Inevitable Job Simplifications?

[tearagion]

Disjointed is a semantics argument at this point. If we're fighting over definitions, it's irrelevant as a metric, since for a metric to work, it must be something people can agree on.

I said exactly what I mean so no it's not "semantics" the semantics are already crystallized in my argument. You could choose to argue about semantics anyway, sure, but at that point you're either just sidestepping the actual argument in favor of something you can address ineffectually, or reframing the argument entirely.

Thematically, it fits the class fantasy of a summoner of powerful minions to fight on the caster's behalf...

Thematic success can be debated. Ultimately SMN does the same thing thematically as before: summon simulacrum of 5 different primals, 2 of them more powerful Demi-summons. It even summons the same Egis as before for 59-44 of its 90 levels. I don't consider importing boss models from ARR trials particularly strong theming when it's backed by such vapid gameplay (that is to say: they cast one skill and then leave with no gameplay presence at all. They feel like spells not summons. You even use the words "Fight on the caster's behalf" for what? 1 GCD?) People in FFXIV seem to get wrapped up in a definition of theme that only includes visuals. If I entertain that mentality then I suppose if their goal was to make something that looked like a Rydia-esque "classic ff summoner" imported into FFXIV then sure they succeeded. I don't know what you mean by "thematic continuity" or how it's significantly improved over oldSMN.

I don't feel like entertaining the rotation as a point of success in any capacity. Balance is a separate concern from design, and oldSMN was pretty balanced when it was deleted anyway.

As for the "system bloat", that's kind of a nebulous term we'd have to hammer down to before we could discuss it

Seems simple to me "system" as in individual gameplay systems within a job (Aetherflow, Demis, etc.) and "bloat" as in "excess of". Replacing DoTs with Gems is the same number of systems, so system bloat remains consistent. Bloat within the systems could be articulated as having been pruned, but it came at the expense of gameplay so I would consider it non-productive.

accessibility as a measure of success...ignore that all the metrics we have suggest it is quite popular, and likely more played than Old SMN was.

Addressed previously. Popularity is a shit metric even if we did have access to accurate numbers.

"easy to play" isn't the definition I used. Nor is "has a nice flow".

You didn't use any definition, so I attempt to interpret based on your statements. In fact you seem to strengthen that interpretation in the second paragraph where you prioritize not needing to make any meaningful rotational decisions, that the rotation should simply happen without disruption. You've not been shy about enjoying the easier rotation. You even say it succeeded in creating a "smoothness of flow", so I don't know what your problem is here.

I WAS using your definition....I was using your own definition

Where did I say you weren't using the definition I quoted? Perhaps using "defined" here to articulate that I explained my position was confusing.

Aside, I think your interpretation is simplistic and subjective, whereas I point to mechanical elements of oldSMN that are quite clearly more interconnected than newSMN. Your idea of connected and coherent was Demis give you Gems, and that Gems give you Gemshine/Astral Flow. I don't consider these great examples of interconnected systems because they're 1-way and inconsequential. What are you going to do, not hit the better (situationally and potency) of two damage GCDs available at the time? How does it REALLY impact the rotation and the decisions a player makes beyond just being a gate to keep you on the rotation the devs intend? It doesn't. (Astral Flow is ultimately a pretty badly realized mechanic. I've posted before about my fondness for this particular ability in a vacuum because it's cool that you can technically bank them, except the rotation and implementation prohibits you from banking them so it ends up being random bullshit you just press when it lights up.)

For example, Old SMN's mechanics were all over the place. They weren't "coherent" (part of your definition).

I said exactly the definition of coherent I intended to avoid confusion, and have previously stated how oldSMN qualified. This is just misinterpreting or misrepresenting again lol.

Many were infrequently used or stutter-stepped. They weren't "continuous" (part of your definition).

They were continuous in the sense that the individual systems fed into each other, not that they happened without pause or disruption, or whatever you mean.

They weren't "connected" (part of your definition).

Yes they were, I feel as though I've gone over why pretty thoroughly at this point.

UNLIKE you, I'm just interested in exchanging points of view with people and presenting my case while offering rebuttals to what I see as incorrect or hyperbolic.

You don't seem interested in other people's views at all, unless they're non-critical of newSMN.


2x dodging direct question.