Even the localization team can't tell the difference between Scholar and Sage

Couldn't help but laugh when watching Xeno's video on the 6.4 changes and noticed they referred to Sage as Scholar in the change explanation section. Only in the copy-paste hellscape that is FFXIV does something like this ever happen.

The description was updated, but I don't understand why they continue to use this really vague, inaccurate language. "The potencies of certain sage actions were increased to keep in line with other healer jobs." I don't aim to be mean to the localization team. I have no idea what information they are sent or anything, but a little cross-referencing the data will make these descriptions more informative and more professional.

'The potency of sage's damage over time spell was increased slightly to help sage better perform alongside the other healer jobs.'

It's simple, but it's also accurate. What 'certain sage actions' are they talking about? It's literally one action.

Did they ever explain why they don't put the job change explanations in the actual patch notes?

It's tough to explain something when you're effectively just throwing random (mostly low effort) ideas at a wall and seeing what sticks.

SE's job design team are either woefully undermanned or wildly out of touch. I suspect it's the first but I could be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ty_taurus

'The potency of sage's damage over time spell was increased slightly to help sage better perform alongside the other healer jobs.'

---

'Due to the small damage discrepancy between Sage and it's counterpart Scholar, we are increasing the damage of the Sage to better match the damage potential the Scholar brings. The potency of Sage's damage over time spell was increased slightly to help Sage better perform alongside the other healer jobs, and we have chosen to increase the Damage over Time effect of the class, as we believe that increasing the damage of this spell allows the Sage to keep outputting this higher level of damage even when movement-heavy situations occur.'

It's not hard SE, I don't care for the explanations that 'you increased the potency of WAR actions because they are behind other tanks', I can see that from the patch notes. I want to know WHY you chose to buff X move, instead of Y move.

'We buffed WAR actions to make them more equal to other tanks'
'We buffed several of WAR's actions. This includes increasing both the damage of their standard combo, to help with their sustained damage profile between burst windows, as well as increasing Fell Cleave and Inner Chaos's damage, to increase the damage of the class during their burst windows.'

Which one actually explains what the changes are for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebazy

It's tough to explain something when you're effectively just throwing random (mostly low effort) ideas at a wall and seeing what sticks.

SE's job design team are either woefully undermanned or wildly out of touch. I suspect it's the first but I could be wrong.

---

It is the first. According to EW’s credits the job design team is literally four dudes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe

'Due to the small damage discrepancy between Sage and it's counterpart Scholar, we are increasing the damage of the Sage to better match the damage potential the Scholar brings. The potency of Sage's damage over time spell was increased slightly to help Sage better perform alongside the other healer jobs, and we have chosen to increase the Damage over Time effect of the class, as we believe that increasing the damage of this spell allows the Sage to keep outputting this higher level of damage even when movement-heavy situations occur.'

It's not hard SE, I don't care for the explanations that 'you increased the potency of WAR actions because they are behind other tanks', I can see that from the patch notes. I want to know WHY you chose to buff X move, instead of Y move.

'We buffed WAR actions to make them more equal to other tanks'
'We buffed several of WAR's actions. This includes increasing both the damage of their standard combo, to help with their sustained damage profile between burst windows, as well as increasing Fell Cleave and Inner Chaos's damage, to increase the damage of the class during their burst windows.'

Which one actually explains what the changes are for?

---

At least Blizzard tells the players to their faces that they don't think their players know what they're talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ty_taurus

At least Blizzard tells the players to their faces that they don't think their players know what they're talking about.

---

Honestly the fact that Blizzard is doing a better job of communicating nowadays than CBU3 is just depressing.

The Localization in FF14 is strange anyway, there is not a real translation , only German/english/french version of the game, where everything has different names

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebazy

It's tough to explain something when you're effectively just throwing random (mostly low effort) ideas at a wall and seeing what sticks.

SE's job design team are either woefully undermanned or wildly out of touch. I suspect it's the first but I could be wrong.

---

It's 4 ppl on the Job Design team. And the playtester for Healers was replaced during EW Dev because the Dev who was the Healer playtester was deemed to have gotten "too good" with healing so they swapped them out for someone new to playtest healers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpheus

It's 4 ppl on the Job Design team. And the playtester for Healers was replaced during EW Dev because the Dev who was the Healer playtester was deemed to have gotten "too good" with healing so they swapped them out for someone new to playtest healers

---

I kinda wonder, was this for everything or just for normal content?

I think they talked about this in reference to 4 man dungeons, right? That's the origin of that comment? It kind of makes sense in that context since all 4 mans are "MSQ difficulty", which is SUPPOSED (sorta) to be idiotproof.

