What would you like to see (differently) in the next Final Fantasy MMO?

[PyurBlue]

For example, some people don't like how silly it seems when a boss is focusing on the Tank while a big clump of squishy DPS and Healers are stood a few feet away being totally ignored.
This can be overcome with mechanics where bosses will try and attack DPS players (Such as the oft used random target unavoidable attacks) and then have the Tank actively work to prevent that by standing in their way (Think like in Cinder Drift when a player catches a comet and is standing between it and the floor), pushing them back or even chaining them down to literally prevent the boss from moving over to said DPS player.

I've had the same thought. The way enmity currently works feels kind of dull and it gets odd when you think about it too much. Tanks in my mind should be about shutting down the enemy's ability to attack the rest of the party. Stuns, silences, binds, etc. It would differentiate the tank role and I feel that it makes more sense than what we have now.

Something similar could be done with healers. With healing being a requirement for survival as it is now, the pain of having a bad healer in combination with unavoidable damage is something that I'm sure many people are familiar with. The healing required for survival could be taken from healers and given to all classes natively, but then heals could focus on boosting party defense to allow DPS to play in a way that is more risky. As an example a healer might temporarily increase a party member's max HP, which would allow that party member to tank an AoE hit to get in additional DPS. In effect healers would contribute to how high a of a DPS ceiling a party can achieve rather than focusing on just barely keeping the party alive and because of that healing would no longer be something to minimize. You'd want to maximize your buffing/shielding of party members so that they could play at their best.

[Renato]

• All classes on one character
• More glamor options
• dye multiple parts of armor
• able to transmute ANY armor piece except AF gear,
• the option not to have to carry every piece of armor in order to glamor it
• Skyrim style side-quests. Make them more involved and with a bit of mystery about them. Instead of go to place, talk to NPC, watch a cutscene. Have our characters run into the action real time. More random/unscripted events.
• Less homoginized jobs with stats other than Crit and DH that actually matter.
• A more interactive world map that actually feels alive opposed to just feeling like an overworld with stuff on it. There are so many cool little spots on the maps that nothing is done with.

[Lauront]

I've had the same thought. The way enmity currently works feels kind of dull and it gets odd when you think about it too much. Tanks in my mind should be about shutting down the enemy's ability to attack the rest of the party. Stuns, silences, binds, etc. It would differentiate the tank role and I feel that it makes more sense than what we have now.

Something similar could be done with healers. With healing being a requirement for survival as it is now, the pain of having a bad healer in combination with unavoidable damage is something that I'm sure many people are familiar with. The healing required for survival could be taken from healers and given to all classes natively, but then heals could focus on boosting party defense to allow DPS to play in a way that is more risky. As an example a healer might temporarily increase a party member's max HP, which would allow that party member to tank an AoE hit to get in additional DPS. In effect healers would contribute to how high a of a DPS ceiling a party can achieve rather than focusing on just barely keeping the party alive and because of that healing would no longer be something to minimize. You'd want to maximize your buffing/shielding of party members so that they could play at their best.

As long as they calibrated the bosses to be rather punishing even when tactics are executed well, I'd be fine with that. I tend to loathe games with very binary "shut down" mechanics, and in some cases it would be interesting to have bosses which simply cannot be controlled through certain mechanisms (e.g. immune to silences or stuns, or much shortened duration), so the party has to adapt its style. One could argue the current scripted fights fall into the same problem with being binary, but if the goal is to improve on the current system, I'd like to see a move away from that. Kind of like Dungeons and Dragons, with its rolls where you have varying degrees of success/failure.

[PyurBlue]

As long as they calibrated the bosses to be rather punishing even when tactics are executed well, I'd be fine with that. I tend to loathe games with very binary "shut down" mechanics, and in some cases it would be interesting to have bosses which simply cannot be controlled through certain mechanisms (e.g. immune to silences or stuns, or much shortened duration), so the party has to adapt its style. One could argue the current scripted fights fall into the same problem with being binary, but if the goal is to improve on the current system, I'd like to see a move away from that. Kind of like Dungeons and Dragons, with its rolls where you have varying degrees of success/failure.

