Red Mage: Potential adjustments

[Shurrikhan]

Fracture may have been a boon for MNK, but was a waste of a GCD for the class that learned it (MRD/WAR), which is what I was getting at.

It was a potency gain at 4-5 stacks of Deliverance, even at 3. Yes, they should have buffed it further with its MRD-specific trait, but the way it was used was far from a "waste of a GCD".

So this is where you lose me. Fun is a subjective thing, and I consider it a cowardly way to try to justify a design (hence why I've taken umbrage with WoW's devs when they made changes to classes under the guise of "fun", as said changes often turn out to be anything but).

Fun tends to apply from more-or-less objective factors, though, such as the average attractiveness of a job's skills executed and/or relevant to the chosen content. Such tends to increase with intuitiveness, cohesion, and sense of decision-making, and decreases with the opposite. "Traps", especially, fair poorly in perceived quality, whether that be in the skill's use whatsoever, or in likely pitfalls in relying on a particular skill.

To me, I cannot expect that there is anything inherently good about "same as normal, except it delayed and following a different pacing".

Such would not be intuitive (especially in that one's sense of time heavily forms around the GCD, which is far from a consistent 3-second server tick), would not -- especially if a frequently used or "maintained" skill, rather than one leveraged for its less direct effects, such as mobility or banking -- likely add to decision making. And while it's not necessarily incohesive, exactly, such is more likely than it feeling cohesive. Worse, the opportunities for it to feel like a "trap" if tightly leveraged (and if one's not doing so, then, it adds even less to the experience) seem like they'd be pretty significant.

And if fun isn't ultimately the goal, then, what's the point of one's game?

Neither is a sure thing, and to count on it is basically counting your chickens before they hatch.

Honestly, this smacks of "Stop saying the job's underpowered or likely to be clunky just because of its simmed performance and playflow. We won't know until we actually play it." Meanwhile, every time such complaints have surfaced from pre-patch notes, they've been echoed by the larger community almost verbatim with the job's actual release.

Wouldn't the existence of this hypothetical DoT change how people approach Manafication? I mean in that context, instead of waiting to hit 47-49 mana, there's a chance players would adjust to lower numbers like 43-45 to account for the passively generated mana. At least that what I think would happen.

Yes, it'd add resource per minute, but so too would increasing any other, less finnicky, source of Mana generation.

And imagine accidentally hitting (would-be Enchanted) Redoublement .2 seconds before your last per-3-seconds MP tick... Or, heck, just the awkwardness of having to wait for the DoT tick before you finish said combo.

[Duelle]

It was a potency gain at 4-5 stacks of Deliverance, even at 3. Yes, they should have buffed it further with its MRD-specific trait, but the way it was used was far from a "waste of a GCD".

Was this a conclusion reached retroactively? Pretty much everything I saw at the time pointed to not bother with Fracture and just use your GCDs on combo skills for stacks.

Such tends to increase with intuitiveness, cohesion, and sense of decision-making, and decreases with the opposite.

You're attaching metrics like cohesion and intuitiveness to something subjective like fun, which is something I have a problem with. Cohesion and (to a degree) intuitiveness can be measured because a design might end up being clunky (lack of cohesion) or make little sense at a glance (lack of intuitiveness in the design). Both of these are things you can (and should) design for. Fun, on the other hand, isn't because it is a highly subjective thing. You can have the most cohesive design in the world and still end up with something that won't be fun to a player.

To me, I cannot expect that there is anything inherently good about "same as normal, except it delayed and following a different pacing".

Which is a fair sentiment. Saying the hypothetical DoT would delay resource generation is a strong argument against it, or at least enough to prompt the suggestion be taken back to the drawing table.

Honestly, this smacks of "Stop saying the job's underpowered or likely to be clunky just because of its simmed performance and playflow. We won't know until we actually play it." Meanwhile, every time such complaints have surfaced from pre-patch notes, they've been echoed by the larger community almost verbatim with the job's actual release.

