Please stop inserting unbranching combos in new jobs

[Mikey_R]

Thats where condensing can be powerful. Here a simplistic example while not going for full variety:
123 is the default as we know it. Nothing even changes here. But as alternative combos you can have 132, 122 and 133. The 2nd button you pressed decides what the 2 and 3 button will be at the final step. Giving 4 potential branches to pick from.
But we can take it further, as we can also make double pressing the 1 cause a diffirent branch, and this then means a combo like 113 can exist. This is obviously a bit less clean, but effective.

Whilst the hypothetical is fine, what you then have to do is give each one a reason to exist. Why should I do 123 over 132 for example. Without duplicating, you have 6 possibilities (123, 132, 213, 231, 312, 321) and each one needs to have a reason to exist. So, let's try. One is going to be a pure damage, one a DoT, one a damage buff, maybe a debuff...maybe an oGCD makes one stronger, maybe go the Monk route and have one combo make the damage one stronger (in the same way DK makes BS stronger).

But now we have the issue of fitting it into a clean rotational loop. You have 18 GCDs, at 2.5 seconds, you get 24. Hm, maybe we have it so the combos proc a 4th GCD that changes based on what comes before. That gives an extra 6 GCDs making a clean 1 minute loop. Add some oGCDs here and there and voila, here is the baseline for every job if you want to do away with combos and have something more free flowing. But, wouldn't that make every job feel the same? Why yes it would.

And therein lies the problem. It would be fine for a single job, but you couldn't make all jobs do it, in the same way Monk has something different (you 'combo' your forms, you just choose which GCD to use in said form) but you wouldn't make EVERY job follow that framework otherwise, every job would be the same.

As to the topic at hand, I have no problems if they want to condense the buttons, just make it an option for people to turn on if they want to and no, just because they combine the buttons doesn't necessarily mean they will add something else to replace it.

[UkcsAlias]

Whilst the hypothetical is fine, what you then have to do is give each one a reason to exist. Why should I do 123 over 132 for example. Without duplicating, you have 6 possibilities (123, 132, 213, 231, 312, 321) and each one needs to have a reason to exist. So, let's try. One is going to be a pure damage, one a DoT, one a damage buff, maybe a debuff...maybe an oGCD makes one stronger, maybe go the Monk route and have one combo make the damage one stronger (in the same way DK makes BS stronger).

Not all need to exist. And as you already imagined, chains dont have to start at 1 either.
But for example this is possible:
123 is just the normal damage
But after pressing 1, 3 becomes a button that applies a self buff (+5% dps for 30s?), and allows 2 to be chained afterward, this 2 is then just the basic 2 again, so after this its a 3 again.
this gives 123 and 1323 as combos.

Now we dont have to stop here, as we can have all 1,2 and 3 as initiators for certain chains. But they arent required to exist.

We can for example also introduce a 11 chain where each consecutive 1 adds stack that allows a faster cast of for example 3, creating as combo: 113. And sure, the example i gave here is bad since it makes 113 compete with 123, but its to show a potential chaining system in a condensed situation.

Its up to the devs what they will use. But i generaly would focus on the case of: if a button is ment to be chained, but has no feature outside of that chain, its generaly worth to condense (make it the initiator for a diffirent chain).

[Shurrikhan]

Whilst the hypothetical is fine, what you then have to do is give each one a reason to exist. Why should I do 123 over 132 for example. Without duplicating, you have 6 possibilities (123, 132, 213, 231, 312, 321) and each one needs to have a reason to exist. So, let's try. One is going to be a pure damage, one a DoT, one a damage buff, maybe a debuff...maybe an oGCD makes one stronger, maybe go the Monk route and have one combo make the damage one stronger (in the same way DK makes BS stronger).

Ideally, this. Every key should ideally have a reason to exist at every step.

Though, that's also so far above what we have now that it's asking for divine quality while living in eradiated fecal waste. I'd therefore be content with every key having a reason to exist at almost every step, and at least a majority of steps giving every key a reason to exist.



Interesting to note, too, though, is that we can also differentiate even that ideal state with more dynamic combos.

At the moment, difference in "combos" is just how many forks they have and how often one can actually engage in them. SAM ST has 3 forks, available every 2-3 GCDs. DRG has 2, effectively available only 1 in 10 GCDs (though instead 1 in 5 GCDs in two-target combat). WAR and NIN ST have 2, available per 3 GCDs. GNB, DRK, and PLD each have just 1, which is effectively none / no decision-making around/regarding combo choice.

That's effectively just... a competition in how wasteful they can be.

By comparison, more dynamic combos could instead feature differences like:

• Synergies (Skill A has synergies with multiple follow-ups, perhaps at multiple steps, allowing for a differently advantaged combo from the paths leading through them) vs. Replacements (using Skill A vs. B for the opener literally changes what options come thereafter).
  
  
• Discrete Finisher[s] (you have a discrete key to fast-burst from the opener at resource cost, stop your combo short, or finish off an empowered combo) vs. Prepped Finishers (skill becomes a finisher once its prior use has already been performed -- open rune -> burst rune, so to speak) vs. Fixed Length (the combo always uses its nth GCD as a finisher, so you don't need any key).
  
  
• Repeatable Actions (you can, during at least one combo step / Form, repeat a certain action that keeps you from moving to the next step yet -- useful for GCD sync), Cumulative Actions (repeatable, but ramping in intensity of its own throughput or buff provided -- also useful for situational burst), or Neither.
  
  
• Unidirectional combos (only proceed in a single direction of options opened up) vs. Bidirectional (can move back towards previous steps, which then wouldn't necessarily be any less powerful, but only by one step at a time) vs. Freeform (capable of jumping even to non-adjacent steps, akin to Monk during PB).
  
  
• Etc., etc.