Predictions for job(s) in the next expansion?

[Vendalwind]

Fights aren't really built around having 2 melee. I think internally the design is that Savage/Extremes are doable within having any combination of 2, 1, 1 as far as DPS rolls. It just works out that mechanics allow for the double melee or "fake" melee spot because otherwise it'd ruin someone. Let's be fair even considering that mechanics still often ruins melee where its a mild inconvenience at worst for a caster or phys ranged.

I want you to thi k about what you just said.

"Allow for double melee or "fake" melee spot because otherwise it would ruin someone."

That literally implies the fights are BUILT around having two melee when they are designed.

Additionally the game at release had a larger melee cast and caster wasnt even a unique role.

As the game progressed the roles divided, but melee still have the highest distribution, and thus the lowest chance of being desired for a raid spot right now, because dual caster is seen as better.

All evidence points towards 2 melee parties being the intent in fight design. There is no evidence to the contrary. Those that believe otherwise just feel the evidence isnt convincing.

This doesnt mean there HAS to be 2 melee. But fights in this game are 100% with out a doubt built around the premise of having two melee in a party.

[Akiudo]

I want you to thi k about what you just said.

"Allow for double melee or "fake" melee spot because otherwise it would ruin someone."

That literally implies the fights are BUILT around having two melee when they are designed.

Additionally the game at release had a larger melee cast and caster wasnt even a unique role.

As the game progressed the roles divided, but melee still have the highest distribution, and thus the lowest chance of being desired for a raid spot right now, because dual caster is seen as better.

All evidence points towards 2 melee parties being the intent in fight design. There is no evidence to the contrary. Those that believe otherwise just feel the evidence isnt convincing.

This doesnt mean there HAS to be 2 melee. But fights in this game are 100% with out a doubt built around the premise of having two melee in a party.

the thing is, while what you say is true people use this as an argument that square WANTS groups to be 2 melee 1phys/1caster, while in reality all it really proves is that fights are designed in a way to realistically allow double melee.

Square HAS to design fights in a way 2 melee are viable, otherwise double melee would be impossible without being the clearly worst combo, it is simply a necessity to design fights in a way as if you would take double melee. This however devalues any "square designs fights around 2 melees, therefore they want us to have 2 melees" argument, as this implies square does this to show you whats the intendet way, while in reality, as long as other evidence is absent all it proves is "square has accounted for the possibility you may want to take double melee"

[Ultimatecalibur]

the thing is, while what you say is true people use this as an argument that square WANTS groups to be 2 melee 1phys/1caster, while in reality all it really proves is that fights are designed in a way to realistically allow double melee.

Square HAS to design fights in a way 2 melee are viable, otherwise double melee would be impossible without being the clearly worst combo, it is simply a necessity to design fights in a way as if you would take double melee. This however devalues any "square designs fights around 2 melees, therefore they want us to have 2 melees" argument, as this implies square does this to show you whats the intendet way, while in reality, as long as other evidence is absent all it proves is "square has accounted for the possibility you may want to take double melee"

No it does, because there are ways of designing fights that assume 1 melee, 1 physical ranged, 1 caster and a 4th that can be any of the 3 dps roles, but almost all fight mechanics are built and have been built so that there are 2 melee dps slots and 2 ranged dps slots. These are not cases of mechanics modified so that they can be done with 2 melee; These are mechanics that assume that 2 dps and both tanks will be in melee range of the boss and will get messed up unless a ranged dps in a 1 melee/3 ranged comp acts like a melee. The fights assume that the composition is 2 tanks/2 healers/2 melee/1 ranged/1 caster and often require (sometimes heavily) modified strategies if a different comp is used.

Other things also support that assertation and there is far less evidence, both currently and historically, that single melee/double caster is an acceptable situation and not a anomaly caused by the 5.1 changes that over-corrected the Summoner.

[Seraphor]

No it does, because there are ways of designing fights that assume 1 melee, 1 physical ranged, 1 caster and a 4th that can be any of the 3 dps roles, but almost all fight mechanics are built and have been built so that there are 2 melee dps slots and 2 ranged dps slots. These are not cases of mechanics modified so that they can be done with 2 melee; These are mechanics that assume that 2 dps and both tanks will be in melee range of the boss and will get messed up unless a ranged dps in a 1 melee/3 ranged comp acts like a melee. The fights assume that the composition is 2 tanks/2 healers/2 melee/1 ranged/1 caster and often require (sometimes heavily) modified strategies if a different comp is used.

Other things also support that assertation and there is far less evidence, both currently and historically, that single melee/double caster is an acceptable situation and not a anomaly caused by the 5.1 changes that over-corrected the Summoner.

To be completely fair though, any set up that is "1 melee, 1 phys ranged, 1 caster and 1 wildcard" will need that wildcard to be in melee range so that it's possible for a melee to fill it.

