Why I Am Against Heavy RNG in Job Design

I understand why some players want RNG in jobs.

Old Astrologian cards, Bard procs, and Dancer procs can make a job feel less scripted. They create moments where the player reacts to something unexpected instead of repeating the exact same flow every pull.

So I understand the appeal.

But personally, I am against RNG in job design in general, and these are the main reasons.

First, RNG reduces reliability.

A job should feel like a stable toolset. I should know what my resources are, what tools I have, and how to plan around them. When a job depends on random procs, random cards, or random resource generation, the job becomes less consistent.

Second, RNG weakens mastery.

Good job design should reward planning, timing, execution, positioning, and decision making. But if part of my output depends on whether the game gave me good or bad rolls, then performance is no longer fully tied to skill.

Third, RNG can affect logs too much.

Two players can play almost the same fight with very similar execution, but one gets better proc chains, better resource timing, or better RNG during burst windows. That can create a noticeable difference in logs without proving that one player made better decisions.

Fourth, RNG is often a cheap way to create variation.

Instead of designing deeper job mechanics or more dynamic encounters, the game can simply add random procs and make the job feel different. But different does not always mean deeper.

Fifth, RNG often makes players react to the hotbar instead of the fight.

If my main adaptation comes from waiting to see which button lights up, then I am not really reading the encounter. I am reacting to my own job rolling dice.

That is why I think unpredictability should come from encounters, not jobs.

Bosses should have mechanics that are less predictable, but still readable before they happen. Different mechanic orders, different target selections, different movement patterns, and different pressure points can create real adaptation.

That kind of unpredictability is good because the player is reacting to the fight itself.

The job should be reliable.

The encounter should create uncertainty.

So my position is simple:

I am against RNG in jobs because it reduces reliability, weakens mastery, affects logs, creates cheap variation, and shifts attention away from the encounter.

I want to react to the boss, not to my hotbar rolling dice.

I don't disagree that within the context of static-rotation-type jobs (i.e.: all current ones, even Dancer and Red Mage have been neutered to where it's factually irrelevant how their procs play out) then lots of variations to which you have to react in a fight is very good. In particular - which isn't easy to design, granted - the randomization in the fight could result in having to pre-plan your otherwise static rotation in "sets" and swapping them around as needed to maximize damage output or healing or reduce damage taken or whatver. This of course kinda means the design of the class is factually dynamic-branching-type, with the branching being dictated by an external mechanism, but eh, same difference.

However, I feel we just have too many classes. It's okay if there are plenty static-rotation-type, as you also say, many players love those. OTOH the sameyness among classes is unavoidable having so many of them but always re-using the same archetype. It'd make sense to shift some classes to proc-based or resource-based. Which wouldn't impact the other half of classes that stay as a static design for players who dislike RNG. That is to say, we have more than enough classes to make everybody happy, here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

Old....
First, RNG reduces reliability.

Second, RNG weakens mastery.

Third, RNG can affect logs too much.

Fourth, RNG is often a cheap way to create variation.

Fifth, RNG often makes players react to the hotbar instead of the fight.

That is why I think unpredictability should come from encounters, not jobs.

Bosses should have mechanics that are less predictable, but still readable before they happen. Different mechanic orders, different target selections, different movement patterns, and different pressure points can create real adaptation.

---

Okay.. Im convinced you're legitimately troll posting at this point.

You haven't been around for "old" anything.

First: Damage profiles from jobs heavily relies on Crit+DH %. So much so that they've given some jobs auto-crit so that they're only trying to roll for DH, or vice versa.
Jobs can have RNG as long as the potency per gcd differences arent that large.

Second: It emphasizes mastery instead of weakening it. You're able to react and adapt because you understand the job intimately.

Third: Again, logs are almost all about your Crit+DH% and kills times. Unless you're posting on a separate account, INTENTIONALLY, you don't have any logs in the first place lol

Fourth: There's no deep job/class system in any MMORPG that doesnt use some form of proc system. There's nothing deep about having a ton of branching options either since there will ultimately be ONE optimal rotation.

Fifth: This only happens if you don't have mastery of the job. Bosses already have mechanics that happen in different orders, or that target different players, or have entirely different layouts for the mechanic. We create uniform solutions to these issues. You need to just finish MSQ and try to do some content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carighan

I don't disagree that within the context of static-rotation-type jobs (i.e.: all current ones, even Dancer and Red Mage have been neutered to where it's factually irrelevant how their procs play out) then lots of variations to which you have to react in a fight is very good. In particular - which isn't easy to design, granted - the randomization in the fight could result in having to pre-plan your otherwise static rotation in "sets" and swapping them around as needed to maximize damage output or healing or reduce damage taken or whatver. This of course kinda means the design of the class is factually dynamic-branching-type, with the branching being dictated by an external mechanism, but eh, same difference.

However, I feel we just have too many classes. It's okay if there are plenty static-rotation-type, as you also say, many players love those. OTOH the sameyness among classes is unavoidable having so many of them but always re-using the same archetype. It'd make sense to shift some classes to proc-based or resource-based. Which wouldn't impact the other half of classes that stay as a static design for players who dislike RNG. That is to say, we have more than enough classes to make everybody happy, here.

---

I understand the idea of having different jobs for different players, and I agree that not every job should play the same.

My issue is not with jobs having different identities. My issue is with RNG being used as the source of that identity.

