Originally posted by Lukavk Game is barely starting at 15. I had a buddy groaning about it being boring until we hit the dungeons then he was completely hooked. Though, honestly, it could just be this game isn't for you. I'd continue to the Ifrit fight and make my decision there at the least.
Yoshi-P gave a very long write up on the design philosophy of the game and actually mentioned in there that the early levels are designed to be easy (aka boring) because they wanted to appeal to a broader audience early on and hopefully convince people to dive deeper. I personally didn't make it far enough to test content above 15 but I also have played enough MMO's to know the beginning levels are going to be slow. As a huge fan of FFXI, the combat itself did not bother me because I am a little tired of all MMO's feeling like they have to push the pace to get good combat. I know this isn't XI, but the skillchain system is what kept that games slow combat from feeling boring to me, so hopefully the group mechanics of XIV has something in place to sprucen up the slow pace. Either way I found the game enjoyable and can't wait for re-release.
I know you're trying to clear things up, but the way you summarize it here sounds really awful lol.
You're basically summarizing it as: "He made the beginning slow and boring to appeal to more people, in hopes they'd be convinced to dive in deeper".
If you were someone unfamiliar with this game, and you read your post, would it make you want to try it? Not bashing you.. just saying lol.
The way he explains it is that the beginning levels are simpler and less complex to allow new players, unfamiliar with MMOs, to ease into the game and learn the basics. In the meantime, by providing an interesting storyline, and some otherwise entertaining, but uncomplicated content, they might be compelled to stick with the game and get farther into it.
He acknowledged it might be boring to people who are already experienced in MMOs and don't require that early training. He included himself as someone that - as a gamer - wants to get past that stuff as fast as possible. He also realizes - as a producer/director - that throwing people in at the deep end by making the beginning content more like later level content would intimidate and push a lot of new people away. Pushing new people away is not what he wants to do.
It's a trade-off that has to be made. He was explaining it so people who look at it as many do (including him) would keep that in mind.
As you can see in this thread, and many others.... there's a lot of people who fit his exact description. They play through the early levels, see that it's not "complex, open and varied" as the later level content they're used to, and are ready to dismiss the entire game over it.
People, please stop saying slower = more strategic or tactical. The speed of the combat has nothing to do with these concepts. "Combat simulators" (essentially hitting hotkeys and dicerolling effects) aren't strategic or tactical. FFXIV's combat isn't strategic or tactical, nor is Everquest's or FFXI's or any slower paced MMO. If you want an example of strategy or tactical combat go play a Tactics style game or a squad based shooter. I'd hate to say it, but even Call of Duty or even a single player JRPG like Final Fantasy is far more strategic and tactical than a slow combat simulator MMORPG.
Yeah all REAL gamers with even half a brain play Call of Duty.
Only stupid brainless idiots would play RPG's and think they are challenging. Idiots, look at all those losers THINKING they were enjoying MMORPG's that were "challenging", so stupid man what is wrong with those people. Right AIMonster? There are no tactics, strategy, or brain activity involved in these MMO's at all. Dogs and cats and Rube Goldberg machines make up most of their playerbases probably not adult human beings!
STOP SAYING YOU AREN'T AN IDIOT PLAYING A MINDLESS/SLOW BUTTON MASHER PEOPLE!
Everyone knows the game he is playing, or designing in his room is where the real fun/challenge is at.
Did I say they are brainless? No. I said people need to stop calling slower combat more strategic/tactical. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. MMORPG combat simulator combat is not strategic or tactical, period. Tell me exactly the strategy or tactics involved beyond learning a rotation and maybe setting up raids/groups with the right set of classes in a typical traditional MMO combat system? I enjoy MMORPGs, even some with "combat simulator" combat, and I've raided in top level guilds in various MMOs and occasionally end game PvP when available (like WoW arenas), but there is absolutely no critical thinking involved in playing them from a combat perspective.
Most of the strategy in MMOs comes before the combat, the preparation, AKA the meta.
On the other hand if I was playing an action game like a Fighting Game or Shooter there is far more thought put into my decisions in combat as in there is more tactical depth. This games are faster paced, yet require more tactics and strategy and as I mentioned the speed of combat has nothing to do with tactics / strategy level of a game as turn based strategy games which are about as slow paced have agruably the most strategic and tactical depth of any game genre.
Did I say they are brainless? No. I said people need to stop calling slower combat more strategic/tactical. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. MMORPG combat simulator combat is not strategic or tactical, period. Tell me exactly the strategy or tactics involved beyond learning a rotation and maybe setting up raids/groups with the right set of classes in a typical traditional MMO combat system? I enjoy MMORPGs, even some with "combat simulator" combat, and I've raided in top level guilds in various MMOs and occasionally end game PvP when available (like WoW arenas), but there is absolutely no critical thinking involved in playing them from a combat perspective.
Most of the strategy in MMOs comes before the combat, the preparation, AKA the meta.
I address this in my post, a few posts prior to yours.
There is definitely more to MMO combat - particularly in ARR - than just "meta" and "rotations". I've had plenty of fights so far where party make-up was not a deciding factor (as it was not "hand-picked" for specific classes), and by no means was it a matter of "memorizing rotations". There was a lot more to it than that.
But again, you seem to be placing the most emphasis on the mechanics of it. Relying on the same rotation for everything is not a very wise way to approach fights where enemy behavior or group interaction requires or benefits from more "right response at the right time" style gameplay.
Speaking for myself, using pre-determined rotations accounts for maybe 50-60% of a fight. The rest of it is reaction and response to what the enemy is doing and using the best skill or action available to me at that moment to avoid, counter or cancel what the mob is doing.
People, please stop saying slower = more strategic or tactical. The speed of the combat has nothing to do with these concepts. "Combat simulators" (essentially hitting hotkeys and dicerolling effects) aren't strategic or tactical. FFXIV's combat isn't strategic or tactical, nor is Everquest's or FFXI's or any slower paced MMO. If you want an example of strategy or tactical combat go play a Tactics style game or a squad based shooter. I'd hate to say it, but even Call of Duty or even a single player JRPG like Final Fantasy is far more strategic and tactical than a slow combat simulator MMORPG.
No one's saying slower=more strategic.
They're saying (though perhaps not clearly) that the combat is slower because as you level up, the combat does become more strategic and tactical. Actions have to be wisely chosen and well-placed. You have other party members to coordinate with. You have enemies' actions or reactions to deal with. There's time required to adjust for positioning required by certain attacks. You have combos and limit breaks to pay attention to. You have a limited amount of resources to work with, such as TP - which does start to deplete quickly if you're just spamming the same keys over and over again without thought.
