Action condensing options

[Saraide]

And yet when checking many logs of many different players on real content you very often see missed combos. If the 2-3 spaces on your hotbar you free up make or break your setup, then the issue isnt combo buttons taking up multiple spaces, it's that your hotbar setup sucks.

Pointing to it being an option is completely meaningless. Job difficulty and mechanical difficulty is always connected, make one easier and you make the other easier aswell.

[Shurrikhan]

And yet when checking many logs of many different players on real content you very often see missed combos. If the 2-3 spaces on your hotbar you free up make or break your setup, then the issue isnt combo buttons taking up multiple spaces, it's that your hotbar setup sucks.

A setup can be smoother and more intuitive to the point of creating a more enjoyable experience by trimming the 2-7 redundant buttons of each combo step having its own key without that "making or breaking" the setup as a whole. There are more and finer thresholds than just "broken" and "workable".

Job difficulty and mechanical difficulty is always connected, make one easier and you make the other easier aswell.

If we're to call not even having the option to forgo button bloat a worthwhile contribution to "mechanical difficulty", then where does that end?

The same would then apply to anything, even just lack of polish. If the way anything gives something more to manage (to do or not do, however unfun it may be), then that would excuse its cost to polish or other gameplay options.

• This skill is bugged and does less potency that is stated? Well, those who know are rewarded, so that's an extra measure of skill-gap and therefore beneficial.
  
  
• This skill crashes the game? Well, like all but your 1-2 GCDs in combo sequence, don't press it. Those who don't get rewarded. Surely that's worth the extra button.

There are gameplay reasons to keep the option of having each step even of a singular, inflexible decision require its own button, but "mechanical difficulty" ain't it.
Tactile feel? Sure. But pure traps aren't worth spending buttons on.

[Saraide]

A setup can be smoother and more intuitive to the point of creating a more enjoyable experience by trimming the 2-7 redundant buttons of each combo step having its own key without that "making or breaking" the setup as a whole. There are more and finer thresholds than just "broken" and "workable".


If we're to call not even having the option to forgo button bloat a worthwhile contribution to "mechanical difficulty", then where does that end?

The same would then apply to anything, even just lack of polish. If the way anything gives something more to manage (to do or not do, however unfun it may be), then that would excuse its cost to polish or other gameplay options.

• This skill is bugged and does less potency that is stated? Well, those who know are rewarded, so that's an extra measure of skill-gap and therefore beneficial.
  This skill crashes the game? Well, like all but your 1-2 GCDs in combo sequence, don't press it. Those who don't get rewarded. Surely that's worth the extra button.

There are gameplay reasons to keep the option of having each step even of a singular, inflexible decision require its own button, but "mechanical difficulty" ain't it.
Tactile feel? Sure. But pure traps aren't worth spending buttons on.

I'm all for a fine tuned approach of changing jobs, a sledge hammer approach solves nothing. You accuse me of going to extremes but then do it yourself, I suppose we're both guilty of it if we're being honest.

For example I didnt mind the cartridge combo collapse on gunbreaker. Why? Because you already couldnt misclick the combo. As it is on the jobs that have it, combo steps require you to pay attention that would be freed up otherwise. If you look at logs that arent particularly high, combo breaking is happening a lot so it absolutely would change balancing as a whole. Combo collapse isnt a just tiny QoL thing.

I would much prefer for the devs to have a specific vision for each job in mind and then stick to it all the way. There is already the option to not engage with standard combos: it's called playing a job that doesnt use them.

[Shurrikhan]

I'm all for a fine tuned approach of changing jobs, a sledge hammer approach solves nothing. You accuse me of going to extremes but then do it yourself, I suppose we're both guilty of it if we're being honest.

My intention there was to question your specific warrant, not your overall conclusion. Again, my preference is actual combos, as compared to the fake crap we have now.

I'd just sooner give players the option to consolidate them since the existing "combo" system works disproportionately to punish impaired players. Intended or not, that's the primary result, the place where "succeeding" at hitting 12345 actually differs from "failing" at following the yellow-glow road or from being able to hit a single button for a single decision (a single inflexible combo).

But fair enough; I apologize if I overemphasized the slippery slope there by not bounding your warrant nearer to just the difference in our conclusions.

For example I didnt mind the cartridge combo collapse on gunbreaker. Why? Because you already couldnt misclick the combo. As it is on the jobs that have it, combo steps require you to pay attention that would be freed up otherwise. If you look at logs that arent particularly high, combo breaking is happening a lot so it absolutely would change balancing as a whole. Combo collapse isnt a just tiny QoL thing.

Right, but should "I can misclick this" be considered a worthwhile reason to force every player to spend, say, 10 buttons on a mere 3 decisions (DRG) for which there is zero viable use-cases for mixing outside of starting a new combo after having started the wrong one?

7 buttons just for the purpose, if you are correct, of setting traps that will matter almost only to those with impaired dexterity. Is that worthwhile? Is that good design?

Yes, that cost is less on other combo jobs (just 3 for NIN, 4 for SAM), but that is the fundamental design difference at play in terms of "mechanical complexity" for giving or refusing players the option for consolidated combos: trap buttons. That's it.

There is already the option to not engage with standard combos: it's called playing a job that doesnt use them.

Which is why I mostly play Monk, and why I preferred SAM when there was at least some slight reason to have each button separately available (such that one could want to use Shifu or Jinpu during Meikyo, even if only very rarely and after having already messed up somewhere prior).

Likewise, I'd certainly rather see Bard be able to bank Refulgent Arrow / Shadowbite procs than see those consolidated. But there ought to at least some use case for the separate buttons. Especially if we're to frame its being there around "mechanical difficulty" as opposed to just "I like my fingers to move around more" (a very real but entirely subjective point of merit for having separate buttons).

