Positionals

[Valence]

Literally 0 of the pvp jobs are more interesting than their pve versions.

Edit: PvP jobs are interesting in that they made a bunch of tiny kits feel distinct and true to their base jobs. They are not interesting in the sense that if you stuck them in PvE, they would be fun at all. They would be super boring in fact.

Edit: Also pvp is ultra imbalanced and the only reason it isn't a problem is that such a minor portion of the playerbase engages with it. So this is a terrible sell.

Nobody is asking for pvp kits to be directly translated into pve, since as you say, they're not designed for pve in mind. The fact that they feel distinct and true to their base jobs was the whole point, and you're putting it better than I could. And perhaps that's something the devs should take note of when designing for pve.

Pvp isn't that imbalanced for what it is designed: crystalline conflict. If you're talking about FLs, nobody is going to take that comparison seriously, nothing is balanced here.

[Turtledeluxe]

I do agree with the idea you're been trying to insert here, but my inherent problem with your statements is that you bring them up like if they were based on factual, objective values, which they certainly ain't.

For example, I do believe that when I argue for jobs of a same role to output the same (total cdps) damage and differentiate themselves through more intricacies elsewhere when it comes to job identity, I'm expecting the identical damage output to be a consistency trait shared by the role, defining the role and not the jobs. But some players would rather have it defining the jobs rather than the role, which is 1) subjective, and 2) completely reliant on where one puts the threshold.

Within the context of positionals, some assume it should be a role trait, while some do think it should be job dependent, much like procs are those days, etc.

Arguing that bringing or keeping consistency prevents homogeny is a fallacy on its own, see the new pvp job sets and identities. There is actually very little consistency within each role to a point where it becomes (half) role agnostic, yet this opened for so much more in terms of creativity by having each jobs not beholden to follow an excruciatingly long list of role traits and made sure to satisfy them, that ironically enough, pvp jobs are ten times more interesting than pve jobs with thrice less buttons. Don't get me wrong though, I'm not advocating for pve to destroy the trinity like that, quite the opposite, and that's definitely where one can put some consistency.

I've never once said that maintaining consistency prevents homogeny-- I said that they are two different things. I am basing my thoughts on something objective-- the devs made the melee class. The devs decided they would have positionals as part of their role.

Which again, if all melee had identical positionals that would be the best case use of the word. They don't, though. That's why I said you can kind of get away with "this feels homogeneous", but really it's not the best descriptor beyond that. If you select against positionals and remove them from melee, that makes them non positional in nature and literally the same across any other job that lacks positionals. So their quality of being non positional based is quite literally homogeneous (between all of those jobs, it's a homogeneous trait at that point). The actual problem here, is that players are reverse engineering it to seem like melee is a victim of homogenization while pushing homogenization. I conceded in earlier post, someone might say "well it only makes melee 20% more like other jobs", yet homogenization is homogenization and I think the game has suffered enough of that.

[HikariKurosawa]

I've never once said that maintaining consistency prevents homogeny-- I said that they are two different things. I am basing my thoughts on something objective-- the devs made the melee class. The devs decided they would have positionals as part of their role.

Which again, if all melee had identical positionals that would be the best case use of the word. They don't, though. That's why I said you can kind of get away with "this feels homogeneous", but really it's not the best descriptor beyond that. If you select against positionals and remove them from melee, that makes them non positional in nature and literally the same across any other job that lacks positionals. So their quality of being non positional based is quite literally homogeneous.

I think it's homogenous that all melee jobs have positionals. I think it's homogenous that all melee jobs use both flank and rear positionals. Their quality of having positionals is quite literally homogenous.

To be honest though I think it's disingenuous and boring to use the buzz word homogenous in the context of this game. There is no such factor and never will be. It is always used to push an individual's narrative and never based on anything real.

[Turtledeluxe]

I think it's homogenous that all melee jobs have positionals. I think it's homogenous that all melee jobs use both flank and rear positionals. Their quality of having positionals is quite literally homogenous.

I think it's disingenuous and boring to use the buzz word homogenous in the context of this game. There is no such factor and never will be.

They are not the same imo beyond the position, as they feed a bit differently into each job.

It's easy to make a case when you set up arbitrary guard rails like "well my preferences only effect melee" (they don't) or "I only want to look at the potency bonus". That's not personally how I look at the game.