In fact, in a sense, a GCD is a "resource" in itself, in the form of Time. Think about it. Once you hit a skill, you have 2.5 seconds (maybe less if you have gear that reduces it later on) of time in-between where the most you may have available is your auto-attack, or perhaps usage of an item.
If a fight is at a critical point where it's "you or them" and one attack can make all the difference... that next 2.5 seconds can turn the tides of the fight, or it could be the end for you. Pick the right ability or action, and that next 2.5 seconds can turn things around. Pick the wrong ability, and the next 2.5 seconds could bring your demise.
Because you can't just immediately follow up with an "oh-shit, Undo" ability, or something that sufficiently compensates for a mistake (ie. spam abilities thoughtlessly)... what you choose to do at any given moment can have a big impact. I've had that happen already several times in the lower level fights.... And I'm talking level 15/17 fights.
You also have to remember that the game is not about the *combat* itself. It's about the ways in which each of those skills is used, or how it can be used. A skill that seems "useless" in most fights could suddenly be the game changer in another, all because of some effect it has that you'd previously considered "useless" or at least "not useful enough".
People tend to be looking at this situation at entirely too shallow a level. The abilities themselves and the mechanics of using them (tab vs. action, etc) is only the basis of a game's combat system. Not the entirety of it. It's the aggregate of all those things I mention above, not just any one thing in particular.
Forest for the trees.
Action combat has all the things you mentioned above. Instead of using "GCD" as a resource you use the animation/cast time times of attacks. For example in a Fighting Game each attack essentially has a resource based on the animation time (time before an attack lands, ie how many frames it takes and you can get frame advantage over your opponent), hit stun, recovery, and properties of the attack. Having more time between actions doesn't make it more strategic, it just means you have more time to make your decisions.
In a MMO with action combat there is positional attacks (look at Thieves in GW2 or Assassin in Blade and Soul), party coordination (combo fields in GW2), you have to deal with enemy actions and reactions (moreso usually than combat simulators). You do not have to pay attention to combos in FFXIV as they trigger off rotation (so I can just hit Fast Blade -> Check if Hits -> Riot Blade for example), on the other hand to use combo fields in GW2 you DO need to be paying attention since you can combo off other's fields. Action MMOs have limited resource systems too for example Wildstar has both Mana and a special class mechanic resource and stamina for dodging as does GW2. In the same token if you spam without thought in those games you'll likely run out of resources too.
The point is people saying FFXIV's combat is more tactical or strategic because it's slower and not "action combat" are wrong. You have just as many tactical decisions to make in a more action combat based MMO like Wildstar, GW2, or B&S in fact I'd agrue with all these games moreso than FFXIV.
I got to play a bit more this past weekend, and actually started to unlock some class combinations.
Yes, the combat is slower - it's designed that way. If your a twitch gamer, it will drive you crazy. I'm not, I found the slower pace more fun. I tend to think of most recent MMOs as button-mash facerollers - you pretty much mindlessly key in an "optimal" rotation that some other website tells you is optimal based on some "theorycrafting" spreadsheet. ARR deliberately slows that down and breaks away from it, and I appreciate it.
In the early levels (up to around 10-15 depending on class) - yes, you pretty much just smash one button over and over at a medium-slow pace. I will fault that, saying that the learning curve ramps up a bit too slow.
Once you do start to aggregate a few more advanced class abilities, combos start to come into play, and especially once cross-class abilities start to come in, then it starts to get more complicated. Sure, there may be an optimal rotation for DPS - but that isn't always optimal for the situation. Most every class brings some synergistic element to the table, in the form of buffs/debuffs/utility, and that almost always is contrary to personal DPS, but beneficial to the group in some way.
It's a very deliberate move away from "Me" and towards "Us". It isn't really apparent early on, and takes a long, slow while to get there, and I think that is the biggest failing right now. A lot of older MMO veterans are just going to write this off early on as shallow and slow, and it really isn't - at least once it gets to where it's going. It just takes a while to get there.
Did I say they are brainless? No. I said people need to stop calling slower combat more strategic/tactical. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. MMORPG combat simulator combat is not strategic or tactical, period. Tell me exactly the strategy or tactics involved beyond learning a rotation and maybe setting up raids/groups with the right set of classes in a typical traditional MMO combat system? I enjoy MMORPGs, even some with "combat simulator" combat, and I've raided in top level guilds in various MMOs and occasionally end game PvP when available (like WoW arenas), but there is absolutely no critical thinking involved in playing them from a combat perspective.
Most of the strategy in MMOs comes before the combat, the preparation, AKA the meta.
On the other hand if I was playing an action game like a Fighting Game or Shooter there is far more thought put into my decisions in combat as in there is more tactical depth. This games are faster paced, yet require more tactics and strategy and as I mentioned the speed of combat has nothing to do with tactics / strategy level of a game as turn based strategy games which are about as slow paced have agruably the most strategic and tactical depth of any game genre.
I play multiplayer Vicky 2, HOI 3, CK 2 and other grand strategy titles. I also play the civilization series, Total War series, and some lesser (imo) twitch "strategy" games like Warcraft/Starcraft though I prefer grand strategy to RTS. I find group MMORPG combat as found in FFXIV to involve more critical thinking than those genres. Especially because while a grand game of a Paradox title might take months, I spend years in my favorite MMORPG's constantly fine tuning my play and defeating new encounters. Not every encounter is as challenging as the last, and the quality depends on the designers. I happen to like the encounter designers at Square Enix employed for this game, I think they are capable of making continuously challenging content for me. If I find this is not the case a year or two down the road I will likely stop playing.
I employ critical thought in my MMORPG gaming, I take the mechanics available and I adapt them to specific encounters in order to best serve my group. I then communicate with the group of players I am playing with and together we engage in critical thought on how we can best defeat X. There are no formulaic answers, most endgame content I have played in my MMO's of choice (XI, Vanguard, XIV, WoW to an extent etc.) we have beaten many encounters using strategies and tactics the developers themselves mentioned they did not envision when designing the content. That requires critical thought.
I'll also tell you my experience with two jobs in dungeons so far:
Conjurer (now 27) - Stand behind MOBs and at a decent range away, Spam Cure on Tank whenever health bar drops, use Medica if party is hit by AoE or another health bar drops aside from Tank, cast Protect every 30 minutes. Use Ethers on boss fights to keep mana up.
Gladiator (now 25) - Run in and spam Flash for enmity, Fast Blade->Riot Blade mana back up till TP low -> Spam Flash again -> Repeat till dungeon cleared. Watch MOB cast bar, and strafe to side if using conal attack or run out and Shield Lob if using PBAE telegraph. Use Rampart to mitigate damage on bosses even though it was never needed.
