Future Machinist Rework

[MikoRemi]

I'm all for more turret choice, but a shallow AoE | ST distinction as per the old Rook and Bishop... is not that.

What would your suggestion be instead of an AoE then? The single will remain either way, but I'm curious as to what else would come in the place. Bishop is mainly also an easier thing to bring back versus creating something from scratch but also it just makes the most sense like Heat Blast and Auto Crossbow.

[Shurrikhan]

What would your suggestion be instead of an AoE then? The single will remain either way, but I'm curious as to what else would come in the place. Bishop is mainly also an easier thing to bring back versus creating something from scratch but also it just makes the most sense like Heat Blast and Auto Crossbow.

I don't think a mere ST | AoE distinction makes much sense in any form. So long as this game continues never to give reason to sacrifice total damage dealt for focus damage, there is only ever a reason to perhaps have AoE / ST choices as separate (conditional) abilities, not separate buttons, but that conditionality (pre-check for more than X enemies in the AoE's path; else, use ST form) can't apply to a persisting unit like Auto-Turrets.

By themselves, the choice in turret will be largely meaningless, so it will need a larger context. Consider, for instance, branching macrorotations (the per-60, -90, or -120 second sequences of events for, and in deliberately ramping up to, burst phases). Each Auto-Turret (among Rook and Bishop) would have a couple skills (active and immediate but without any Machinist animation, as not to take up weave space). Rook's skills would synergize with the components of one branch, slightly preferable under certain conditions, and Bishop's with another branch, slightly preferable under other raid-CD or fight-timing conditions or proc frequencies. Then, finally, you have a reason for that choice to exist. (Well, beyond checking if you can count to 3 (and perhaps, in a rare moment of tremendous complexity, whether it's worth the oGCD weave space to swap to the superior choice, given mob count being greater than or less than 3.)

That's not some verbose way of saying we shouldn't have a choice in turret type. Rather, current MCH is just so barebone/braindead/shallow/whatever-your-preferred-jargon-may-be that increasing complexity in any new/(re)added part, if you want actual synergy therein, can't be done in isolation.

Imagine, for instance, if you brought back procs so that MCH could again have an actual functionality-based (not merely a tactile or depth-feigning) reason for taking up 3 buttons with its combo. Imagine if Rook Auto-turret had Tracer Rounds, which would increase or even guarantee proc chances. Imagine if Wildfire were a function of Bishop Auto-turret and it went back to scaling with (at least, weaponskill) potency dealt instead of just granting flat value per GCD hit, such that you'd want procs ready for it. Maybe give it some splash damage, too. You'd be best off having resources fully ready to spend on your burst in Bishop (especially if there's newly arrived or soon to arrive AoE potential) AND procs, but you'd still be better of spending some resource on Bishop to prep procs before your Wildfire refreshes. That complexity would be barely a drop in a presently empty bucket, but it'd be a start.

Give those Auto-turrets a second ability each. Maybe still keep Automaton Queen around, but with some active abilities this time around so it's not just a glorified DoT. Hell, maybe tie the whole lot of them, over time and per active ability, to the MP so that bar doesn't remain a waste. Give us an actual reason to use flamethrower. Bring back the turret overrides. Allow us to optionally drop our range or hypermobility --and with it, our "PhyRanged tax" via an actual Chainsaw or an Anti-Tank Rifle toggle, such that, as a pure DPS, our damage and complexity can both rival (the latter, likely exceed) a BLM's. Then we'd be talking. We'd have an actual Machinist.

[CKNovel]

What would your suggestion be instead of an AoE then? The single will remain either way, but I'm curious as to what else would come in the place. Bishop is mainly also an easier thing to bring back versus creating something from scratch but also it just makes the most sense like Heat Blast and Auto Crossbow.

I queue into dungeon as a tank for the most part.
I've played MCH in r24, r8 and Extreme. It's over 3/4 of the current content. But I haven't pressed Auto cross bow a single time in this 3/4 of content. And so far I know it would be the case in Ultimate.
Therefore I wouldn't press Bishop in these content either.

And even if all of these content had phases with 3+ targets, it's not an engaging mechanic to "Press X if 2 target, Else press Y".
Do you think it's engaging pressing a water move against a fire Pokemon instead of a grass move? No, you just apply knowledge.

The solution is very simple:
Don't tie the decision making with damage.

[MikoRemi]

@Shurrikhan
I suppose I would have to see it in action but it certainly sounds like it makes things a bit complicated but maybe it'd make sense if I saw it normally. It does sound like needing to remember multiple rotations for single targeting alone however so it does make it a bit much.

It does sound like Rook though is the least useful of the turrets at least from what I'm seeing as Bishop would just become a more powerful Wildfire which is concerning. I know procs are something that are more reserved for Dancer and Bard though as Machinist being more consistent would keep it stable, the days of Reload catridges made for some frustrations even with them being around often so having them present again isn't quite the route to go.

I do like the idea of the MP bar being used, but at that point the Battery gauge is just there. I personally prefer the idea of "Aetherial Catridges" where you use MP to boost your base GCD's so that it's a nice buff for a time but still gives some time to recharge since we don't have a way to regain MP all that swiftly, but I mostly shelved that idea.

