Would Discipline Priest Mechanics work in FFXIV?

[Voltyblast]

Snip

Not to diminish your post or anything, since that you've brought up quite a lot of good points, the thing could be easily fixed in one way: make the game varied, change stuff, make each expansion unique and I'm sure that's something everyone wants but the game doesn't seem to want to (isn't 4.0 going to be exact same afterall?)

Let me explain: when a new class is usually implemented into a game - or anything really, like heroes in mobas or new classes in fps, etc - the game itself changes because the new class brings some new elements to the table, changing the "meta" so to speak. AST for examples has the card mechanic - which is why I like the class - but it's not really a big "meta changer" and feels more like a gimmick rather than an actual mechanic. On top of that the Spear card doesn't work retroactively, making it nearly impossible to use it without coordination. So why not giving them something more? For example, they could work like WoW Shamans in healing (Chain healing and Aoe etc) [Yes yes, WoW worst game ever, yadda yadda, i don't care]: they would be different, bring new skills to the table, and be effective anyway while being different. But why not in FFXIV? Because the game isn't changed according to the new classes, the new classes are instead being changed to accomodate an old system/meta. Unless they actually start to work on making the game more varied, we will constantly get more and more copycat jobs, more similar stats, more "of the same". AST DRK and MCH are three good examples, with NIN being very close (Ninjutsu saves them as it actually is a mechanic and has different skills and buffs)

So to quote myself in this case again:

In my opinion, yes but not with the current [...] system we use

And the reason for this is

Because the game isn't changed according to the new classes, the new classes are instead being changed to accomodate an old system/meta

And until the system doesn't get some rework or anything, any possible original jobs such as hybrids, true supports and similar will never happen. They'll just be changed to be similar to previous jobs that we currently have.

PS: about the HoT mechanic, once again, it's something that the game should fix: in other mmos HoT based heals are possible and flawless, with aggro not being a big issue UNLESS you purposedly overaggro (It's pretty common to me seeing HoTs being put on the MT while pulling afterall...just not in this game). In other words, if HoTs are huge aggro magnets, they should lower the aggro generation from said spells all together. That's not too complicated to do and other games seems to do this fairly well. Why can't FFXIV?

PPS: aren't larger raids harder to balance anyway? If smaller ones are easier, this shouldn't even be an issue. And if not, then we should have larger scaled raids to begin with. I'm honestly curious about this because I hear it both ways. Make up your mind people! xD

[Duelle]

when a new class is usually implemented into a game - or anything really, like heroes in mobas or new classes in fps, etc - the game itself changes because the new class brings some new elements to the table, changing the "meta" so to speak.

My guess is the devs are trying to avoid invoking the buff-nerf rollercoaster too much, and the "safest" way to do this is by basing your designs on ones that already exist. I don't agree with that mentality, since the focus of a design should be within parameters rather than using specific designs as a base.

AST for examples has the card mechanic - which is why I like the class - but it's not really a big "meta changer" and feels more like a gimmick rather than an actual mechanic.

In fairness, the cards are a gimmick. From the perspective of a console FF, I'm sure Draw Card would be AST's special command if it had been a class in FFIII or FFV.

So why not giving them something more? For example, they could work like WoW Shamans in healing (Chain healing and Aoe etc), they would be different, bring new skills to the table, and be effective anyway while being different.

So what you're saying is that you want emphasis on what makes the gameplay of each additional class different from the others, right? This is something I can get behind, as I've found myself wishing DRK would have had access to Dark Arts stuff earlier in the leveling process, not to mention AST and MCH getting cards/sects and turrets at lv30.

But why not in FFXIV? Because the game isn't changed according to the new classes, the new classes are instead being changed to accommodate an old system/meta. Unless they actually start to work on making the game more varied, we will constantly get more and more copycat jobs, more similar stats, more "of the same". AST DRK and MCH are three good examples, with NIN being very close (Ninjutsu saves them as it actually is a mechanic and has different skills and buffs)

Part of this can largely be blamed on the fact that our max tier content is 8-man raids. This takes us back to the point I made about the WHM+SCH combo being the main thing SE invested in when it comes to healer design. Since you've already mentioned WoW, healers there were not designed to be paired up, and instead are built with their own styles of healing and a common denominator (the ability to remove all debuffs and rez people).

