Red Mage "better"??

[Gruntler]

As for Acceleration, I'm so-so on that one. When Yoshida talked about adding charges, I though it would be like Intervene that could be used multiple times, with each use having its own cooldown. What we instead got was a 20-second window in which to spend 3 stacks of Acceleration. This is great at the beginning of a fight when you start at 0 mana, but I find myself reluctant to use it if a) Manafication is near or off cooldown or b) I'm anywhere close to 60 mana on either bar. On the other hand, making Acceleration work like Intervene would have made for spammy oGCD shenanigans, so maybe that's a good thing.

To put it into perspective. The old acceleration gave you three charges every 105 seconds. The new acceleration gives you three charges every 55 seconds. Sometimes you need to park on acceleration (and you did with old accel) but in this specific case, in order to lose charges vs the old regime you would have to sit on that acceleration for 50 seconds. Meaning, you pretty much have to decide not to use it for its entire cooldown before you start to lose vs the old system.

It's a net-gain, even if you're holding it for a few seconds to get through your combo. The new acceleration requires you to practically forget it exists in order for it to not work. Not to mention, it lines up with manafication in your 110 second rotation, so if you're doing the 110 and save accel after it, you've immediately solved your problem for the rest of the fight. If you're doing 120 however, feh. Delay, it's still better than before.

[Gruntler]

Wereotter had a point that if melee rotation frequency increases significantly, then the dev intent of CaC falls apart, which is why it is surprising that its CD is thus far unaffected.

If dev intent was that the movement abilities were to coincide with the melee combo, then Corps-a-Corps would be locked behind 80/80, Displacement would have no damage at all on it, Engagement wouldn't exist, CaC and 'gagement would have the same cooldown, both would have cooldowns that coincide with the speed it takes to get 80/80 mana within a reasonable tolerance, and fights would be designed such that a ranged character standing 15 yalms away from a boss at all times would dovetail with the boss's mechanics, rather than put one at a disadvantage vs cones and out of range of the most common heals.

Manafication resets CaC so that you can melee in at any point on the field when you go into your burst window. That's it. That's the only thing we can intuit behind dev intent.

Seeing as we live in a world where Melee-phase gain was increased without increasing these cooldowns, where Displacement had damage added, not taken away, where Engagement was added so that you could use it wherever it was convenient rather than merely as your melee-out, and no change was made to make CaC and 'gagement line up at all, the latest boss is yet another 'fuck you have more cones' boss, and Cure III and AoE ground heals are still short range, we can safely assume their intent is not for us in 5.x is not for us to slavishly use them solely as transition abilities between standing away from the boss with spells.

The game is designed where our ranged attacks are a tool in our kit we can use, not a guideline for where we must stand in every fight ever. FFXIV doesn't design fights where spreading for long periods of time is mandatory.

[InfiniDragon]

If dev intent was that the movement abilities were to coincide with the melee combo, then Corps-a-Corps would be locked behind 80/80, Displacement would have no damage at all on it, Engagement wouldn't exist, CaC and 'gagement would have the same cooldown, both would have cooldowns that coincide with the speed it takes to get 80/80 mana within a reasonable tolerance, and fights would be designed such that a ranged character standing 15 yalms away from a boss at all times would dovetail with the boss's mechanics, rather than put one at a disadvantage vs cones and out of range of the most common heals.

Manafication resets CaC so that you can melee in at any point on the field when you go into your burst window. That's it. That's the only thing we can intuit behind dev intent.

Seeing as we live in a world where Melee-phase gain was increased without increasing these cooldowns, where Displacement had damage added, not taken away, where Engagement was added so that you could use it wherever it was convenient rather than merely as your melee-out, and no change was made to make CaC and 'gagement line up at all, the latest boss is yet another 'fuck you have more cones' boss, and Cure III and AoE ground heals are still short range, we can safely assume their intent is not for us in 5.x is not for us to slavishly use them solely as transition abilities between standing away from the boss with spells.

The game is designed where our ranged attacks are a tool in our kit we can use, not a guideline for where we must stand in every fight ever. FFXIV doesn't design fights where spreading for long periods of time is mandatory.