A job can be dynamic without being random: resource management, branching priorities, encounter-driven decisions, stance systems, and deterministic conditions can all create variety without relying on dice rolls.

The problem with RNG is that if it is impactful, it becomes hard to balance and luck affects performance too much. If it is balanced, it often has to be watered down until the proc barely matters.

So I do not think the choice is RNG jobs or static jobs.

I think the better direction is dynamic jobs with reliable rules, where variation comes from decisions and encounters rather than random outcomes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaionKansen

Okay.. Im convinced you're legitimately troll posting at this point.

You haven't been around for "old" anything.

First: Damage profiles from jobs heavily relies on Crit+DH %. So much so that they've given some jobs auto-crit so that they're only trying to roll for DH, or vice versa.
Jobs can have RNG as long as the potency per gcd differences arent that large.

Second: It emphasizes mastery instead of weakening it. You're able to react and adapt because you understand the job intimately.

Third: Again, logs are almost all about your Crit+DH% and kills times. Unless you're posting on a separate account, INTENTIONALLY, you don't have any logs in the first place lol

Fourth: There's no deep job/class system in any MMORPG that doesnt use some form of proc system. There's nothing deep about having a ton of branching options either since there will ultimately be ONE optimal rotation.

Fifth: This only happens if you don't have mastery of the job. Bosses already have mechanics that happen in different orders, or that target different players, or have entirely different layouts for the mechanic. We create uniform solutions to these issues. You need to just finish MSQ and try to do some content.

---

It's impressive how you managed to write that much while arguing against points I never actually made.

I never mentioned Crit/DH RNG. I never argued that jobs should be completely static. I never claimed encounters currently have zero variation.

You basically invented a different argument, responded to that argument, and then congratulated yourself for winning it.

The irony is that you're talking about mastery while demonstrating the exact opposite skill when it comes to reading comprehension.

My point was very simple: gameplay RNG is not the only way to create dynamic gameplay.

Yet instead of explaining why procs create better decision making than deterministic systems, you defaulted to "every MMO does it" and "finish MSQ."

Neither of those are arguments.

They're just ways of avoiding the actual discussion.

If your position is that pressing a glowing button whenever it appears is the pinnacle of job depth, then I think we've simply set the bar at very different heights.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

The problem with RNG is that if it is impactful, it becomes hard to balance and luck affects performance too much. If it is balanced, it often has to be watered down until the proc barely matters.

---

Both sides of this are solved problems, the devs just need to actually look at other MMOs. Even older ones.

Yes, if you handle procs like they do on e.g. Red Mage, their only response is to trivialize and neuter until they no longer matter. That's lame. And I agree, if you gotta do that, just don't. It's no longer even a proc at that point.

But even ... how long ago was it?... ouuuf, 2007. Okay so back in 2007 World of Warcraft had already solved the proc-randomness issue by introducing their PPM system. Since Windfury and whatever that Retri thing was didn't work well with 1H vs 2H (more of an issue for Windfury), they introduced a PPM system where instead of each hit having say a 20% chance to proc something, you got 5 procs per minute. Got a slow weapon, higher chance per hit than on a faster weapon. This introduced the first step of easing proc randomness: One upside of a faster weapon (for procs with fixed values) was a higher reliability due to the high number of hits quickly evening out the chances and the procs coming at pretty reliable intervals. Want to gamble that you get extra hits during buff windows? Go for something slow, rake in the huge double/triple procs, but hey, might also get unlucky.

This was then fudged again, which AFAIK is still what they do today: They got a PPM-system, but it also "helps you". As you fail to produce procs, the chance actually goes up slightly. You can't be without proc for toooooo long. Likewise if you proc repeatedly, your chance goes down more than it would have to for the PPM number to be correct, in particular for the first 1-2 hits, so that chained procs and deserts of no procs become both very rare while the overall PPM is the same and the randomness is still felt over medium stretches of time.

And then, that's just one way of doing it. It's a very smart one, there's a reason most copy that. FFXIV somehow... just doesn't even bother with procs or randomization, which cuts off ~2.5 of 4 archetypes of RPG-class-design.

I have personally yet to see any case where a job's reliability suffered from rng in XIV, even HW/SB AST. Especially when the whole point of having rng in the first place is to offer tools to the player to minimize a lack of results or triage and manage good ones. Main example of this was MCH ammo which was a way for the player to overcome that constraint especially for their bursts, or AST royal road to burn unwanted cards in order to boost the power of the next one. played, or the ability to save and store cards for later use.

It's precisely what makes or break a RNG job: a good player makes it a stable toolset, and a bad player keeps it unstable.
It's precisely through planning, execution on the fly and decision making with the hand you're given at any time that makes rng mastery.

This in fact offers infinitely more mastery potential and ceiling to jobs than any rote, deterministic rotation can, since it requires constant agency and thinking.

Logs have always been influenced a lot more by Crit and DH than anything even related to RNG. I've mained BRD for a long time in savage and ultimate, and I can tell you with 110% certainty that my logs have never really felt affected a lot by rng, especially since rng is concentrated around abilities that spread over a huge sample that evens out in the end. the real culprits of parse runs being all about playing the lottery with every pull are crit and DH on a handful of 2min nukes with gigantic potency, and also the base damage variance (± 5%). But i'll grant you that AST pulling the correct cards back in SB was also part of it, and i'd argue it was a problem of card balance rather than a problem inherent to rng itself.

Beyond this, I couldn't care less about logs. Leave those to parse brains and let them run deterministic rotations, it's not like they're endangered in the game anyway.

