~Poll~ Longer fights <Do you want it?>

[Shurrikhan]

Yes because it makes sense for one mob to die from 100 different hits from the next mob. Whether it be an NM or not. You cut something in the throat it will die.

Also it's sooo fuun killing one mob for 15mins 100+ times....... at least normal mobs have more variety to them, and if they get their AI up, it's 100xs better than just killing the same mob over and over again.

I pretty well have to agree with this, if only tangentially.

For starters, it's just weird expecting realism from a game, let alone this one. It's going to be ridiculous, or it's going to be a little more ridiculous. Not much of a difference at the point where something who's head has been cloven open several times is still attacking you.

150x same mob = mob's layer of depth (x % of unique behavior or abilities it's able to use) + mob's group strategy layer of depth. Not much of an increase, especially when, as is common for AOE situations, much of their 'uniqueness' will go unseen due to being killed too soon. Yes, group aspects of strategy come in and of their own, but they're nothing great. Each person does their job right, repetitively, and you'll hardly notice in your typical xp party. And in current implementation, there's virtually no unique mob 'group' behavior.

I don't necessarily see that as an argument for a specific length of fight. It's just that with the reaction speed of this game, using any weaponskills at all requires the mob to survive the first caster barrage, and won't be worthwhile without the target also surviving the rest of the AoEs. At less than 10 seconds a mob, granted that can be a bit of an extreme, we essentially are only using 1-2 abilities per class. Fire-Fira, Pummel-Aura or just Aura. Hence the lacking 'depth.'

If the game's reactivity were faster, time's requested would change again; it's a matter of steps, not seconds. If AoEs weren't the only thing viable for these situations, time changes would have already happened naturally. Doesn't matter how the added depth is accomplished.

Some random stuff that would add depth as long as the gameplay needed could be done:

• More AI behavior based off group combat, perhaps including triggers from nearby ally deaths.
• AoE maximums or fewer "pure AoEs" (damage dealt equally over area, and instead something like damage starting in the center and being absorbed or reduced from maximum as it expands outward, or the opposite; more unique patterns)
• Ways for AoEs to play off 'source' ST attacks
• Reasons for patterned orders of killing

P.S. Someone's probably already said this before, but mob difficulty doesn't have anything to necessarily do with leveling speed, as they can always award more xp proportionally.

[Soukyuu]

people are stuck on XI mechanics

Because everyone played FFXI, right? Right? <_<

A group should not need 40 second to take down a single Dodo. I'm sorry. That thing should be dead no greater than 15 seconds in. It's a bird, and not a dangerous one.

Now, if you were saying a group takes on a flock of birds. Then yes, about 40 seconds for a group on group fight consisting of fodder mobs. Longer if say, the enemy group is humanoids, as they should be more challenging enemies then the local fauna.

So you're actually agreeing with me? Because currently a flock of birds doesn't live 40 seconds in most cases.

[Skies]

Also i've just remembered a thing.
You do know that any AoE maxes at 8 targets, right? (or was it 10, cannot remember exactly) Any single AoE utilized will cap at that number of targets, so it's not like if you do a humungous pull you'll run out of targets too soon.

[Soukyuu]

Also i've just remembered a thing.
You do know that any AoE maxes at 8 targets, right? (or was it 10, cannot remember exactly) Any single AoE utilized will cap at that number of targets, so it's not like if you do a humungous pull you'll run out of targets too soon.

If speaking in terms of pure AoE spammage, yes. But when you have a mixed single target/AoE DD, you will have melees constantly changing targets because what you just targeted will usually be one of those 8 targets.

But yeah, in Natalan even melee can start executing more than one skill. But that's 40+, so for 40 levels you just spam this one skill.

Another thing about AoE being capped to 8, when you have multiple AoE cast on different targets of a mob, the 8 targets it hits is different, so potentially you could cover more than 8 targets in "one" cast

[Dragon]

Do all open world monster need to be reduced to this?


I much rather my open world monsters and "Rabble rousers" as you so call them to look like this.




I certanly don't want them to be killed in 15-20 seconds I mean christ why even bother giving monsters TP moves if they aren't even supposed to survive long enough to kill them.

Have people regressed so far into their instanced shells that they only want difficult unique monsters to be hidden away from the world unless we wave our fingers at a gate to summon them? Is it really so bad to have strong monsters wandering the wilderness with no othe goal than to murder you (and provide some hard to gather loot)? Are people so afraid of something happening outside some confines they control that they just wont let it happen.

Bah I say.

I really cannot agree more; perfectly said.