That's a stretch. Despite my not being a fan of sims (or designing classes to the point the only way to gauge performance or determine gear upgrades is to sim), even I can't deny that sims are based on numbers (inherently objective values) and whatever the design brings to the table. That's a far, far cry from using "fun" as an argument for or against something.

I guess the overall point is that one should design for cohesion and intuitiveness. Worrying about whether a mechanic or skill is "fun" doesn't help in the long run because it's not something you can really design around, much less predict from your playerbase.

[Shurrikhan]

Was this a conclusion reached retroactively? Pretty much everything I saw at the time pointed to not bother with Fracture and just use your GCDs on combo skills for stacks.

No, that was common knowledge among most Warriors I met doing Extreme Trials or higher.

You're attaching metrics like cohesion and intuitiveness to something subjective like fun, which is something I have a problem with.

Then you're effectively barring any meaningful discussion of good design. If aspects like cohesion, readability, intuitiveness, etc., cannot actually connect to whether a design is, on the whole, enjoyable, then they become worthless. There is no other point, ultimately, to design in a video game than for it to be enjoyable -- to be fun.

Saying the hypothetical DoT would delay resource generation is a strong argument against it, or at least enough to prompt the suggestion be taken back to the drawing table.

Honestly, that's one of the few things about it that would be nuetral. After all, every builder-spender system is merely a way to delay throughput. That RDM uses spendable Mana at all, instead of merely strapping a CD onto its melee combo (or, say, 4 charges each consumable by any GCD of the melee combo or Moulinet) is deliberately delaying a vital, iconic part of RDM's playflow.

That's a far, far cry from using "fun" as an argument for or against something.

I'm not pretending to know whether it will, for each person, be fun or not. But we absolutely can guess reasonably at likelihoods, based on what has been well or poorly received both generally and in this game.

Have you met anyone who actually enjoyed getting stuck (seemingly at random or otherwise outside of their control) with a full 2.99-second wait before their first Umbral Ice MP tick, back before Ice spells were made free during AF3 via the Aspect Mastery trait (lv.72)? That is very, very similar to what your MP-ticking DoT would likely cause, in that it uses a separate server tick that therefore does not scale with the GCD (and thereby punishes Spell Speed even more than usual), frequently forcing one among (A) a 3rd-party tracker and specific delays, (B) less-than-optimal play to stay safe, or (C) throughput per rotational string badly skewed any which way by issues of sync that felt outside the player's control.

Look at what people say they like about RDM in practice. Look at what they say they like about it conceptually. Does reliance on server-ticks to milk a maintenance skill align with any of those points of favor? If so, then it may be worth the effort of polishing to get around its likely issues. If not, though...

Worrying about whether a mechanic or skill is "fun" doesn't help in the long run because it's not something you can really design around, much less predict from your playerbase.

I fully disagree. You both can and should predict as much to a worthwhile degree, and both can and should design towards what will more likely be fun.

While you cannot judge the result for any particular individual, you can make reasonable predictions for large enough groups, especially among those with preferences in common. To simply throw your hands into the air and toss random mechanics into the mix, without proportionate regard for the aspects likely to contribute to their users enjoyment, because it "can't be predicted" is merely preemptive failure. It's a shit excuse that acts merely to let developers less understand their players or their designs produced.

[Duelle]

Then you're effectively barring any meaningful discussion of good design. If aspects like cohesion, readability, intuitiveness, etc., cannot actually connect to whether a design is, on the whole, enjoyable, then they become worthless.

A system can be recognized as out of place without having to factor anything other than the elements that compose said design. This is how you notice something feels clunky or doesn't fit in with other gameplay elements and/or the rotation.

That is very, very similar to what your MP-ticking DoT would likely cause, in that it uses a separate server tick that therefore does not scale with the GCD (and thereby punishes Spell Speed even more than usual), frequently forcing one among (A) a 3rd-party tracker and specific delays, (B) less-than-optimal play to stay safe, or (C) throughput per rotational string badly skewed any which way by issues of sync that felt outside the player's control.

Fair enough. I hadn't considered getting stuck waiting for server ticks the way BLM used to wait for Umbral Ice ticks.

