Inevitable Job Simplifications?

[Renathras]

Looking up credentials of some of the posters? you can tell the passionate players who main x Jobs apart from those who don't... And even if you can't find? reading constructive/straight-to-the-point arguments supported with your own in-game experiences matching with what they state gives a lot of credibility and confirmation... vs Bad takes however, from those who support simplifications of Jobs that they barely play in x content i.e. at least Savage or any, ruining the validity of their posts. Specially when coincidentally? its in favor of dumbing down Jobs in all the wrong ways while masking everything they don't like simply as " Janky / Bloat / Clunky "...

Slow down. Use more periods.

"credentials"? Oh, you mean FFLogs?

Well... First of all, that's PROBABLY against the TOS here.

Secondly, people like me don't violate the TOS and don't run and upload parsers. So the only ones you'd find of me are the blue moons I'm in a run with someone else that uploads them, which is usually a random PF where I ALMOST only play Healers since I don't tend to trust random Healers to not greed DPS and wipe the party.

Thirdly, one does not have to clear Ultimates to have a grasp of Jobs, their strengths and weaknesses, or what makes them fun.

Fourthly, enjoying any given Job is not "support simplifications of Jobs".

Fifthly, Savages aren't even the only place Jobs are used in this game (there's another 90% of game) nor the only part of the game that rotations or fun matter to people.

Sixthly, I'm an omni-main; I play three Healers interchangeably (WHM, SCH, and SGE; basically what I feel like at the time or what the party needs) and a fourth more rarely (because I just don't like AST that much), Tanks the same way (PLD, WAR, and GNB), and three Damage Dealers (SMN, RDM, and MCH in roughly that order, and more rarely, NIN)

Finally, everyone who plays the game can voice their opinion on what is fun. "What I think is fun" is NEVER a "bad take", because it's people saying what they like. It may not be what you like, but "not what you like" isn't the definition of "bad take".

Besides, the other person was saying I don't like complex Jobs. I like GNB, which is probably the most complex of the Tanks, and I liked and played Old SMN back in ShB and SB. So they're clearly wrong. I don't mind complex things some of the time, but I don't like them all the time, and I don't like complexity that doesn't flow well or "feel fun" to me, which a lot of the "complexity" that they like (which seems to be more "proc management", specifically), falls under. DRG is complex but I'm enjoying leveling and playing it and may use it for my melee of choice going forward.

.

I think it's more correct to say I like PREDICTABILITY and RELIABILITY.

In some cases, this is RIGIDITY; which is what GNB, DRG, and MCH have in common. I like my DPS rotations either static/always the same (like GNB, DRG, and MCH) or, variable but deterministic/predictable/reliable - that is, where parts can be moved around but not based on a proc system, like WAR (Storm's Eye), PLD (Holy Spirit), WHM (Lilies - which are a DPS tool), and SMN (when to use which Primal); the rotations are static overall, but pieces of them I can move around to suit the situation. For example, I can vary the order of my SMN Primals, but no matter what order I swap them, I'm in control of the variation (it's not random chance and procs) and I'm making the choice of which to use and know what my rotation is under each. Same with PLD and choosing where I want to use HS.

That's not "in favor of dumbing down Jobs", it's "I like meaningful choices that matter, not random procs and unnecessary 'complexity' for the sake of having it".

[Dahlinea]

"I like meaningful choices that matter...".

What the hell are you talking about? Current SMN has the most rigid and flat rotation of all jobs and chaging between the legos doesn't make difference. You can pretend that you're doing something different by changing the order of the legos but that is just an illusion. Also "meaningful choices that matter" means that if you choose another approach to the rotation the result will be different, which is the complete opposite of current SMN.

