Making jobs spam the same move more than once feels boring

[linay]

I think you're missing my point. I'm not saying a steady damage progression is bad or unneeded. I'm saying it's not enough. Ask most tanks and the majority will say that Warrior feels stale and like a shadow of its former self, despite the tank balance in this game being as close as it is. Many will say Dark Knight feels stale as well, as the addition of an AoE step and a passive damage increase skill, as cool as it is, is not enough to really change much of how they play. And don't tell me Nascent Chaos changes anything about how you play; all it does is make Berserk, which you used regularly, hit harder.

Sure, but feeling stale is subjective. I used to main SMN in late Heavensward and early Stormblood and I don't like it when they changed it a bit too much in Shadowbringers. Meanwhile, I was able to transition to RDM and loved that it didn't change much in Shadowbringers from the way it was in Stormblood, but still showed improvement. Other people might find RDM boring, and they're entitled to that opinion, but that's irrelevant to me and I hope RDM never strays too far from its current simplicity.

I used to prefer DRK as well before Shadowbringers. Warrior just became more interesting to me in Shadowbringers even though DRK got more changes, from what I can see anyway.

[Shurrikhan]

Sure, but feeling stale is subjective. I used to main SMN in late Heavensward and early Stormblood and I don't like it when they changed it a bit too much in Shadowbringers. Meanwhile, I was able to transition to RDM and loved that it didn't change much in Shadowbringers from the way it was in Stormblood, but still showed improvement. Other people might find RDM boring, and they're entitled to that opinion, but that's irrelevant to me and I hope RDM never strays too far from its current simplicity.

I used to prefer DRK as well before Shadowbringers. Warrior just became more interesting to me in Shadowbringers even though DRK got more changes, from what I can see anyway.

If enough people share that subjective feeling, however, does that still leave the sum of their opinions as inconsequential?

I may feel, for instance, that 1.x was better than Shadowbringers. Perhaps 1 other person in the world would agree with me while over a million would vehemently disagree, and for good reasons. But would both opinions be equally sound just because they're both subjective? Surely not.

In regards to Warrior, for example, the majority opinion (at least on across these official forums and virtually any and all unofficial areas of discussion) is that Warrior lost little capacity or optimized gameplay, but was nonetheless hollowed out by the Shadowbringers changes. If the devs were to create a poll, and a majority sided towards returning its lost complexity, or returning it by some other means, would they be obliged to ignore the majority just because (1) their opinions are individually subjective and therefore inconsequential (despite that the whole point is gameplay preference, which will always be subjective, yet consequential enough to determine whether someone cancels their subscription) and (2) someone may prefer the barebone gameplay (despite that, too, being subjective)?

The popularity of an opinion, and the number and frequency of other reasoned opinions that combine to form that opinion, matters. To deny all changes just because they're "subjective" is nothing more than saying "No, I got what I like right now, and no one's allowed to change it. Gameplay can't be augmented because I got the good dice roll this time and I'm not giving it up."

The best designs are going to be the ones that appeal to the greatest number of people. The more subjective opinions are appeased by the change and what changes must follow it is a good change objectively. Some designs are therefore, frankly, better than others. Skip the "it's subjective" dismissal and look instead at how an upgrade might follow general means of improvement (providing a welcoming skill floor, an encouraging skill curve, and a skill ceiling high enough to provoke you to continuously try to improve; reshaping the old only just enough to make the new cohesive; giving some fine eye-candy without breaking theme with what was there before or being overly gaudy; etc., etc.) as to appeal to the most people possible as deeply as possible, and alienate as few people as possible as little as possible. Those design additions, though subjectively received, can be made objectively better -- at least in as much as anything to do with perception can ever be objective.

[linay]

The best designs are going to be the ones that appeal to the greatest number of people.

I understand that, hence the casualization issue that some people are having now with some MMOs. But that's also why we express our different opinions in forums and other places, so that people don't assume that we all think a certain way. It's up to SE to whom and how they will cater FFXIV.

With regard to the topic of this thread, it is my perspective that, at least for WAR, RDM, and I would say SAM, the changes have been good overall, including any multiple usage of abilities (especially since SAM and WAR and RDM have different usage of those repeat abilities).

[Shurrikhan]

I understand that, hence the casualization issue that some people are having now with some MMOs. But that's also why we express our different opinions in forums and other places, so that people don't assume that we all think a certain way. It's up to SE to whom and how they will cater FFXIV.

With regard to the topic of this thread, it is my perspective that, at least for WAR, RDM, and I would say SAM, the changes have been good overall, including any multiple usage of abilities (especially since SAM and WAR and RDM have different usage of those repeat abilities).

