Quote Originally Posted by Schan View Post
I think I understand what you are saying but I have a few questions and a what if:
Why is there this dicotomy of "if fight have positionals then it's limiting the design"?

I'm not a dev and I can't speak for them but we don't know where in the development process considerations for positionals come in but:

What if they design the fight they want, tune it for difficulty (which i would argue is the biggest limiter for fight designs) and at the end they test out for positionals. If positionals are doable they keep the positionals ring. IF they struggle to do positionals then they just ask the devs to implement the no positionals ring on that boss and call it day.

Why do things have to be one or the other?

I'm personally quite happy with the middle ground that we have. some fights have positionals, some fights have no positionals. Everyone wins sometimes instead of some winning all the time.
I think, strictly speaking, if you want a fight to have positionals then it is limiting what you can do with the design.

Of course there's a lot of different opinions on that.
Some people prefer it, some not.

Maybe there are even some Devs that really enjoy the challenge of designing a fight with these restrictions in mind, whereas there might be other Devs that prefer they didn't have to take them into account.

Part of walking the middle ground though is that you're going to get questions, comments, and complaints from either side of the line.

For fights with them, you'll have people who will enjoy it and praise it as much as people who are annoyed about having to deal with them.
Similarly for fights without them, you'll get people who are pleased they don't have to take them into account, and others who are upset that the functionality has essentially been discarded for an entire fight.