Of course, none of the healers in WoW were designed around something as powerful as damage-negating barriers. Power Word: Shield and Earth Shield were the closest things we had, though both had limitations by way of cooldown timers, target limits or debuffs that prevented the effect from being stacked and constantly reapplied.

about the HoT mechanic, once again, it's something that the game should fix: in other mmos HoT based heals are possible and flawless, with aggro not being a big issue UNLESS you purposedly overaggro (It's pretty common to me seeing HoTs being put on the MT while pulling afterall...just not in this game). In other words, if HoTs are huge aggro magnets, they should lower the aggro generation from said spells all together. That's not too complicated to do and other games seems to do this fairly well. Why can't FFXIV?

I actually mentioned this in discussions about healers both in beta and after ARR launch. The response was something to the effect of "trololol u need skill 2 play a heeler in ffxiv". Because wanting to preemptively mitigate tank damage by applying a HoT on a tank before the pull is the true sign of a scrub according to the people playing this game.

aren't larger raids harder to balance anyway? If smaller ones are easier, this shouldn't even be an issue. And if not, then we should have larger scaled raids to begin with. I'm honestly curious about this because I hear it both ways. Make up your mind people! xD

Speaking for myself, I support bigger raids because it gives the opportunity to bring more people due to need of bodies. And when the content is forgiving enough, you can bring new people without fear of wiping all night.

During my raiding days, the 10-man groups were the sort of cream of the crop of the guild, and our 25-man runs were comprised of those elite players and the other members of the guild (plus a couple of randoms form other guilds if we were low on people that week). One of our members (who was in one of the 10-man groups) would even bring along his elderly mom (who played a decent mage) to our raids, and despite the fact that she wasn't geared for cutting edge raiding could hold her own because she could follow directions and the content was not ridiculously overbearing in normal mode as opposed to what we see in Savage raids.

[Shurrikhan]

Snip

I gotta ask, Duelle, would you want to see a (raid-count) Flex system in XIV?

Also, god I miss 25-man Uld and TotC. ICC, Firelands, ToT, SoO, as well, sure, but it's really hard to beat that first Ulduar fight with 25 players...
_______________________________________


Back to XIV itself, though, I really hope we start seeing more and more of each class's core gameplay introduced earlier, with fewer abilities that serve as filler or are indistinct or just irrelevant at their level of acquisition (Foresight, Rampart, Shadowskin, before there's any way to AoE or reason to multi-pull, let alone where you can meet a mob you can't auto-attack to death).

As for the other stale rigidities, I just have to hope for changes in the actual endgame content, in its average size, mechanics, or other frameworks.

[Duelle]

would you want to see a (raid-count) Flex system in XIV?

In one word, yes. I left WoW long before they implemented flex raiding, but if it works as I'm thinking it does, then we would greatly benefit from a similar system.

The main thing the devs would have to adjust is party/raid structure and AoE abilities. Every ability in this game is party-focused with no raid options, and that's one of the first things that need to change if we are going to make size-flexible content.

I really hope we start seeing more and more of each class's core gameplay introduced earlier, with fewer abilities that serve as filler or are indistinct or just irrelevant at their level of acquisition (Foresight, Rampart, Shadowskin, before there's any way to AoE or reason to multi-pull, let alone where you can meet a mob you can't auto-attack to death).

I agree with this. Of course, more diverse designs along with getting core mechanics earlier would be ideal.

[StrejdaTom]

No, devs of this game hate hybrids.

[Shurrikhan]

In one word, yes. I left WoW long before they implemented flex raiding, but if it works as I'm thinking it does, then we would greatly benefit from a similar system.

The main thing the devs would have to adjust is party/raid structure and AoE abilities. Every ability in this game is party-focused with no raid options, and that's one of the first things that need to change if we are going to make size-flexible content.
I agree with this. Of course, more diverse designs along with getting core mechanics earlier would be ideal.

A few follow-up questions, then, if you're willing. I could use your insights on this as a fellow former WoW and XI player.

1. To what extent do you think we'll need to open up raid options? E.g. should all healers be able to raid-heal to some extent — which, if not very well tuned, could allow you basically one to three healers in a 24-man raid. Which party utilities, such Shadewalker, Eye for an Eye, Apocatastatis, or even Aetherial Manipulation, should be able to target non-party members — this perhaps having the further issue of troll Shadewalkers and/or a chosen tank never having to deal with issues of enmity. I'm sure there's a point of balance that could make all that work, but it might require some small raid adjustments as well.