I don't think they meant for Ultimates and stuff.

They also said something similar for P5-8S when they said their team was able to clear the Enrages but had too much time to play/get good at it so it ended up being overtuned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

I kinda wonder, was this for everything or just for normal content?

I think they talked about this in reference to 4 man dungeons, right? That's the origin of that comment? It kind of makes sense in that context since all 4 mans are "MSQ difficulty", which is SUPPOSED (sorta) to be idiotproof.

I don't think they meant for Ultimates and stuff.

They also said something similar for P5-8S when they said their team was able to clear the Enrages but had too much time to play/get good at it so it ended up being overtuned.

---

Yes but it's still concerning they moved a Dev off who was familiar with the role considering the dearth of Devs who even want to spend anytime trying to fix said role. As they have admitted that as a Dev team they aren't really all that interested in the role the way they are with the other two roles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpheus

Yes but it's still concerning they moved a Dev off who was familiar with the role considering the dearth of Devs who even want to spend anytime trying to fix said role. As they have admitted that as a Dev team they aren't really all that interested in the role the way they are with the other two roles.

---

Right right, but I'm not sure that's Job design or encounter design. I think that was their TESTING team, not their DESIGN team.

And if it WAS only for 4 mans - which...was the case, yes? - not Savages or Ultimates or the like, than it's not really relevant since it's for the content we all recognize (may not all LIKE, but all recognize) is always going to be made for everyone in the game to clear, it shouldn't be relevant.

.

There are too many cases where people take an anecdote or quote and use it as a cudgel across the entire game. In some cases, that has validity ("Go play Ultimate", to a point), but in other cases, it does not (removed their 4 man dungeon Healer test player because he got "too good" falls into that). Again, P5-8S had the OPPOSITE problem (their testers got too good and WEREN'T removed), and that seemed to cause far more damage to the game and among the playerbase.

I think this is one of those things that shouldn't get the cudgel treatment, since the actual context and facts indicate it's being misused as one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpheus

It's 4 ppl on the Job Design team. And the playtester for Healers was replaced during EW Dev because the Dev who was the Healer playtester was deemed to have gotten "too good" with healing so they swapped them out for someone new to playtest healers

---

Wanna know what's even more depressing? The reason why the Healer was deemed "too good" with healing was because they started clearing Shadowbringer Extremes on content. Lmao.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

Right right, but I'm not sure that's Job design or encounter design. I think that was their TESTING team, not their DESIGN team.

And if it WAS only for 4 mans - which...was the case, yes? - not Savages or Ultimates or the like, than it's not really relevant since it's for the content we all recognize (may not all LIKE, but all recognize) is always going to be made for everyone in the game to clear, it shouldn't be relevant.

.

There are too many cases where people take an anecdote or quote and use it as a cudgel across the entire game. In some cases, that has validity ("Go play Ultimate", to a point), but in other cases, it does not (removed their 4 man dungeon Healer test player because he got "too good" falls into that). Again, P5-8S had the OPPOSITE problem (their testers got too good and WEREN'T removed), and that seemed to cause far more damage to the game and among the playerbase.

I think this is one of those things that shouldn't get the cudgel treatment, since the actual context and facts indicate it's being misused as one.

---

My point is they removed someone on their testing team that had an aptitude for it, to actually improve their play. And given how disinterested the Dev team at large is towards the Healer role, them being moved for the reasons that they were was boneheaded. Because you know what might help them solve balancing healer gameplay between newcomers and vets? If they actually had two Healer testers, one established and one brand new.

I do find it funny and sad that their test for 'is the dungeon balance good' had a team which had a not so strong healer player, which is fine, they need to test that it's not too stressful for people with disabilities etc. Makes sense to me. They removed this player because they 'got too good' after doing on-content SHB extreme trials. Okay, maybe this means they learned how to react to damage within one GCD, which is 'too good' for their testing, whatever I don't claim to understand. What I definitely don't understand though, is that they also apparently have, on DPS, an absolute gigachad pumper of a BLM who may or may not be the P/D. Okay, so surely the fact that there is such an amazing player, whether it's Yoshi himself or some other 'really good DPS player', skews the results of their testing too? After all, said player would be dodging everything, pushing fat damage to end fights sooner, etc, all thereby reducing the 'stress' piled on the healer? If they wanted to test that the dungeon balance is good for basically anyone to be able to clear it, shouldn't they have FOUR 'very weak' players, ie, the level of the new healer player they brought in, but on all four roles?

