Quote Originally Posted by Supersnow845 View Post
You can’t really take the argument “once you get good everything is easy” because it’s a circular argument you can apply to the reverse as well
It isn't circular reasoning though as there is justification for me saying it. You start bad with no knowledge, you gain knowledge and practice, you get better at it and things become easier. So, you get better, things become easier. This can be applied to basically every aspect of live so it shouldn't be controversial.

“What’s the point in complex encounters in which once you master them instinct takes over”
If this was meant to be the reverse of what I said, then it failed. The reverse of what I said would be the worse you are, the harder things will be. Which, again, shouldn't be a controversial statement.

The mistake here is then that you have said fight complexity is the reverse of job complexity, which it isn't. How a fight plays out has nothing to do with job actions. They are however linked by how they interact with each other. However, it isn't a direct correlation.

The sarcastic example of old SCH (I’m assuming that’s what you meant with multiple DOT’s on different timers) is more complex because there is more fail states and more moving parts, this can be applied to all content, not just savage

As to your wider question complexity is borne of moving parts, punishing fail states and forced adaptation to the design of the encounter
I will provide a link to the exact post I was talking about, however, just like my question in this topic, it was just a general question not directed at any job in particular, but as a concept as a whole. There was no sarcasm against Scholar as I never named a job directly, I never even hinted at a job directly, so you just inserted your own opinion on that matter.

As for the rest, 'moving parts', I already addressed, once you know how the parts move, the complexity fades. 'Punishing fail states', is complexity now defined as how many times you can fail to do your job, or do something out of order? Is me failing to do 123 occasionally part of the 'complexity' because that is a fail state? How about Monk using Forbidden Chakra at max Chakra and potentially wasting chakra, does the fact Brotherhood can provide a ton of Chakra, leading to overcap and thereby wasting the resource for something out of your control count as complexity? You have still failed to not overcap your resources after all. Whilst these are ridiculous examples, they do highlight that making broad generalisations doesn't help the conversation.

Now, we get into the interesting part. 'Forced adaption to the design of the encounter'. Yes. This I do agree with. Having to change your rotation to output the most damage in an encounter should be something to consider. Whether it is forcing melee out of melee range, having a phase change during 'burst' so you potentially waste it etc. Unfortunately, a lot of people that say they want more complexity from jobs, dismiss the encounter in the equation. It is the encounter and how the jobs interact with that encounter, that makes your job fun, not just the jobs themselves.