Removal of Positionals

[Ransu]

Put me down as a positional supporter. There's nothing you could replace it with that would require all melee to care about their physical location on any boss fight. The number of wipes caused by melee trying to push their limits and sneak in that extra positional are countless and I wouldn't have it any other way.

You mean the number of bad players that are not paying attention and would have messed up the mechanic regardless.

[ZiraZ]

What? P5S was stupid easy to hit all your positionals lmao.

prove i t.

[Mikey_R]

No, this is a terrible take. If positionals are about "skill" and then you remove the ability to hit all positionals during a fight you now create a system of frustration for a player because no matter how good they are they will hit a dps loss with zero ways to mitigate it.

The skill is in getting as many as you can. The problem is people put the restrictions on themselves that they HAVE to hit every single one, when it isn't the case. The odd one missed here or there isn't going to impact performance much, but doing it throughout the fight is going to be detrimental. In the same way having to cancel a cast here and there isn't going to massively impact performance, unless it happens constantly. Oh, and because I suspect the question will be asked, I expect somewhere around 85%-90% of positionals to be hit in a fight, any more than that and that person has very very good fight knowledge.

Limited or removal of true north would force boss designs to be more static. The reason why P2S for example is a circle is because of how you have to position yourself around the stage for mechanics and how often the boss jumps around. DRG for example, would be impossible to hit all their positionals in that fight which is WHY they made it a full circle target to remove positional requirements and it made for an interesting boss fight. I'd rather have that than the static design where a boss barely moves to account for positionals.

They weren't more static back in the day though and because back then tanks had to position bosses, this could mean bosses potentially ended up in different places pull by pull and it could change by the tank you had. Even with all this, noone complained about positionals. The challenge was to hit as many as possible and that was the thrill. The fact bosses position themselves, so you know exactly when they are going to move and what direction they will face, means you should be able to fully pre plan and pre position where to stand. This then means that the shift in fight design is what has potentially caused some people to dislike positionals as they have become uninteresting in that regard. Change the fight design back to where melee have to think on the fly, and you have more meaningful positionals.

I can't speak for the other casters as I don't mess with them in end game, but yes as a BLM I fully expect you to keep your GCD's rolling and not clip GCD's. There are enough tools/instant casts available for when you need to move. The only fight where I wanted to pull my hair out this tier was P7S with the running back and forth to bait circles, but its still 100% doable to always have something casting.

Not surprising with BLM being one of the more mobile casters, it would be interesting to see how a RDM or SMN sees things, considering they either have a more limited capability in getting insatcasts for long periods (RDM) or, depending on fight mechanics, they might not be able to avoid having to stop casting (SMN, yes, in theory, if movement happens on Slipstream and Ruby Rite in a minute, you may have to not be casting, I know, shocking. No idea how often that issue comes up though).

Now, where do you find fun in utilising the tools given to casters? I suspect it is the satisfaction of dancing around mechanics whilst keeping uptime. Planning the use of Swiftcast/Triplecast etc. to bypass the restrictions imposed on casters. It is that puzzle element you enjoy. But that is exactly what positionals were for melee, especially Monk. The challenge of dancing around mechanics whilst keeping uptime, not only on the boss, but also hitting the positional. The more and more I compare positionals to cast times, the more parallels I find.

[Kazimere]

Well, in this case a potency percentage increase shows a bit more context on how useful it is. But the problem is that value is rather difficult to obtain. But usualy the gap is higher on lower base potencies (40 added on 100), while still being the same to some strong abilities (40 added on 360 is the same bonus). Idealy you want to stack all values over a timespan (for example 10000 potency), and then have the (potential) bonus value next to (for example 1500). That way you get a decent average percentage value. And logicaly we can expect players to hit about 80% of those reliably.
(this is also how you get a valid value to decide the ranged tax as this becomes comparible).

For the most dedicated players its all about getting that extra 20% of reliability that was missing. And its what defines the skill. Skill is often about these minimal optimizations. Note that missed potency by mechanics is not relevant on the job (as regardless of skill, its guaranteed missed potency). That value is just to again balance the ranged tax.