[Akiudo]

No it does, because there are ways of designing fights that assume 1 melee, 1 physical ranged, 1 caster and a 4th that can be any of the 3 dps roles, but almost all fight mechanics are built and have been built so that there are 2 melee dps slots and 2 ranged dps slots. These are not cases of mechanics modified so that they can be done with 2 melee; These are mechanics that assume that 2 dps and both tanks will be in melee range of the boss and will get messed up unless a ranged dps in a 1 melee/3 ranged comp acts like a melee. The fights assume that the composition is 2 tanks/2 healers/2 melee/1 ranged/1 caster and often require (sometimes heavily) modified strategies if a different comp is used.

no there are no ways of designing fights with a 1/1/1/+1 role in mind except simply acting it out like the most restricted composition (double melee), at least not if they want to keep using things like "everyone stay in position x" mechanics, as in that case either there are 4 slots in melee range (that can technically be filled by everyone) or every melee combo in existence will get bend over backwards. they literally have to let 4 slots in melee range open for these kind of mechanics unless they want to actively punish you for double melee, that alone proves exactly nothing.

Other things also support that assertation and there is far less evidence, both currently and historically, that single melee/double caster is an acceptable situation and not a anomaly caused by the 5.1 changes that over-corrected the Summoner.

what other things ?


define "other things", just saying "other things" is pretty much an argument in bad faith, it means nothing, while sounding like some all emcompassing big revelation.
either way, let me help you out here for a bit.

1)historical data
2)current balance
3)class distribution
4)design changes


these are (some, i'm sure there are more) things that can point in any direction and give us insight into design intents, as sadly you didn't provide us with more specific info aside from "other things" and the notion that it is both current and historical data that gives us insight into squares design intent i'll have to make due with what i came up with on the top of my head here.

so lets start with

1) historical data-> this is an mmo, its quite normal to change around certain design decisions over time, "historical data" in itself without a point of comparison is quite literally worthless in this case, especially as even if you assume the devs would like to keep the original design intend as the status quo (which before clear prove is simply an assumption) the simple fact is that the sorrounding circumstances simply are vastly different today, the current class distribution (more on that later) for one is simply vastly different than when the game launched.

2) current balance-> why do you say its the over corrected smn thats the problem ? like yea, i'm not saying smn is not overtuned, but why not look at blackmage ? blm is "easy" to balance right in the sense that it offer nothing but damage, if you really want to go the 2/1/1 route than you have to assume square balances the casters against each other, therefore even if they failed miserably at that, intent wise it would mean someone at square though what rdm/smn offered in comparison to blm was at least close to equal.
so tell me, what was it that blackmage offers, and even offered back at shb launch ? it was melee levels of damage. so either blackmage was overpowered from the start of shadowbringers, and didn't get fixed in the slightest since than, or "melee levels of damage" is what square thinks the casters should have before you correct them down somewhat for superior support (read, a rezz), which again if balanced right would mean double caster would be of equal value to double melee.

3) class distribution-> back when the game launched it was quite clearly designed with an overabundance of melees in mind, which in turn got filled by a second melee, that is what we had and made perfect sense back than, it is however not what we have now, edit:as vendalwind righfully pointed out we simply don't know what the next classes will be, my original line here was along the lines of "and its also not what we are moving towards", which made it sound as if i could see the future, either way the rest following is an open statement so it can stand as is, with that being said. yes, maybe we will get 2 melees with the next addon, but what if not ? the simple fact is, when the game launched 2/1/1 made the most sense, in fact smn was a last minute addition, the game was quite literally designed with the goal to take "one of every job", smn threw a wrench in that so obviously the next thing that came out was a melee so double melee (and realistically 2/2, double melee double "ranged) was again the most balanced outcome. since than however we have continiously moved away from that class distribution, at current 1/1/1+1flex simply makes more sense than 2/1/1 given the classes we actually do have, especially as if classes actually had "equal value" which is the goal of balance, not "equal numbers", than the last slot would sort itself out by availabity of classes and players either way.

4) design changes-> that ones a bit iffy as there design changes can happen for a multitude of reasons, and often any given design change doesn't happen just for "reason x" but for "underlying reasons y and z", however it would certainly have been possibly to change up things to actively punish groups for taking 3 ranged (which the game does NOT do).

lets take an historical example and actually compare it to today, during t11 you had to kill adds, one only took magical, one only physical damage, these where clearly designed in a way your 1 caster had about as much to do as your 2 melees+1bard , you could do it with double caster but that meant your melees had to work extra hard on their add while your casters had basically nothing to do. Square could design fights like this, or make it so theres a debuff that allways tethers your 2melee 2ranged except when you break up that formula, or a debuff only hitting melees or ranged instead of "dps" (so by using the "wrong" combo the fight would get harder as you would have to adjust on the fly/certain players would potentially have to deal with an overabundance of mechanics) however they have not done so in ages.or what when people started stacking classes ?(well bards), they invented the lb penalty for dupe classes. when people originally where stacking classes they did something to discourage it. nowadays people run double caster over double melee and they do exactly nothing, if they wanted to make it clear by they expect you to take double melee then why not partially tie lb generation to having double melee ? no i don't think they should do this, but in the past (which is why i say "historical data is useless without comparison points) they readily punished players for taking the wrong class combinations, so why not punish players for doing it wrong now ? at the very least it shows that square is not as strict in how they envisioned class distribution in the past.