Seems to me there's a double standard going on, and it's just because of the thinking that 'oh if the healer eats dirt, then the whole party is doomed because there goes the Res-Bot'. Which is doubly ironic, because this expansion more than any other allows parties to completely forgo the Healer role and just bring another DPS for those EX dungeons, and still be fine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe

I do find it funny and sad that their test for 'is the dungeon balance good' had a team which had a not so strong healer player, which is fine, they need to test that it's not too stressful for people with disabilities etc. Makes sense to me. They removed this player because they 'got too good' after doing on-content SHB extreme trials. Okay, maybe this means they learned how to react to damage within one GCD, which is 'too good' for their testing, whatever I don't claim to understand. What I definitely don't understand though, is that they also apparently have, on DPS, an absolute gigachad pumper of a BLM who may or may not be the P/D. Okay, so surely the fact that there is such an amazing player, whether it's Yoshi himself or some other 'really good DPS player', skews the results of their testing too? After all, said player would be dodging everything, pushing fat damage to end fights sooner, etc, all thereby reducing the 'stress' piled on the healer? If they wanted to test that the dungeon balance is good for basically anyone to be able to clear it, shouldn't they have FOUR 'very weak' players, ie, the level of the new healer player they brought in, but on all four roles?

Seems to me there's a double standard going on, and it's just because of the thinking that 'oh if the healer eats dirt, then the whole party is doomed because there goes the Res-Bot'. Which is doubly ironic, because this expansion more than any other allows parties to completely forgo the Healer role and just bring another DPS for those EX dungeons, and still be fine

---

I'm going to pull this quote out because it still stands:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ASkellington

- Why not take the information you're getting from the healer?
- If you want to test it from a casual side why have a serious DPS as well and not replace them?
- If the serious DPS doesn't matter, why should the midcore Healer?
- Why not have a full casual set, a full midcore set and a full serious set?
- No seriously, why not?

---

Again, they have a SERIOUS DPS player who goes up to savage. What was the purpose of replacing the healer then?

The only conclusion I have (because we don't have 3 sets of testers from casual, mid, and hardcore) is that they know healing isn't in a great spot and they don't want to fix it and they can get away with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ASkellington

Again, they have a SERIOUS DPS player who goes up to savage. What was the purpose of replacing the healer then?

The only conclusion I have (because we don't have 3 sets of testers from casual, mid, and hardcore) is that they know healing isn't in a great spot and they don't want to fix it and they can get away with it.

---

The reason why they felt the need to replace the healer and not the DPS is because they are testing for clear-ability, not necessarily engagement. They're trying to ensure trash pack damage and boss damage is manageable to heal through for a below average skill level, and that's all they're really looking for. How well the content actually tests the kits they've created, and how much interaction any given player actually has is not something they're interested in testing for. That's why it doesn't particularly matter what skill level the DPS is, because there's no need to test for whether or not a below average group can meet any DPS requirements because there are no DPS requirements.

Right but the point is not 'can the savage-clearing DPS clear the DPS requirements', it is 'the savage-clearing DPS will have game sense enough to not stand in every AOE'. For example, in Aldazaal, the turret boss. A regular DPS might stand in one of the side cannon AOEs, or overlap one of the spread markers later in the fight with someone else accidentally. But by having someone that competent, and good at recognising mechanics and how to successfully resolve them, they are reducing the stress of the healer's job to the point where it could be considered a skewed result. If anything, they should just do the test on each role, with trusts filling the rest of the slots, to create a baseline. Essentially, they're running their 'tests' without a control group

The savage clearing DPS is also making the pulls a shit ton shorter, which has a very tangible effect on both the tank and healer player. I usually only run expert with two other friends these days, one on healer most of the time and the other on a ranged dps, and as the tank I can tell you it is *extremely* noticably different when we have a sweaty ultra try hard, a mediocre player, or someone that is Very Bad at pushing buttons (in aoe, somehow, which only has like 3~5???) and/or horribly undergeared as the second dps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe

Right but the point is not 'can the savage-clearing DPS clear the DPS requirements', it is 'the savage-clearing DPS will have game sense enough to not stand in every AOE'. For example, in Aldazaal, the turret boss. A regular DPS might stand in one of the side cannon AOEs, or overlap one of the spread markers later in the fight with someone else accidentally. But by having someone that competent, and good at recognising mechanics and how to successfully resolve them, they are reducing the stress of the healer's job to the point where it could be considered a skewed result. If anything, they should just do the test on each role, with trusts filling the rest of the slots, to create a baseline. Essentially, they're running their 'tests' without a control group

---

If they’re running the dungeon blind they very well might still get clipped by unexpected mechanics. Perhaps that’s enough for them.

