Monk Needs a Complete Rework

[Shurrikhan]

I've literally not seen any of your suggestions on them.

I'd assume there'd be here in this 27 page long thread? I'm not about to dig through that looking for something that is irrelevant to my point.

If your point is to assume that a single part of a suggestion stands in place of all other possible changes, then maybe you should at least first consider the tone with which someone has referred to the existing systems and what references they've made to them. Fists of Earth certainly does not convert into added defense that that adds potency when consumed, nor does Fists of Fire apply DoT damage that works like an Ignite mechanic, useful for banking towards periods of burst, yet both those spitballs were mentioned in our conversation. No part of that involves leaving one stance at a time dominant and one stance at all times defunct. I explicitly said I would not be doing that.

Again, I highlighted that stances need only take up a single button.

Yes, I misspoke. I apologize. I meant to edit, but did not want to fix anything but typos after you may have already started replying.

But not ignoring that you keep bitching about "How we'd be forced into a single stance because of muh raid buffs and muh oGCD's and muh Demolish!!"

I made the simple point that the exact same problems you've picked apart my idea for your own idea unfortunately has in equal amount, making it rather hypocritical to dismiss one notion on the basis of forced decisions in perfectly optimal play without then applying the same criteria to the other idea. The difference between then becomes a matter of diversity. No more, no less. One has it in-fight diversity. The other does not. I like in-fight diversity and a having larger set of tools, thus I prefer the one over the other despite their being almost equally (non)choices (to the same degree that all choices in any game are non-choices). I like depth and breadth of play. If two things have the same choice-ness, I'll take the one with more breadth and depth of play. It's that simple.

Heck, even your premise about this has yet to be proven, since we currently have a situation where FoF makes your Demolish and oGCD's stronger than 4 GL, but I have yet to see anyone actually utilize the "Stance Swapping" into Fire to utilize these skills that you talked about would be the case.

Probably because the two have little in common? FoF/W-dancing requires two oGCDs as possible that cannot be used within a GCD of each other, consuming valuable gap time. For all but the lowest ping players at minimal SkS, you can only get one oGCD out of the bargain when returning to GL4 as quickly as possible, and cannot return to GL4 off the embonused Demolish, making it worthless except in a cycle laden with Demo, TFC, ST, LF, EF, and TrS, which there still isn't enough time to fit for any but the lowest-ping, lowest-speed players because of the oGCD space consumed by swapping in the first place. It's rendered nonsense because of the surrounding limitations.

And even then it still has nothing to do with, effectively, conserving gauge for a period of burst, as per what I mentioned, with no necessary wastes of oGCD space and where the Couerl skill already gets the bonus of its next level and which has nothing to do with damage multiplicity.

I never said there was.

Kalise, if explicitly calling something overspending is nonetheless enough for me to have "imply" that any and all spending of a resource would slow Monk's attack rate, your insistence that allowing for any speed variation as a part of Monk's in-combat play cannot coexist with any other systems is more than implying that there is an ultimatum. And sure enough, you spell one out right there.

Heck, it's hard enough to get a job with a SINGLE system with any nuance.

AGAIN, are you okay with that? Is at best a single system with nuance per job the direction you want to see XIV go in? I'd much rather be called overly ambitious than just roll over and take the gutting of all jobs. Your "realism" here isn't just realism, it's complacency that takes a dump on anyone who wants more from the game.

Instead, people are doing just fine pushing out logs that have MNK as the 4th highest DPS in the game (Behind SMN, BLM and SAM) without having to macro like crazy to go into Fire before every oGCD, Demolish and Raid Buff window.

And there's something to be said for that. There is a point where APM can feel like bloat, a la Cleric Stance or, to many, even Kaiten, Shinten, etc. The question is where we draw the line. With those analogies, I draw it after Shinten, after Kaiten (though right at its edge), and before Cleric Stance. What I am suggesting is, to me, the same.

That's why, for instance, I was wary of any system of direct speed control through stances (dedicated solely to that purpose) as part of in-combat play, rather than their being able to include other balancing factors that could allow for greater diversity without making a chore out of them. That result is a lot harder to accomplish if there's nothing left to the stances than just speed control, but even then, as I said before, it's probably possible. Difficult, unlikely, but probably possible to at least get close enough to optimal that 99.8% of players can play as they like.

(Again, my point was not to belittle your idea, only to show the hypocrisy of condemning one idea based on criteria that you would not apply to your own idea. You can't play the "but there's only one Optimal" and not see how it fits even more solidly to an idea with the same problem yet less diversity.) It'd just be a whole lot easier to get there if one didn't first rip out everything else about the stances that could give them significant balancing factors besides just how best they should be "macro'ed into" your rotation. It also, frankly, offers more engagement with a given fight if their situational advantages can see real use.

