Two Raid/Combat QoL Suggestions (Raise and Foe Requiem)

[Zyneste]

1. Source plz.
2. SE sometimes apologizes for things that are not their fault. A player's subpar performance is absolutely not something they should apologize for, they gave us all the tools to be able to perform at at least a certain level. Anything more or less is on us.

Bard's foe requiem on Sophia trial:

吉田 ”「女神ソフィア討滅戦」「極女神ソフィア討滅戦」にて、開始地点で「魔人のレクイエム」を使用すると敵視されてしまう…これ本当にすみません！すみません……魔人を歌わないように…(long pause) すみません…罠だって言われて…まぁ、スキルリセットで耐えるんで！（笑）…すみませんあの、多分…自分の曲じゃない曲を聞くと怒るかもしれない…確かにそうですね…これ本当にね気を付けてください、申し訳ないです。"
Yoshida "An issue in “Containment Bay P1T6” and “Containment Bay P1T6 (Extreme)” wherein using the bard action “Foe Requiem” at the starting point will generate enmity from the enemy.....We're sorry! We're really, really sorry! We truly sorry about this...but for now we advice you to NOT use Foe Requiem....(long pause)...sorry, for being told that it's a trap....well, you'll deal with it using skill reset! (laughs).....I'm sorry this...yeah people would be angry if they listen to songs that isn't theirs...yeah, you're indeed right. Please really take note on that, I'm really sorry."

Translated Apology for Sophia Trial towards bards

An issue in "Containment Bay P1T6" and "Containment Bay P1T6 (Extreme)" wherein using the bard action "Foe Requiem" at the starting point will generate enmity from the enemy.

Patch Notes for 4.3. In the known issues.



This same sort of thing was an issue with Warrior's infurate or with WHM's Fluid Aura. Infuriate was causing large wait times in openers due to the 60 second countdown needed to maximize DPS. Fluid Aura was necessary for top WHM DPS, but would run havoc in dungeons because the majority of the playerbase who did use it, caused distress to those who tanked, who then complained on the forums. lol

I'm not saying the skill isn't great, I'm just saying that with the tools SE has, this should be an easy fix and should only affect gameplay positively for BRDs and people who party with them.

Edit:

Foe aggoring things really is the Bard's fault right now, but at the same time, precedent for Foe-like skills not aggroing things already exists in the form of Machinist Hypercharge. (Hypercharge debuff will not apply to anything that does not have the Machinist on their aggro table.)

On that note, precedent for summons not immediately aggroing nearby enemies also already exists for MCH turrets as well.

Really seems like a non-issue to me. Other than the arguement of git gud i keep getting handed.

[CorbinDallas]

Didn't answer my question but thanks for your opinion! A yes or a no was all I was looking for. :]

I'm just saying, people need to stop taking Yoshi's word as gospel, especially one from 2 years ago in an incredibly isolated incident.

As for your "I know the answer but I'll ask anyway to make my point stronger" question, no there isn't to my knowledge, but it just reinforces the fact that you need to be aware of your Foe range/radius and not use it recklessly. Use your brain. Oh no my team is going to lose a 3% (?) damage buff! You know what's a bigger loss? You wiping the group because you're ignorant of your Foe range. So I'll say it once again. Get good.

:]

[Zyneste]

no there isn't to my knowledge

Thanks! ;]

[SaitoHikari]

Foe aggoring things really is the Bard's fault right now, but at the same time, precedent for Foe-like skills not aggroing things already exists in the form of Machinist Hypercharge. (Hypercharge debuff will not apply to anything that does not have the Machinist on their aggro table.)

On that note, precedent for summons not immediately aggroing nearby enemies also already exists for MCH turrets as well.

[Zyneste]

Foe aggoring things really is the Bard's fault right now, but at the same time, precedent for Foe-like skills not aggroing things already exists in the form of Machinist Hypercharge. (Hypercharge debuff will not apply to anything that does not have the Machinist on their aggro table.)

On that note, precedent for summons not immediately aggroing nearby enemies also already exists for MCH turrets as well.

Isn't that amazing? @-@

[BillyKaplan]

Yoshi's apology

Sophia's arena is pretty unique in structure because it's a rectangle where the party and the boss start off pretty close to each other, closer than in any encounter that comes to mind. It's an issue with the arena, and some bards not having the mental aptitude to realize they shouldn't use it in such close proximity to the boss. Yoshi apologized; still players' faults.
Your example of Fluid Aura doesn't support it any, either. Knockback skills were and still are an absolute pain in the neck for tanks, and to melee dps who have to chase after the add. Those complaints were very valid and removing damage from knockback skills to discourage people using them all the time was welcome. I'm sure your parse won't suffer too much as a result.

MCH turret agro management

Pets and summons are managed in different way than player characters. If players walked into a boss arena where most MCHs place their turrets, should they not agro the boss, too, because the turret didn't?
The answer is: that's a turret. This is a player character. Different management systems.

