The Devs apparently learned very little from the bad aspects of Eureka.

[Soupa]

I disagree. Relic content isn't supposed to be "hard" by any means, provided you were willing to put forth the time on the grind. It has almost always catered to the low denominators.

I’m going to argue that this optional content is no longer for the lowest denominators. There are alternative ways to to obtain relic with this iteration meaning that, if hydatos is anything to go by, it’ll just make you get to max level while maybe touching around half the content available in there, making it a breeze. The lowest denominator can go prog the alternative “light farming” (as it’s being called right now), they literally have no incentive to touch this now other then doing the bare minimum story for a weapon and maybe some rare items. I’m also willing to bet it’ll be faster to just stay in Bozja and just play the content to complete relic, meaning that people looking to complete it quickly will probably just play the content. Meanwhile people doing the alternative method can work at their own pace. Going off the LL and Personal opinion, Bozja is catered to battle oriented players who are maybe looking for open world group content or the elusive midcore players.

[Amnmaat]

There has to be a good balance. By now they know they can't make this savage-level difficult.
Extreme level difficulty might be ok, but I'm thinking they will go for Thunder god or Eden's verse level of difficulty where you have to learn the mechanics or you wipe if you keep messing up too many times. Extreme lets you make some mistakes but not too many, savage doesn't let you make mistakes.

We'll see, they've been very good at balancing fights in Shadowbringers so I think they've tightened their design philosophy.

[Quintessa]

...........why not just have all 72 have a go at it...........

[Amnmaat]

...........why not just have all 72 have a go at it...........

It's not realistic to expect all 72 to be present or available. Not even in eureka with 100+ players was it realistic that every instance would reach 100+ or that all 100+ would be there for every NM.
If you allow all 72 you'd have to balance it for all 72 or they become what we saw in Eureka with NMs, a boring zerg without well thought out mechanics.

They're learning from watching World of warcraft raids, it's very evident from what I see of Bozja, which is a great thing. What they need to do in my opinion is to have multiple critical missions happening at the same time so people still get a chance to do something; but even if they don't I prefer this to the AFK-Eureka.

[linayar]

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post5392603

The player who did exceptionally well in the Critical Engagement immediately prior will be requested to deploy for the one-on-one battle (you can also choose to not participate). If multiple players are requested to deploy, one of them will be selected at random. These one-on-one battles require skillfully using Lost Actions in reaction to enemy movements and can be quite tough.

So, it looks like it's not about being the overall best, but just meeting certain conditions (like dodging all avoidable AOEs). The game will then select one random player from among those who qualify.

I'm not sure about being able to decline as that could potentially make certain people have bad feelings about you if you accepted and failed (assuming someone else wanted to do it and thought they could've done better). On the other hand, if someone is too nervous to try, being able to pass (I assume to let another try) would be nice.

[gumas]

^i imagine something like hidden objective. so let say there is 10 hidden objective, and the system will filter out those who do less, if the one on the top is more than 1 person i think the system will just choose someone randomly.

iam not sure you can decline the 1v1 event because i think yoshi didnt say anything about it though i also hope you have a choice to decline the 1v1 match if you are happen to be the chosen one.

in general it should be fine and dandy, but if you happen to be losing AND happen to be with the wrong crowd (aka toxic), i can see some bad mouth/whisper spam into whoever lost the 1v1 match which can make thing even worse community wise. at least thats how i imagine it.

[ItMe]

I think having the possibility to decline is good. Some people will want to do the content, but not be up for the 1v1 thing, and I wouldn't want people to shy away from it just because they could get chosen.

[linayar]

iam not sure you can decline the 1v1 event

It's in the quotation:

...requested to deploy for the one-on-one battle (you can also choose to not participate).

[Barraind]

What's the point of having a 430 sync if the gear rewarded is 485+ You don't get the benefit of it.

There really isnt any.

This kind of content, if you're going to ilvl cap it, should be at the max level gear for that expansion.

[TheRealQuah]

Anyone else remember the whole "Portal Sniping" Fiasco from Eureka? Well, get ready for Portal Sniping 2.0.

So you'll have a zone with 72 in it but randomly choose 24-48 of them to participate in a battle that provides bonus rewards and you DON"T think there's going to be animosity or griefing?

Do you not realise you are contradicting your own point. How can there be a "portal sniping" scenario if the 24/48 people chosen are random? How does griefing come into it?

If more than the 24/48 people register for the fight, they get prioritised on how much they have contributed to spawning it. So yes, you can't afk in base and teleport to NM's and get the rewards for it without contributing at all. Makes it seem that's why your so butthurt.

Anything outside of Skirmishes and Critical Assaults seem like a MASSIVE grind just to get a 1/48 chance of getting into a raid group. Then narrow that down even further if you are a tank or healer. This seems like an extremely busted design with very obvious flaws. Do not think for a remote second within the 1st year or two of this being out that you will EVER EVER get to do the 1v1 dual without being on a raid leaders good side. This seems very ripe for RMT boost.

Instead of using the regular mobs as a way to work towards minions or mounts they lock it behind an arbitrary system that makes no sense.

If there's 72 people in and instance and 48 people in a critical engagement, then that's a 48/72 chance of getting into it. Whatever role you play doesn't change any of that in the slightest. How does being friends with a raid leader affect your chances of getting into the 1v1? He said it was based on individual contribution. The rarest stuff is locked behind the hardest to achieve. Is there something wrong with meritocracy in video games?

This system inherently favors playing DPS over Tank or Healer. So if you have 10 healers or tanks farming an area to spawn these encounters then no matter how you do the math a lot of them are getting screwed. The 48 person one sounds rare compared to the 24 man raid so it is even less people out of the 72 in the zone.

The entire system incentives playing DPS over healer or tank plus leaving the instance immediately to reenter another one to try and farm to get picked. Not going to go near this content probably for the 1st month until the issues are cleared up because they look pretty obvious right now and poorly thought out.

Imagine farming just to not get picked. People would be extremely salty or even getting sniped by an organized group farming content and selling runs.

Just a big nope.

This whole thread seems like people complaining that they have to contribute to get rewards. I know that might be a radical idea.
Seems like SE have created content that people cannot get carried through and loads of people are getting butthurt over it.