I fully disagree. You both can and should predict as much to a worthwhile degree, and both can and should design towards what will more likely be fun.

Since we're disagreeing with each other, I'll share a bit of my thought process with you in hopes of showing you where I'm coming from. When I put any of my designs together, I never ask myself if something will be "fun" because, as I said, fun is a subjective thing. This is what I ask myself:

1) What's the concept of the job I'm trying to build?
2) Are there any precedents to how this class has been implemented?
3) Are there any solid foundations that can be used as a starting point?
3a) Are there any ideas/mechanics from other media/games that can be used as inspiration for this design?
4) How many additional systems (if any) should be attached to the foundation?
5) What do I want the final gameplay to look like?
6) Do the pieces I've picked come together into a cohesive whole?

This has been the thought process for pretty much every writeup I've done here and elsewhere. Do I hope someone will enjoy the design? Definitely. What I don't do is go into these with the mindset that it's going to be fun or that people are gonna love it; that would be delusional at worst and limit one's receptiveness to feedback at best. And as you may know, I like receiving feedback.

inb4 "lol you're not a developer so your methods don't matter"

[Shurrikhan]

inb4 "lol you're not a developer so your methods don't matter"[/HB]

Haha, nah. That's a pretty great procedure, so far as I can guess (as I am, likewise, not a developer).

I just tend to add onto it a fair bit more "in practice" stuff:

7) If I were to play this through fights A, B, C, D, E, or F (with these being about as different among serious content as I can imagine, and at least 1 of them adding very new mechanics I'd like to futureproof for)? What would its moment-to-moment decision making be like? What unique affordances might it carry, in practice?
8) Where/what are my major fixtures of attention? How does their prevalence affect what feels particular <job>-like about its playflow?
9) What are some iconic moments likely? How do those, too, influence the apparent "character" of the job as seen through its playflow?
10) What binds, "traps" or notable annoyances might tarnish its resultant playflow?

A system can be recognized as out of place without having to factor anything other than the elements that compose said design. This is how you notice something feels clunky or doesn't fit in with other gameplay elements and/or the rotation.

This is probably down to semantics at this point, but just to clarify....

The way I look at is that you can, but if you take out any respect (as in looking back towards X, or letting X influence your view) for those other areas as you suspect they will proportionately affect player enjoyment, you can easily spend a long time fixing something that won't really matter.

For instance, clunk(iness) sucks regardless, but there's a huge difference between -- to use pre-ShB BLM as example again -- clunk as a threat (chance of being stuck unable to do anything for up to 2.99 seconds) and clunk as something basically unavoidable (or, worse, only faced when optimizing, and with (unlike when you could more or less swap at will between B4 and straight-fire rotations on HW BLM, and could thus plan out when, in a mana tick, your fire rotation would end) little agency in countering the clunk itself, let alone in any engaging sense of said agency.

So, yeah, I'll target those areas of cohesion, identity, etc., separately, too, but I just try to keep in mind what I expect to what extent each is important for the particular thing in question. If big, meaty, deliberate hits is what 90% of players are looking for in a given class, I have to keep that in mind in my improvements towards responsiveness, etc., else the separate factors (responsiveness, cohesion, etc.) might total higher, but I'll have lower engagement overall, at least from my veteran players of that class.

[Gruntler]

Wouldn't the existence of this hypothetical DoT change how people approach Manafication? I mean in that context, instead of waiting to hit 47-49 mana, there's a chance players would adjust to lower numbers like 43-45 to account for the passively generated mana. At least that what I think would happen.

On the topic of fun, this is the opposite of fun. RDM already has a layer of doing 'quick maths' on the go to predict where you'll end up after the next pair of actions. It doesn't need a 'Balance Gauge Over Time' effect on top of that to make that more 'fun.'

I like knowing what my resources are, and how much hitting a button will change that resource, and seeing that resource change.

Having a BGoT will not improve that gameplay. And having a BGoT (something that is not fun) in order to justify the addition of a DoT (which is not fun) sounds like bad design that doesn't fit the flow of the job.

