huge step up from ARR overall.

---

It's been pretty divisive I think.. It has a lot of good things, but also made a lot of sweeping changes to core systems and completely gutted a lot of personal expression in favor of streamlining everything. When you compare Heavensward to Endwalker, they're night and day of personal expression and RPG elements. But the same can be said for ARR to Heavensward.

I personally think they should have stayed on the path that ARR was heading, and they could have made the QoL changes we wanted in doing so. It was their own fault for locking critical abilities behind other secondary classes, so instead of balancing things out or making that experience easier - They opted to just destroy systems and put nothing in their place. This was the start of culling player self-expression, build capabilities, and RPG systems.

We say those things were bad, but they were only bad because CBU:III didn't balance them correctly. That kinda goes along with a lot of stuff they do. And we often conflate bad systems with it actually just being bad balance, and bad engagement.

Also the flying everywhere is absolutely egregious. You go from walking everywhere, and sometimes it takes a long time. To flying everywhere and it literally taking LONGER than it ever did walking in ARR. Because the maps are way too large.

Edit: Also, if anyone tries to say ARR content was bad while only experiencing it using classes and systems from HW+, that's because for the past 7 years or so we've been basically playing Checkers on a Chess board with half chess pieces and the car from Monopoly. So of course it's going to feel bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurlstone

Open world does not always make for a better experience, personally speaking the open world element actively put me off games like Dragon Age Inquisition. Currently playing and really enjoying FFXVI, and I like that its a more linear experience... that said, I do have issues with it. There is enough space in most maps to explore but it often feels unworthy to do so unless you have a quest, and tiresome before you get a mount. What rewards you do find from going off the path are little more then crafting items, and given how weak that system is in the game, its unfortunate. Perhaps it will change when I am deeper into the game.

---

I found a few hidden side paths that were not obvious until I was trying to track down a hunt for a quest. I was forced to open the map and stare at them because the quest called out a location I hadn't unlocked, despite being in that area multiple times for MSQ.

There were two tiny little paths leading off the field area.

I went down the first one and ran face first into an S rank hunt mob. NOPE NOPE NOPE NOT WHAT I WAS HERE FOR lol

Finally found the second missing one that had the name of the area I was looking for, and killed the B rank I'd actually been after.

I'm sure there's tons of tiny little hidden pockets in the field areas like that I missed. That's why you get an achievement for unlocking all the maps by the end of the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

I personally think they should have stayed on the path that ARR was heading, and they could have made the QoL changes we wanted in doing so. It was their own fault for locking critical abilities behind other secondary classes, so instead of balancing things out or making that experience easier - They opted to just destroy systems and put nothing in their place. This was the start of culling player self-expression, build capabilities, and RPG systems.

We say those things were bad, but they were only bad because CBU:III didn't balance them correctly. That kinda goes along with a lot of stuff they do. And we often conflate bad systems with it actually just being bad balance, and bad engagement.

---

Yeah, I remember being able to pick and choose which secondary class abilities you can have on your hotbar. It gave me some sense of being able to customize my playstyle and make it unique from others even though the difference would be minuscule. I feel what FFXIV really needed was a talent system, which brings its own set of problems, but nothing that was impossible to overcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

Also the flying everywhere is absolutely egregious. You go from walking everywhere, and sometimes it takes a long time. To flying everywhere and it literally taking LONGER than it ever did walking in ARR. Because the maps are way too large.

---

This I actually liked, but to each their own, of course. I thought being able to fly across the entire map was awesome, and that the huge maps were fun to explore. I vaguely remember that's why SE decided to opt for larger map sizes - because players wanted larger and more open areas to explore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

It's been pretty divisive I think.. It has a lot of good things, but also made a lot of sweeping changes to core systems and completely gutted a lot of personal expression in favor of streamlining everything. When you compare Heavensward to Endwalker, they're night and day of personal expression and RPG elements. But the same can be said for ARR to Heavensward.