Or alternatively, it was just poorly implemented which does happen with SE. It's pretty clear when you look at any promotional piece for RDM when they were leading up to release or NPC RDMs like Alisaie the intent was to save the closers for the melee combo then disengage to go back to caster range, as that's how you'll see the computer characters use them or the video introducing the job back in the day, in that exact sequence.

It's just as with many things SE plans out as the "intended" design, we as players find better ways to optimize. The gap closers on cd just happens to be one that SE doesn't feel breaks the job to require adjustment, like say the TK rotation for example.

[AbelArchaniEA]

Anyone else feel like the potency increases for Red Mage are sad increases? I was expecting more.. disappointing SE...

News Flash! RDM is not supposed to be a superior Dps class. #1 it’s super easy and #2 it’s a support dps

[Leidiriv]

News Flash! RDM is not supposed to be a superior Dps class. #1 it’s super easy and #2 it’s a support dps

so... if RDM is super easy why does it have the second highest DPS variance according to FFlogs, right behind BLM? Also, the support DPS argument falls apart when you consider how massively SMN was buffed in this last patch. Not that I agree with how much SMN was buffed, since total rDPS contribution between the classes should be within like 200 of each other at the highest end but eh.

Also, the buffs to RDM were pretty massive in their own right as I mentioned in previous posts.

[Duelle]

To put it into perspective. The old acceleration gave you three charges every 105 seconds. The new acceleration gives you three stackscharges every 55 seconds. Sometimes you need to park on acceleration (and you did with old accel) but in this specific case, in order to lose charges vs the old regime you would have to sit on that acceleration for 50 seconds. Meaning, you pretty much have to decide not to use it for its entire cooldown before you start to lose vs the old system.

The thing is that with old Acceleration I had least had some leeway on when to use it, since I tended to use it as oGCD filler provided I was missing either Verfire or Verstone Ready and Fleche/Contre/Engagement were on cooldown. Since Yoshida mentioned charges, that in my mind translated to "we're making Acceleration work like Intervene/Plunge/etc".

My "issue", if you could call it that, is that instead of being able to use it as filler, now to get the most out of this new Acceleration requires Manafication to be on cooldown (unless you're starting at 0 mana, which only happens at the start of a fight) and having less than 60 mana on either bar. It just feels kinda "meh" to me from a design perspective.

If dev intent was that the movement abilities were to coincide with the melee combo, then Corps-a-Corps would be locked behind 80/80, Displacement would have no damage at all on it, Engagement wouldn't exist, CaC and Engagement would have the same cooldown, both would have cooldowns that coincide with the speed it takes to get 80/80 mana within a reasonable tolerance, and fights would be designed such that a ranged character standing 15 yalms away from a boss at all times would dovetail with the boss's mechanics, rather than put one at a disadvantage vs cones and out of range of the most common heals.

Corps and Displacement were designed to deal oGCD damage because that's how the devs saw players were using jobs (see MNKs with Shoulder Tackle, BRDs with Repelling Shot), and that those two abilities determined where the RDM is standing on the battlefield is no coincidence. If they were supposed to be just movement skills, then Displacement would indeed have no damage component and Corps would have a deadzone to make it inconvenient to use as anything but a gap-closer. Stormblood's RDM happened to be very intuitive with its design to show how it was supposed to be played (spam spells => Corps => melee combo => Displacement => spam spells; if you weren't you're missing out on that sweet sweet extra potency from Corps and Displacement, which I'm sure in the long term would make a difference to DPS contributions). Hence my beef with the job's gameplay.

Seeing as we live in a world where Melee-phase gain was increased without increasing these cooldowns, where Displacement had damage added, not taken away, where Engagement was added so that you could use it wherever it was convenient rather than merely as your melee-out, and no change was made to make CaC and 'gagement line up at all, the latest boss is yet another 'fuck you have more cones' boss, and Cure III and AoE ground heals are still short range, we can safely assume their intent is not for us in 5.x is not for us to slavishly use them solely as transition abilities between standing away from the boss with spells.

I don't quite buy this, because if Displacement is supposed to be used only when convenient, Engagement and Displacement would deal the same amount of damage. Notice that the trait that adds damage to Displacement is gained at the same level Engagement is obtained, which to me is dev speak for "you're still supposed to prioritize Displacement if you want the sweet 200 potency instead of the poverty 150 potency". I see no other reason as to why Engagement would deal less damage (unless the devs are factoring RDM auto attacks, though that is such a ridiculous notion that it's not worthy of further thought).

