Inevitable Job Simplifications?

[Valence]

It's why I support the idea of different Jobs within a Role (no Role has less than three) having an easy/simple, medium (or two), and complex/hard Jobs in it. That way, people who want to run their faces through coals can choose to do so and those that don't want to do that and want Jobs that aren't nerfted and gimped and clunky to the point they barely even work can simply choose the other Jobs. Everyone wins.

Everybody wins? What if they turn the job you love into a babymode difficulty? You are supposed to win too?

Performance differences are the product of both knowledge gaps and technical skill gaps. If you want performance to actually reflect player technical skill, you need to simplify the former and add depth to the latter, which is the opposite of what this game has done historically. Turn off tank stance and turn on Cleric Stance. Use STR accessories over VIT. Strafe lock your target to land directional autos. Established players love these sorts of differentiators because you exclude a portion of the playerbase from being competitive purely on knowledge alone. But you're not measuring player skill.

Many other game genres outside of MMOs are weighted in the exact opposite direction. Having map knowledge in an FPS game will give you a competitive edge to a certain extent, but a complete novice with superior aim can still outclass you on raw mechanical skill alone. As they should, because that's the entire point of the genre. Ideally, players should have a relative clear picture on how to excel without having to do a lot of additional research (i.e. stay on the boss as melee, keep casting as ranged), with precision movement actions and bullet hell tier dodging being the primary determinant of their uptime. The rotational mechanics are entirely fluff (you're going to memorize the GCD by GCD play by the time you're done prog anyways), and how hard you get pushed is very much dependent on fight design. If you want to build up the technical difficulty of jobs, then what we really need to see are more complex movement and evasion actions and fights that force you to use them to their full potential. That's why MOBAs can get away with five buttons, of which one or two might be entirely dedicated to movement.

I hate this thought pattern. This clearly comes from somebody that enjoys shooters.

I enjoy strategy. Let me study my classes, it's also part of the skillset here. I'm not asking them to make jobs have their own Transpose Lines madness (i'm way too small brain for that), but I want meaningful depth, not just something based on aim and reflexes.

Rotational mechanics become GCD by GCD play for jobs with no rng. That's probably why I play stuff like BRD I guess. Combos are dumb.

[Lyth]

...

I enjoy a lot of game genres. My main issue with the current design is how scripted many fights feel. That can be exciting during prog when you're still figuring things out, but it feels like there's no real decision-making that occurs mid-fight. I like variable elements, be they branching mechanic patterns or proc-based actions. I agree that combos are uninspiring design and have nothing to do with player technical ability. But the main purpose is to keep your baseline keystroke pattern less tedious over many hours of play, not to keep you challenged.

I think interesting movement abilities is the way forward, because they add visual/spatial technical challenges to fights that are traditionally only about timing and nothing more. And there are plenty of game genres out there that make use of this sort of gameplay, from ARPGs, MOBAs, RTS games, and naturally FPS. You can argue that this strays into skillshot/aiming territory, but if the consensus is that this is a problem because it's too 'difficult', then the very premise of this thread is flawed.

[Valence]

I enjoy a lot of game genres. My main issue with the current design is how scripted many fights feel. That can be exciting during prog when you're still figuring things out, but it feels like there's no real decision-making that occurs mid-fight. I like variable elements, be they branching mechanic patterns or proc-based actions. I agree that combos are uninspiring design and have nothing to do with player technical ability. But the main purpose is to keep your baseline keystroke pattern less tedious over many hours of play, not to keep you challenged.

I think interesting movement abilities is the way forward, because they add visual/spatial technical challenges to fights that are traditionally only about timing and nothing more.

I mean you're probably complaining more about the static fight design than job design at this point tbh. Positionals are/were probably one such elements that you're looking for when it comes to dynamic movement. I'm not saying that they shouldn't try other things like that, mind you. I wouldn't mind having to move more as a rphys player myself (although i'm not sure how besides having melee options like old DNC perhaps).

I just do feel that they keep removing more and more proc and priority based mechanics in jobs, and procs should be one of the ways to go to generate those decisions on the spot. This is literally what makes me play DPS jobs. I don't like melees due to the aforementioned design (I hate positionals with a burning passion, and that's just subjective taste). At least melees still have branching combos, even though they've been simplifying those too (Ninja lost the dot branch, etc), but recently they've been actually adding combos without any branching steps, which I find absolutely baffling (MCH and RPR). What is even the point of those when they could just be reduced to a single pvp button that does the same thing? It's just 3 buttons that are bloating your hotbar for very little gain in complexity. One simple thing they could do to make DRG more engaging is adding a small rng element between Fang and Wheeling.