I think they deliberately dont do that to at least keep them playable well enough. The more they add, the more the skillcurve becomes, which can be undesired as they then would also need to figure out similar curves for the ranged dps and mages. The ranged dps tax might then have to be made more extreme and even include mages, which would bring greater class unbalance. Its an undesired effect when they still havent made something that adds more to those roles capabilties of showing skill.

Personaly im glad the balance is done like that, it gives something to aim for to become better, while not instantly being a major hazard for beginners.

We're going to have to agree to disagree there. I don't find it to be a skillful task to hit a positional, especially with true north. There also isn't really any incentive to do it, other than you just want to maximize. That's really the only reason I bother doing it, because it's definitely not necessary to beat the event or to keep my rotation going.

[Kazimere]

This kind of comment tells me you don't play melee often or in a variety of high end duties. Yes, this could work for a boss like P6S that is mostly stationary and pretty much a target dummy. It doesn't work in a boss like P5S that is constantly moving or rotating or in any ultimate, especially if the tanks are not doing their positioning job properly. Is it as simple as standing and moving an inch or two during, for instance, the first phase of TOP where you can easily miss positionals even if you play very well?

The argument of moving a tiny bit could also be used for slidecasting windows, or literally anything that involves moving the minimum amount of distance such as dodging an AoE for a mechanic. Might as well just remove these?

Talking about the positioning of positionals by using just dummy fights that provide no challenge is hardly an argument. If the issue is that they're not impactful enough, then make them be a 5% dps loss if you miss them all instead of 3%. Or 10% if you really fancy it. The point is to hit them because they are a dps gain and so it's right to strive to get them all.

And yes, play DRG and then play RPR and tell me which of the two keeps you more awake between cooldowns or burst windows in regards to positioning. You have to continuously keep positionals into account for the former.

The point is not that they're the most engaging thing in the world, but that they add to the overall gameplay and feel of melee jobs.

Nothing is stopping you from moving just because. For the "feels." As it stands, there is no impactful incentive to do them in their current iteration. Min maxing a parse is not necessary to beat any savage or ultimate event.

[Mikey_R]

Nothing is stopping you from moving just because. For the "feels." As it stands, there is no impactful incentive to do them in their current iteration. Min maxing a parse is not necessary to beat any savage or ultimate event.

Nothing is stopping you from ignoring them just because. They have no impactful incentive and aren't needed for savage/ultimate anyway.

[Kazimere]

Nothing is stopping you from ignoring them just because. They have no impactful incentive and aren't needed for savage/ultimate anyway.

You're right, there is nothing stopping me. We agree that they aren't impactful then. So, if SoE removes them you shouldn't whine.

[Mikey_R]

You're right, there is nothing stopping me. We agree that they aren't impactful then. So, if SoE removes them you shouldn't whine.

And if they kept them you shouldn't whine either.

[Kazimere]

And if they kept them you shouldn't whine either.

I won't. It doesn't matter to me one way or another, as I have already indicated. I've also come out in support of how positional mechanics used to be, because they were actually impactful beyond "feels." Your argumentation style indicates that you would whine, though. I'll make sure to grab the popcorn when it happens.

[Payadopa]

Nothing is stopping you from moving just because. For the "feels." As it stands, there is no impactful incentive to do them in their current iteration. Min maxing a parse is not necessary to beat any savage or ultimate event.

Those scenarios always assume that a party plays perfectly. I dunno how many times in PF a couple of people died and we barely made it before the enrage. It definitely can be impactful. It's more damage. If people are so bothered by it there are options. It's like playing a tank and then complain about having to use mitigation.

Like how boring do you want the job system to become? Dungeons are already boring, since bosses are a joke, as is trash, you're missing a lot of abilities, AoEs don't require positioning, you have no TP and infinite MP... like at what point do we stop removing stuff and ad to it again? Everything is being taken away under the guise of QoL or because it's "so easy" yet people fail to see the bigger picture. I take minimal interaction over no interaction at this point.