"Meaningful choices that matter" would be for example, by considering the situation in a certain point in the battle, you're safe to use long casts then you decide to summon Ifrit and casts his Gemshine spells for as long as you see fit and when you need to move you summon the Garuda that has the insta cast Gemshine to adapt to the situation and then could come to back to ifrit again and so on. This is an example of meaningful choice that matter... leaving the choices to players to decide and the freedom to use spells however we want whenever we want. Here we would have some room for growth but with this sorry excuse of SMN rework they gave us it's all the same no matter what you do. There's also the case of lack of OGCDs. Take Tri-disaster for example, moving to basic AoE spell and deleting Outburst, killing a perfectly fine OGCD for no reason. They literally cut every possible way of meaningful variation for SMN with this damn rework.

[Renathras]

"Meaningful choices that matter" would be for example, by considering the situation in a certain point in the battle, you're safe to use long casts then you decide to summon Ifrit and casts his Gemshine spells

...is quite literally how it works. Not "for as long as you see fit", but there aren't any Jobs that work that way that I'm aware of. There's no situation where BLM uses constant Scathes but only decides to use cast time spells when the situation allows standing still for extensive amounts of time and can decide between the two "for as long as you see fit" (Triplecast/Swiftcast are CDs that aren't up all the time and aren't toggles). RDM can't decide to just use melee attacks only and still do decent damage.

SCH is really the only case of this in that they can, in theory, spam Ruin 2 for an entire fight if they need to for the movement, at an ability cost no greater than Broil IV (MP wise), but the cost in lost damage is significant and so it's not really VIABLE.

Generally speaking, "meaningful choices" are short term ones. BLM choosing when to use a charge of Triplecast (in theory; when they aren't using it only for burst), PLD choosing when to use Holy Spirit in cases where there will be a forced disengage before they get to Royal Authority again but not RIGHT when they gain Divine Might; or even the ability to take a relatively minor 30 potency loss to hardcast Holy Spirit if they have an extended disengage (rare though those may be) or needs a bit more sustain/healing (which PLD can also address with Clemency in a REAL pinch).

In fact, it's REALLY rare for them to be available at any time. PLD being able to hardcast Holy Spirit is a rare exception, though it IS limited by MP. Contrast NIN which can use Mudras for disengage, but is limited much more heavily by charges, or WAR/DRK/GNB using Tomahawk/Unmend/Lightning Shot which are all a given while they're forced to disengage but not an actual choice to use at any other time - there's no time in melee that a WAR choosing to use Tomahawk can argue he made the right move nor him spamming his Fell Cleave button and doing nothing if at 10 yards for a disengage can argue he's doing the right thing. On the other hand, there are times a PLD using Holy Spirit in melee if a Healer is down and the other Healer is hardcasting a Raise on them can be argued to be viable, and likewise, a PLD at range choosing to use a second Holy Spirit to make dealing with some mechanic easier for the party can be a debateably correct choice in some situations as well.

RDM can use Enchanted Reprise as a movement tool, though it's almost always the wrong decision because Acceleration exists, and carries a cost that doesn't allow it to be a long-term viable solution like a mode toggle you propose would.

It's VERY rare for Jobs to have a permanent toggle or permanently available option to change things up like you suggest, and the few that kind of exist all have fairly substantial costs to using them.

These create some level of choice in how the rotation is played out.

.

Contrast BRD procs like Straighter Shot Ready. You need to burn it before it overcaps and it does more damage than Heavy Shot. It also has the same cost to use as Heavy Shot, a single GCD. Neither have a resource cost associated with them (like MP or TP), so there's no negative to using Straight Shot over Heavy Shot. It's always the right choice outside of some minuscule damage increasing niche optimization case like if Straighter Shot procs JUUUUST before a burst phase - 2-3 GCDs from the burst phase - where you don't want to use it RIGHT away and might justify holding off for 1-2 GCDs before using it. But even then, there is a non-zero probability that it would have proced a second time, and two out of buff Straight Shots do more damage than one buffed Straight Shot will, so even then it's a gamble to hold it, making the general use a viable option. And the choice only even comes down in that specific niche situation.

BRD Bloodletter procs vs MCH's guaranteed 1/2 CD reduction to Gauss Round and Ricochet. One is reliable while the other is a crap shoot - but a crap shoot that doesn't change your gameplay.

