Bring back crowd control. Bring back branching dungeons. Bring back ADVENTURE.

[xJimmehx]

As others have already said, branching dungeons and puzzle are a terrible idea for dungeons. Maybe as a new type of content like Palace of the Dead.

People will always take the easy/fast route and puzzles arent fun after you solve it the first time or two.

CC like the sleep spell would be fine. I think tanks should get a draw-in or knock-back to help position adds like landtraps. Theyre annoying. Sleep was also fun to use as a blm.

[manamoppet]

Since Trusts became a thing in 5.0, SqE could experiment with more explorable dungeons with options, and it would be possible to use Trusts, either specifically made for that dungeon (e.g. if dungeon isn't msq, but optional), or the normal Trusts (if msq).

Another thing they could do, could be that the dungeon could have different NPCs you meet throughout that may help you like with the Ghimlyt Dark, or slightly hinder you (not-quite-Trust escort mission? Probably not a popular idea).

[Reynhart]

There's a way to make that kind of dungeonn by adding secondary objective to them. I'll take Dungeons & Dragons Online as an example. If you kill all ennemies, open all coffers, destroy all crates, etc...you get a reward multiplier at the end of the dungeon. You might argue that the additionnal time it would take to complete these objectives might not make it worthwhile, like "you could do the dungeon normally two times in that time", but, if that multiplier would also apply to the rewards from the roulette (Xp, Tomestones, gils, etc...), you couldn't really do that "two times", so it would still be better to do it.

Also, outside of doing dungeons for farming Xp, you could also have branching paths that leads to different loot (and, of course, finally have meaningful dungeon rewards), so that you wouldn't always do the same. In v1, Toto-Rak worked that way, with a different boss and drops depending on the path you took and the force field you opened.

Another solution would be to randomize the dungeon layout so that you can't really plan your path before hand.

[Vulcann]

i actually like that navigating the dungeon is not super important for the tank.

one thing that turned me off to tanking in WoW was if you didn't know the "optimal" path for the dungeon you got flamed out of the group.

even in the low level dungeons here with the branching pathways ... most experienced tanks always take the same path with no deviation.

[Gemina]

Please, SE. PLEASE...next xpac please get away from this linear zero-thought required gameplay. Please give us dungeons that are exciting and dangerous again. I have been leveling a new job recently and going through the 1-50 dungeons you can tell how much better designed they are compared to 3.x+ stuff...they have themes and unique objectives. Sure, they are super easy but later-levels you could make them more challenging and rewarding. Why not focus on this? Add another dose of challenge, and make crowd control useful again...The path that FFXIV is on cannot be sustained like this. We need DEPTH. "Expert" dungeons are a joke...4 man content needs re-evaluated ASAP.

You're aiming your pleas in the wrong direction. The community you're trying to speak for is exactly why the typical challenge levels of dungeons are the way they are. Multiple paths in dungeons? Players will choose the one of least resistance. Crowd control? What is this 2009? Depth? You're basically asking for an updated Toto Rak, and everyone HATES that dungeon.

The state of the game is sustainable because it's what players want. Believe it or not those wanting challenge, dept, and a thought process to be involved in casual content are in the extreme minority. Veteran players lack the patience to teach newer players. Vote kick feature is abused. Players abandoning duties at the start. Mentor program has been a joke. You're going to have to weed these players out while simultaneously replacing the funds they provide. Devs have bills to pay too.

This is an mmo in 2019. If you want progressive content where accessibility is gated by thought provoking challenges then you might want to look into single player games.

[Shurrikhan]

There's a way to make that kind of dungeonn by adding secondary objective to them. I'll take Dungeons & Dragons Online as an example. If you kill all ennemies, open all coffers, destroy all crates, etc...you get a reward multiplier at the end of the dungeon. You might argue that the additionnal time it would take to complete these objectives might not make it worthwhile, like "you could do the dungeon normally two times in that time", but, if that multiplier would also apply to the rewards from the roulette (Xp, Tomestones, gils, etc...), you couldn't really do that "two times", so it would still be better to do it.

Also, outside of doing dungeons for farming Xp, you could also have branching paths that leads to different loot (and, of course, finally have meaningful dungeon rewards), so that you wouldn't always do the same. In v1, Toto-Rak worked that way, with a different boss and drops depending on the path you took and the force field you opened.

Another solution would be to randomize the dungeon layout so that you can't really plan your path before hand.

Doesn't that face the exact same issue as branching paths, but now adding different player priorities into the mix? Actually, it seems to me that it would be even worse. It's similar to the conflicts you'd get from PotD runners who want to farm silver boxes at lower floors.

