DPS jobs lacking utility?

[Gruntler]

I think SE just programmed themselves into a corner with the whole DPS/tank/healer segregation to make the DF work. Classes need to fit a certain role or it doesn't work (looking at you, BLU). Combine that with static boss encounters and of course everything will devolve to number crunching. I'm not disputing that fact. I'm just saying I could see the writing on the wall ever since the system was implemented and I was hoping it wouldn't come to this. ShB brought the worst job changes by far. No job is allowed to stand out and [press button to make damage go up/down] is just no fun to use.

Look, I don't know how else to put this. The game's--in fact the entire subgenre's this game inhabits--core mechanic in combat is to take a bunch of numbers, and add them together, until they exceed a total; and to do this either before a rival set of numbers sums up to exceed a different total, or before a timer expires.

Complaining that every job is based around some combination of adding the numbers that make you win, or subtracting/dividing/avoiding numbers so you don't lose, is like complaining that your first person shooter relies on aiming and pulling the trigger as a mechanic, and that the 'writing is on the wall' the moment they introduced aiming and pulling the trigger.

Things like silences, stuns, heavy, binds, got used this expansion. They don't get used every tier, but they do get used in some form. Utility like rezzes secured world firsts. But utility didn't do so 'despite' the dps meta, they did so because of it, and they work in that frame work, in the same way portable walls and forts, heals, and other forms of utility work in a first person shooter: By interacting with the genre's core mechanics (damage dealt, damage mitigated/undone/avoided, and time).

[Shurrikhan]

Look, I don't know how else to put this. The game's--in fact the entire subgenre's this game inhabits--core mechanic in combat is to take a bunch of numbers, and add them together, until they exceed a total; and to do this either before a rival set of numbers sums up to exceed a different total, or before a timer expires.

Complaining that every job is based around some combination of adding the numbers that make you win, or subtracting/dividing/avoiding numbers so you don't lose, is like complaining that your first person shooter relies on aiming and pulling the trigger as a mechanic, and that the 'writing is on the wall' the moment they introduced aiming and pulling the trigger.

I get where you're coming from, but that isn't quite an apt analogy. There's nothing in an MMORPG that requires that jobs being slotted into mostly homogeneous templates any more than that weapons in an FPS must have distinct and mostly homogeneous sets among SMGs, ARs, LMGs, and Snipers such that the range, damage per bullet, or rate of fire of any one set cannot reach into the span already held by another set. Such, as here, would be a separate and very deliberate decision.

Things like silences, stuns, heavy, binds, got used this expansion. They don't get used every tier, but they do get used in some form. Utility like rezzes secured world firsts. But utility didn't do so 'despite' the dps meta, they did so because of it, and they work in that frame work, in the same way portable walls and forts, heals, and other forms of utility work in a first person shooter: By interacting with the genre's core mechanics (damage dealt, damage mitigated/undone/avoided, and time).

On this, though, 100% agreed.

[ItMe]

I think SE just programmed themselves into a corner with the whole DPS/tank/healer segregation to make the DF work. Classes need to fit a certain role or it doesn't work (looking at you, BLU). Combine that with static boss encounters and of course everything will devolve to number crunching.

In what cases do RPGs never "devolve into number crunching?"
From just it being an RPG "of course everything will devolve into number crunching" as people try and find the strongest strats in a math based system.

And all that aside, I'm not sure I understand both
A.) Why this is bad
B.) Why you seem to posit it is uniquely bad in FF14

I'm not disputing that fact. I'm just saying I could see the writing on the wall ever since the system was implemented and I was hoping it wouldn't come to this. ShB brought the worst job changes by far. No job is allowed to stand out and [press button to make damage go up/down] is just no fun to use.

I don't know man, the trinity LONG predates FF14 and has been used both successfully and poorly for almost, what, 3? 4 decades? I don't see how using it (not even in a particularly extreme way) is an inherently bad idea.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're talking about being disatisfied with the trinity, when your main issue is actually the overemphasis on job balance and a damage centric design philosophy?

