Future Machinist Rework

[CKNovel]

I don't like the idea of just discounting certain content where it's applicable. You're discounting Eureka content, early Deep Dungeon(if not further if the party is strong enough), Dungeons, and Treasure Maps among some others. This is a personal thing of course with what you've presented your MCH experience in, but keeping everything else open in mind is key here.

Pokemon is a whole other game so I don't really bring that into here, it's a knowledge thing sure but it's still a distinct change between single target and AoE-ing.

Damage is sort of the name of the game though, whether it's bursting down multiple enemies or trying to take down one enemy in particular. Again though, there is the idea of bringing the Vuln Up back but on top of the rest of the changes in the document and considering how weird SE gets with raid buffs in general, I can't say it would come back for sure. Sure there could be other effects like barriers or just being a reprisal of sorts, but then Rook would need something else as well. The current method would at least keep it simple as a first rework.

The problem is not my experience, it's that the scenario is very likely to happen. And it's not normal to have that many buttons unused in a lot of content.
Eureka is lv70, so Bio Blaster will be cut, same for deep dungeons.

I used Pokemon to compare the thought process, I can do the same with many other games. Persona 5, find the weakness and keep hitting it. Octopath traveler, find the weakpoint and spam it. I'm not comparing the games, I'm comparing the thought process behind choosing between rook and bishop. A basic "If/Else" thought process is not interesting nor engaging.
That's the point I'm trying to explain. An engaging choice is one with different outcomes and possibilities.

"Damage is sort of the name of the game" and that's the exact reason why you shouldn't tie the decision making with damage. You would give in to the easy solution and design, but also reinforce it.

[MikoRemi]

The problem is not my experience, it's that the scenario is very likely to happen. And it's not normal to have that many buttons unused in a lot of content.
Eureka is lv70, so Bio Blaster will be cut, same for deep dungeons.

I used Pokemon to compare the thought process, I can do the same with many other games. Persona 5, find the weakness and keep hitting it. Octopath traveler, find the weakpoint and spam it. I'm not comparing the games, I'm comparing the thought process behind choosing between rook and bishop. A basic "If/Else" thought process is not interesting nor engaging.
That's the point I'm trying to explain. An engaging choice is one with different outcomes and possibilities.

"Damage is sort of the name of the game" and that's the exact reason why you shouldn't tie the decision making with damage. You would give in to the easy solution and design, but also reinforce it.

If you remember from the rework document, Bioblaster would be put at 60. That would be the ideal placement to make it viable for both. I would still say overall AoE buttons are used frequently. As frequently as single target depends on what you're doing, but there is time for AoE and time for single target. I still can't agree honestly in removing AoE just because it's not used in bossing content.

I suppose so, but the turrets are in a tricky role because any other debuff is tricky to add with the current SE thought process even if personally I wouldn't mind the Vuln Up from before returning to make Battery super powered. Beyond that though, I did already put in that if Rook/Queen got AoE as part of the attacks, fair enough I suppose but I still pine for the Rook and Bishop combo really.

It's already been reinforced since long ago. Healers are expected to do damage as much as they heal. Tanks are expected to do damage as much as they tank. DPS are expected to double down on damage. It hasn't changed for years, and honestly it shouldn't. How damage is applied is one thing, but at the end of the day, damage is kind of expected as an end goal for damage skills.

[CKNovel]

I suppose so, but the turrets are in a tricky role because any other debuff is tricky to add with the current SE thought process even if personally I wouldn't mind the Vuln Up from before returning to make Battery super powered. Beyond that though, I did already put in that if Rook/Queen got AoE as part of the attacks, fair enough I suppose but I still pine for the Rook and Bishop combo really.

It's already been reinforced since long ago. Healers are expected to do damage as much as they heal. Tanks are expected to do damage as much as they tank. DPS are expected to double down on damage. It hasn't changed for years, and honestly it shouldn't. How damage is applied is one thing, but at the end of the day, damage is kind of expected as an end goal for damage skills.

You must think outside the "damage" box. And that's the utility territory. Many good abilities had "meme" side effect but turned out to be extremely strong.

For the sake of simplicity, let's go with this rule:
Rook and Bishop deals same damage except Bishop is AoE with a fall off.

Example 1:
When the rook attacks, it also grants a strong 30s shield to the target's target.
When the bishop attacks, it grants a smaller 30s shield to allies around.

With this case, your fight knowledge will help the team survival.

Example 2:
Rook grants close allies bonus movement speed.
Bishop grants allies running towards it movement speed.

There are many cases where you would consider one or another.
Movement speed is strong, Expedient proved that.

