Positionals

[Lyth]

I think some roles just naturally attract different types of players. Tanks always have some potential to cause wipes. FFXIV has tried its hardest to design the anxiety out of tanking. You have auto-healing tanks who don't have to worry about losing aggro, coupled with auto-positioning bosses and an excess of defensive actions including invulns. And still, to this day, players talk about tankxiety and refuse to tank because of it.

If you're the sort of player who is actually determined to tank, then you never would have needed any such changes to get into the role in the first place. You'll wipe countless times and learn from your setbacks every time, because you naturally have thick skin and are driven to succeed. That's not something that can be taught.

Simplifying a role does not draw in new players who were not already determined to take up the mantle in the first place. Simplification only devalues their effort and devalues their experiences.

Melee DPS likewise draws in players who tend to be very obsessive about their performance. You'll find that solitary pixel that lets you maintain uptime, knowing that the slightest offset will instantly kill you. You'll stay on the boss until the very last instant before disengaging, to the point that you'll send your healers into a panic. And you'll know the fights to the point that you can recall every single movement and rotation the bosses make from memory.

And if that sounds like a horrible, awful way to play the game, then that's probably true - for you. No amount of change to the role will ever convince you to stick with it. You'll try it out, level it up, and then eventually drop it in favor of the roles you've naturally shown a preference towards in the past. After all, you didn't need any convincing to play them in the first place.

Design roles for the people who love it, not for the people who hate it.

[Reinha]

Melee DPS likewise draws in players who tend to be very obsessive about their performance. You'll find that solitary pixel that lets you maintain uptime, knowing that the slightest offset will instantly kill you. You'll stay on the boss until the very last instant before disengaging, to the point that you'll send your healers into a panic. And you'll know the fights to the point that you can recall every single movement and rotation the bosses make from memory.

Yes, doing high damage whilst maximizing uptime in melee range is the point of melee jobs. The fact that none of the above actually describes positionals should tell you why there exists melee players who are drawn to the role but would enjoy it more without a clunky mechanic with zero in-game feedback.

Design roles for the people who love it, not for the people who hate it.

Design jobs for the different people enjoying the same role, not for gatekeepers or players who want to homogenize jobs within the same role. Hopefully viper or the melee after that will have no positionals.

[Turtledeluxe]

Yes, doing high damage whilst maximizing uptime in melee range is the point of melee jobs. The fact that none of the above actually describes positionals should tell you why there exists melee players who are drawn to the role but would enjoy it more without a clunky mechanic with zero in-game feedback.



Design jobs for the different people enjoying the same role, not for gatekeepers or players who want to homogenize jobs within the same role. Hopefully viper or the melee after that will have no positionals.

You keep posting this fallacy of equivocation when I've already explained there is a difference between consistency and homogeny. Maintaining a set of jobs with the same traits is not homogeny. No one is homogenizing melee jobs.

However what you are doing, adding another notch into all jobs being the same, is in fact homogeny at work.

If you don't want positionals, simply don't play melee. It's just that simple. If they're so negligible and so irrelevant, don't use them and stop making threads.

And if Viper doesn't have them, then great, play that. Your dps is probably going to be lower so don't bother us about parsing. Although everyone ITT has claimed this isn't motivated by effortless dps, so I'm sure you would be more than ok with Viper having inherently lower DPS.

[Reinha]

You keep posting this fallacy of equivocation when I've already explained there is a difference between consistency and homogeny. Maintaining a set of jobs with the same traits is not homogeny. No one is homogenizing melee jobs.

However what you are doing, adding another notch into all jobs being the same, is in fact homogeny at work.

If you don't want positionals, simply don't play melee. It's just that simple. If they're so negligible and so irrelevant, don't use them and stop making threads.

And if Viper doesn't have them, then great, play that. Your dps is probably going to be lower so don't bother us about parsing. Although everyone ITT has claimed this isn't motivated by effortless dps, so I'm sure you would be more than ok with Viper having inherently lower DPS.

I will keep posting what I please and it does not matter to me one bit if anyone who thinks themself a Melee Spokesperson loses sleep over the fact that people who don't like positionals would like to play melee without them and keep giving feedback. If such a melee job is released, you can take your own advice and just not play it. Speaking of fallacies, hopefully my commentary on Lyth's post has debunked the fallacy that people hate the melee role if they dislike positionals, which keeps getting repeated in this thread.

