Paladin doesn't suck, 2 minute rotations just ruined combat

[Mikey_R]

I'm sorry, are you actually arguing that executing muscle memory is engagement? For whom? The newest of new players?

Muscle memory still requires thought, and it is not that hard to prove. Going to an extreme case of a 1 button rotation, you can spam that all you want, basically no thought required, add more buttons, and you do have to think about the right order, even if it is muscle memory. Contrary to the name, muscles have no memory, it is still brain power that influences it.

If that were true, there wouldn't be a thousand and one memes about Warriors and Bloodwhetting and Primal Rend. Or the millions of unga bunga MOAR FELL CLEAVER memes in ShB.

If that is what you mean by flashy and big damage moves, well, good news, you have them. If that is all that you required as a LB, that is a really underwhelming expectation. Even my idea of a long cooldown would be more noticeable than that. Infact, when SB was new, people hated the fact Fell Cleave was used more often as it just made Fell Cleave seem less special. The memes of MOAR FELL CLEAVE was started more as a joke to show the absurdity of what Warrior was becoming, but it has just been doubled down on over time, so Warriors now tend to just embrace it. What are Warriors getting? MOAR FELL CLEAVES.

[Shurrikhan]

Muscle memory still requires thought, and it is not that hard to prove. Going to an extreme case of a 1 button rotation, you can spam that all you want, basically no thought required, add more buttons, and you do have to think about the right order, even if it is muscle memory. Contrary to the name, muscles have no memory, it is still brain power that influences it.

While I agree that following a precise plan under strict timing can incur engagement, I'm not sure what you're trying to claim from this analogy.

Unless the game lacks the ability to queue skills, thus forcing precise timing, there's just nothing there in a one-button rotation. Turn that into 1-2-3 instead and it likewise quickly becomes subconscious.


"Muscle memory" does not imply that our muscles themselves are now controlling our movements, but rather than one has become cognizant of tactile and physical cues to the point that within a given process it becomes damn near impossible to lose one's place or to have to think through that whole (or even any significant part of that) process. And yes, 123 will so quickly devolve to that point that unless there are reasons to actually shake up that order --a matter of choice, rather than just execution-- the extra buttons to perform that nonetheless singular action will be almost entirely bloat.


Difficulty of execution in a rotation is dependent upon frequency and depth of decision-making. If there are only a few patterns to execute from, then you're not dealing with some 20 actions so much as, in terms of execution, just those few (though in bloated bundles).

To be very clear here, I'm not suggesting that, say, DRG be simplified into a button each for "standard /double-dot rotation [toggle]," "hold bankable oGCDs [toggle]," "Elusive/early Spineshatter [based on range]," and "Stardiver [before last moment of overlapping buffs]," even if that were all it cognitively comes down to. I'm suggesting jobs should have reason and capability to be more than that, that their patterns for skill execution should be capable of (and, for optimal play, subject to) more variation --while still having significant performance gap between those frequently reshaped decision paths-- so that you actually have a lot more going on. Only at that point will the added keys that amount to execution rather than just overlying stratagem amount to more than a brief-lived barrier, instead allowing for a long-term form of potential engagement.

[Mikey_R]

While I agree that following a precise plan under strict timing can incur engagement, I'm not sure what you're trying to claim from this analogy.

Unless the game lacks the ability to queue skills, thus forcing precise timing, there's just nothing there in a one-button rotation. Turn that into 1-2-3 instead and it likewise quickly becomes subconscious.

That is what I am saying though, subconscious thought is still keeping your brain engaged and by that nature, prevents you from being bored. The 1-2-3 might be done subconsciously, but it is still brain engagement. I used a very simple example of going from one button to a 3 step combo, just to illustrate the point, however, if you start tacking on watching for your cooldowns, checking your gauges etc. you are still keeping part of your brain engaged with keeping track of it all. Reduce a job to 6-8 buttons, like was suggested, and you lose that one thing keeping your brain engaged.

