RDM Scortch

[Singularity]

Damage on bosses is not more important than damage on trash packs. Everything in the dungeon needs to die (unless it can be skipped, but opportunities like that are rare) for the dungeon to be complete, so it's actually more efficient to save mana at the end of a boss in order to Moulinet the trash mobs more, since you generate the same amount of mana either way and Moulinet gets more damage out of whatever mana you generate.

My earlier post suggests a scenario that allows a third finisher to exist without rendering the existing two obsolete. Remember that overuse of those mana tools is a potency loss, and at some point the loss is so big that it's better to just use a normal finisher.

I'll admit I was being facetious with the last remark quoted, though only because I thought the question was also facetious.

[Archwizard]

Damage on bosses is not more important than damage on trash packs. Everything in the dungeon needs to die (unless it can be skipped, but opportunities like that are rare) for the dungeon to be complete, so it's actually more efficient to save mana at the end of a boss in order to Moulinet the trash mobs more, since you generate the same amount of mana either way and Moulinet gets more damage out of whatever mana you generate.

Dungeons begin with trash packs and end with a boss, so shifting the save periods onto bosses is clearly a loss. And generally, the boss is the one that has phases that need to be burst through. Doesn't matter how the trash dies as long as it's dead, that's why it's called trash. If trash packs mattered just as much as dungeon bosses (and this is ignoring trials and overworld content as major offsets), every job would have an AoE rotation as extensive as their single-target's.
But it's not, because trash packs are literally filler content.
Even the concept of "potency per mana" can only go so far, since obviously any AoE is going to be stronger on 12 targets than it is on 3, it really becomes a matter of most efficiently eliminating how many AoE casts you get -- and tanks do love to make big pulls don't they?

At any rate, we're getting away from the main point here: behaviorally, the use of Moulinet is not of equal value to us as the use of the single-target combo is, particularly because the latter gives us access to Verfinishers to refund that Mana, not to mention being applicable to more scenarios -- and I already explained why balancing that with an AoE Verfinisher probably wouldn't work too well.

Unless of course we went against my better judgement concerning AoE Verfinishers and decided to kill two birds with one stone, making just one AoE Verfinisher based around "balance" or Red magic or whatever to satisfy both your cravings, since it fits the AoE design better and so we don't have to balance it against the other two in single target at all. Speaking of which:

My earlier post suggests a scenario that allows a third finisher to exist without rendering the existing two obsolete. Remember that overuse of those mana tools is a potency loss, and at some point the loss is so big that it's better to just use a normal finisher.

No, your earlier post describes how to get away with balancing a third Verfinisher to be "slightly" stronger than the other two, without stating what the point is in having three -- especially since you clearly wish there was only the one. You haven't touched at all on the purpose of the existing two in a world with a focus on a better Verfinisher.

And before you imply anything to do with "consolation prizes", I remind you that performance isn't balanced around "consolations", it's downtuned to contour around the peaks; just look at the healer treatment for ShB. We'll be expected to land that new skill every time (or at least kick ourselves if we can't, rather than ooh and ahh at the times we get it), because again, there is no such thing as a "bonus reward" in theorycraft.
At any rate, the erasure of our Verfinishers' 20% proc chance effects and the mixed-at-best reception for Engagement shows what RDMs think about "consolations".

Your argument relies both on players intentionally working to balance their Mana while explaining that it's a loss for them to use the tools to actually do so. At best you're arguing for a system that rewards luck as much as (if not more than) risk and intent. At worst, ludicrous amounts of math that the player won't ever be able to intuit, since there's no way to tell when it becomes a bigger loss to hit Reprise and try again (especially amongst other casts to expend any remaining procs) versus giving up and hitting Verflhoarley.

If RDM is supposed to be so simple we don't even have a DoT, why on Hydaelyn would we want to bother with that much spurious math?

I'll admit I was being facetious with the last remark quoted, though only because I thought the question was also facetious.

Clearly tones of acerbic wit don't translate well over the internet.

I hope it's more than clear by now that my quoted remark was quite serious.

[Singularity]

Dungeons begin with trash packs and end with a boss, so shifting the save periods onto bosses is clearly a loss. And generally, the boss is the one that has phases that need to be burst through...

I figured "except the last boss" would be self-evident enough to go without saying. Dungeon bosses mostly don't have phases at all. They're just 1-2 minute striking dummies with a few mechanics that you should do, but probably won't hurt you very much if you don't. A handful have "enrages", but those are more for cinematic effect, being so lenient you can beat them with half the group dead.

without stating what the point is in having three -- especially since you clearly wish there was only the one. You haven't touched at all on the purpose of the existing two in a world with a focus on a better Verfinisher.

What this does to our gameplay is give us an extra, higher target to aim for, and thus more advanced situation evaluation and decision-making, which is the core of RDM gameplay design.

Also I explained about value under buffs and/or when you have limited time. I "wish" nothing of the sort. I like having decisions to make. It's why I play the job in the first place. And a few minutes' theorycraft would tell us exactly how many times we can hit Reprise and try again before it becomes a potency loss.

[Archwizard]

What this does to our gameplay is give us an extra, higher target to aim for, and thus more advanced situation evaluation and decision-making, which is the core of RDM gameplay design.

Also I explained about value under buffs and/or when you have limited time.

