Very concerned about 4.0 gameplay having no strategy

*No --> Much reduced*

With the removal of all +% crit/damage skills (save for BFB on DRG(?)), I'm seriously worried that there's no longer going to be any real sense of strategy or macrorotation when DPSing. I would think that ideally, a given ability (that is to say oGCD, since GCD skills are "weaponskills" and "spells") should be balanced somewhere between being best used in pairing with another and best used on-CD. This balance, or spread of consideration, is what allows for any sense of strategy in an otherwise "hit all the things (between GCDs)" style of combat. Right now, CD sync and fight-based considerations to (no) movement, AoE, and vuln windows are the only things that keep XIV from being a lineup of abilities that one could inconsequentially run their finger over between GCDs until expended, simply scrolling back and forth to intercept whatever refreshes.

I like having to pay attention to the softer windows and (de)sync of synergetic abilities, and actually having to do some calculations in my head and consider what mechanics are coming up that may cause a delay in a usually paired ability. If that, honestly huge, portion of gameplay is removed, I don't think any amount of concentrated "identity" can save my interest in a given DPS job, and (while perhaps a stark minority), I don't think I'm alone in that.

Admittedly, our AoE abilities, and maybe even the bosses' vuln/devuln phases, at least will lend a fight-specific aspect to CD-holding, but I don't see why SE found would find it so crucial to try to remove this sort of gameplay rather than to simply offer better training in its gameplay. There's a massive difference between being a player being "casual" and utterly disinterested in combat or any learning involved therein, and the latter must not be treated as the baseline by which combat is designed. That the skill-gap forms among players who do want to learn, inversely, can be blamed at least as rightly on the game's ability to guide players (through tips, tasks, cumulative difficulty or an otherwise smooth learning curve, and so forth) as on the system itself. Kill the system to significantly shorten the difference between a player who enjoys learning the intricacies of combat and one who would rather treat it as either a persistent mystery or a dunghill, and you will alienate those you previously attracted.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zaresin

Wait to cry fowl til after we have the meal before us. Not during the appetizer

---

Let's say you go to a steakhouse. Your appetizer is vegan. You ask the cook if this is the general style of the restaurant's food, and he affirms.

Should you wait until the food is served, and cannot be freely remade or modified, before you voice any concern?

Historically, MMOs do not receive significant adjustment during expansions. If CD alignment and holding are gone at SB's launch, they will almost certainly stay absent. Sadly, it is unlikely that they would produce their "appetizer" while still allowing for any time to make use of any feedback given upon it, in part because they need all the time they can get and in another—because with as long a track record for misinterpretation and false ultimatums, its probably best to excuse themselves as having received no negative feedback, and therefore clearly following the playerbase's wishes. As such, it is probably already too LATE, but it is certainly not too EARLY to be giving feedback.

---

They removed BFB, Internal Release and Raging Strikes from their new Role-Cross actions, but you dont know what will get each job in exchange, i mean, Machinist's CDs were BFB, Raging Strikes and Hawk's Eye, and all of them were from others classes, but here is the key, we dont know whether MCH will get new Damage / Crit CDs.

You are assuming that SE will remove all of them and they won't add new ones, but we know nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greywolfamakir

snip

---

True. I am assuming due to percentile CDs being mentioned as a source of "bloating" whereas non-utility direct-damaging oGCDs apparently were not considered as such. The issue is that the both have synergy primarily only with each other (buffs of the same type are treated additively, and the damage dealt by one direct damage skill has no effect on another's). As far as we know, it seems likely that Wildfire is the only of the percentile abilities to survive. Had it simply been an issue of skills lacking unique aesthetics/names, they wouldn't have torn exactly that out of Luminferous Aether, Shroud of Saints, Energy Drain, and Shadowskin. Instead, gameplay screenshots show them all removed even from their native class, Bard (in addition to Flaming Arrow, oddly enough).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lambdafish

The way the role system is set up lends itself to a lot of strategy actually. All the skills in it are useful in some situations but not all, I can see players wanting to optimise their role skills frequently depending on the encounter. For example: Healers won't want cleric stance while learning a fight, but once they have cleared and are wanting to optimise for farm, then they will consider taking it. Esuna isn't used for all fights, and they might consider replacing it for something like Rescue if it is a dead skill on their hotbar etc. (Healer is the only role skill menu that I remember, though I vaguely remember being impressed with the others as well)

Strategy has been reduced in some areas, sure, but it has been enhanced in other areas. I would suggest waiting until you actually play the expansion until you make a judgement on how complex the updated battle system is, because I feel like we will need to completely change our mindset regarding how we utilise it, and currently a lot of people are thinking with outdated logic, and clinging to how these changes work in isolation within the current battle system.