I personally think they should have stayed on the path that ARR was heading, and they could have made the QoL changes we wanted in doing so. It was their own fault for locking critical abilities behind other secondary classes, so instead of balancing things out or making that experience easier - They opted to just destroy systems and put nothing in their place. This was the start of culling player self-expression, build capabilities, and RPG systems.

---

So, real quick... not a single ARR ability was pruned in Heavensward. Nor did HW prune Additional Actions or Additional Attributes. That all didn't happen until Stormblood.

Moreover, "bad because CBU:III didn't balance them" is somewhat inherent to that particular system. A Fracture balanced for Monk, who needed an additional GCD fill per 18|21|30s (dependent on SkS threshold) and had a 40% damage bonus via Twin+GL, wasn't about to also be balanced also for Dragoon, unless you broke the whole point of the Additional Actions as being... a shared pool of actions (rather than individually job-tailored, at which point you have unique job skills that just occasionally share name, VFX, and animation).

I preferred a more horizontal progression approach and would have FAR preferred the Additionals (Actions, Attributes) be reiterated upon (by very different means) over abandoning the project after a single attempt, absolute. But, in practice, losing Additional Actions wasn't some huge loss to gameplay nor complexity (outside of that GCD gap not being filled for MNK until 4.3 via TK rotations, reducing its GCD speed options). Nor was losing Additional Attributes noticeable to anyone but BLM (from Piety tiers). (For everyone else, they were all non-choices.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

Also the flying everywhere is absolutely egregious. You go from walking everywhere, and sometimes it takes a long time. To flying everywhere and it literally taking LONGER than it ever did walking in ARR. Because the maps are way too large.

---

Agreed, though possibly for slightly different reasons.

I have absolutely no issue with maps being bigger. I felt most ARR zones were damn near immersion-breakingly claustrophobic. Even the likes of Gyr Albanian's Peaks zone doesn't seem too large, to me -- but merely underutilized.

But, the inclusion of flying, itself, was both jarring and lackluster. Give me a physics-based model of flight with limited Stamina and those 'Aether Currents' being real things that slightly highway the map (especially around tighter canyons, passes, etc.), and I'm sold. But instead we got the most basic form of flight possible, gated by a really jank gimmick (even if I do appreciate the exploration requirement prior to that unlock).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

I feel what FFXIV really needed was a talent system, which brings its own set of problems, but nothing that was impossible to overcome.

---

Here's the thing: Customization (especially the likes of "Talent systems" outside of few exceptions like Rift) has historically almost always constrained gameplay options --replacing that gameplay with menu-play-- rather than expanding them. And I don't just mean this in a sense of "all choice is illusion" or similar BS; we don't all just play the 'best' job per sub-role.

Consider it this way. A game has n undermechanics that it must support player interaction with. Now, if there's limited button-counts and button-efficiency (e.g., Stormblood/Shadowbringers level button-bloat, where virtually none of the obvious opportunities for consolidation were taken), that can be bad, because each job's kit has to be able to engage with those undermechanics, even if with varying ease or directness, and that may leave less room for depth*.
*(Or, in XIV's case, sets of 3+ buttons to use all together or in rigid sequence as basically one action, which is more akin to rhythm-gaming than actual depth, but still.)

So, in this pre-specialized design scheme, every job, regardless of role, would want to be able (from within virtually any composition, without any prior role-allocation) to take some part in...

• manipulating enemy behavior,
• intercepting/thwarting attacks for allies at greater risk,
• crowd control,
• Stagger,
• suppression,
• timely defensives,
• Elemental systems,
• coordinating bursts of damage,
• knowing when at-cost uptime (standing in fire) is worth that cost,
• manipulating the costs of engagement,
• providing the resources to enlarge the range of viable options,
• etc., etc.

And while that may leave less room for your separate Senei and Guren, Shoha and Shoha II, Ikishoten and Namikiri buttons, etc... the job would tend to therefore have more that it can do and play with.

