Making Jobs Rotationally Easier in 4.0

[Awful]

I'd rather see the tank stances (including darkside) go away entirely and have them all made passive buffs with the damage penalty removed (thereby removing the need for darkside as well).

So you'd want Drk to have no fun redeeming gameplay style? I personally find Drk very enjoyable (since I do main it) and I don't find Darkside or Grit intrusive I actually welcome them, I find it fun and easy to maintain my MP and stance dancing is just second nature to me. If they both went away it'd be very boring since you take away:
-Dark Arts
-Dark Dance
-Dark Mind
-Dark Passenger
-Dark Arts + Soul Eater
-Dark Arts + Abyssal Drain

What would be the point of blood weapon then? What would we spend our MP on? What would be the point of Blood Price if mana isn't an issue? The class would be dead for me and I wouldn't play it I like what it is now and while it's not perfect it just needs updates in the future for 4.0 to bring new things to the table.

[Shurrikhan]

So you'd want Drk to have no fun redeeming gameplay style? I personally find Drk very enjoyable (since I do main it) and I don't find Darkside or Grit intrusive I actually welcome them, I find it fun and easy to maintain my MP and stance dancing is just second nature to me. If they both went away it'd be very boring since you take away:
-Dark Arts
-Dark Dance
-Dark Mind
-Dark Passenger
-Dark Arts + Soul Eater
-Dark Arts + Abyssal Drain

What would be the point of blood weapon then? What would we spend our MP on? What would be the point of Blood Price if mana isn't an issue? The class would be dead for me and I wouldn't play it I like what it is now and while it's not perfect it just needs updates in the future for 4.0 to bring new things to the table.

I would presume in that case none of those skills would require Darkside, rather than being removed by extension...
Though I similarly would rather not see Darkside or Grit removed. I just want the Grit transition improved on a bit—that's it.

I like tank stances, in that they offset and reprioritization they provide actually make other skills less obligatory. Unless a new means to allow for that variety is introduced, I'd much rather "waste" a button on a tank stance than be forced to open with enmity-heavy skills every time, in those situations that wouldn't actually require it now so long as our tank stance is on, or, say, if fighting for enmity was removed from tank gameplay anyways, forcing us to use (hopefully much more powerful) survival weaponskill combos just to allow the healer to toss out an Aero III, a Bane, or a couple Gravity casts, etc. Darkside similarly allows me to prioritize saving mana for the next pull where it actually matters, or for AoEs. It might not be utilized hugely at the moment, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. (Though that's not to say that changes that could provoke such decisions based on button-less passive effects couldn't do at least as well; I lack the faith to assume that whatever changes that remove Darkside would seek also to make something at least as interesting in the aftermath.)

[Khalithar]

I would presume in that case none of those skills would require Darkside, rather than being removed by extension...

That is correct. My point was to remove the MP drain component by removing darkside and having the main gameplay choice for Drk focus on managing MP for using Dark Arts as often as possible and weigh it against using a move now or saving it for later so moves like Blood Weapon and Blood Price still have a purpose. It would also have the added effect of removing the restriction on Blood Weapon which is something I feel should have been done a while ago. The cause of me thinking on this came from playing pld a lot more lately. I been tanking a whole bunch as drk the last few months and I decided to revisit pld again and I really noticed how there is basically no diversity in it's gameplay regardless of the stance you're in which lead me to thinking if they were even necessary in the first place.

I'll stand by my assertion, I still think removing the stances and the damage penalty is a good idea. However, I will concede at this point that if they do that, they should add more interesting choices and combinations with the abilities we have and the new abilities we get.

I also stand by my other assertion that Pld absolutely needs SOMETHING to make the gameplay a little bit more engaging. I don't know what that could be but I still don't think stance restricted moves are the solution.

[Shurrikhan]

That is correct. My point was to remove the MP drain component by removing darkside and having the main gameplay choice for Drk focus on managing MP for using Dark Arts as often as possible and weigh it against using a move now or saving it for later so moves like Blood Weapon and Blood Price still have a purpose. It would also have the added effect of removing the restriction on Blood Weapon which is something I feel should have been done a while ago. The cause of me thinking on this came from playing pld a lot more lately. I been tanking a whole bunch as drk the last few months and I decided to revisit pld again and I really noticed how there is basically no diversity in it's gameplay regardless of the stance you're in which lead me to thinking if they were even necessary in the first place.

I'll stand by my assertion, I still think removing the stances and the damage penalty is a good idea. However, I will concede at this point that if they do that, they should add more interesting choices and combinations with the abilities we have and the new abilities we get.

I also stand by my other assertion that Pld absolutely needs SOMETHING to make the gameplay a little bit more engaging. I don't know what that could be but I still don't think stance restricted moves are the solution.