One of the things that make rphys in their original design interesting for me to play was the heavy reliance on random elements and on the fly adjustment, especially during their bursts. BRD may have recurring patterns but every burst will never be the exact same combination and pattern. DNC as well although this one is a lot less finicky and more lax in the order of buttons. Old MCH was actually demanding into quickly identifying specific pre burst patterns in order to know what sequence to go for as well. I guess BLM still retains some of this, but it's a caster and not the main focus of it, and when you actually want to get into it you get into actual unintended voodoo like transpose lines.

[Rilifane]

I just do feel that they keep removing more and more proc and priority based mechanics in jobs, and procs should be one of the ways to go to generate those decisions on the spot. This is literally what makes me play DPS jobs. I don't like melees due to the aforementioned design (I hate positionals with a burning passion, and that's just subjective taste). At least melees still have branching combos, even though they've been simplifying those too (Ninja lost the dot branch, etc), but recently they've been actually adding combos without any branching steps, which I find absolutely baffling (MCH and RPR). What is even the point of those when they could just be reduced to a single pvp button that does the same thing? It's just 3 buttons that are bloating your hotbar for very little gain in complexity. One simple thing they could do to make DRG more engaging is adding a small rng element between Fang and Wheeling.

I've always been more fond or priorities and random elements over static and strict rotations. The former allows for a more dynamical adjustment to your own skill and the current fight while keeping it interesting long-term as you can never completely predict what you will get.
BLM is one of the last remaining classes with a solid amount of priority/ rng elements that make an actual difference and isn't just a "feels bad" via Thundercloud/ Firestarter procs and mana ticks while still allowing you to play a straightforward standard rotation and perform well enough with it. But if your rotation is 12345 with 6 and 7 kept on cooldown then your rotation is 12345 with 6 and 7 on cooldown and that's set in stone. No ifs and buts (barring very, very few niche cases). While on BLM if you want to push it, you will have plenty of opportunities for "if mana tick occured before halfway through the cast then you can do this" or "if you got a proc you can also do this". The dps gain for optimizing is tiny which is why it's such a valid option to not optimize. The skill ceiling exists, it keeps it interesting but there's no pressure to do it since it could easily result in a dps loss if you're not comfortable with it. And that is imo the ideal scenario.

Another downside to static rotations is that from the lack of meaningful interaction between skills you need to have more buttons for the same level of engagement than a rotation that has varying degrees of priority/ rng in it.
Keeping a buff up with a 123 every 30s isn't meaningful interaction between 2 and 3, you do it because it's always the only way to go about it and it doesn't modify your gameplay. A chance of a skill resetting the cooldown of another skill does and there is a more constant need to pay attention and react as opposed to "I know I have to press 123 for 30s and then I press everything else in this exact order". It's generally better for button economy and the wasteful use of hotbar slots that SE keeps going for ("this skill... but aoe!", "can only be used after this skill... but on a separate button!") makes the whole issue even worse.
They're putting the car in front of the horse by going "Too many buttons, we need to prune, let's delete this skill" instead of looking at why they feel they have to add so many stale fluff buttons in the first place. And you wouldn't need 5 buttons with a flat "use on cooldown, it's free potency" if the other existing buttons had meaningful interaction, give choices and leave a skill ceiling.

Fight design alone isn't the solution imo.
I agree that the static fight design quickly turns incredibly stale but I also think a very large portion of the engagement should come from the class and not just the encounter. Because you will inevitably end up playing your class in content that doesn't provide a high level of engagement through mechanics, like fates, treasure maps, solo duties, old content, overworld questing etc. and then what? Everyone is condemned to be bored to tears when doing that content?
It also partly solves the outgearing content problem because even with gear trivializing mechanics and giving you a lot more leeway for standing in bad, the class itself will still keep you busy enough.
Always reacting appropriately doesn't have to result in massively higher dps gain either. As long as this skill ceiling exists.

[Renathras]

Everybody wins? What if they turn the job you love into a babymode difficulty? You are supposed to win too?

What if you like simple Jobs and they tune the Job you like to complex?

What if they're all made complex and then people that like simple have nothing?