Now granted I'm not level capped yet. Maybe the combat improves, but from what I can tell so far I doubt it. Combat starting off so slow and boring is bad design in my opinion, but hey some people might like that, but calling it strategic or tactical is just absurd.
Now granted I'm not level capped yet. Maybe the combat improves, but from what I can tell so far I doubt it. Combat starting off so slow and boring is bad design in my opinion, but hey some people might like that, but calling it strategic or tactical is just absurd.
Not everyone is a pro elite gamer like you. Not accounting for the fact is what's bad design.
That's not to say the class skills don't need some fleshing out even at max level. But to say that giving new players a fair start is "bad design"? A break, give me it.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I'll also tell you my experience with two jobs in dungeons so far:
Conjurer (now 27) - Stand behind MOBs and at a decent range away, Spam Cure on Tank whenever health bar drops, use Medica if party is hit by AoE or another health bar drops aside from Tank, cast Protect every 30 minutes. Use Ethers on boss fights to keep mana up.
Gladiator (now 25) - Run in and spam Flash for enmity, Fast Blade->Riot Blade mana back up till TP low -> Spam Flash again -> Repeat till dungeon cleared. Watch MOB cast bar, and strafe to side if using conal attack or run out and Shield Lob if using PBAE telegraph. Use Rampart to mitigate damage on bosses even though it was never needed.
Now granted I'm not level capped yet. Maybe the combat improves, but from what I can tell so far I doubt it. Combat starting off so slow and boring is bad design in my opinion, but hey some people might like that, but calling it strategic or tactical is just absurd.
Well you are a noob, and a sucesssful MMO does not punish noobs for not knowing how to play the game perfectly.
I'm sure whatever game you prefer starts out super challenging, this one doesn't. It tries to teach people how to play before inttroducing more mechanics. This is also how most MMORPG's and really RPG's in general have been designed since EQ1, the idea is to not overwhelm players.
Some games give you everything out of the gate, there isn't much progression and what you see at the start is pretty much the full extent of what you are going to get. Most RPG's do not work like that, I'm sorry you think it is bad game design, a lot of more successful RPG developers disagree with you.
Maybe you should make your own title, or recommend a title for people like you who can't stomach FFXIV.
I can tell you one thing though, I've played MMO's with people like you for over a decade. I don't want to play with people like you. I don't think our personalities, what we look for in games, and how we define challenge or fun or proper social etiquette are compatible. So I'm not trying to sell you on FFXIV. For you, I think you are right. This game would not be fun, and you would likely make it less fun for people playing with you because you aren't having fun at it.
All I have learned from your posts is that whatever IMPACT GAMING community is, I want to stay far away from it.
Action combat has all the things you mentioned above.
I never said it didn't. In fact, never even *mention* Action combat in my post. You're arguing against something I never said, and I'm not sure why.
I'm speaking specifically about ARR, its combat system and the ways in which it's applied, which, despite claims to the contrary does require strategy and thought throughout a fight - especially tougher ones - for the reasons I listed.
In a MMO with action combat there is positional attacks (look at Thieves in GW2 or Assassin in Blade and Soul), party coordination (combo fields in GW2), you have to deal with enemy actions and reactions (moreso usually than combat simulators). You do not have to pay attention to combos in FFXIV as they trigger off rotation (so I can just hit Fast Blade -> Check if Hits -> Riot Blade for example), on the other hand to use combo fields in GW2 you DO need to be paying attention since you can combo off other's fields. Action MMOs have limited resource systems too for example Wildstar has both Mana and a special class mechanic resource and stamina for dodging as does GW2. In the same token if you spam without thought in those games you'll likely run out of resources too.
Okay, great. However, you're still arguing against something I never said.
Again, I never said action combat doesn't have those things. In fact, I know from personal experience (playing TERA up to 57) that all those things come into play. Each achieves the same overall idea, but in a different way.
Some prefer one. Some prefer the other. Some can enjoy both (such as myself).
This isn't about One Combat System vs. Another Combat System. I'm specifically talking about ARR's combat system, the nuances of it and the factors that people tend to overlook, ignore, or perhaps aren't aware of when they're discussing it.
The point is people saying FFXIV's combat is more tactical or strategic because it's slower and not "action combat" are wrong. You have just as many tactical decisions to make in a more action combat based MMO like Wildstar, GW2, or B&S in fact I'd agrue with all these games moreso than FFXIV.
I wouldn't say it's more tactical than an action based game. Nor would I say that Action-based combat is inherently more strategic than Tab-based combat. Each applies the same principles, but in different ways.
I will and do say, however, that ARR's combat is more strategic and tactical than people want to give it credit for. And that's really the entire point of my post, which you responded to.
What you're actually dealing with where others are concerned, is this tendency people have to believe "what they like is better than what you like", and frankly... that's all I see it as. It's petty, pointless competition over something that boils down to personal preference and nothing more.
At the end of the day, my philosophy is basically "Play what you enjoy, enjoy what you play, and respect others' right to do the same."
Arguing over "which combat system is better" is freaking stupid, IMHO.
Did I say they are brainless? No. I said people need to stop calling slower combat more strategic/tactical. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. MMORPG combat simulator combat is not strategic or tactical, period. Tell me exactly the strategy or tactics involved beyond learning a rotation and maybe setting up raids/groups with the right set of classes in a typical traditional MMO combat system? I enjoy MMORPGs, even some with "combat simulator" combat, and I've raided in top level guilds in various MMOs and occasionally end game PvP when available (like WoW arenas), but there is absolutely no critical thinking involved in playing them from a combat perspective.
Most of the strategy in MMOs comes before the combat, the preparation, AKA the meta.
On the other hand if I was playing an action game like a Fighting Game or Shooter there is far more thought put into my decisions in combat as in there is more tactical depth. This games are faster paced, yet require more tactics and strategy and as I mentioned the speed of combat has nothing to do with tactics / strategy level of a game as turn based strategy games which are about as slow paced have agruably the most strategic and tactical depth of any game genre.
I play multiplayer Vicky 2, HOI 3, CK 2 and other grand strategy titles. I also play the civilization series, Total War series, and some lesser (imo) twitch "strategy" games like Warcraft/Starcraft though I prefer grand strategy to RTS. I find group MMORPG combat as found in FFXIV to involve more critical thinking than those genres. Especially because while a grand game of a Paradox title might take months, I spend years in my favorite MMORPG's constantly fine tuning my play and defeating new encounters. Not every encounter is as challenging as the last, and the quality depends on the designers. I happen to like the encounter designers at Square Enix employed for this game, I think they are capable of making continuously challenging content for me. If I find this is not the case a year or two down the road I will likely stop playing.