[Shurrikhan]

I don't know man, the trinity LONG predates FF14 and has been used both successfully and poorly for almost, what, 3? 4 decades? I don't see how using it (not even in a particularly extreme way) is an inherently bad idea.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're talking about being disatisfied with the trinity, when your main issue is actually the overemphasis on job balance and a damage centric design philosophy?

The two come hand in hand surprisingly often, as, historically and in practice, the designing around a trinity tends to do more to trim modes of available responsibility or engagement than add depth to their interactions. That's neither necessary nor ideal, but that is typically the way things turn out, typically shallowing out the means of engaging with enemies to meatshield-and-enemy-number-drainer, ally-number-pumper-and-enemy-number-drainer, and purer-enemy-number-drainer, across respective Blue, Green, and Red roles.

That's not to say pure "generalist" play tends to be much better. Without any semblance of reliable tanking (which is different from a reliable tank), for instance, it is much harder to situate mechanics like positionals or directed baiting on skills/attacks that don't have precise conditions (like always goes for the furthest or closest player). Similarly, if no one can opt into increased eHP or the like, however temporarily but nonetheless at some cost, there is no point in designing ways to leverage that eHP into "margining" or "traded" exchanges in combat, which can otherwise be incredibly exciting (especially when they're not sustainable in the long-term). That, again, is an extreme, though. Some of the best (most involved, most complex) tanking experiences I've had have been in games without any dedicated tank role. Hell, it's almost felt like the more dedicated the role, the less tanking (in terms of actual gameplay, challenge, decision-making, etc.) is actually involved.

Consider, for instance, two ways of managing Enmity, between a trinity and non-trinity game, respectively.

In the trinity game, the answer is almost always simple: Enmity is simply damage x multiplier, and the multiplier is given (almost always exclusively) to tanks. Thereby, a tank basically performs the exact same gameplay loop as a DPS, but inherently hold threat (or "tanks").

Now consider the options a non-trinity has available to it. The easiest solution is to simply slap on a modifier, as above, which can be generated by stance or buff. Consider, again, though, the needs of a generalist game, especially for solo play, wherein snap mitigation tools are necessary, but enmity-increasing tools are not. As such, the tank stance may or may not provide increased eHP, let alone sustainability (the difference between mere increased max HP and mitigation). In either case, though, that eHP bonus will not likely make those snap mitigation tools unimportant. Therefore, tanking doesn't become the duty of just one person. While one player may be better at controlling the mob and therefore facilitate his team's efforts by holding attention more often than anyone else, everyone will still need to cycle through with their mitigation, whether by stacking split-attack damage, taunting (or, far harder, timing flexible burst damage to draw focus) and baiting or shielding, etc., etc. Largely by necessity, there's just far more involved. Rather than the tank existing so that everyone can mostly play mostly like mere DPS (the healer doesn't have to be particularly preemptive, as opposed to when healing a DPS; the tank doesn't actually have to do any tanking beyond a quick hit per mob, etc.), tanking exists for everyone to enjoyably engage with.

Now, while we might call a given game "trinity-based" or "generalist", in actual practice, it's more a sum of depth and breadth. If there's too little deliberate capacity, it's hard to situate related mechanics and thus depth falls off. But if tanking truly becomes the domain of only one role, thus trimming available gameplay from everyone else, then breadth has been sacrificed.

In WoW's M+, for instance, tanking will tend to feel more like a group effort, and tends therefore to have far more to it (even if we were to ignore the more obvious differences in the amount and depth of active mitigation, the responsiveness of mobs and the lack of absurd auto-attack range, etc., etc.). Members need to track each others' cooldowns, know or be able to predict when they'll be used and to what ends, know the priorities of a fight, and adapt per how they think others will. You'll see this also (at least, above the lower half) in Overwatch, where enmity (or "threat") doesn't rely on a banked number, but instead on a predictive situation and its seemingly viable possibilities. There, tanks are certainly distinct from DPS and Supports, but they're quite distinct from one another, too, and while their max throughput may be lower than DPS, it's precisely because that eHP actually matters (from not being infinitely sustainable) that they can leverage it to often outdamage DPS over a whole round. (And, the wonderful thing there, is that it doesn't make DPS any less valuable, as the dynamics of that damage are still so distinct, let alone the unique utilities provided by a given hero regardless of their role.)

