Balance, Homogenisation and Encounter Design: The Problem.

[Ultimatecalibur]

Isn't that exactly what we have now?

Nope. Tenacity and Piety are in many cases considered less optimal stats because of this. Taking 10% less damage isn't helpful when content is easier cleared when you can clear with 0% mitigation from Tenacity. increased MP recovery is meaningless when natural recovery and Lucid is enough to prevent you from running out in a fight.

Or do you want back the 5-tanks 3-healers Extreme Primal prog meta we had when dps checks lightened?

I never said no dps checks. Add phases, meteor phases and "last 10% burn the boss before it finishes casting a You Lose" stuff is fine.

In my mind a fight should be designed such that a group should be expected to clear in 10 minutes at intended ilevel but if the tanks and healers are good enough it can take up to 12 minutes.

How is this a flaw of terrain rather than a Z-axis in proximity checks? Or is the fact that even now I can be struck from 40 feet in the air by ground mobs still aggro'ed to me similarly an issue of (open world) zone design?

I was referring to the problem with twisters in T5. The twisters required that you be X distance from them when the spawned or they exploded. Character movement followed the irregular terrain which led to twisters exploding because characters didn't move far enough from the twister over the irregular terrain even though they had enough time to move away on a flat surface. For example the character needed to move 2y away from the twister to prevent it exploding, but due to irregular terrain they only ended up moving 1.8y. This was one of the major reasons they flattened out T5.

Only T1 and T5 had kiteable adds (unless stall-stratting T4 briefly instead of doing full AoE), and I did the prior just fine on SMN and BLM with very little potency loss and the latter was doable on any and all jobs, seeing as you could just keep hitting the boss while everyone else dealt with the add focusing you. These weren't an issue.

Was referring more to T7's Renauds and the fact that a Ranged dps needed to kite them into position. They were pretty much designed to be dealt with by a Bard. SMN could possibly handle them but I heard that they often had trouble doing so.

[Shurrikhan]

...

1. Tenacity and Piety

Tenacity being a subpar stat is due to lack of granular damage. Against the instances of damage we actually receive, there is virtually no chance that Tenacity can save a heal or protect against what would otherwise kill you. Not dying is as much a "test of the tank's ability to survive" without Tenacity as it is with. The stat is simply of inappropriate design in the context of XIV's damage in raid settings. Piety, similarly, suffers from the oversight that (1) MP regeneration is overabundant because most players don't want to be over-dependent on any given stat just to be able to perform actions and (2) it has no other use than the usually superfluous niche of MP regeneration. Turn it into a hidden resource system that is consumed based on %HP damage that would otherwise have been taken and restored over time (while offering proportionately less of its passive mitigation as it recharges) and voila, you'd have a stat that can actually do something. Though, you'd either then be crippling dependent on it or will have simply traded out SCH/AST shields and/or a single CD mistake for it.

2. DPS checks only as short burst mechanics, and never with an impact across multiple mechanics.

Removing any lasting impact of how well a party handles a given mechanic, as to have continued consequence over the mechanics to come, only leads to haphazard design and incongruity.

• Mechanic Type 1: Quality of performance only partly matters in this first mechanic because one need only dodge; they can just as optimally touch no keys except WASD and Duty Action.
• Mechanic Type 2: Quality of performance only partly matters in the next mechanic because one need only damage; you can stand in as many AoEs as you need in order to focus on your rotation.
• Mechanic Type 3: Quality of performance actually matters to this last mechanic because it has both damage and survival requirements. You must dodge or you will almost certainly die hereafter and you must deal damage or all will die at the end of the mechanic.

Hard enrages simply allow any mechanic to be a soft Type 3, allowing consequences to be carried over and recovered against without entirely removing said consequence. Took an unnecessary vulnerability stack? Well, now a healer is going to have to shield you specifically so you can survive the next mechanic. That in turn will cost healer DPS, which in turn means your requirements just got higher.