It's the closest option possible to everyone wins. Any other option means more people lose than win.

.

As for the study classes - the problem is when Jobs are complex enough that everyone has to read The Balance to figure them out. Ideally, players should be able to just read their tooltips and basically figure out the optimal rotation. It might take a little thought, but the information should be there and the optimal rotation should be understandable by doing so. No Job in FFXIV really does this, but some come closer to others. For instance, SMN is MOSTLY this way (if you can understand Garuda's faster GCDs mean slightly more damage from them), as is RDM and WAR and New PLD, and most of the Healers, particularly WHM (once you understand what a buff window is and that Assize isn't a healing tool/can pretend Assize doesn't have a healing component). Many of the others do not.

When the typical answer for how to play correctly is "Go to The Balance" not "It's pretty understandable, pull up your Actions & Abilities tab and I'll walk you through it right quick", that's a problem. If it was a few Jobs, it wouldn't be so bad, but it's honestly most of them. Then it's less "Let me study my classes" and more "Let me study The Balance guide".

.

Personally, I prefer "all of the above" solutions. There's no reason there can't be some Jobs representing each.

[tearagion]

As for the study classes - the problem is when Jobs are complex enough that everyone has to read The Balance to figure them out. Ideally, players should be able to just read their tooltips and basically figure out the optimal rotation. It might take a little thought, but the information should be there and the optimal rotation should be understandable by doing so. No Job in FFXIV really does this, but some come closer to others.

Every job is VERY easy to figure out an efficient rotation on, you don't need the balance to clear anything in this game. Even BLM you can get through pretty much every encounter in the game, with good contribution, just by playing standard and using triple/instants for movement. You say that you think a mix of simple and complex jobs would be ideal, but then the "ideal" scenario you actually describe is a mix of braindead and simple.

[Renathras]

Every job is VERY easy to figure out an efficient rotation on, you don't need the balance to clear anything in this game. Even BLM you can get through pretty much every encounter in the game, with good contribution, just by playing standard and using triple/instants for movement. You say that you think a mix of simple and complex jobs would be ideal, but then the "ideal" scenario you actually describe is a mix of braindead and simple.

Not at all. Tell me, without consulting the Balance, what's the optimal way for RDM to use Manafication? Is it on CD or not on CD? Should you hold it for Embolden? Should you hold Embolden for your melee combo? In the opener, do you use Swiftcast and Acceleration? How may Accelerations do you use? Which do you use first, Fleche, Contre Sixte, Corps-a-Corps, or Engagement/Disengagement and WHY? Which of Engagement/Disengagement do you use, and also WHY? How many weaves do you fit and where/why do you use them there? WITHOUT going to the Balance, can you answer these questions?

The answers, btw, are:

Manafication on CD is considered optimal provided you're ensuring you aren't overcapping mana to do so, Embolden on CD (unless the boss becomes untargetable) to keep lined up with party buffs is optimal, you should NOT hold Embolden for your melee combo, you use Swiftcast AND Acceleration (but only one) in your opener, at the same time, and only one is consumed for the first cast (generally Thunder) and has priority over Swiftcast for the spells it apples to (Thunder 3, Aero 3, and Impact) over Swiftcast being consumed, and you do this to ensure you have a proc of the non-finisher (Holy/Flare) mana type so when you use your combo and use the lower mana finisher, you leave the melee combo with both procs up, and you only use that one Acceleration in the opener, you use Fleche because it has the highest damage and has a short CD, and using it early will allow it to come off CD JUUUUST before/as Tincture ends, to get it under that extra buff damage. Contra Sixte, Corps-a-Corps, and Engagement are next in that priority, and you use both stacks of Corps-a-Corps and Engagement, and use Engagement over Disengage specifically due to the latter having animation lock; in the ideal opener, you use both after the third hit of your melee combo, so the opening of distance is irrelevant, it's strictly an animation lock argument. You can only weave single abilities between melee abilities because of their shorter GCDs, as doing double weaves would cause clipping, which is why the ideal is to double weave after the melee combo itself and in between the spell part of the finisher; Enchanted Redoublement has a longer GCD, allowing for two weaves. This is, collectively, why your oGCD use is Fleche after 1-, Contre Sixte after -2, and then double weave Corps-a-Corps/Engagement after -3 and again after the Flare/Holy, then Fleche as it comes off CD, weaved in after the Doublecast spell, third one of those (sixth total GCD) after ending your burst combo/Resolution.