The idea that RNG and deep job mechanics/encounters are mutually exclusive is a little puzzling to me. Both are worthy endeavors to go after.
Now the current RNG on the rare jobs left in the game that even deal with it in the first place isn't exactly what I'd call, supremely engaging though. That ship unfortunately sailed when Stormblood ended.

If you're not paying attention to the encounter because you're too focused on your hotbar due to rng, that's something you can work on. It's perfectly understandable that there is a balance in difficulty to reach there, but RNG can actually compliment a deeper and engaging battle system at the encounter side if it actually interacts with it in a meaningful way.

If you do not like RNG jobs, don't fret because you're probably part of the 99% of this playerbase that seem to entertain a sheer hatred for it (and then will defend tooth and nail actually awful rng like atmas, go figure).
But please then, just go play the jobs that don't have any and leave us alone. We didn't do anything to harm you, and if anything seeing evolved, we already lost one of the iconic RNG jobs to the rework because SE seems to share that sentiment for some reason.

I'm actually scared for evolved DNC now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carighan

...

---

That's fair, and I agree that systems like PPM and bad-luck protection do a much better job of controlling randomness than simple proc chances.

My question, however, is whether that actually solves the core issue or simply reduces its side effects.

Most of the systems you described are designed to make RNG more reliable, more predictable, and less extreme. Which makes sense, because completely uncontrolled RNG tends to create balance and gameplay issues.

But that leads me back to the same question: if we are adding multiple layers of protection to make randomness behave in a more consistent and controlled way, why is randomness the preferable foundation in the first place?

What I find amusing is that RNG is often presented as the solution to players getting bored of repetition. Yet in many cases it feels more like a shortcut than a real solution.

Instead of creating variation through encounters, player decisions, resource management, branching priorities, or other gameplay systems, the answer becomes: "If you want your runs to feel different, play the RNG job."

To me, that's a surprisingly low bar for variation.

The game is still largely asking you to do the same things. The difference is that now a proc appeared at a slightly different time.

So while I agree that modern MMO design has found ways to smooth out RNG, I'm still not convinced that RNG is inherently a better source of depth than systems that derive variation directly from player decisions and encounter design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

I have personally yet to see any case where a job's reliability suffered from rng in XIV, even HW/SB AST. Especially when the whole point of having rng in the first place is to offer tools to the player to minimize a lack of results or triage and manage good ones. Main example of this was MCH ammo which was a way for the player to overcome that constraint especially for their bursts, or AST royal road to burn unwanted cards in order to boost the power of the next one. played, or the ability to save and store cards for later use.

It's precisely what makes or break a RNG job: a good player makes it a stable toolset, and a bad player keeps it unstable.
It's precisely through planning, execution on the fly and decision making with the hand you're given at any time that makes rng mastery.
This in fact offers infinitely more mastery potential and ceiling to jobs than any rote, deterministic rotation can, since it requires constant agency and thinking.

Logs have always been influenced a lot more by Crit and DH than anything even related to RNG. I've mained BRD for a long time in savage and ultimate, and I can tell you with 110% certainty that my logs have never really felt affected a lot by rng, especially since rng is concentrated around abilities that spread over a huge sample that evens out in the end. the real culprits of parse runs being all about playing the lottery with every pull are crit and DH on a handful of 2min nukes with gigantic potency, and also the base damage variance (± 5%). But i'll grant you that AST pulling the correct cards back in SB was also part of it, and i'd argue it was a problem of card balance rather than a problem inherent to rng itself.

Beyond this, I couldn't care less about logs. Leave those to parse brains and let them run deterministic rotations, it's not like they're endangered in the game anyway.

The idea that RNG and deep job mechanics/encounters are mutually exclusive is a little puzzling to me. Both are worthy endeavors to go after.
Now the current RNG on the rare jobs left in the game that even deal with it in the first place isn't exactly what I'd call, supremely engaging though. That ship unfortunately sailed when Stormblood ended.

If you're not paying attention to the encounter because you're too focused on your hotbar due to rng, that's something you can work on. It's perfectly understandable that there is a balance in difficulty to reach there, but RNG can actually compliment a deeper and engaging battle system at the encounter side if it actually interacts with it in a meaningful way.

If you do not like RNG jobs, don't fret because you're probably part of the 99% of this playerbase that seem to entertain a sheer hatred for it (and then will defend tooth and nail actually awful rng like atmas, go figure).
But please then, just go play the jobs that don't have any and leave us alone. We didn't do anything to harm you, and if anything seeing evolved, we already lost one of the iconic RNG jobs to the rework because SE seems to share that sentiment for some reason.

I'm actually scared for evolved DNC now.

---

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

I don't think adaptation automatically equals mastery.

RNG only creates mastery when it creates meaningful decisions. If the correct answer is almost always obvious, then what you're testing is reaction, not decision making.

Take Dancer for example. When a proc appears, the vast majority of the time the answer is simply to press the proc. The gameplay changed, but the decision didn't. The game rolled the dice, then told you what button to press.

What made old AST more interesting wasn't the randomness by itself. It was the tools surrounding the randomness: Royal Road, Spread, card management, and planning around imperfect hands. In other words, the interesting part was the decision-making layer built around the RNG.

That is why I would argue that the depth came more from the management systems than from the random draw itself.
This is also why I am more interested in uncertainty controlled by the player rather than uncertainty resolved by the game.

