Inevitable Job Simplifications?

[Dahlinea]

Yeah, I don't think you can accuse me of "gloss over what want to read and discard the rest" when you have exactly 4 words (with a "the" in the middle) in 24 pages of posts that you think I "discarded", which were in the middle of you saying it was bad and you saying again it was bad.

You like to be so pedantic about words and meaning and now is discarding it as if I said nothing. It's there, I said it, I didn't say just bad things about this new SMN like you claimed it. Deal with it.

[moroarda]

The job is braindead and need more flexibility and things to actually decide during fights, not that fake decision making legos. The execution is terrible but has the tools to be good if changes to the rotation are made and the visual are cool.

I realize that everyone mostly wants to fight about semantics surrounding whether or not this was said and/or when that may have happened and like... okay, sure, that's fine I suppose, but the real issue is that this quote is entirely correct.
SMN is utterly braindead, and while jokes can be made about how interesting it was in past iterations there's no way to say it got more interesting in it's current form. RDM on introduction was also violently simple, as is (and has remained) DNC. This trend of introducing new jobs and/or reworking old jobs (deleting them and giving another job their name and soul crystal, in SMN's case) into mindless nonsense is really troubling for DRG and AST mains right now.

[Renathras]

Good points. Simply put, we are pigeon-holed into 3 roles and SE has backed themselves into a corner. This is why we wind up seeing limited jobs like BLU. That's how they can allow these jobs to exist, but not allowing them to do any current content.

Warden was an example of what LOTRO would consider a fairly complicated job. I'd love to see something similar in FFXIV, but it would have to set into one of the three roles and would probably lose all its flavor.

Agreed. BLU is able to do so much because it breaks with the otherwise rigid system FFXIV uses. But because it does so, it isn't allowed to compete in current content because...I guess people clearing content is bad or something.

This trend of ... reworking old jobs (deleting them and giving another job their name and soul crystal, in SMN's case) ... is really troubling.

I disagree with your post on the whole, but specifically the words above, I agree with.

I feel like at this point they should be adding these as new Jobs, not reworking/replacing existing Jobs. If a Job sucks, then let it continue to suck. If the Devs thought Old SMN was in a corner, they could just give them a new animation for Miasma and Egi Assault and then call it a day. Make no additional changes to the rotation in future expansions, just an occasional graphic upgrade to a spell. Then people can't complain the Job was changed, and if it sucks...well, then it just sucks and they want it to suck, so...let it suck. They can't complain it's not being changed, since they are on the record not wanting it reworked. They can't complain the Devs are just being lazy or vindictive since we know they would complain if the Devs seriously looked at and changed the Job. So the Job could exist as a more or less time capsule with some pretty window dressing. And that would be fine. The people that would love it would continue to love it. After all, if people loved ShB SMN, they can't well complain that it isn't changed since they already LOVE IT as it was.

I think if people want some Jobs to be terrible and unfun to play, because they somehow find that fun, that's fine, and they should absolutely be allowed to keep that. I don't think they should force it on everyone else/change other Jobs to be like that, but it's fine if some Jobs are like BLM and suck. Some few people will find them fun, everyone else will avoid them like the plague, and everyone can be vaguely happy together.

I honestly have no idea why this isn't allowed - or is allowed for BLM and nothing else.

New SMN is way better than Old SMN. It could have just been a new Job. It's not like FF lore doesn't have more than one name for the Summoner archetype. Evoker or Caller (probably Evoker) would have worked fine. Have it share the Class Arcanist and be done with it. Would some people complain about that being weird? Sure. But who cares?

As for these, they're not arguing the points and are just rampant ad hominem attempts to avoid the actual discussion going on. As such, I won't be giving them anything other than a HB text so they will stop distracting and attempting to derail the thread. If those of you quoted wish to continue derailing the thread, that's on you. If those of you who are liking their posts which have no substance, no point to the discussion, and are just derailing attempts want to continue liking their posts because they're somehow your paragons...you have questionable taste, but that's on you, too. I won't continue giving it any kind of top billing, and may honestly just ignore them as what they are - harassment and derailing attempts.

...

I see your posts.
I read your posts.
I reply to your posts - often point by point, often quoting your own words.

Saying people are bad at reading comprehension doesn't work well when they're using your own statements.