I employ critical thought in my MMORPG gaming, I take the mechanics available and I adapt them to specific encounters in order to best serve my group. I then communicate with the group of players I am playing with and together we engage in critical thought on how we can best defeat X. There are no formulaic answers, most endgame content I have played in my MMO's of choice (XI, Vanguard, XIV, WoW to an extent etc.) we have beaten many encounters using strategies and tactics the developers themselves mentioned they did not envision when designing the content. That requires critical thought.
So I think you are wrong.
Really? You find MMORPG combat to require more critical thinking than a turn based strategy game? I don't even know what to tell you at this point. I guess since I've mastered (cleared the hardest content in game) most MMORPGs I've played I'm some sort of Sun Tzu or George S. Patton or something. I should probably inform the military I'm a master strategist so they can employ me right away!
Did I say they are brainless? No. I said people need to stop calling slower combat more strategic/tactical. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. MMORPG combat simulator combat is not strategic or tactical, period. Tell me exactly the strategy or tactics involved beyond learning a rotation and maybe setting up raids/groups with the right set of classes in a typical traditional MMO combat system? I enjoy MMORPGs, even some with "combat simulator" combat, and I've raided in top level guilds in various MMOs and occasionally end game PvP when available (like WoW arenas), but there is absolutely no critical thinking involved in playing them from a combat perspective.
Most of the strategy in MMOs comes before the combat, the preparation, AKA the meta.
On the other hand if I was playing an action game like a Fighting Game or Shooter there is far more thought put into my decisions in combat as in there is more tactical depth. This games are faster paced, yet require more tactics and strategy and as I mentioned the speed of combat has nothing to do with tactics / strategy level of a game as turn based strategy games which are about as slow paced have agruably the most strategic and tactical depth of any game genre.
I play multiplayer Vicky 2, HOI 3, CK 2 and other grand strategy titles. I also play the civilization series, Total War series, and some lesser (imo) twitch "strategy" games like Warcraft/Starcraft though I prefer grand strategy to RTS. I find group MMORPG combat as found in FFXIV to involve more critical thinking than those genres. Especially because while a grand game of a Paradox title might take months, I spend years in my favorite MMORPG's constantly fine tuning my play and defeating new encounters. Not every encounter is as challenging as the last, and the quality depends on the designers. I happen to like the encounter designers at Square Enix employed for this game, I think they are capable of making continuously challenging content for me. If I find this is not the case a year or two down the road I will likely stop playing.
I employ critical thought in my MMORPG gaming, I take the mechanics available and I adapt them to specific encounters in order to best serve my group. I then communicate with the group of players I am playing with and together we engage in critical thought on how we can best defeat X. There are no formulaic answers, most endgame content I have played in my MMO's of choice (XI, Vanguard, XIV, WoW to an extent etc.) we have beaten many encounters using strategies and tactics the developers themselves mentioned they did not envision when designing the content. That requires critical thought.
So I think you are wrong.
Really? You find MMORPG combat to require more critical thinking than a turn based strategy game? I don't even know what to tell you at this point. I guess since I've mastered (cleared the hardest content in game) most MMORPGs I've played I'm some sort of Sun Tzu or George S. Patton or something. I should probably inform the military I'm a master strategist so they can employ me right away!
Probably, do you play any of those games I listed? You haven't even said what turn based strategy game you hold as the epitome of strategy and tact.
I'm a huge strategy buff, that and MMO's are the only games that can hold my interest anymore. I'd say we should play together, but I'll be honest I really don't like you and I couldn't stand playing a game with you. But I use the same moniker in a lot of games, so keep an eye out for me I guess. Maybe you can crush me in a game we both play because as you say you are just smarter than me.
Maybe you should make your own title, or recommend a title for people like you who can't stomach FFXIV.
I've never once said I can't stomach FFXIV. Actually I like the game, except the combat. Everything else about the game is good to great. There is more to FFXIV than just combat after all.
The only thing I'm taking issue with here is people saying slower combat means it's more tactical or strategic especially that FFXIV has more strategic/tactical depth than other MMORPGs, which is simply not the case at all. In it's current state the combat is fairly bland, lacks depth found in other MMORPG combat systems (including other ones employing the traditional combat simulator style combat) at least from what I can tell currently. Maybe I'm throwing my foot in my mouth here and it dramatically improves once you hit cap, but having played FFXIV 1.0 and knowing the abilities that were available there I seriously doubt it.
Probably, do you play any of those games I listed? You haven't even said what turn based strategy game you hold as the epitome of strategy and tact.
I'm a huge strategy buff, that and MMO's are the only games that can hold my interest anymore. I'd say we should play together, but I'll be honest I really don't like you and I couldn't stand playing a game with you. But I use the same moniker in a lot of games, so keep an eye out for me I guess. Maybe you can crush me in a game we both play because as you say you are just smarter than me.
You keep twisting my words around. Where did I say I am smarter than you? I don't know how intelligent you are, just that me and you clearly have a difference of opinion of what entails strategy and tactics.
As for what games I play (nice ad hominem) I do play Civ and used to play other strategy titles like Age of Empires, Total Annihilation, Starcraft/Warcraft, HOMM, most "Tactics" games such as X-COM, Jagged Alliance, Fire Emblem, FF Tactics, and Tactics Ogre. X-COM (the original) remains one of my top 10 favorite games of all time. Overall I'm not as big on strategy games as some others are.
I play multiplayer Vicky 2, HOI 3, CK 2 and other grand strategy titles. I also play the civilization series, Total War series, and some lesser (imo) twitch "strategy" games like Warcraft/Starcraft though I prefer grand strategy to RTS. I find group MMORPG combat as found in FFXIV to involve more critical thinking than those genres.
This might be the funniest thing I have read so far. I mean, that was truly jaw dropping. I wonder how many people would agree with that.
Maybe you should make your own title, or recommend a title for people like you who can't stomach FFXIV.
The only thing I'm taking issue with here is people saying slower combat means it's more tactical or strategic especially that FFXIV has more strategic/tactical depth than other MMORPGs, which is simply not the case at all. In it's current state the combat is fairly bland, lacks depth found in other MMORPG combat systems (including other ones employing the traditional combat simulator style combat) at least from what I can tell currently. Maybe I'm throwing my foot in my mouth here and it dramatically improves once you hit cap, but having played FFXIV 1.0 and knowing the abilities that were available there I seriously doubt it.
I've already addressed that and gave a variety of detailed examples, clarifications and explanations, based on personal hands-on experience with a variety of encounters in the game so far, of how strategy and tact is not only possible.. but actually necessary in a number of situations.
You provided no counter-arguments to anything I said. All you basically said was "Action Combat has all that, too".
Yet you're here repeating basically the same thing I'd responded to in the first place.
