Quote Originally Posted by ty_taurus View Post
So I pose the question to you all, do you think a concept like this could work? Would it satisfy both sides of this never-ending conflict?
I think it'd be more a QoL alternative to what other hoops players would otherwise go through to simplify/automate their gameplay than any felt increase in choice.

In your sample, the options are essentially between greater and lesser complexity -- greater control (with more button expenditure/"bloat") vs. slightly greater constraints (being limited to just the use-cases that get automatically baked in). The only difference between that and, say, just un-neutering the macro system, though, is probably just that you can reduce the cost of not engaging with a given kit mechanic.

But that has its own downsides: How do you balance that more complex or less fool-proofed option against the other? And even if you give it a faintly higher ceiling commensurate with what optimizations even a skilled player may end up missing out on by busying themselves from not automating/removing/fool-proofing that mechanic... you still have the issue of the more complex option being inferior until it's (almost) perfectly optimized, which then makes time spent within the harder choice feel cumbersome during the time spent learning it... which then makes fewer willing to learn it. By contrast, everyone having that same option and just being free to go as far along it towards optimization as they like --as per now-- feels far less deliberate or "locked-in".

For my part, just keeping each additional bit of complexity's ppm contribution reasonable (i.e., tapering off / diminishing, especially where less intended minutia are involved, which is usually a natural consequence of just keeping the vast majority of the kit largely accessible and intuitive) seems like it already provides most of the benefits of these choices as given example here.

(Granted, I'm one of those who thinks Summoner has too much output for how little it demands -- though I'd therefore increase the amount of engagement available to it, rather than just nerfing it -- so...)


All in all? It's probably(?) an improvement, though likely only a slight one. I doubt it'd quite be worth its costs.


___________


Now, if this were intended as a more expansion customization system, rather than just set of a simplification(-undoing) bimodal option, I would likely be more excited, though I would want that to come in a much more XIV-ish manner, such as through just breaking the traits into Major and Minor Traits and letting each class/job have more Major Trait slots than it automatically fills. Those traits would affect different jobs in different ways while providing a consistent theme to each kit they're slotted into. (MNK's Flowing Strikes on WHM would function quite differently than on DRG or MCH, but would ultimately bring each job towards a similar niche and/or similar capacities.)

But... that would be even more of a design nightmare, as it'd effectively increase the number of jobs to be balanced to at least <[number of jobs] * ([number of jobs] - 1)>. In terms of build choices per development hour spent, it'd be hugely more efficient, but in terms of pizzazz/sale-power per development hour? It'd be quite the hard sell as a project/addition to the game.