---

Oh I agree absolutely with that. To be honest, my first thought was towards that of WoW: WoD/Legion's talents, which, while capable of a fairly "standard" build given one's gear, vary from fight to fight. In our case there would be no consumable to allow for swapping between individual bosses of the same instance, luckily, but we would have the opportunity to min-max based on need for a given instance entire. I mentioned elsewhere that I was actually fairly glad that Cleric Stance's buff was small enough not to be requirement for every progression team, or likely even for farms so long as the other X-role skills can indirectly squeeze out a bit of combined dps, and I'm certainly looking forward to choosing when or when not to take Ultimatum, etc. Inevitably, some skills will end up being taken for nearly all fights and others for very few, but that's alright, imo, so long as the balance can be close enough not to mandate specific abilities for each instance.

Unfortunately we just have to wait and see. I was a bit disheartened to see nothing similar to raging strikes for casters, but that doesn't definitively mean it's gone or that we won't get something similar.

It is a justified concern, it was certainly nice to have those moments when the cooldowns align and you can unleash hell. But until we know what's definitely changing it's hard to make a case... Also at this point even if they did take most of the oGCD abilities away it's too late in the development cycle for them to bring them back for Stormblood's launch. I suppose we just have to make sure that if it happens we make sure our voices are heard.

You are concerned about something that we don't really know much.... I don't know where to start....

I have to agree. We know very little about what is and isn't in SB. Wait to cry fowl til after we have the meal before us. Not during the appetizer

The way the role system is set up lends itself to a lot of strategy actually. All the skills in it are useful in some situations but not all, I can see players wanting to optimise their role skills frequently depending on the encounter. For example: Healers won't want cleric stance while learning a fight, but once they have cleared and are wanting to optimise for farm, then they will consider taking it. Esuna isn't used for all fights, and they might consider replacing it for something like Rescue if it is a dead skill on their hotbar etc. (Healer is the only role skill menu that I remember, though I vaguely remember being impressed with the others as well)

Strategy has been reduced in some areas, sure, but it has been enhanced in other areas. I would suggest waiting until you actually play the expansion until you make a judgement on how complex the updated battle system is, because I feel like we will need to completely change our mindset regarding how we utilise it, and currently a lot of people are thinking with outdated logic, and clinging to how these changes work in isolation within the current battle system.

Going to agree with this one, the meaningful decision-making in combat could get very bland if the it gets simplified to just mostly performing your set rotation with minor divergence from it. It's probably too early to be doom-and-gloom about the issue, but it is a valid concern to make. I'm certainly hoping that the new gauge systems will bring a new way to play that takes skill, planning and understanding to master.

Following up with a quote of mine from another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShaneDawn

This is actually somewhat concerning, although not just for Bard. A major factor separating great players from the good ones was often knowing how to line up your buffs and using them to their best effect. You would often want to delay certain cooldowns to get a stronger alignment with others, most likely discuss the cooldown usage with your party members to benefit more from your shared multiplicative damage modifiers. This is especially true for buff-heavy, dot-snipping class like Bard, whose damage is very relative to how well you know your buffs and get the best out of them. A thing that a lot of people seem to disregard is snipping your dots outside openers to get extended effects of Raging Strikes and Internal Release. As you also mentioned, the usage and general party timing for openers and mini-openers that usually happened several times throughout a raid were a key to maximizing the DPS.

Just like CPM, the general know-how is what takes players a long way in increasing their DPS. As it is, you can achieve decent DPS just by knowing your priorities. To achieve good DPS, you also need to know your opener and use your damage modifiers. To achieve great DPS, you also need to be able to use your cooldowns in an efficient manner. If you want to go even beyond that, you need to start effectively syncing the party cooldown usage so that you gain the maximum effect out of the shared modifiers. It is a somewhat more technical system than meets the eye, but adds a big layer of complexity for those wishing to go above and beyond.