You're basically just stubbornly clinging to a mantra at this point.
Maybe you should make your own title, or recommend a title for people like you who can't stomach FFXIV.
The only thing I'm taking issue with here is people saying slower combat means it's more tactical or strategic especially that FFXIV has more strategic/tactical depth than other MMORPGs, which is simply not the case at all. In it's current state the combat is fairly bland, lacks depth found in other MMORPG combat systems (including other ones employing the traditional combat simulator style combat) at least from what I can tell currently. Maybe I'm throwing my foot in my mouth here and it dramatically improves once you hit cap, but having played FFXIV 1.0 and knowing the abilities that were available there I seriously doubt it.
I've already addressed that and gave a variety of detailed examples, clarifications and explanations, based on personal hands-on experience with a variety of situations in the game so far, of how strategy and tact is not only possible.. but actually necessary within the base combat system.
You're basically just stubbornly clinging to a mantra at this point.
Not the most fertile ground for a discussion.
All the examples you gave exist in other MMORPGs from Action ones to old school combat simulators (like Everquest). So again, how is FFXIV MORE strategic and have more tactical depth than these MMOs? I'm not stubbornly clinging to my "mantra", there is no depth in FFXIV that doesn't exist in other MMORPG combat systems. Even EQ had things like positional attacks and resource management (more so as it was very easy to run out of said resources).
Probably, do you play any of those games I listed? You haven't even said what turn based strategy game you hold as the epitome of strategy and tact.
I'm a huge strategy buff, that and MMO's are the only games that can hold my interest anymore. I'd say we should play together, but I'll be honest I really don't like you and I couldn't stand playing a game with you. But I use the same moniker in a lot of games, so keep an eye out for me I guess. Maybe you can crush me in a game we both play because as you say you are just smarter than me.
You keep twisting my words around. Where did I say I am smarter than you? I don't know how intelligent you are, just that me and you clearly have a difference of opinion of what entails strategy and tactics.
As for what games I play (nice ad hominem) I do play Civ and used to play other strategy titles like Age of Empires, Total Annihilation, Starcraft/Warcraft, HOMM, most "Tactics" games such as X-COM, Jagged Alliance, Fire Emblem, FF Tactics, and Tactics Ogre. X-COM (the original) remains one of my top 10 favorite games of all time. Overall I'm not as big on strategy games as some others are.
I played all those games, and most of them are very light on "strategy". If you want strategy you need to play grand strategy titles, such as those from Paradox. As for tactics I played X-COM what was tactical about it? You have a tiny amount of classes and abilities compared to well FFXIV, there is not a lot of depth (just flanking, Line of Sight, overwatch etc. etc.). I got bored with it, I only beat it because FFXIV was down and if it weren't I doubt I would have finished the game.
But that's cool you like the game, I don't. You are right we disagree about the depth of tactics in that game, just like we do regarding FFXIV.
You mentioned in your previous post putting your foot in your mouth since you haven't played endgame or higher level combat. You then say you played 1.0, but I guess you deleted your character otherwise you would have access to your high level max endgame character that beat Darnus, Ifrit Extreme, has relics, and beat all the primals. I would think you would use your experiences with that character in this last weekend's test to demonstrate your analysis of depth of the current combat system.
Why didn't you?
I played 1.0 up until the very last patch when I had to unfortunately take a break due to a work related crisis IRL. I really regret not being able to do content like Darnus hard which very few people beat and was apparently a very tough and fun fight. I did get to do Garuda though, and I really liked that encounter. Now it is a single group encounter so I won't compare it to raids in previous MMO's I've played, but I would say it was very good for what it was. The fight involved multiple phases, fast reactions, and coordinated movement/attacks of the group. It is difficult to describe depth of "challenge" in a game in a message. It was fun for me, it was challenging enough, and I look forward to more like it and a progression of increasingly difficult encounters from the people who managed to design that given how limiting the original engine was.
I really look forward to endgame in ARR, I have a free company with people I enjoy playing with and together I think we will have a lot of fun in the new primal fights, the new raid zones, and whatever other content they add. I love grand strategy titles too, but once we get rolling FFXIV will probably consume all of my gaming time and that is enough to satisfy me.
All the examples you gave exist in other MMORPGs from Action ones to old school combat simulators (like Everquest). So again, how is FFXIV MORE strategic and have more tactical depth than these MMOs? I'm not stubbornly clinging to my "mantra", there is no depth in FFXIV that doesn't exist in other MMORPG combat systems. Even EQ had things like positional attacks and resource management (more so as it was very easy to run out of said resources).
You kept saying ARR is not tactical or strategic. Suddenly now it's "more strategic and tactical than other MMO's". Other MMO's being as strategic does not make this game any less strategic.
It is too bad that your demands for more strategic game are not met. But don't go around saying the game is not strategic nor tactical when you yourself went back on your word.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
The director said it him self that the first 15 levels will be simple for new gamers to learn the mechanics and gameplay at a steady pace who are not use to mmos and that mmo veterans will prolly find it dull but the game will get more complex in tactics and speed as you get to mid levels and much more at high levels.
You mentioned in your previous post putting your foot in your mouth since you haven't played endgame or higher level combat. You then say you played 1.0, but I guess you deleted your character otherwise you would have access to your high level max endgame character that beat Darnus, Ifrit Extreme, has relics, and beat all the primals. I would think you would use your experiences with that character in this last weekend's test to demonstrate your analysis of depth of the current combat system.
Why didn't you?
Because I played before all those things you mentioned were added to the game. Endgame before that in FFXIV was grinding Raptors, leves, and crafting in Ul'dah. Combat on Lancer mostly boiled down to mashing Feint (and another skill I don't remember the name of) and mass buffing a single attack with buffs from other jobs every once in a while for more damage.
You mentioned in your previous post putting your foot in your mouth since you haven't played endgame or higher level combat. You then say you played 1.0, but I guess you deleted your character otherwise you would have access to your high level max endgame character that beat Darnus, Ifrit Extreme, has relics, and beat all the primals. I would think you would use your experiences with that character in this last weekend's test to demonstrate your analysis of depth of the current combat system.
Why didn't you?
Because I played before all those things you mentioned were added to the game. Endgame before that in FFXIV was grinding Raptors, leves, and crafting in Ul'dah. Combat on Lancer mostly boiled down to mashing Feint (and another skill I don't remember the name of) and mass buffing a single attack with buffs from other jobs every once in a while for more damage.
You are most likely thinking of Skull Sunder, I agree though it was a terrible combat/skill/progression system in the game originally. That is why they did a complete rehaul on all of it.
