Did RPR somehow bridge a new gap in design and player skill level despite it's systems.

We know RPR has a lot off different systems interacting and now, aside from potency adjust ment, are we saying that a greater number of players can handle this design type? Or is it just the "how" we implement already " standardized systems (build and dump, procs, guage use). Are we willing to give, as some pointed out, SAM or BLM some small level of raid utility to expand job design (even if small or does not apply to self)? Will that end the debate? Are we so content with "our" current assessments of balance "should be" like this and constrain creativity.

Perhaps there is enthusiasm towards this type of design (system interactions) and no more need to simplify battle designs because "players can't handle that many things". Perhaps we will have people say that "it's still very easy design" but I feel like it opens doors in future jobs.

Than again we can still insist in this case that RPR's interactions themselves are shallow. But where do we want RPR in terms of easy vs hard and job design?

Some are using the utility vs pure damage argument. But do we run the risk of eventually saying why am I doing all these inputs to do SMN/RDM level of dps? Are we saying the current apm or effort warrants a certain ranking amongst dps despite the utility argument?

Ease of play and damage out. Delete the utility and we good? Or will we argue simplicity after that?

I don't want to change the subject.
But reading the responses makes me think about various ways we try to prevent simplicity but fail due to what we critic in design for the sake of "proper structures" and rankings.