This is where boss mechanics come into play, these are designed to make you think of something else and make you lose track of where you are, even more so the more things you have to deal with for that mechanic.

To put this in a different way, if you can do a fight, say, last boss of Sastasha, and your mind is wondering off thinking of other things, whilst you are still doing mechanics and your rotation flawlessly, your brain obviously isn't engaged enough. It is bored, as I am sure many veteran players are with Sastasha. However, go to something like a recent Extreme fight, or Savage, or even Ultimate, suddenly, your brain is focused on the encounter and your more complex rotation. Your brain doesn't have the chance to wander off in it's thoughts. This is why alot of groups will take regular breaks, to not only give their body a rest, but also their brains.

Now, I'm sure we both agree on the point that jobs should not be simplified and that there should be a variety of playstyles to suit a variety of people. That is not where this point originated from. This all stemmed from Gserpent claiming that PvE rotations should mimic PvP rotations in their simplicity. And I've probably gone way too deep into why PvP rotations wouldn't work for PvE but I do feel it was necessary to get the initial point across.

[Shurrikhan]

That is what I am saying though, subconscious thought is still keeping your brain engaged and by that nature, prevents you from being bored. The 1-2-3 might be done subconsciously, but it is still brain engagement.

Then I will have to fully disagree. If it is wholly subconscious, it is not, to me, engagement. It's merely a result of prior engagement. It's as much engagement as a bruise is fighting.

Now, will even 123 sometimes be done consciously, because of one not having yet gotten it down completely while being shook up by mechanics? Sure. But that only lasts a brief time.

And that brief period, and such meagre engagement even for the time it lasts, doesn't mark an efficient use of buttons (nor job design space). For execution to be an efficient/effective centerpiece, it needs commensurate occasion for decision-making. Think more fighting game combos and less DRG.

[Mikey_R]

And that brief period, and such meagre engagement even for the time it lasts, doesn't mark an efficient use of buttons (nor job design space). For execution to be an efficient/effective centerpiece, it needs commensurate occasion for decision-making. Think more fighting game combos and less DRG.

But a fighting game combo is essentially the same as a 1-2-3. If you hit the initial attack, it will have a string of attacks after that does the most damage. There might be a change partway through to potentially knock someone into a wall or off an edge but that is as far as the decision making goes. The hard part is getting a hit to land in the first place that can be comboed from. This is then where you have the decision making process of, my opponent has done this, or I think they will do that, so I should counter with this or that.

However, say we could think of something could resemble this. A random proc on 2 that activates 4 for extra damage, so it is either 1-2-3 or randomly 1-2-4. Maybe proc on both 1 or 2, you know, this is starting to sound alot like Dancer combos. If you look for it, there are jobs with decision making, however, is it really a decision if one route is always more DPS than another? To which the question is, what is considered a meaningful decision in the context of FFXIV combat?

[Shurrikhan]

But a fighting game combo is essentially the same as a 1-2-3. If you hit the initial attack, it will have a string of attacks after that does the most damage. There might be a change partway through to potentially knock someone into a wall or off an edge but that is as far as the decision making goes. The hard part is getting a hit to land in the first place that can be comboed from. This is then where you have the decision making process of, my opponent has done this, or I think they will do that, so I should counter with this or that.

However, say we could think of something could resemble this. A random proc on 2 that activates 4 for extra damage, so it is either 1-2-3 or randomly 1-2-4. Maybe proc on both 1 or 2, you know, this is starting to sound alot like Dancer combos. If you look for it, there are jobs with decision making, however, is it really a decision if one route is always more DPS than another? To which the question is, what is considered a meaningful decision in the context of FFXIV combat?

Except there AAA, AAB, ABA, ABB, BAA, BAB, BBA, and BBB could all constitute different combos, and the difficulty in combo execution is therefore buoyed by the difficulty in combo selection. Else 12345 rapidly devolves to just "Chaos Thrust [combo]" and 16754 into "Full Thrust [combo]".

