Shadowbringers RDM Wishlist

[Archwizard]

Except, they wouldn't have to. They could as easily leave it be for all but the next expansion, and it wouldn't be the first time.

I can't fathom this response or what you mean to accomplish by it. You don't care if they leave inconsistencies in the design (because "they've done it before") in the course of... correcting what you find to be an inconsistency in the design?

Suggestions without any specifics are pointlessly vague. Potencies and durations, etc., may not be directly relevant, but the breakpoints and gameplay they would cause absolutely are.

Unless I'm misunderstanding something here, I'm not sure why we're still discussing breakpoints.
If DoTs do in fact increase their ticking speed in relation to time, then the easy solution to breakpoints is just to have them end in a tick of partial damage like WoW does, so that any carryover from being between two breakpoints still translates to full value. (Sure, you lose damage if you refresh before that tick, but... you would lose damage if you refreshed before the end of the DoT anyway, that's literally how DoTs work.)
But, as you've previously stated where the devs have claimed that increasing ticking or swinging speed is actually impossible to the design (partly because of server ticks), then since we're throwing speed out the window anyway, breakpoints are easily addressed by -- as you've said -- just increasing the damage like they theoretically already would.

Second, what you're trying to argue for is a Catch-22. It is impossible to make a suggestion that "adds flexibility or nuance" without adding specifics for that nuance.
I could say "we should have a DoT where the ticks give us a bonus mechanic" and you would respond to the effect of "well then it depends on the type and value of the mechanic," itself a prompt for a more specific suggestion for scrutiny.
If I add "DoT ticks would have a chance to (random example) upgrade one of our Ver-spells into a new spell that gives additional mana and maybe MP", and then the argument would be over the specifics of that suggestion (not necessarily proc-rate or how much mana and MP, but how the DoT would fit into the rotation, whether getting our MP recovery from a proc is good, does just upgrading Verthunder/Veraero's Mana really affect the rotation, etc.), which would most likely get overlooked by the devs anyway.

Because at the end of the day, the only parts of that discussion that matter to the devs are:

• If we are to be blessed/fated/doomed to get a DoT, give us one with mechanics attached to the ticks, not just damage.
• For the love of god don't make us spam individual DoTs in AoE.
• We need innate MP recovery to sustain our rotation.
• We want to generate mana faster so we can combo more often.
• Verwater/Verflood and Verblizzard/Verfreeze plz, don't care how or what they do thx

... at which point about the only things being left out are decrying dull Scatter-spam in AoE and our low survivability as melee-hybrids.

The "how" is, was, and forevermore shall be theirs to decide.

[Shurrikhan]

I can't fathom this response or what you mean to accomplish by it. You don't care if they leave inconsistencies in the design (because "they've done it before") in the course of... correcting an inconsistency in the design?

You've spent two paragraphs two posts ago to the effect that such a change is not precedented in code and would therefore require too much effort to be worth the change despite the work in balancing the stat it would make unnecessary (finicky changes to individual skills and almost inevitably separate stat-to-effect scalars for each job).
I therefore listed out for you how every part in the process has already been done, allegedly with ease. (The only possible issue that could require significant work is a cosmetic one that players would only see if they were to build a level 50/60 Relic weapon. That much, I'll agree, might not be worth the time it may require.)

You mentioned a possible X issue which would make Y change unlikely or unaffordable. I detailed how and why X is not an issue, leaving Y change lucrative and reasonable. I'm not sure what you're having trouble fathoming.

Second, what you're trying to argue for is a Catch-22. It is impossible to make a suggestion that "adds flexibility or nuance" without adding specifics for that nuance.
I could say "we should have a DoT where the ticks give us a bonus mechanic" and you would respond to the effect of "well then it depends on the type and value of the mechanic," itself a prompt for a more specific suggestion.

Yes. That's called granular descent, to an actual answer.

"So there's this funny story."
"Cool. Go on?"
"WHAT?! I HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC WITH THIS? I-owe-you-nothing-and-it-is-not-my-job-to-entertain-you-or-show-that-my-stories-are-funny!"
"..."

Becoming more specific isn't some weird or shocking thing. It's literally just the process of discussion.