Now, let's specialize those jobs. A "Tank" becomes so much better than the rest at manipulating enemy behavior and defensives that everyone else's capacity for such becomes redundant as is trimmed shortly thereafter, regardless of their potentially serving a double-purpose; at best, only tiny little rhythmic bonuses remain (via Third Eye, Feint, etc.). A "Healer" makes so much better use of restoration that intercepting/thwarting attacks for more at risk allies, providing others with the resource for sustained or broader action, etc., likewise becomes, in majority, redundant.

The various gameplay elements that previously made a party-wide mechanic of reducing damage taken while maximizing output ("tanking") then becomes replaced by "a Tank exists". Matters of sustain and risk-calculation (with consequence) are largely replaced by "a Healer exists" (and simply the cost to their offensive ppgcd, since there will always be resource enough to heal you).

In pruning those now redundant 'versatility' tools, arguably there'd be room for more complex layering of one's rotation... but I have yet to see that ever be the result of pruning.

Now, that specialization would usually be called Roles, ofc, but that is essentially the endgame of customization: to be the best at something, which in turn tends to make everyone less "best"... redundant, essentially snapping any at-cost options towards very particular norms that section off gameplay.

That customization typically means no more of everyone having access to A, B, and C to any degree that'd promote coordination (as opposed to each working individually, but in proximity to each other -- without the weight of, say, this healing then being more or less worth on any basis but whether otherwise fatal damage would immediately follow, etc., etc.). Instead, A goes to Tanks, B goes to Healers, and C goes only to Damage-dealers.

Similarly, whenever Talent-based or similar customization allows for remotely excessive specialization, you end up with shit like... Single-target Execute damage goes to the Assassin builds of Ninja, forcing them for this particular fight A and out of B and C; Super-Flare build takes add fight B, but is barred from A and C; etc., etc.

Customization has, in short, a pretty fine edge between even slightly increasing net gameplay choice and significantly decreasing it, especially when concerned at all with what may be made obligatory (or, how many of those "choices" will, in practice, be non-choices). Part of why its so expensive to develop is exactly that: unless limited from the start to largely cosmetic changes, it can slip quickly from any sort of benefit to a net loss, which is not normally something desirable for a system that itself would come at significant development cost.

And yet, despite all that, I would like some further customization in this game. It's just very worth knowing how and why it can go wrong, often to the point of (relative to other models of gameplay expansion) letting players choose what little they want to keep, instead of choosing what they'd like to add.

That said, I don't think a Talent system (unless you're imagining it rather differently from the likes of WoW, GW2, Rift, etc.) would be a remotely efficient investment. I would suspect instead that a "All Jobs on One Character" game ought to leverage that for its customization, rather than creating a ton of sub-jobs (via those different builds) in isolation from each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

So, real quick... not a single ARR ability was pruned in Heavensward. Nor did HW prune Additional Actions or Additional Attributes. That all didn't happen until Stormblood.

---

Yeah I wouldn't say Heavensward destroyed classes exactly - It mostly added abilities for the individual classes, but then ignored the possibility of expanding the cross-class system itself. They kinda just stopped working on it altogether. It was the start of the formfactor we have today.

So Heavensward changed the environment, exploration systems, and dungeons mostly, then Stormblood finished it off with the class adjustments and cross-class destruction.

It was like a 1, 2 punch. lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

That said, I don't think a Talent system (unless you're imagining it rather differently from the likes of WoW, GW2, Rift, etc.) would be a remotely efficient investment. I would suspect instead that a "All Jobs on One Character" game ought to leverage that for its customization, rather than creating a ton of sub-jobs (via those different builds) in isolation from each other.

---

It doesn't have to be a talent system, necessarily. It could be anything that lets the player play their class differently from someone else of the same class.

Take wow for example. Around 2005-2011 I played a warlock and I could choose from three different specializations: destruction, affliction, and demonology. All three specs had somewhat different means of dealing damage. Destro was direct damage, affliction was damage over time, and demo's damage was heavily augmented by summoned demons. Yes, there are optimal specs to choose that deal the most damage, but choosing the current meta spec/build matters little when playing in a non-competitive guild or a casual pick-up group.