As for what is good faith - good faith means a person is making an honest attempt. (That means the "or no" doesn't count, even if that is what's happening). If I seem to be misunderstanding what you're saying, it might be worth you asking questions to see why I'm not understanding something, or restating it. I would like to know, as you asked me the question, what have I misrepresented of your position? What have I misunderstood of it?

As for mine, you've consistently ignored my posts (as you admit) and even flaunted that you were doing so. But you've also misrepresented them as favoring "braindead" (when I've clearly said I don't see SMN as "braindead"), and you seem to misunderstand when I talk about things being fun or not or discussing specific terms.

You like to be so pedantic about words and meaning and now is discarding it as if I said nothing. It's there, I said it, I didn't say just bad things about this new SMN like you claimed it. Deal with it.

Stop.
With.
The.
Attempted.
Gotcha.
Ad.
Hominem.
Fallacy.

As I noted, you're being antagonistic, and if you weren't aware, ad hominem (what you're doing right now - attacking/addressing me directly, not my argument) is a logical fallacy. "attack on the person" or "addressing the person" rather than their argument. It's an attempt to sidestep arguments that are difficult to overcome.

If I was going to be PEDANTIC, I'd note I said:

What did I say in that quote that is wrong?

...

You've resisted saying good things about it? Also true.

...and point out that you saying, in only one post in the entire thread, while also saying "but it still sucks" that the graphics were pretty could be considered "resisting" saying good things about it and only doing so grudgingly. So if I was going to be pedantic, I'd point out my statement was still true.

Also, it's not "discarding it as if (you) said nothing". It's pointing out you've said exactly ONE good thing, couched in a compound statement of negativity, and that I did not "gloss over" or "discard" it, I didn't consider it you being positive when you were couching it in "and it still sucks".

You said one thing that MAY not have been bad, and seemed to do so grudgingly.

And now you're engaging in rampant ad hominem because you don't want to actually deal with arguments which you can't overcome, so you'd rather attack the person saying them.

Meanwhile, do you know what you've done?

You that aren't reading all my posts if you say that. I already said that, but clearly you just gloss over what want to read and discard the rest.

...because I said this in my prior post, and you clearly just glossed over it and discarded the rest.

Deal with it.

[Dahlinea]

Whinning

What? You said I didn't admit anything good about new SMN and I showed I did. You were expecting a parade with throwing flowers and shouting praises about it? lol

And you do gloss over people posts indeed. I noted that when for some stupid reason you started spouting things along the lines "New SMN is not braindead, the problem is that was removed from the old SMN and people are mad" and started believing in this crap, when people been saying that the rework is braindead and need more complexity, which is true. From this point on all I saw on you was someone with a mentality of "they want complexity on my braindead job and I need to defend it!". Coming with talks about "I hope they release Green Mage with old SMN rotation" to support that stupid belief of yours and ignoring the fact people are complaining about new SMN for it actually being a no effort job that needs help because obviously you don't want to lose the job that don't require player skill to perform good. I even said in that post I talked about something good on new SMN aesthetics that "no Colourful Mage the devs introduce will stop people that play SMN to complain about its no effort state" signalling that it doesn't matter that the old job was removed as long as they fix the braindead state of the current one. But did you get it? Of course not! You then insisted on using old SMN, the job you "liked" (clearly a blatant lie), as being something disjointed, a mix of various systems, having a braindead baseline and other things trying to stablish a supposed point that "proves" that the new SMN is better than the old one. When what were people were pointing is that SMN is braindead and need more to go on and feel like a job that actually provides something to work with and don't simply handhold the player through the entire rotation.
That's why you gloss over people's posts, especially the ones that criticize the new SMN for its braindead state and only grab the parts that feed on your "objective arguments" about how new SMN is good as it is, which clearly is not good, and at the same time try to use old SMN, "the job you liked", as example of how it is bad in comparison. Finally, that's also why I stopped taking you seriously from page 20 onwards and just had some fun from there. Btw I can't attack you, it's against the forum rules you dummy!

So yeah, I said something good about new SMN. You're the one just being picky! ;P

My fears with the current trend of job simplification is on AST, tbh.
I have a fear they might make all cards apply party buffs with reduced effects and increased CD, which at the same time draw a Lord or Lady, and remove the seals making Astrodyne something standalone or just outright remove it with a lot of other buttons...

