New Missaphenchair video makes great point about the direction of job design

[cjbeagle]

You'll be fighting the status quo in either case, and creating a talent system is far more resource intensive than simply unpruning and/or revising skills for increased use-cases and increasing gap between a kit's floor and ceiling (as to be "easy to use, difficult to master").

True, but again, they've already decided not to take that road.

You won't avoid protests of "<X player/class/job/spec/build> that requires more work can produce more than me/my job/my build!!!" regardless.

True, but by removing the subjectivity and the by-player variance from the comparison points, it'd go a long way towards mitigating such complaints.

Better then, to have mostly accessible kits, a few skills among which more casual players just bemoan the complexity of and leave untouched or off their bars than to simply have one's pick of working harder for roughly the same throughput or leaving complexity equally low as, if not lower than, it is now.

Again, this is sidestepping the entire concept - we aren't talking about a few niche skills - we're talking about meaningful changes to how the job plays that either removes or adds complexity on a per-skill basis. If someone loves playing bard, but hates managing dots, having a weaker dot that they never have to refresh is a much more accessible alternative to "just don't use dots then I guess". Likewise, such a player might hate having to manually manage their song rotation - maybe there could be an option where the songs just rotate automatically - 100% uptime, but at the loss of optimizing the right song for the right situation. There are endless examples of how the game could be dumbed-down, and the reason to give them as options is to prevent them from being forced on us as non-options, which is what the trend has been. Your argument is essentially that they can add depth and nuance via good design, and you're right, but that isn't what they've been doing - they've been looking for a happy medium between 2 disparate player groups, and my suggestion is that instead of looking for a middle ground, they could just give both groups options and let players self-select their desired complexity.

[Shurrikhan]

True, but again, they've already decided not to take that road.

They also already long since decided not to take the customization route.

Though leashed slightly for a bit due to player protest, that was the first change Yoshida wanted to make: He immediately removed the "Build your own job" concept that originally anchored the Armory System (and its initial separation of Proficiency Ranks on classes from the player's more general Character Level) in favor of standard jobs whose largest viable choices involved trading out one auxiliary, barely useful utility for another (say, Featherfoot for Keen Flurry).

True, but by removing the subjectivity and the by-player variance from the comparison points, it'd go a long way towards mitigating such complaints.

But this wouldn't mitigate those complaints. No more greatly or uniquely, at any rate.

If one's job/build has a higher skill ceiling for which one can be rewarded, the aforementioned type of player complain of having things expected of them that they don't want to bother with.

If another's job/build has a higher ceiling and therefore outperforms, the aforementioned type of player will complain about either (A) imbalance or (B) that they are expected to switch to a job that would expect of them things they don't want to bother with.

If one's job/build has a higher skill ceiling for which it is not rewarded, a majority of players may well complain about being expected to play a job/build they like less (because its in-practice performance is expected to be higher during progression due to its having greater ease of play despite equal throughput).

Your argument is essentially that they can add depth and nuance via good design, and you're right, but that isn't what they've been doing - they've been looking for a happy medium between 2 disparate player groups, and my suggestion is that instead of looking for a middle ground, they could just give both groups options and let players self-select their desired complexity.

And, again, my concern is simply that such is not any more a middle ground than simply better designing jobs to have a more accessible floor and a higher ceiling. Both will be complained of.

Depth is something the actual battle/job devs have appeared to be against, though it is admittedly difficult to tell where intent ends and miscalculation begins. But builds are something that even Yoshida himself was explicitly against, considering convoluted and foolish, since 1.x.

Again, this is sidestepping the entire concept - we aren't talking about a few niche skills

Agreed. I mentioned the "niche" skills as, after revision in the style of "lower (skill/effort-requirement) floor, higher ceiling", what the most complaintive players could most point fingers at and yell "bloat!" for... simply having not remotely figured out how to utilize them. That would not be the whole of the change, merely the necessary salient thread... that some would inevitably tug on.

If someone loves playing bard, but hates managing dots, having a weaker dot that they never have to refresh is a much more accessible alternative to "just don't use dots then I guess". Likewise, such a player might hate having to manually manage their song rotation - maybe there could be an option where the songs just rotate automatically - 100% uptime, but at the loss of optimizing the right song for the right situation. There are endless examples of how the game could be dumbed-down, and the reason to give them as options is to prevent them from being forced on us as non-options, which is what the trend has been.

A tangent: Of late, one would think of late that all but one part of this would already be addressed by plugins...

I get what you mean. I would perhaps argue, though, if a particular tool is so dispensable from a kit that the job would feel fine and thematic in a build that avoids it entirely... perhaps it ought not to be core and obligatory.