You can give turrets many "bonus" effect, you will play your turret for damage, but no one would turn down extra bonuses, especially during every 60s windows.

Thought, In my fair opinion, if Bishop is back I would prefer if it was just a cooldown and Bishop would shield allies around it.

[MikoRemi]

You must think outside the "damage" box. And that's the utility territory. Many good abilities had "meme" side effect but turned out to be extremely strong.

For the sake of simplicity, let's go with this rule:
Rook and Bishop deals same damage except Bishop is AoE with a fall off.

Example 1:
When the rook attacks, it also grants a strong 30s shield to the target's target.
When the bishop attacks, it grants a smaller 30s shield to allies around.

With this case, your fight knowledge will help the team survival.

Example 2:
Rook grants close allies bonus movement speed.
Bishop grants allies running towards it movement speed.

There are many cases where you would consider one or another.
Movement speed is strong, Expedient proved that.

You can give turrets many "bonus" effect, you will play your turret for damage, but no one would turn down extra bonuses, especially during every 60s windows.

Thought, In my fair opinion, if Bishop is back I would prefer if it was just a cooldown and Bishop would shield allies around it.

It is an angle to take yes, although it does become closer in support to the other Physical Ranged which could potentially make the damage output lower as a result. It certainly is an interesting path to take and doesn’t make things overly complicated admittedly although I am still trying to make sure Machinist comes as the big damage dealer…just a fair one.

This still does mean Bishop returns as the AoE turret though which was already the proposed idea. I mostly just kept the support effects off just in case but if it wouldn’t change much I’d take whatever buff is given since it’s welcome. Just have to be a little careful not to be overly strong in support and end up dunking on Bard and Dancer too hard. That’s my only real concern. If Bishop returned as a cooldown then the support effect would have to be considered for that instance too, although at that point it just sounds like an animation replacement for Tactician or Peloton.

[CKNovel]

It is an angle to take yes, although it does become closer in support to the other Physical Ranged which could potentially make the damage output lower as a result. It certainly is an interesting path to take and doesn’t make things overly complicated admittedly although I am still trying to make sure Machinist comes as the big damage dealer…just a fair one.

This still does mean Bishop returns as the AoE turret though which was already the proposed idea. I mostly just kept the support effects off just in case but if it wouldn’t change much I’d take whatever buff is given since it’s welcome. Just have to be a little careful not to be overly strong in support and end up dunking on Bard and Dancer too hard. That’s my only real concern. If Bishop returned as a cooldown then the support effect would have to be considered for that instance too, although at that point it just sounds like an animation replacement for Tactician or Peloton.

Dancer is supposed to be the big support and remains higher than MCH.
RDM also has stronger res and Magick Barrier on top of Addle but is higher than SMN.
Support = Less damage isn't true.

I think you missread me. In what examples I provided, Bishop and Rook have both the same DPS output on a single target.
Only their side bonuses changes, meaning in AoE situation you would always consider Bishop, but in Single Target situations, there is a small additional layer to think about.
Your DPS will not suffer if you make the bad decision but your team will appreciate it.

[MikoRemi]

Dancer is supposed to be the big support and remains higher than MCH.
RDM also has stronger res and Magick Barrier on top of Addle but is higher than SMN.
Support = Less damage isn't true.

I think you missread me. In what examples I provided, Bishop and Rook have both the same DPS output on a single target.
Only their side bonuses changes, meaning in AoE situation you would always consider Bishop, but in Single Target situations, there is a small additional layer to think about.
Your DPS will not suffer if you make the bad decision but your team will appreciate it.

And that's an issue with the balancing. Summoner and Dancer are supports yes but you have to account for how much simpler they are than the alternatives(namely Red Mage and Bard). The whacky balancing is a whole other issue versus the intent. Generally it's usually the simpler the class and the more support they have, the weaker they'll be. If it's a complex class with slight support(Reaper/Monk), it'll still be higher. If it's a high support and complex...well we saw that with Summoner going super high up in the charts and that wasn't exactly the intention given how it had to be changed over and over again. That's why the innate lack of support on Black Mage and Samurai is what is supposed to shoot either of them to the highest or second highest DPS, lack of support. Of course given how weird the balancing is between the jobs now...well it leads to this sort of thing where Red Mage is somehow quite powerful nowadays for what it is when it used to be the weakest in Stormblood because of how overly powerful the support kit was.

Oh I see. I suppose it could work but at that point that's changing the turrets and the upgrades entirely. I guess it wouldn't hurt too much though so I'll just say it's a side path that I don't mind if it goes that way. Whether it's keeping it simple like the old days but keeping the upgrade with the automatons in mind, or changing the turrets elsewhere, it's at least something.