I don't necessarily want to discount the turret changes but it's a bit uncomfortable of an idea with having to learn macrorotations for a job that while being the most difficult of the Physical Ranged, is not trying to go too heavy with difficulty and also trying NOT to exceed Black Mage's damage. I want to aim for slightly above Reaper to keep it fair and also keep the difficulty in the mid range, if anything needed to up in difficulty to be around BLM damage, it should be BLM itself or Samurai. Flamethrower being fixed is part of my document so there's that as well. As for the Physical Ranged tax, Blast Charge makes up for that as is but I don't want to discount the rest of the kit to just be a glorified melee. It's a bit of a worrisome path with this sort of rework in my opinion.

The idea of the new "Wildfire" effect scaling off of weaponskill potency is also a bit much, I mostly want to keep that in the PVP route where anything can trigger it and it will do damage. At most, the finisher should be able to be affected by raid buffs and such. Not to discount the idea entirely as it would certainly boost the damage but potentially limit some freedoms with having to save everything for that big burst, it gives me a bit of the Stormblood flashbacks. If anything that particular post just sounds like bringing back Stormblood Machinist...which as much as I like Stormblood, that Machinist rotation was definitely not desirable.

[MikoRemi]

I queue into dungeon as a tank for the most part.
I've played MCH in r24, r8 and Extreme. It's over 3/4 of the current content. But I haven't pressed Auto cross bow a single time in this 3/4 of content. And so far I know it would be the case in Ultimate.
Therefore I wouldn't press Bishop in these content either.

And even if all of these content had phases with 3+ targets, it's not an engaging mechanic to "Press X if 2 target, Else press Y".
Do you think it's engaging pressing a water move against a fire Pokemon instead of a grass move? No, you just apply knowledge.

The solution is very simple:
Don't tie the decision making with damage.

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.

[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.

[Shurrikhan]

It does sound like Rook though is the least useful of the turrets at least from what I'm seeing as Bishop would just become a more powerful Wildfire which is concerning.

In the example given above, it'd have access to, as one of its two skills (or as its Overload), Wildfire, but as implied by the latter's "refreshing," it'd be a CD still. You wouldn't just stay in Wildfire, and therefore Bishop, forever. You'd just force a bit of forethought/preemptive action, as you'd want to be done with Rook by the time Bishop came up.

I know procs are something that are more reserved for Dancer and Bard though as Machinist being more consistent would keep it stable, the days of Reload cartridges made for some frustrations even with them being around often so having them present again isn't quite the route to go.

Okay, so we need to back up a bit. MCH was, from its conception, THE proc job. Each skill in the combo (previously not a combo) had a 50% chance to unlock the next. And I fully disagree that just because a few people couldn't handle ammo that the gameplay would be inferior to the mindless 1-2-3 (or, for any plugin player, 1-1-1) spam we have now.

a job that while being the most difficult of the Physical Ranged

Oh, damn. Wow. That's a good one. Well played. Get me a second to clean my drink off my desk.

The idea of the new "Wildfire" effect scaling off of weaponskill potency is also a bit much

That's not a new idea. By the end of the duration, that'll have acted like literally any other standard damage buff (save that this one would affect only GCD damage). And it's the way Wildfire worked for half its lifetime.

it gives me a bit of the Stormblood flashbacks

Honestly... fine. That'd be preferable to the current direction of MCH. (Though, I don't see how a Wildfire that affected only by weaponskills would force nearly as much in-window rush or finnickyness as Stormblood's version.)

[MikoRemi]

@Shurrikhan
I suppose so, it still seems like quite the turret though even then.

I'm aware of how it was in Stormblood, the idea though is Bard has the procs through songs and Dancer has the chance of unlocking the rest. Having Machinist be the more static one is fine, albeit needing to be careful not to get fully back to the clunkiness of the full Stormblood rotation. I never really mentioned ammo being the thing that made it inferior although it was just part of the whole.

The sarcasm truly helps me get into your post more, very much so. I would be more inclined to listen without it. However yes, Machinist being the harder of the Physical Ranged isn't hyperbole, Bard isn't all that difficult even in the olden times with song management, and Dancer needs no explanation.

The thing is it essentially forces you to save everything for that one duration, and having any miss in that window whether something jumps away or happens to die is simply disheartening. Just because that's how it worked for half the lifetime doesn't always mean it has to go back there. All we need now is for the general potency to go much much higher overall, but still apply the same potency regardless, which again the PVP method is a good showcase on having a nice burst. If they happened to give it the weaponskill boost, it has the potential to mess with the freedom of the proposed rework.

The current direction of Machinist isn't ideal because it's the extreme of being overly simple while not meeting where it should be. I remember doing that old opener and rotation back in the day though and it was very much painful. Yes, I could do it consistently, but if it wasn't the damage being sad even then, it was also painful whenever even one thing happened to deviate, which is a common thing in any fight. My direction is to keep the class mostly freeform but have the player needing to think twice when using their filler move, and giving back some of the lost utility.

[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.