Once again, it doesn't have to be a full-on talent system like wow's, but it would be cool if FFXIV had some sort of way of giving the player a choice in how they can play their class. In FFXIV, the way I play my class, BLM, is pretty much the same as any other BLM minus small differences in rotation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

It doesn't have to be a talent system, necessarily. It could be anything that lets the player play their class differently from someone else of the same class.

---

Right, but to clarify the earlier two points:



First, being able to play X differently from others doesn't necessarily require a talent system, and therefore the talent system itself would usually be a choice made specifically to not give as many buttons or as much versatility to jobs, replacing potential gameplay with menuplay (usually to avoid 'overloading' the player with simultaneously actionable choices).

For a very, very minor example of this already in game, consider our different rotations on what few jobs have them to any meaningful degree: Optimal Drift Monk, for instance, plays a fair bit differently from Standard Rotation or Double-Solar, and while there is a 'best' choice, it's also the more susceptible to failure (more 'difficult').

Moreover, we easily could have multiple different-feeling macrorotations play out quite competitively over a given fight. Imagine, for instance, if Fists of Earth/Wind/Fire had been made actually decent mechanics (rather than just being one norm and two modest situational buffs outside of unlocking rotational skills) instead of being outright pruned to make room for the likes of Anatman? You could easily have it so that those stances feel quite distinct from each other and that while, yes, there may be one particular intricate rotation between all three stances that'd perform some 0.2% above the next best, you have a decent amount of choice there.

That proposed larger number of in-combat options --taken or left, though the buttons would usually still serve a purpose regardless-- would be essentially a gameplay (choices made in combat) means of differentiation, as compared to a menuplay (choices made outside of combat).

Personally, that's my preference, especially if we ever take a turn towards designing for jobs, rather than designing for role templates+gimmick (which we then call "jobs"). Granted, it can coexist with certain systems of menuplay customization, too.



Second, there's simply a matter of how to source those sub-builds, between either...

1. ...splitting up [some additional] part of the job aesthetic X ways (to follow with the Monk examples... Light Chakra Monk, Dark Chakra Monk, or Hybrid Monk... or, say, Fire/Lotus Monk, Wind/Gale Monk, Earth/Adamantine Monk, etc.), or...

2. ...adding to/atop an aesthetic via something from outside that job (such as per XI's sub-jobs, or by adding to Dragoon the Flowing Strikes trait from Monk [allowing it to more freely combo and to increasingly ramp up in speed], Avatar trait from Reaper [allowing it to go all Ran'jit], Evocation from Black Mage [allowing it to build and spend BotD duration more granularly on Geirskogul], or Blindsider from Ninja [causes Jump instead to just jump up high, instead augmenting your next GCD skill as if used from stealth], etc.

Both work. I just feel that a "All Jobs on One Character" schtick like XIV has definitely lends itself better to the latter. It otherwise comes off as a Chekov's Gun left unfired.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R041

Yeah I wouldn't say Heavensward destroyed classes exactly - It mostly added abilities for the individual classes, but then ignored the possibility of expanding the cross-class system itself. They kinda just stopped working on it altogether. It was the start of the formfactor we have today.

So Heavensward changed the environment, exploration systems, and dungeons mostly, then Stormblood finished it off with the class adjustments and cross-class destruction.

It was like a 1, 2 punch. lol

---

Ahhh. Okay. Just because I didn't consider "leaving it to fizzle" as quite a change in itself, that didn't quite register for me. I get yah now.

I feel like even if they wanted to salvage those systems, though, it would likely have felt to them too late to do anything particularly well, as they had already removed Character Levels (where class/job Ranks were instead horizontal progression) and never mapped out any sort of criteria for proficiency growth (where XP in playing DRK might bleed slightly into experience also with other Tanks, other sword-users, etc.).