For example, imagine if AST didn't simply draw a random card. Instead, pressing Play could start cycling cards above the target every second, and pressing Play again would lock in the current card.

Now the question is no longer “what card did RNG give me?”

The question becomes:

Do I take this decent card now because the burst window is about to start?

Do I wait another second and risk losing timing?

Do I settle because mechanics are coming?

Do I delay for the specific card I want, knowing there is a cost to waiting?

To me, that is far more interesting than a pure random draw, because the variation still exists, but the outcome is tied to timing, awareness, and player decision making.

That is my issue with RNG.

I don't dislike uncertainty. I dislike when the uncertainty is resolved by the game instead of by the player.

I'm not saying RNG and deep design can never coexist. I'm saying that when RNG jobs are actually interesting, the depth usually comes from the decisions surrounding the RNG, not from the RNG itself.

And if the decision-making layer is doing most of the heavy lifting, then I would rather focus on creating meaningful decisions directly instead of relying on random outcomes as the primary source of variation.

I don't think RNG is bad in jobs I think it make things more interesting overall what I do hate is the RNG on RNG tho dancer have that alot on release being bad and well they somewhat balanced it but still think it's bad

RNG in jobs is bad so we deleted it so you can crit fish instead

Also we already have gambler as a job, it just carries a fishing pole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

RNG in jobs is bad so we deleted it so you can crit fish instead

---

That's fair, but that's not the kind of RNG I'm talking about.

I don't really mind RNG that does not affect how the job is played.

Crit/DH is mostly background damage variance. It can affect numbers, but it usually doesn't change the actual gameplay loop.

My issue is with RNG that changes how the job plays, like procs, cards, or random resources.

So yes, crit fishing is also RNG, but this thread is mainly about gameplay RNG, not background damage RNG.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chasingstars

Also we already have gambler as a job, it just carries a fishing pole.

---

Let's be honest.

Fisher stopped being the gambler job years ago.

It's the unofficial RMT profession now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

That's fair, but that's not the kind of RNG I'm talking about.

I don't really mind RNG that does not affect how the job is played.

Crit/DH is mostly background damage variance. It can affect numbers, but it usually doesn't change the actual gameplay loop.

My issue is with RNG that changes how the job plays, like procs, cards, or random resources.

So yes, crit fishing is also RNG, but this thread is mainly about gameplay RNG, not background damage RNG.

---

Oh I know that’s what you meant, I’m saying it’s hilarious to think that crit fishing is less offensive than interactive gameplay induced by the variance in the job

The encounter is already so on the rails in 14 why would you also want the job to be on the rails

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

Oh I know that’s what you meant, I’m saying it’s hilarious to think that crit fishing is less offensive than interactive gameplay induced by the variance in the job

The encounter is already so on the rails in 14 why would you also want the job to be on the rails

---

I understand why some players enjoy RNG jobs. People get bored when every pull feels identical, and RNG can make a job feel slightly different from run to run.

My issue is not that I want jobs to be on rails. I actually agree that FFXIV is already too scripted.

I just don't think RNG is the best solution to that problem.

To me, RNG jobs feel like a shortcut solution to a larger issue. Instead of making encounters more varied, with different priorities, different mechanic orders, different pressure points, and more situations to solve, the easier answer becomes: keep the encounter mostly the same, but give 2 or 3 jobs some RNG so those players have something different to react to.

I understand why people enjoy that, but I don't think it addresses the root issue.

If the goal is to make runs feel less repetitive, I would rather see that variation come from encounter design and player decisions, not from a proc appearing at a different time.

That way, every job gets to engage with the variation, not only the few jobs that happen to have RNG mechanics.

I think you are saying that x is bad because it doesn’t fix the core problem y but fail to see that you can fix y without changing x regardless

They can and should fix encounters being on rails, but that’s doesn’t really preclude also having RNG jobs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

I think you are saying that x is bad because it doesn’t fix the core problem y but fail to see that you can fix y without changing x regardless

They can and should fix encounters being on rails, but that’s doesn’t really preclude also having RNG jobs

---

I don't disagree with that.

Better encounters and RNG jobs are not mutually exclusive.

My point is that even if encounters were improved tomorrow, I would still prefer variation that comes from player decisions rather than random outcomes.

So my criticism of RNG jobs isn't just that they don't solve encounter design.

It's that I don't think randomness is the most interesting source of gameplay variation in the first place.

And to be clear, I'm not even opposed to uncertainty itself.

For example, I would find an AST system where cards cycle and the player chooses when to lock one in far more interesting than simply drawing a random card.

The uncertainty still exists, but the outcome is being resolved by the player rather than by a dice roll.

That's the distinction I'm trying to make.

I'd rather have variation driven by decisions, timing, priorities, resource management, and encounter adaptation than by the game randomly deciding what outcome I get.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

RNG only creates mastery when it creates meaningful decisions. If the correct answer is almost always obvious, then what you're testing is reaction, not decision making.

Take Dancer for example. When a proc appears, the vast majority of the time the answer is simply to press the proc. The gameplay changed, but the decision didn't. The game rolled the dice, then told you what button to press.

---

While we're onto Dancer, the filler is a laughable version of rng. It has zero depth.

