The time has come to get rid of enrage timers

[KaldeaSahaline]

There's a difference in qualifications between a group in the 0.01% and 95+ percentile with a full mythic clear and a group who has only cleared heroic and is attempting mythic but can't do more than 2-3 bosses before the entire tier is up, no?

Absolutely. What I was trying to draw a point to was that a difference in qualifications is to be expected, not a complete and utter dismissal of qualifications. It sounds like we're in agreement on that aspect.

If the latter said "mythic is easy, it's just hitting buttons in a certain order and killing the boss" but they can't actually clear mythic what would be the point in asking what they mean? I wouldn't bother, honestly. Now maybe the latter group finds a better way of doing boss 6, even though they can't clear it, that is entirely different than this situation IMO. Something like "Well, it's easy because you can soak x mechanic with x class and cheese it." would be worth discussing, yes even if a group hadn't cleared it. Oversimplification and ignoring all nuance is not something worth discussing to me.

We split here though. Where you personally believe that your time is better spent elsewhere I still see value in the discussion points. Nothing wrong with either of our viewpoints here, but it does clarify why you're "over" the convo, and why I still want to discuss it (note: not specifically with you, I mean the overarching points Bob's has referenced, but not defended).

Just like if I said tournament tennis is easy it's literally hitting a ball with a racket and i'm low ranked with no championships or ever even participated in a tournament I would look like a tool. I'm definitely less likely to take tips/feedback from someone if they believe something like that. But If I notice a basic/intermediate error that someone of even lower rank can notice, and I let the higher ranked player know, that is sort of different.

See - I don't think that's sort of different. I think it's functionally the exact same situation, just in a different application. Maybe I am wrong though? I gave additional real world examples in my previous post (they were to Miste not you, so not sure if you saw them or not) that supplement my viewpoint. In lots of different aspects of life, there exist situations where a 'coach' is much better at coaching then they are executing, dismissing their input because they can't or haven't done XYZ would be a disservice.

I'm just gonna respond to mostly what you said to Hyomin because honestly what you replied to me you still don't get my point. You're turning the behavioral example and translating it directly to this situation and that wasn't my point. My point was the psychology behind the behavior.

I do get your point. I just don't agree with it. If someone says XYZ I don't analyze the psychological desire behind it. I take their words at face value and expect examples/insight to supplement/defend their stance. The only time I look to emotional reasoning is when someone is clearly too offended, angry, or invested to have a logical discussion.

It is typical human behavior when people claim a task is "easy" without having ever performed said task that it is usually simply to stroke one's own ego, and it is also a typical human reaction for others to be off-put by it if they have performed said task and completed it and they know you haven't or you've given them no proof that you have.

See I don't jump to conclusions in this circumstance. I don't get offended or accuse them of stroking their ego. I ask them to substantiate their argument with insight/examples to clarify their reasoning. I then debate those statements based on my insight/examples. To me this is a pretty basic tenet to healthy discussion.

I must not be a typical human LOL.

The way Bobs goes about it is just off-putting like my example. He never backs anything up he just said the content is "not challenging" and left it at that. It is HIS responsibility to make sure people don't dismiss him by explaining his thoughts properly and answering people when they ask him "Why?". If he doesn't do that then that isn't my problem.

Agreed. I've said as much before. I was disappointed that he ignored my responses. I'd like to think my responses were penetrating enough that it put him in a corner that he couldn't dodge his way out of.

None of this was about your "95%+" raiding friends in WoW. Bobs is not one of them so I don't even get why you are even talking about that; are you taking this personally against you or your raiding friends? Because it isn't about you or them it is simply about how Bobs chose to present himself.

I cited my personal experience to provide context to my words. Bob's may not have the credentials you require to discuss these things, but surely my raiding career and experience has to afford me some semblance of qualification right? Again, I'm not saying absolute, or beyond reproach, merely a semblance.

I cited that because I wanted to demonstrate that while I do not agree with Bob's methods, his words have some merit IMO. You all vilified him for his lack of experience, but I am hoping me citing my experience forces you (note: Not you specifically, the royal you, as in the community at large) to at least discuss the point with me.