[ItMe]

snip

That was a very long post, so forgive me if I'm summing it up improperly, but... through all that it doesn't sound like you're contesting the notion that a game using the trinity isn't an inherently bad thing.
It sounds like you're primarily asserting that the trinity so solidly separating each role generally leads to less "complex" role expression in gameplay, and this is bad.
You draw a direct link between "complexity" and "good" with statements like this:

Some of the best (most involved, most complex) tanking experiences I've had have been in games without any dedicated tank role.

Outside of the fact that I find trinity = simpler expression is more of a game by game thing and not something that can generally be regarded as true or false, you present less complex expression as a negative. However, along with Payadopa's notion that trinity = a bad sign, I'm also not sure that less complex role expression is an inherently bad thing.
You bring up emnity as an example, however the forums aren't even of one mind on wether or not enmity getting simplified for Shadow Bringers was good/bad or done well/poorly. I, for one, think dealing with enmity is one of the less interesting things a boss can ask you to focus on, and am happy it's been streamlines and 5.x boss design has emphasized other things.
You like complexity. That's ok. I can enjoy it too.. But less complex = less good is too broad and sweeping a notion for me.

Also, is the conversation supposed to be about the trinity then?
Because I'm still reasonably sure that for the person I was responding to the trinity wasn't actually the core of their grievances.
If this is gonna be about the trinity, instead of focusing on wether such a trinity good or bad, or wether any individual prefers a trinity or not, I think the more valuable (and relevant) conversation would be: does FF14 use the trinity well?

(I'm sorry if it seems like I'm just being contrarian tonight)


But as an aside, to cut back to your statement I quoted earlier

Some of the best (most involved, most complex) tanking experiences I've had have been in games without any dedicated tank role.

What games were these if you don't mind my asking~

[Shurrikhan]

That was a very long post, so forgive me if I'm summing it up improperly, but... through all that it doesn't sound like you're contesting the notion that a game using the trinity isn't an inherently bad thing.

My intent was more to show that

• Payadoya isn't wrong to think that there's a correlation between trinity-centric design and shallowed out party play. Historically, there is. More so than in generalist (less trinity-based) games.
• That said, looking at games as trinity-based and non-trinity-based obscures a game's overall potential for engagement, which can be better considered a sum or product of breadth and depth.

You draw a direct link between "complexity" and "good"

That largely comes down to personal preference, though I feel it's a fairly common preference. Note, though, that the choices these days are generally between 'moderately complex' and 'very little complexity' (else I'd have to add "to a point" as disclaimer), and that personally I use the term "convolution" to describe complexity that just adds steps without adding opportunities for engagement.

I guess, to be more clear, I should also mention that the complexity I'm looking for is the kind that most leverages a game's visuals. Think, for instance, of the deliberate and granular decision making possible due to Nioh 2's incredibly precise hitboxes, as compared to chunky/bulky dodges or merely timing I-Frames. Or, in a very basic example pertinent to tanking, mobs' auto-attacks having a seemingly accurate range and their skills checking range at time of (would-be) release instead of via early snapshot, so you can better judge distances for kiting, and all the stringing, microkiting, or kite-cycling you can do as a result, ideally in an environment tuned as to make those feel like distinct and deliberate choices.

[RopeDrink]

Most of the classes have some variations of Stuns, Interrupts, various self-healing (even as full-on DPS), Binds, Slows, group damage reduction, greedy and/or party-wide steroids, give or take some resses (from non-healers), and not even mentioning class-specifics (like card-buffs, closed position, and whathaveyou's).