Yes, there is a point where the specifics become gradually less worthwhile with each step, but that's why I set the emphasis on breakpoints. Breakpoints, not numbers, are what we actually feel in gameplay. We feel compromises, we feel tracking, we feel modulars, and so forth; they make up our actual gameplay decisions and elements of difficulty. That's why "I want DoTs" gives us nothing while

• If we are to be blessed/fated/doomed to get a DoT, give us one with mechanics attached to the ticks, not just damage.
• For the love of god don't make us spam individual DoTs in AoE.

gives us quite a lot. The prior is just a thing, that can make gameplay better or worse. The latter is a direction for gameplay.

Alternatively,

• We need innate MP recovery to sustain our rotation.

is sound, but vague enough that some of us would be curious to know how that might go wrong. You've provided examples of how we might implement MP recovery, in this case into the rotation itself, from which I would personally add to my own list,

• We need innate MP recovery to sustain our rotation, in a way that does not feel like we're wasting time in maintenance or filler or take significant cost in our gameplay for our potential strength via Verraise. If there should be gameplay impact, it should only be if and when we're milking our utility for all it's worth.

See? That might not have led us to an exact solution yet, but it gave us a chance to refine what we're individually looking for --or to point out what some of us did not want--, at which point we can talk about these things further or elsewhere with our viewpoint refined however much through inquiry and discussion. Is that not the point of all this?

Let's take that last bit, for instance...

... at which point about the only things being left out are decrying dull Scatter-spam in AoE and our poor survivability in melee.

You may trust that if we were to say "Scatter spam is bad", its replacement would necessarily be better. I'd give it a 50/50 chance, and thus am currently trying to figure out what kind of gameplay I want from AoE and different ways to approach that gameplay as not to chance a Monkey's Paw. I fully expect most of those ideas to be torn apart; if one idea both survives and satisfies the intended gameplay, then that's what I'll put forward thereafter. General statements of desire -- like the basic concept of what Eureka could have provided -- are good, but threshed solutions -- scrapping, fixing, or polishing implementations yet with fundamental flaws -- are just inherently better.

And why wouldn't they be? More work has been done, more problems already averted.

There's no hard line between stating what you want in the vaguest degree and what you want in the second or third vaguest whereby it goes from "our job" to "SE's job". It's been entirely SE's job from the start, but that doesn't mean we don't have a right to work on what we wish.

[Archwizard]

You've spent two paragraphs two posts ago to the effect that such a change is not precedented in code and would therefore require too much effort to be worth the change despite the work in balancing the stat it would make unnecessary

I never said the work was unprecedented, I said it was completely unnecessary. Even if we assume that the differentiation between the Spell Speed and Skill Speed isn't to be able to tune the two stats separately, and that the gap is entirely unnecessary, the point I was trying to make was that it is quantifiably less effort to just address the small subset of affected skills directly, even assuming they were interested in redesigning them at all given they intentionally put them on separate stats in the first place.

But I can see this segment of the argument is quickly becoming circular. Let's agree to disagree and move on to more productive matters.

"So there's this funny story."
"Cool. Go on?"
"WHAT?! I HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC WITH THIS? I-owe-you-nothing-and-it-is-not-my-job-to-entertain-you-or-show-that-my-stories-are-funny!"
"..."

Or if we remove the deliberately unflattering strawman --

"I'm starving right now."
"Okay, what for?"
"I don't know, I just want to stuff my face, someone else pick."
"Well it can't be a restaurant because that's too expensive, and it can't be-"
"Not interested in what I'm probably not eating, I'm interested in what I can and will eat. Don't care what, as long as there's no peanuts 'cuz I'm allergic."

There's no hard line between stating what you want in the vaguest degree and what you want in the second or third vaguest whereby it goes from "our job" to "SE's job". It's been entirely SE's job from the start, but that doesn't mean we don't have a right to work on what we wish.

Yes, but if the point of us discussing "what we wish" is made with intent to get them implemented, then we have to weigh it against how anything we suggest or propose would be received by the dev team, who value realistic input and likely have their own hidden design notes for each class that declare what they can and cannot ever do.

Which, as long as that list doesn't include "no DoTs, ever", means never say never if they find a way to make it work.