Comments from the Devs

[Lucavi]

You claimed that the reason why spells were tiered in XI was because of the ineffectiveness of mage auto-attack, yet this problem is even worse in XIV and there are still no tiers (except for Cure, which has nothing to do with auto-attack).

Whoever claimed that was an idiot. Spells were tiered in XI because spells are tiered in FF, period. Spells are not tiered in XIV because Yoshi realized that adding everything that FF does into an MMO just because is a fools errand. No more, no less.

[Takiwaki]

Blog post, its a day old not sure if it was already posted lol

http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/blog

http://rss.finalfantasyxiv.com/jp/bl...20130531_3.jpg

[Kachiko]

You claimed that the reason why spells were tiered in XI was because of the ineffectiveness of mage auto-attack, yet this problem is even worse in XIV and there are still no tiers (except for Cure, which has nothing to do with auto-attack).

Another way of stating, what I wrote, was that, in the absence of an equivalent mage-auto attack, like a melee can do just by swinging their weapon, FFXI's only alternative was to cast a lower spell to keep a reasonable MP/Damage ratio. There are multiple ways around this aside from laddering your spell tiers, albeit it is traditional FF mechanics and that is what FFXI entire game play was created around; something Yoshi has stated, and most everyone else has acknowledged, is backwards in today's MMO mechanics. Look at any other game and they find a way around this; TERA with the basic Fireball attack, GW2 scaling for all abilities to name a couple.

So the reason why having access to lower cost/potency spells is bad is because all weak enemies should die in one attack? What if you want to cast a spell (vs. something that matters) while managing your MP? What if you want to manage your enmity? These are all real concerns.

Enmity matters not when you are killing things lower then your level, and most games give players the capability of farming them without your MP staying at zero. If properly scaled, a single spell should kill anything not approaching your level, while taking the minimum necessary MP to do so; aka, a basic mage auto-attack. If you cast that same spell on a mob where enmity does matter, it won't take the same amount of damage and your enmity lies more in your rotation of abilities vs your tanks ability to keep hate; this assumes Enmity is the same mechanic in ARR.

I still don't get the complaint about "redundancy" in spell tiers. You want to cast your max potency, max MP cost spell every time? Sort your spell list so your max tier spells are at the top. Now you have fully simulated XIV's system of increasing damage and potency, and as long as you don't scroll down too far, you will never be forced to deal with the troublesome problem of having-too-many-spells-to-choose-from.

When you branch out and try some other games, you'll start to understand that there's simply no reason to have tiered spells and a cluttered menu. Other games have a plethora of abilities, most of which are different and have unique affects, all of which scale properly, for the environment in which they were created for. Perhaps traditional FF mechanics are pigeon-holed into tiered spells; I hope, for the sake of ARR, that this isn't the case.

[niwaar]

Furthermore, there are real reasons why other games in the genre have actually rewritten their spellbooks and removed multi-tiered spells. Yes it removed the ability to use an "efficiency" spell instead of a full cost spell to maintain damage/healing. But this type of gameplay is gone. We are not spamming Cure3/5 on our tank vs Vrtra. We are not spamming Cure7 to keep our manapool ready for heavier spells during a phase change during Illidan or Kalecgos. These times are over. Instead we are given the ability to not "spam" ability after ability in order to maintain our enmity level. We are given spells that have a different function in order fill gaps such as a choice between what is best for the job at hand. ie Cure vs Medica vs Curaga.

[Spider-Dan]

And yet all of those things can exist in a world where Cure has a static MP cost/potency and you get to choose which version of Cure you want.

If you could somehow hold down the cast button (or some similar mechanic, not necessarily that one) and choose to not use a fully-upscaled spell for less MP, that would be one thing. But having less options is not better gameplay. It's lazy, dumbed-down gameplay, and every single argument presented for "current gen MMOs" still works perfectly fine if you get to select which tier of a spell you use. The existence of Fire/Fira/Firaga does not mean that you have to revert to spamming spells or that you cannot use Chameleon or Parsimony or Nerve Drops. It gives you a choice as to which spell you want to cast, instead of forcing you to always cast Firaga because you're LV50 and Big Boys Cast Big Spells.

The gravity of the naked "other MMOs don't do it, so it must not be good" argument is rather significantly diminished by the fact that other MMOs also don't allow you to change classes or cross-class skills. The rules are already different.

[Stanislaw]

And yet all of those things can exist in a world where Cure has a static MP cost/potency and you get to choose which version of Cure you want.