2. If diversity and complexity was opened up into more universal means, such as introducing "by name" mechanics or traits like "Swiftness" (movement speed), "Quickening" (reduced cooldown time), "Flurry" (player-controlled multi-strikes), "Haste" (Attack Speed), "Syphon" (healing from damage), and so forth, would merely seeing your job's traits as a collection of universal mechanics, though now with potentially each job set of traits and each ability tooltip able to support more complexity with less text (unless expanded, e.g.: <Symbol for Drain> 25 | "Drain 25" | "Generates self-healing equal to 25% of damage dealt"), make jobs seem somehow less unique (or just, more clearly so?).

3. If cross-class traits were expanded, allowing for collections of, let's say...

• Gold – mechanically-additive; core, integral; makes the job feel like the job, but can have some very cool effects on others as well (e.g. "Sword and Board" (GLD), "Guardian" (PLD), "Collusion" (ROG), "Field of Fire" (ARC), "Drive" (LCR)),
• Silver – more general or passive traits, but can still have tremendous impact; generally less powerful, especially within the native job/class,
• Bronze – augments for native Bronze and Silver abilities or small passives that tend to make them work a bit better

...traits, but that process allowed for more obvious collection of personal favorite, job-desired, or encounter-desired traits, would jobs feel less unique for being able to choose them. And if so, is that worth it for an increase in character freedom?

4. Would it be inappropriate or actually easier to have certain traits/passives/mechanics and skills/actives under the same name, e.g. "Cover (t)" and "Cover (s)"?

5. What QoL changes or points or structure of balance might make these trait selections feel less like the sliding panels of Warlords of Draenor and more like your own take on the job?

6. What other types of customization might be useful and desireable? (Ability adaptations to try to mitigate some of the hatred of certain skills due to their fine details and their consequences?)

[HighMarshal]

When Warhammer Online was out, they had two melee healers, the Disciple of Khaine and the War Priest of Sigmar. They only had one or two ranged heals, a PBAoE heal and the rest were done by damage as I remember. I loved those classes.

[Duelle]

When Warhammer Online was out, they had two melee healers, the Disciple of Khaine and the War Priest of Sigmar. They only had one or two ranged heals, a PBAoE heal and the rest were done by damage as I remember. I loved those classes.

Didn't they add librams/chalices to get the WP and DoK to generate their resources from distance? I could have sworn that when those two classes came out people complained about not being able to heal from a distance like a traditional healer.

Non-sequitur:

1. To what extent do you think we'll need to open up raid options? E.g. should all healers be able to raid-heal to some extent — which, if not very well tuned, could allow you basically one to three healers in a 24-man raid. Which party utilities, such Shadewalker, Eye for an Eye, Apocatastatis, or even Aetherial Manipulation, should be able to target non-party members — this perhaps having the further issue of troll Shadewalkers and/or a chosen tank never having to deal with issues of enmity. I'm sure there's a point of balance that could make all that work, but it might require some small raid adjustments as well.

I'd probably say healing, but only in select cases. For example, Medica could affect everyone in the raid, but Medica II could be limited to party because of the HoT effect.

Stuff like buffs is trickier, since several of them don't have built-in limitations. What comes to mind on that end if stuff like Battle Litany, which is a strong buff but could realistically cause raids to have several DRGs to rotate the buff if it were to affect everyone in the raid.

The Limit Break bar is something that I have not considered but is also important, since they'd have to change how LB is generated (for one because you'd need a big LB bar instead of 3 LB bars like what is seen in the current 24-mans).

2. If diversity and complexity was opened up into more universal means, such as introducing "by name" mechanics or traits snip, would merely seeing your job's traits as a collection of universal mechanics, though now with potentially each job set of traits and each ability tooltip able to support more complexity with less text (unless expanded, e.g.: <Symbol for Drain> 25 | "Drain 25" | "Generates self-healing equal to 25% of damage dealt"), make jobs seem somehow less unique (or just, more clearly so?).

I'm...not sure what you're trying to ask here.

3. If cross-class traits were expanded, allowing for collections of, let's say traits, but that process allowed for more obvious collection of personal favorite, job-desired, or encounter-desired traits, would jobs feel less unique for being able to choose them. And if so, is that worth it for an increase in character freedom?

I'm not sure why anyone would want that, but while this would work in the original Armoury System (because class design was very open-ended), you do run the risk of everyone being "nothing". Sort of how the "Bare" class in FFV was basically the "best" because it could equip any and all job actions and traits.

The Secret World saw this when random builds overpowered their version of Jobs, called Decks. As someone who enjoys job identity and the aesthetics that come with it, I'd hate to see that happen here.

