Positionals vs Damage over Time

[RyuuZero]

I actually agree with the general sentiment of this thread.

yeah the thread kinda drifted off from Positionals vs DoTs what would you remove?

Yet another thread on positionals with non-melee mains arguing for their removal.

You calling me a non-melee main? I beat Patch Day Vishap and T9 as NIN when they were relevant ^^ and after I beat 4.0 as PLD in Early Access, I've gone SAM and never looked back.

The entire point of positionals is to hit them all, not most of them. If they were removed, melee would just be completely static until mechanics forced them to move.

well.. True North lets me hit all Positionals and I'd argue without positionals mechanics could be made even more spicy without stressing the player to hit rear or flank.

if I would change things Melee (well most melee) would have instead of flank/rear a dot/burst or buff/burst combo.. let's remember that Aeolian Edge used to be an Omnipositional Combo Finisher^^

[Aco505]

You calling me a non-melee main? I beat Patch Day Vishap and T9 as NIN when they were relevant ^^ and after I beat 4.0 as PLD in Early Access, I've gone SAM and never looked back.

Sometimes also melee mains do this as well, mind you, but the question that we must always ask ourselves is: would melee get something in return if positionals were removed?

The answer is no.

well.. True North lets me hit all Positionals and I'd argue without positionals mechanics could be made even more spicy without stressing the player to hit rear or flank.

if I would change things Melee (well most melee) would have instead of flank/rear a dot/burst or buff/burst combo.. let's remember that Aeolian Edge used to be an Omnipositional Combo Finisher^^

Try hitting all positionals in an ultimate, P3S, P5S, P11S or Criterion dungeons without True North. It's simply impossible no matter how well you greed.

The point of True North is not to invalidate them but to cover for when you cannot hit them. The devs cannot and will not accommodate each fight just because of positionals and that's where player ingenuity and True North come forth. If they did design mechanics with that in mind, bosses would be even more static than they are now already in many fights.

[Tizzy_Tormentor]

I'd like neither removed, if anything, I'd make the penalty for missing positionals and failure to maintain proper DoT upkeep more punishing.

I enjoy having to position myself for attacks, it adds a small layer of decision making during a fight. The key thing I'd improve with positionals is feedback, I actually thought what they did with Raiden Thrust in ShB was brilliant, hit the positional, get a stronger hit on your next combo action, but they made it so you always get Raiden Thrust, so they nixed that idea pretty quickly, which is a shame. I never get frustrated if I miss a couple, if you miss it, just get it next time, its a small thing that allows players to eke out extra damage and show off their stuff.

I also enjoy damage over time, I like seeing my actions cause residual damage to the target, its my favorite fantasy archetype (filling the target with DoTs and seeing them melt passively) and I loved it when SMN/BRD had a load of interactions in their kit for their DoT skills. Naturally, this was pruned pretty much entirely, which is unfortunate, because there's no dedicated DoT job, BRD's DoTs don't interact with anything in their kit and can be refreshed with one button. I understand jobs change overtime, but I still think making BRD's procs a flat 80% chance instead of being tied to their DoTs was a big mistake. It is what it is, I guess.

[SeverianLyonesse]

yeah the thread kinda drifted off from Positionals vs DoTs what would you remove?

I wouldn't remove either.

I would make positionals more job-specific as mentioned in my previous post. SAM (front), MNK (front/flanking), DRG (flanking), RPR (5 yalms), NIN (rear), VPR (rear/flanking). Mostly to remove senseless samey positional dancing.

And I would also keep DoTs, with particular emphasis on returning them as a major component to key job fantasy damage dealing: BRD, SGE/SCH (but not both), DRK (is almost the DoT tank and needs more identity), VPR (flavor begs for it). Of the casters, I would either make RDM or SMN a DoT mage, probably SMN to recapture some of the lost SCH warlock identity.

I think pushing the idea that we need to sacrifice one or the other is already poor framing.