I see, so when you say "I seriously doubt it will get any better based on my experiences in 1.0" you did not even play to see the development changes made by the new director/producer.
Well that makes sense. It was a completely different game by the end, you can't compare combat in <1.17? At least <1.21 when they added jobs, or whenever you quit to what the team did with the game. That kinda matters because it is indicative of their design philosophy and capabilities. Whereas what you played was leftover from the previous director and has very little to do with ARR or the current direction of the game (in fact since he was replaced I'd suggest your experiences are totally worthless since the whole point of ARR was to radically change the game).
Is it name calling to say you are simply ignorant of the actual state of endgame and design in FFXIV? I just got back from my last ban after the f2p/p2p debates, but I think here it is not me being excessively negative towards you. Despite you saying that you had a good idea what to expect based on your experiences with endgame in 1.0, you didn't really have any experiences with the endgame of that game as during the time you were playing it had been all scrapped while they were working on core systems (Tanaka had plans laid out, but most of it was shelved once he lost his position while the new team went about trying to "fix" the game).
Tanaka for example was a radical and rabid anti-endgame director (for XIV at least). He envisioned a game where the story could all be completed by crafters and gatherers through the "parley" system, and all combat tied to the story would contain no challenge or actual combat for this reason. He designed the fatigue/surplus system to punish people who played "too much" and level the playing field. He was anti alliance content (his engine didn't even allow for large groups of players on the screen) and instead thought 15 person parties for everything was a good idea, and a leveling system that was based off of skill use rather than mob level/difficulty (so ideally groups should level by taking as much damage as possible, dealing as little damage as possible until everyone "capped" their SP etc. basically assbackwards from how you would typically play an RPG). So different direction entirely when you played from when yoshida took over and (for most of us) fixed these philosophical "issues".
I guess the part of the combat that irritates me at the low levels was that I pretty much have to tank every mob. At least in EQ1 I could kite (fear or aggro) or root rot. WoW destroyed kiting for the most part and forced everyone to stand stationary toe to toe with the mob...it wasn't fun in a solo situation. I understand that there is more to the group combat game but I'm talking about solo combat.
I assume when you get to higher levels and have access to more powerful CC abilities things could get interesting. With this game being primarily PvE focused there is no reason to skimp on CC abilities and powerful PvE skills (buff and combat skills alike). As it stands the early level combat is dreadful. I like to push the limits of soloing ability but when a game pretty much forces you to tank everything there isn't much you can do to push the limits.
I would also hope the later zones have a sense of danger as you walk around them, unlike most themeparks lately (TSW being the exception).
There just seems to be too much hoping for a box purchase and a sub fee.
Comments
I know you're trying to clear things up, but the way you summarize it here sounds really awful lol.
You're basically summarizing it as: "He made the beginning slow and boring to appeal to more people, in hopes they'd be convinced to dive in deeper".
If you were someone unfamiliar with this game, and you read your post, would it make you want to try it? Not bashing you.. just saying lol.
The way he explains it is that the beginning levels are simpler and less complex to allow new players, unfamiliar with MMOs, to ease into the game and learn the basics. In the meantime, by providing an interesting storyline, and some otherwise entertaining, but uncomplicated content, they might be compelled to stick with the game and get farther into it.
He acknowledged it might be boring to people who are already experienced in MMOs and don't require that early training. He included himself as someone that - as a gamer - wants to get past that stuff as fast as possible. He also realizes - as a producer/director - that throwing people in at the deep end by making the beginning content more like later level content would intimidate and push a lot of new people away. Pushing new people away is not what he wants to do.
It's a trade-off that has to be made. He was explaining it so people who look at it as many do (including him) would keep that in mind.
As you can see in this thread, and many others.... there's a lot of people who fit his exact description. They play through the early levels, see that it's not "complex, open and varied" as the later level content they're used to, and are ready to dismiss the entire game over it.
Did I say they are brainless? No. I said people need to stop calling slower combat more strategic/tactical. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER. MMORPG combat simulator combat is not strategic or tactical, period. Tell me exactly the strategy or tactics involved beyond learning a rotation and maybe setting up raids/groups with the right set of classes in a typical traditional MMO combat system? I enjoy MMORPGs, even some with "combat simulator" combat, and I've raided in top level guilds in various MMOs and occasionally end game PvP when available (like WoW arenas), but there is absolutely no critical thinking involved in playing them from a combat perspective.
Most of the strategy in MMOs comes before the combat, the preparation, AKA the meta.
On the other hand if I was playing an action game like a Fighting Game or Shooter there is far more thought put into my decisions in combat as in there is more tactical depth. This games are faster paced, yet require more tactics and strategy and as I mentioned the speed of combat has nothing to do with tactics / strategy level of a game as turn based strategy games which are about as slow paced have agruably the most strategic and tactical depth of any game genre.
I address this in my post, a few posts prior to yours.
There is definitely more to MMO combat - particularly in ARR - than just "meta" and "rotations". I've had plenty of fights so far where party make-up was not a deciding factor (as it was not "hand-picked" for specific classes), and by no means was it a matter of "memorizing rotations". There was a lot more to it than that.
But again, you seem to be placing the most emphasis on the mechanics of it. Relying on the same rotation for everything is not a very wise way to approach fights where enemy behavior or group interaction requires or benefits from more "right response at the right time" style gameplay.
Speaking for myself, using pre-determined rotations accounts for maybe 50-60% of a fight. The rest of it is reaction and response to what the enemy is doing and using the best skill or action available to me at that moment to avoid, counter or cancel what the mob is doing.
Action combat has all the things you mentioned above. Instead of using "GCD" as a resource you use the animation/cast time times of attacks. For example in a Fighting Game each attack essentially has a resource based on the animation time (time before an attack lands, ie how many frames it takes and you can get frame advantage over your opponent), hit stun, recovery, and properties of the attack. Having more time between actions doesn't make it more strategic, it just means you have more time to make your decisions.
In a MMO with action combat there is positional attacks (look at Thieves in GW2 or Assassin in Blade and Soul), party coordination (combo fields in GW2), you have to deal with enemy actions and reactions (moreso usually than combat simulators). You do not have to pay attention to combos in FFXIV as they trigger off rotation (so I can just hit Fast Blade -> Check if Hits -> Riot Blade for example), on the other hand to use combo fields in GW2 you DO need to be paying attention since you can combo off other's fields. Action MMOs have limited resource systems too for example Wildstar has both Mana and a special class mechanic resource and stamina for dodging as does GW2. In the same token if you spam without thought in those games you'll likely run out of resources too.
The point is people saying FFXIV's combat is more tactical or strategic because it's slower and not "action combat" are wrong. You have just as many tactical decisions to make in a more action combat based MMO like Wildstar, GW2, or B&S in fact I'd agrue with all these games moreso than FFXIV.