Rather than those myriad available executions to actually tax one's ability to execute upon one's choice, because there are only two actual actions (despite investing 7 buttons into them) the execution quickly becomes trivial, unconscious, and unengaging.

If you look for it, there are jobs with decision making, however, is it really a decision if one route is always more DPS than another?

It's a decision if there are consequences to a given choice that will affect the weight of future choices (or, from the opposite but equal perspective, if the decision is itself informed by multiple manipulable factors).

That there is a best decision for a given context and need does not mean that there are therefore no decisions to be made, so long as the context and/or need won't last, unchanged, forever.

this is starting to sound alot like Dancer combos

:: No, Dancer and its procs are not that.

[Mikey_R]

Except there AAA, AAB, ABA, ABB, BAA, BAB, BBA, and BBB could all constitute different combos, and the difficulty in combo execution is therefore buoyed by the difficulty in combo selection. Else 12345 rapidly devolves to just "Chaos Thrust [combo]" and 16754 into "Full Thrust [combo]".

Rather than those myriad available executions to actually tax one's ability to execute upon one's choice, because there are only two actual actions (despite investing 7 buttons into them) the execution quickly becomes trivial, unconscious, and unengaging.

Even in this example, there would still be an optimal choice as to which order you use them in, which means there isn't really a choice. Going through Monk's forms, you have a choice of 3 GCDs for each one, however, there is still a priority on each one. you have the pure damage, the buff/debuff and then the AoE for that form. Even if you want to say you can use any GCD without restriction or penalty, just looking at single target, you make True Strike useless as, between Twin Snakes and Demolish, you want to use Dragon Kick > Bootshine as much as you can.

Even if you want to have 2 buttons that change depending on whether they are step 1, 2 or 3 of your combo, there still isn't a meaningful decision, it will still be down to a priority system.

It's a decision if there are consequences to a given choice that will affect the weight of future choices (or, from the opposite but equal perspective, if the decision is itself informed by multiple manipulable factors).

That there is a best decision for a given context and need does not mean that there are therefore no decisions to be made, so long as the context and/or need won't last, unchanged, forever.

In a vacuum, if you can manipulate the variables/factors, then you still do not have a decision, there will be an optimal route based on priority. Even if you imagine a scenario where option A is better in fight 1 and option B is better in fight 2, it still isn't a decision you make, it is just that your priority system for actions is fight dependant.

:: No, Dancer and its procs are not that.

Which means I am either misunderstanding what you mean by a 'decision' or I am failing to understand a scenario where one of these 'decisions' might happen. Give me a simple example that demonstrates this idea of a decision.

[Shurrikhan]

Even in this example, there would still be an optimal choice as to which order you use them in, which means there isn't really a choice.

Not sure where you're trying to go with this whole "choice doesn't exist" bit....

Again, choice isn't opposed to there being something optimal; it's simply dependent on varying situated frames of reference. Best for the next GCD? For the next string? For sync into the next macrorotational phase? For the fight as a whole? Each requires increasing levels of knowledge that eventually approach a gamble (or, a controlled exchange of risk for reward).

For one to assuredly make the best choice overall, you'd need to know, at minimum, precisely how long the fight will last, up to the points that would threshold which choices would be optimal (far and few between in XIV, but as we've noted, it's not exactly an example of a place with frequent decision-making). For anything party-dependent or party-affecting, you'd also account for said party, up to the weight that'd affect those thresholds in turn. Which, you won't. You'll have a best guess, improving in accuracy and precision with skill and familiarity, but never a perfect one.

Going through Monk's forms, you have a choice of 3 GCDs for each one, however, there is still a priority on each one. you have the pure damage, the buff/debuff and then the AoE for that form. Even if you want to say you can use any GCD without restriction or penalty, just looking at single target, you make True Strike useless as, between Twin Snakes and Demolish, you want to use Dragon Kick > Bootshine as much as you can.