Let's take Bard's DoTs, for example. Though minor (only ~190% of a filler's damage each, reapplied only once per 45s), they will be obligatory and their maintenance (even if not their damage, exactly) core so long as their only resource cost is filler ppgcds. But consider if, say, they consumed Wild Quiver or whatever sort of shared resource. You could then, potentially, flex towards or away from using DoTs. It won't provide for sighs "Oh, thank god, I don't even have a DoT in my Actions & Traits pane," true, but it would allow one to ignore it, keeping it equally (or more) minor contributor for those who'd rather not DoT even while allowing it to be and feel more potent to those who do want to make use of them -- and also actually making DoTs more interesting by way of competing usage.

They're two different approaches. I don't think either is any more likely than to other to be put into practice. I suspect we'll just each end up following/advocating our own preferences in this.

[ThorneDynasty]

It already takes zero effort to play any of the current jobs passably enough to clear normal. Just ignore all optimization then. Hell, ignore your rotation beyond your GCD combo, press cooldowns totally randomly. It doesn't matter if you don't keep dying to encounter mechanics, there are no DPS checks to speak of. How much more simple can you possibly want? Because you aren't actually asking for it to be easier. You are asking not to feel bad for playing worse than players who do put in the effort.

The only thing you can do super wrong as a DPS is using single target attacks in dungeon pulls. That's it. Go play easy.

[cjbeagle]

They're two different approaches. I don't think either is any more likely than to other to be put into practice. I suspect we'll just each end up following/advocating our own preferences in this.

Agree to disagree on a bunch of points guess, but to be clear my preference would be the same as yours - the only reason I'm even suggesting something like this is because the devs aren't doing it. I understand that they chose standardization over "builds", but the biggest reason to do that would be to ensure solid balance between jobs, and having ease vs performance choices within a job doesn't compromise cross-job balance - or really even intra-job balance - the inequalities are intentional and based on a singular variable independent of the rest of the "build", so they'd be trivial to tune. Regardless, it's all moot anyway - not like they're going to implement more player choices one way or the other. Thanks for the volley - I appreciate when people actually reply thoughtfully even when (especially when?) we disagree.

[CelestiCer]

They also already long since decided not to take the customization route.

I would have loved this.

" Ya, but instead of Skill-trees FFXIV has Job swapping" great, less depth and zero choice. I'll take Samurai as example with optional skills/options you could toggle on and off. Examples

• Tenka Goken Circular or Cone ?
• Shoha Cone or Single Target ?
• Guren radius longer or wider hitbox ?
• Want Different Animations for specific skills?
• Or want Classic animations for specific skills?
• Yaten backdash to be further or shorter?
• Shinten potency increased or decreased?
• In exchange for Gyoten potency increased or decreased?
• Gyoten cooldown decrease or its range increased?
• Want potency increased passively on skills? and Kaiten removed?
• Or not? and deal slightly more damage with Kaiten casts?

Entire new skill-tree's? No. Small personalized customizations within a Job. Example, I hate Tenkan Goken Circular AoE update, I prefer to keep Cone. Give me that option. You prefer new Circle? you can choose, win win. Why can't we choose? Why can't summoners choose to summon the eden versions of their summon or Eden instead of Bahamut ( i don't freaking know... btw I play SAM =__=; )

Is every option going to be viable? yes. Optimal? no. Close in performance? if kept simple, yes. BiS skilltree? probably. Just a hint of options and choice.But the direction = Simplicity and it has benefits. Such as

• Optimal Balancing benefit
• Optimal Development benefits
• Optimal less Testing skills needed to be tested
• 1 optimal way to gear jobs
• 1 optimal way to play jobs

But there's no choice.

I cannot pick within a Job on how I want certain skills, I just can't. I am not talking about Midare hitting for 20.000 potency cutting the moon in half from Limsa... no... I mean that we have to accept every change, without option of keeping what we used to have, even tiny things. That's just what it is. And it sucks when an update to your skill(s) or job(s) arrive and you don't like them? but there's no option in that Job to go for. You're stuck with those changes.

[Shurrikhan]

" Ya, but instead of Skill-trees FFXIV has Job swapping" great, less depth and zero choice. I'll take Samurai as example with optional skills/options you could toggle on and off. Examples:

Please forgive me if some of these seem nit-picks, but many of these examples illustrate many of the pitfalls likely within customization at the fine/minute end.

Tenka Goken Circular or Cone ?

Why not just give a skill for each, circular and conal? (You know, for those who'd rather sacrifice range for... well, not really anything of value? Weirder VFX, I guess?)

We could then put the conal one on our hotbars if we want conal. Put the circular on our hotbar if we want circular. Or slot both for all anyone cares.

Shoha Cone or Single Target ?

This ultimately just ends up just having a best choice each for dungeons or raids. Take <AoE option> for <content in which having the AoE option could shave more time than having the ST option>. Otherwise, take <ST option>.

(If done in typical XIV fashion, look forward to going to the inn and spending a consumable each time you want to swap between having an AoE meditation spender or your full ST/raid dps.)

Guren radius longer or wider hitbox ?

Same as above, though at least no one would have (reason) to bother with it.