Oh definitely, the system would need to be tuned correctly. If a tank could just counter everything a boss did it wouldn't be fun. I would avoid status effects that are binary, as you called them. So for example instead of having stun cancel all actions like it does now, make it reduce enemy attack power and strike range or slow down the attack so that the party has more time to get away from it. That way even if the target is stunned it can still deal damage or remain threatening. How effective the stun is should vary from attack to attack too, if the boss takes a defensive posture before a really heavy attack the stun might do next to nothing. It would be the tanks' job to read the boss and know when it's most vulnerable to being interrupted.

[Birdlaw]

Both of these probably have been mentioned already, but they are likely my two biggest gripes with FFXIV:

Not having equipped weapons determine your class
Limiting each job to one weapon type, and switching between jobs be controlled by swapping your weapon slot item doesn't seem to have any obvious advantages. I far prefer when there is at least some variety in the weapon type each class/job can use. Even if a specific weapon (or weapon type) ends up being the BiS for a class for a certain patch, it still helps prevent things from becoming stale (and allows more sweet, sweet glamour options).

A byproduct of this may also be that DEVs don't have to come up with a entirely new weapon type when they introduce a new job, as there can be some cross over on weapon types that may be shared between jobs. This is particularly beneficial compared to the current system in FFXIV, when DEVs want to introduce a new job whose traditional weapon is already being used by an existing job in the game.


Normal group size being larger than 4, and to expand further on this, not using the trinity class archetypes
By having normal groups limited to 4 it becomes effectively impossible to implement classes that focus on utility, or support that isn't just heals/shields. By building FFXIV in this manner, they've massively limited the flexibility, and creativity the DEVs have when it comes to adding new classes, or progressing existing classes as content is added. Moreover, they've also had to redefine the functions of jobs that have existed through many other FF games, in order to squeeze them into these very restrictive archetypes. Even just raising the normal party size to 5 would allow for them to step away from the trinity system, and allow for so much more variety, and creativity


I understand that both of these suggestions would require a greater investment of time towards balancing, creation of items, and consideration when developing content for the game, but it's not like this is uncharted territory elsewhere in the industry.

[Lauront]

Oh definitely, the system would need to be tuned correctly. If a tank could just counter everything a boss did it wouldn't be fun. I would avoid status effects that are binary, as you called them. So for example instead of having stun cancel all actions like it does now, make it reduce enemy attack power and strike range or slow down the attack so that the party has more time to get away from it. That way even if the target is stunned it can still deal damage or remain threatening. How effective the stun is should vary from attack to attack too, if the boss takes a defensive posture before a really heavy attack the stun might do next to nothing. It would be the tanks' job to read the boss and know when it's most vulnerable to being interrupted.

Yeah, I think we're on the same page about it in that case. I also happen to think it requires a little too much suspension of disbelief for bosses to be so fixated on the tank. I mean I get that the mechanics are ultimately abstractions in the end, and obviously some of the mechanics do have the boss swapping targets from time to time, but it still amounts to a rather shallower array of options in comparison to what you're describing. The setup you mentioned for healers could also be interesting, as it would open up more room for healers to enter a "support" role with emergency back up tools, rather than just fixating on HP bars/dps.

In response to some of the other suggestions here:

Tab targeting is a very subjective thing. In games like ESO, I hate the inability to control exactly which enemy in the mob I target.

Somebody make an MMO that supports both targeting systems, please.

I agree, it's one of those things I like rather precise control over. ESO already takes a hybridised approach, IIRC, but I am guessing it is an area which could be improved on in it?

[ChazNatlo]

So while trying to stay away from things I think XIV should have

A: It needs to be an MMO. If we get a Final Fantasy MOBA, that's cool, but it doesn't really take the place of an MMO. Ditto for a Final Fantasy Monster Hunter Clone (Explorers 2?) Not that it can't take mechanics from these, just that it is several people in an open world.

B: A different probably faster paced combat system. Or weightier, or more responsive. Perhaps where you choose your actions based on the situation rather than an optimal rotation you want to reset into if disturbed.

C: Something thematically different. I don't need to be the chosen one, the bringer of light and the righter of wrongs on a grand adventure to save the world. A toned down narrative where they can acknowledge that several of us are saving the day would be nice. They can keep the strong story telling, just tone down the stakes. Or maybe a setting change to a more modern or futuristic or full fantasy setting.