But you could equally talk about the priority generated in the burst segment—when do I use my static nukes without overwriting Last Dance or drifting Finishing Move, and where do I dump gauge depending on how randomly it fills up—and how it relates to Tillana use as a second layer of constraints to play around.
It's surprisingly deep and has no clear cut right or wrong answer. There is always an optimal thing you could do, but the trick is it's actually only easy to tell which after the burst, but less so when you're still executing it for the simple reason you can't know what is going to proc and how fast the gauge is going to fill until it happens.

And it can change everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

What made old AST more interesting wasn't the randomness by itself. It was the tools surrounding the randomness: Royal Road, Spread, card management, and planning around imperfect hands. In other words, the interesting part was the decision-making layer built around the RNG.

---

You're aware that those imperfect hands actually came from rng right? That was the whole point of those decision making tools, in order to manage and correct bad outcomes, while taking advantage of good outcomes.

If you remove RNG from HW/SB AST, then all of those tools fall flat.
You could argue that with changing encounters they'd still allow for decision making, which is true, but you're still missing a fundamental part which is "dealing with the hand you have at any time".

Honestly, you've been advocating to have an encounter model that is "dealing with the situation presented by the enemy at any time", which I also do want in the game.
So why is "dealing with the hand your job gives you at any time" suddenly a problem?

Why pitting them against each other? They can work fine on their own, and they can also work great in conjunction to each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

For example, imagine if AST didn't simply draw a random card. Instead, pressing Play could start cycling cards above the target every second, and pressing Play again would lock in the current card.

Now the question is no longer “what card did RNG give me?”

The question becomes:

Do I take this decent card now because the burst window is about to start?

Do I wait another second and risk losing timing?

Do I settle because mechanics are coming?

Do I delay for the specific card I want, knowing there is a cost to waiting?

To me, that is far more interesting than a pure random draw, because the variation still exists, but the outcome is tied to timing, awareness, and player decision making.

---

So your solution is essentially turning the rng into a tedious scroll until you get the correct card?
Why not just have different buttons corresponding to each card? That sounds a lot more convenient, and you'd still making the same choice.
If the problem is that we'd miss your idea of losing time parsing through the whole deck, then i'm sorry but I see where you're coming from, but that's just extremely off putting to me. Tedium for the sake of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

.

---

I think this is where the discussion becomes interesting.

You keep describing adaptation as if adaptation itself is automatically valuable.

But let me ask a different question:

If I give two jobs the exact same decision-making layer, and the only difference is that one gets its situations from RNG while the other gets its situations from encounter design, resource constraints, timing pressure, or other deterministic systems, why is the RNG version inherently better?

That's the part I'm still not convinced by.

Because when I look at old AST, the part I find interesting isn't that the card draw was random.

It's what I chose to do after seeing the card.

Likewise, when I look at DNC burst optimization, the interesting part isn't that a proc happened.

It's how I manage the constraints that follow.

So sometimes I wonder if we're giving RNG credit for depth that is actually being created by the decision-making systems built around it.

In other words:

Is the randomness creating the depth?

Or is the randomness merely creating the situation in which the depth exists?

Because to me those are two very different things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

snipped

---

I'm pretty convinced BabyYoda is a troll. I don't see how they can genuinely make so many obscure/ignorant/out-of-touch posts in such a short period of time over the last week and they haven't even caught up on MSQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaionKansen

I'm pretty convinced BabyYoda is a troll. I don't see how they can genuinely make so many obscure/ignorant/out-of-touch posts in such a short period of time over the last week and they haven't even caught up on MSQ

---

even if someone doesn't finish a story they can still see issues overall. I don't think 100% invalidating someone opinion is also a problem in itself that's why you take what you think is important and give more to that point that's all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaionKansen

I'm pretty convinced BabyYoda is a troll. I don't see how they can genuinely make so many obscure/ignorant/out-of-touch posts in such a short period of time over the last week and they haven't even caught up on MSQ

---

This is an alt account, not my main.

But the fact that you had to check my profile instead of addressing the argument says enough.

If your best response to a design discussion is “you did not finish MSQ,” then you already lost the design discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

I don't think adaptation automatically equals mastery.

RNG only creates mastery when it creates meaningful decisions. If the correct answer is almost always obvious, then what you're testing is reaction, not decision making.

Take Dancer for example. When a proc appears, the vast majority of the time the answer is simply to press the proc. The gameplay changed, but the decision didn't. The game rolled the dice, then told you what button to press.

What made old AST more interesting wasn't the randomness by itself. It was the tools surrounding the randomness: Royal Road, Spread, card management, and planning around imperfect hands. In other words, the interesting part was the decision-making layer built around the RNG.

That is why I would argue that the depth came more from the management systems than from the random draw itself.
This is also why I am more interested in uncertainty controlled by the player rather than uncertainty resolved by the game.

For example, imagine if AST didn't simply draw a random card. Instead, pressing Play could start cycling cards above the target every second, and pressing Play again would lock in the current card.

Now the question is no longer “what card did RNG give me?”

The question becomes:

Do I take this decent card now because the burst window is about to start?

Do I wait another second and risk losing timing?

Do I settle because mechanics are coming?

Do I delay for the specific card I want, knowing there is a cost to waiting?

To me, that is far more interesting than a pure random draw, because the variation still exists, but the outcome is tied to timing, awareness, and player decision making.

That is my issue with RNG.

I don't dislike uncertainty. I dislike when the uncertainty is resolved by the game instead of by the player.

I'm not saying RNG and deep design can never coexist. I'm saying that when RNG jobs are actually interesting, the depth usually comes from the decisions surrounding the RNG, not from the RNG itself.