If we're going to have something that will necessarily cause different opinions, shouldn't it at least be within a single path of things to optimize, such as fight strategies, rather than merely, say, how many extra caverns to loot to the net gain of some players and the net loss of others based on their time, gear, and wealth?

I'm all for increasing replayability of dungeons, be it by investing a bit more time initially to better milk the art assets developed such as through different paths (ideally, imo, with either no player choice or with obvious influencers) to take through the dungeon or even by just offering longer encounters that can be dealt with in a greater variety of ways.

Honestly, I'd love a system like you're suggesting for content of either a premade variety or something more like exploratory missions, but I just don't see it meshing well with a standard DF experience.

[Esmoire]

i actually like that navigating the dungeon is not super important for the tank.

one thing that turned me off to tanking in WoW was if you didn't know the "optimal" path for the dungeon you got flamed out of the group.

even in the low level dungeons here with the branching pathways ... most experienced tanks always take the same path with no deviation.

Honestly it is why when I got into FFXIV I was looking forward to playing as a tank but immediately found out going into a duty as a tank the first time was a terrible idea because it was disorienting and people behind me were clearly eager to get onto the next roulette. Later on the dungeons become basically a big tube which for the sake of social engineering I think is the better choice. It's the kind of thing where I think dungeons being more labyrinthine and mysterious better suits single player experiences than a multiplayer game.

[XiXiQ]

As much as I like the idea of non-linear dungeons, it will take a whole day before the power freaks announce THIS is how it must be done, end of discussion. They did it back in ARR, complaining if someone wanted to take the sideways/deadends for chests, or the route that was 30 seconds slower. The exact thing would happen again.

[Valic]

It's not that they can't do it, but I just doubt whether there is any desire on the dev's part regarding normal dungeon designs, although maybe it could work for certain optional dungeons. Then again, maybe not if those dungeons are meant to be included in expert roulette.

Even if they're not, there's still 50/60/70/80 roulette content. There's desire in the community so there should be desire from the devs but it's always gonna be just "we don't have the time, money, or manpower to implement these types of changes, 1.0 coding" or etc excuses like that when really it'll be fear of changing the format up and wasting creative ideas and effort on that type of content. Reality is, they have a plan they've stuck to and they're not gonna move from it because its how they have their workflow setup, scheduled, and works as far as players care. Even if it will never be what players would like to see, they know what they do players will still like and be enough for them.

[Reynhart]

Doesn't that face the exact same issue as branching paths, but now adding different player priorities into the mix? Actually, it seems to me that it would be even worse. It's similar to the conflicts you'd get from PotD runners who want to farm silver boxes at lower floors.

That's because progression and Aetherpool farming are not the same. The extreme majority of people do dungeons for the end rewards, and probably in roulettes, so you just create a system when "fully" doing the dungeon will give more rewards.

For the unusual situation where your goal is not simply to get the reward, it's just basic etiquette to talk about it as soon as possible.

Honestly, I'd love a system like you're suggesting for content of either a premade variety or something more like exploratory missions, but I just don't see it meshing well with a standard DF experience.

In my opinion, I think the game should move away from the Duty Finder monopoly. It's a very good thing if you need a quick run and you don't have time to create a party, but right now, even if you have that time, there's really no benefit of doing so (let's be honest, it's fairly unlikely you will end with a group that lacks the skills to clear any dungeon smoothly).

Premades should have additionnal perks, like min ilvl giving you additionnal rewards, or, like I suggested in several BLU topics, each job having limited features like traits or special item bonuses that wouldn't be available in matchmaking, making your job more powerful and/or more interesting to play.

As much as I like the idea of non-linear dungeons, it will take a whole day before the power freaks announce THIS is how it must be done, end of discussion. They did it back in ARR, complaining if someone wanted to take the sideways/deadends for chests, or the route that was 30 seconds slower. The exact thing would happen again.

If you have a random layout, you can't have that issue since no power freak will preemptively know where to go optimally. And again, if opening all chests or killing all mobs increases the reward (roulette included) by 25% (each), people will take the extra time to do it. (You should probably slightly reduce the basic reward compared to now, though)

Multiple paths in dungeons? Players will choose the one of least resistance.

Not if they don't know where that path is. Since you talked about Toto-Rak, imagine if cells were placed randomly, you wouldn't have any choice but to look everywhere for them until you got enough of them. And on that topic, my guess is that people hate Toto-Rak not because of the branching path, but because of the sticky floor during the last third that adds absolutely nothing gameplaywise and only makes you lose time.