I like the tactile feel, the button-flow, of unconsolidated combos, but I see no reason (as I do not believe mere intentional trap buttons to be good design) to deny a consolidated option to the players who care less about that than a more efficient or (to them) intuitive layout.

[Saraide]

My intention there was to question your specific warrant, not your overall conclusion. Again, my preference is actual combos, as compared to the fake crap we have now.

I'd just sooner give players the option to consolidate them since the existing "combo" system works disproportionately to punish impaired players. Intended or not, that's the primary result, the place where "succeeding" at hitting 12345 actually differs from "failing" at following the yellow-glow road or from being able to hit a single button for a single decision (a single inflexible combo).

But fair enough; I apologize if I overemphasized the slippery slope there by not bounding your warrant nearer to just the difference in our conclusions.



Right, but should "I can misclick this" be considered a worthwhile reason to force every player to spend, say, 10 buttons on a mere 3 decisions (DRG) for which there is zero viable use-cases for mixing outside of starting a new combo after having started the wrong one?

7 buttons just for the purpose, if you are correct, of setting traps that will matter almost only to those with impaired dexterity. Is that worthwhile? Is that good design?

Yes, that cost is less on other combo jobs (just 3 for NIN, 4 for SAM), but that is the fundamental design difference at play in terms of "mechanical complexity" for giving or refusing players the option for consolidated combos: trap buttons. That's it.


Which is why I mostly play Monk, and why I preferred SAM when there was at least some slight reason to have each button separately available (such that one could want to use Shifu or Jinpu during Meikyo, even if only very rarely and after having already messed up somewhere prior).

Likewise, I'd certainly rather see Bard be able to bank Refulgent Arrow / Shadowbite procs than see those consolidated. But there ought to at least some use case for the separate buttons. Especially if we're to frame its being there around "mechanical difficulty" as opposed to just "I like my fingers to move around more" (a very real but entirely subjective point of merit for having separate buttons).

I like the tactile feel, the button-flow, of unconsolidated combos, but I see no reason (as I do not believe mere intentional trap buttons to be good design) to deny a consolidated option to the players who care less about that than a more efficient or (to them) intuitive layout.

It's not just a matter of impaired dexterity, it's in many many cases a matter of lack of attention stemming from not knowing mechanics well enough.

[Shurrikhan]

it's in many many cases a matter of lack of attention stemming from not knowing mechanics well enough.

Then, is that a meaningful fail condition worth forcing anyone and everyone to spend almost a fifth of DRG's native toolkit buttons on?

Is the ability to accidentally hit 132 instead of a 123 worth refusing anyone and everyone the ability to save a 15% of one's job buttons in making sequence-fixed/singular decisions take only a single button slot?

7 buttons, a fifth of a job kit, spent to make sure there's extra punishment if one doesn't follow the lit-up abilities. Is that good design?

[KuroMaboroshi]

If it is 100% optional, is guaranteed to not give an advantage or disadvantage and turned off by default, I don't see how more options hurt anyone.
However, I do have less trust in the programming. For example, many Fighting Games that added block or dash buttons (which is usually done with the D-Pad or equivalent) had those not using these play sub-optimal due to suddenly possible option selects caused by unprecise programming. So unless 100% parity is guaranteed, I'd rather we not take the risk. But assuming it could be achieved, nothing wrong with options.

As for how I personally feel about it: In dungeons and other content that doesn't require me to have a brain to begin with, I'd rather have a more involved rotation cause it is the only thing preventing you from falling asleep right then and there. Meanwhile, in high-end content, being able to minutely manipulate your rotation is usually what optimisation ends up being all about. So I would hate having my abilities condensed, which is why it would be so important to give parity and make it optional only.

Then, is that a meaningful fail condition worth forcing anyone and everyone to spend almost a fifth of DRG's native toolkit buttons on?
[...]
7 buttons, a fifth of a job kit, spent to make sure there's extra punishment if one doesn't follow the lit-up abilities. Is that good design?

To use DRG as an example since it was brought up: Sure, it has some of the longest combos in the game, but that actually gives it the ability to pull some neat optimisation in non-faceroll content. For example, one of the two common TEA openers would abort its combo after a few GCDs in order to be able to place a DoT on the Liquid Hand the moment it appeared. To optimise damage before that, a DRG would do the first half of its DoT combo and then the first half of its non-DoT combo.
All of this kind of makes me wonder whether removing direct access to those buttons altogether, even if optional, would be a good idea, since in that situation people playing with condensed combos would actually be at a disadvantage. The devs would have to come up with some smart system to prevent that from happening.

On a side note, sure, DRG has long combos, but it's not like it suffers from button bloat so I don't think they should tackle that one first.
My setup has multiple Dragon Sight buttons, multiple potion buttons, LB, separate buttons for High Jump and Mirage Dive cause I don't use the new condensation of those, and bring two True Thrusts to separate my combos more neatly and I still have enough empty spaces on my hotbar to cleanly separate different areas on it.
Meanwhile, on AST even with just role actions, LB and a single ress button I have 3 space left, with not potions anywhere in sight. Though I suppose AST doesn't have any combos that could be condensed, other than perhaps draw buttons being rolled into one...

[DixieBellOCE]

And yet when checking many logs of many different players on real content you very often see missed combos. If the 2-3 spaces on your hotbar you free up make or break your setup, then the issue isnt combo buttons taking up multiple spaces, it's that your hotbar setup sucks.

Pointing to it being an option is completely meaningless. Job difficulty and mechanical difficulty is always connected, make one easier and you make the other easier aswell.

Or, like me you have a physical impairment that makes having a large number of keybindings impossible.
having the option to consolidate skill chains would be a major QoL update.