D: I like the Job system, but I'd like more reason to branch out, and more ability to do so. Maybe let us use subjobs and let those subjobs gain partial exp. I love XIV, but the separate Jobs all feel like low key alts. Even if they did a modernish/futuristic setting, I'd like them to keep the Jobs.

[Shurrikhan]

That's the issue I have with it. I feel like, unless the game's combat is designed really well, pvp and pve combat will be at odds with each other, and since I don't care for pvp, I wouldn't want pve to be "compromised" for the sake of pvp. At the same time, I also wouldn't want the status quo in FFXIV where pvp exists separately from pve with separate abilities (which I like as then it won't affect pve), but people don't seem to like it (although I'm sure there are people who do like it as it is).

Also, as I enjoy FFXIV's pve the most out of any mmorpg, that doesn't really sell me on other mmorpg embracing pvp as being a good thing. That's not to say pvp is why their pve is not as enjoyable to me (in reality, it's not just any one thing), but simply taking your comment into account.

But what does designing purely "for" PvE even mean, then? It's purely reductive. It's essentially just trimming anything and everything that doesn't minimize itself to a pure script. As soon as you start adding in more randomness, more variety, more intelligence, you're moving towards PvP-focused design, with an emphasis on awareness, shifting tactics, flexible play, and so forth over scripted "DDR" combat. That's not to say that PvP won't have its fair share of set plays, and focusing solely on PvP has similarly (though rarely ever so greatly) reductive tendencies, such as considering anything that doesn't make a clear strategic difference as worthless and generally devaluing "damage-metas" except where they are also "burst-metas".

If a game's PvE is suffering seemingly because of PvP or vice versa, chances are... they're not. They're suffering because both sides are shallower than they need or ought to be -- PvP not bothering to allow for longer spans of conflict at which many decisions often seen in PvE seen clear strategic differences and PvE not bothering with the shorter spans of conflict at which there becomes a difference between X damage done almost instantly vs. over several minutes (apart from raid buff snapshotting, though that would then include... more damage, not the same amount). It's precisely when the game is designed with both sets of lessons and advantages in mind that both can excel, even if they still hold significant differences.

[Eldevern]

What I really would to change?

No fishes at quick ventures

[linay]

But what does designing purely "for" PvE even mean, then? It's purely reductive. It's essentially just trimming anything and everything that doesn't minimize itself to a pure script. As soon as you start adding in more randomness, more variety, more intelligence, you're moving towards PvP-focused design, with an emphasis on awareness, shifting tactics, flexible play, and so forth over scripted "DDR" combat. That's not to say that PvP won't have its fair share of set plays, and focusing solely on PvP has similarly (though rarely ever so greatly) reductive tendencies, such as considering anything that doesn't make a clear strategic difference as worthless and generally devaluing "damage-metas" except where they are also "burst-metas".

If a game's PvE is suffering seemingly because of PvP or vice versa, chances are... they're not. They're suffering because both sides are shallower than they need or ought to be -- PvP not bothering to allow for longer spans of conflict at which many decisions often seen in PvE seen clear strategic differences and PvE not bothering with the shorter spans of conflict at which there becomes a difference between X damage done almost instantly vs. over several minutes (apart from raid buff snapshotting, though that would then include... more damage, not the same amount). It's precisely when the game is designed with both sets of lessons and advantages in mind that both can excel, even if they still hold significant differences.

Designing for PVE means designing for enemy mechanics that are found in PVE, which currently tend to be more limited than what are found in PVP where your enemies have more skills. That means that desired balance may be different for PVP and PVE.

Even if you say the problem is because the combat is shallower than it needs/ought to be, then they need to show they can fix that before potentially complicating the issue with two different types of combat. At the same time, I'm not sure that's a good idea either. Part of current PVE design is having a boss that can fight a raid party on its own with its high HP pool and high damaging abilities. Imagine if the boss is as good at fighting you as a human PVP player, but it still has its high damage abilities and high HP. I think that could be a nightmare to fight unless its abilities are even more limited. It may work for trash mobs or adds where they have low HP and may depend more on numbers.