It's probably too early to jump to conclusions, but the possible pruning of damage modifiers from classes could serve as a bigger dumb-down to the game (and especially Bard as a class) than removing the cast times ever did. Unless the consistent performance as you mention it will become more difficult to achieve than it currently is. However, since the removal of cast times will be dumbing that part down as well, the ease or difficulty of our consistent rotation is going to be largely dependent on how the song system is going to work out and how the combat changes will reflect in general battle design .

---

It levels the playing field. Some classes got access to much better cross class skills than others. That has nothing to do with taking away strategy IMO.

Ummm I'm trying to figure out how those dps cooldowns added strategy? Considering most of the time they are used on cooldown for the big super pull mentality going on now. Prior to the super pull style of dungeon running they were mostly saved for bosses and the occasional dangerous trash. Not a lot of strategy there.

each job is getting one cool down , this is one of the key things they where changing so the op is write its one on every job now

I mean squares main goal going into SB was to decrease the dps disparity between high tier player and newer players to not discourage someone from trying the game if they know that itll take months before they can do even remotely decent numbers. Remeber some of us have been doing similar iterations of the same rotations for 4+ years now. Unfortunately unless square wants to significantly increase the skill floor where doing the most optimal min max rotation only yields you little to no real gains, the best course of action is to increase the skill floor some and decrease the skill ceiling some. This means removing overly complex "in head calculations as you put it" and still having mechanics that will separate the veterans from the newbies. We havent seen all info, but in case of monk, they lost B4B but gained a new 30% dps cd that increases gcd by 15%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khel

It levels the playing field. Some classes got access to much better cross class skills than others. That has nothing to do with taking away strategy IMO.

---

My post has nothing to do with the change between cross-class skills and X-role skills per se; remember, they haven't just been removed from borrowing classes, but even the class they came from. It's that the removal of percentile abilities greatly decreases the issue of CD synergy/holding (for internal reasons), which thus far has been THE most important consideration in gameplay (e.g. "macrorotation") for all DPS. That will reduce skill-gap, certainly, but it also removes the majority of everything that's going on behind the surface of XIV combat, leaving only fight-specific interactions. That's a huge blow to be taken as someone who already likes XIV combat as it is now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaiSunstrider

I mean squares main goal going into SB was to decrease the dps disparity between high tier player and newer players to not discourage someone from trying the game if they know that itll take months before they can do even remotely decent numbers. Remember some of us have been doing similar iterations of the same rotations for 4+ years now. Unfortunately unless square wants to significantly increase the skill floor where doing the most optimal min max rotation only yields you little to no real gains, the best course of action is to increase the skill floor some and decrease the skill ceiling some. This means removing overly complex "in head calculations as you put it" and still having mechanics that will separate the veterans from the newbies. We havent seen all info, but in case of monk, they lost B4B but gained a new 30% dps cd that increases gcd by 15%.

---

A rotation-changing 13% DPS increase for 20s per 60. I'm actually looking forward to that one because there might be a reason to hold onto it to some extent, or adjust one's rotation to fit it, to ensure that it's getting it all it can out of those 20 seconds despite essentially losing GL3.

That said, effective complexity will vary from person to person; I don't see why the issue should be removed completely as not to reward those who were able. Even if still a relatively shallow form even then, these are core issues of thinking, nuance, decisiveness. Its not just better "button spamming" or key cycling. However brief the actual windows of adjustment may be, it makes for valuable consideration. That should NEVER be restricted. And it SHOULD be rewarded.

Just as players SHOULD be taught how to do decently in such a system. Instead, SE's just pulling themselves out of the range of responsibility, preferring to give up on the system than to provide worthwhile in-game instruction and support. That is NEVER a good sign.

Honestly there is something to be said about this.

Right now the game actually requires some tactical thinking. Not to the extent of something like FFXI where you had to know Elemental vulnerabilities, skill chain combos with other classes, and Magic Burst info... but rather more of a personal character skill level in utilizing your abilities in a tactical function according to the dungeon or task or scenario you are faced with.