You aren't giving a "meaningful choice that matters". You're giving an example of optimal gameplay, which isn't a choice. In your above example, it would never be a meaningful choice to choose Garduda during low movement phases because it would (presumably) be suboptimal to using Ifrit, and likewise, for movent, using Ifrit wouldn't be a choice at all.

Also, the last sentence of your first paragraph isn't even right: "Also 'meaningful choices that matter' means that if you choose another approach to the rotation the result will be different" - use Garuda on SMN during high movement. Now use Ifrit on SMN during high movement. Tell me you didn't get a different result.

Contrast Old PLD with New PLD. Old PLD's rotation was hyper-rigid and there was only one real choice in the entire thing, which is if you drop an Atonement from your FIRST or SECOND set of Atonement for that melee phase cycle. Riviting.

SMN is a special case since Old SMN and New SMN both had/have this feature going for them. Old SMN had several GCD instants it could move around flexibly, like 4 Ruin IVs over the full 2 min cycle, a Bio natural refresh, and within 30 seconds of window, Egi-Assaults. New SMN does this same thing at 3 decision points per minute of you choosing Ifrit, Garuda, or Titan, Ruin IV/Swiftcast use, and even within Ifrit and Garuda as each has something requiring a cast (1 for Garuda, 2 for Ifrit) and the other choice that consist of instant casts (gap closer/slam for Ifrit are both instant and Garuda's Gemshines are instant), and for Ifrit specifically, depending on if movement is needed (gapcloser/slam allows movement) or if disengage is needed (Gemshine at range where charge/slam is obviously not). So even WITHIN the sub-phases, there's choice on how you order your rotation.

Thus New SMN is fantastic at this, but Old SMN was also fantastic at this, and your post is representative of the kind of Chicken Little/sky is falling hyperbole that plagues serious discussions on these topics. New SMN still has meaningful choice, you just don't like how the choice is presented and works. New SMN has several oGCDs, you just don't like that they're used in the ways that they are (ED on CD, Titan Astral Flow after each Gemshine, and both Astral Flow and Enkindle put in Demi phsaes forburst).

.

New SMN is fine, the problem is that Old SMN was removed from the game. They were/are both good Jobs in their own rights, and I genuinely wish they would have taken Old SMN's rotation and ported it to Green Mage or something, add a new Caster Job so that both Old SMN and New SMN would exist side by side. That'd honestly be my preference. Egi-Assaults were just two flavors of GCD, so they didn't exactly REQUIRE a pet, old Bahamut worked somewhat like old Hypercharge/Wildfire with you slamming everything you could into his window of action, and both FBT and DWT made your filler spell instant and refreshed a key oGCD (Tri-Disaster to oGCD apply both your DoTs). Not one of those things REQUIRES a pet or summon function, so converting that into Green Mage would have been thematic child's play. Free fourth Caster Job and I still have no idea why the Devs didn't do it, considering Old SMN ALREADY adhered to the 2 min meta, so the Kit itself would transfer perfectly fine into EW...

.

Meaningful choice, to me, is options to slightly alter your rotation to better match a fight mechanic or flex to a party strategy. In this sense, New SMN has that going for it, as does New PLD. Old PLD did not, but Old SMN actually had that going for it as well.

.

EDIT: You may, of course, believe what you wish. I'll not try to dissuade you. But when you comment on what I'm saying, this is my explanation.

[Dahlinea]

SCH is really the only case of this in that they can, in theory, spam Ruin 2 for an entire fight if they need to for the movement, at an ability cost no greater than Broil IV (MP wise), but the cost in lost damage is significant and so it's not really VIABLE.

That's called "learned and grow within your job" and old SMN had that. You had to maximaze the use of Ruin III and work around uses of Ruin II and Ruin IV. And for record, EW SMN has none of this. You have a set amount of spells you can cast, you can't try to improve on that, there's simply no way.

Generally speaking, "meaningful choices" are short term ones...

And here you're just bending the the term for your own convenience. I won't even bother. You know what I meant by having free choice on spells if you played old SMN.

