Conclusion: We really like FATES, but lie to ourselves.

[Shurrikhan]

Comparisons to GW2 or Rift are pertinent. XIV's FATE system is simply grossly underdeveloped open world content. I wish it was better, because for everyone who felt compelled to swoop in here and call them boring or that they only do them for (limited) rewards, I can turn around and say that's the only reason why I do dungeons or the annoying raids. After the Nth time, they're boring and lack variety, with the base obsessed with wall-to-wall pulls and getting it all done as quickly as possible because... well, my guess is it's not actually fun for them, either.

To be fair, most of those people would agree with you. Dungeons aren't without their own broad range of critics.

The difference in the conversation between dungeons and FATEs comes mostly from (1) precedents, (2) time investment required, and (3) choice or lack thereof.

We've seen harder dungeons, in the form of undergeared AK and pre-nerf Pharos Sirius. But there are no particularly "difficult" FATEs -- only ones that will either unavoidably one-shot non-tanks for seemingly little reason or screw over melee entirely. Even the easiest dungeon, moreover, will take far, far longer than the easiest FATE (assuming equal player count at both the current FATE as the one that caused the current FATE's scaling). Thus we're free to make FATEs far more involved without locking out players without the necessary time bank; our only issue would be that FATEs are so often done only while in queue for other types of content (though, making FATEs more interesting and rewarding would already mitigate that) and FATE rewards on FATEs that finish after you leave the zone or go into an instance were removed in... mid ARR, I want to say?

Larger than that, though, there is little choice in dungeon selection, especially now. The vast majority of dungeoning is done through leveling via dungeon spam (with 1 choice at a time) or roulettes (no "choice", merely "randomization" -- now with at most two possible results in Expert Roulette, and with only one of those giving potential gear upgrades, down from the 3 equally useful possible results in ARR). A FATE, on the other hand, can be done or skipped at will. If some people want more involved FATEs, and others don't, then there's no real conflict. Said FATEs can be added and then skipped by those who'd rather just continue to chain the simpler ones, so long as their reward efficiency is nearly equal.

Simply put, unlike dungeons, there's no unavoidable compromise that would hold FATEs back from "improvement", as anyone might see it, so people will tend to be more vocal in their criticisms. After all, the most backlash one can get for suggesting potential improvements to FATEs is "I think they're fine already" rather than "What you want conflicts with what I want, and so I've prepared pitchforks, torches, cherry-pickers, and ad hominem arguments accordingly."

[Saidosha]

"No one would do dungeons if FATEs were too rewarding!" tends to be the old standby, which has no doubt played into their minimal EXP reward over time. Obviously, part of my own dungeon ennui is a distaste for queues. "Do something else until it pops!" may work for some people, but I'd rather just dive into something at will if I really want to do it. It's a luxury that becomes a harder sell the moment you demand 3/7/23 others on the same page and not turn into toxic buttgoblins if something goes wrong. Pragmatically, FATEs should at least be serving as an alternative to quests that no longer exist for follow-up jobs once cleared. And while some may argue that they technically do offer EXP, they're not really in the same league, nor are pitiable gil payouts going to be buying people hundreds of k in gear off the MB if they're no riding out augmented Ironworks/Shire/Scaevan until next tier.

In terms of variety, we ultimately need to consider how spontaneous quests can manifest:
- Kill X
- Fetch Y
- Go to Z
- Defend Q

For the most part, these are the skeletons we have to work with. You could have something like the coeurl queen FATE where it's "Kill X minions" until she finally shows up. Defense sorts can be stationary objects or escorts, where sometimes these do chain into later FATEs if they don't fail due to inactivity. The Fetch ones probably wind up being lame because they often double as Kill types, without really being exploratory or "puzzling" since you know whatever you need is in the marked circle.

Mechanically, the system otherwise has issues people noted where a train can make a subsequent respawn harder for smaller groups/soloists. This would definitely need to be on the "fix it" list if considering grander overhauls, to the point that difficulty should really be fluctuating based on people within range/synced in the moment. Bosses gaining new moves and/or spawning new/additional minions should probably be a given, but at the same time, also more thought provoking than just bundling together to AoE.

