It's safe to say that we are both trying our best to conceive ideas that respect that nature of the game at it's core. Where we disagree is merely the approach.
For me personally I like having the option of utility. That's what drew me to Scholar in ARR. When Selene had her own toolkit I could choose the fairy I wanted based on the content I was running. The community quickly realized that Eos was optimal but having the choice to use Selene made me happy nonetheless. I haven't seen a single person who thought removing Selene as a separate set of actions was a good idea. So the concept of having a choice between optimal damage and situational utility has already been proven to be well received. Currently Scholar has a GCD shield in Adloquium that is very rarely DPS positive. You have to shield enough to avoid needing multiple healing GCD's in the future or avoid an otherwise unavoidable death. Having Adloquium on my hotbar still feels great just like Selene because the option to use it is always there when I need it.
It's that feeling that led to my idea of increased damage or utility for cards. You said yourself that damage is better in 95% of cases so I made a card system that gives you that damage at any percentage. The utiltity is less important but available because having the option feels good. What doesn't feel good to me is being forced to use utiltity I don't need. That is why I don't play Sage because I find myself healing for the MP gain when no one needs health and it feels dumb. Your Astro concept where I am forced to use random utility the party may not need is also unappealing even if the end result is more damage for the party. It's just a personal preference but both our ideas respect the fact that damage is always better and having some utility at our disposal is a nice addition to that. My concept just leaves the choice between damage and utility completely up to the player.



Reply With Quote