You aren't giving a "meaningful choice that matters". You're giving an example of optimal gameplay, which isn't a choice. In your above example, it would never be a meaningful choice to choose Garduda during low movement phases because it would (presumably) be suboptimal to using Ifrit, and likewise, for movent, using Ifrit wouldn't be a choice at all.

That is far from the truth. You're given player the choice to use their spells as they see fit and improve their usage. You can play it safe or can go ahead and try to get more damage out of it. That is basically creating a simple improvement environment for the job that EW SMN lacks completely.

Also, the last sentence of your first paragraph isn't even right: "Also 'meaningful choices that matter' means that if you choose another approach to the rotation the result will be different" - use Garuda on SMN during high movement. Now use Ifrit on SMN during high movement. Tell me you didn't get a different result.

Most fights resolve those "high movements" phases quickly enough that using Swiftcast with Ifrit lets you position well enough to hard cast the next. Ifrit is the only I would arguably say you have to do a workaround with little losses. Also, Ifrit alone is a small portion of the kit, if we accept you have to think about it to use it, what you have more? The Garuda ground AoE that does mediocre damage? Everything else is just going on-rails.

And just to contrast a little bit. In most fights, you see yourself sitting in the same place for some time, especially if you position yourself well, more time than you have to use your Ifrit hard casts usually. As a resul,t you keep there in the same place casting insta spells when instead we could have the freedom to choose what type of spells to use and use hard cast during those times.

SMN is a special case since Old SMN and New SMN both had/have this feature going for them. Old SMN had several GCD instants it could move around flexibly, like 4 Ruin IVs over the full 2 min cycle, a Bio natural refresh, and within 30 seconds of window, Egi-Assaults. New SMN does this same thing at 3 decision points per minute of you choosing Ifrit, Garuda, or Titan, Ruin IV/Swiftcast use, and even within Ifrit and Garuda as each has something requiring a cast (1 for Garuda, 2 for Ifrit) and the other choice that consist of instant casts (gap closer/slam for Ifrit are both instant and Garuda's Gemshines are instant), and for Ifrit specifically, depending on if movement is needed (gapcloser/slam allows movement) or if disengage is needed (Gemshine at range where charge/slam is obviously not). So even WITHIN the sub-phases, there's choice on how you order your rotation.

And this is literally like day and night between these two jobs. You try to make as if they work on the same principle but that's just false argument. I played enough of both versions to know how both works.

New SMN is fine, the problem is that Old SMN was removed from the game. They were/are both good Jobs in their own rights, and I genuinely wish they would have taken Old SMN's rotation and ported it to Green Mage or something, add a new Caster Job so that both Old SMN and New SMN would exist side by side. That'd honestly be my preference. Egi-Assaults were just two flavors of GCD, so they didn't exactly REQUIRE a pet, old Bahamut worked somewhat like old Hypercharge/Wildfire with you slamming everything you could into his window of action, and both FBT and DWT made your filler spell instant and refreshed a key oGCD (Tri-Disaster to oGCD apply both your DoTs). Not one of those things REQUIRES a pet or summon function, so converting that into Green Mage would have been thematic child's play. Free fourth Caster Job and I still have no idea why the Devs didn't do it, considering Old SMN ALREADY adhered to the 2 min meta, so the Kit itself would transfer perfectly fine into EW...

The rework IS NOT ALRIGHT. It has a serious problem with the rigidity of the rotation and how braindead it is.
Even if all this talk about old and new SMN is gone, it doesn’t change the fact EW SMN is very underwhelming at its core and need serious changes to be a job that has a proper skill floor entry for new players and a good skill ceiling for players to improve within the job.

[Renathras]

...

I suppose I can give you ONE more reply before I exit:

1) Old SMN had "a set amount of spells you can cast", too. You only have so many GCDs in a minute/encounter (if you're talking about rate/number of spell casts). Old SMN couldn't magically get more. Likewise, Old SMN didn't have an infinite number of abilities (in case you meant there was no limit on how many it could cast), and many of those had CDs attached preventing endless use of them; it also had a finite spellbook itself, even if it was larger. Like Old SMN, New SMN can alter its spell cast order to try and optimize situations. The optimization IS LESS, but it's NOT zero.

