FFXIV Job Design Feedback

[ForsakenRoe]

EW Monks is accidentally a really well designed job imo with it's engaging burst windows. I hope it maintains this W into DT

I wouldn't get my hopes up, TK MNK in 4.3 was 'accidentally a really well designed rotation with engaging burst windows' and it got nuked

[Ivtrix]

Happy to have added to the “ew SMN is a dumpster fire” in the results

[KitingGenbu]

I know they wont do this, but would be nice for them to change DRK's fighting stance.

[ty_taurus]

I'm working some something new related to the upcoming Media Tour and Job Actions Trailer that I plan on sharing here and reddit. There are a few groups of players I have in mind that I can get additional info from as well, but I'm not really sure where else could be best. But this one is a little shorter and I'll probably have it done in the near future, so if you're interested, please keep a lookout.

[ForsakenRoe]

Bit of a weird take, to basically say 'unless you main a job right now, you're not supposed to give your opinion on it'. I used to main WAR/DRK in SB, and the SHB changes to aggro made me lose my love of tanking, and the EW changes to hitbox size finished it off. By that logic, I'm not allowed to say on a survey about jobs, and how satisfied I am with them, that 'I used to play DRK/WAR and now I don't for these reasons', because I don't main them anymore. I'm only allowed to express my opinion on WHM/SCH/SGE/maybe AST (I do reclears on it occasionally)

Pretty strange imo. I get that 'EW SMN is actually really good guys stop bullying it' but come on. If someone's genuine opinion on EW SMN is that 'its a dumpster fire', while it would be nice if they could explain 'why' it feels like a dumpster fire, you cannot just throw it out because 'clearly they're just a hater'

[Renathras]

Bit of a weird take, to basically say 'unless you main a job right now, you're not supposed to give your opinion on it'.

Good thing that wasn't my take, then, isn't it?

I only said people should mark which Jobs ARE their mains so we can see if there's a difference of opinion between those that do and don't main the Job.

For example, I'd probably list my main Jobs as WHM, SCH, SMN, PLD, possibly WAR, GNB, RDM, and SGE in there. I play some others, but those are the ones I tend to do most content on. So if I put that at the top and go through the survey for every Job and give BLM extremely bad marks because I hate BLM, it might be nice to have that listed in a second category vs the people that main BLM and are effusive in their praise of how much they love the Job, wouldn't it? Should my opinion hating on BLM be tempered by the fact I love SMN, the most anti-BLM Job in the game, or should my opinion on BLM count for as much as those who have mained the Job for a decade?

While it MIGHT be useful for figuring out why people that hate some Jobs refuse to play them and hate them, that's an argument for the SMN rework "Why did people dislike 5.X SMN and how could we change it so those people who already didn't like it might like it?" It's useful information, but it doesn't really speak to how well designed a Job is nor what people who do play it see in it. Generally, Jobs should be designed with consideration for what those who enjoy it like, not what those who hate it like, as those who hate it likely have other Jobs they enjoy, but changing a Job that people enjoy means those people are now out of a Job with no guarantees another will appeal to them (again, SEE: SMN rework).

I'm not saying they don't get to answer.

I'm saying that the answers should be segmented. Say BLM gets a 2.0 from people who hate it but a 9.0 from people who main it. Should we say BLM's average is 4.0 or 5.0 or so, or should we note the two different camps views separately?

In other words: "You should have the person list their main Jobs at the start of the survey. This way, you can crosstab to see how people feel about the Jobs they specifically play, so we won't get, for example, people downvote bombing Jobs they don't actually main."

...that is, the words I actually said. Where there does it say "If you don't main, you don't get to comment"?

[ForsakenRoe]

...that is, the words I actually said. Where there does it say "If you don't main, you don't get to comment"?

Yes, sorry that I read the words you posted and interpreted this

We need it to be more reflective of "You play these Jobs, what do you think about them" not "Happy to have added to the “ew SMN is a dumpster fire” in the results", if that makes any sense.
The former is useful, the latter corrupts and taints the results, discrediting the survey.

As 'One of these pieces of feedback is good (useful), and the other has to be discarded because including it would be bad (taints results)'. On first glance it looks very strange, to try and imply that one kind of feedback is ok, and another kind has to be 'segregated off' for some reason. Again, it's not ideal that there's no detail on 'why is EW SMN a dumpster fire', but the fact someone feels that way should be included, I think, whether they main the job or not. Adding a conditional at the top of 'does the person who absolutely despises X job's design play it' is kinda weird. For example, if someone thinks 'EW SMN is a dumpster fire', there's a pretty good chance that no, they don't play it actually. But they still should have their voice on it heard, because otherwise it's just the people who DO play it (and presumably enjoy it, hence why they play it) who get to say how they feel about it.

You can put a thingy at the top to say 'I play X Y Z jobs', but it just runs the risk of being an identifier of 'this data can be thrown out because 'its tainted'. It gives the interpreter of the data, the subconscious 'out' to say 'well you don't even play the class, opinion discarded' and ignore parts of the data they do not agree with. And that's much worse than someone who despises BLM's design from sneaking their opinion in when they don't play it. From what I saw in the previous survey, most people were actually pretty sensible and only answered for the jobs that they play or have some stake in (previously mained etc) anyway. BLM's super-high score would never have happened if the 'I HATE BLM IT IS HORRIBLE' players had actually piped up

So yes, please forgive me for assuming that the suggestion is just a thinly veiled attempt to sneak in a way to say 'well, 85% of players responded that SCH should have more damage actions in it's main rotation, but look! 80% of those people don't even PLAY SCH (even though they might have mained it in previous expansions), so we have to consider that factor too!'

[Aravell]

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to limit people to only giving feedback on their main job, it won't stop the "downvote bombing" because there are SMN mains who are upset. There's also the matter of people who play multiple jobs. I personally have no main as of late, I just play whatever role I want to, should my feedback be discounted because I don't main any job?

[seolhyun]

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to limit people to only giving feedback on their main job, it won't stop the "downvote bombing" because there are SMN mains who are upset. There's also the matter of people who play multiple jobs. I personally have no main as of late, I just play whatever role I want to, should my feedback be discounted because I don't main any job?

i would rather hear feedback from ppl who do all content on their main than someone who plays a job for easy roulettes or something

[Ivtrix]

i would rather hear feedback from ppl who do all content on their main than someone who plays a job for easy roulettes or something

Not everyone limits themself to one job