4. Would it be inappropriate or actually easier to have certain traits/passives/mechanics and skills/actives under the same name, e.g. "Cover (t)" and "Cover (s)"?

I guess you're trying to edge in the direction of passive mechanics. I have no problem with such things (I once suggested Shadowskin be turned into a trait that gave DRK a damage shield when they were healed), but with the relatively slower pacing plus the way people clamor for engaging gameplay, I don't see this getting far.

5. What QoL changes or points or structure of balance might make these trait selections feel less like the sliding panels of Warlords of Draenor and more like your own take on the job?

I don't think you can avoid what Warlords saw. As long as one option/talent/trait is mathematically better than others, you're going to have a predetermined route. And even if SE somehow removed theorycrafting from existence, you'd go from math ruling the playerbase to superstition ruling the playerbase.

Lest we forget, we once had players thinking that if they stood facing a particular direction, their chances of succeeding at crafting increased.

6. What other types of customization might be useful and desireable? (Ability adaptations to try to mitigate some of the hatred of certain skills due to their fine details and their consequences?)

This is a very vague question. I'd need an example to give an opinion on this.

[Shurrikhan]

>> For: Duelle

2. I'm...not sure what you're trying to ask here.

3. I'm not sure why anyone would want that, but while this would work in the original Armoury System (because class design was very open-ended), you do run the risk of everyone being "nothing". Sort of how the "Bare" class in FFV was basically the "best" because it could equip any and all job actions and traits. The Secret World saw this when random builds overpowered their version of Jobs, called Decks. As someone who enjoys job identity and the aesthetics that come with it, I'd hate to see that happen here.

4. I guess you're trying to edge in the direction of passive mechanics. I have no problem with such things (I once suggested Shadowskin be turned into a trait that gave DRK a damage shield when they were healed), but with the relatively slower pacing plus the way people clamor for engaging gameplay, I don't see this getting far.

5. I don't think you can avoid what Warlords saw. As long as one option/talent/trait is mathematically better than others, you're going to have a predetermined route. And even if SE somehow removed theorycrafting from existence, you'd go from math ruling the playerbase to superstition ruling the playerbase.

6. This is a very vague question. I'd need an example to give an opinion on this.

2. Thus far in XIV, getting to know everything generally means getting to know each ability of each job. That much wouldn't change. I'm just talking about if you moved the discussion of abilities from "it's like <ability X> with <element Y> added" to a specific, more universal names for each, would that somehow make jobs sound less unique? Essentially, broader knowledge of mechanics that might later be involved in abilities through more front-loaded nomenclature. Or secondly, if each job asks you to in some way deal with certain complexities that were previously limited to certain classes (e.g. if it were important for a DPS in certain fights to try to reduce the healing received on a mob surrounded by healers, or to debuff the outputs of the healing mob before a nuke heal, or if in a given encounter DPS also might want to wait for a buffed HoT before moving out of ground effect that increased healing received but at slightly reduced damage dealt while inside — previously an issue limited to Defiance), would the fact that those abilities are no longer our sole way to explore or discuss those mechanics make them feel less unique?

3. Alright, understood. For me, personally, it increases job identity, by allowing you to fill the archetype of the job in any of quite a few different ways. But that's probably just difference in preference at that point. For instance, I'd want to be able to attach, say, a mechanical trait from GLD or LNC onto my DRK that gives me a bit more variance in how I played. Now, that added freedom, especially in the context of trying to make the elements of each ability more universally understood or interacted with, might also make for some more obvious choices based on a given fight, which is why I expect that what follows, as with any system of customization, has a whole lot to do with the feel of "talent-switching".

4. I'm just trying to 'edge in the direction' of ease of discussion and understanding of what would then be a larger set of cross-class-able skills and traits. You could think of the (t) and (s) being like the passive and active functions of Signets in GW2. They could be referred to seperately, but in many cases it's just a lot simpler and understandable to say "Cover that guy" and leave it up to the PLD as to whether he just wants to stand in front of the projectile, making use of his trait for, say, a larger retroactive hitbox when the attack would otherwise hit allies behind him and causes a portion of his mitigation to be applied to those behind, or actually use the Cover ability. The issue I worry about, again, is whether that kind of simplification in nomenclature, especially if say "Cover" as a trait is available to anyone, or is an outright universal mechanic, detracts from the apparent importance of job skills.