I believe the crux is less about available utility (of which there is plenty) and more of an expectation that said things be part of some kind of identity, with Role Actions and a lot of the above being accessed by so many roles, watering it down somewhat. As it stands, there is plenty of utility across the board in FFXIV -- it's just that quite a lot of it is homogenized with only a select few outliers compared to, say, WoW, where you're probably an M+ pusher who might want Bloodlust (Sham/Hunt/Mage), Tranq (Druid/Hunt), Combat Res (Druid/DK), various types of CC depending on affixes (RoPeace / Binding for X week), hard CC's like Incap/Blind (etc) along with roots from Mag/Dru (etc) for certain dungeons or boss mechanics, Rogue for shroud skips, Poly/Hex, dispels... The list goes on amongst a wide array of alternating variables (dungeon specifics, affixes, covenants)... All while being mired with constantly spiking meta across every role, worsened by Covenants (such as people who ONLY want Venthyr Holy Paladins as their Healer).

In FFXIV, this is less of a deal as we have a lot less variables to consider and can get on with it. Dungeons don't really have any hard requirements of any description, and there's plenty of room for class flex in trials, so while there absolutely is room to be picky, it's not nearly as demanding or identity tied outside of the trinity, give or take a few exceptions like always wanting a Dancer to pep your No.1 big-deep and provide extras along the way, or a shield-healer and pure-healer combo, or whatever.

[Payadopa]

Look, I don't know how else to put this. The game's--in fact the entire subgenre's this game inhabits--core mechanic in combat is to take a bunch of numbers, and add them together, until they exceed a total; and to do this either before a rival set of numbers sums up to exceed a different total, or before a timer expires.

There is no reason to smart-arse me. You know perfectly well what I meant. If I have two abilities that are exactly the same but one does more damage then who in their right mind wouldn't use that. That facts that it's too clear-cut in XIV is exactly the issue. In encounters there is less reacting (since encounters are static) and more stand where we say when we say it. Rotations are static, encounters are static, (de)buffs do nothing but make numers bigger/smaller, crowd control abilities pretty much don't exist and since SB we now have tank #1 to #4 with different particles. Then there is gearing up (aka chrit till you can't crit anymore).

There is no meaningful decision to be had in such a design. It's either do as we say or don't bother. And the fact that so many here take that design as gospel only proofs my point. When did the game stop being about fun/varied encounters where you need to react and more of a mathematical equation?

The other MMO from SE did a way, way better job at giving you options whereas XIV seems Hells' bend to remove as much as possible at the moment.

[DPZ2]

My intent was more to show that
Payadoya isn't wrong to think that there's a correlation between trinity-centric design and shallowed out party play. Historically, there is. More so than in generalist (less trinity-based) games.

Are we speaking of MMORPG in particular, or games in general here?

I also wouldn't quantify Payadoya's argument as "trinity=shallowed out party play". It's specifically trinity = "No job is allowed to stand out and [press button to make damage go up/down] is just no fun to use."

I don't know which other MMORPG's they've played, but the successful ones tend to make it so 'no job is allowed to stand out' for a reason.

That said, looking at games as trinity-based and non-trinity-based obscures a game's overall potential for engagement, which can be better considered a sum or product of breadth and depth.

What does this mean? I read a lot of buzzwords, but the substance of the sentence is, what exactly?

That largely comes down to personal preference

And here is the heart of the matter. Your further references to kiting bring back memories of being a Hunter in BC. Were the mechanics engaging? Yes. Was that game based on the 'trinity'? Yes.

What successful MMORPGs are out there that do not rely on the Trinity at this time? I know that question was asked before by another poster, but saw no response. You need living examples rather than theorycrafting.

[Vencio]

DPS just stay lazy & pack in punches,

Why else require for more utilities when you have the biggest privilege to hardly worry anything at all & just do damage?