I'm not dead-set on this one idea in my mind so much as simply having more balancing factors for a revised, empowered version of stances allows for in-combat manipulation that does not yet become a chore. When having a certain tool at all, we expect to be able to utilize it via synergies with our kit, not just to have our pick of three different items where we could have otherwise had a full and complementary course. The more of our kit we can utilize through the rest of our kit, the better the kit feels. There is a balance in there somewhere between each skill feeling like part of what should be a single skill (imagine RoE, for instance, being unavailable until you are already in FoE or similar drudgery), offering only empty APM, and everything feeling like disconnected tools that could as easily belong to any other job's toolkit or are taken off a template checklist. In that balance lies a fluid, responsive, but synergetic kit. I just suspect my view of such a kit allows for (not even demands, mind you, except perhaps at the highest levels of play) a bit more complexity than your would.

[Kalise]

Fists of Earth certainly does not convert into added defense that that adds potency when consumed, nor does Fists of Fire apply DoT damage that works like an Ignite mechanic, useful for banking towards periods of burst, yet both those spitballs were mentioned in our conversation.

Wait, THAT was your reworked stances?

I thought that was what Ki was supposed to be doing?

Are the stances JUST that and thus equally boring (With Wind sounding like total garbage) as current ones?

Given that seemingly, there's still little reason to actually swap between them at all. There'd just be one that is strongest and that one will be the "Mandatory" one just like we've seen with current ones (Most likely Earth, unless the DoT from Fire stacks)

Probably because the two have little in common?

How so?

You literally mentioned that in the "3 potential outcomes" that one of the outcomes will be swapping stances a ton to capitalize on oGCD's, Demolish and raid buff windows.

We literally have a case where that is possible, yet no-one does it. Not even simple things like swapping for raid buff windows.

Which is indicative that your "3 potential outcomes" are nonsensical and by far not absolutes.

Thus, allowing for a true "Option 4" in which the stances I suggested aren't locked in combat with it also not devolving into mandatory stance swapping en masse. Creating a system where stance dancing and in combat speed manipulation is possible.

Throw in more defined features of stances (I.e. Bonus damage being weapon skill specific, the "SkS" effect functioning as SkS and so buffing DoT/AA damage etc) and you can even mitigate the potential worst offenders for "Mandatory Swapping" such as trying to triple weave for oGCD's and double weaving for Demolish. With only raid buff windows maybe being optimal to swap to slow stance for.

AGAIN, are you okay with that? Is at best a single system with nuance per job the direction you want to see XIV go in?

No. Not in the least.

But, then again, I wanted Tanks to have better balanced stances that offered more depth of gameplay. Instead they just got axed.

I wanted WAR to evolve past the braindead IR meme cleave spam. Instead we still have it and now have additional meme cleaves only with 9001% more underwheming animations.

I wanted Tanks to have multiple combos that they can utilize for different effects to aid them with tanking, be it managing aggro, aiding with sustain or providing raw damage. Instead, they just neutered every tank down to a single combo with PLD/WAR simply having a secondary finisher to upkeep a timed effect.

I wanted DRK to be given a theme and a place of its own among the tanks. Instead we got "Dark Warrior".

I wanted Healers to be given more reason to interact with their healing skills and more interesting ways to use GCD's. Instead we got more oGCD's, buffs to oGCD heals and the neutering of DPS rotations.

I wanted MCH to get a more engaging gameplay, that would also perform up to standard. Instead we get "Heat Dab" spam.

I wanted BLM to evolve past Fire IV spam. Instead we get more Fire IV spam and continued uselessness of Umbral Ice phases.

I wanted RDM to get more melee usage, allowing them to feel more like a proper melee/caster hybrid. Instead, we get basically no changes outside a more streamlined AoE rotation.

It's clear to me that what I want doesn't matter. That any dreams about having jobs that are designed with engaging systems belongs in Lyhe Mheg alongside any dreams of them doing a coding overhaul to fix all the limitations in the game caused by 1.0 spaghetti code as well as any dreams of them actually designing encounters to facilitate actually fulfilling Tanking and Healing roles where mitigating damage and healing are core gameplay as opposed to simply being DPS that use CD's every so often.

As such, it feels more productive to suggest things that are within the scope of what the devs seem to want to do. Lest we let them do what they want unaided and see "Brand new 6.0 MNK" that features the cool super saiyan mode from the quest added as a boring IR clone where you just spam a GCD "The Forbidden Chakra" 5 times in 10 seconds and that makes up 50% of your total DPS because seriously fuck IR.