I'd still have loved to see it given a further shot that capitalized on the "All Jobs on One Character" aspect, though, yeah, by perhaps lowering the grind walls and increasing casual/midcore content engagement and longevity in their place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

therefore the talent system itself would usually be a choice made specifically to not give as many buttons or as much versatility to jobs, replacing potential gameplay with menuplay (usually to avoid 'overloading' the player with simultaneously actionable choices).

---

I'll be honest with you. I've never heard of this before. From what I've seen in other games, the addition of a talent system usually results in quite the opposite. It's to add more buttons and to add versatility and utility to a set of skills that a class already has. Allocating talent points in wow usually led to more active and passive skills being added to the player’s repertoire.

Do you happen to have a link to a source like a news article or blog that talks about talent trees actually replacing potential gameplay instead of increasing it?

The idea that a talent system would be a choice made to not give as many buttons or as much versatility to jobs is strange to me. I think most people would see that talent trees would add to that and not take away from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

I'll be honest with you. I've never heard of this before. From what I've seen in other games, the addition of a talent system usually results in quite the opposite. It's to add more buttons and to add versatility and utility to a set of skills that a class already has. Allocating talent points in wow usually led to more active and passive skills being added to the player’s repertoire.

---

So, if you started with X and then added the tree atop it, then sure, customization systems like Talent Trees will appear "additive".

But, what does the tree actually do? It tells you to pick X of Y, with which to then populate your bar. The alternative, was to have all of Y, and then to just use what you see fit to use (akin to Monk and Dragoon, too, having a greater number of and integration with significant non-DPS tools).

Those are ultimately the two choices decided between through taking either out-of-combat skill selection (pick outside of combat so you don't feel 'bloated' with as many in-combat decisions) or in-combat skill selection (greater number of actions, not all of which every player is expected to make great use of).

If there's limited button-count and button-efficiency, then customization trades breadth for depth. If there's no such hard limit, though, it's just pushing portions of would-be breadth out of sight and out of mind (like nearly all matters of gameplay outside of one's role, all while --if affecting capacities-- pigeonholing builds towards this encounter or that one).


:: Whether some means of providing actions is additive or not will depend on your frame of reference. If you compare it against simply not having that means of actions, then yeah, it'll look additive; but if you compare it against what could have taken its place, or against not having any such limitations (not forced to give up A and B to take C but can instead take all three), then it won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

So, if you started with X and then added the tree atop it, then sure, customization systems like Talent Trees will appear "additive".

But, what does the tree actually do? It tells you to pick X of Y, with which to then populate your bar. The alternative, was to have all of Y, and then to just use what you see fit to use (akin to Monk and Dragoon, too, having a greater number of and integration with significant non-DPS tools).

Those are ultimately the two choices decided between through taking either out-of-combat skill selection (pick outside of combat so you don't feel 'bloated' with as many in-combat decisions) or in-combat skill selection (greater number of actions, not all of which every player is expected to make great use of).

If there's limited button-count and button-efficiency, then customization trades breadth for depth. If there's no such hard limit, though, it's just pushing portions of would-be breadth out of sight and out of mind (like nearly all matters of gameplay outside of one's role, all while --if affecting capacities-- pigeonholing builds towards this encounter or that one).


:: Whether some means of providing actions is additive or not will depend on your frame of reference. If you compare it against simply not having that means of actions, then yeah, it'll look additive; but if you compare it against what could have taken its place, or against not having any such limitations (not forced to give up A and B to take C but can instead take all three), then it won't.

---

If SE came out with a BLM talent tree tomorrow that had several passive skills and two active skills that we had to choose from while leaving all other BLM skills unchanged, would that... not be additive? I'm a little confused with what you're trying to say here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

If SE came out with a BLM talent tree tomorrow that had several passive skills and two active skills that we had to choose from while leaving all other BLM skills unchanged, would that... not be additive? I'm a little confused with what you're trying to say here.