For me it's not just that tanking stances add something to gameplay in and of themselves. Rather, it's just that the balance for your outputs and needs as a tank would actually more heavily mandate certain skills to replace the stance's offset of that balance and thereby reduce the available choices within a certain situation. Having that simply overlying push towards the offensive or defensive allows for many more "shades" of combat choices in most scenarios, especially if not playing to exactly known circumstances. I feel like a similar system would have to be made available, and would likely require at least another button's worth of control, not to negatively impact the variety of play available to tanks upon removing stances. And at that point, there's no benefit in terms of combating button bloat. If the replacing system is more intuitive and engaging while providing mostly the same benefits, then by all means, replace the stances, but if not, then I don't much see the point.

Darkside I could take or lose. For me it's kind of like swapping from a manual transmission to a DCT, but less significant still — I'd probably miss the clutch (Darkside toggling) for a bit, but forget about it having been a thing soon enough, as long as I still have the same capabilities and decisions to make as before (e.g. if it didn't also come with automatic rev matching).

At present Blood Weapon is actually one of the reasons I like Grit more or less how it is, oddly enough. I have this very desireable offensive focus phase every time it comes up, or preferably lasting for a full minute (one BW to the end of the next, with 3 Scourge applications over that time), that I have to weigh my defensive capabilities against in the context of the fight. It kind of takes you for the ride and making you hope like hell you made sure to have enough safeties ready, in part because Grit is so costly to swap back to if you didn't. Sure, when I started the job, that seemed a silly underutilization of an integral and thematic skill, but the gameplay it caused eventually seemed integral and thematic itself. Just food for thought.

Also, absolutely agreed on Paladin. I don't think stance-restricted moves are the situation, either, with perhaps the slight exception of something like defensive vs. offensive variants of certain skills. Personally, I'd been tinkering around with a dual resource system (Zeal and Ardor) while actually making Sword and Shield oath each more usable in the opposite function as well (Shield as nuke damage and utility while Sword is increasingly capable of defensive action), but I've still got nothing concrete, sadly. So far the I've had more luck with revisions to Sword Oath itself as to produce a modified combo system that should improve PLD gameflow, making Shield Oath a bit more shield-based and similarly providing some more interesting, unique benefits, atop a few gameplay-affecting core traits (e.g. RNG mitigation being usable to turn enemy attacks onto each other, passive covering traits, and something "Sword and Board").

[Khalithar]

Snip

I really don't believe Pld or Drk would be altered very much.

Consider this: the playstyles/rotations we have currently for Pld and Drk wouldn't change in the slightest if we got rid of Grit/Darkside/Oaths.

It would arguably be a buff for Drk since they could now use Blood Weapon at all times and be able to play with Dark Arts a little more but the fundamental playstyle/rotations would not be changed in the slightest.

The change would definitely be noticeable on Warrior but given the five stack restriction and the variety of moves it has, it really comes down to knowing when to hit the right button at the right time. I don't believe that one button press to switch from defiance <-> deliverance really adds anything to gameplay. Let me give an example.

Currently: You're a 60 warrior and you're tanking. You have five stacks against a group of trash, do you need more threat? Switch to Defiance if you're not already in it and use Steel Cyclone. Is your threat good? Switch to Deliverance if you're not already in it and use Decimate.

My idea: You're a warrior and you're tanking. You have five stacks against a group of trash, do you need more threat? Use Steel Cyclone. Is your threat good? Use Decimate.

See the difference? The choices and the gameplay decisions are still there. All you've done is streamline it just slightly.

For Pld, a secondary resource system you build does sound good but that might be too similar to Warrior's stack mechanic, maybe if it was used to power up one move or to make yourself stronger? I got the guildhest earlier with the Dullahan enemy Bockman and I noticed they have a self buff move called King's Will that increases their damage. So here's two ideas:

1. Using Royal Authority grants Royal Will and increases the pld's damage by 10% lasts 15-20 seconds.

2. Royal Authority/Rage of Halone/Goring Blade grants Sacred Shield and makes your next Shield Bash cost 0 TP and increases it's potency to 400.

Obviously those numbers could be changed to whatever to make them balanced but you get the idea.

[Shurrikhan]

I really don't believe Pld or Drk would be altered very much.

Consider this: the playstyles/rotations we have currently for Pld and Drk wouldn't change in the slightest if we got rid of Grit/Darkside/Oaths.

Unless you get the full benefits of each stance passively at all times, the rotations would most likely change. Not at all points in a fight, but they would adjusted across all places of marginally better or optional strings. Take Warrior for example: due to Defiance's enmity multiplier stacking multiplicatively with Butcher Block's, the difference in its enmity over time is far more impactful when in Defiance than the impact of its damage over time is in Deliverance, while all skills without an enmity modifier are much more evenly advantaged (150% more damage worth of enmity, or up to 30% more damage, rather than an extra 825% damage worth of enmity). Dark Knight and Paladin are actually cleaner examples still, seeing as their top enmity combos (most affected by tank stance) are distinct from their top damage combos (most affected by dps stance), though the added GCD cost makes the difference less easily applicable.