[Shurrikhan]

Are the stances JUST that and thus equally boring (With Wind sounding like total garbage) as current ones?

No, those are merely the parts that came up specifically in this conversation with you and Mahrze which should have signalled to you that I was not a fan of leaving the stances as is.

But sure, they are as boring as Snap Punch is just a 200 potency attack with absolutely nothing that could ever happen have a consequence of its use.

Nevermind that ignite mechanics can set up tremendous nukes or that the relative potency from said nukes could allow you to not only survive extreme risky uptime mechanics but be paid back in damage for having done so or else lead into periods of extreme haste. Nevermind that you have Riddles, stance-dependent skills and not yet used concepts to tap into. Sure, any stance is inherently boring and will only ever be that. You know, like Jump, or a button to build a specific resource and a button to spend any said resource. Pure unimaginative waste. It's not like we ever got Nostrond or TCJ off those things. /s

Given that seemingly, there's still little reason to actually swap between them at all. There'd just be one that is strongest and that one will be the "Mandatory" one just like we've seen with current ones.

One may be slightly dominant, one slightly situational in rotation as a "per CD, use to rush or delay rotation slightly for setup", and one more fight-dependent, yes, but that in no way equates to the 99/1/0% usage we see now.

We literally have a case where that is possible, yet no-one does it. Not even simple things like swapping for raid buff windows.

Because that's not simple when you have to swap twice within 3-4 GCDs at a GCD length that doesn't allow for most players to double-weave even when in merely FoF. Again, you'd be getting only 2 embonused oGCDs out of the bargain, at most. Maybe you're playing at 10 ping and zero bonus SkS because you despise everything to do with the Double-True rotation, but for anyone else that's just not a viable use of resources, not because the effects of the stances are so little but because of the gap-uptime punishments for swapping at all.

By comparison, if even just one of those stance-swaps are dropped, such as during a one-tick Anatman opener, FoF is used for all oGCDs. That's all it takes, one oGCD gap less of penalty.

By extension, when the penalties for doing so are less, no oGCDs need be wasted, and the method of pulling off the technique is far more convenient, one would expect it would be wholly usable.

What you're saying amounts to much the same as claiming that TK wasn't viable in late StB. You're completely ignoring the contexts by which its costs were so greatly reduced, or, in this case, so much of the costs and annoyances being removed entirely.

As such, it feels more productive to suggest things that are within the scope of what the devs seem to want to do.

When the devs are insisting that everyone gets IR and anything but IR equivalents should be purged, it is not productive to suggest solely what is within the scope of what the devs want to do. It is by then productive to complain and to set a higher bar. Anything less is, by degree but inevitably, just giving up on the game's combat systems as a whole.

[Kalise]

No, those are merely the parts that came up specifically in this conversation with you and Mahrze which should have signalled to you that I was not a fan of leaving the stances as is.

Nevermind that ignite mechanics can set up tremendous nukes or that the relative potency from said nukes could allow you to not only survive extreme risky uptime mechanics but be paid back in damage for having done so or else lead into periods of extreme haste. Nevermind that you have Riddles, stance-dependent skills and not yet used concepts to tap into. Sure, any stance is inherently boring and will only ever be that. You know, like Jump, or a button to build a specific resource and a button to spend any said resource. Pure unimaginative waste. It's not like we ever got Nostrond or TCJ off those things. /s

But the parts that came up where all that I was privvy too.

You can say "Oh but they're just the foundation for X, Y and Z" but how am I supposed to know what X, Y and Z could be if all you've given is a rehash of current stances just with more words and no more actual meaning.

You should at least infer how your said changes are supposed to actually invoke something new and interesting, rather than briefly outlining 3 different "You do X more damage" variants.

That's why I'm calling them boring. Since, from where I'm stood, there literally is no reason why I'd ever swap. There's no inherent mechanic there that I want to exploit. It's just "Pick which of the three gives more damage" and stick with it.

You talk about an "Ignite" mechanic, but how will that function? Do you mean like a literal copy/paste of WoW's Fire Mage Ignite mechanic? Where every skill can build up a DoT that stacks and then you can use Conflag to get huge burst damage based on that DoT? (Or if you want to go old school, no Conflag, just a DoT from crits, no stacking and only the highest damage one sticks I.e. Pyroblast)

Why should I ever care about Wind? Given the only skills with CD's are oGCDs and actual CD's? Why would I want to use a weaker version of my oGCD's and how would that impact my rotation?

These are what happens when you assume people can read your mind and know what you envision even when you don't actually say anything about them. Heck, the fact that I didn't even know these were STANCES and not simply effects of consuming Ki should clue you in to how terribly you're describing these systems. Let alone how this is supposed to be you acting in defiance of the current stances.

