Quote Originally Posted by Mikey_R View Post
To give a simple example. if I have combo A and Combo B. The both do the same damage, but Combo A produces extra enmity whilst combo B doesn't, doesn't that make Combo B redundant?

If you want an actual ingame example, imagine if Fast Blade > Savage Blade > Rage of Halone done the same DPS and Fast Blade > Riot Blade > Royal Authority, with the rage combo still having it's increased enmity, then what is the point of the Royal Authority combo?
Could do like WAR does now.

Storm's Path and Storm's Eye do exactly the same damage.

...but Storm's Path generates more Beast Gauge and heals the WAR while Storm's Path gives them a damage buff they upkeep. They're not QUITE damage neutral, but they're not super FAR from damage neutral, or at least not so far that players refuse to ever touch Storm's Path and use it at least twice per minute.

Not saying do exactly that, but the point is, two abilities can do the same damage while each having some other secondary effect. Yes, yes, you could math out the 10 extra Beast Gauge as damage, but even if they gave you the same amount, you'd still generally prioritize Storm's Path for the free healing while still wanting to use Storm's Eye for the buff.

So to use your example, it'd be like if Royal and Halone did the same damage, but Royal also did a small heal or shield, but while generating far less enmity. The player would thus use Halone from time to time to prevent losing enmity while prioritizing Royal when they didn't need the enmity boost due to the self-heal, but a 200 or so potency heal also wouldn't be so powerful that players would grumble whenever their thumb had to grace their Halone button with its presence.

That is, there can be difference, where the difference is meaningful but minimal and non-damage related - such as contrasting self-healing or mitigation (GNB's -2 makes a small shield, too) vs threat - so that one isn't always "by default the correct choice".

There's a thread in the healer forum discussing what makes "meaningful choice", and it's a complicated question, but for my part, I contend when one choice is so inferior that it is never picked, that isn't a real choice. They should be distinct so that you have reason to pick one over another, but not so different in some significant way that one is considered always the better option such that the other is never touched.