[tearagion]

I would like to know, as you asked me the question, what have I misrepresented of your position? What have I misunderstood of it?

I don't know why I bother when you don't but here you go:

"Also, you keep doing the stupid thing. It's not a failure as the kit works fine and the Job is the most popular with players of all the Casters. The word you're looking for there is success. It's okay to say "I don't like something". That's fine. you can say that."
- I clearly imply it's a "success" if your only metric is accessibility, and that popularity is too nebulous a metric for us non-SE employees to accurately comment on. Too bad one of their stated goals was addressing the "system bloat" and starting from fresh, uh oh the old systems are still there, they're just sanded down to absolute simplicity!

"What I'm annoyed with is you lying."
- I'm not lying lol.

I clearly define what I mean by "disjointed", and you just...ignore it? Instead you supplant it with your own interpretation that it is presumably "easy to play"? Or perhaps "has a nice flow" (disagree)? Entirely irrelevant when I've defined my interpretation and you instead vaguely gesticulate at a different one and don't engage with mine at all.

If your idea of engaging with my definition is:
"New SMN - Demis feed into Primals, Primals feed into their sub-phase, Ruin 4 exists as a movement tool during two of the phases if needed, and that's the Job. The only thing "off to the side" (another way of saying "disjointed") is Energy Drain, Energy Siphon (though those prep Ruin 4, so they have a reason to exist, they just make less thematic sense), and Fester. Painflare, technically coming from Bahamut, thematically makes sense for SMN to have. The only part of the kit that doesn't thematically make sense is the Aetherflow part, but it IS connected to the Job as a whole as driving its burst as weaves between Bahamut GCDs."
Cool, oldSMN had all that absolute barebones shit as well, and then it also had defined synergies between systems with numbers and restrictive elements. So it's more cohesive, and less disjointed.

"Old SMN was very much more disjointed, if we're using the definition of "not connected, coherent, or continuous"."
- I clearly stated how the disparate systems were more connected and coherent (I even included the definition of 'coherent' I intended incase the context was too hard to read), oops guess that doesn't count and the fact that newSMN is all instant casts that you slam out with 2 buttons is way more uhhh "continuous" I guess (disagree)?

"(Note: Not having DoTs to interact with isn't part of a definition of connected or coherent.)"
- Says you? Even when they're a clearly demonstrated mechanical connection between two different job mechanics?

And that's just a couple posts back. I don't really have the free time to go further.

I get what you're trying to do, you're trying to exhaust under the false pretense of "good faith discussion" where you're just intentionally obtuse, or skirting the actual argument. Timeless-classic online argumentative strategy.

...you seem to misunderstand when I talk about things being fun or not or discussing specific terms.

where

[Renathras]

accuses someone of glossing over other people's posts while summarizing that person's post as "Whinning" and glossing over the post...

Come now, don't be upset you were called out for ad hominems and an attempt to derail the thread by attacking the person rather than their arguments. Just...don't do it going forward. Simple solution. Or do it again to the same result, it matters not. ANYway...moving on to the actual topic (sorta)

...the rest of the post, the part not in HB...

I kind of agree with AST. But I've honestly never liked AST, so I don't know what people that DO like AST would want the changes to be in the first place (other than I suspect everyone would like Nocturnal back, even some of the other Healer mains).

I saw a suggestion in the Healer forum to make two branches of Cards, with one being the damage buff (because Balance >>>>> all), and the other be the situational buffs (Bole, Ewer type stuff), this way, the two wouldn't be stepping on each other's toes in competition. I could see that being a possible solution. The problem with Bole and Ewer is that they probably weren't up when you needed them (e.g. Bole before a tankbuster), but you didn't want to hold onto them since that meant sacrificing a potential Balance. The combination of "competing with DPS boost instead" and "RNG means it's not likely to be there when you need it" made it not work well. Imagine, for example, if WHM had a single "Curin" spell. But it randomly would pick between Cure 1, Cure 2, or Cure 3 if you cast it. Or if BLM had a "Firin" spell which would randomly pick between Fire 1, Fire 2, Fire 3, and Fire 4 (and maybe Flare) if you cast it. That level of RNG isn't useful.