Shirrikhan nails the problem immediately:

Yes, it'd add resource per minute, but so too would increasing any other, less finnicky, source of Mana generation.

And imagine accidentally hitting (would-be Enchanted) Redoublement .2 seconds before your last per-3-seconds MP tick... Or, heck, just the awkwardness of having to wait for the DoT tick before you finish said combo.

To add to this. Whether or not your Redoublement is enchanted is based not only on server ticks but latency, because your client also has to know you're at the right balance guage in order to set up the right ability. So you have Server Ticks AND Latency as issues to contend with! You end up in a situation where you either risk the server tick or you potentially overcap.

This is just begging for 'feelsbad' gameplay. Heavensward Design died with Heavensward, let's not ressurect it, guys!

[Jirah]

RDM are fine with RDM not having any significant changes, they don’t wanna evolve as they think they’re job is as good as it’ll ever be.

[Duelle]

On the topic of fun, this is the opposite of fun. RDM already has a layer of doing 'quick maths' on the go to predict where you'll end up after the next pair of actions. It doesn't need a 'Balance Gauge Over Time' effect on top of that to make that more 'fun.'

And so we bring the subjective back into the discussion instead of discussing changes to the design.

It'd be nice if we could move past nebulous terms and discuss mechanics. If a DoT is a bad idea (aside from trying to use "fun", the fact that it'd slow down mana generation and the issue with server ticks are solid arguments against it), then let's come up with alternatives. I have some in mind, but I'll let someone else make suggestions for this round.

PS: You know what's not fun to me? Seeing the sword & spell hybrid of the FF series spam magic most of the time. Since RDM is currently designed around only swinging its sword once an arbitrary resource milestone is achieved during gameplay (something I hope changes in the future), anything that reduces the number of GCDs spent spamming magic means the part I enjoy will happen more often. Of course, there are some issues that need to be hammered out related to this, on top of addressing how what one finds "fun" may not be "fun" to others. See why trying to use "fun" as an argument leads nowhere?

[Hurlstone]

I think Red Mage is in a good spot honestly. Its fun to play, with a simple rotation but one you need to keep an eye on. I hope, as with all DPS classes, they do not decide to add more blotage to the rotation just for the hell of it.

That said, the one thing I would want is an extra combo to go with AOE. It feels kinda strange, doing our melee combo and then launching our big nukes… yet for AOE, we just get one Spamable attack and thats it. Perhaps they could add in somthing like… doing four Enchanted Moulinet in a row would turn Impact into a much bigger, Shatter-like AOE.

[ICountFrom0]

In RDM's case, just to pick at a few plausible (but not strictly "necessary") openings: expanding Moulinet into a combo (or pseudo-combo), dual-Mana procs or oGCDs to accelerate the main combo without imbalance, or virtually any spell that could fit into our Shortcast-Longcast casting model. All that without having to add a second gauge (and we're one of the few jobs that doesn't have one, or any timers like DoTs or sustained buffs).

Two traits, "lingering winds" and "lingering thunder"

Lingering wind leaves a DOT on the ground where you cast verareo 2
Lingering Thunder leaves a DOT on the targets of Verthunder 2


The Aoe's need a tiny bit of spice, maybe this?

[*]Ancient Magic Mastery basically analagous to Lance Mastery so we can do Enchanted Combo > Verflare > Verholy+ > Scorch, or E.Combo > Verholy > Verflare+ > Scorch. This alone would put us 9~12 mana ahead of where we would be after each of our current combos (21 mana gained, minus the cost of an extra GCD during which we would have cast another spell anyway), plus guarantee both procs.[*]A trait that replaces Veraero II and Verthunder II with Verwater and Verblizzard. For example, casting Veraero II could have a 50% chance to upgrade your next Veraero II to Verwater, dealing higher damage and generating 2 extra mana.[*]A mastery trait that upgrades the single target spells to tier III versions for additional damage.

What if the upgrades only happened while the bar was above 50% So we'd have to pick, do we use the combo NOW, or get a hit or two more in, specially if the upgraded spells have useful bonuses....