And if the decision-making layer is doing most of the heavy lifting, then I would rather focus on creating meaningful decisions directly instead of relying on random outcomes as the primary source of variation.

---

Babyyada i like your post keep it up dont let them hateful trolls and haressers bully you off the forums.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

I think this is where we fundamentally disagree.

I don't think adaptation automatically equals mastery.

RNG only creates mastery when it creates meaningful decisions. If the correct answer is almost always obvious, then what you're testing is reaction, not decision making.

Take Dancer for example. When a proc appears, the vast majority of the time the answer is simply to press the proc. The gameplay changed, but the decision didn't. The game rolled the dice, then told you what button to press.

What made old AST more interesting wasn't the randomness by itself. It was the tools surrounding the randomness: Royal Road, Spread, card management, and planning around imperfect hands. In other words, the interesting part was the decision-making layer built around the RNG.

That is why I would argue that the depth came more from the management systems than from the random draw itself.
This is also why I am more interested in uncertainty controlled by the player rather than uncertainty resolved by the game.

For example, imagine if AST didn't simply draw a random card. Instead, pressing Play could start cycling cards above the target every second, and pressing Play again would lock in the current card.

Now the question is no longer “what card did RNG give me?”

The question becomes:

Do I take this decent card now because the burst window is about to start?

Do I wait another second and risk losing timing?

Do I settle because mechanics are coming?

Do I delay for the specific card I want, knowing there is a cost to waiting?

To me, that is far more interesting than a pure random draw, because the variation still exists, but the outcome is tied to timing, awareness, and player decision making.

That is my issue with RNG.

I don't dislike uncertainty. I dislike when the uncertainty is resolved by the game instead of by the player.

I'm not saying RNG and deep design can never coexist. I'm saying that when RNG jobs are actually interesting, the depth usually comes from the decisions surrounding the RNG, not from the RNG itself.

And if the decision-making layer is doing most of the heavy lifting, then I would rather focus on creating meaningful decisions directly instead of relying on random outcomes as the primary source of variation.

---

In theory, yes. Practically it means you are watching the cards over one person instead of whether the boss lifted a pinky and is going to cleave left and you have two seconds to get to their right side.

Which is the other issue with some of the RNG jobs, instead of watching the boss, you watching the hotbar. And nothing everything has nice audio or haptic reactions to notify you it's up, or the fights let you hear the notifications. Apparently there's a sound effect for having hit the position right, how many people can hear that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

If I give two jobs the exact same decision-making layer, and the only difference is that one gets its situations from RNG while the other gets its situations from encounter design, resource constraints, timing pressure, or other deterministic systems, why is the RNG version inherently better?

---

I feel you're kinda building windmills to fight against with that arbitrary opposition between both.
None is better than the other.
They're also not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

Because when I look at old AST, the part I find interesting isn't that the card draw was random.

It's what I chose to do after seeing the card.

Likewise, when I look at DNC burst optimization, the interesting part isn't that a proc happened.

It's how I manage the constraints that follow.

---

The very reason that the constraints on DNC happen is precisely because of the RNG. If it was a linear, predictable gain, you'd get a linear, predictable burst rotation that never changes like MCH.

Choosing what to do with a card on AST depending on what's needed by the encounter itself or the state of the party is one thing.
Choosing what to do with a card you couldn't predict and have to deal with, is another thing.
Both can work alone without the other being a thing, but they can also work in tandem as a double layer of agency and decision making.

Again, it's not mutually exclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaionKansen

I'm pretty convinced BabyYoda is a troll. I don't see how they can genuinely make so many obscure/ignorant/out-of-touch posts in such a short period of time over the last week and they haven't even caught up on MSQ

---

I disagree with someone = they have to be a troll
Someone disagrees with me = they have reading comprehension problems

Forums never change


Edit: I tend to have similar views to the OP, but definitely not in this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ilisidi

In theory, yes. Practically it means you are watching the cards over one person instead of whether the boss lifted a pinky and is going to cleave left and you have two seconds to get to their right side.

Which is the other issue with some of the RNG jobs, instead of watching the boss, you watching the hotbar. And nothing everything has nice audio or haptic reactions to notify you it's up, or the fights let you hear the notifications. Apparently there's a sound effect for having hit the position right, how many people can hear that.

---

I don't think that's really the issue.

In my example, the cards would appear above the player rather than on the hotbar, so the information is still part of the play space.

More importantly, every meaningful system competes for attention to some degree. Gauges, cooldowns, buffs, debuffs, resources, party frames, and encounter mechanics all require awareness.

If we reduce gameplay to simply watching the boss and reacting to animations, we lose a lot of the management and decision-making that creates depth in the first place.

The question isn't whether a system requires attention.

The question is whether that attention leads to meaningful decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

I feel you're kinda building windmills to fight against with that arbitrary opposition between both.
None is better than the other.
They're also not mutually exclusive.



The very reason that the constraints on DNC happen is precisely because of the RNG. If it was a linear, predictable gain, you'd get a linear, predictable burst rotation that never changes like MCH.

Choosing what to do with a card on AST depending on what's needed by the encounter itself or the state of the party is one thing.
Choosing what to do with a card you couldn't predict and have to deal with, is another thing.
Both can work alone without the other being a thing, but they can also work in tandem as a double layer of agency and decision making.

Again, it's not mutually exclusive.