5. I don't doubt theory-crafting and forum specs are here to stay, but my concerns were about the appearance of such a system. Take the Legion talent debacle for example. Originally the intent was to make choices easy to grasp as not to have players alt-tabbing to their guides every single trash or boss fight to pick their talents and swap them accordingly. But this ended up meaning that you had talents that varied only in niche while doing virtually nothing for gameplay. With time, that philosophy mostly reverted itself, and those specs that still follow niche over playstyle variance tend to be much less favorably looked upon in design. Between front-loading complexity and making 'talent' (core and cross-class trait, and cross-class ability choices) effects and uses more obvious, I'd hope to approach something similar, but still be focused primarily on playstyle rather that niche variance.
The other issue Legion wanted to tackle, especially once it started reverting its obvious ST/Cleave/AoE layouts and the like, was how pointless talents felt when freely swappable. They were essentially abilities that you could take all of, but then just had shared cooldowns. The only issue was to make sure you had the right one ready at the start of each fight. The result was that you felt like you spent some 5% of your entire gametime just talent swapping, and all that panel-sliding felt clunky as hell. At first, Legion thought the appropriate way to stop this (in complete conflict with the obvious loadout system of talents they'd made just prior) was to lock in talent choices completely, with no escape via consumable items. But, many would argue that if the clunkiness was the chief issue, they could have gone an entirely different way: they could have just addressed the clunkiness through QoL changes that made you see far less of the talent panel in a given raid. What I was curious about, and again I'm sorry for how vague I wrote this all out, was how best one should limit choices for the appearance of simultaneous freedom and personal identity.

6. Take some of the more annoyance-provoking abilities like Enochian, it's sister Blood of the Dragon, Wanderer's Minuet, or Meditation (assuming it were given some in-combat usability as well through slight rebalancing). Let's say, for Blood of the Dragon, you simply had the option of applying the ability at 30 seconds' duration, (all forms now) extending to a maximum of 40 seconds' duration, but each WT or F&C only extended it by 12 seconds, down from 15. The regular form would catch up at 5 WT/F&Cs, or in approximately 50 seconds, both producing 90 seconds of duration per minute at a 2.4s GCD, and then exceed it from there. The regular form ends up preferred for stacking up for a Blood for Blood with full uptime or in abnormally high Skill Speed sets, while the new one may be preferred for on demand Geirskogul burst, especially paired with a BFB after a period of downtime. You could even have a third version that starts at 20 seconds, and then extends only by 10 seconds each time, but on a 30 second cooldown, giving you 50 seconds from WT/F&C and an addition 40 seconds from the cast itself per minute, or another 90s per minute, with less to lose for using the skill or losing the duration but an extra oGCD to weave per minute. Granted, this would all need additional testing to determine skill-cap and opportunity. The last, for instance, should probably generally be the inferior option in duration production, balancing itself instead on some new rotational options, being basically unable to have an unbuffed Jump, and being twice as able to blow remainder (sub-10s) duration on Geirskogul, the cast total over time being a much better benchmark for balance, and overall dps gain the only true benchmark.

Opportunities could obviously go further. For instance, you could do away with duration entirely, and instead use stacks. It wouldn't be optimal, but it shouldn't be more than 10% lower, either, while having a much more reduced skill cap, and might even just barely balance itself out in specific fights due to the intervals of downtime.

Now, in the case of Enochian, perhaps something a little more drastic might be worthwhile, like allowing Fire IV and Blizzard IV at all times, but using Enochian as a ramp-up mechanic instead. Whatever, as long as its balanced and may attract more players who like BLM as a whole but dislike that one particular mechanic.

Meditation might be traded out for over time (perhaps hastened when not attacking) or per-coeurl generation of stacks. Again, whatever works.

The possible variations on Wanderer's Minuet I leave to your imagination.

Would those adaptations kill job identity for you, even if balanced?

[loreleidiangelo]

Disc is doing pretty poorly in Legion ATM due to the changes they made to Power Word:Shield and stuff. They're struggling at getting Atonement on enough people quickly enough and doing enough burst DPS to heal them to full. Compared to SCH's insane toolkit of ETactics Succor, WDawn and Indom a Disc-type healer wouldn't be able to compete unless they copied over some aspects of Holy healing, as well. (Pugs were dropping Mythic 5-mans if they got a Disc as a healer who wouldn't swap to Holy; it was that bad.)

I can't say I'm a fan of tying a class's sole form of healing into how much DPS they can do. It either means their DPS is too strong or their healing suffers. They'd be great "off-healers" in an 8-man but if the devs ever come out with any 4-mans that aren't a drooling faceroll a disc-type healer would start to show some struggle.