If you could somehow hold down the cast button (or some similar mechanic, not necessarily that one) and choose to not use a fully-upscaled spell for less MP, that would be one thing. But having less options is not better gameplay. It's lazy, dumbed-down gameplay, and every single argument presented for "current gen MMOs" still works perfectly fine if you get to select which tier of a spell you use. The existence of Fire/Fira/Firaga does not mean that you have to revert to spamming spells or that you cannot use Chameleon or Parsimony or Nerve Drops. It gives you a choice as to which spell you want to cast, instead of forcing you to always cast Firaga because you're LV50 and Big Boys Cast Big Spells.

The gravity of the naked "other MMOs don't do it, so it must not be good" argument is rather significantly diminished by the fact that other MMOs also don't allow you to change classes or cross-class skills. The rules are already different.

On the other hand, the only argument I'm seeing here about the pros of tier spells is 'more options'. I will go further and concede that by adding tier spells it give the devs the option to allow more cross-class skills by allowing the lower-tired ones able to be crossed over to other classes. But, honestly, even if people are given the option to cross-class such spells, the fact remains that the majority wouldn't use them period because most of the time it will be utterly useless. Jobs tailored to a more-specific role will always be more in demand. You don't bring tons of DRKs to an enemy weak to elemental magic, right?

Also, the argument for tied spells is further diminished by the fact that mob elemental weaknesses is removed in ARR, which almost completely erases the benefits of lower-tiered spells to be cross-classed over to other jobs.

Another thing too is that while you argue that having less options is not better gameplay and it's a lazy dumbed-down gameplay, the argument goes both ways. Having 3+ abilities that does the same thing while the only difference is damage/cost looks very dumb too. It shows the devs aren't willing to put the thought into making each ability unique. Being swarmed with tons of abilities doesn't automatically translate into better gameplay.

That said, it could be argued that tier spells are beneficial to have in situations where the player is just barely on the threshold of stealing enmity away from the tank and the player wants a lower-powered spell to cast so they can remain under that threshold. But let's not forget, there is always the option of NOT casting at all until you're safe to cast again, and that itself is a fine gameplay mechanic. Mindlessly firing off lower tier spells over and over again just for the sake of having something to do seems mindless and boring in itself.

Of course, then there's the argument of 'why can't we have both mechanics'? As to that, well, have you ever read the thread where people are crying for FFXI-like NMs/HNMs implemented in the beta forums? There's your answer. Things should stick something solid and not a 'compensation' just to satisfy the other crowd. Because when that happens, in the end, it makes both parties unhappy.

[Oreth]

So anything interesting come out of the German show?

[Hyan]

lots of sauerkraut and lederhosen aside, I guess not.

[Gokulo]

So anything interesting come out of the German show?

Nope afaik, they showed old trailers only.

[Spider-Dan]

On the other hand, the only argument I'm seeing here about the pros of tier spells is 'more options'.

Isn't "more options" a legitimate benefit in and of itself? It gives you more choices to make, which further separates people who care about maximizing their performance.

But, honestly, even if people are given the option to cross-class such spells, the fact remains that the majority wouldn't use them period because most of the time it will be utterly useless.

Agreed, and fine with me. I don't see a rarely-used spell as a negative (when compared to simply eliminating that spell's existence).

Also, the argument for tied spells is further diminished by the fact that mob elemental weaknesses is removed in ARR, which almost completely erases the benefits of lower-tiered spells to be cross-classed over to other jobs.

That doesn't really apply; even if nukes were completely non-elemental, sometimes you want a lower cost/enmity nuke.

Another thing too is that while you argue that having less options is not better gameplay and it's a lazy dumbed-down gameplay, the argument goes both ways. Having 3+ abilities that does the same thing while the only difference is damage/cost looks very dumb too. It shows the devs aren't willing to put the thought into making each ability unique.

That's a fair argument, but it doesn't apply to tiered spells. Aero3 is not a "more unique" spell than Aero2 (it's just the-same-but-more), and simply replacing Aero2 with Aero3 as you level up (which is effectively what XIV does) doesn't really make the game look more well-planned, any more than eliminating your ability to buy or equip low-level gear would make the gear progression look more well-planned.

That said, it could be argued that tier spells are beneficial to have in situations where the player is just barely on the threshold of stealing enmity away from the tank and the player wants a lower-powered spell to cast so they can remain under that threshold. But let's not forget, there is always the option of NOT casting at all until you're safe to cast again, and that itself is a fine gameplay mechanic.