---

Again...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

:: Whether some means of providing actions is additive or not will depend on your frame of reference. If you compare it against simply not having that means of actions, then yeah, it'll look additive; but if you compare it against what could have taken its place, or against not having any such limitations (not forced to give up A and B to take C but can instead take all three), then it won't.

---

If you added it to what we have now, yeah, it'd be "additive". The choice is between 5 skills (no customization), or "Pick 2 of 5 skills".

One (no "Customization") gives BLM 5 skills, the other ("Customization") 2 skills chosen from among 5. Which is the more "additive"?

It's similar to the question of "Assuming balanced effort-per-reward, so that players aren't obliged to simply swap to the highest output for what amount of effort they're willing to put in... Should SMN have a higher skill ceiling?"

One approach says that every job should have a pretty high skill ceiling, and people should be free to optimize as much or as little as they like (just give them everything). The other says that each job should have a different skill ceiling, but have their output ceiling vary accordingly, so that whatever they're not interested in dealing with is out of sight and out of mind (customize their gameplay to just their preferred slice). [The third choice is just to have intentional imbalance, as would affect the largest group of players, rather than just the occasional far easier job being less than ideal for speedrun parses.]

Here, too, you have the choice between customization allowing for varying amounts of complexity (which then, if balanced, affects output ceilings), or simply different types of complexity. But regardless, you're still saying, relative to everything that would seem fitting for, say, a BLM to have access to, you're taking only a part of those remaining prospects. More is designed than can be used at any given time. [This is much like how we can't use the kit of every job at once; jobs are, themselves, customization, after all. But here you're now taking a segment of a segment of available gameplay -- an increasingly narrow part.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

One (no "Customization") gives BLM 5 skills

---

I mean, that would do away with the whole personal expression and customization bit again which is one of the major draws of being able to choose your talents. I would opt for the "pick 2 of 5 skills." It would still be additive and would give the player the option to customize their playstyle. Plus, depending on how SE balances it, being given all 5 skills could result in power creep.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kpxmanifesto

I mean, that would do away with the whole personal expression and customization bit again which is one of the major draws of being able to choose your talents. I would opt for the "pick 2 of 5 skills." It would still be additive and would give the player the option to customize their playstyle. Plus, depending on how SE balances it, being given all 5 skills could result in power creep.

---

Again, I'm fine with either one as long as the "pick 2 of 5" doesn't over-specialize jobs in our current context.

I just slightly prefer greater job versatility over that, in part because it's sort of a direct rebuttal to tendencies to simplify jobs to a mere thin spread of gimmicks atop a basic role template.

Well, and I like for different fights (and, up to an equal degree, compositions) to influence how I play a job therein -- rather than just swapping my talents around, putting the new actions in the old's place, and playing more similarly between fights (in terms of button-flow and strategy) than I would if not for those load-outs / constraints existing.

And, if we actually changed that context so that it was expected that everyone multi-jobbed anyways, and that grind-barrier (and perhaps gear-lockout barrier) to multi-jobbing was reduced, I wouldn't even mind some jobs having a pretty hefty utility advantage in this or that fight. I just don't want to see any advantage in terms of basic category of capacity (this job is the AoE god, that job the best at ST [in a raidbuff-packed party], etc.).

Edit:
As for power creep, if those skills are ones that would normally be split up across different "specs" or parts of a "pick X of Y" selection, they're generally going to be at least somewhat anti-synergetic, much likes stances and spenders. You can do A or B, not both. Which is (unless the choice is always obvious, though then those actions couldn't possibly have been in competing builds).... customization, to the same degree that choosing build A or build B (where in a particular context [skill, composition, coordination], one build may be superior).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Again, I'm fine with either one as long as the "pick 2 of 5" doesn't over-specialize jobs in our current context.

I just slightly prefer greater job versatility over that, in part because it's sort of a direct rebuttal to tendencies to simplify jobs to a mere thin spread of gimmicks atop a basic role template.

---

Oh, I'm well aware of what your preferences were, lol. Thanks for weighing in.