[Rutelor]

Here's for a return of the suspense-filled, panting-good times of crowd-control, link management and highly strategical fights.

R

[Alhanelem]

I really cannot agree more; perfectly said.

It's not really perfectly said. The things he doesn't want killed in 15-20 seconds are things that probably already arren't going to be killed in 15-20 sconds.

I don't want fights to last of some arbitrary length. Fight lengths should be appropriate and porportional to the sort of enemy you're fighting. Big scary boss = long fight. Bloated burble = short fight.

More accurately, I want better fights, not longer fights. Time and sophisticaiton or difficulty are not directly porportional.
Short fights can be intricate and challenging, and long fights can be simple and dull.

Here's for a return of the suspense-filled, panting-good times of crowd-control, link management and highly strategical fights.

These things already exist. Someone hasn't played Good King Moggle Mog or United We Stand or Hamlet Defense. And, as I said just a moment go, length of fight does not necessarly determine level of strategy or sophistication. We could immediately make all fights in the game longer by tripling enemies' HP or giving them super duper defense but that doesn't make combat more strategic, it just makes it take longer. Longer != more strategic, panting good suspense filled fights. Longer fights just mean longer fights.

[Jynx]

Short fights can be intricate and challenging

You know I've seen you say this often in this thread but would you mind giving us an example of a "Short but intricate" fight?

We sure as hell don't have that in this game, or any other game with short fights that I've ever seen. No aiming for the head/bodypart is not a "Intricate" tactic either.

[Alhanelem]

No aiming for the head/bodypart is not a "Intricate" tactic either.

Anything that breaks from continuously repeating the same action with no others in between is adding intricacy. I will not accept your arbitrary "doesn't count as intricate" rules. The incapcaitation system is an intricacy, as is the combo system, as will be battle regimens if/when they come back. None of these things require a certain amount of time to pass to be utilized. We already have enemies (e.g. bombs, cactuar) that have a significant consequence for allowing them to live too long. Mechanics like this allow short fights to be interesting.

Most of the problems with combat in this game come from
1) the lack of primarily-enfeebling type actions
2) lack of sophistication in enemy actions. With the exception of boss fights and instanced raids, few enemies have any variability in their behavior and are all extremely predictable, so even in the worst case situation you know what's going to happen.
3) lack of probability in complications to the player's actions. While original accuracy and resistance rates were really bad, it feels like things may have been taken too far to the other end of the spectrum. There is rarely a case where you have to choose anything other than your universally most powerful action because you can always count on it working.

None of these problems with combat have anything to do with fight length. The only point at which fights are "too short" is if you are literally one/two shotting enemies of comparable level. I don't know, maybe super triple melded people are doing that? I know I can't. It usually might take me three spells plus some abilities to take out a ~50 monster? Which isn't much different from FFXI- the only real difference with XI is the amount of time spent auto-attacking or waiting between actions.

Depth of combat != length of combat. You don't need to spend minutes per monster battling common enemies to have combat system with reasonable depth.

I'd love to hear your ideas on making fights more interesting. I don't want to hear your ideas on making fights longer, because making fights longer doesn't make them automatically better.

Take games like the kind where we stuff little critters into balls and make them fight eachother- where battles can sometimes be decided in a single turn, and other times can take dozens of turns. The combat system for those games seem simplistic, but is intricate for the sheer variety of moves available in the game (something that is being limited by this game's engine right now, as I understand it) and number of factors you have to consider (such as type). There is a significant crowd of people that play it competitively as a result- battles can sometimes last a long time, and sometimes be very short.

(There are a few things in FFXIV, such as differences between monster types, that were dumbed down to make experiences more consistent, and this does represent an area where I think things took a direction they shouldn't have)

[note; above section vague-ified to not sound like an advertisement]

TL;DR: advocate for better combat, not for arbitrary durations of combat.

[Gukie]

This is a great idea, the fights should last 1minute-5minute giving us a bunch of exp such as 2000-5000 exp instead of 3 second and giving us 1000 exp.
At least it will actually be fun ranking up****
I Hate grinding because it's boring---- but seriously grinding every monster and killing all of them in 4-10 second, there's no fun and no point of even having that.
they might as well give us a rank 50 job... this doesn't help nubs become better; but at least it doesn't waste my time grinding every monster out of boredom.

I say make the fight last longer with of course more exp to make it equal to how much exp you get now per hour.
POWER LEVEL..... -.-..... fix that B S otherwise you might as well give us rank 50
I don't mind Healing power level... but seriously invite disband power level? killing monster out of party with high rank?? If your going to allow that- just give us rank 50 at start.