Quote Originally Posted by Kabooa View Post
Clearly we have a missed connection here. I find individual quote tagging annoying. So I'll take the blame there. My understanding was you saying "We can't have these things because first we have to be able to have things."
I'm saying that some patterns, nuances, punchlines, whatever are only visible as such with enough resolution or context, and what you can't notice, even at highest-level play, might as well not be there. Moreover, if that factor doesn't lead to a more satisfying game, to at least a fair chunk of people, however indirectly, it doesn't belong.

(I hold the italicized standards in higher regard when considering existing mechanics, or the like, than with new ones, as I think we should hold ourselves to higher standards with each addition and as development moves forward.)

1. Combo breakers and non-breakers.
We agree on the need for increased ability to work around or manipulate combos. But, again, my emphasis was not on combos, but on rotations. Even if every action were technically not combo restricted, if the order in which you can optimally or near-optimally use them is fixed, with greater opportunity cost for adapting to the present circumstances (add spawns or incoming downtime) than ignoring those changes, that solves nothing.

2. Damage types
You've misunderstood me here. I've never spoken here about damage types except to say that they're not what I've been talking about. What I spoke of was distinct functionality. Slashing, Piercing, Blunt, Fire, Wind, Water, Earth, Ice, Lightning, Magical, Physical, and Unaspected do not function differently. They check a given debuff category and are then calculated for identically. They all purely just a negative adder which affects unit HP. There is no distinctly physical, piercing, magical, earthly, or fiery effect to any of them.

I am mostly fine with flat physical and magical because, while I do like for composition to adjust gameplay, I weigh those benefits against loss of compositional choice. If the change minimally augments or fails to augment gameplay -- say, the fun of being a MCH or BLM when paired with the other -- while notably restricting compositional freedom, the disbenefits outweigh the benefits. Given the CD alignment dependence of MCH, this would likely turn into having to garble their Wildfire prep while the BLM syncs their Astral Fire phase to the Wildfire cast, a lesser-geared BLM rushing a cycle to ready their F4 burst (F4x5, ideally w/o Umbral Hearts w/ Ley Lines if the bonus is overpowered, or or F4x3, F1 or Firestarter, (F4) with enough SpS if not), or --most likely-- zero change at all.

What did we see as a result of functionally identical elements in 1.x? 5 out of 6 of each spell tier (initially direct, DoT, or AoE) going unused. It didn't change how we cast. It didn't change tactical considerations. It did not augment gameplay unless you really, really, really enjoyed remembering that a crab is water element, and should be burned, not drowned enough to waste almost 83% of your damaging spells to bloat.

3. It was a catch all response to just shoring up inequities between Critical and everything else.
I do not know what portion of the post you are referring to.

4. I'mjustsayingIdon'twantthegametodevolveintohitting1buttongoverandoverlikeWarcraft
I'm not saying, nor have I ever suggested, that I would.

5. Regarding proposed stats: I could do a better job of explaining them there substats, but I'm tired, and will just settle with "Each of them adds additional layers of consideration, all of them to the player, and some of them to the team.
If you can make that happen in practice in the given limitations, then kudos to you. Seriously.