AST had that problem with Bole being a card that COULD be useful, but you had no control of it it was up when you needed it or not. So the suggested split (I think that person proposed the Minor Arcana be those buff type cards) with some Redraw RNG security might help. But honestly...it might also be hard to pull off. But the point is that buffs which are unreliable make poor mechanics unless they're more or less equal OR so broad in effect they are still worth having in almost any situation. Which also tends to mean "more boring".

And AST's biggest problem is the having to hot swap targeting during the buff/burst windows...making Cards AOE could solve that, but would cause other issues - for example, what's the point in having charges to Draw/Play if you can only use one at a time and it buffs the whole party (they probably wouldn't stack)? And if they're as bland as "AOE Balance" (which is what PvP Balance is anyway), they'd feel - somehow - even less interesting than now. At least now you can play the pseudo game of "Do I give this card to the Melee...or to the Melee but it's not quite as good?"

Yeah, honestly, I have no idea what they're going to do with AST. They may not even know, which might be why they pushed it. Even if they tried to make a SMN-like redesign, I'm not even sure what THAT would look like. Hard to say...

...

I don't know why I bother when you don't but here you go:

Disjointed is a semantics argument at this point. If we're fighting over definitions, it's irrelevant as a metric, since for a metric to work, it must be something people can agree on. Your definition isn't inherently more powerful than anyone else's, though we're honestly using a similar definition, just differently worded, so that's not even the issue. I actually WAS using your definition. I'll even say how in just a sec.

"I clearly imply it's a "success" if your only metric is accessibility," - That's silly, there are several metrics by which it is a success. Thematically, it fits the class fantasy of a summoner of powerful minions to fight on the caster's behalf. In terms of rotational smoothness of flow, it has that going for it, too. By this I mean no weird "drop 2 Attonements per minute" or "use an Ether to get an additional Flare in", or the like. The rotation is a closed loop that doesn't have hanging threads and if you do it correctly, the total flow is Demi, 3x Primals, a Ruin 4 somewhere in there, and (depending on ping and spell speed) a Ruin 3. The rotation closes its loop and smoothly moves from each subphase to the next without any clunky mechanics or counter-intuitive "record skips" in the rotation. In terms of utility, it has that going for it between its party buff and combat raise. In terms of damage, it's well balanced in the sense it doesn't do so much to be an auto-lock for parties, but not so little that it's actively avoided.

There are additional ways it could be considered arguably a success, such as removing bloat from the Job (it succeeded in THAT, I think we can all agree - some might argue it went too far, but it definitely hit that checkbox), simplifying the Job, removing clunk from the Job (by essentially...removing the Job outright...), and so on. But we can ignore these and still note the successes above.

This does not make it perfect, and it does not mean one cannot dislike it as a whole or dislike components of it, but there are many ways that it can be seen as a success, even if we set aside accessibility as a measure of success (I would disagree it should be set aside and NOT counted as a mark of a successful Job; RDM has long been praised for its intuitive nature) and ignore that all the metrics we have suggest it is quite popular, and likely more played than Old SMN was.

As for the "system bloat", that's kind of a nebulous term we'd have to hammer down to before we could discuss it, but it's definitely far less bloated than Old SMN, it doesn't have DoTs (which are...somehow?...a drain on server side computational resources), nor is the AI doing weird things like Bahamut prioritizing movement over attacking or the AI having to run targeting routines for the Egis. Again, not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing, but it was a success by the metric of reducing system bloat as well.

"I clearly ..." - This is what I mean about lying. (a) "easy to play" isn't the definition I used. Nor is "has a nice flow". I WAS using your definition. I disagreed with you on the application and, perhaps?, the subdefinitions. For example, Old SMN's mechanics were all over the place. They weren't "coherent" (part of your definition). Many were infrequently used or stutter-stepped. They weren't "continuous" (part of your definition). And many were unrelated or only tangentially related. They weren't "connected" (part of your definition). Or rather, a lot of parts of it were not, and just kind of did their own thing. At best, Old SMN only half-way met one of your three criteria. That is: (b) I probably didn't word it as direct/simply enough to make it clear, but I was using the same definition you presented. I didn't ignore it while substituting it with another. (Though it wouldn't have been a crime to have done so, as this is a discussion, I didn't even do that!)

I said that we can ALSO consider thematic continuity, of which New SMN has more and Old SMN had less. But you seem to want to just discard any argument that doesn't agree with yours and are willing to entertain such considerations or definitions. You and I may disagree on what we consider coherent, continuous, or connected, but I didn't ignore them. I was using those same metrics in my evaluation!