[Zyneste]

Sophia's arena is pretty unique in structure because it's a rectangle where the party and the boss start off pretty close to each other, closer than in any encounter that comes to mind. It's an issue with the arena, and some bards not having the mental aptitude to realize they shouldn't use it in such close proximity to the boss. Yoshi apologized; still players' faults.
Your example of Fluid Aura doesn't support it any, either. Knockback skills were and still are an absolute pain in the neck for tanks, and to melee dps who have to chase after the add. Those complaints were very valid and removing damage from knockback skills to discourage people using them all the time was welcome. I'm sure your parse won't suffer too much as a result.



Pets and summons are managed in different way than player characters. If players walked into a boss arena where most MCHs place their turrets, should they not agro the boss, too, because the turret didn't?
The answer is: that's a turret. This is a player character. Different management systems.

All other pets generate aggro from their presence alone. So its not that cookie cutter. Saying "Its a pet. It has different rules." is not valid.

What about in "open world" content like Pagos. A bard smashes their face into a wall to get foe requiem up and still manages to pull a sprite 19 yalms away from themselves while chaining dragons. Answering "Git gud" is essentially saying "Don't use the skill in this situation at all for the whole time you're in here" instead of asking "Why didn't SE design the skill to better perform its job" instead of bending over backwards to compensate for it. Same thing in fates/NM. Don't play Foe Req if there are any adds coming, because with your luck no tanks are going to keep the mobs off of you.

Multiple skills were adjusted because they were negatively affecting gameplay causing players to make similar compensatory behaviors. Most skills that could stun or Silence were removed and the effects placed in role skills so that they weren't spammed causing early resistance gain. Was this a huge issue? No, but it was enough for the devs to address it.

[HyoMinPark]

I mean, they could just make Foe's an oGCD like every other song to get rid of early pulling.

As it stands now, even if timed properly, you can still accidentally pull early if your Foe's cast finds the server tick, since the debuff has to rely on that 3-second universal tick to apply. Proper usage with potions is at 4 seconds > pot > Refresh at START due to the delay with items queuing. Non-pot usages is between 2 and 3 of a countdown. Even timing my Foe's at 2 seconds, I still pull a fraction of a second early if I manage to find the server tick.

So, easiest solution? Make it an oGCD so that BRDs can just weave it in their opener.

As for enmity, decreasing Foe's radius could help. But situational awareness would still be needed on the part of the BRD.

[BillyKaplan]

A bard smashes their face into a wall to get foe requiem up and still manages to pull a sprite 19 yalms away from themselves while chaining dragons.

Compensatory QoL: limit Foe's range. You have better control over what you pull and you don't need to worry about agroing things from AROUND WALLS [looks at Stone Vigil]. You'll have to stay closer to the mobs/boss but in aoe situations BRDs already have to do that, and I feel like it's not that bad of a handicap. Would also have solved the Sophia issue since she'd have been out of range for it.

Answering "Git gud" is essentially saying "Don't use the skill in this situation at all for the whole time you're in here"

Not all skills should be used all the time. Sometimes it's better to not use certain skills. Being good means you know that. So, yeah. If you shouldn't use it, don't use it.

Don't play Foe Req if there are any adds coming, because with your luck no tanks are going to keep the mobs off of you.

I mean, if you run with chumps who don't do their jobs, sure.

Most skills that could stun or Silence were removed and the effects placed in role skills so that they weren't spammed causing early resistance gain. Was this a huge issue? No, but it was enough for the devs to address it.

Depends on content, it actually was. I've wiped enough times on Forgall's Succubus because everyone went stun happy and no one had a silence. I was thrilled when the devs changed that.

Hm. Here's an idea. Make Foe's unusable outside of battle. Solves the problem of early pulling with it, at least.

[Vidu]

Multiple skills were adjusted because they were negatively affecting gameplay causing players to make similar compensatory behaviors. Most skills that could stun or Silence were removed and the effects placed in role skills so that they weren't spammed causing early resistance gain. Was this a huge issue? No, but it was enough for the devs to address it.

I doubt that was the reason for that change, seeing how paladin still has their stun, how one of the dragoons-jumps still stuns aswell and how monks still have their stun-punch. My guess would be that it was in order to make sure that every party-composition would be able to stun/silence mechanics if needed (I remember the good old days of First Coil when every party HAD to have a bard and paladin combo in order to deal with the silence) - while multiple classes had access to stun and/or silence, for some it was a hassle or even meant a dps-loss, so now they made sure every class has the same way to stun/silence, without affecting the way the class plays (like how monks had to be in the right stance, ninjas had to pick the right poison, paladin and bard having to hold off their skills to silence something rather than use them freely...

I have to say I dont understand whats bothering you so much about Foe's and the fact that it requires some situational awareness to use it correctly - even if that means that sometimes there wont be a use for that skill. We need more skills that require situational awareness, if you ask me - not less. So working from your assumption on why they removed stun/silence from skills, I would say that that reason would have been a mistake, because it supports a blind button-mashing-mentality instead of requiring the person in question to actually pay attention to their surrondings and what they're fighting.