You keep moving the goalpost and adding in stuff that isn't even relevant. Similar to your thing about "feedback"...feedback isn't the same thing as calling a fight "easy" that you've never even step foot in.

Can you elaborate on me moving the goalpost? This is not my intention.

If you're referring to my examples, are you saying that none of them applicable to the discussion? Why do you believe that? They are functionally identical to your example.

In your example the beginner Piano player says XYZ is easy with regards to the piece the experienced Piano player is struggling with. You say this is a bad thing and that they should be dismissed outright on that notion because they are a beginner and do not have the qualifications to make such a bold statement.

In my examples - the less skilled tennis player is less skilled and thus is unable to give meaningful advice. This is simply 100% untrue. In the professional example, dismissing less knowledgeable or skilled end user feedback because they do not understand the intricacies of database design or federal regulations, is doing a disservice to the end goal. In the WoW: Legion example - are devs not the more qualified candidates to speak on balance? I've seen this statement echo'd quite frequently around here. Yet we have a clear example of overwhelming majority of negative feedback on a few specific elements that went ignored because "we aren't dev's we are wrong, trust us" only to have them walk back every single change, admitting they were wrong to ignore us in the first place.

If you think my examples are truly different than your own let me know.

Bobs made troll-like posts, and said a job is OP due to minimum fflogs. He ruined any credibility he had about this subject and we just refuse to humor him like you are suggesting we do. I mean you even admit he seems like a troll...so...we already figured that waaaay back in this thread so I think you are just late to the party.

Agreed here. However, when I see someone do something like this I don't just bat them away like a fly. I like to see them admit defeat. A poster like this will never truly admit it, so you put them in a corner by asking penetrating questions that if answered would obviously collapse their entire argument. Then when they ignore you (like Bob's has), you know they've lost, and everyone around watched them lose too.

Now, with that said. The only reason I did defend Bob's in the first place, is because I do actually agree that due to the ridiculously scripted nature of fights, they are not hard to execute. I mean I literally watched a video or O6S, and cleared it in a pug in 6 pulls. Had I actually had to learn those mechanics on the fly sure, it would have been actually challenging, but without that barrier, it's wasn't at all.

His other statement regarding everything feeling like "asteroids" is actually a sentiment I've shared as well. Mechanics are very scripted in that almost any singular failure of adherence destroys your "ship" (obvious metaphor to party). Instead of mistakes leading to progressively harder mechanics and solutions, it simply restarts the fight.

Also again I only dismissed things he said which were either factually incorrect like saying WAR is stronger than actual DPS jobs based on minimum fflogs, and the fact he called a fight he's never tried "easy".

I mean, I've never done St. Mociannes Arboretum. I would bet money it's probably a pretty easy dungeon.

His argument about WAR was downright silly though. He knew it, you knew it, and I knew it. Just because he made a silly argument there doesn't immediately invalidate all his other arguments though. God knows I've been shown to be wrong before. I've admitted and apologize for mistakes I've made. I've changed my opinion, or viewpoints based on other peoples convincing arguments. I always keep an open mind.

I mean you keep trying to get everyone to follow your philosophy on this...well.. no thanks? I can decide for myself when to listen to someone or not. I don't need you to tell me, so you are fighting a losing battle with me here. I am not going to change my mind no matter what you say.

Absolutely. I wouldn't want you to think because I told you to. I want you to analyze and weigh my words. Then make a decision for yourself. I'd hate to see you be so close minded though that nothing I say would be able to convince you otherwise though. That to me just reeks of an emotional response and not a logical one.

Well I work 50-60 hours a week so if I miss something I apologize.

I just don't have the time to respond to everything. Currently I feel like this thread has become circular in its argument(s). So I was not responding to let it die.

The game is how it is, you (plural) like it. I got it.

I don't consider myself a troll.

The only reason it became circular is because of your responses like this. If you never respond to our statements, the discussion never goes anywhere.

[Bobs]

If you never respond to our statements, the discussion never goes anywhere.

Well I don't play WoW so any reference to that I can't really answer to.