I don't understand how people keep mistaking that for some sort of flawed system only to then ask for the very things hard enrages already provide and which the removal of hard enrages would in turn remove. Hard enrages encourage survival. Hard enrages encourage damage. They just allow you to perfect your performance over time without smashing your head against one particular mechanic at a time, all while ensuring that by the time you can complete the fight, you feel like you deserved it, i.e. that you had a decent handle on the mechanics involved.

3. Alleged terrain-based issues with Twister as precedent for removing any and all raid environments that aren't flat circles or rectangles.

The Twisters issues were due to an entirely separate and well documented bug. No one dealt with Twisters while standing on the palm heel. The heel was only used to exploit the firepatches. Bug aside, the combination of the two mechanics was technically easier before they flattened out the map.

4. Renaud adds allegedly necessitating Ranged dps as precendent for removing all kiting and similar special mechanics from fights.

Across ARR, Ranged were already considered necessary for their access to Mage's Ballad and Army's Paeon, so I don't see why such a requirement would suddenly have broken the camel's back here. That being said, I don't believe it was necessary. I'd cleared several times before the Echo buffs in a DRG, MNK, MNK, BLM party. We just had the boss move clockwise or counterclockwise as the Renaud approached and had the SCH Aetherial Manipulation taxi the BLM. Stone handled the rest with ease. The other MNK and I didn't even lose GL over the Shriek mechanic. It required some creative thinking compared to simply having the Bard take it and Shadowbind, but it was entirely doable. And I liked the fight more for that very fact. Could we please stop pretending that something is critically flawed just because it variably asks a bit more ingenuity for the playerbase?

[Acidblood]

I don't understand how people keep mistaking that for some sort of flawed system only to then ask for the very things hard enrages already provide and which the removal of hard enrages would in turn remove. Hard enrages encourage survival. Hard enrages encourage damage. They just allow you to perfect your performance over time without smashing your head against one particular mechanic at a time, all while ensuring that by the time you can complete the fight, you feel like you deserved it, i.e. that you had a decent handle on the mechanics involved.

Because in reality hard enrages do not encourage survival, they make it binary; either you can survive until the end (hard enrage) or you can't, any boost to 'survival' beyond that is wasted (especially if it comes at the expense of damage). And since failure isn't allowed by default*, and all combinations of jobs must to be viable**, survival stats and abilties generally aren't even a consideration to begin with (expect perhaps at the start of prog where you are just trying to see as much of the fight as possible).

* And even if failure was allowed by default; i.e. you couldn't beat encounter A without X Tenacity, people would just get X+1 Tenacity and dump the rest into damage stats, which is same issue Accuracy had.

** If Job-X had a survival ability that was 'required' (or perceived to be required) to beat encounter A then everyone else of that role would complain. However; if that ability is not required and Job-X sacrifices damage just to have that ability (used or not) then Job-X will be seen as less valuable, or even 'useless', compared to another job of the same role that brings more damage; enter homogenisation, the systematic removal of anything that isn't 'damage', and the death of job identity.

[linay]

enter homogenisation, the systematic removal of anything that isn't 'damage', and the death of job identity.

If job identity causes one tank to deliberately sacrifice all but 1 hp, then let it die.

Otherwise, this tank uses a gunblade, that tank uses a sword and shield. This ranged DPS shoots arrows, that ranged DPS dances. This caster summons egis, that caster attacks from near and far. All these melee DPS use positionals differently.

Those differences are sufficient for job identity.

[Shurrikhan]

If job identity causes one tank to deliberately sacrifice all but 1 hp, then let it die.

Otherwise, this tank uses a gunblade, that tank uses a sword and shield. This ranged DPS shoots arrows, that ranged DPS dances. This caster summons egis, that caster attacks from near and far. All these melee DPS use positionals differently.

Those differences are sufficient for job identity.

Why? There's little to no additional risk to, say, Superbolide over Hallowed Ground when well managed -- save in that it has a shorter duration. Why should we, their party members, be denied these interactions with these idiosyncrasies? Why should those tanks themselves? I'm not about to defend Living Dead's design, but even it is something that I've learned to work around on any healer, saving Aetherflow, Emergency, and Recitation or Excog to burst heal the DRK back up in the last couple GCDs on SCH, holding every other Bene for it on WHM, etc., etc.

