Job Complexity and Difficulty

[Quuoooote]

Even looking at the posts deeper Quuoooote describes depth as how different mechanics interact with each other and cause friction, whereas Shurrikhan describes a similar concept, but calls it complexity.

You're misreading my intent then, because my post was meant to place explicit emphasis on decision making over mechanical difficulty. Jobs don't need to be mechanically difficult to have depth, and I thought I made my point clear using Bard's "simple" mechanics as an example. By stacking up a lot of simple spinning plates, you can create depth by forcing friction in the form of decision making.

Either way, I find it very pedantic to dismiss the entire discussion as "going nowhere" because ideas don't align one hundred percent. Isn't that what having multiple jobs is supposed to be for? Ideally there would be different designs made to appeal to different playstyles, so harping on people for wanting different things seems a bit silly. In an ideal world there would be "decision" oriented jobs and mechanically complicated jobs for people interested in them, alongside simpler jobs for those not interested in pushing their personal limits.

Why does content difficulty have to scale with literal player enjoyment anyway? Seems a bit ridiculous to me. If your jobs are ‘good in raid content’ but boring as hell in everything else you’ve still a problem. I should be having the time of my goddamn life as a healer doing Guildhests Yoshi-P

I want to pull this up from earlier in the thread for emphasis, because I agree with it one hundred percent. People insist on jobs being as simple as they are because fight complexity is built for that in mind, so what happens when someone isn't engaging in Savage/Ultimate content? If the scales were balanced a bit more between jobs and encounter difficulty, the top end wouldn't suffer, and the bottom end would get engaging gameplay for their casual MSQ experience at the same time.

[Mikey_R]

You're misreading my intent then, because my post was meant to place explicit emphasis on decision making over mechanical difficulty. Jobs don't need to be mechanically difficult to have depth, and I thought I made my point clear using Bard's "simple" mechanics as an example. By stacking up a lot of simple spinning plates, you can create depth by forcing friction in the form of decision making.

That is laterally what I said. To quote you from the original post:

buts is depth lies in how other mechanics interact and interfere with the simple mechanic to force decision making

As I said, how mechanics interact with each other, check, and forcing decision making, which is a form of 'friction'. Check. So I really don't understand where your complaint comes from there.

Either way, I find it very pedantic to dismiss the entire discussion as "going nowhere" because ideas don't align one hundred percent. Isn't that what having multiple jobs is supposed to be for? Ideally there would be different designs made to appeal to different playstyles, so harping on people for wanting different things seems a bit silly. In an ideal world there would be "decision" oriented jobs and mechanically complicated jobs for people interested in them, alongside simpler jobs for those not interested in pushing their personal limits.

In order to have a discussion on 'depth and complexity', all parties must be in agreement in the definition of terms so that everyone is on the same page. This means, when these things get discussed, you both know what each other means. If there are different definitions, then, as ideas are talked about, things will invariably clash and go of course.

And yes, having multiple jobs to account for different levels of complexity/depth is a good thing, however, in order to compare the different jobs, you need to have a definition of what depth and complexity means in a general sense, which you can then apply to the individual jobs to compare them. Nowhere have I stated that jobs should be the same, I am just wanting everyone to work off of the same hymn sheet.