Why do the devs hate MCH so much?

[Shurrikhan]

Doesn't matter how good you think those 2 jobs' mobility are, the point is MCH is still better. And they also bring support/ultility, that's why you have to make MCH to at least have less mobility then them.

Shouldn't that be the opposite? If, say, MCH, SMN, and RDM were to all have equal mobility and rDPS (MCH gets a new mobility-constraining way of increasing its damage), SMN and RDM (as jobs that bring support/utility atop their reliability/mobility and rDPS) would still be at an advantage over MCH.

To compare the relative advantages of just RDM and MCH briefly:

• Mobility -> MCH (small difference, varied by encounter).
• Ease of Optimization -> MCH (very small difference, varied by player).
  
  
• Utility -> RDM (relatively large difference; RDM has some of the highest levels of utility*, while MCH has only a single raid miti CD held also by all other physical ranged).
• Damage -> RDM (large enough difference that you almost always get 2 casters or melee instead of 2 physical ranged).

MCH is slightly underfunded either way, but if we were to add damage opportunities that would ultimately constrain their mobility, which would likely also bring its skill ceiling of to (reduce ease of optimization down to) RDM's level, MCH would have more than enough budget to match both utility RDM's utility and damage, too, or faintly exceed its damage while offering less utility, etc.

[Raikai]

Shouldn't that be the opposite? If, say, MCH, SMN, and RDM were to all have equal mobility and rDPS (MCH gets a new mobility-constraining way of increasing its damage), SMN and RDM (as jobs that bring support/utility atop their reliability/mobility and rDPS) would still be at an advantage over MCH.

To compare the relative advantages of just RDM and MCH briefly:

• Mobility -> MCH (small difference, varied by encounter).
• Ease of Optimization -> MCH (very small difference, varied by player).
  
  
• Utility -> RDM (relatively large difference; RDM has some of the highest levels of utility*, while MCH has none).
• Damage -> RDM (large enough difference that you almost always get 2 casters or melee instead of 2 physical ranged).

MCH is slightly underfunded either way, but if we were to add elements that constrain their mobility, which would likely also bring its skill ceiling of to (reduce ease of optimization down to) RDM's level, MCH would have more than enough budget to match both utility RDM's utility and damage, too, or faintly exceed its damage while offering less utility, etc.

Machinist could have two extra actions to buff up its utility:
- A physical counterpart of Magic Barrier
- Palisade back

I've seen people toying with a rez concept for MCH as a battery spender, but a rez would probably create more issues than before.

[Shurrikhan]

Machinist could have two extra actions to buff up its utility:
- A physical counterpart of Magic Barrier
- Palisade back

I've seen people toying with a rez concept for MCH as a battery spender, but a rez would probably create more issues than before.

Fair enough. That said, I guess just I'd rather start with simply "What seems fun and fitting for a MCH, specifically?" rather than defaulting immediately to mirrors of existing abilities or returned Role Actions, if that makes sense?

[TheMightyMollusk]

Tying a utility into the battery gauge makes it heavily unreliable. The MCH would have to choose between actually using the Queen to do damage, or holding out on it just in case. You either lose damage or lose the utility, and we all know damage is king in this game.

[Shurrikhan]

Tying a utility into the battery gauge makes it heavily unreliable.

Depends on how sharply the returns on gauge spenders decline when used at less than full gauge.

If a spending 40 gauge at a time between bursts gave as much damage per gauge as spending 100 at a time (so long as one makes sure to have 100 at the ready for the next burst cycle), you'd simply have a base opportunity cost. That'd increase if/when used before too near to raid buffs to regenerate to max gauge, but so long as we're not effectively forced to use our gauge like an inflexible cooldown, it wouldn't outright force any sort of desync.

It'd simply be a utility that comes at cost (likely more than just that of the finisher of uptime it costs RDM or the filler GCD a Swiftcast-Resurrection costs SMN), which then means it needn't be taxed as highly (which means it can be balanced higher for situations that wouldn't make use of it despite retaining that option), much like Ballad/Paeon/Promotion originally.