I disagree with someone = they have to be a troll
Someone disagrees with me = they have reading comprehension problems

Forums never change


Edit: I tend to have similar views to the OP, but definitely not in this thread.

---

I think that's a fairer response than simply calling people trolls.

Disagreement isn't the issue. The issue is when people jump to personal attacks and then act surprised when the conversation becomes less friendly.

On the actual topic, I agree that RNG and deterministic systems are not mutually exclusive.

Where I disagree is that I don't think the value comes from the randomness itself.

With old AST, the interesting part wasn't simply drawing a random card. It was deciding what to do with it.

With DNC, the interesting part isn't simply that a proc happens. It's how RNG interacts with resource management and burst planning.

That is also why 8.0 DNC worries me. If the burst-planning layer gets reduced and the job becomes closer to simply spending what it gets, then the RNG may still exist, but much of the decision-making disappears.

At that point, most of the planning just becomes "save feathers for burst" and that's about it.

So I keep coming back to the same question:

If removing the planning layer makes the job shallower while the RNG remains, doesn't that suggest the planning was doing most of the heavy lifting, not the RNG itself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SakuraMidnight

Babyyada i like your post keep it up dont let them hateful trolls and haressers bully you off the forums.

---

Thank you, Sakura. I appreciate the kind words.

One thing I genuinely like about your posts is that even when discussions get heated, you always seem to bring a positive energy with you. The forums could definitely use more of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaionKansen

I'm pretty convinced BabyYoda is a troll. I don't see how they can genuinely make so many obscure/ignorant/out-of-touch posts in such a short period of time over the last week and they haven't even caught up on MSQ

---

Game is way too long to wait until finishing it before posting opinions. I'm still in Stormblood, and I expect to be stuck there for a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valence

I disagree with someone = they have to be a troll
Someone disagrees with me = they have reading comprehension problems
Forums never change


Edit: I tend to have similar views to the OP, but definitely not in this thread.

---

They've been making these posts for over a week and they haven't even completed MSQ. Its bizarre behavior. They're either making AI posts or its someone on an alt account because they've burned their reputation on their main.

Another to my ignore list collection

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaionKansen

They've been making these posts for over a week and they haven't even completed MSQ. Its bizarre behavior. They're either making AI posts or its someone on an alt account because they've burned their reputation on their main.

Another to my ignore list collection

---

So far I've been accused of being:

- A troll
- An AI
- Someone who burned their reputation on their main
- Someone who hasn't completed MSQ

At this point, I'm honestly more curious about what the next theory will be than the RNG discussion itself.

The funny thing is that none of those theories actually explain why my argument is wrong.

If anything, it's impressive how we've managed to travel this far away from the original topic.

Makes me wonder who is actually trolling the discussion at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaionKansen

Another to my ignore list collection

---

It would have saved so much time and keyboarding...

The posts above are a perfect example of what happens when people run out of argument before they run out of keyboard.

The topic was RNG design. The replies ran straight to MSQ progress, AI theories and ignore-list speeches.

Anything except the actual point.

That is not debate. That is dodging with confidence.

If heavy RNG is good design, explain the decision it creates. If all you can do is attack the poster or clap for ignore lists, then the argument is still standing and the replies already folded.

Heavy RNG without control, timing, tradeoffs, or meaningful adaptation is not depth.

So again:

What meaningful decision does heavy job RNG actually create?

Well like I argued before, your anti-RNG stance is easy to argue (against): All MMORPG history and context disagrees with that RNG-y design is bad or unwelcome. In fact all MMORPG history and context shows that it's helpful in expanding class design possibilities, allows for more ability types, ability varieties and customization (if your game has that).

That does not mean RNG-y class design is without pitfalls. But as FFXIV itself masterfully showcases, static non-RPG design is also full of pitfalls, and any other MMORPG can easily crib from FFXIV why a fully-solved design is just bad.

Now of course, you argue you want the RNG to come externally. This is in fact an interesting shortcut: It means you can add randomization to all classes at once, instead of having to design it on a per-class basis. Say all bosses now have randomized ability uses, far more random damage output, semi-randomized damage intake (so there are phases where they are vulnerable that you cannot fully plan for, you gotta react and pull your biggest hits in those, but how long will you sit on them waiting or a vulnerable moment to come?), etc. That's clever. Far less design work, and it's easy(-er) to balance on the class side as it affects all classes evenly. Not exactly, but close enough.

But, it also has a bunch of downside insofar that it drops a slew of potential benefits of more random-based class design for no reason other than saving dev time:

* It cannot provide class identity through randomization or the absence of it. Meaning static-rotation as all classes are right now is also no longer possible.
* It prevents using RNG-elements for class balance.
* It limits player choice. Right now players cannot opt into proc-based, resource-based or dynamic-branching class designs. In your design, they could not opt into static-rotation, proc-based or resource-based designs. That's just as limiting!
* Encounter design is now as limited as the current one, just in the opposite direction basically.
* Again, we know from essentially all other MMORPGs that it's just not good design. In particular WoW and EQ1 during their long tenure tried ~everything, and reverted or modified most elements over time. We know what works or doesn't work by just looking at them. Not necessarily just their current form, but their entire history. We can also look at FFXIV's static nature and see that despite over a decade of filing the edges off, no, it doesn't work well in light of an ever-expanding class roster. They're now trying a different approach to working around that, so they realize it's an issue at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carighan

...

---

I think I should clarify my position a bit.

I am not against RNG by itself. Many games use RNG in very fun and interesting ways.