If viper doesn't have positionals, I will play that, that's the whole point. And "don't bother us about parsing" lol, you realise you are talking to a RPR main? Reaper dps is already the lowest of melee (and barely above bard according to some sources) despite having positionals, so it's kind of weird to try and justify the existence of positionals with the promise of a higher dps potential when my job is barely rewarded for having to be in melee range let alone having positionals.

[Turtledeluxe]

I will keep posting what I please and it does not matter to me one bit if anyone who thinks themself a Melee Spokesperson loses sleep over the fact that people who don't like positionals would like to play melee without them and keep giving feedback. If such a melee job is released, you can take your own advice and just not play it. Speaking of fallacies, hopefully my commentary on Lyth's post has debunked the fallacy that people hate the melee role if they dislike positionals, which keeps getting repeated in this thread.

If viper doesn't have positionals, I will play that, that's the whole point. And "don't bother us about parsing" lol, you realise you are talking to a RPR main? Reaper dps is already the lowest of melee (and barely above bard according to some sources) despite having positionals, so it's kind of weird to try and justify the existence of positionals with the promise of a higher dps potential when my job is barely rewarded for having to be in melee range let alone having positionals.

It has nothing to do with being a "Melee Spokesperson"-- I am commenting on job homogeny in general and explaining the actual definition/application of homogeny. Removing positionals to produce a new set of melee that don't have positionals is exactly that. Maintaining positionals that exist across all melee is not homogeny. You can keep posting, you're still going to be using the term incorrectly.

And I also do not need to be a melee spokesperson to say that, if Viper has no positionals, you'll likely be looking at aDPS closer to MCH than RPR, i.e. a bigger disparity than what currently exists (not much of one) between the current melee classes.

Regarding BRD, the current state of its rDPS vs RPR makes complete sense and doesn't pose any contradiction. The aDPS of BRD is significantly lower.

I would also say that if it's true Xenosys mentioned this and is the source of this discontent, then he is unknowingly a job homogenist.

[Sjol]

It has nothing to do with being a "Melee Spokesperson"-- I am commenting on job homogeny in general and explaining the actual definition/application of homogeny. Removing positionals to produce a new set of melee that don't have positionals is exactly that. Maintaining positionals that exist across all melee is not homogeny. You can keep posting, you're still going to be using the term incorrectly.

And I also do not need to be a melee spokesperson to say that, if Viper has no positionals, you'll likely be looking at aDPS closer to MCH than RPR, i.e. a bigger disparity than what currently exists (not much of one) between the current melee classes.

Regarding BRD, the current state of its rDPS vs RPR makes complete sense and doesn't pose any contradiction. The aDPS of BRD is significantly lower.

I would also say that if it's true Xenosys mentioned this and is the source of this discontent, then he is unknowingly a job homogenist.

You made the argument that this is about homogeneity as opposed to consistency. I meant to respond earlier, but I still don't understand your distinction other than one has a good connotation and the other has a bad one.

That said, I do understand and feel for you in that you LIKE positionals and don't want to see them gone. Other people don't. Both are valid wants. People who don't like positionals have mentioned how they think they could be changed to be more likeable to them. You even agreed that feedback when you hit and miss them would be a nice addition.

I don't think there's an objective argument to liking or not liking positionals. It is just preference built on other forms of likes and dislikes. It sounds like you want more buttons while others want less. And, sadly, it's unlikely any set of changes will please everyone.

I do think there are some changes they could make to positionals that would make them more generally popular though:

1) Update the tooltips from:
"Delivers an attack with a potency of 300. 400 when execute from a target's rear." to:
"Delivers at attack of potency 300 (400 from target's rear)."

2) Add additional signals that you hit them (per many people's request).

3) Make it more intuitive if an attack is from behind or the flank. Right now, it's difficult to remember which attacks are flank and which are rear, especially if you change jobs a lot.

4) Reduce random boss turns. In a 2.5 second window, it feels bad to miss because you're on the wrong side of a boss turn.

5) Grant positional bonuses if you have threat or using some other mechanism when you're soloing.

[Turtledeluxe]

You made the argument that this is about homogeneity as opposed to consistency. I meant to respond earlier, but I still don't understand your distinction other than one has a good connotation and the other has a bad one.

That said, I do understand and feel for you in that you LIKE positionals and don't want to see them gone. Other people don't. Both are valid wants. People who don't like positionals have mentioned how they think they could be changed to be more likeable to them. You even agreed that feedback when you hit and miss them would be a nice addition.