So tired of these threads.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/446/view/forums/thread/388196/yoshida-explanations.html
I got to play a bit more this past weekend, and actually started to unlock some class combinations.
Yes, the combat is slower - it's designed that way. If your a twitch gamer, it will drive you crazy. I'm not, I found the slower pace more fun. I tend to think of most recent MMOs as button-mash facerollers - you pretty much mindlessly key in an "optimal" rotation that some other website tells you is optimal based on some "theorycrafting" spreadsheet. ARR deliberately slows that down and breaks away from it, and I appreciate it.
In the early levels (up to around 10-15 depending on class) - yes, you pretty much just smash one button over and over at a medium-slow pace. I will fault that, saying that the learning curve ramps up a bit too slow.
Once you do start to aggregate a few more advanced class abilities, combos start to come into play, and especially once cross-class abilities start to come in, then it starts to get more complicated. Sure, there may be an optimal rotation for DPS - but that isn't always optimal for the situation. Most every class brings some synergistic element to the table, in the form of buffs/debuffs/utility, and that almost always is contrary to personal DPS, but beneficial to the group in some way.
It's a very deliberate move away from "Me" and towards "Us". It isn't really apparent early on, and takes a long, slow while to get there, and I think that is the biggest failing right now. A lot of older MMO veterans are just going to write this off early on as shallow and slow, and it really isn't - at least once it gets to where it's going. It just takes a while to get there.
I play multiplayer Vicky 2, HOI 3, CK 2 and other grand strategy titles. I also play the civilization series, Total War series, and some lesser (imo) twitch "strategy" games like Warcraft/Starcraft though I prefer grand strategy to RTS. I find group MMORPG combat as found in FFXIV to involve more critical thinking than those genres. Especially because while a grand game of a Paradox title might take months, I spend years in my favorite MMORPG's constantly fine tuning my play and defeating new encounters. Not every encounter is as challenging as the last, and the quality depends on the designers. I happen to like the encounter designers at Square Enix employed for this game, I think they are capable of making continuously challenging content for me. If I find this is not the case a year or two down the road I will likely stop playing.
I teach for a living, I like to think I know what critical thought entails. In case some are confused, here is wikipedia's current definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
I employ critical thought in my MMORPG gaming, I take the mechanics available and I adapt them to specific encounters in order to best serve my group. I then communicate with the group of players I am playing with and together we engage in critical thought on how we can best defeat X. There are no formulaic answers, most endgame content I have played in my MMO's of choice (XI, Vanguard, XIV, WoW to an extent etc.) we have beaten many encounters using strategies and tactics the developers themselves mentioned they did not envision when designing the content. That requires critical thought.
So I think you are wrong.
http://xivpads.com/?1595680
http://guildwork.com/users/murugan
I'll also tell you my experience with two jobs in dungeons so far:
Conjurer (now 27) - Stand behind MOBs and at a decent range away, Spam Cure on Tank whenever health bar drops, use Medica if party is hit by AoE or another health bar drops aside from Tank, cast Protect every 30 minutes. Use Ethers on boss fights to keep mana up.
Gladiator (now 25) - Run in and spam Flash for enmity, Fast Blade->Riot Blade mana back up till TP low -> Spam Flash again -> Repeat till dungeon cleared. Watch MOB cast bar, and strafe to side if using conal attack or run out and Shield Lob if using PBAE telegraph. Use Rampart to mitigate damage on bosses even though it was never needed.
Now granted I'm not level capped yet. Maybe the combat improves, but from what I can tell so far I doubt it. Combat starting off so slow and boring is bad design in my opinion, but hey some people might like that, but calling it strategic or tactical is just absurd.
Not everyone is a pro elite gamer like you. Not accounting for the fact is what's bad design.
That's not to say the class skills don't need some fleshing out even at max level. But to say that giving new players a fair start is "bad design"? A break, give me it.
Well you are a noob, and a sucesssful MMO does not punish noobs for not knowing how to play the game perfectly.
I'm sure whatever game you prefer starts out super challenging, this one doesn't. It tries to teach people how to play before inttroducing more mechanics. This is also how most MMORPG's and really RPG's in general have been designed since EQ1, the idea is to not overwhelm players.
Some games give you everything out of the gate, there isn't much progression and what you see at the start is pretty much the full extent of what you are going to get. Most RPG's do not work like that, I'm sorry you think it is bad game design, a lot of more successful RPG developers disagree with you.
Maybe you should make your own title, or recommend a title for people like you who can't stomach FFXIV.
I can tell you one thing though, I've played MMO's with people like you for over a decade. I don't want to play with people like you. I don't think our personalities, what we look for in games, and how we define challenge or fun or proper social etiquette are compatible. So I'm not trying to sell you on FFXIV. For you, I think you are right. This game would not be fun, and you would likely make it less fun for people playing with you because you aren't having fun at it.
All I have learned from your posts is that whatever IMPACT GAMING community is, I want to stay far away from it.
http://xivpads.com/?1595680
http://guildwork.com/users/murugan
Really? You find MMORPG combat to require more critical thinking than a turn based strategy game? I don't even know what to tell you at this point. I guess since I've mastered (cleared the hardest content in game) most MMORPGs I've played I'm some sort of Sun Tzu or George S. Patton or something. I should probably inform the military I'm a master strategist so they can employ me right away!
Probably, do you play any of those games I listed? You haven't even said what turn based strategy game you hold as the epitome of strategy and tact.
I'm a huge strategy buff, that and MMO's are the only games that can hold my interest anymore. I'd say we should play together, but I'll be honest I really don't like you and I couldn't stand playing a game with you. But I use the same moniker in a lot of games, so keep an eye out for me I guess. Maybe you can crush me in a game we both play because as you say you are just smarter than me.
http://xivpads.com/?1595680
http://guildwork.com/users/murugan
I've never once said I can't stomach FFXIV. Actually I like the game, except the combat. Everything else about the game is good to great. There is more to FFXIV than just combat after all.
The only thing I'm taking issue with here is people saying slower combat means it's more tactical or strategic especially that FFXIV has more strategic/tactical depth than other MMORPGs, which is simply not the case at all. In it's current state the combat is fairly bland, lacks depth found in other MMORPG combat systems (including other ones employing the traditional combat simulator style combat) at least from what I can tell currently. Maybe I'm throwing my foot in my mouth here and it dramatically improves once you hit cap, but having played FFXIV 1.0 and knowing the abilities that were available there I seriously doubt it.
You keep twisting my words around. Where did I say I am smarter than you? I don't know how intelligent you are, just that me and you clearly have a difference of opinion of what entails strategy and tactics.