2) I'm not "bending the term". You "won't bother" because you don't have a counter but are trying to dodge without having to address that your original point was indefensible. No, I didn't "know what you meant". Your description of what "meaningful choice" would be was a toggle, and my point that literally no Job in the game has that is accurate and something you couldn't counter. It's possible the Devs COULD add that in the future (for example, giving RDM a toggle to where melee strikes built up Mana instead of consuming it, so you used a melee playstyle instead of a caster one), but at present, that doesn't exist in any form, for any Job, in the current combat system/model that FFXIV has. I'm stating what I meant by the term AND how NO JOB meets your extremely specific example, and further, how New SMN meets it as well as most other Jobs (the ones that do have flex/choice, anyway). When someone says they won't engage a position, it's almost always because they CAN'T defeat it and are trying to save face/gracefully decline admitting they don't have a counter to it.

3) See 2. Also, so you know, saying something isn't true but not providing an argument for why isn't an argument, and likely isn't a statement of fact.

4) This was just as true of Old SMN, then. "Oh, you rarely need more than a single Swiftcast worth of movement". Okay then, you just defeated your entire argument that Old SMN was fantastic in this respect by saying it literally never matters.

5) I also played "enough of both" to know how they work. It's not a "night and day" argument - as shown by your inability to actually offer a counter to it. I actually explained in depth HOW they were similar, while you gave no explanation for how they were not. No, they are not "night and day" different. They are similar, but New SMN is a much more limited/toned down variation on the theme. In other words: Exactly what I argued above.

6) The rework is QUITE ALRIGHT. It has no serious problem with rigidity, and it's neither braindead nor would that be a problem even if it were. EW SMN is very satisfying and fun to play at its core, and needs no serious changes. Not every Job needs to have a high skill ceiling (or low skill floor, for that matter). Your complains are hyperbolic and misguided. You liked Old SMN and want New SMN to be turned into Old SMN. That's not an argument against New SMN, it's an argument against removing Old SMN from the game - a position I actually do agree with - and lashing out at New SMN as the misplaced target of your ire.

Which is why, of course, I can't convince you otherwise, and won't try further.

You're mad because a thing you liked was taken away, so you're making hyperbolic and ridiculous arguments against something new that is, in vacuum/on its own, perfectly fine. Instead of admitting it's fine, it's just not what you like, you're trying to insist that it isn't fine itself, when it actually is.

But, again, I won't press further, since there's no way I can convince you to realize that, and there's no point in even trying.

[tearagion]

The rework is QUITE ALRIGHT. It has no serious problem with rigidity, and it's neither braindead nor would that be a problem even if it were. EW SMN is very satisfying and fun to play at its core, and needs no serious changes.

alright this guy has to be taking the piss at this point

[Dahlinea]

Lots of nonsense

1) On Old SMN you're not forced to instacast spells on down times like you're with the new one. You were also not heavily punished if you held Bahamut/Phoenix for some seconds while using the basic spells to sustain your DPS.

2) You're bending them indeed. I won't bother because you're on this agenda of blindingly defending this new SMN as good job with depth when even people that like the changes know the job has little to no depth and need more complexity.

3) You're just desperate at this point.

4 and 5) You just tossed the spells and time windows of old SMN there champ. That's not saying how the job works at all. And they both plays like night and day alright you can't even compare the level of complexity and the ways to adapt of old SMN with this new one. Also, wanna do a fair comparison? Lower your pristine EW SMN to LV80 and compare it with ShB SMN... You've made a comparison of a LV90 job with a Lv80 job, in which ShB SMN already had better flexibility, imagine EW SMN at LV80.

6) The rework IS NOT ALRIGHT. Get real.


I don't need you to convince me of anything because all your arguments points towards a blind take on new SMN and someone that haven't played old SMN well enough, given your very flawed attempts on trying to put both versions on the same level of gameplay.