Lets take driving a car. It's a very complex task that involves constant vigilance. Yet people do it with out even thinking about it, because it is practiced. That's what the Savage fights are, it's practiced to the point of being a non-issue. Or said another way practiced to the point of being "easy/non challenging." Same with all repetitive tasks.

Move here, press 1,2,3,4; Move here, press 1,2,3,4

I'll make a reference you might not know; old Dynamis in FF11. It was the end game for a long time (years). It was a complex puzzle of time management. There was more than even the best group could do in one run. Priorities had to be made/remade depending on what was needed/wanted. It was hard enough that it didn't always work out. It also was not pass/fail. You could wipe and try again. Some time will be lost but not the whole fight.

Maybe Eureka will be something like that. Then we can all get off of the 10min tread mill that is the current endgame.

[Vaer]

See - I don't think that's sort of different. I think it's functionally the exact same situation, just in a different application. Maybe I am wrong though? I gave additional real world examples in my previous post (they were to Miste not you, so not sure if you saw them or not) that supplement my viewpoint. In lots of different aspects of life, there exist situations where a 'coach' is much better at coaching then they are executing, dismissing their input because they can't or haven't done XYZ would be a disservice.

Professional coaches are graded on their performance though. They have their own set of qualifications and set of criteria. Their credibility goes up if their performance is high (i.e The coaching staff is good/great.). You would be silly to disregard a coach with multiple championships just because they themselves haven't technically "played" in the super bowl but they've definitely coached during the super bowl and won. If a certain coach has a decade of experience, and many championships, I would say their credibility is pretty high.
I doubt anyone would ignore a 4 time champion coach just because they don't actually play football. That would be silly.

I think this has veered off the topic though, we were talking about being qualified to talk specifically about "difficulty" when people haven't even tried it or tried things with similar difficulty and not really about ignoring people giving feedback or tips in general.

I mean, I've never done St. Mociannes Arboretum. I would bet money it's probably a pretty easy dungeon.

Yeah, but you've done similarly tuned dungeons before right? Maybe even tons of times. So that's why you can say so without actually doing it.

[Miste]

I mean, I've never done St. Mociannes Arboretum. I would bet money it's probably a pretty easy dungeon.

This is moving the goalpost again. Savage/Ultimate =/= Casual dungeon. You're trying to strawman my point.

That kind of comment is why I think you don't understand my point. That's like taking a real life task like learning how to wash your hair with shampoo versus something objectively much harder to learn like open heart surgery, and no I am not using that as a direct comparison to the difficulty gap in the game, it is simply an example to show you are using an extreme low end against my point which was talking about higher end.

Learning Casual content in this game isn't hard because it is made that way by the devs. Savage and ultimate on the other hand is objectively made to be more difficult by the devs than a normal dungeon. Yes, everyone has subjective opinions as well, but I am quite confidant most people would agree a normal dungeon is easier than savage/ultimate since it is designed that way no matter how skilled you are at the game.

I never said you should jump to conclusions based on only the psychology so I don't know where you got that from. Also just because you know the psychology behind the behavior doesn't mean you are offended by it. A part of a healthy discussion is also not assuming people are offended by everything simply due to what argument points they are trying to use to explain their point of view.

Bob's may not have the credentials you require to discuss these things, but surely my raiding career and experience has to afford me some semblance of qualification right?

but I am hoping me citing my experience forces you (note: Not you specifically, the royal you, as in the community at large) to at least discuss the point with me.

Okay....? But you're not Bobs and Bobs doesn't have your credentials. So you aren't making any sense at this point. All of what I said was directed at Bobs due to what he has posted, not you, not anyone else. You seem to think I've made a generalization? If I said something that made you misunderstand then I didn't do it intentionally so now you know.

I never said anything about your experience, remember? He doesn't have the experience you have. So...its like you are just stepping in front of him with a shield and like "ok he doesn't have any credentials, but I do, so fight me instead". But...like what point is there in that? I have no issue with anything you've posted.

I don't see any point to any of this...you seem to be turning it into being about you when its not.

[Shurrikhan]

WELL, Like i said in other thread(s) TANKS and HEALERS should NOT be DPS. So that would solve your first hypothetical.
And yes, I think a 10min "perfect" fight is less interesting than a 60min "struggled" fight.

