Thread: Making Jobs Rotationally Easier in 4.0

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

I think it is mostly translation of the interview that is causing the confusion for you. I suspect that the intended meaning of 原初 is closer to Primeval (adjective; of or relating to the first age or ages, especially of the world) or Primitive which would imply a "Wild Man." 原初 breaks down into 原(original) 初(first) and the translation software that was used translation it as Origin instead of the intended meaning of Primeval/Primitive.

So the abilities would more correctly be 原初の魂 (Beast of the Primitive/Primeval/Wild (Man)) 原初の大地 (Land of the Primitive/Primeval/Wild (Man)) nor 原初の直感 (Instinct of the Primitive/Primeval/Wild (Man))

Ahh, that makes more sense. Thanks a bunch.

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

there is this guy underperforming, dilly-dallying for whatever reasons, and most of the work is done by the 3 of you

So, a tank staying in tank stance is "dilly-dailying" ?
How "most of the work" would DPS do if they had to take the hits with a tank really "underperforming" ?

Originally Posted by Sarcatica

Let's say you are in a school project with another 3 people.

Let's say you make a game with three other people. You do the level design, another does the game design, one does the AI and the last makes all the user interface. In the end, you get a comfortable passing grade, would you chastize the UI-guy because it didn't help you on the level design ?

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Let's say you make a game with three other people. You do the level design, another does the game design, one does the AI and the last makes all the user interface. In the end, you get a comfortable passing grade, would you chastize the UI-guy because it didn't help you on the level design ?

You need to quantify the load and how good are the parts the person does, if the project is heavy on game design and way less for UI, obviously the guy in charge of it is doing less load. If the game design is so freaking good that it receives praises from the pros while the UI sucks balls and that alone brought down the marking, what would you feel as the one in charge of the game design? It just feels like you are carrying that UI guy, because that's the fact.

Also, what if I tell you that each group has different expectation? What if 3 top students get just passing marks because of that 1 guy doing just enough to pass? It's all in the expectation and failure to meet that ends up with frustration among the members. If you just want to clear, fine, but your team might not want it, hence you have this problem. Finding teams with same goal is hard, but you seem to just retire than having to try dealing with players, that's motivation you are lacking above anything else.

Originally Posted by Reynhart

So, a tank staying in tank stance is "dilly-dailying" ?
How "most of the work" would DPS do if they had to take the hits with a tank really "underperforming" ?

Let's say you make a game with three other people. You do the level design, another does the game design, one does the AI and the last makes all the user interface. In the end, you get a comfortable passing grade, would you chastise the UI-guy because it didn't help you on the level design ?

The example would be more apt if the assignment was "design five playable levels for a game." The UI and coding are both necessary in order to make those playable, but the point in the end, is the level design.

Originally Posted by SyzzleSpark

o.o

How did you people make a 35 page thread out of me telling SE to not dumb down our rotations like they hinted with DPS?

I guess I'm impressed.

Someone brought a tank.

DPS is not the only high-skill-check agenda. At the highest level, your ability to DPS is checked in combination with your ability to manage enmity and survive.

But really, you obviously have your biases.

Originally Posted by Reynhart

Ability to survive, which is dependent on your cooldown rotation, which, as you acknowledged yourself earlier, is exactly the same wether you stance dance or not...as for enmity as a WAR...

As I acknowledged earlier? I explained exactly how it's drastically different depending on how conservative you are with your stance. Your ability to completely distort reality to fit your biases never fails to amaze me.

And yea, enmity on WAR. When you need higher path up-time in early prog while not dropping eye to maximize DPS, enmity is an issue especially after a tank swap with a PLD. Or, when you are trying to pick up an add amidst large amounts of AoE healing without relying on your tank stance's enmity bonus.

Originally Posted by Brian_

As I acknowledged earlier? I explained exactly how it's drastically different depending on how conservative you are with your stance. Your ability to completely distort reality to fit your biases never fails to amaze me.

Yeah, sure...

• 

  Originally Posted by Reynhart

  Great and precise explanation (Honestly). But, let me ask you something, if you stayed in Defiance, would you use your CD differently ? For the sixth and seven busters, would you refrain from using Vengeance ?
• 

  Originally Posted by Brian_

  No, I would still use my CDs as there is nothing else to use them on for one CD cycle.

The only thing you said is that tank stance offer a surplus of mitigation. But, again, your cooldown rotation has actually noting to do with that.