(c) I was not "vaguely gesticulate at a different one and don't engage with mine at all". God DAUM if you can't see how wording it like that makes you insufferable you need new glasses! I was using your own definition with my interpretation of your terms. You know, what people do in a debate or discussion when they have a disagreement on how to apply or view something?

And this is just Grade A disgusting: "I get what you're trying to do, you're trying to exhaust under the false pretense of "good faith discussion" where you're just intentionally obtuse, or skirting the actual argument. Timeless-classic online argumentative strategy."

STOP.
LYING.

I was honestly content with just hitting post as I read through and typed this up until I got to that disgusting display.

UNLIKE you, I'm just interested in exchanging points of view with people and presenting my case while offering rebuttals to what I see as incorrect or hyperbolic. The one with the false pretense here, trying to be obtuse and avoid the argument while exhausting their opponent...is you.

I'm not the one that started engaging in personal attacks to distract from the topic. I'm the one who refrained from doing so. You started well before this, as I pointed out, with your "taking the piss" comment pages and pages ago, before I said anything at all that could be interpreted even loosely as an attack on you. A post you still haven't admitted to nor apologized for, even when presented with it.

[tearagion]

Disjointed is a semantics argument at this point. If we're fighting over definitions, it's irrelevant as a metric, since for a metric to work, it must be something people can agree on.

I said exactly what I mean so no it's not "semantics" the semantics are already crystallized in my argument. You could choose to argue about semantics anyway, sure, but at that point you're either just sidestepping the actual argument in favor of something you can address ineffectually, or reframing the argument entirely.

Thematically, it fits the class fantasy of a summoner of powerful minions to fight on the caster's behalf...

Thematic success can be debated. Ultimately SMN does the same thing thematically as before: summon simulacrum of 5 different primals, 2 of them more powerful Demi-summons. It even summons the same Egis as before for 59-44 of its 90 levels. I don't consider importing boss models from ARR trials particularly strong theming when it's backed by such vapid gameplay (that is to say: they cast one skill and then leave with no gameplay presence at all. They feel like spells not summons. You even use the words "Fight on the caster's behalf" for what? 1 GCD?) People in FFXIV seem to get wrapped up in a definition of theme that only includes visuals. If I entertain that mentality then I suppose if their goal was to make something that looked like a Rydia-esque "classic ff summoner" imported into FFXIV then sure they succeeded. I don't know what you mean by "thematic continuity" or how it's significantly improved over oldSMN.

I don't feel like entertaining the rotation as a point of success in any capacity. Balance is a separate concern from design, and oldSMN was pretty balanced when it was deleted anyway.

As for the "system bloat", that's kind of a nebulous term we'd have to hammer down to before we could discuss it

Seems simple to me "system" as in individual gameplay systems within a job (Aetherflow, Demis, etc.) and "bloat" as in "excess of". Replacing DoTs with Gems is the same number of systems, so system bloat remains consistent. Bloat within the systems could be articulated as having been pruned, but it came at the expense of gameplay so I would consider it non-productive.

accessibility as a measure of success...ignore that all the metrics we have suggest it is quite popular, and likely more played than Old SMN was.

Addressed previously. Popularity is a shit metric even if we did have access to accurate numbers.

"easy to play" isn't the definition I used. Nor is "has a nice flow".

You didn't use any definition, so I attempt to interpret based on your statements. In fact you seem to strengthen that interpretation in the second paragraph where you prioritize not needing to make any meaningful rotational decisions, that the rotation should simply happen without disruption. You've not been shy about enjoying the easier rotation. You even say it succeeded in creating a "smoothness of flow", so I don't know what your problem is here.

I WAS using your definition....I was using your own definition

Where did I say you weren't using the definition I quoted? Perhaps using "defined" here to articulate that I explained my position was confusing.

Aside, I think your interpretation is simplistic and subjective, whereas I point to mechanical elements of oldSMN that are quite clearly more interconnected than newSMN. Your idea of connected and coherent was Demis give you Gems, and that Gems give you Gemshine/Astral Flow. I don't consider these great examples of interconnected systems because they're 1-way and inconsequential. What are you going to do, not hit the better (situationally and potency) of two damage GCDs available at the time? How does it REALLY impact the rotation and the decisions a player makes beyond just being a gate to keep you on the rotation the devs intend? It doesn't. (Astral Flow is ultimately a pretty badly realized mechanic. I've posted before about my fondness for this particular ability in a vacuum because it's cool that you can technically bank them, except the rotation and implementation prohibits you from banking them so it ends up being random bullshit you just press when it lights up.)

