Thread: Monk Positionals 6.0

Originally Posted by Kolsykol

I don't really like double Phoenix Rising in the opener, it feels like an oversight rather than how it was actually designed...

Don´t know if i would even take care about it. And don´t know the exact DPS stats right now, but given to balance it´s only more useful in a raidgroup with a lot of 120s buffs. And if all of them line up in random groups or more casual related statics is questionable.

I´m not saying you shouldn´t give your best as DPS, but as long as you don´t want to run around in farmgroups for a 99 parse, it looks like there is not really a need for a minor gain with an "if the raidgroup..." in it.

Originally Posted by Navnav

Why double rising phoenix? Just hold onto that PB until RoF comes off cd. Everything is solved rotation wise. It aint rocket science.... Maybe just maybe, it isn't a design flaw, but rather that a lot of you players are trying so hard to make things work like they used to or you just want things to make snse for you, rather than accepting the sense they absolutely make, but you don't like it.

It might be time to admit that the fact is we are NOT pro gamers, and we are NOT game developers, at least not on the level of who makes this game. So maybe just chill on how oh so much you think is the right way, and just accept you actually don't know much.

Do you even have a clue ppl are talking about? Doesn´t look like it and if SE really overseen double phoenix, then a bunch of players are better in math then SE´s entire balance-team.

Originally Posted by Navnav

I think you guys think to much into things instead of accepting circumstances.

Said the one who opened multiple threads about MNK and how shitty positionals are. You didn´t, but we´ve to? Selfish much hm?!

I think you guys think to much into things instead of accepting circumstances.

Why double rising phoenix? Just hold onto that PB until RoF comes off cd. Everything is solved rotation wise. It aint rocket science.... Maybe just maybe, it isn't a design flaw, but rather that a lot of you players are trying so hard to make things work like they used to or you just want things to make snse for you, rather than accepting the sense they absolutely make, but you don't like it.

It might be time to admit that the fact is we are NOT pro gamers, and we are NOT game developers, at least not on the level of who makes this game. So maybe just chill on how oh so much you think is the right way, and just accept you actually don't know much.

Originally Posted by Miralyth

The context of my post, and what I was replying to, is the fun factor of positionals. Cast bars were being compared against them (although as the posts went on, I think the person speaking with me thought I was challenging something other than fun factor).

The thing is, you cannot use 'fun' as an objective standard as it varies from player to player.

I did go back and skim the first few posts in this line and it seems, whilst you do enjoy Monk, the positionals were not fun, mainly because of boss moving where you cannot predict and so you lose the positional.

It was also compared to cast times, in that, it is an inherent mechanic in a role that restricts movement. You claim these two cannot be the compared as they are not the same, or at least, they don't 'feel' the same. Well, of course they don't 'feel' the same, otherwise they would be the same mechanic and not worth comparing, however, if you take them to the base fundamentals:

- They both restrict movement in some way
- They both require fight knowledge in order to properly utilise them

It is this second point that I want to address as this is where the majority of the nuance comes in. With fight knowledge, you know what the boss is about to do, you can then plan how you want to handle this mechanic. For positionals, it is about, is the boss going to randomly turn, in most raid settings, people are stacked up behind the boss, so is it really random where they will face? Can I pre-position myself to maximise positional uptime when he does a predictable spin, if a mechanic comes out and I have to disengage, can I manoeuvre myself in such a way that when I re-engage, I am at the correct positional etc. So many things come into play and I guarantee, when you know a fight, the boss spinning is not as random as you think it is.

With casting, it is a similar principle. Can I stand here whilst this mechanic goes on, do I need to start thinking about planning swiftcast/procs/etc. It is the same principle, knowing the boss pattern and rotation and using the tools granted to minimise the movement as much as possible. It is again all about pre-planning where you should be.

So really, at the very core, they are the same basic thing. Keeping uptime on a boss with minimal interruptions. They are, of course, going to 'feel' different, that is why each role has players that prefer one over the other and you even have ranged physical if you just want o ignore all that altogether, it is also why, in the roles themselves, they have varying degrees that this nuance matters. BLM being heavily reliant on standing still and getting it's casts off, from what I have heard, SMN has alot of instant casts, so they are very very mobile and RDM is somewhere inbetween. It is the same with Melee, Reaper, Ninja and Samurai all have a relatively low reliance on positionals, Dragoon has slightly higher and Monk was all they way at the top. Monk is essentially like Black Mage in this regard if we are going by mechanic load. However, with new Monk, it has all been ripped away and now, Melee do not have their 'Black Mage' equivalent.

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

The thing is, you cannot use 'fun' as an objective standard as it varies from player to player.

No one has argued otherwise. However, differentiating between what is "objective" or not as it regards job design is probably the most utterly useless undertaking one could ever attempt.

Yes, people have individual preferences. However, they do tend to have common patterns and compromises whose results are greater/better than would fit a "zero-sum" model of player preferences.

Perhaps there is someone who enjoys animation locks because, as in fighting games, they force one to be aware of incoming needs to move. Perhaps a greater number of people prefer responsiveness. Know what handily rewards the earlier group without pissing off the later? Cancelable casts.

That's the line of reasoning being used when arguing for design improvements, rather than merely shouting from the rooftops that such and such is subjective the moment any preference aligns with a utilitarian outcome that is opposed to their own personal preference. Not to say that's the case for you, but it certainly the norm when people attempt to shut down any conversation of design by framing any statistically held preference or design compromise as not objective.