On the topic of fight design, I agree that a good number of fights don't really support that sort of gameplay (and I've read it was an issue during Stormblood as well). We can't really deny the numbers in the tooltips, though.

[Gruntler]

Corps and Displacement were designed to deal oGCD damage because that's how the devs saw players were using jobs (see MNKs with Shoulder Tackle, BRDs with Repelling Shot)

Your argument would hold more weight if you would remember that Stormblood, where Displacement was introduced, was also the patch where damage was removed from all other things like Repelling Shot.

SE saw disengagement tools, and removed damage from them so that they would only be used for their utility. The assumption then is that utility disengages would therefore have no damage and only utility.

RDM has damage on it, and later had damage increased on it, because it's meant to be damage that introduces a positional tension in the kit. You want to be close for, like, all the reasons, because that's how this game fn works, but one of our ogcds pushes us back. Then they introduced Engagement so that we'd have an option that alleviates some of that tension, at the cost of some small damage.

Trying to divine developer intent is surprisingly easy if you look at a broader picture. Having a disengage added with damage in the *same patch* that damage was taken off all other disengages, should tell you that the intent for Disengage is different than the others. The message should be loud and clear. People have asked for that Disengage to have the damage removed specific to make it that utility that you want, and SE's response was to up the damage and add a second damage tool to use when you can't use it.

You can pretend it's for zipping out of melee all you want, but SE's been sending messages for two years that it's not their intent.

* The sad thing is that FFXIV turned RDM into a turret, and people think that's what it's supposed to be. It's supposed to combine sword and magic into something more, not spend the bulk of gameplay spamming spells and jump into melee for only 3 GCDs before scurrying back to the back line like good little casters.

The funny thing is, if you actually played it optimally, it's not a turret, and the design lets you not play it this way. You've locked yourself into a mode of thinking that's caused you to simultaneously want to play the job in a way that mixes melee and magic (which you do do, in optimal play) and believe that the design is for the non-optimal play, where you're standing around like a turret.

It's hard to argue with someone on design intent when they're not playing the job the way it was designed.

[JanVanding]

Your argument would hold more weight if you would remember that Stormblood, where Displacement was introduced, was also the patch where damage was removed from all other things like Repelling Shot.

SE saw disengagement tools, and removed damage from them so that they would only be used for their utility. The assumption then is that utility disengages would therefore have no damage and only utility.

RDM has damage on it, and later had damage increased on it, because it's meant to be damage that introduces a positional tension in the kit. You want to be close for, like, all the reasons, because that's how this game fn works, but one of our ogcds pushes us back. Then they introduced Engagement so that we'd have an option that alleviates some of that tension, at the cost of some small damage.

Trying to divine developer intent is surprisingly easy if you look at a broader picture. Having a disengage added with damage in the *same patch* that damage was taken off all other disengages, should tell you that the intent for Disengage is different than the others. The message should be loud and clear. People have asked for that Disengage to have the damage removed specific to make it that utility that you want, and SE's response was to up the damage and add a second damage tool to use when you can't use it.

You can pretend it's for zipping out of melee all you want, but SE's been sending messages for two years that it's not their intent.



The funny thing is, if you actually played it optimally, it's not a turret, and the design lets you not play it this way. You've locked yourself into a mode of thinking that's caused you to simultaneously want to play the job in a way that mixes melee and magic (which you do do, in optimal play) and believe that the design is for the non-optimal play, where you're standing around like a turret.

It's hard to argue with someone on design intent when they're not playing the job the way it was designed.

Aren't they literally losing autos if they fight like a turret? Pretty sure the RDM like the DNC is supposed to fight in a "pocket" in front of ranged, just behind melee at the very tip of auto range (so the get autos in between casts) with their back dash being more a fast "get out of the mechanics" skill like Leyline.

[Duelle]

Your argument would hold more weight if you would remember that Stormblood, where Displacement was introduced, was also the patch where damage was removed from all other things like Repelling Shot.

I do in fact remember that, as I celebrated that change since it had the potential to teach players to use utility skills for utility.