For example, Old SMN's mechanics were all over the place. They weren't "coherent" (part of your definition).

I said exactly the definition of coherent I intended to avoid confusion, and have previously stated how oldSMN qualified. This is just misinterpreting or misrepresenting again lol.

Many were infrequently used or stutter-stepped. They weren't "continuous" (part of your definition).

They were continuous in the sense that the individual systems fed into each other, not that they happened without pause or disruption, or whatever you mean.

They weren't "connected" (part of your definition).

Yes they were, I feel as though I've gone over why pretty thoroughly at this point.

UNLIKE you, I'm just interested in exchanging points of view with people and presenting my case while offering rebuttals to what I see as incorrect or hyperbolic.

You don't seem interested in other people's views at all, unless they're non-critical of newSMN.


2x dodging direct question.

[Dahlinea]

Ignoring reality ;D

Nah bro, I'm fine... you're the one angry about people rightfully complaining about the sorry state of new SMN and uses "arguments" here and there about things not even pertaining to the matter at hand to try to "prove" that new SMN is good.
You can keep believing new SMN is fine, but at the end of the day a lot of people knows that it's lacking and need changes to be able to feel like a true job. Right now it's just an unbalanced joke that do way too much damage for what it requires from its players to perform and should rightfully be at bottom of the DPS scale in this state.
But we can keep going on with this pointless arguments of yours all you want. I know how people like you go on about them, we'll just run in circles forever.

I kind of agree with AST. But I've honestly never liked AST, so I don't know what people that DO like AST would want the changes to be in the first place (other than I suspect everyone would like Nocturnal back, even some of the other Healer mains).

They'll never return Noct Sect back the way it was (at least not in next expansion) now that they added a new shield Healer unless they repurpose it to something completely different.

for example, what's the point in having charges to Draw/Play if you can only use one at a time and it buffs the whole party (they probably wouldn't stack)?

That's what I was saying. If they decide to go this way (I hope not) they will need to start removing things here and there because of the card system simplification.

Even if they tried to make a SMN-like redesign, I'm not even sure what THAT would look like. Hard to say...

Hopefully not. I expect the devs have learned their lesson and never do something like what they did to SMN to any job ever again. No jobs deserve to be become like that.

[remiff]

The concern of the current summoner is that the gameplay is much too slow and rigid, the filler phases are filled with dead time because of the very unpleasant long gcd having 2.5 gcd when summoning Garuda, Titan,Ifrit seems exaggerated and it only amplifies the feeling of slowness,
they should reduce summon gcd to 1.5s and damage should be instant.

regarding the etherflow system, they should remove it and recreate a new ressource system generate by the carbuncle and somes news gcd-ogcds spells, removed fester and give II stack to painflare with 30s cooldown per stack
because the carbuncle he's just a very useless mascot.

For the use of Demi-phoenix and Demi-bahamut they should be inspired by what they did for pvp, personally I think it's a great idea, because the phoenix is ​​only a bahamut reskin without flavor,
they said they wanted to remove summoner ressurection for 7.0 and that's absolutely not a good idea, i think they should allow players to have 1 stacks of instant ressurection when using phoenix replacing the spell of physick which is actually ultra useless.


Regarding ifrit I think they should drastically increase his firepower, because he is supposed to be the strongest of the 3, but it turns out that is not the case on the potency/second, hopefully they will also allow the ranged melee combo to be used as in pvp because a mandatory gapcloser seems totally clunky and inappropriate to the summoner a mandatory gapcloser does not add difficulty but constraints whereas a gapcloser is supposed to be a choice and not an obligation, so if they add some difficulty it should be implemented differently.

I know it's completely personal expectations, but I hope that for 7.0 they will complete the kit by removing the negative points of the current kit as much as possible and adding spells, even if they tend to do nothing after doing a rework.