One may be slightly dominant, one slightly situational in rotation as a "per CD, use to rush or delay rotation slightly for setup", and one more fight-dependent, yes, but that in no way equates to the 99/1/0% usage we see now.

But HOW.

You've not provided me with any information to suggest anything of the sort. The only difference between what I've seen and the current 99/1/0% current usage is that from what I can gather from your poorly expressed descriptions is that your system would be a 100/0/0% system instead.

Because that's not simple when you have to swap twice within 3-4 GCDs at a GCD length that doesn't allow for most players to double-weave even when in merely FoF. Again, you'd be getting only 2 embonused oGCDs out of the bargain, at most. Maybe you're playing at 10 ping and zero bonus SkS because you despise everything to do with the Double-True rotation, but for anyone else that's just not a viable use of resources, not because the effects of the stances are so little but because of the gap-uptime punishments for swapping at all.

By comparison, if even just one of those stance-swaps are dropped, such as during a one-tick Anatman opener, FoF is used for all oGCDs. That's all it takes, one oGCD gap less of penalty.

By extension, when the penalties for doing so are less, no oGCDs need be wasted, and the method of pulling off the technique is far more convenient, one would expect it would be wholly usable.

What you're saying amounts to much the same as claiming that TK wasn't viable in late StB. You're completely ignoring the contexts by which its costs were so greatly reduced, or, in this case, so much of the costs and annoyances being removed entirely.

BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU WERE IMPLYING WOULD HAPPEN:

There are only three ways such a system could go:

1. There are too few restrictions on stance changes to prevent someone from merely using high-damage-low-speed on each high damage-per-GCD skill and low-damage-high-speed on each skill with low damage-per-GCD (not including buff effects), forcing one to swap stances as often as possible to better juice Demolish and Bootshine.
2. The stances are too restricted to have any useful additional effects, and likely thwart gameplay that, too any player, would seem an obvious use of the stances, making them feel unnecessarily bloated.
3. Some miraculous hybrid of the two that manages to axe either side's issues -- possible, but horribly unlikely.

YOU were implying that stance swapping en masse would be a possibility.

YOU implied that "making them only a stick shift for speeds will end up with a Cataclysm-era Warrior debacle (whereby every skill was just macro-bound to a stance-change)"

YOU'RE the one who was trying to use "Oh but people will be swapping stances all the time" as a basis for an argument.

Now all of a sudden you're now actually considering the reality of the situation that would alleviate that concern, after being presented with the fact that a SkS + Damage shift stance dance is already available in the game and is not utilized, due to the fact that simply having stances that change SkS/Damage doesn't mean that they're necessarily able to be swapped that freely when optimizing.

When the devs are insisting that everyone gets IR and anything but IR equivalents should be purged, it is not productive to suggest solely what is within the scope of what the devs want to do. It is by then productive to complain and to set a higher bar. Anything less is, by degree but inevitably, just giving up on the game's combat systems as a whole.

There's a difference between setting a higher bar and being delusional though.

If the devs only want to give everyone an IR, then it's still setting the bar higher to simply suggest an alternative.

One doesn't need to ask for preposterous dreams to be aiming for a higher bar.

I'm asking for a higher bar from the devs with my "Simple" suggestion, because I'm using suggestions that are within their scope along side suggestions that push their limits.

Rather than asking for like 15 things that are blatantly never going to be considered by them. Which, yes, is still asking for a higher bar, but is far beyond too high a bar to set.

Maybe once they've actually set their bar a bit higher with suggestions along the lines of what I've done, I'll start asking for new things that set the bar a bit higher. Then again, and again. Until maybe, just maybe, we reach a point where they can actually consider some of the actual depth and complexity I'd wish they'd provide.

[Shurrikhan]

First off, I'm exhausted and kind of sick, so I apologize if any typos in here will make my words unclear. Chances are I've even forgot a "not" or added one too many...

(All untagged quotes are to Kalise, and from the same post.)

You can say "Oh but they're just the foundation for X, Y and Z" but how am I supposed to know what X, Y and Z could be if all you've given is a rehash of current stances just with more words and no more actual meaning.

If you're going to insist that I accept your purposely reducing or removing mechanics is necessary for future mechanics (essentially, that an X that is known and could be easily reworked to be highly lucrative as a base for A, B, and C must be removed to make room for an unknown Y), shouldn't you at least keep the same open mind towards those you're talking with?

There's no inherent mechanic there that I want to exploit.

Except, there is. And unless you didn't mean "imply" just there, I not only implied it, but I gave express examples.