I don't think there's an objective argument to liking or not liking positionals. It is just preference built on other forms of likes and dislikes. It sounds like you want more buttons while others want less. And, sadly, it's unlikely any set of changes will please everyone.

I do think there are some changes they could make to positionals that would make them more generally popular though:

1) Update the tooltips from:
"Delivers an attack with a potency of 300. 400 when execute from a target's rear." to:
"Delivers at attack of potency 300 (400 from target's rear)."

2) Add additional signals that you hit them (per many people's request).

3) Make it more intuitive if an attack is from behind or the flank. Right now, it's difficult to remember which attacks are flank and which are rear, especially if you change jobs a lot.

4) Reduce random boss turns. In a 2.5 second window, it feels bad to miss because you're on the wrong side of a boss turn.

5) Grant positional bonuses if you have threat or using some other mechanism when you're soloing.

These are all augmentations that I am not opposed to. Regarding homogeneity-- I am unsure if you aware that it is typically use to refer to the process of homogenization or uniform structures from a biological, chemical, etc perspective. FFXIV commonly throw around these terms to describe things that have similarity, which is technically ok, but misleading in this specific case. Melee, tanks, healers being designed with specific traits that define their roles may "feel homogeneous" in a casual sense, but are not a process of homogenization.

It's actually the act of selecting against positionals that leads to homogenization. Maybe not with the other melee, but all other jobs.

[Valence]

You keep posting this fallacy of equivocation when I've already explained there is a difference between consistency and homogeny. Maintaining a set of jobs with the same traits is not homogeny. No one is homogenizing melee jobs.

However what you are doing, adding another notch into all jobs being the same, is in fact homogeny at work.

I do agree with the idea you're been trying to insert here, but my inherent problem with your statements is that you bring them up like if they were based on factual, objective values, which they certainly ain't.

For example, I do believe that when I argue for jobs of a same role to output the same (total cdps) damage and differentiate themselves through more intricacies elsewhere when it comes to job identity, I'm expecting the identical damage output to be a consistency trait shared by the role, defining the role and not the jobs. But some players would rather have it defining the jobs rather than the role, which is 1) subjective, and 2) completely reliant on where one puts the threshold.

Within the context of positionals, some assume it should be a role trait, while some do think it should be job dependent, much like procs are those days, etc.

Arguing that bringing or keeping consistency prevents homogeny is a fallacy on its own, see the new pvp job sets and identities. There is actually very little consistency within each role to a point where it becomes (half) role agnostic, yet this opened for so much more in terms of creativity by having each jobs not beholden to follow an excruciatingly long list of role traits and made sure to satisfy them, that ironically enough, pvp jobs are ten times more interesting than pve jobs with thrice less buttons. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not advocating for pve to destroy the trinity like that, quite the opposite, and that's definitely where one can put some consistency.

[Arkdra]

Arguing that bringing or keeping consistency prevents homogeny is a fallacy on its own, see the new pvp job sets and identities. There is actually very little consistency within each role to a point where it becomes (half) role agnostic, yet this opened for so much more in terms of creativity by having each jobs not beholden to follow an excruciatingly long list of role traits and made sure to satisfy them, that ironically enough, pvp jobs are ten times more interesting than pve jobs with thrice less buttons. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not advocating for pve to destroy the trinity like that, quite the opposite, and that's definitely where one can put some consistency.

Literally 0 of the pvp jobs are more interesting than their pve versions.

Edit: PvP jobs are interesting in that they made a bunch of tiny kits feel distinct and true to their base jobs. They are not interesting in the sense that if you stuck them in PvE, they would be fun at all. They would be super boring in fact.

Edit: Also pvp is ultra imbalanced and the only reason it isn't a problem is that such a minor portion of the playerbase engages with it. So this is a terrible sell.

[Sjol]

Literally 0 of the pvp jobs are more interesting than their pve versions.

Edit: PvP jobs are interesting in that they made a bunch of tiny kits feel distinct and true to their base jobs. They are not interesting in the sense that if you stuck them in PvE, they would be fun at all. They would be super boring in fact.

I remember and loving Wildstar which had a cap of 8 abilities if I recall. It just happened to be that there wasn't really tab-targeting, your abilities all had different ranges and shapes, casting times and styles. I've noticed a distinct lack of channeled abilities outside one or two which don't seem to be that popular. I can absolutely have a really good time with just a few attack types, even in PvE content. And I would love some of the PvP DRG stuff to come over. I especially liked the jump back and attack that does damage the farther away you are. Also diving from the sky is pure joy, though that wouldn't translate to the 2-minute meta.