- I don't really see the point in dropping Deliverance yet retaining Defiance, given that the swapping between the two could as easily be done with a single button already, just as in toggling in and out of a single stance. It would merely reduce some aesthetic elements (namely the name of for non-Defiance). Nor do I see how that would streamline it so long as Defiance still has a 10-second "lock-in" cooldown like WM, GB, or Cleric Stance. It'd make absolutely no difference, compared to a trait increasing base damage, and allowing stacks to be held, outside of Defiance given at level 52. You just lose the name and animation, which seems a waste given zero actual effect. Alternatively, if you were to remove the cooldown / lock-in on Defiance / non-Defiance altogether, there would be an effect, but I don't think it'd be an especially positive one. I honestly like the risk/reward that comes with the swap, similar to but more so than that of Cleric Stance.

The resource systems as I imagined them would either replace or work within mana, or be given in a new bar, or something alike that can otherwise hold unequal currency contributions (not all skills give the same amount of it) and a high total number. That said, it doesn't need to actually look that different in its UI (e.g. stacking up to a max of 5, or 7, etc.) to function very differently. For instance, lets say that Sword Oath now causes crits, combos, abilities, or whatever, might be able to generate Zeal, which can be consumed to "duplicate" or "rush" combos, using the lesser cost of either with higher cost the higher combo tier the duplicated/rushed skill is. For instance, a double Goring Blade (duplicate, 3rd tier) would have a higher cost than a double Riot Blade (duplicate, 2nd tier), about equal to a Goring Blade - Savage Blade (rush 1), and less than a Goring Blade - Royal Authority / Rage of Halone (rush 2, 3rd tier). That'd create very distinct gameplay, nothing like the Wrath/Abandon spenders of WAR.

[Bourne_Endeavor]

That is correct. My point was to remove the MP drain component by removing darkside and having the main gameplay choice for Drk focus on managing MP for using Dark Arts as often as possible and weigh it against using a move now or saving it for later so moves like Blood Weapon and Blood Price still have a purpose. It would also have the added effect of removing the restriction on Blood Weapon which is something I feel should have been done a while ago. The cause of me thinking on this came from playing pld a lot more lately. I been tanking a whole bunch as drk the last few months and I decided to revisit pld again and I really noticed how there is basically no diversity in it's gameplay regardless of the stance you're in which lead me to thinking if they were even necessary in the first place.

Problem is, without the penalties of Grit and Darkside, maintaining MP on Dark Knight is laughably easy. Whenever I'm out of Grit, I'll practically be drowning in MP and can spam Dark Arts + Souleater for days. The only MP concerns I need to be mindful of is having enough to turn Grit back on once the DPS creep up on me. Assuming enmity generation was increased to accommodate the loss of tank stances, Dark Knight wouldn't have any challenge whatsoever.

[SpookyGhost]

Problem is, without the penalties of Grit and Darkside, maintaining MP on Dark Knight is laughably easy. Whenever I'm out of Grit, I'll practically be drowning in MP and can spam Dark Arts + Souleater for days. The only MP concerns I need to be mindful of is having enough to turn Grit back on once the DPS creep up on me. Assuming enmity generation was increased to accommodate the loss of tank stances, Dark Knight wouldn't have any challenge whatsoever.

Consider the following: instead of turning Grit back on, use Power Slash out of Grit. It is less of a DPS loss than turning on Grit and has the same effect, while also maintaining your ability to keep using Blood Weapon. There is a very particular reason that DRK has 0 MP problems ever, and this is it.

[MoarLegion]

Consider the following: instead of turning Grit back on, use Power Slash out of Grit. It is less of a DPS loss than turning on Grit and has the same effect, while also maintaining your ability to keep using Blood Weapon. There is a very particular reason that DRK has 0 MP problems ever, and this is it.

When they nerfed tank DPS they also increased enmity modifiers on stance across the board. What it worked out to was enmity in stance was basically unaffected, while out of stance was nerfed too. If you're just picking up adds, that's one thing, but if you're MT and you need the threat; you're better off putting Grit back on and doing a PS combo or two.

[SpookyGhost]

When they nerfed tank DPS they also increased enmity modifiers on stance across the board. What it worked out to was enmity in stance was basically unaffected, while out of stance was nerfed too. If you're just picking up adds, that's one thing, but if you're MT and you need the threat; you're better off putting Grit back on and doing a PS combo or two.

Depends on how much threat you actually need, though. Grit means using MP (which could otherwise be spent on DA or DP), wasting a GCD of damage, and then 2-3 follow up GCDs all nerfed in damage. If PS out of Grit is enough, then there's no reason to turn on Grit.

However even in the scenario where you do turn on Grit and PS, you'll still have BW when you turn it back off so you'll still have infinite mana.