[Raven2014]

Fair, enough. That said, I guess just I'd rather start with simply "What seems fun and fitting for a MCH, specifically?" rather than defaulting immediately to mirrors of existing abilities or returned Role Actions, if that makes sense?

The original 3.0 MCH was good as a "base", if anything it give the class a "unique" style of play. The reason why it was so ill received was because they decide to apply the same style to BRD. Most people playing BRD at the time understandably played it because of the mobility it has, so understandably they got pissed. And I think SE took that as people just don't like the style so when they revert BRD, they also revert MCH. So BRD got its identity back, while MCH ... MCH had nothing, its original vision got scrapped and now it's struggle in the twilight zone between several things while not be able to settle to be anything.


Honestly, over the year it's one of the decision I think most baffling. At that point, BRD was unique in its style, and so MCH. I never understood why they have to insist of making them the same, first by changing BRD style into MCH, then revert MCH style into BRD instead of just developing 2 different unique paths. Note that I never said the 3.0 MCH was good or fun to play, it needed work. But stripping its original vision isn't one of those work.

[Raikai]

Fair, enough. That said, I guess just I'd rather start with simply "What seems fun and fitting for a MCH, specifically?" rather than defaulting immediately to mirrors of existing abilities or returned Role Actions, if that makes sense?

Yep, defnitely. I feel that MCH kinda favor the physical elements, instead of magical, so it would make sense to have Palisade back to help tanks in a different way that BRD can do with Paean.

Or perhaps, instead of an extra mitigation action, it could be an aoe shield, since that would be an unique utility niche, if we don't count Improvisation's shield that can only be usded in a reliable way during downtime.

[WiccaP]

And Raven2014, Id like to know what utility/support mch brings to the party? Tactician? Their one and only buff that can not stack with dancer and bards shield. Your example of SMN, has their carbuncle shields, their phoenix support abilities, rez and physick they have more support/utility than mch. Also with how simplified SMN is now, its almost as mobile as Prang. And while Mch doesnt have to directly get into melee they do have to get just outside of melee range for 3 of their AOEs to hit. The devs pretty much stripped mch of their flavor/identity/and support away.

[Raikai]

And Raven2014, Id like to know what utility/support mch brings to the party? Tactician? Their one and only buff that can not stack with dancer and bards shield. Your example of SMN, has their carbuncle shields, their phoenix support abilities, rez and physick they have more support/utility than mch. Also with how simplified SMN is now, its almost as mobile as Prang. And while Mch doesnt have to directly get into melee they do have to get just outside of melee range for 3 of their AOEs to hit. The devs pretty much stripped mch of their flavor/identity/and support away.

Just a minor thing, but maybe should take Physick out of the equation because is useless in almost any type of situation. Even still, Rez + personal shield + party wide hot + strong single target proc heal is a lot of utility.

[Shurrikhan]

The original 3.0 MCH was good as a "base", if anything it give the class a "unique" style of play. The reason why it was so ill received was because they decide to apply the same style to BRD. Most people playing BRD at the time understandably played it because of the mobility it has, so understandably they got pissed. And I think SE took that as people just don't like the style so when they revert BRD, they also revert MCH. So BRD got its identity back, while MCH ... MCH had nothing, its original vision got scrapped and now it's struggle in the twilight zone between several thing while struggle to be anything.

I'm a little confused by this. Gauss Barrel and Wanderer's Minuet were identical mechanics, sure, but nothing about the ammo or MCH's formerly faux-combos were "the same style," and that survived until Shadowbringers (an expansion after BRD "got its identity back," if one wanted to so fixate on a single ability), well after their rotational identities were otherwise at their most distinct. (The only increasedly shared grounds were from Role Actions --Ballad/Paeon and Promotion being unfortunately absorbed into the shared Refresh/Tactician-- but that affected only support tools, not the job's own gameplay).

I never understood why they have to insist of making them the same, first by changing BRD style into MCH, then revert MCH style into BRD...

On both counts... ???

Note that I never said the 3.0 MCH was good or fun to play, it needed work. But stripping its original vision isn't one of those work.

I... think... I agree? I'm just really having trouble making sense of your frames of reference here.