And none of these fine details I've insisted on have been without purpose or larger vision. This all goes back to how Mahrze and I were discussing how Monk would be more interesting if it had burst periods owed to decisions it makes between main CDs, more alike to a brawler who can own mid-fights rather than just following the peak and lulls gameplay we see from so many jobs.

You talk about an "Ignite" mechanic, but how will that function? Do you mean like a literal copy/paste of WoW's Fire Mage Ignite mechanic? Where every skill can build up a DoT that stacks and then you can use Conflag to get huge burst damage based on that DoT? (Or if you want to go old school, no Conflag, just a DoT from crits, no stacking and only the highest damage one sticks I.e. Pyroblast)

Given that until it could do that there was nothing separating Ignite from any other DoT, thus giving me no reason to call it "Ignite" instead of just "a DoT", and any reference made to Ignite since it became its own thing has been to exactly that interaction, yes, I meant that interaction. I used that particular term because you had likewise used that particular term on threads I frequented in the past. Since at this point I was responding only to you and Mahrze, I used a term you had used previously for the sake of convenience.

YOU were implying that stance swapping en masse would be a possibility.

This, on the other hand, has no set contextual meaning. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but I'm going to assume that you mean that all stances would 'significant' (metric pending) see use over a given a fight. If so, yes, and I continue to stand by that. The other meaning that I would guess is possible -- that one could make the stance-decision en masse, i.e. to choose one stance for an entirity of a fight, would only be possible up to a certain performance level, nearish to peak if choosing between just Fire or just Wind in a fight that has little damage to absorb usefully, but a fair a bit worse if sticking to Earth full time in a fight that likewise has little damage to absorb usefully.

YOU implied that "making them only a stick shift for speeds will end up with a Cataclysm-era Warrior debacle (whereby every skill was just macro-bound to a stance-change)"

I did not only imply, it; I expressly stated it. And I stand by that statement.

YOU'RE the one who was trying to use "Oh but people will be swapping stances all the time" as a basis for an argument.

I said with the direction I intended, people would have reason to change stances both as part of macrorotation and in-fight events (e.g. raid damage, wanting to rush a Shoulder Tackle charge, etc.), with more frequent swaps at the highest levels of play but not such that they're required to get near enough peak performance outside of those highest levels.
You then equated this to the current situation, which is far, far more restricted that what I've suggested because:

1. FoF's only value is bound to a Couerl reapplication via GL4 rather than having inherent value outside of merely movement speed,
2. There is no speed at which double-weaving becomes possible again for the majority of Monk players now that RoF's slowdown has been trimmed, thus removing the room to swap to a situational stance and back, which largely denies Monks the ability to stance-swap in the periods that could most make use of stance-swapping,
3. there is a larger difference than I've suggested between dominant stances outside of their situations for use, thus cutting a clear difference between the dominant and situational stance rather than allowing for a second stance to be close enough,
4. there is no lasting impact of any stance, especially given the inability to replace the dominant stance in any given GCD outside of its niche, nor any synergy between stances, thus limiting their ability to play into macrorotation.

Between these factors, the two situations become very different. You have conflated two things that, in the weight of something as fine as "optimal play" (a perspective had insisted on at the time) are day and night.

Now all of a sudden you're now actually considering the reality of the situation that would alleviate that concern, after being presented with the fact that a SkS + Damage shift stance dance is already available in the game and is not utilized, due to the fact that simply having stances that change SkS/Damage doesn't mean that they're necessarily able to be swapped that freely when optimizing.

Damage multiplicity and limited opportunity during periods of oGCD burst would not alleviate the concern of Cata-style stance-dancing if stanced no longer affected oGCDs, since the limitations from the current context would then be absent in your suggested system, with but one equally negative exception.

FoF at present requires oGCDs to pay off its attack speed cost. It therefore has a necessary resource conflict with the exact same things that would make it viable. The more oGCDs to be used over its (extremely restricted) period of available use, thus giving it any bonus, the less time it has to swap to FoF and then back to FoW without wasting more potency over time from its attack speed lost between Couerl skills than it gains in damage multiplicity. Over the periods in which FoF is usable, you already have nearly an oGCD for every GCD. Unless your version of stance-dancing comes with enough added APM that every GCD's ability gap is a valuable resource that puts the stance-changes at conflict in every GCD, not just once every 30, 60, 90, or 120 seconds when it aligns with raid buffs and Demolish, the contexts differ drastically. You cannot conflate the two.