[Renathras]

The concern of the current summoner is that the gameplay is much too slow and rigid,

I think this really depends on the player. Old PLD was slow and rigid, and people liked it. BLM is slow and fairly rigid, and it also has dedicated fans. The filler phase of New SMN is basically a single Ruin 3 cast once per minute (the Primals are not "filler" phase using most traditional definitions).

I do agree they should remove the Aetherflow system. It's vestigial and just around likely because they felt they needed SOMETHING there and decided to recycle the names and abilities instead of not doing so, but if Ruin 4 was just a 60 sec CD GCD and Painflare a 30 sec 2 charge oGCD, the rotation would be unchanged and not have the weirdness of a system that is now completely dead to SMN anyway.

So I agree with you there for sure.

...

What I mean is, you're arguing over a definition. You're insisting your definition is the correct and only one. And even when someone else is using the terms your definition used, you insist they aren't.

If I entertain that mentality then I suppose if their goal was to make something that looked like a Rydia-esque "classic ff summoner" imported into FFXIV then sure they succeeded.

That's exactly what I mean, yes. The only thing that sucks is it doesn't get there until level 90, but the Primal summons themselves thematically feel like what Summoners are in most of the older Final Fantasy games, or FF3 through FF9 and including FFTactics, with the DWT/FBT being the newer incarnations of summoners like FF10, 12, and 13 where they are temporary companions that join you on the battlefield briefly before departing.

Popularity is a shit metric even if we did have access to accurate numbers.

I disagree. Suppose 90% of Healers right now were playing SMN and only 1% were playing WHM. That would be a pretty good indication players probably want more complexity in the Healer roles, and would indicate that SE should make more complex ones. If they did so, and those were the popular/most played ones, it would reinforce that position. While popularity doesn't necessarily mean the GOAT, it does mean "thing people like". And I'm generally a fan of giving people what they like within reason. Or, at the very least, not taking away what seems to be well liked. If the complex Jobs were the ones being most played, it would indicate the Devs should add more complex Jobs since that's what the people want.

I'm not saying people are always right about things like domestic and foreign policy, but people are generally good judges of what things they personally enjoy.

In fact you seem to strengthen that interpretation in the second paragraph where you prioritize not needing to make any meaningful rotational decisions, that the rotation should simply happen without disruption. You've not been shy about enjoying the easier rotation. You even say it succeeded in creating a "smoothness of flow", so I don't know what your problem is here.

I think you don't understand the point. SAM has a somewhat complex rotation, but it closes its loop. You have something that's basically 1-2-3-1-4-1-5-6 (however you want to arrange it), and then 7. You also will occasionally 1-2-7. But the rotation is more or less closed. SAM I don't play as much, so I'll use MNK, as I'm more familiar with it. MNK's rotation is 18 buttons long, but it moves between abilities and the loop closes at the end to get back to the beginning. 1-2-3-4-5-6-1-2-6-4-5-3-1-2-6-4-5-6-back to start. It's satisfying because it is a nicely closed loop that cycles. You don't end it with 4-5-clip to 1-2-3. You finish off the loop and then it begins again. It's smooth and requires thinking about what you're doing, but there's a correct way to do it, and that's it. It's not simple (in the sense of complex or braindead), yet it's smooth and deterministic.

I don't like rotations where you have to do stupid stuff like "You have a buff and can use Atonement 3 times, but every other time...yeah, you just use two of those". And MNK's, for all that it's static, has hiccups in it when you do use the Nadi finishers, but the core rotation is nice and and I like it. I prefer the "choice" being in things like when to use oGCDs or when to use movement tools that don't disrupt your rotation (things like Ruin 4), but I like rotations that are closed loops IF they're rotations.

RDM gets a pass since it doesn't have a set rotation, though it has "micro-rotations/phases" of shortcast-longcast sets. Of which there are a total of 6 and if you ever build a decision tree for using them, it's actually pretty crazy what your mind is doing on the fly when you play the Job, evaluating conditions (is White > Black, White < Black, White = Black), what procs are up (is Verfire ready = True, Verstone ready = true, Both = true - if so, which has the shorter duration remaining?), and other contingent variables (is Acceleration sitting at 2 charges or about to reach 2 charges? Is there a heavy movement phase coming up? How close are you to your melee combo-ready? Is the phase one which allows melee range engagement? Is the next burst window close enough you want to save pooled resources for it? Is Manification up or about to be up?). But since all of this is broken into "shortcast-longcast", it's a far less daunting task than if you sit down and try to think out and math out what is actually going on.