Example:
What skills can I chain togather to destroy this large group of mobs?
What skills should I use for this single target boss mob... and will that change on the next boss mob?
What should I use Raging Strikes in my opener?
Or should I save it for the DPS check that will be coming up?
Should I use a hard cast of Bio/Bio2/Miasma when I can stand in place and Turret for now and save Tri-Disaster for later when there's heavy movement mechanics in the fight?
Or do I need my DoTs on target immediately and hence use Tri-Disaster?
Should I use my Quick Cast now for Shadowflare (AoE Trash Pack)?
Or save it in case I need to Quick Cast Raise later (Raid)?

Those are tactical questions you have to ask yourself and adapt them to the fight you're in. Because no situation is really ever the same.

So yes that is a factor.

But at the same time a newbie walking into the char for the first time may not have the slightest idea of how or what the skills are actually used for even if reading the tool tips...

....because what's on paper, and what is the reality of the game are two different things. Combat is fluid, tactical, and chaotic in the real game, but that's the nature of combat... and the more options you have at your disposal, the more likely you can adapt a tactic to fit the scenario.

That said... those hot bars are getting awful full... and you can only put so many things on there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greywolfamakir

You are assuming that SE will remove all of them and they won't add new ones, but we know nothing.

---

This ^^^

I understand the worry and I deff agree its important to voice your concerns on how things might change, but theres still so much we don't know. We will have to wait until release to see how things turn out. Hopefully, for the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

It's that the removal of percentile abilities greatly decreases the issue of CD synergy/holding (for internal reasons), which thus far has been THE most important consideration in gameplay (e.g. "macrorotation") for all DPS.

---

I agree that CD synergy/holding for maximum multiplicative gains is a nice flavor that many of us enjoy, but those favorable synergies are also why many players get denied from groups in favor of classes who synergize the best together because of buffs that affect only a certain portion of the jobs and are not blanket raid buffs such as trick attack.

Caster dps as a whole has generally not brought any sort of dps buff that affects magical damage done much less that increases physical damage done, and this is partially the reason why you typically never see statics with more than 1 magical dps but will see comps with 4 physical dps. The majority of the raid buffs in this game have been in the favor of physical heavy comps.This is perpetuated even into SB as RDM's personal dps cd comes with a raid wide physical damage buff. Considering it is a 10% buff that diminishes every 2 seconds, I was surprised to see this being only for physical damage and not magical, but I assume thats because it would double dip with its own 20% damage buff. But again, it is things like this that favor certain jobs over others. While square has been quite successful in balancing jobs as individual jobs, certain cd timings/debuff and buff synergies has created a much more exacerbated disparity between jobs inside a given party composition. By removing many of these CDs, I believe this will passively reduce the ability for specific party comps to be able to stack cds in such a way that overall raid dps is so much higher in one comp over another and allow for much larger viable comp diversity. Which will also in turn, prevent from certain content to be trivialized due to absurd dps due to cd stacking and return raiding to more defensive raid meta vs this new 3.0 offensive raid meta.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaiSunstrider

I agree that CD synergy/holding for maximum multiplicative gains is a nice flavor that many of us enjoy, but those favorable synergies are also why many players get denied from groups in favor of classes who synergize the best together because of buffs that affect only a certain portion of the jobs and are not blanket raid buffs such as trick attack.

---

That's why I specified "internal", i.e. between one of your own CDs and another of your own CDs.

Agreed, though. Compositional synergies can be a dangerous thing. Without them, especially in a game with barebone undermechanics, you can feel basically alone even as one dps among 14 others. But if they're too strong, jobs can be filtered out of a given meta. Not necessarily because those outliers are weak, but simply because they are perceived as such, and at least in that particular fight, their other utilities can give anything more productive.

I'd often wonder what would happen if you made the ranged classes dually magical and physical in damage type, such as Bloodletter, Sidewinder, Iron Jaws, and periodic damage on Bards and Gauss Round, Hot Shot, and crits made during Gauss Barrel on MCH either benefit from magic vulnerability instead or benefit from whichever is present, non-stacking. Especially with Foe built into Ballad and songs now seemingly instant oGCDs on Bard 4.0, that might be enough already to push double-casters back into viability.

