Positionals

[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.

[HikariKurosawa]

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.

They don't at all though. You do a positional you get a potency boost. It's flank or rear. That's the definition of homogenization if you wanna use that word.

You want less homogenization in the game? Make it so only one melee job uses positionals. Make it monk, and instead of making it something shallow like a potency boost, make it so that it is a requirement to do the rotation. Make it so you literally have to hit the positionals to do the actions. No potency bonus, no sound effect, just an absolute requirement for the job. That's how you fix positionals.

[Turtledeluxe]

They don't at all though. You do a positional you get a potency boost. It's flank or rear. That's the definition of homogenization if you wanna use that word.

You want less homogenization in the game? Make it so only one melee job uses positionals. Make it monk, and instead of making it something shallow like a potency boost, make it so that it is a requirement to do the rotation. Make it so you literally have to hit the positionals to do the actions. No potency bonus, no sound effect, just an absolute requirement for the job. That's how you fix positionals.

Or we could not do that, as it would result in 95% of jobs being homogeneous with regards to positionals.

As far as positionals, I don't care if you disagree. They are not identical.

https://ffxiv.consolegameswiki.com/w...tional_actions

This is why no one should have tried to spin the term against me.

[HikariKurosawa]

Or we could not do that, as it would result in 95% of jobs being homogeneous with regards to positionals.

As far as positionals, I don't care if you disagree. They are not identical.

https://ffxiv.consolegameswiki.com/w...tional_actions

I don't care if you don't agree, you stand at flank or rear and you get a potency boost. It's optional and it is shallow. If you like positionals so much, you would be drawn to the idea of a rotation being dependent on positionals. That's a meaningful implementation of positionals and it would make them a unique mechanic of the monk job. You say you like positionals, yet don't want to play a job that requires you to hit them consistently. Maybe you don't really like positionals that much and just enjoy the potency bonus?

[Turtledeluxe]

I don't care if you don't agree, you stand at flank or rear and you get a potency boost. It's optional and it is shallow. If you like positionals so much, you would be drawn to the idea of a rotation being dependent on positionals. That's a meaningful implementation of positionals and it would make them a unique mechanic of the monk job. You say you like positionals, yet don't want to play a job that requires you to hit them consistently. Maybe you don't really like positionals that much and just enjoy the potency bonus?

I don't need to disagree, the names, recast times, descriptions, etc. all demonstrate what I am saying.

I also didn't say I like positionals. I have a RPR at 90 but tbh I don't feel one way or the other about them. I don't think anyone ITT does either. I think they're parroting a streamer.

For example:

I design a set of pens that are all blue. The undertones of the blue are different, making them different shades. You come in, say they're all "basically blue", and called them the same. Except they aren't. To be homogeneous they would need to be the same exact blue.

[HikariKurosawa]

I don't need to disagree, the names, recast times, descriptions, etc. all demonstrate what I am saying.

I also didn't say I like positionals. I have a RPR at 90 but tbh I don't feel one way or the other about them. I don't think anyone ITT does either. I think they're parroting a streamer.

For example:

I design a set of pens that are all blue. The undertones of the blue are different, making them different shades. You come in, say they're all "basically blue", and called them the same. Except they aren't. To be homogeneous they would need to be the same exact blue.

The exact same flank and rear = the exact same shade of blue. You're so desperate to be right but you're not.

i would like if my combo gets interrupted if i dont do positionals right... on dragoon though

Sure, dragoon and monk can be the positional jobs and they should make it so that the buttons dont work at all if you're not at the positional for the gcd. Monk was always very positional oriented because of the forms, while wheeling thrust + fang and claw add a natural flow to the dragoon's rotation that just makes sense. You're at the rear for one half of your rotation and it naturally moves you to the flank for the next half. Being at the flank reminds you that you're using one ability, while being at the rear reminds you that you're using the other.

[Valence]

I don't need to disagree, the names, recast times, descriptions, etc. all demonstrate what I am saying.

I also didn't say I like positionals. I have a RPR at 90 but tbh I don't feel one way or the other about them. I don't think anyone ITT does either. I think they're parroting a streamer.

For example:

I design a set of pens that are all blue. The undertones of the blue are different, making them different shades. You come in, say they're all "basically blue", and called them the same. Except they aren't. To be homogeneous they would need to be the same exact blue.

No, you're just using bad faith to say that 220 potency is different from 200 potency.

Yes, it's mathematically true. Good grief.

I thought everybody here at least agreed that positionals could actually be made more interesting (like old trick attack etc), but I guess not? What's your position on this exactly? You'd rather keep our bland 20 potency increases on positionals?

[Sjol]

Or we could not do that, as it would result in 95% of jobs being homogeneous with regards to positionals.

As far as positionals, I don't care if you disagree. They are not identical.

https://ffxiv.consolegameswiki.com/w...tional_actions

This is why no one should have tried to spin the term against me.

Sorry, what are we supposed to be taking away from that link?