Quote Originally Posted by CelestiCer View Post
...
Rotation doesn't get in the way of mechanic design. It's just not relevant.

After many hours of gameplay, pretty much any rotation is going to be simple if all we have to show for it is target dummy conditions. Oh good, a cast bar. Target dummy. Oh no, a mechanic, partial target dummy, if I'm expected to actually do something with it. I can at least respect Valance's point because procs can force you to think about your rotation a bit. But let's face it, if you're playing this game even semi-casually you're going to have mastery over at least one job rotation, if not more, and most of this is just going to be reflex.

The reason why movement mechanics are fundamentally more interesting is because that's why video games are visual and not text-based. You use Hakaze is a text-based game. I use a gap closer to perform a skillshot teleport to a particular coordinate and teleport back to maintain 100% uptime is visual-spatial. The former bores me to death, but the latter is the main reason why I still play this game after nearly 10 years. And historically, in fights where tanks actually had some control over boss movement, movement was a critical part of gameplay. Fights like A7S were exciting for me personally historically because there were a lot of random movement elements that you had to react to on the fly while trying to keep perfect uptime.

I have nothing against the move to more of an ARPG design personally, but ARPGs are typically designed with a lot of movement in mind. So you could have a very scripted fight, but every job/class needs to have a lot of abilities that allow them to respond to highly mobile bosses. Not bosses that are cast locked for five minutes while we do target dummy rotations on them before breaking to do some DDR mechanic. It's that blind transition between two fight design styles (Trinity vs. ARPG) that's the problem, more than anything else.