What I am against is RNG that gives the player no real choice. If the only interaction is “a proc appeared, press the glowing button,” then that is not very engaging to me. It feels like wasted potential.

I mentioned this in a few places earlier, but my issue is not randomness existing. My issue is randomness that does not create a decision.

For example, imagine Dancer getting an RNG proc, but instead of it simply being “press this button,” it gives the player a choice between two different actions depending on the situation.

Maybe one Feather action is better when your gauge is below 50%, while another is better when your gauge is above 50%. That already creates a small interaction between RNG and job design.

Then you can take it further. Maybe Feather 1 is better during one encounter phase, while Feather 2 is better during another phase because of movement, burst timing, target count, or boss vulnerability. Now the RNG is not just random damage. It is creating a moment where the player evaluates the situation.

That is the kind of RNG I can support.

So the distinction I am making is:

RNG that interacts with the job = good potential.

RNG that interacts with the encounter = also good potential.

RNG that only says “you got lucky, press the button” = weak design.

My point is not “RNG bad.”

My point is that RNG should create decisions, adaptation, timing, or tradeoffs. If it does not do that, then it is just variance, not depth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BabyYoda

What I am against is RNG that gives the player no real choice. If the only interaction is “a proc appeared, press the glowing button,” then that is not very engaging to me. It feels like wasted potential.

I mentioned this in a few places earlier, but my issue is not randomness existing. My issue is randomness that does not create a decision.

---

Aaah, yes of course. Sorry, my bad.

I fully agree with that. E.g. the current Dancer actually has this bad-RNG-design, as their 1 and 2 coinflip to be a 3 or 4 instead. So the overall usage never shifts, you just sometimes press button Y instead of button X, with the same button use and button effect and place in the rotation and overall rotation profile. Or like Monk with their weird thing. Or Red Mage or Bard, in fact this not-actually-proc-elements is the issue with all current procs in the game.

The RNG I have in mind broughtly splits into three categories, based on the archetypes of designing RPG classes:

• Proc-based, i.e.: There is some randomized element you need to react to. But, you are of course correct that if all this does is make you press a button that does not impact the rest of your gameplay then this is meaningless and can be removed at absolutely no loss or cost to the class design.
  And in fact should be removed, it's just bloat.
  But meaningful proc-based classes can go from very simple (e.g. your procs make you press GCDs that naturally then shift other GCDs backwards, but you also got ongoing buffs and cycles that constantly mis- and re-align leading to a completely unstable rotation, pure priority list class is what this ends up being) over passive procs that you need to support with non-proc active abilites up to rather complicated multi-proc cycle classes that edge onto dynamic-branching class design or hybridize into it.
• Resource-based, that is basically gauge-based or charge-based designs that however cannot have a reliable resource level. Imagine if instead of gaining 10 gauge, you gained a random 0 to 20. Naturally over time this favors the average, so it's soooomewhat reliable. But you could go medium~long stretches being starved, and others where your "rotation" is just spamming your spender really.
  These again can be as simple (you have dedicated gauge builders) or as complicated (gauge depends entirely on external factors you cannot even control indirectly) as desired.
  They also can be more complicated than just a gauge or a charge, e.g. buffs you apply have a randomized duration and hence you need to then adjust on-the-spot how to plan your next X seconds so that after that semi-rotation you can re-apply the buff.
  Proper pet classes fall into this due to the often unreliable nature of pet action queueing and pet pathing. At least for games where pets aren't neutered to be essentially externalized DoTs with a model, which sadly... don't really exist any more I believe, they're just too janky. But look at old Necromancer in DAoC or old Demolock in WoW for examples of this.
• Dynamic branching, which is a variable-rotation design where your ideal next rotation constantly swaps into a different "branch" based on input you receive externally. The simplest design here is a reactive almost Dark Souls like setup where your attack sequence gets interrupted and/or shifted into a different attack sequence based on boss attacks.
  Now in DS these attacks are often very strictly pattern-based so this could at best be pseudo-chaos, but combine encounter-side randomness into this and you got proper RNG design.
  The reason this isn't just proc based is because you as the player see an external input and actively cause the shift in rotation. It's just that you cannot predict when you might need to do so. This can further be augmented by push-your-luck designs (e.g. dodge vs the tougher parry->counter in CO:E33) where you got multiple choices how to branch your rotation, and they're of different risks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carighan

..

---

I agree. If we want RNG jobs, I would rather see real RNG that creates different decisions based on multiple factors, not just a glowing button replacing another glowing button.

That is why I think roguelikes are one of the best examples of RNG design. They constantly give you choices. You are offered different options and must decide which one fits your current run. Sometimes a path is weak in one run but becomes very strong in another. The randomness creates adaptation, not just reaction.

I also think FFXIV should look more at the psychology of why players enjoy the same job for multiple expansions.

When I play Monster Hunter, I mostly play Great Sword. When I play League of Legends, I mostly play K'Sante. These classes are not necessarily complex in terms of buttons, but they have a strong mastery curve. They are easy to understand, but hard to fully master.

That is the important part to me: a job needs a clear baseline expectation, but also long-term potential. Something that makes you feel, even after 100+ hours, that you can still improve and express yourself better.

FFXIV is good at making players attached to jobs thematically, but I think its current RNG design rarely adds to that attachment. Most procs feel more like execution checks than real decisions.

They ask: “Did you notice the proc?”

They rarely ask: “What is the best choice here?”