RDM has damage on it, and later had damage increased on it, because it's meant to be damage that introduces a positional tension in the kit. You want to be close for, like, all the reasons, because that's how this game fn works, but one of our ogcds pushes us back. Then they introduced Engagement so that we'd have an option that alleviates some of that tension, at the cost of some small damage.

The job was advertised during its reveal as having "forced positioning" due to being a "melee and ranged hybrid". Now combine that knowledge with the lengths people went through to squeeze extra DPS (BRDs running to a mob to Repelling Shot), and it's pretty clear RDM built with that sort of mentality in mind; they essentially just baked it into the normal gameplay.

Trying to divine developer intent is surprisingly easy if you look at a broader picture. Having a disengage added with damage in the *same patch* that damage was taken off all other disengages, should tell you that the intent for Disengage is different than the others.

The key difference is the devs' implementation of the jobs in question. As I said above, RDM was advertised as having forced positioning. Jobs like BRD, on the other hand, are not. So removing damage from Repelling Shot makes sense if the intent is to build a job where that sort of thing is intended by design (AKA RDM).

People have asked for that Disengage to have the damage removed specific to make it that utility that you want, and SE's response was to up the damage and add a second damage tool to use when you can't use it.

Which doesn't really address the problem. In a scenario where it's 200 potency Displacement vs 150 potency Engagement, Engagement looks more like a consolation prize instead of an answer to player requests. I'd even venture to call it malicious compliance if I didn't know better.

You can pretend it's for zipping out of melee all you want, but SE's been sending messages for two years that it's not their intent.

The job's design does not reflect this.

The funny thing is, if you actually played it optimally, it's not a turret, and the design lets you not play it this way. You've locked yourself into a mode of thinking that's caused you to simultaneously want to play the job in a way that mixes melee and magic (which you do do, in optimal play) and believe that the design is for the non-optimal play, where you're standing around like a turret.

Long spell spam phases with short melee phases is not a mix of magic & melee. Sword use that's not Engagement is, for all intents and purposes, locked behind the mana bars. I call it a turret because the bulk of gameplay is spamming magic, though I admit it has gotten a little better. Prior to getting Scorch, you were sitting at around 18 GCDs spamming spells vs 3 GCDs swinging a sword. It's why I've argued the sword feels like a token element instead of a main part of the job. The quests can chalk up how the sword is so important and symbolic to RDM, but the gameplay and design of the job tell a completely different story.

It's hard to argue with someone on design intent when they're not playing the job the way it was designed.

Unless we've run into each other on DF, you don't really know how I play the job. Though I suppose you'll be pleased to know I don't jump around and use Engagement on cooldown (or as much as I can) because it means I get to stay in melee range. I've also been called out for staying in melee range, since almost every other RDM I've run into jumps around, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[wereotter]

To put it into perspective. The old acceleration gave you three charges every 105 seconds. The new acceleration gives you three charges every 55 seconds. Sometimes you need to park on acceleration (and you did with old accel) but in this specific case, in order to lose charges vs the old regime you would have to sit on that acceleration for 50 seconds. Meaning, you pretty much have to decide not to use it for its entire cooldown before you start to lose vs the old system.

It's a net-gain, even if you're holding it for a few seconds to get through your combo. The new acceleration requires you to practically forget it exists in order for it to not work. Not to mention, it lines up with manafication in your 110 second rotation, so if you're doing the 110 and save accel after it, you've immediately solved your problem for the rest of the fight. If you're doing 120 however, feh. Delay, it's still better than before.

In my experience since the change, while it might be a gain, and it's definitely nice for the opener, it's made the job feel like I'm tripping over the rotation (or at least the rotation I'd been using) because I used to very heavily rely on acceleration being up at specific times. Now I find that it's often either still on cooldown when I used to rely on it, or using it when I would have before means I can only get two procs before I start to overcap on mana making its timing worse, or both.

This change alone, again for me, has made the job feel so bad to play that I abandoned it entirely in favor of summoner, which now has a much better flow and better mobility than the red mage while also doing a lot more damage. The way they changed acceleration feels like a bandaid type of change to address issues with one specific part of a fight while ignoring the knock on effects of those changes for the entire remainder of an encounter.

They really need to look into how they want all the skills on this job to interact and make more adjustments accordingly, because it really just feels like a mess since this patch.