Monk is far from I was describing above, so I'm not sure why you're mentioning it as if it were evidence that choice can only ever be illusion. Monk manages string lengths not for varying combos but simply to <minimize wasted TwS/Demo duration> while also trying to <minimize wasted CD potential effective uptime>. The combos themselves aren't the decision; the TwS/Demo string-lengths and PB timings are.

In a vacuum, if you can manipulate the variables/factors, then you still do not have a decision, there will be an optimal route based on priority.

You can manipulate the variables/factors in chess, too, but doesn't devolve the game into non-decisions. Again, what's key is that there isn't a singular APL / frame of reference for priority.

Even if you imagine a scenario where option A is better in fight 1 and option B is better in fight 2, it still isn't a decision you make, it is just that your priority system for actions is fight dependent.

If the entirety of a piece of content follows the exact same APL at all times, then it hasn't met the constraints you just quoted.

Which means I am either misunderstanding what you mean by a 'decision' or I am failing to understand a scenario where one of these 'decisions' might happen. Give me a simple example that demonstrates this idea of a decision.

Making a "decision" is an act of parsing a (best guess at the) best choice wherein

• the outcomes of available choices are real and varied,
• the method by which the best choice may be considered are themselves multi-leveled (one shifts between meta-APLs or the action priority lists compete/are re-weighted directly) and/or varied, and
• one has access to significant, but not the whole body of, relevant information informing the weights of those methods of determination (and therefore the choices themselves).

I.e., it's one where the "best" choice is dependent not just on immediate context, but also on a reasonably but uncertain guess as to what would best pay off in the future. A truly stagnant, unvaried APL cannot meaningfully render choice.

Dancer procs do not, to me, allow for any meaningful decision, since they operate under a single APL. Machinist in the context of ammo while approaching a burst phase nearly reached meaningful choice, and could perhaps have reached it if there were more impact on prepping procced shots in an atypical order on macrorotation (e.g., CD drift) and those atypical orders were less cost costly to ppgcd. Monk's optimal drift vs. double lunar/solar vs. "standard" or SAM's conditional turns towards ad hoc play or varied BLM rotational strings may likewise constitute, to me, actual decisions.

:: To be clear, none of that makes those examples of maximizing button-efficiency, just as Monk was not an example of truly open combos. Those are two separate matters. It's simply that execution tends to have far more long-lived engagement when one has more patterns to learn and execute upon, as compared to just 2-3 of them that get looped indefinitely. Hence Optimal Drift Monk typically feeling harder to execute than lockstep Monk and optimizing BLM in a high-movement fight (especially with at least somewhat randomized timings of those forced-movement events) will tend to have more long-lived engagement in execution, too, than even a NIN in a nonetheless precisely static rotation.

[RyuDragnier]

That is what I am saying though, subconscious thought is still keeping your brain engaged and by that nature, prevents you from being bored.

That's called "going through the motions."

[Gserpent]

That is what I am saying though, subconscious thought is still keeping your brain engaged and by that nature, prevents you from being bored.

If that were true, people wouldn't absolutely despise doing FATEs or feeling like they "must" engage in non-dungeon/raids combat. But most people will comment negatively about that kind of content, because rotations are so mindless now. If you don't have mechanics to learn and react to, there's very little actually going on in XIV's combat.

At least proc-based gameplay does literally require you to react to stimuli, even if it's very simple. It hits that monkey see button activity center in the brain in the way that mindlessly repeating a 1-2-3 doesn't. There's a lot of reasons WoW shifted towards largely proc-based gameplay over time.

I don't think every class in XIV needs to have procs or otherwise be "proc based" for their filler activity. But if they don't have procs, then they need to have actual decision-making involved in their filler in some way. But the issue with letting players make decisions is that players can and will make the *wrong* decision and lose DPS, and for whatever reason Square-Enix seems to be ardently against that with Endwalker (see: WAR changes.)