Thread: 8.0 DPS Job Rework Workshop/Megathread. Goals, Design Principles, and Mock-Ups.

Originally Posted by Mikey_R

The original point was to prevent any situation where you would be forced to have a burst in a specific point in your rotation, so it does go against the initial design direction. Even with stating to have a 'clear best answer across a 60- or 120- second period' is what I was trying to avoid.

Barring that, it just means your rotation is externally affected instead, though, no? If even a single raid buff remains and there is no penalty otherwise for holding for up to 120s (no fight-specific vulnerability window for enemies or buff window for you or DPS check or %HP phase threshold, etc), you'll do it within that raidbuff.

We already have a best use for every GCD. Adding more depth atop what we already have doesn't gameplay any more subject to optimization or to the fact that everything can, with enough information and computation, be perfectly optimized. It just makes it that much more susceptible to change and makes that optimization that much less obvious to your average skilled player.

Moreover, let's say we do somehow remove all raidbuffs, all encounter-based variation of damage output, and all DPS checks so that one has no pressure to use a skill at any particular given time. Would that even be better gameplay anyways?

:: Note that my point was that there would be a best answer for a given GCD (out of some 120 seconds) dependent on what you did the GCD/rotational-string/burst-sequence before, not that there'd be a best overall answer across 60/120 seconds; any refusal to swap between them based around those branching choices would be a DPS loss, even if a small one.

Thinking about it, wouldn't all raid buffs also suffer with less people?

Of course. And a WHM/SGE, VPR/SAM, DNC/BLM/PIC, Tank composition is therefore going to put out slightly more total damage in 4-man content.

If we wanted to balance that out, the solution is basically the same as on AoE heals -- split the effect. Except in buffs' case, you'd start them at higher power before reducing the % per person beyond 4 people (down to the current values at the max of 8 players affected). Could still be better in 8-man, for flavor's sake; just reduce the penalty slightly for taking raid-buffers to Light Party content. (Yes, I'm aware that Mug and Chain Strategem would thereby need a retweak and/or attached hidden/dummy buff for regulation.)

Or, better still, just start giving jobs enough unique utility that we're unlikely to care about the slight damage loss. Perhaps make the raidbuffs themselves more bankable and thereby make them actual utility instead of constraints relative to any other way to provide the given amount of potency within X seconds' window per Y seconds' frequency.

(Hairbrained spitball: Hell, you could have each buffer bring a certain amount of bonus starting LB and LB generation, make the buffs themselves especially efficient LB-spenders (with diminishing efficiency on reuse).)

As long as it uses Dancing Edge's animation.

Spinning Edge -> enhances next attack (buff not consumed by Gust Slash)
Gust Slash -> slight cleave, blink-strike [without movement-lock] -- extent of bonuses affected by Haste
Aeolian Edge -> slight radial AoE, bonus movement speed just before and after activation -- both buffed by Haste

Mutilate -> guaranteed crit from stealth, auto-dodge against certain attack types during animation
Shadowfang -> DoT, empowerable by shadow/stealth actions
Dancing Edge -> deals flat bonus damage per strike based on Haste and applies that buff to auto-attacks

Mix-and-matchable.

Would something like that work?

For me personally, a DoT shouldn't be added just for the sake of having a DoT.

Apart from a rare few mistaking DoTs for an identity (when the identity is instead usually, at best, just trading control/utility for raw throughput over time, assuming the DoT job exists in an MMO not plagued by decontextualized numbers-envy), I don't think anyone's suggested adding a DoT "just for the sake of adding a DoT".

The goal is almost always instead the gameplay/expression a DoT can allow -- a soft CD, setup if capitalized upon (able to gap-close to a debuffed enemy, able to detonate the DoT for AoE damage, etc. all requiring forethought enough to pull off), TTK management (and the priority conflict between optimizing damage over time and taking an enemy out of the fight asap), having rotation vary with enemy count beyond just swapping to a watered-down AoE-clone of said rotation, global tick tracking, etc.

Now, each of those factors can be done separately. You could have a direct damage action that stores up to 30 seconds of charge for proportionate damage but can be reused whenever, possibly uniquely with mobility. You can have a non-damaging debuff or even just a buff that notes the target (and hopefully has at least some VFX to keep track of who it will affect despite the lack of debuff), or even just a two-stage action where the first stage comes at cost and even the second still needs the right situation to be a net gain. You can have CDs that buff you for a while but only ramp benefit from attacking the same target consecutively (or based on the greatest number of hits done to any particular target). You can have an intermediate class of cleave actions, to be used in 2-3 target situations and lock them into long enough combos or behind enough conditionals for them not to be spammed. You can have a song/MP tick system that you want to reach a certain point at a certain GCD-locked frequency. Etc., etc.

But... doing all that still only gives you a part each of what DoTs already did with seemingly less on-paper complexity to manage greater in-practice nuance. Which is why a DoT can seem a pretty thematic (re)addition to certain jobs.

Originally Posted by Raikai

I may be mis-remembering things, but isn't something like this in effect for V&C dungeons? Buffs being stronger for a 4 man situation so jobs like AST and BRD won't feel awkward?

It is but from what I do remember the baked in gains attributed to buffers is way too weak to compete properly with selfish jobs in criterion.

Originally Posted by Aco505

Correct, the damage compensation is given to the whole party and thus buffers don't benefit as much as non-buffers, making non-buffers even better.

It works exactly like party buffs, if you have a buffer in the party, it applies a specific % of damage up to everybody on top of the natural buffs of the buffer.

Those are the buffs given by buffers per class they do affect in criterion.
It's a good concept that I'd like applied more (and potentially into savage itself for specific encounters that do break the balance).
Why did tanks benefit the most out of it? Don't ask me, it's SE we're talking about in a tank meta.