I was playing SGE fishing for shield procs cuz I like the light show I get to do when the shield breaks, and honestly? Give every healer a barrier mechanic like that, let healers turn their actions against tank/raid busters into a parry kind of mechanic, where you're rewarded with a an offensive oGCD. It won't make healing with GCDs not cringe or anything, and it is indeed adding rewards to things you should be doing anyway but there would at least be some interplay with the healer's kit that's been lacking while also allowing healers to get something out of knowing when to dip into GCD heals (cuz stuff is going in a bad way). The current reward for doing that is: not burning your MP on a rez, and not having a weakness debuff in play on a party member. Other roles get to have healing dividends for being present in the fight and reacting accordingly (making sure your various mitigation skill pop when needed like Arcane Crest regen or all the various off healing/mitigation tanks can do with their buffs they can throw around to save someone, so why can't healers have those kind of dividends be DPS in nature or anything remotely interesting like being able to proc support buff auras off of barriers being popped and regens being placed?

It can give the Devs room to add fun stuff to the role w/o worrying about healing being de-emphasized, because these would proc off of GCD barriers or oGCD barrier abilities (and I'm not saying make all healers shield/barrier healers, just add after effects/follow up/aftermath effects to some of (at least one of) the barriers pure healers can throw out, and add interactivity to SCH's shields). Even though healing has already been de-emphasized (despite their worries that anything more than simplistic healer design would result in healers being pulled in two directions as opposed to just one, they sure arrived at the same exact "DPS only matters" event horizon all the same).

TLDR: Allow a few actions a healer would already take in any given combat situation and have some of them (or at least one of them) resolve into a "no u" effect to be fired right away or to be stockpiled if the buff window is close to arriving. It'll make healers feel less optional and more present in fights and at least give a sense of feedback for healers along a spectrum instead of a binary "everything is fine" and "there's fire and blood everywhere > smash cut to screen fading to black on a wipe as the fight resets" while also giving more of a sense of push and pull between healers and the boss to alleviate the 1111111121111111 rotation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alpheus

I was playing SGE fishing for shield procs cuz I like the light show I get to do when the shield breaks, and honestly? Give every healer a barrier mechanic like that, let healers turn their actions against tank/raid busters into a parry kind of mechanic, where you're rewarded with a an offensive oGCD.

---

The problem with the Sage example is that Toxikon is a 100% loss of damage, so it's not at all worth actively trying to generate. It's only a mediocre consequence of being pushed to GCD healing, which SGE really doesn't like doing. There's a lot I'd like to see from SGE, but I really wish that at least for now, they added some sort of situation in which Toxikon was actually valuable. It can't just be 660 potency because then in Savage, SGE would just spam barriers on the tank since they'd break very quickly in most casts, but some conditional aspect that doubles Toxikon's Potency, or giving Toxikon a cooldown--anything because that interaction would be a lot more enjoyable if I knew I was getting something out of it.

I mean yea, its a losing proposition now, but they could take that underlying mech and just add some much needed flair, but the Dev team might be well and truly stumped because their go to card up their sleeve for adding flair to any job is extra thick chonky high potency auto crit/DH abilities and yea someting like that on a Toxikon mech would be untenable. But it doesn't have to be just big damage procs, as an example for SCH, can make oGCD barrier skill and once the shield pops/expire have it grant the target Embrava and have it be a big damage buff for the target for like 8 seconds (relatively brief) since there's usually a raid wide going out when the 2min window is approaching (unless you get trolled by boss jumping away more into the fight but that's always gonna be a risk until you nail down a battle timeline). Now I only used SCH as an example cuz I miss Embrava from my XI SCH, but ideally something like what I just described would ideally go to WHM (just call it something else like Cheer) since it doesn't have any DPS buff to grant the party. Obviously AST wouldn't need a skill at that impactful a level, same with SCH due to Div and Chain Strat already being part of their kits.

Just saying the Devs can get weird with it even if it's technically somewhat homogenizing (not all homogenization is bad, all healers getting a gap closer with appropriately themed gfx for the 3 who lack one would be a good thing actually because it makes the jobs feel more active and snappy which is why SAM RPR DRG RDM BLM and tanks have their movement tech that at least makes things feel interesting for like half a second as you zoom about, it will also help address a pain point they're concerned with which they've up until now addressed by giving really powerful oGCD heals so that healers can throw something out during movement heavy moments where a gap closer also solves this by making the movement get done faster which means you get back to casting/GCD rolling faster).