All your explanation shows is that Verholy and Verflare would exist to highlight how much better it is to balance Mana. To offer three doors with the best prize behind only one.

You still haven't answered the fundamental question: why would I ever want to use Verholy/flare?

Let me put it to you this way. If the devs had implemented your idea for a "balance-oriented" Verfinisher first, then released the "slightly" worse Verholy and Verflare in a later expansion, what would your take on them have been? Eliminate the perspective of it being an "advanced" Verfinisher and just tell me, resource-wise, advancement-wise, gameplay-wise, "why have all three?"

And a few minutes' theorycraft would tell us exactly how many times we can hit Reprise and try again before it becomes a potency loss.

Yes, please do that few minutes' theorycraft and napkin math while you're in the middle of a boss fight trying to figure out when to give up.

We're not talking about mathing out how many Fire IVs you can fire off in AF phase, we're talking about a proc-dependent rotation. What you suggest is non-intuitive, especially when Reprise is higher PPM than most of the melee combo save Finishers.

[Singularity]

Let me put it to you this way. If the devs had implemented your idea for a "balance-oriented" Verfinisher first, then released the "slightly" worse Verholy and Verflare in a later expansion, what would your take on them have been? Eliminate the perspective of it being an "advanced" Verfinisher and just tell me, resource-wise, advancement-wise, gameplay-wise, "why have all three?"

I would see them as a situationally useful tool to make use of our melee combo when either the boss (via mechanics) or the rest of our party (via buffs) or the game itself (via procs) makes it useful or necessary to go for it now, much like the real-world addition of Reprise. Using Reprise is a potency loss too, so in an ideal situation you'd never press that button at all, but if it lets you land your melee combo in a Trick window without wasting mana or keep uptime when the mechanics demand you move continuously for a long time, then it was worth pressing, because the smaller loss led to a bigger gain.

You can work the theorycraft out beforehand. While the rotation is proc-based, there aren't that many possible combinations of procs you can have, and you can know how many retries you can use for each.

[Archwizard]

I would see them as a situationally useful tool to make use of our melee combo when either the boss (via mechanics) or the rest of our party (via buffs) or the game itself (via procs) makes it useful or necessary to go for it now, much like the real-world addition of Reprise. Using Reprise is a potency loss too, so in an ideal situation you'd never press that button at all, but if it lets you land your melee combo in a Trick window without wasting mana or keep uptime when the mechanics demand you move continuously for a long time, then it was worth pressing, because the smaller loss led to a bigger gain.

That's an apples-to-oranges comparison. Reprise can be used to prevent from overcapping Mana in a multitude of situations (such as spending Mana during mechanics where entering melee is ill advised, since we can still build Mana at range), and comes at a higher potency-per-Mana than any melee skill in our combo, meaning there are ideal situations where it can intuitively come as a substantial damage gain (i.e. if you're near cap and rolling in Verquick procs that would be overwritten by your set-up Verfinisher meaning lost Mana anyway -- one glance, "I just need to burn this proc", E.Reprise, burn proc, follow with the opposite longcast, now you've instantly made back the cost within a negligible difference and turned what would've been lost Mana into damage, hit your melee combo with a clear conscience), acting as another tool to help us control RNG.
Not to mention that its use as our Scathe/Ruin II attempts to fill an open mechanical niche in our kit that we have nothing else to provide for except stutter-stepping and Swiftcast.

Meanwhile, you've listed no cases for Verflare/Verholy where your "better" Verfinisher wouldn't still outshine them if it was available, nor cases where they are made more "necessary" by encounter mechanics, as they would all attempt to fulfill exactly the same niche in the kit and position in the rotation. You're still relying on players to be able to substantially math out in their head in a split second whether to take the loss or not, which without using Acceleration every time would mean praying for good RNG, which in itself would determine the value of said loss within the situation.
In any realistic scenario it's overly-complicated, impractical, and goes against the "at a glance" intent of our design philosophy, all to satisfy an obsessive need for purely aesthetic "balance".

OP, I apologize profusely for any thread derailment that may have occurred by me attempting to explain this same concept half a dozen times. Singularity, please drop it.

[Singularity]

there are ideal situations where it can intuitively come as a substantial damage gain (i.e. if you're near cap and rolling in Verquick procs that would be overwritten by your set-up Verfinisher meaning lost Mana anyway -- one glance, "I just need to burn this proc", E.Reprise, burn proc, follow with the opposite longcast, now you've instantly made back the cost within a negligible difference and turned what would've been lost Mana into damage, hit your melee combo with a clear conscience), acting as another tool to help us control RNG.

The actual ideal situation is that you should have burned the proc as soon as you were in range for that action to get you over 80/80 (or even at any time above 80/80 that doesn't overcap), thus achieving the exact same gain without having had to Reprise at all. If you got to near cap with both procs, you already misplayed.

I've explained multiple times about the advantages that can be gained by taking less time to set up. Yes I am relying on players to be able to do mental arithmetic, that is after all the basis of the RDM rotation. As in the example above, as soon as you were at 71+/71+ you should know that your next spell pair will put you in a position to go into melee and therefore you should burn a proc instead of maintaining them, and if the difference is exactly two, you should know which way round to cast the spells to achieve the imbalance needed to force a proc on the finisher.

If you'd prefer to continue via another thread or some form of direct messaging, you're welcome to do so. I also had no intention of subverting the OP's thread.