Best designed DPS and Worst designed.

[Shironeko_Narunyan]

I’m noticing a disturbing pattern just now, back in SB I used to see a few “MCH sucks” threads and how it isn’t easy or straight forward but the major issue it had was a abysmal progression kit, and most of the debates were laughably bad due to people not even leveling it to 70 or understating the job

Years later, MCH got the lethal injection and BRD a job once praised for its kit is now suffering the same unjust treatment from people that either just repeating the echo, or so used to MCH and DNC lax nature that using a dot is seen as alienating, I get BRD isn’t as good as SB but I almost never see anyone bring it up it’s always comparisons to DNC and MCH which (idk if I’m the only the feels this way but) are NOT very good jobs to compare BRD too or any job really.

One being boring and kinda deleting the whole point of the game and the other so brand new it doesn’t have a camp of critiques yet (coming soon in EW)

Perhaps I’m paranoid since this patterns ends with a lobotomy as so many jobs have suffered so far in SHB

Not everyone is you, or has the same likes as you, nor is your opinion more than just the opinion of one of millions of players.
Your post history is telling.

[Shurrikhan]

Not everyone is you, or has the same likes as you, nor is your opinion more than just the opinion of one of millions of players.
Your post history is telling.

Yet, it's a very popular opinion among former MCH mains. The matter just asks (A) whether job design should appeal primarily to those who would potentially enjoy a given job or to those who already do and (B) whether any change which seems to come at (or retain) considerable cost to one side or the other should be acceptable at all.

[Kabooa]

Yet, it's a very popular opinion among former MCH mains. The matter just asks (A) whether job design should appeal primarily to those who would potentially enjoy a given job or to those who already do and (B) whether any change which seems to come at (or retain) considerable cost to one side or the other should be acceptable at all.

I enjoyed StB machinist and still relatively enjoy ShB Machinist. The two are not that different from each other. If you take the time to analyze the two of them, you will find the gameflow remains mostly the same, but less punishing for ShB while it also addressed most of the feedback StB got.

It has problems, but not many of the jobs don't have identifiable problems with it, but Machinist has two primary problems.

1. It still has ping dependency, but there's a ton of ways to fix this - the least obtrusive way is to just give Gauss/Richo 4 charges (120s total recharge compared to 90 now), but giving it the Bunshin treatment also works. A more complicated answer is making Gauss / Richo and some other ability share charges ("Ammo") and give them variable cost, power, and supplementary effects, but that's more than a summary can provide. This would primarily be to help the ping issue when dealing with potential openers.

2. It hasn't really 'grown'. As seems to be the case for most of the notable problem jobs this expansion (and even select examples of the 'good' jobs), there's distinct openings in the kit that need to be filled.

As far as problems go, these ones are pretty mild and easy to fix. I consider Apex arrow a far bigger problem that needs addressing, and that's just one of Bard's.

[Shironeko_Narunyan]

Yet, it's a very popular opinion among former MCH mains. The matter just asks (A) whether job design should appeal primarily to those who would potentially enjoy a given job or to those who already do and (B) whether any change which seems to come at (or retain) considerable cost to one side or the other should be acceptable at all.

If you watch the numbers, which is obviously what's informing SE's design decisions, you'll find that the number of players running MCH has gone up.

This is a bit of a philosophical problem anyway, kind of like there's a shortage of tanks and healers, and changing the gameplay around won't help, because it's the roles themselves, and the meta-things around them (have to know the way, the mobs, the encounters, carry responsibility etc) that don't work for most people.
In the case of MCH, there are just more than one type of player wanting to play the job, with each hoping for a different direction.

SMN is getting their rework right now, and you bet that, no matter how it will turn out, there will be long complaint threads on this forum, and chances are high that aforementioned poster will be heavily involved again, as indicated by their post history.

[Shurrikhan]

If you watch the numbers, which is obviously what's informing SE's design decisions, you'll find that the number of players running MCH has gone up.

That's irrelevant to my point, though. You're assuming a warrant's correctness despite its obviously being in contention. Being absent of weaknesses, even if it saps a great deal of complexity, will almost always end up more broadly popular than what is produced by distinct and thematically cohesive design, yet classes with some of the greatest player satisfaction levels (or otherwise seem to be most deeply appealing) here and in other MMOs, especially among long-term players of those classes, tend towards the latter. That Class X has more players now, especially when handily ignoring a hefty population increase over the same period, does not remove the question of whether a job's appeal should be measured solely by, say, the number of players who have level-capped it.

Personally, I would rather have 6 jobs that appeal to me deeply than 12 that appeal only to a shallow degree.

Yes, metrics applicable to depth rely on player perspective, as opposed than breadth's more easily gathered measurements such as level progress, achievements, or trackable playtime (even if the latter requires a great deal of sorting and categorization to render any useful information), and therefore have far smaller in-practice sample sizes, but that doesn't mean depth of attraction should be considered irrelevant.

SMN is getting their rework right now, and you bet that, no matter how it will turn out, there will be long complaint threads on this forum, and chances are high that aforementioned poster will be heavily involved again, as indicated by their post history.

You say this like it's something hypocritical, skewed, or otherwise irrational. It's not. They had something they liked and a direction for the job they enjoyed that would seem to indicate a path forward that appealed to them. That job and its path were changed significantly, favoring a direction that aligns with trends worrisome and dislikable to them. Why should they not complain?

Yes, every preference, every relevant thing one could ever like or dislike could be called a "bias", but why the heck shouldn't someone argue for what they like, especially when systemic constraints would appear to undervalue the position they share to the advantage of positions which would squelch it? Their post history shows consistency to a particular preference.

Perhaps that preference in turn comes from a particular principle or two. Perhaps it's eclectic. The difference matters little. It's a preference they're free to argue towards, and I would think their consistency would make for a better landmark for the job's discussion than it everyone were to embrace the new and work only to address its last few pain points. (This is not pointed at you, Kabooa; your second point there, and indeed the way you treat job design in general, obviously shows greater patience and interest. I speak only of what's generally been attempted to head off discourse among Monk, Bard, Summoner, Dragoon, Machinist, Dark Knight, Warrior, and Healer mains.)