It would work somewhat during, say, a TA, if TA was still a powerful 10 second effect, because that would be short enough to face the same resource conflicts. Remember that the current window for stance-dancing, regardless of CDs, is under 8 seconds long, and it needs the conflicts that short window caused to not be "forced". This same need for resource conflict in order not to oblige constant stance-dancing would apply even if FoF's effect were not to apply to oGCDs at all (and thus only really buff Leaden Fist, True Strike, and Demolish). In fact, having removed any stance effects from oGCDs, the GCDs for which the gaps are already filled by oGCDs would be the only ones in which you are not forced to stance-dance. Sadly, though, unless swapping from a low enough speed to double-weave to a higher-speed one, you literally could not stance-swap without badly clipping. It'd be a "forced" decision, and yet also from which you are barred from whenever an oGCD is present. Consider -- though I imagine you'd change the RNG nature regardless to make it a non-issue, at present -- that would mean Chakra could cap just before Demolish, forcing you to be able to swap to FoF in time without wasting a potential Chakra by not using TFC immediately. I'm not sure there'd be anything worse than that -- being "forced" to swap multiple times per rotation only to be unable to do that if literally anything comes up in the way.

I did not say what I did because of a lack of forethought. I'm not refusing your suggestion just because it differs from my own. Each of the things you've suggested to me, I myself have thought of at some point between ARR and HW, liked them, considered what I could do with them, realized "Oh wait, I missed some crucial again", went back to the drawing board, and started again. What I arrived at is simply many iterations later than those same initial thoughts. There will probably some small error with my latest iteration on improving stances, too, but it at least going to be much smaller than that of each iteration before it, such as when I considered solely weaponskill-affecting stances and all the ways I could restrict that without it feeling gimmicky or went back to balancing around oGCDs but still longed for more impact on macrorotation and better building block for an identity for each stance. (Heck, I spent far longer than I'd like to admit considering how I could limit the the weaponskills-only variant of swaps without jacking up MNK's APM only to realize I didn't need to if I just made the effects of each stance have more lingering and potentially synergetic effects.)

So, let me explain again. You can balance around the inclusion of oGCDs and get a macrorotationally "forced" choiced (albeit likely of little gap) based around your oGCDs, or you can balance around GCDs alone and (unless you give Monk about 45% more APM to introduce sufficient resource conflict) get far more intrusively forced choices because of how potency-per-GCD varies. I use quotes around "forced" because these will likely, again, be a concern only at the highest levels of play.

The first can be actually be quite good. (My point before was only that it'd be just as "forced" as, or technically, slightly more actually than, what I had brought up earlier.)

Stance-swaps to a low-speed-high-damage stance balanced around oGCD usage would be "obligatory" with your oGCDs and with raid buffs so long as they're not too out of sync with your rotation. That sync issue could potentially make earlier swaps viable to a very limited degree, but would more likely just change whether you clip or delay Demolish and lead the raid buff with a clipped Twin Snakes or a double-True, depending on your dominant stance, which would still be a thing. As always, it'd just be a matter of which fits stance in more relative potency. If you run enough SkS to fit a hit Twin Snakes just before 15s raid buffs to immediately Demolish and then end on yet another (clipped) Demolish during those buffs (where you have no better no-clip option for it), you'd roll full speed unless you could generate another TFC. Similarly, if PB were changed to end in multi-form, high-speed-low-damage could see real use for getting out an extra DK or LF and at enough SkS one would likely change to FoF with the final PB GCD (on a LF). There's a decent bit of meat here; it needs some retuning, perhaps for Wind to grant its value in ways other than a tacked on GL that'd require a Couerl skill for any effective swap, and for Earth not to be utter crap, but otherwise it's quite functional, if a tad dull in itself.

Compare that to the weaponskill-effects-only version we've more recently discussed. I just mentioned its issues so I won't go over them again, but suffice to say it's not ideal either -- in fact, much less so than balancing around oGCDs as well. Perhaps there is still a way to save them, but I have not yet thought of it, or at least I know of no way without using limitations that could come off as a bit convoluted and/or arbitrary.

A more ideal version, by contrast, would require synergies between the effects of the stances, not just varying values per GCD or ability gap. A more ideal version would set a theme for each stance beyond just haste vs. damage, especially between Wind and Fire. Those themes could then play into further skills like stance-dependent direct-damage, mixed-utility-damage, or buff-period abilities. And, finally, a more ideal version wouldn't want to remove the contexts of a particular fight from the equation. That's why I went with, say, the Ignite mechanic, which can build waves of speed a la Beta-hype-version-TFC through increased passive resource growth (off the relative potency generated by that ramping DoT damage) or build towards a nuke to capitalize on burst phases -- two distinct uses that add to and work alongside Monk's existing macrorotation instead of leaving it solely driven by EF, RoF, and PB -- and could source some interesting skill interactions later. That's also why I considered the ability to rush CDs important to Wind and why I made Earth potentially so strong, albeit not quite as a dominant or mainstay stance (unless one would otherwise miss all their positionals outside of Bootshine).

