A Disabled Raider's Review of Patch 7.0 Duty Design

[Valence]

"Because I have no problems with certain things, then people having problems with those things must be of bad faith, disingenuous, or not even trying."

[ExiaKuromonji]

"Because I have no problems with certain things, then people having problems with those things must be of bad faith, disingenuous, or not even trying."

This is actually pretty disingenuous on your part which is ironic. The problem I have is not that he fins the mechanic hard to follow. It's that he was able to do savage content and perform well which has things that are hard to follow. Because there's no way you're getting a 95 in M2S with a mechanic that's "ultimate level" and having a hard time in a dungeon.

[Shurrikhan]

This is actually pretty disingenuous on your part which is ironic. The problem I have is not that he fins the mechanic hard to follow. It's that he was able to do savage content and perform well which has things that are hard to follow. Because there's no way you're getting a 95 in M2S with a mechanic that's "ultimate level" and having a hard time in a dungeon.

I'm not sure why that's necessarily hard to understand in that.

I had a friend who could crunch calculus problems in no time but noted that he couldn't count actual physical things --say, the number of cars in a lot-- past a dozen or so as quickly as a five-year-old could (especially if there was any movement or change in perspective). His brain simply couldn't track and exclude what was already counted, especially with the aforementioned orientation, let alone handle groups of objects quickly. He was fully aware of the issue and trying different techniques to address it, but for the time being, it was simply a process his brain could not handle normally.

Why should it be inconceivable for one particular algorithm to be harder for one person to process than for an "average" person even if their typical competence is well above said average?

I do think the mentioned mechanic wasn't a particularly good (or, certainly not widely relevant) example of the broader skew of changes the OP treats as an issue, but still...

[ExiaKuromonji]

I'm not sure why that's necessarily hard to understand in that.

I had a friend who could crunch calculus problems in no time but noted that he couldn't count actual physical things --say, the number of cars in a lot-- past a dozen or so as quickly as a five-year-old could (especially if there was any movement or change in perspective). His brain simply couldn't track and exclude what was already counted, especially with the aforementioned orientation, let alone handle groups of objects quickly. He was fully aware of the issue and trying different techniques to address it, but for the time being, it was simply a process his brain could not handle normally.

Why should it be inconceivable for one particular algorithm to be harder for one person to process than for an "average" person even if their typical competence is well above said average?

I do think the mentioned mechanic wasn't a particularly good (or, certainly not widely relevant) example of the broader skew of changes the OP treats as an issue, but still...

Dunno. Finally giving the whole post an honest try. it'll take a while. But there hasn't been much to change my mind on this despite trying to approach it as someone who's not annoyed and someone who's legit trying to understand it. I just finished reading his first post entirely. It seems to come down to he doesn't like physically demanding mechanics and I do. I mean there's not much either side can do about this difference in opinion so we just need to move past it. It appears most people like DT design more than EWs. It sucks it's not working out for him. But I'm not about to suggest we go back to fight design that I find less fun just to please someone else.

Why should it be inconceivable for one particular algorithm to be harder for one person to process than for an "average" person even if their typical competence is well above said average?

I'll try to answer this though. it's because he compared Alarum to Grand octet. Which were apparently "alike". So I think this is closer to comparing your calculus example with another calculus example then you're letting on. Grand Octet is also a mechanic that gets cheesed so it's a bit skewed I will admit. The difference is Alarum is completely random (if there's a pattern I still haven't seen it). But it's also less punishing. Any death or mistake is likely going to be a guaranteed wipe in Octet, even with it being cheesed. Because there's way more things to pay attention to after. And missing a tower will still kill the party even with tank LB3.

[Arohk]

The difference is Alarum is completely random (if there's a pattern I still haven't seen it). But it's also less punishing

There is no pattern to Alarum Pheromones, each bee spawns at a random place and targets a random player(i assume you talk about that Honey Bee Lovely Phase), there is not much to understand about it, the only trick is to keep moving and not standing still , like not standing still at all,just keep running, while the entire party moves in a large circle around the room, if you think you get cornered you can use KB resist to prevent falling out of the arena.
I have tried multiple strategies during week 1 in a static and nothing worked, just running in a big circle is a the best solution and paying attention if there is a bee right infront of you.

Grand Octet is not exactly the same, since the dragons spawn in a set pattern (still some RNG involved) but the solution to both mechanics is kinda similar, i would say grand octet is a lot more difficult to solve because you need to pay attention if you got a marker or not and react accordingly.

[ExiaKuromonji]

There is no pattern to Alarum Pheromones, each bee spawns at a random place and targets a random player(i assume you talk about that Honey Bee Lovely Phase), there is not much to understand about it, the only trick is to keep moving and not standing still , like not standing still at all,just keep running, while the entire party moves in a large circle around the room, if you think you get cornered you can use KB resist to prevent falling out of the arena.
I have tried multiple strategies during week 1 in a static and nothing worked, just running in a big circle is a the best solution and paying attention if there is a bee right infront of you.

Grand Octet is not exactly the same, since the dragons spawn in a set pattern (still some RNG involved) but the solution to both mechanics is kinda similar, i would say grand octet is a lot more difficult to solve because you need to pay attention if you got a marker or not and react accordingly.

Yeah my static tried the Mario Kart thing as we wanted to stick with what PF was doing. But we honestly had better results having the MT (me) keeping her middle at all times and everyone for themselves dodging. The odd thing is this seemed waaaay easier for us. It didn't seem to make sense to have a patterned strategy for a mechanic without a pattern. And now I consistently get through it without being hit despite almost never having moved the boss as the main tank. Maybe this becomes harder with someone who has trouble keeping the boss middle for melees. I dunno. I don't consider myself a top tier player. I was 1 of the weaker players in our TOP static that took 2300 pulls to clear after all.

[Shurrikhan]

Dunno. Finally giving the whole post an honest try. it'll take a while.

It's some 30+ pages, iirc, so that's understandable.

It seems to come down to he doesn't like physically demanding mechanics and I do. I mean there's not much either side can do about this difference in opinion so we just need to move past it.

Likely. I do think there's some alarm to be raised, though, if the game were so broadly swinging towards one particular form of difficulty, since doing so would often occlude other forms of difficulty or one's leverage with content containing those other forms.

We could also point at certain forms being more problematic than others for mostly objective reasons. Those dependent on reactivity disproportionately affect those with physical mechanical issues and with higher ping. Those dependent on memorization, well, tend not to offer as much later -- becoming both narrowly accessible and without longevity, more akin to a puzzle to be solved than repeatable content. But even those, both, are fine and even advantageous to the game in reasonable quantities.

I'll try to answer this though. it's because he compared Alarum to Grand octet.

Ahh, I see. Because you had mentioned a "dungeon" mechanic, I thought you were referring to that of a literal dungeon -- i.e., his bit on Greatest Labyrinth -- in what I replied to.

[ExiaKuromonji]

Ahh, I see. Because you had mentioned a "dungeon" mechanic, I thought you were referring to that of a literal dungeon -- i.e., his bit on Greatest Labyrinth -- in what I replied to.

Maybe I shouldn't make responses when I'm not in the best mood (should be obvious lol). I was actually talking about 2 different things he said and at some point it got mixed up.

The bit on Greatest Labyrinth was so long that I could only see it as a wild rant. I haven't got that far yet in my "actual" read. The bit about Alarum and Grand Octet was the comparison that confused me the most. But where I'm at in reading makes me think he did this in PF, which I think does Mario Kart (my static gave up on this, we hated this strategy). And he wouldn't be the only one I've seen judging a game mechanic based on PF experience (look at you Light Rampant)