Positionals

[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.

[Sjol]

PLD doesn't have 40 keys with roles, pretty sure you're counting extra on all other jobs too

While I do think 32 keys is the perfect spot I don't have any issues with PLD and I still got room for a few more keys before I'm strapped and I do not think we should hard cap any of the regular jobs, they seem to be doing a great job right now (except SMN).

You're right, I counted the tank roles jobs wrong. It's 7 instead of 9. I updated the original post. However, 38 is still a lot and I reconfirmed the totals for NIN and BLM.

[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.

[Turtledeluxe]

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.

I've never once said that maintaining consistency prevents homogeny-- I said that they are two different things. I am basing my thoughts on something objective-- the devs made the melee class. The devs decided they would have positionals as part of their role.

Which again, if all melee had identical positionals that would be the best case use of the word. They don't, though. That's why I said you can kind of get away with "this feels homogeneous", but really it's not the best descriptor beyond that. If you select against positionals and remove them from melee, that makes them non positional in nature and literally the same across any other job that lacks positionals. So their quality of being non positional based is quite literally homogeneous (between all of those jobs, it's a homogeneous trait at that point). The actual problem here, is that players are reverse engineering it to seem like melee is a victim of homogenization while pushing homogenization. I conceded in earlier post, someone might say "well it only makes melee 20% more like other jobs", yet homogenization is homogenization and I think the game has suffered enough of that.

[HikariKurosawa]

I've never once said that maintaining consistency prevents homogeny-- I said that they are two different things. I am basing my thoughts on something objective-- the devs made the melee class. The devs decided they would have positionals as part of their role.

Which again, if all melee had identical positionals that would be the best case use of the word. They don't, though. That's why I said you can kind of get away with "this feels homogeneous", but really it's not the best descriptor beyond that. If you select against positionals and remove them from melee, that makes them non positional in nature and literally the same across any other job that lacks positionals. So their quality of being non positional based is quite literally homogeneous.

I think it's homogenous that all melee jobs have positionals. I think it's homogenous that all melee jobs use both flank and rear positionals. Their quality of having positionals is quite literally homogenous.

To be honest though I think it's disingenuous and boring to use the buzz word homogenous in the context of this game. There is no such factor and never will be. It is always used to push an individual's narrative and never based on anything real.

[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.

[Turtledeluxe]

I think it's homogenous that all melee jobs have positionals. I think it's homogenous that all melee jobs use both flank and rear positionals. Their quality of having positionals is quite literally homogenous.

I think it's disingenuous and boring to use the buzz word homogenous in the context of this game. There is no such factor and never will be.

They are not the same imo beyond the position, as they feed a bit differently into each job.

It's easy to make a case when you set up arbitrary guard rails like "well my preferences only effect melee" (they don't) or "I only want to look at the potency bonus". That's not personally how I look at the game.

[HikariKurosawa]

They are not the same imo beyond the position, as they feed a bit differently into each job.

It's easy to make a case when you set up arbitrary guard rails like "well my preferences only effect melee" (they don't) or "I only want to look at the potency bonus". That's not personally how I look at the game.

They don't at all though. You do a positional you get a potency boost. It's flank or rear. That's the definition of homogenization if you wanna use that word.

You want less homogenization in the game? Make it so only one melee job uses positionals. Make it monk, and instead of making it something shallow like a potency boost, make it so that it is a requirement to do the rotation. Make it so you literally have to hit the positionals to do the actions. No potency bonus, no sound effect, just an absolute requirement for the job. That's how you fix positionals.

[Turtledeluxe]

They don't at all though. You do a positional you get a potency boost. It's flank or rear. That's the definition of homogenization if you wanna use that word.

You want less homogenization in the game? Make it so only one melee job uses positionals. Make it monk, and instead of making it something shallow like a potency boost, make it so that it is a requirement to do the rotation. Make it so you literally have to hit the positionals to do the actions. No potency bonus, no sound effect, just an absolute requirement for the job. That's how you fix positionals.

Or we could not do that, as it would result in 95% of jobs being homogeneous with regards to positionals.

As far as positionals, I don't care if you disagree. They are not identical.

https://ffxiv.consolegameswiki.com/w...tional_actions

This is why no one should have tried to spin the term against me.

[HikariKurosawa]

Or we could not do that, as it would result in 95% of jobs being homogeneous with regards to positionals.

As far as positionals, I don't care if you disagree. They are not identical.

https://ffxiv.consolegameswiki.com/w...tional_actions

I don't care if you don't agree, you stand at flank or rear and you get a potency boost. It's optional and it is shallow. If you like positionals so much, you would be drawn to the idea of a rotation being dependent on positionals. That's a meaningful implementation of positionals and it would make them a unique mechanic of the monk job. You say you like positionals, yet don't want to play a job that requires you to hit them consistently. Maybe you don't really like positionals that much and just enjoy the potency bonus?