your very own argument that square COULD design fights differently should beg the question why they don't, they COULD punish players for taking 3 ranges, yet they don't do it. having a caster sit in the melee spot is not "heavily modifying strategies" on the groups part, if anything its the extra melees that may require that.


edit2: with all that being said, on a personal level i don't really care either way, i would be perfectly accepting of getting at least one new melee and going to a clear 2/1/1 split, in fact as far as i'm concerned they should just merge the phys/casters into the role of ranged, do whatever they need to do so they feel they can give them comparable numbers/support on a level a group would not be punished for taking either over the other and than they can enforce a 2/2 split in any way they see fit, what bothers me however is that people use "it has allways been that way, just look how the game started out" as a reason to either get one role clearly over represented, or , and that actually is important for the question of the thread, shackling down squares future design decisions, because if you really believe 2/1/1 is some god intendet design that should in a just world never be overturned than square simply HAS to next offer a melee, in fact we are lacking 2 right now, the whole "it has allways been that way, of course its intendet" does nothing but force the developers hands in what to develop next, which helps no one.

[Vendalwind]

...

You are over doing it Akuido. this thread is not on this subject. At the end of the day I just personally get tired of ratio distribution that favor caster and ranged getting a new class, when melee have had the least role growth since release. And I believe/have an opinion that suggests one of the new classes (if we get two) will be a melee or a hybrid type melee and the other will be a healer.

I'll say this again which you reinforced already:
"There is no evidence to the contrary. Those that believe otherwise just feel the evidence [supporting two melee slots] isn't convincing." for varying reasons such as your post above.

[Vendalwind]

I will address one point of yours from #3)

it is however not what we have now, and also not what the game is moving towards.

This statement is mildly erroneous. Yes it is not what we have now, but there is no evidence it's not what the game is moving towards when you look at the role:to slot ratios over the course of the game. I've discussed this with you or others before so I'll try to keep it simple. (but it still has to be long to make sense)
Release:
8 party slots, 2melee,2ranged,2tanks,two healers. a slot for each 1:1 ratio, with SMN being kinda an odd cookie connected to SCH. so ranged could be considered 2.5/3. What would keep things as balanced as possible since dps are more commonly played?: +1 melee.
+NIN
3melee,3ranged,2tanks,2healers: dps ratios 3:2 T/H 2:2. Suggested role add? T/H
+AST, DRK, MCH
melee ratio 3:2, Ranged 4:2 T/H 3:2 Suggested role add? Melee again:
+SAM +RDM AND ROLE DIVIDE
now two ratios could be considered for the predictions of the future. AND the melee having two spots is questioned for the first time in stormblood.

With 2 melee spots designated Method 1: melee 4:2, Ranged 5:2, Tank 3:2, Healer: 3:2 With 2 melee spots designated OR Melee 4:2 Caster: 3/2, PhysR 2:2 Tank 3:2, Healer: 3:2
Without: Melee 4:1.5, Ranged 5:2.5 OR Melee 4:1.3, Caster 3:1.3 and ranged 2:1.3

At this point given either model adding a new melee without dividing melee roles as well would be inadvisable because of the T/H ratio. One ratio yields that phys ranged is the most needed alongside tanks and healers. What we get:
+GNB +DNC
Tanks now have the 4:2 Casters and ranged are now equivalent, but one model now slants very much to suggest we need a new melee.
the Melee ratio 4:2 Ranged ratio 6:2 Tank 4:2 Healer 3:2
In this moment to me the most likely thing REGARDLESS of if they subdivide roles it to +Melee +Healer. If melee is subdivided into hybrid melee (which NIN suits well with his ranged adaptability at this point that could be further built on) then adding a new Hybrid melee such as BST makes perfect sense. And adding a new healer makes sense.

In the current meta class to role meta distribution because of caster balancing has role distribution as such:
4:1 melee, 3:2 Caster, 3:1 ranged. This imbalance suggests to me that two melee spots are intended, cause when they are not melee are the hardest spot to get in a group by a distinct margin. where as the flipped ratio favoring melee 4:2, 3:1,3:1 the ratios are more balanced and caster/ranged are in a worse situation equally.

In short the game, by its growth path, is not moving towards a wildcard position. to maintain role to slot balance(considering that data point independent of others) the most healthy thing would be to continue the 2 melee slot style and add another melee+healer. OR to just add a healer next expac and nothing else.

There is no evidence that 2 melee slots is "not what the game is moving towards." because the only piece that could suggest that is only in the current build (not historical, can't establish a pattern) and would have happened as the necessary step before a 5th melee was added regardless.

TLDR: Even if 2 melee spots was the intended design, todays current iteration/role distribution would have occurred in line within that model, so todays current model does not point towards any specific future. In fact the only thing that suggests the 2 melee spot design will no longer be intended is that SMN and BLM both out dps melee classes.