Want Different Animations for specific skills?

Skill glams could still be done without having builds/gameplay built around them.

Or want Classic animations for specific skills?

Same as above.

Yaten backdash to be further or shorter?

Or... or, find a way to allow us client-side cancel fixed-distance dashes wherever (i.e., at whatever distance) we want.

Shinten potency increased or decreased? In exchange for Gyoten potency increased or decreased?

There are only two truly viable possibilities here: (A) choosing to increase Gyoten's potency is a net damage increase, so it's then obliged to be used on cooldown but at cost to mobility (essentially, your damage decreases whenever you hold Gyoten for mobility) or (B) the Gyoten buff is never worth taking. This is a case where the given "small personalized customization" can be detrimental unless given enough context and weight to actually be appealing, rather than merely "Do I want a complete toolkit, or a smidgen more damage?"

Gyoten cooldown decrease or its range increased?

Not really a relevant choice to any context. Two charges, though, might be.

Want potency increased passively on skills? and Kaiten removed?

Now we're talking. That choice makes sense. Its extensive and impactful enough to feel complete and doesn't outright sacrifice functionality.

_____________

However, that last one is also probably the only one for which talents or talent-like customization make sense. Skill glams need have no connection to it. Nor do AoE shapes. And the remainder end up as either auto-picks (A for dungeons, B for raids) or pointless.

Generally, if you want to include customization beyond mere skill-shaping (the likes of "minor glyphs" in WoW), it's best to do so in a more curated fashion such that the options do not sacrifice functionality (hamstringing any general capacity within the kit) but are also at least decently significant and (self-)fitting changes.

__________

And it sucks when an update to your skill(s) or job(s) arrive and you don't like them? but there's no option in that Job to go for.

The more direct lesson there is to not force unasked for changes of zero benefit upon one's players.

[Raikai]

It’s okay that some jobs aren’t for everyone

I don't like that statement just as blunt. It sucks if you really LOVE a job's aesthetics and fantasy but can't play because the skill floor is too high, let alone the ceiling.

In the ideal world (in my opinion), every job's skill floor should be accessible, with the full potential under a medium to high skill ceiling, and the final rdps being (mostly) dictated by that... Makes sense that a very high skill ceiling is rewarded with better dps, and that's why I like BLM. The actual job is quite simplistic, however I feel that BLM is the hardest job to play because you basically have a separate high skill ceiling for every fight, since your performance is ultimately dependent on knowing when is what.

[xAFROx]

I don't like that statement just as blunt. It sucks if you really LOVE a job's aesthetics and fantasy but can't play because the skill floor is too high, let alone the ceiling.

In the ideal world (in my opinion), every job's skill floor should be accessible, with the full potential under a medium to high skill ceiling, and the final rdps being (mostly) dictated by that... Makes sense that a very high skill ceiling is rewarded with better dps, and that's why I like BLM. The actual job is quite simplistic, however I feel that BLM is the hardest job to play because you basically have a separate high skill ceiling for every fight, since your performance is ultimately dependent on knowing when is what.

Every job's skill floor in this game is already accessible. It's the ceiling that varies and that ceiling is what keeps getting lowered.

BLM is almost an unfair example to use for these types of arguments in the game, though. It's a perfect example of floor and ceiling, but that's because it's never been dumbed down for most of the lifespan It's existed for.

Everything else that might've been in that realm of good design has since been altered, shifted, or straight up simplified beyond the scope it had that it's just a shell of it's former self.

SMN and MCH being good dps examples of a job being different. Tanks and Healers being great examples of the floor and ceiling being smashed together until there's just a flat plateau.

Everyone saying there's too much complexity in the game just comes off as not trying enough in my eyes. A game is meant to be played actively. Not passively. If there's no effort, then of course it's not going to go well. I don't mean to meme, but in all honesty all the folks complaining if they really--and I mean Really, want to play the game well, PRACTICE.

Otherwise, as others have pointed out, you can get through 90% of content doing the bare minimum already. That right there is your lowered floor. The bare minimum to succeed. The ceiling is trying to put in effort to do better. Stop asking for that to be lowered with these simplifications.

[xAFROx]

Oh I think I might've misread some of your post... that came off as really angey/annoyed, sorry.

[Jirah]

It already takes zero effort to play any of the current jobs passably enough to clear normal. Just ignore all optimization then. Hell, ignore your rotation beyond your GCD combo, press cooldowns totally randomly. It doesn't matter if you don't keep dying to encounter mechanics, there are no DPS checks to speak of. How much more simple can you possibly want? Because you aren't actually asking for it to be easier. You are asking not to feel bad for playing worse than players who do put in the effort.

The only thing you can do super wrong as a DPS is using single target attacks in dungeon pulls. That's it. Go play easy.

This is 110% true, spammed nothing but 1 button in content, never got called out for it. It’s worse with healers thanks to how broken tanks like warrior are and still remain broken