That's fair. My own view of the skills added to, say, WAR and RDM is simply that they're at the stage of "Okay, that's a good start. Now what more can we do to make that as good a design as it ought be?" It's not that they're bad, per se, but rather there's just so much obviously more that could be done to appeal to players who want to see that extra fathom of depth without alienating anyone.

Easiest example: If WAR's buffs could have occurred without simplifying Inner Release, ideally while giving it a bit more snap readiness (e.g. by added gauge generation, as well) so it didn't feel so sluggish in dungeons, that would have allowed both more casual players what they were looking for (a less restricted skill) while allowing more serious players to continuing enjoying the depth they were already seeing from Inner Release. An entire side was sacrificed for the benefit of other when no such sacrifice had to be made. Meeting both desires while sacrificing no significant part of either would have been objectively better design that having to take the compromise (which was later met negatively).

In a similar way, I'd have liked to see RDM's toolkit allow for something new, rather than just a second Flare/Holy step, that would similarly allow for more frequent melee casts, so that it could appeal to both those who enjoy its apparent simplicity and its underlying complexities seen by more serious players of the job. It doesn't have to be either or, nor does one have to simply default to directly appeasing neither side when they have some apparent conflict (opting instead to just add a shiny new high-potency button). More often the two desires together actually make for a smarter design, the casual end drawing design away from unnecessary convolution and the more invested end drawing design towards greater depth per mechanic, giving you a more efficient and effective design between the two.

[KalinOrthos]

I understand that, hence the casualization issue that some people are having now with some MMOs. But that's also why we express our different opinions in forums and other places, so that people don't assume that we all think a certain way. It's up to SE to whom and how they will cater FFXIV.

With regard to the topic of this thread, it is my perspective that, at least for WAR, RDM, and I would say SAM, the changes have been good overall, including any multiple usage of abilities (especially since SAM and WAR and RDM have different usage of those repeat abilities).

Again, I feel you're continuously missing the point here, especially when you're responding to a single line of the entire post that is filled with reasonable arguments. On top of that, you're comparing Warrior to Samurai and Red Mage. The latter two got additions to their damage toolkits, more buttons to use, and, in RDM's case, mobility options, when, again, and I need you to understand, Warrior gets nothing but a damage steroid. The comparison is a false equivalence, and you ignoring majority opinion that there might be a problem because "well I like this thing" is rather narrow-minded.

Regarding red mage, though they have additional tools in their kit, I agree with Shurrikhan that more could have and probably should have been done. While it's a very simple class to get into, it's also a very easy class to master compared to the other jobs, and adding complexity could give the job more depth and engagement, but instead we get another step at the end of the melee phase. Having Reprise available as a ranged mobility option does help RDM compete with SMN's mobility, but I don't think it's enough, especially when Moulinet is better in some situations.

[linay]

Again, I feel you're continuously missing the point here, especially when you're responding to a single line of the entire post that is filled with reasonable arguments. On top of that, you're comparing Warrior to Samurai and Red Mage. The latter two got additions to their damage toolkits, more buttons to use, and, in RDM's case, mobility options, when, again, and I need you to understand, Warrior gets nothing but a damage steroid. The comparison is a false equivalence, and you ignoring majority opinion that there might be a problem because "well I like this thing" is rather narrow-minded.

Well, I already like how Warrior works in Stormblood, and I like it better how it works in Shadowbringers, especially with the tank change. That tank change is not just a damage steroid. You say Warrior gets nothing while I say Warrior gets quality of life change.

And what does being narrowminded have to do with this? This thread is about an opinion that certain trends is boring. I simply have my own opinion that allows me to enjoy certain jobs with those trends.

[Shurrikhan]

Well, I already like how Warrior works in Stormblood, and I like it better how it works in Shadowbringers, especially with the tank change. That tank change is not just a damage steroid. You say Warrior gets nothing while I say Warrior gets quality of life change.

Wait, how is Nascent Chaos a QoL improvement? It merely prevents you from using IR at 4th GCD unless you want to waste 18 seconds of Infuriate timer and prevents you from popping Infuriate mid-IR where you could previously pop it whenever (so long as you wouldn't overcap).

If this is a matter of "I said 'change', not necessarily for the better," that's not a semantics battle I'm willing to waste time on...

[linay]

Wait, how is Nascent Chaos a QoL improvement? It merely prevents you from using IR at 4th GCD unless you want to waste 18 seconds of Infuriate timer and prevents you from popping Infuriate mid-IR where you could previously pop it whenever (so long as you wouldn't overcap).

If this is a matter of "I said 'change', not necessarily for the better," that's not a semantics battle I'm willing to waste time on...

I'm talking more about the overall job change, including tank change.