One doesn't need to ask for preposterous dreams to be aiming for a higher bar.

When you stop conflating vastly different circumstances, I'll trust you a fair bit more on what is and what is not preposterous.

For now, though, you've gone out of your way to make simple suggestions far more complicated than they need be and insisted on contextual details while being unwilling to give any of your own and ignoring most of those given to you (yes, I screwed up once in kind). You also have not remotely applied the same rigor you expect from others to your suggestions that you've used to slight those of others. However much our stances may differ in general, with me being less willing to move the bar further and further to what I consider bad design just because it's an ongoing trend and you being more willing to accept and work around that, what you've written to me here seems far more "reductive" than it does "realistic".

I'm frankly a bit tired of talking about stances at this point and, if only try something else as to get us outside this muck, would prefer to talk about things outside the fundamentals and work backwards from those endgoals or further points of interest, but if you want to have an honest conversation about what likely will or will not work in those fundamentals, and why, I'm very much cool with that. We've had heated arguments before, though the previous one (in regards to... Stagger, systems iirc(?) ended peaceably enough, I believe), but I've always respected your intelligence in these things. I've just been a bit angered that you've continually conflated things that have drastically different contexts or have insisted that I implied things that are directly in contrast with what I've expressly stated and have continually stood behind. I apologize for where I've, in anger, doubtless done the same to you and therefore caused your anger in return.

[Kalise]

If you're going to insist that I accept your purposely reducing or removing mechanics is necessary for future mechanics (essentially, that an X that is known and could be easily reworked to be highly lucrative as a base for A, B, and C must be removed to make room for an unknown Y), shouldn't you at least keep the same open mind towards those you're talking with?

Except, my stances suggestion was complete in of itself. The fact that it lends more theoretical room for devs to add complexity elsewhere doesn't change the fact that my stance suggestion was complete and shows their effect.

That being, you pick a stance. You get either full damage, some damage and some speed or full speed. So that you can pick your preferred "Flavour" of Monk.

That's it. I've never tried to make these stances something to dance between. As I don't think that is particularly necessary as it merely adds difficulty to balancing them when trying to shoehorn in reasons to actually change stances without simply just breaking the entire system and making 1 stance superior.

The entirety of my stance suggestion is, really just that simple. Take the speed and damage from GL stacks. Put it into the stances. Adjust numbers accordingly and try to get each stance balanced closely to one another.

What effect does this have? It means GL management no longer affects damage or speed when building and expending stacks. It means that people who can't play at high speeds don't have to. It allows people who have different takes on what being a "Monk" should be, whether they strike with precision and damage (Something like Quivering Palm style), some kind of Pugilist style brawler or a speed demon (Something like Flurry of Blows style)

Thus, it offers freedom in GL management systems, because no longer does this system have to balance every single thing against the passive benefit of GL stacks. Meaning I could design something more interesting using GL stacks. You know, if I didn't have to keep coming back to talk about stances every post...

Except, there is. And unless you didn't mean "imply" just there, I not only implied it, but I gave express examples.

But I still have no context for any of what you've said.

How much damage are we talking about for Earth stance (Percentage? Flat?)? How is the defence built up? How is it consumed? How often can it be consumed?

Why should I ever care about Wind? What purpose does its CD bypassing at lower potency aspect serve? Especially when nothing with a CD actually makes a difference in Monk rotations other than weaving?

How does Fire work? Is the DoT percentage of the skill used? A flat amount? How does it stack? Can the engine even comprehend a single DoT that has multiple "Stacks" of a DoT within it that Ignite uses? Is there a Conflag skill that consumes it or not? How much damage does this provide? How does it compare to the damage that Earth provides (Especially in the sense that if it's simply Ignite then it's not as if you have to save it specifically for burst windows because the DoT continually stacks)

This all goes back to how Mahrze and I were discussing how Monk would be more interesting if it had burst periods owed to decisions it makes between main CDs, more alike to a brawler who can own mid-fights rather than just following the peak and lulls gameplay we see from so many jobs.

Again, how exactly does your stance suggestion actually work towards that?

Then, how do you balance something like that so people don't just sit on these burst periods to align with main CD's? Given that CD windows are only 60s apart.

Given that currently, the only job that I can think of that does any meaningful amount of burst outside of a 60/90s CD window, is GNB with its Blasting Zone + Gnashing Fang every 30s.

Maybe RDM with their melee combo? I dunno, I haven't got much experience with high level RDM play to know how their melee combos line up with buff windows.

This, on the other hand, has no set contextual meaning. Correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but I'm going to assume that you mean that all stances would 'significant' (metric pending) see use over a given a fight.