Personally, when I think back to my Rift days, I look fondly to those occasions where I'm single-handedly keeping a zone event alive because I was protecting a wardstone while others took out rifts or sub-bosses. People were working together, even if not literally within the same party, for a greater good in the moment. Of course, Rift also suffered from the "Raider's First!" mentality where you could put hundreds of hours into zone events and eventually get a set of gear that'd be comparable to expert dungeons, not even raid level. It always felt like a slap in the face to players like myself because those same people would try to say "you don't need it!" despite the reality devs could also make content where you did, further correlating an interchangibility between content where if you did maybe want to Savage raid for a night, you could without being a detriment to the group because you've still had a source of progression. Perhaps the irony here is that XIV is CLOSE to that with the tomestone system(s), but you have a mix of time gates/weekly caps and unique sources, like Nier raid coins, that ultimately prevent alternative growth. And by the time those aren't needed, it's another expansion/tier creep, anyway. From my perspective, all this runs counter to the whole "all jobs on one character" system since you're pretty much doomed to pick a main and have to settle for everything else being weaker in comparison.

But I'm also someone with an unreliable schedule and family life that can't ever commit to something like a static group, so this is pretty much the point where someone tries to tell me MMOs aren't for me, too. Something I'll eternally call BS on, but I suppose the genre can continue to decline if purists wanna do their thing.

[Shurrikhan]

In terms of variety, we ultimately need to consider how spontaneous quests can manifest:
- Kill X
- Fetch Y
- Go to Z
- Defend Q

Honestly, these seem sufficient to do a ton of interesting stuff.

The issue is ultimately the shape of the encounter and the available responses* to threats or timers. That's where your emergent gameplay forms, after all.
* (Available here refers to "competitive" or "(near enough to) optimal", rather than just technically possible.)

For instance, let's take a "Savage" version of the initial Worms fate in South Thanalan. The objective would be Defend X (the civilians). But consider all that could go along with that:

• You have a finite number of NPC guards to aid you.
• You have a finite number of defensive structures.
• You have a finite number of provided items (e.g. explosives), though perhaps you could have crafters make more through FATE-specific crafts (hit interact with the glowing desk and have at it).
• You can command the NPC guards to charge, pull-back, etc.
• You can have use crafted items (beams, stones, etc.) to shore up defenses.
• You can pull back K.O.'ed guards to where they can be resuscitated.
• There can be 'sapper' worms who borrow deeper into the town.
• There are a limited number of elite worms, with their own triggers, including worm death total, worm death rate, guard death total, guard death rate, civilian death total, civilian death rate, explosives use total, explosives consumed (and stockpile seen), a particular other elite worm attacked, a particular other elite worm killed, etc., etc.
• You can have NPC civilians feign death (e.g. hide in the basement of a building that is destroyed), including to trigger elite worm spawns (into traps), so long as you can get them out in time (before they suffocate or are noticed by sapper worms).
• There is technically a finite number of worms, but more importantly their is a scaling rate of their being brought against you based on the elite worms, though worm holes (not wormholes) in the area.
• Rate of kills can scare back worms, offering temporary reprieve.
• You can exit the immediate FATE area to any of the connected FATE areas, e.g. to attack an elite worm directly (offering distraction mid-assault or denying the worms an opportunity that would eventually overwhelm you) or to bomb worm holes (more effective in getting initial kills, as you're collapsing entire tunnels, and --if you can close a whole network-- reducing their incoming numbers, than simply defending against them).
• Etc., etc.

Voila. You've got the most complex and ingenuity-enticing fight in XIV. In a FATE.

It's all about the doodads, units, mechanics, etc., more so than any general objective type. The four basic objectives are wholly sufficient. The devs have just barely scratched the surface of what all can be done with them.

[Taebok]

I've always like FATEs
It's RAIDs I can't stand

[Taebok]

"No one would do dungeons if FATEs were too rewarding!"

I think that says a lot about how most people feel about dungeons