Another thing that they *might* have been able to do is ensure that buffs of the same type stack additively even if calculated separately. I suspect, though, that if they could easily limit this, then they would have done so already, given their attempts not to allow for escalation of same-type buffs and their ensuring that potions, etc., are based on one's base stats, rather than, say, one's Hawk Eye-affected value. Iirc, at present two pure % damage buffs (RS and BFB) would simply add atop each other, as would two % crit buffs (e.g. IR and Litany), whereas stacked buffs of different types (e.g. IR, HE, BFB-RS or IR, RS, Berserk on an early PvP Marauder) act multiplicatively; but additionally, if one buff is present on the attacker and the other, in the form of a debuff, is present on the target, then they any effects therein will always act multiplicatively, because they are calculated separately and are likely unable to be consolidated to a single modifier.

Raid debuffs therefore naturally have more potential for synergy over anything you could do on your own. But, that's not to say that this is really that large a contribution. The difference between 120*1.2 (RS + HC/TA, multiplicative) and 140 (the same, but additive) is still under some 3% effectiveness. That's significant when competing for FFlog fastest times, but given that this overlap will only occur for 20 of every 180 seconds, it's contributing at best .32% dps. In the end, a single improved Shukuchi to more quickly reach and complete 3-man time gates could make nearly the same contribution to clear times.

I am quite confused, not gonna lie.

As Mch, the only "strategy" that this cd management involved was delaying blood for blood by 10 seconds. That's it. The rest lined up automatically.

And you know, I don't really see it as strategy. In fact, it's really annoying to have so many cooldowns with this combat system. You invariably waste some of it as you need to either pop tons of them before the fight(Wasting time on the earliest ones) or you have to spend a long time popping them during combat(Because you don't want to waste GCD time), losing some effectiveness because you can't stack them properly. It just doesn't feel great.

If there was a macro to pop them all simultaneously, sure. But as is, I'd probably prefer just having 1-2 more impactful CDs. And you still wouldn't use those on cd necessarily, but rather when you need the burst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shayuki

I am quite confused, not gonna lie.

As Mch, the only "strategy" that this cd management involved was delaying blood for blood by 10 seconds. That's it. The rest lined up automatically.

And you know, I don't really see it as strategy. In fact, it's really annoying to have so many cooldowns with this combat system. You invariably waste some of it as you need to either pop tons of them before the fight(Wasting time on the earliest ones) or you have to spend a long time popping them during combat(Because you don't want to waste GCD time), losing some effectiveness because you can't stack them properly. It just doesn't feel great.

If there was a macro to pop them all simultaneously, sure. But as is, I'd probably prefer just having 1-2 more impactful CDs. And you still wouldn't use those on cd necessarily, but rather when you need the burst.

---

I get that. And I'd rather what we do have become more impactful. Think of it as trading out the Raging Strikes of the jobs for Perfect Balance- or non-maintainable Enochian / Blood of the Dragon-like abilities. For a handful of jobs, delaying within the GCD gap, prioritizing simultaneous refreshes, and so forth is all the macrorotational strategy that really occurs. For others, its a bit more, especially depending on attack speed and uptime. It's not much—I'll fully admit that. But it was something. Heck, it was most of the thought that went into at least that other handful of jobs. And that something, prominent or not for a given job at a given GCD (and therefore automatic or adjusted CD sync), shows no signs of being replaced. All comments thus far point to it being rooted out as much as possible, in the names of squishing the skill ceiling and thereby reducing skill gap.

But hey, there may be reason to hope. Take MNK's new Spirit Bomb, whereupon allied weaponskills generate chakra stacks for you. If even a single multiplier CD remains at close enough a CD, that may have viable CD holding (especially when you add on cards, anything like TA/HC, etc.). It'll probably further compositional / meta issues in that it would be greatly favored by pure-physical parties, but at least it'll be inherently interesting.

Perhaps they reduced the complexity of standard "optimal" rotations in order to allow for more involved fight mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShaolinMike

Perhaps they reduced the complexity of standard "optimal" rotations in order to allow for more involved fight mechanics.

---

From what they mentioned a couple Live Letters back, yea, thats the whole point.
Simplifying battle skills, so they can put harder mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arkenne

From what they mentioned a couple Live Letters back, yea, thats the whole point.
Simplifying battle skills, so they can put harder mechanics.

---

I remember really liking the sound of that when it came out. I'd love more fight depth (though then and even now I probably inflated those hopes with the assumption that there'd also be more involved undermechanics brought into the game in general).
...But then I remembered what percentage of the game will likely invalidate or otherwise mitigate mechanics entirely... And it wasn't Savage players in particular who were having trouble with their rotations (due to fight mechanics or otherwise).