You're misinterpreting, you implied that one of the 3 outcomes from stances being SkS/Damage toggles would be:

"There are too few restrictions on stance changes to prevent someone from merely using high-damage-low-speed on each high damage-per-GCD skill and low-damage-high-speed on each skill with low damage-per-GCD (not including buff effects), forcing one to swap stances as often as possible to better juice Demolish and Bootshine."

People swapping stances constantly, to buff different CD's with high damage while using high speed otherwise.

Which is counter to the points you make about how people don't do that now due to how trash weaving stances is for gameplay.

I did not only imply, it; I expressly stated it. And I stand by that statement.

And yet, we have a system that is more or less a stick shift for speed and no-one uses stances like that because of the downsides inherent to actually utilizing them like that.

This is with the damage stance also affecting oGCD's as well as Demolish (While the SkS does not)

Even with things like raid buff windows and potential TK usage (Which would limit the detriment of needing to rebuild the 4th stack upon returning to FoW, as well as being buffed by FoF itself), people don't stance dance.

Yet, as soon as I propose the changes to stances, all of a sudden everyone and their Miqo'te are swapping stances nigh every other GCD?

For now, though, you've gone out of your way to make simple suggestions far more complicated than they need be and insisted on contextual details while being unwilling to give any of your own and ignoring most of those given to you (yes, I screwed up once in kind).

Had you posted things with any clarity, it would have made it much easier to note suggestions.

Also, in what little I have suggested, I have provided enough detail within the confines of the suggestion at hand. Given that the suggestion is not predicated on a "Big picture" like all of yours seem to be (Yet, still, no information has been given about what the big picture actually is, only that all your suggestions not only combine but also require some yet unmentioned additional suggestions)

Given that at base, I have only made a single actual suggestion within this thread and the other 95% of my responses here have been answering to a grilling from yourself about how poor a suggestion it is compared to your own, whilst barely getting any information about your more complex design of the same skills.

As my simple suggestion goes, it's merely Earth = no speed, more damage. Fire = middle ground of speed and damage. Wind = more speed, less/no damage.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out how this will work, even without such specifics like actual numbers (Which would be TBD via testing and a bunch of math I can't be bothered to do in a thread where I'm merely spitballing ideas rather than actually sitting down to design something)

Yet I'm still unsure on so many details about your suggested stances, as I've noted above. I can't comprehend how they will work, especially in the way that you suggest, where all 3 stances will see use during an encounter. Even if you do use terms that I'm familiar with (Such as "Ignite", which in of itself, has had dozens of incarnations and has a plethora more potential incarnations)

I'm frankly a bit tired of talking about stances at this point and, if only try something else as to get us outside this muck, would prefer to talk about things outside the fundamentals and work backwards from those endgoals or further points of interest

Sure.

How about the Chakra system then?

Given its current implementation is about as bad as could be conceived, what with being somewhat lacklustre payout for RNG based build up and the asynchrony with job quests.

Personally, I like the idea of 7 Light and 7 Dark Chakra, which upon opening gives us the super saiyan mode - As is the basis of the entire expansion of job quests.

The question comes down to, how to open the Chakra and then what to make The Forbidden Chakra mode actually do?

My initial thought would be something like Coeurl skills opening Chakra, but that would likely hinge on having a secondary DD Coeurl skill to use during Demolish uptime... Which could be possible, it just would need to serve a purpose in its own right within the rotation.

A straightforward, but boring answer would be making it Dragon Kick, but for buffing Snap Punch. Probably not ideal, but it's serviceable enough when the main purpose of this particular musing is the Chakra system itself (Looking at the combo skills in finer detail is something I'll probably do later)

So, if that is the build up, 14 full combos (That can be sped up with PB usage to spam Coeurl skills) to lead into TFC. But now what could the effect of TFC be?

Boring answer would be simple damage buff, thereby making it just yet another CD to use alongside every other CD (Though, to be fair, that's likely the outcome of every suggestion for such a skill, given how much the game revolves around CD stacking)

Perhaps, changing combo skills into new, higher potency attacks? Ones with more pizzaz where you're punching and kicking and waves of Chakra energy are sent flying through the air, with skills using Light colour and Dark colour energy.

Another thought, is having access to a Quivering Palm skill, which would function similar to MCH's Wildfire.

Final thought would be something like making it a maintenance buff that requires re-opening the Chakra consistently, though it probably has too much of a wind up for that (Unless you could idk, meditate before combat to open the 14 Chakra) and probably wouldn't be very interesting outside of any time you might use PB to spam non-Coeurl skills and thus have a period where you aren't moving through the stances regularly.