Currently the system is Pass/Fail. Without enrage timers is would be a Graded System, SSS, SS, S, A, B, C, D, F.

Sure some people would pass with a C but why is that SO bad? A SSS clear might give more gil or a mount chance drop, something as a reward. You are all just limiting yourselves because you choose to narrowly define success.

How is this not the case already, when a given party would clear in 20 seconds short of enrage, and another in 40 seconds short, and yet another in 80 seconds short, etc.

In effect, it seems you're only arguing for an offset, so that loot can be acquired with noticeably worse performance. Sure, there can now be additional bonuses such as to random mount drop chances throughout an entire raid tier, and other niche rewards, but does that warrant the gear inflation that devalues the relative merit benchmarks of raid progress? Is it SO bad that we set a realistic, albeit difficult, benchmark for raiders to achieve in the content specifically designed to challenge raiders?

The merits I can see are that there's a widened audience and a widened range of rewards. On paper, those are almost always good things. But is that necessarily true in practice? Consider, as if by statistical analysis of opinions rather than just by some flat principle, will it seem worth as much to progress in raids if even someone with only two-thirds or half the skill previously required to progress can now reap the standard rewards just as you do? Heck, is it okay even if they can't, but can still tick off the boxes of progress just as you do? Or, should progress be something where "this is the level the fight is set at, and that's exactly the minimum height you'll have to jump"?

[Dualblade]

If you want to see what happens when some really hard content doesn't have an enrage timer of some kind, look up Pandemonium Warden. Its from FFXI so it even directly affects SE and thus, FFXIV.

[Bobs]

Or, should progress be something where "this is the level the fight is set at, and that's exactly the minimum height you'll have to jump"?

SSS rank for example does not have to be set at the current difficulty, it could be more challenging. Same with all the ranks. Lets say "A" is the current difficulty.

It would also promote practice of the end content. Get rid of "normal" mode all together. If the entry is set lower more people will probably get to the "higher" content, or at least feel more comfortable attempting it.

[KarstenS]

Just because I haven't done UCoB doesn't mean I don't have any insight into what it would be like.

When you would have finished Gordias Savage or Midas Savage during it was relevant content, then yes, we could talk about it.

The difference between Gordias/Midas and Creator/Deltascape/Sigmascape is huge.

Just an example. In A8S just one dead guy was for us in 99% of the cases a wipe. In O4S Neo Exdeath we could easily kill it with a 13 on the death counter.

Or another one: For Midas Savage we needed the entire Tier to finish it. Deltascape Savage we were done 6 weeks before the midway patch.

With just "easy" Raidcontent like Creator, Deltascape and Sigmascape in mind ... no, you don't have an idea what "real" savage is like.

[Alaray]

I'd classify myself as a pretty casual FFXIV player, stepping into raiding in this game for the first time in a very long time.

But, to me, Enrage timers make things more fun and more interesting on top of more challenging and I happily welcome them.

They make a group learn a fight mechanically, and understand a fight mechanically. After those mechanics are down, the group collectively learns how to best optimize their cooldowns and buttons, their class, in order to squeeze out as much DPS as is possible for the class itself in order to complete the encounter before it enrages (while doing the core job of their class at the same time). Ultimately, the encounter teaches players how to be even *better* at their classes, and as they hit that threshold, then they clear that content and can move onto the next piece of content that is, or should, be more difficult than the content preceding it with all of that knowledge/mechanical knowledge and practice/gear to aid them.

FFXIV is a game centered around DPS, that's always been its design and direction since, at least, ARR. At this point it's a core aspect of the game, and it is a large reason why a lot of people I know enjoy the game -- including myself. If that aspect is not to someone's liking, there are other games with different aims, design philosophies and goals that would likely be more fun to play for that player. And if FFXIV is fun for them in different ways, then by all means do what is your cup of tea. But, I feel, if Enrage timers are your breaking point then content with Enrage timers just isn't the content for your preferred playstyle, and that's fine -- there's a lot of content in the game that don't have Enrage timers.