EDIT: And just to finish this argument on my part.

1) The Job works - it does good DPS, and has both party buffs and Raise utility that make it viable in all content, including double Caster clears of the hardest fights in the game.

2) The Job is understandable - it doesn't require someone to be a theorycrafter just to figure out what they should be doing, and the progression is understandable from level 1 to level 90, so players can understand and effectively make use of the new skills they get as they level.

3) The Job isn't clunky - its systems all work and are effective at what they do. Really the only at all clunky thing is using Carby's shield, and Carby should be doing SOMETHING else (Ruin 2 instant casts or something), but the rest of the kit is what's on the tin, and that's fine.

1) Because "it just works" doesn't mean the job is fine at all, especially when they have no depth.
2) It doesn't require theorycraft around it because you don't have means to improve the rotation.
3) The system is not clunky because the summons/pets abilities were handed down to SMN. The result is now we playing like a Blue Mage of sorts that just works... Would be nice having the summons on field instead, without auto-attacking but responding to our commands, but now our pet is basically a dummy with one personal support skill and we play Blue Mage with their meaningful skills.

[CelestiCer]

Slightly shocked to the realization that " Renathras " isn't even trolling through copy-pasting with ChatGPT. They genuinely mean every paragraph they wrote. Which is like the best part of it all.

Depth to me? provides Extra thought, decision making, something. That " oomph " feeling you get for doing it right even though the game clearly gave you the option to do it wrong, you didn't... and it feels rewarding. Specially when wrapped up in a fun rotation. This can all vary as mundane as Positionals, proper Leyline placements, Uptime you sought for, Slide-casting properly, perfectly timed Raidbuffs and feeding them with maxed out resource bars... some Flare/Flavor/Intricacy/Complexity, something that makes Job rotation exciting to pull off. Some Depth.

Take all of that away, and you have the opposite which is Unseasoned/Bland/Boring/Braindead Job design, Shallow. And players who love this? Crucify others for wanting more or even an ounce of what they lost back cause of x reasons. Filthy elitists just want to gatekeep a Job or its Jank or Clunkiness or its Bloat or outright " to difficult " etc w/e excuse they can write.

Nothing wrong with liking simplicity. But the fictional concept that there is another Job for you? is Bull. Don't like current x? reworked SMN? MCH? that's fine... you can go BLM. And that pisses off players cause some players don't like x aesthetics, or x rotation, or x skills, or even its playstyle. Sometimes a Job clicks for players or its Aesthetics or its Job fantasy, specially before it got changed. Telling them to go play another Job is ...Shallow.

Players probably rather have optional difficulty or depth within their own Job and playing their Job at whatever difficulty they are comfortable with rather then going to an entire different Job that they might never have nor will find appealing. Might sound idealistic, and probably far-fetched seeing as Square just is going to make everything easier after its been made easier to make it more and more easier. Then we want Depth? Complexity? and we get told that other fun historical line back at us. " Go play Ultimate ".

[Mikey_R]

Depth to me? provides Extra thought, decision making, something. That " oomph " feeling you get for doing it right even though the game clearly gave you the option to do it wrong, you didn't... and it feels rewarding. Specially when wrapped up in a fun rotation. This can all vary as mundane as Positionals, proper Leyline placements, Uptime you sought for, Slide-casting properly, perfectly timed Raidbuffs and feeding them with maxed out resource bars... some Flare/Flavor/Intricacy/Complexity, something that makes Job rotation exciting to pull off. [B]Some Depth[/B

Since the original discussion was about how new summoner has no depth, so I will use your points to highlight where new Summoner does fall into the concept of 'depth'.

1. Positionals. Whilst this is mostly seen as a melee concept, this does still apply to all jobs, in regards to casters, this is to do with where they stand and how that will impact them in regards to getting casts off. Now, whilst Summoner has very few casts, most of them are long casts (Ruby Ruin and Slipstream), so you have to be able to be in a position that getting those casts off is possible and you only have 1 Swiftcast per minute. Summoner also has to contend with a gap closer and melee strike straight after (Crimson Cyclone and Crimson Strike), so you have to ensure that you going into melee range for 2 GCDs is not going to impact anyone else in regards to mechanics. Whilst yes, the other casters also have to take these points into account, Summoner is also the only one who has to choose where these long casts are (as opposed to choosing when the insta casts are going), which is a different perspective to have to take. (You mention Lay Lines, but that is job specific and comes under positionals in regards to this point).