Differences, so long as they're not abhorrently designed (e.g. Living Dead), are generally fun to play with and around. Do not reduce jobs to simple reskins, relabels, and re-lores of Tank, Healer, Melee, Ranged, and Caster.

[linay]

Why? There's little to no additional risk to, say, Superbolide over Hallowed Ground when well managed -- save in that it has a shorter duration. Why should we, their party members, be denied these interactions with these idiosyncrasies? Why should those tanks themselves? I'm not about to defend Living Dead's design, but even it is something that I've learned to work around on any healer, saving Aetherflow, Emergency, and Recitation or Excog to burst heal the DRK back up in the last couple GCDs on SCH, holding every other Bene for it on WHM, etc., etc.

Differences, so long as they're not abhorrently designed (e.g. Living Dead), are generally fun to play with and around. Do not reduce jobs to simple reskins, relabels, and re-lores of Tank, Healer, Melee, Ranged, and Caster.

It's fun for some people and not fun for others. That's fine, but my point remains that a dark knight will still be a dark knight and not a paladin regardless if LD works the same as HG or not. Shared effects of certain skills would just point to the shared role between the two.

I'm not against differences, but I'd prefer that those differences are not for the sake of having a difference in fear of "death of job identity," but rather because those differences provide good alternatives. It can be hard to achieve because pragmatism dictates that if you can show one alternative to be better than another, then there is really no point to the alternative. That's when "job identity" should not be used as an excuse to keep the worse alternative. Either improve the weaker alternative while still having it be different or make them the same effect-wise and stick to aesthetic/lore difference.

No matter how you slice it, the onus lies with the dev team to make each job competitive within its own category.

Hence, homogenization.

[CapricaLangley]

I'm not against differences, but I'd prefer that those differences are not for the sake of having a difference in fear of "death of job identity," but rather because those differences provide good alternatives.
Hence, homogenization.

What I tried to say with that discussion is that we are stuck in the DPS and homogenisation mindset because the current philosophy behind activity design is pushing towards that direction. If every high-end encounter required a good dose of both physical and magical mitigation (it's just an example) tanks would need a more incisive identity. I like every job being viable, but there are many routes available to achieve that result without going all-in on DPS checks and full homogenisation mode IMHO, and of course they are more time consuming and difficult to design for the devs.

Another thing I think is very important and is not being discussed is the fact that a lot of players in this thread are talking about being locked out of duties and people using the best possible option for a fight. This is true indeed, but it opens up for another problem: if the players are relying so much on party finder and struggle to find groups for high end content, it means that social features built in the game are not doing their job properly.

Also, to Nora, these were just two random examples. I'm just worried for what I think may be just the beginning of a bigger identity loss process. Personally, I fear the day when we'll be just 3 roles with different cosmetics and a couple rotation nuances, but of course there is a lot of people out there who wants just that.

[Shurrikhan]

Because in reality hard enrages do not encourage survival, they make it binary; either you can survive until the end (hard enrage) or you can't, any boost to 'survival' beyond that is wasted (especially if it comes at the expense of damage). And since failure isn't allowed by default*, and all combinations of jobs must to be viable**, survival stats and abilties generally aren't even a consideration to begin with (expect perhaps at the start of prog where you are just trying to see as much of the fight as possible).

* And even if failure was allowed by default; i.e. you couldn't beat encounter A without X Tenacity, people would just get X+1 Tenacity and dump the rest into damage stats, which is same issue Accuracy had.

** If Job-X had a survival ability that was 'required' (or perceived to be required) to beat encounter A then everyone else of that role would complain. However; if that ability is not required and Job-X sacrifices damage just to have that ability (used or not) then Job-X will be seen as less valuable, or even 'useless', compared to another job of the same role that brings more damage; enter homogenisation, the systematic removal of anything that isn't 'damage', and the death of job identity.