Even if you aren't a super top-tier player, most content is doable (I do think, if someone really wanted to and found a solid group of people, that someone -- no matter who -- would be able to clear O7S barring extreme outside circumstances. Probably even O8S with the right amount of patience).

And I like feeling that there is a way for me to improve, especially as a tank player -- holding enmity, alone, is boring and uninteresting to me. Managing it, while trying to optimize and increase damage output as much as possible, and getting better/seeing improvement with that is what makes me continue to want to play my class -- because I can *improve* and get better, and I can ultimately become a better player for the experience. It kind of teaches me not only what I can/can't pull off within the confines of my class, but also times on "oh, that was too greedy and I was punished for the action" or "oh, I was way too greedy and rest in peace poor MNK." (Or even, sometimes "If I use this defensive tool here, I can do x, y or z" instead of none of those things)

But I have been seeing some rapid improvement in my own gameplay ever since I decided to jump from just dungeons, into something more like Byakko EX -- a not so difficult encounter.

I did *not* optimize well on my first clear of that cat. My DPS was extremely subpar, and I looked at it and tried to think through how I could change that, how I should play my class, and I figured out a lot on my own and a lot through the help of some more experienced friends.

Next time I cleared him, I went from 1.8k or so sustained DPS with some enmity mistakes, to 3.1k sustained DPS with no enmity mistakes as a DRK. Simply, I learned how to improve upon what I was doing, how to maximize my damage output (which I could still do better on), while not being murdered where I stood and gaining more confidence in my usage of the class.

It's an easy encounter, anyone can clear him if given enough time to learn the mechanics and optimize their abilities with the windows they have (and it only gets easier the more gear you ultimately gain, too -- with less and less optimization ultimately needed). But it's an encounter that did make me think a lot more about my class, because we'd wipe at 2% to Enrage, and I wanted to do *better* in order to not only *not* be a detriment to clearing, but also to just be able to improve through this encounter so I could actually do the next encounter down the line with an improved understanding of my class, the game, and my role within the game and what I need to be thinking about as a tank -- enmity, enmity management, defensive CD's, and maxing out DPS output, as well.

I find it a lot more fun to feel challenged and pressured to do better and better in order to clear content. If we had no enrage timers, then likelihood is... I would've died on Byakko eventually, or even not, and just me and a healer (or the OT and the healer) would slowly chip away at him until he did manage to die eventually. There'd be no punishment for not trying to play my class to its fullest extent, or to use its kit to its fullest extent, or to learn how to improve myself as a player and, more specifically, as a DRK... because there'd be no need to.

It'd ultimately feel like a hollow victory, to me at least. Anyone could theoretically beat any encounter if they have the minimum amount of players necessary for any one-shot mechanics, just auto-attacking the entire time... which isn't the point of that sort of content in a game (EX+)

Because the point of having tougher content than Normal is to challenge yourself as a player, to go in with a mindset of "yeah we might wipe, maybe we don't even kill the thing, but I want to improve as a player with this encounter until I *can* clear it."

And then you do clear it, and it feels really great that you were able to overcome the prior shortcomings to play at a level where you could clear that piece of content.


I dunno, just my two cents on the topic tbh -- and I'm absolutely not a hardcore raider or anything like that, pretty much the opposite.

[Shurrikhan]

SSS rank for example does not have to be set at the current difficulty, it could be more challenging. Same with all the ranks. Lets say "A" is the current difficulty.

It would also promote practice of the end content. Get rid of "normal" mode all together. If the entry is set lower more people will probably get to the "higher" content, or at least feel more comfortable attempting it.

That's just it though. I don't want my Savage fights to feel like a normal mode. If we make a significant mistake, there should be due punishment to more than just a fight-external metric like a grading system. I want it to take at least a couple lockouts to clear, at minimum, not a couple pulls. There should be a sense of satisfaction when you reach a new phase and when you reach the end at all.

The best way to make people comfortable with difficult content is to raise the difficulty floor across all other forms. It doesn't need to be severe, but there should at least be a curve. Amdapor Keep Normal upon release should not be hugely more difficult than the latest Expert roulette. Dungeons should build upon each other not just by gradually adding or reminding one of specific mechanical telegraphs, but through new or more focused concerns of play.