Anyway, point is: Rotation that smoothly interlocks at the end and start of the next loop is not simple or bad.

Hell, OLD SMN did this. The rotation was a perfect(ish) 2 min full cycle.

Where did I say you weren't using the definition I quoted? Perhaps using "defined" here to articulate that I explained my position was confusing.

"I clearly define what I mean by "disjointed", and you just...ignore it?" - If I'm ignoring it, I can't be using it, right? Can a person be using a thing while ignoring the thing? But I'm willing to let you off the hook on this one. But when you say I'm ignoring things, that kinda means I'm not using them, hence why I thought you said I wasn't.

In any case, the other stuff...we're going to disagree on, but I would say that "continuous" is not a word that fit Old SMN. Connected I'll give you in the sense that individual strands connected to others like a spider web. I don't feel it was as coherent as something like RDM where all the systems seem more or less connected, and Old SMN's were, as I said, tangentially connected or connected in individual elements to other individual elements. But sure, we can call that connected. Not "continuous", though. Old SMN, as I've said, was ALL OVER THE PLACE. It lacked coherence, which was one of the things people complained about even back then. "Why is Phoenix attached to FBT but DWT and Bahamut are separate things?" and so on are arguments of how Old SMN wasn't coherent.

You don't seem interested in other people's views at all, unless they're non-critical of newSMN.

Since we're otherwise having a decent conversation...I'm going to ignore this. Please stop doing it.[/hb]

...

New SMN is fine.

New SMN is not what you like, enjoy, or think is good for the game. Those are different arguments.

It is on the low end of DPSers. The only things lower than it are RDM (for reasons that make no sense and even I've said RDM shouldn't be doing less than SMN) and the three party buff Jobs, though I think MCH is also able to output numbers higher than SMN. BRD and DNC doing less makes sense given their party buffing and that DNC is well known for NOT being a difficult Job itself.

I'm going to ignore that last quip, because it's yet again you trying to derail the thread with personal attacks and I'm trying not to respond in kind.

They'll never return Noct Sect back the way it was (at least not in next expansion) now that they added a new shield Healer unless they repurpose it to something completely different.

Misshapen Chair pointed out that this makes no sense. Suppose they ever DO add another Healer. Then what? Will there be 3 Pure 2 Barrier or 2 Pure 3 Barrier? Will they only add Healer Jobs in pairs from now on? Even if we assume the Pure/Barrier split survives where the Main Tank/Off Tank split did not (and it's dubious if it will), there's no real NEED for there to be exactly the same number of each. We have 5 Melee, 3 Ranged, and 3 Casters. Melee not having 3 or 6 (depending on if you math for 1 or 2 party slots) isn't throwing everything in the world off. There not being 6 Tanks and 6 Healers (2 party slots...!) isn't destroying things, either. So they very easily could have 2 Pure/3 Barrier (with AST being one of each) without an issue.

It would probably BE BETTER FOR HEALER BALANCE because right now, AST is a Pure + Barrier-lite Healer given it has a 60 sec party mitigation and a 2 min party AOE barrier while WHM has just a single 2 min party mitigation and no party barrier. AST as it is is already half-Nocturnal and so it's getting the benefits of being a Pure and a Barrier Healer at the same time, which is making it stomp all over WHM in the meta. WHM's saving grace is...it's just so damn easy to play by comparison that people bring it anyway since it's easier to get good performance out of. If WHM was as APM heavy crazy as AST is, AST would be wiping the floor with WHM (or people would be running SCH/SGE comps for everything), one of the two.

Hopefully not. I expect the devs have learned their lesson and never do something like what they did to SMN to any job ever again. No jobs deserve to be become like that.

Again - agree to disagree - there's nothing wrong with SMN.

But I do agree that no Job should be changed that way. I've already said extensively why and how I don't think Jobs should be completely changed out from under players. WHM going from SB to ShB to EW didn't change that much (contrary to some people's claims), so it's fine. SHM, on the other hand, had a completely massive change in both mechanics and complexity and gameplay. That isn't fine. The Job's mechanics and systems THEMSELVES are fine, but it should have just been made into a separate Job, like Evoker that unlocks from Arcanist at level 30 and call it a day from there.