Now I fear the adjustment more than I have positive expectations for the goal. That much, though, is probably just from experiencing too many such promises (at cost) in MMOs in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Now I fear the adjustment more than I have positive expectations for the goal. That much, though, is probably just from experiencing too many such promises (at cost) in MMOs in general.

---

I agree. We are all likely jaded at this point. I think Square is wanting to move into a more dynamic raiding system where its not necessarily about bringing the right comps and offensive stacking mechanics but a focus on bring the correct roles and having those role abilities help with combating increased level of mechanics. The dps rotations are just a side product.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KaiSunstrider

I agree. We are all likely jaded at this point. I think Square is wanting to move into a more dynamic raiding system where its not necessarily about bringing the right comps and offensive stacking mechanics but a focus on bring the correct roles and having those role abilities help with combating increased level of mechanics. The dps rotations are just a side product.

---

See, as a general concept that doesn't sound all that disappointing. Having compositional balance considered first and then building the rotations as a side-product doesn't necessarily sound like a bad thing. I'm just 95% certain its execution would be, because the more design fixates on something, the more they tend to magnify and narrow it, making it all the more likely that the simple factor of "is it fun?" may drop by the side-lines. Aesthetics can only hold interest for so long, when individual gameplay itself is not a focal point.

To me compositional balance hinges around the idea of quite simply having more to worry about than just DPS, which (quickly overgeared windows aside) tends to be purely a long-term metric. Give us reason for other utilities or priorities than pure damage and give everyone some degree by which they contribute to those, and we not only get to see more affecting combat, but feel like we have more sway over it, that combat itself can play out in many more ways, and a much more concrete (shorter-term) effect from our actions. Giving both the challenge and ability to make use of indirect contribution is what most allows for player input and reward, and also gives grounds by which fights can feel like the beating down of columnic hitboxes.

Now, that might well require new undermechanics. So be it. The more, individual and/or combined, while contributing to the goal of our actions having real weight, the better.

That could be something like dynamic-percentile status effects, wherein a spell provides a certain potency of x effect, where that potency equates to a given %, fading at y rate over z duration given the caster's and target's stats, which can then stack as a general target-attached resource with any other contribution and resistance increases at whatever flat or percentile—or, heck, logarithmic?—rate over time and with whatever degeneration based on the particular mob or its type. There, now everyone can contribute to a particular status effect; some better than others. Formulas by which the mob tapers the effectiveness of recalculations of that resource may determine whether it's better to spread out the party's attempts to make the effect or stack them in a single overwhelming spike. You can even make the target more vulnerable to certain (yes, even insofar as favoring a particular class) source of the effect, so long as there's another meaningful effect which some other source outperforms the first.

That could be something like influencing mob behavior, though that would likely be limited more to premade teams.

That could be something like making use of environmental effects. That could be something like friendly fire. This could be something like having an enemy charge into a geyser to be sent flying at a much more troublesome airborne enemy.

That could be something like element as a resource, with its means and rates of consumption varying from class to class according to their actions, stats, and other resources—where you may make use of the current spawned or the wind blown by an enemy intending to kill you to strike it back, or use an element something's resistant to, albeit with great effort, melt through its fireproofing and erase its armor in the process, or throw off a wind-based enemies aim by actually sourcing its power (although to the side you're baiting an attack, and not the one you actually intend to stand on).

Whatever it all may entail, give us more to do, more ways to manipulate the fight, more distinct means of fighting for a faster clear time, and the meta at least will take longer to settle and will do so much less narrowly.

But instead, it feels like "streamlining" strikes again to give less, under the promise of more easily designable content, when it could instead make a far greater portion of gameplay worthy of being called "content".

All this is why when I hear instead that we're, on an individual basis at least, having our thought requirements reduced (to whatever degree) with nothing being readily presented in its place, I get annoyed. v.v

/rant Sorry_about_that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Feidam

Ummm I'm trying to figure out how those dps cooldowns added strategy? Considering most of the time they are used on cooldown for the big super pull mentality going on now. Prior to the super pull style of dungeon running they were mostly saved for bosses and the occasional dangerous trash. Not a lot of strategy there.

---

Finally a suitable answer.