[Bright-Flower]

Changing positional like that, such as giving dragoon only flank and ninja only behind I think could work fine.

Reaper being '5 yalms' I feel would be trickier to determine if you're at the right range or too close etc. Positions are made easily readable now by the target circle but I feel this would be clunky.

Giving samurai incentive to stand in front of bosses during regular parts of their rotation I think is just a bad idea. Flavor wise I get it but encounter design wise you're just asking to see a lot more samurai taking vuln stcks or dying to boss cleaves etc.

[SeverianLyonesse]

Changing positional like that, such as giving dragoon only flank and ninja only behind I think could work fine.

Reaper being '5 yalms' I feel would be trickier to determine if you're at the right range or too close etc. Positions are made easily readable now by the target circle but I feel this would be clunky.

Giving samurai incentive to stand in front of bosses during regular parts of their rotation I think is just a bad idea. Flavor wise I get it but encounter design wise you're just asking to see a lot more samurai taking vuln stcks or dying to boss cleaves etc.

Reaper could have a visual range aid in its skills to estimate 5 yalms, although I also wouldn't mind if Reaper had no positionals whatsoever. Not every melee job *needs* positionals, I just think while we are considering the idea the "polearm" jobs (RPR/DRG) could maybe look at "tipping" positionals as an option.

Maybe SAM and MNK should be the jobs without positionals, then. I think positionals make even less sense on the Striking jobs flavor-wise, with it only barely making sense for MNK's twitchy stance-dancing. To be clear, I think even if a job did have a "front" positional bonus, it would be more of a risk-reward skill and not something you would expect to see as part of their typical rotation.

[RyuuZero]

Positionals vs DoTs what would you remove?

I wouldn't remove either.

let me rephrase my question, If you had to remove either Positionals or DoT what would it be^^

[Lyth]

Let me rephrase the answer you received: The framing of the question is flawed and ordinarily wouldn't be engaged with, but the devs still need to know that the playerbase is opposed to both options.

There are jobs for all personality types and skill levels. If you would like to play a job without positionals or DoTs, you could play WAR, RDM, or SMN. I think if you're asking that question, playing a melee job is probably antithetical to your needs and capabilities. That's not a bad thing. Variety exists for a reason.

Rather than designing every job to please everyone and alienating all your players, it is better to design jobs and roles specifically for the players who enjoy playing them. That may mean that you are gated out of some roles, but that's better for the health of the game overall (so long as you still have options that you can fall back to, like Botanist or Warrior).

[SeverianLyonesse]

Positionals vs DoTs what would you remove?


let me rephrase my question, If you had to remove either Positionals or DoT what would it be^^

I refuse to answer that. I think you are shifting the Overton window into even worse territory by proposing the question in the first place.

This and similarly thoughtless threads asking jobs operate identically or be "streamlined" is why the game sucks so hard right now. I swear, a lot of the chatter from people with "ideas" online is the utter bane of FFXIV. Maybe think about how your ideas might actually impact the game if they gained any attention/traction before publishing them.

[Shurrikhan]

I would make positionals more job-specific as mentioned in my previous post. SAM (front), MNK (front/flanking), DRG (flanking), RPR (5 yalms), NIN (rear), VPR (rear/flanking). Mostly to remove senseless samey positional dancing.

Nitpicks:

A positional by itself is not gameplay unless one's target frequently rotates to force movement to return to that positional. It's the changing between positions that causes gameplay. That "dancing" IS the gameplay, and what most melee players enjoy.

They're "samey" only in that because there are only two positions that do not cause death by cleave and you need multiple in order to have places to move between, they will all use 100% of the available positionals, even if at different types and with different manners of control (bankable oGCD, bankable combo path, simultaneous choice, no control, etc.).

Nor is "5 yalms" a position. That's a 67% longer melee range that would make Reaper even less constrained as it air-swipes from 2+ scythe's away.

_____________

I refuse to answer that. I think you are shifting the Overton window into even worse territory by proposing the question in the first place.

100% agreed.