JUST reading the tooltips and not the theorycrafting site, you have no way of knowing basically any of that. Even the theorycrafters didn't get those things from reading the tooltips, they got them from running various simulations and test runs on target dummies. And keep in mind...RDM is one of the least complex and most simplistic Jobs in the game, and there's already a lot going on there you can't get "on your own" in a realistic way for most of the player base. Maybe you are secretly Commander Data, but the vast majority of the game's players are not.

AND this is just the opener. While openers are pretty intense and important, that's not even the whole of the rotation, such as mini-burst phases that some Jobs have (like NIN at 1 min marks), reopeners after a boss was untargetable, and the filler phase, which for some Jobs is pretty simple, but even there, you need to think in terms of what's coming up and when and thinking ahead based on that. Again, NONE of that would your average player, or even most above average players, get just from reading tooltips.

No, it's not "a mix of braindead and simple". It's asking that some things not be convoluted to the point you need myriad spreadsheets and AI and/or add-on tool assist to figure out.

A lot of people love to say how "braindead" Jobs are...while using add-ons and theorycrafters to do the work for them to figure it out. At that point, all you're doing is very basic priority system understanding and dumb monkey muscle memory on a target dummy for a few hours. Of COURSE things are going to seem easy and braindead when you have other people and illegal crutches doing all the work for you.

Some people LOVE to say this because they seem to think it makes them look good somehow, but it's really inane.

.

Most average players - indeed, even most ABOVE average players - cannot come up with optimal rotations or openers on their own, and they are, in fact, needed to reliably clear some content. And I'm not even getting into preferred melds/stat priority or breakpoints or any of that stuff, which is an added layer on top of that.

When you do your own theorycrafting and play without benefiting from any add-ons (note, this includes using add-ons for theorycrafting or referring to research done by people that do - the Balance folks use add-ons to determine their optimal stat allocations and rotations), THEN you can talk about Jobs being "easy to figure out" and "braindead".

[Valence]

What if you like simple Jobs and they tune the Job you like to complex?

What if they're all made complex and then people that like simple have nothing?

Yes, it's literally the same issue and I already talked about it earlier. I wouldn't like enjoying a simple job as a casual and suddenly see SE make it literally unplayable for me because too complicated, but I can only imagine because I'm on the other end of the spectrum (they made the job I like absolutely braindead). But you're right, there is no difference between those two cases and I do feel they're wrong and they should never happen. This is why people talk a lot about skill floors and ceilings.

You really don't need to read the balance in this game to play a job decently, you just need to press all your buttons, even if unoptimally. It's always been like that, but I do agree that some jobs can require some explanation and can seem very obscure to a lot of players (like BLM for newcomers). You can ask other people to offer advice into how to play a job better without having to read all the mega advanced guides on the balance.

Or are you trying to say that everything should be easy to figure out immediately in solo for anybody without guides? That sounds extremely dull and limited in scope... And where do you put the bar? For some players having more than 3 or 4 buttons is already a problem, and I'm not blaming them for it. They enjoy the game as well and clear dungeons and casual content at their pace and have fun, but reading this I feel you're trying to lower the skill ceiling so hard that it's frightening on its own.

[Payadopa]

To me, the biggest problem with job simplification is the inevitable reduction in gameplay variety. During the large content drought at the end of ShB, I was able to continue playing actively without the game getting stale by trying out different jobs for easier content. I already knew the fights inside and out, but having meaningfully different stuff to worry about for each job spiced them up just enough to keep them from being boring.

Unfortunately, I don't think I would be able to do the same in Endwalker. As a current MNK main, right now the only job that changes up content in a meaningful way for me is BLM.

Given the fact that the majority of the community only plays casual content, making some jobs more complex would be a benefit to its longevity. Having something to improve upon is a good reason to come back to content you would be bored of otherwise. At the same time, DPS requirements are very low to non-existent, so messing up a complex rotation or dying does not affect your ability to clear in any way.

I agree. Either make the battles challenging (like current content savage) or the jobs (that you end up playing a lot of easy content with). Who cares if you play casual in most content anyway. The problem is SE expects us to redo old content for exp, tokens or what have you yet it is pretty shallow.

[Elizasylen]

I like simple, I play WAR DNC SMN and WHM I think they are neat and kind of awesome.