When you remove the hard enrage you remove any reason to perform any mechanic except to the extent that you survive that mechanic and that mechanic alone. There is no interconnectedness. There is no lingering consequence. Survival in each mechanic becomes even MORE binary. There are no degrees of risk-reward. There is no need to find a balance between the two.

A hard enrage is precisely what makes it so you don't need only to survive to the end (hard enrage) or not. Running around like headless chickens simply will not get you through mechanics. You can have a party that's bad at one mechanic or two and have to completely divert their focus for it or come up with strategies that favor mitigating risk (survival) over facilitating reward (uptime) and a hard enrage will allow for that leniency on those few mechanics so long as you can perform the others sufficiently well.

Neither gameplay with or without a hard enrage will ever reward you for overhealing or overmitigation. Ever. You would need to incorporate a gimmick 'deep damage' mechanic or the like whereby players are temporarily crippled if reduced to critical HP or whatnot. The only difference you'll get from removing hard enrages is the ability to average out your performance check over multiple mechanics, to recover over the course of other mechanics what you struggle with on one or few particular mechanics.

[Acidblood]

When you remove the hard enrage you remove any reason to perform any mechanic except to the extent that you survive that mechanic and that mechanic alone. There is no interconnectedness. There is no lingering consequence. Survival in each mechanic becomes even MORE binary. There are no degrees of risk-reward. There is no need to find a balance between the two.

A hard enrage is precisely what makes it so you don't need only to survive to the end (hard enrage) or not. Running around like headless chickens simply will not get you through mechanics. You can have a party that's bad at one mechanic or two and have to completely divert their focus for it or come up with strategies that favor mitigating risk (survival) over facilitating reward (uptime) and a hard enrage will allow for that leniency on those few mechanics so long as you can perform the others sufficiently well.

Neither gameplay with or without a hard enrage will ever reward you for overhealing or overmitigation. Ever. You would need to incorporate a gimmick 'deep damage' mechanic or the like whereby players are temporarily crippled if reduced to critical HP or whatnot. The only difference you'll get from removing hard enrages is the ability to average out your performance check over multiple mechanics, to recover over the course of other mechanics what you struggle with on one or few particular mechanics.

Given the current state of the combat system, where the party effectively has infinite resources, and DPS loss (including death) is the only real penalty that mechanics can apply, I would agree. The downside is of course that the system inherently lacks depth*, and what little it may have will probably, over time, be removed in the name of 'balance' (see: this forum and the progression of combat in FFXIV so far).

Which is OK (I guess), but without any depth (e.g. a spectrum of party compositions) content gets stale extremely quickly and a constant stream of new, well designed and (hopefully) engaging content is required to keep the game afloat**.

* Don't confuse complexity (e.g. the current stat system, or a new boss mechanic) for depth (or simplicity for the lack of it), complexity will always get boiled down in time but if there is no real choice underlying it then there is no depth.

** Again, this is OK (I guess) but it means putting a lot of resources into constant content regeneration, resources that (arguably) could have been better spent elsewhere, such as making Diadem not so... umm, yeah. It also risks content becoming copy / paste (see: FFXIV dungeons, and even to an extent trials and raids).

If job identity causes one tank to deliberately sacrifice all but 1 hp, then let it die.

Otherwise, this tank uses a gunblade, that tank uses a sword and shield. This ranged DPS shoots arrows, that ranged DPS dances. This caster summons egis, that caster attacks from near and far. All these melee DPS use positionals differently.

Those differences are sufficient for job identity.

Wow, so are we really down to cosmetics and pushing buttons in a slightly different order?

[linay]

Wow, so are we really down to cosmetics and pushing buttons in a slightly different order?

In my opinion, as it should be. A job is not just a job. It has a role and role identity trumps job identity. A dark knight should be a tank first and foremost in its identity and utility in a fight while offering the identity of a dark knight in terms of aesthetic and lore and flavor text and maybe order of rotation.