Quote Originally Posted by Archwizard View Post
The devs would have to take the time and resources to address every piece of gear that provides either one, materia, consumables, etc, as well as rebalance classes that would be directly affected.
Except, they wouldn't have to. They could as easily leave it be for all but the next expansion, and it wouldn't be the first time. We already have lingering inconsistencies in stat designs over the different expansions. We have inconsistencies in relative stat pot values, in relative HP pot values, in relative food stats value. They could as easily change the name attached to either stat's tag and simply leave both Quicktongue and Quickarm in place, both as +Speed. It was not a big deal to trade "Accuracy" into "Direct Hit". It was not a big deal to change "Parry" into "Tenacity". These were specifically not done on a gear by gear basis. The tag had a name and an effect, and both were altered without having to touch the individual items.

Beyond that, there are only two items in the game that would be problematic to this design. Aetherial (Pink) items already split between Skill Speed and Spell Speed based on the attached Discipline. That leaves only Relic Weapons with custom stats, which are now pursued or kept only as cosmetics, and while it is possible to end up with "+X Crit, +Y Speed, +Z Speed" and thereby allow for twice that maxima, what would it matter now? There's only potential speedbump we don't yet know they can deal with overnight, and that's collapsing a tag, rather than trading its name or effect. But it'd be completely hidden except when looking at the basis of a few glamours and on Quicktongue/Quickarm materia, which we also know we can replace easily, from as far back as 1.x and ARR, when materia made obsolete were automatically converted into Cracked Materia of the same grade. That was, by their own report, as simple if not simpler than "Find & Replace"; they specifically gave it as a point of comparison with harder replacements such as glamour targets, cross-server glamours (as per using glamours during PvP), or job-based glamours (which we'll likely never get). (By the way, changing gear name and stat maxima -- such as on pink gear, including the retouches on the range of Eureka gear stat RNG -- were given as similarly easy processes.)

Quote Originally Posted by Archwizard View Post
Most likely because nobody in this thread is actually working on the design of FFXIV, meaning that suggestions do not need to meet the scrutiny of other players, but of the dev team who ultimately decide what and how to balance and program skills. To get into specifics would only serve to invite pedantic in-fighting, on top of creating attachment and hype for ideas that we ultimately have no control over actually getting into the game.

For this reason, it's more productive to argue the broad merits of suggestions, not the specifics.
Suggestions without any specifics are pointlessly vague. Potencies and durations, etc., may not be directly relevant, but the breakpoints and gameplay they would cause absolutely are. There is a point at which an implementation may meet the basics of a suggestion, yet do so in a way that accomplishes none of what you hope for, i.e...

"We want open world content with cool new progression systems, open world bosses, and gameplay that encourages--but doesn't force us--to move around the map as we face the its hostile elements. Plenty of exploration and secrets to discover! Oh, and actual elements (Fire, Earth, etc)!"

SE: "We're looking to add something along the lines of <above>." -> /cheers
- Alternatively-
SE: "<Eureka>" -> /forewarned feedback attempting to salvage months of underwhelming content creation before it further sullies SE's reputation.

Arguing specifics without also putting forth exactly what you hope to accomplish with something may be folly, since it denies SE or anyone here the ability to note the mistakes between your dream and your actual vision as to catch your blind spots and correct for them, but arguing without specifics altogether is no more than vague gesticulation. When one says "I want a strong leader", I can picture the best possible version and concur, but I don't actually have any way to know whether your vision follows mine or you're imagining a particular angry, fanciful, intolerant, and thick-mustached fascist. When you want some specific, rather than a perverse twisting thereof, it's good to be specific. Test your idea out on the water. Check its merits and demerits. It might not be your job, but very few of us would feel any use possible in being here if SE was already performing that job perfectly.