As for what games I play (nice ad hominem) I do play Civ and used to play other strategy titles like Age of Empires, Total Annihilation, Starcraft/Warcraft, HOMM, most "Tactics" games such as X-COM, Jagged Alliance, Fire Emblem, FF Tactics, and Tactics Ogre. X-COM (the original) remains one of my top 10 favorite games of all time. Overall I'm not as big on strategy games as some others are.
This might be the funniest thing I have read so far. I mean, that was truly jaw dropping. I wonder how many people would agree with that.
I've already addressed that and gave a variety of detailed examples, clarifications and explanations, based on personal hands-on experience with a variety of encounters in the game so far, of how strategy and tact is not only possible.. but actually necessary in a number of situations.
You provided no counter-arguments to anything I said. All you basically said was "Action Combat has all that, too".
Yet you're here repeating basically the same thing I'd responded to in the first place.
You're basically just stubbornly clinging to a mantra at this point.
Not the most fertile ground for a discussion.
All the examples you gave exist in other MMORPGs from Action ones to old school combat simulators (like Everquest). So again, how is FFXIV MORE strategic and have more tactical depth than these MMOs? I'm not stubbornly clinging to my "mantra", there is no depth in FFXIV that doesn't exist in other MMORPG combat systems. Even EQ had things like positional attacks and resource management (more so as it was very easy to run out of said resources).
I played all those games, and most of them are very light on "strategy". If you want strategy you need to play grand strategy titles, such as those from Paradox. As for tactics I played X-COM what was tactical about it? You have a tiny amount of classes and abilities compared to well FFXIV, there is not a lot of depth (just flanking, Line of Sight, overwatch etc. etc.). I got bored with it, I only beat it because FFXIV was down and if it weren't I doubt I would have finished the game.
But that's cool you like the game, I don't. You are right we disagree about the depth of tactics in that game, just like we do regarding FFXIV.
You mentioned in your previous post putting your foot in your mouth since you haven't played endgame or higher level combat. You then say you played 1.0, but I guess you deleted your character otherwise you would have access to your high level max endgame character that beat Darnus, Ifrit Extreme, has relics, and beat all the primals. I would think you would use your experiences with that character in this last weekend's test to demonstrate your analysis of depth of the current combat system.
Why didn't you?
I played 1.0 up until the very last patch when I had to unfortunately take a break due to a work related crisis IRL. I really regret not being able to do content like Darnus hard which very few people beat and was apparently a very tough and fun fight. I did get to do Garuda though, and I really liked that encounter. Now it is a single group encounter so I won't compare it to raids in previous MMO's I've played, but I would say it was very good for what it was. The fight involved multiple phases, fast reactions, and coordinated movement/attacks of the group. It is difficult to describe depth of "challenge" in a game in a message. It was fun for me, it was challenging enough, and I look forward to more like it and a progression of increasingly difficult encounters from the people who managed to design that given how limiting the original engine was.
I really look forward to endgame in ARR, I have a free company with people I enjoy playing with and together I think we will have a lot of fun in the new primal fights, the new raid zones, and whatever other content they add. I love grand strategy titles too, but once we get rolling FFXIV will probably consume all of my gaming time and that is enough to satisfy me.
http://xivpads.com/?1595680
http://guildwork.com/users/murugan
You kept saying ARR is not tactical or strategic. Suddenly now it's "more strategic and tactical than other MMO's".
Other MMO's being as strategic does not make this game any less strategic.
It is too bad that your demands for more strategic game are not met. But don't go around saying the game is not strategic nor tactical when you yourself went back on your word.
Because I played before all those things you mentioned were added to the game. Endgame before that in FFXIV was grinding Raptors, leves, and crafting in Ul'dah. Combat on Lancer mostly boiled down to mashing Feint (and another skill I don't remember the name of) and mass buffing a single attack with buffs from other jobs every once in a while for more damage.
You are most likely thinking of Skull Sunder, I agree though it was a terrible combat/skill/progression system in the game originally. That is why they did a complete rehaul on all of it.
I see, so when you say "I seriously doubt it will get any better based on my experiences in 1.0" you did not even play to see the development changes made by the new director/producer.
Well that makes sense. It was a completely different game by the end, you can't compare combat in <1.17? At least <1.21 when they added jobs, or whenever you quit to what the team did with the game. That kinda matters because it is indicative of their design philosophy and capabilities. Whereas what you played was leftover from the previous director and has very little to do with ARR or the current direction of the game (in fact since he was replaced I'd suggest your experiences are totally worthless since the whole point of ARR was to radically change the game).
Is it name calling to say you are simply ignorant of the actual state of endgame and design in FFXIV? I just got back from my last ban after the f2p/p2p debates, but I think here it is not me being excessively negative towards you. Despite you saying that you had a good idea what to expect based on your experiences with endgame in 1.0, you didn't really have any experiences with the endgame of that game as during the time you were playing it had been all scrapped while they were working on core systems (Tanaka had plans laid out, but most of it was shelved once he lost his position while the new team went about trying to "fix" the game).
Tanaka for example was a radical and rabid anti-endgame director (for XIV at least). He envisioned a game where the story could all be completed by crafters and gatherers through the "parley" system, and all combat tied to the story would contain no challenge or actual combat for this reason. He designed the fatigue/surplus system to punish people who played "too much" and level the playing field. He was anti alliance content (his engine didn't even allow for large groups of players on the screen) and instead thought 15 person parties for everything was a good idea, and a leveling system that was based off of skill use rather than mob level/difficulty (so ideally groups should level by taking as much damage as possible, dealing as little damage as possible until everyone "capped" their SP etc. basically assbackwards from how you would typically play an RPG). So different direction entirely when you played from when yoshida took over and (for most of us) fixed these philosophical "issues".
http://xivpads.com/?1595680
http://guildwork.com/users/murugan
I guess the part of the combat that irritates me at the low levels was that I pretty much have to tank every mob. At least in EQ1 I could kite (fear or aggro) or root rot. WoW destroyed kiting for the most part and forced everyone to stand stationary toe to toe with the mob...it wasn't fun in a solo situation. I understand that there is more to the group combat game but I'm talking about solo combat.
I assume when you get to higher levels and have access to more powerful CC abilities things could get interesting. With this game being primarily PvE focused there is no reason to skimp on CC abilities and powerful PvE skills (buff and combat skills alike). As it stands the early level combat is dreadful. I like to push the limits of soloing ability but when a game pretty much forces you to tank everything there isn't much you can do to push the limits.
I would also hope the later zones have a sense of danger as you walk around them, unlike most themeparks lately (TSW being the exception).
There just seems to be too much hoping for a box purchase and a sub fee.