2. Uptime. This has obviously been a talking point in Endwalker as a whole, mainly in regards to Melee. All that can really be said for Summoner on this point is making sure the boss gets the full Slipstream uptime (though I do recognise your list isn't necessarily aimed at Summoner and so will contain elements that are applied in a more broad scope).

3. Slidecasting, Ruby Ruin and Slipstream can both be slidecasted. Again, same as point 2.

4. Raid Buffs is something most DPS jobs have to contend with, however, most are just fire and forget. I would honestly prefer to have something that brings more than just a damage buff, like Reaper's Arcane Circle or Monk's Brotherhood. Though Summoner does have a raid buff (and does feed with resources, ie Aetherflow).

As for the short list:

- Flare. this is a BLM only action D: that is unfar to the other jobs /jk. however, as I understand it, 'flare' is just the visual effects, which you cannot deny for Summoner, is impressive.
- Flavour, you can argue that new Summoner is too different from old Summoner, however, there were just as many people who didn't like the old Summoner aesthetic because you didn't summon big primals to do big damage, you know, like every other Summoner in the franchise.
- Intricacy is also a loose term because, what makes the job intricate? Is it the ability to move around your rotation to better prepare yourself for the future fight mechanics intricate? If so, Summoner does this, if not, Summoner fails. If it is more to do with how everything interacts with each other, then it doesn't fit that as well as it probably could.
- And lastly, does a complex job really mean depth? What is it about a complex job that means it automatically has depth? Infact, what makes a job complex in the first place? I almost suspect that, once you start trying to define complexity, you will have overlap with what people define as depth. So, is there anything that distinguishes the two?

It should go without saying that this discussion about what defines a job as 'deep' or 'has depth' is most likely going to be wholy subjective as noone is going to agree 100% with what criteria should be used to give a job their measure of 'depth', which is why you cannot take one person's word on their view on how a job is.

[CelestiCer]

It should go without saying that this discussion about what defines a job as 'deep' or 'has depth' is most likely going to be wholy subjective as noone is going to agree 100% with what criteria should be used to give a job their measure of 'depth', which is why you cannot take one person's word on their view on how a job is.

Not entirely? My post was more general towards the Thread topic although you can apply it to just SMN its not limited to SMN since every Job got hit with something in some way shape or form. Some less or more then others.

Flair = Visuals, how the animations the weaving and combos feel or hit and sound.
Flavor = Anything that is not about bashing 1 button to make a Job flavorful.
Complexity = Self explanatory and Intricacy can be used honestly as well to give a Job uniqueness and Depth
I am not an English teacher? and English is not my main language either... just fyi (PS being told its Flair not Flare idk English is like my 3rd language =u=; )

Subjectively , any player can claim x Job remains to have acceptable Depth even after its reworked/changed/neutered/butchered, use any definition you want sure. But once they remove so much of its Flair/Cast-Times/Skills/Resource-Management/complexity? Not everyone likes the shallow swimming pool that barely gets our ankles wet... and then have others and Square tell us we can only ride the Waterslides into deep waters if you have a BLM tattoo on your arm.

And rather anyone wants to use the words Flair/Depth/Complexity/Intricacy/Uniqueness/Difficulty etc, once a Job feels Braindead? Dumber? Simplified? Described and claimed by the players that main it perhaps for years and aren't pleased with it? I mean... arguing definitions seems irrelevant at that point. It's not really rocket science what Square has been doing :/

That still doesn't change that people love things to be shallow? and I don't mind that players do? but not at the cost of what made Jobs fun for many. Allow those who enjoy complexity or Depth the option to enjoy that on their favorite Jobs and not just x Job.