The option to not cast also exists in a world with tiered spells. Removing tiered spells just changes your options from cast big spell/cast smaller version of that spell/[do something else]/do nothing to cast big spell/[do something else]/do nothing. And sometimes the choice to cast a smaller version is what you would want.

Of course, then there's the argument of 'why can't we have both mechanics'? As to that, well, have you ever read the thread where people are crying for FFXI-like NMs/HNMs implemented in the beta forums? There's your answer.

Again, that comparison doesn't really apply. We all know that the people who want FFXI-like HNMs would not be happy if they simply existed; they must have desirable drops worthy of the effort. And putting desirable drops on XI-style HNMs is in direct conflict with not forcing players to endure that kind of nonsense to get good gear.

In contrast, the direct conflict of tiered spells is... "forcing" players to ignore some spells they don't want to use anyway. And it's not even necessarily that; SE could implement some sort of hold-the-button or double-click option (or, ideally, something better, as I'm no UI designer) where players could choose to have the ability to cast a lower-level/cost version of their "untiered' spells. That would keep things nice and simple for the max-potency-at-all-times crowd, without subjecting them to long lists of spells to ignore.

Or they could just implement the solution clamored for in XI: an "unlearn spell" button, which solves the problem at every level.

[arus2001]

Giant spell/ability lists are nice in slower paced games, but the more reactive nature of MMOs runs the risk of turning things into a finger-warping symphony of ctrl/alt/shift+number mashing. There's a reason I hate reaching past 5 with my left hand, and fuck playing back and forth with a mouse on the right. So, if that means less tiers, being dumbed down, or whatever, fine with me. "Go buy such and such gaming hardware, then!" No thanks. And not everyone else will, either. Nevermind the console and PC gap.

Personally, I'd just like to see skills evolve more when satisfying various criteria. Think like some of the Tales where using an Arte X number of times changes it animation and sometimes combos with other Artes to create new abilities that may mix functions or create totally new utility. And while this might translate to certain abilities eventually becoming useless, that's honestly not much different than XI in rarely, if ever, using Cure 1 in level 99 content or first tier BRD songs. Of course, ability growth can be achieved in other ways like INT/MATK buffing a nuke, too. "Wanting more MP efficient cures" can also be achieved by gear with that particular stat. And odds are it'd probably rarely get mixed with potency options, but if it is, you can figure both would be lesser than specialized pieces.

[Elcura]

Pretty sure we've had this argument before (certainly because Spider Dan keeps bringing it up whenever possible). All in all it's pretty entertaining to watch Spider Dan cling to tiered spells like he's hanging off the edge of a cliff.

[arus2001]

Probably. I know I've rambled about comfort in control schemes before, particularly in letting keyboard only be a thing for the game.

[Stanislaw]

Isn't "more options" a legitimate benefit in and of itself? It gives you more choices to make, which further separates people who care about maximizing their performance.

You will at least admit that having something like 10 tiers of the same spell will just be outright ridiculous, right? But, by going by your example, people who care about 'maximizing performance' and micromanaging even the slightest bit of ability differences will actually like the option. Heck, perhaps even the best solution will be an menu where you can set a 'percentage' of power each time you cast a spell so you have total freedom of how much power you want to put into a spell depending on a cost. Ratio effectiveness galore!

The problem here is that ARR doesn't want to make this game overly complicated and keep the doors open wide as possible so people will have an easier (read: not easy) time adjusting to what they can do. This is where streamlining has the best effect. Granted, people on the other end of the spectrum will cry foul that this is all hand-holding and dumbing down. It's really all a matter of perspective, but again, there is no pleasing both parties and the best solution will just to stick to one mechanic and not a 'compensation'.

That doesn't really apply; even if nukes were completely non-elemental, sometimes you want a lower cost/enmity nuke.

It actually does. Think about it for a moment: cross-classable lower cost/enmity nuke already exists. The difference here is having one nuke versus 2+ nukes which does the same thing.

To take ARR vs FFXI as an example so it's easier to illustrate, it's the difference of having a cross-classable 'Stone' from CNJ in ARR vs having 'Stone' + 'Aero' + 'Water' + 'Fire' + 'Thunder' + 'Blizzard' and all of its corresponding lower tiers by subbing BLM in FFXI. The only difference between the two is the varying degrees of (low) damage differences from gaining access to the BLM-subbed spells and the fact that you could target the enemy's elemental weakness in FFXI. And let's face it, if people in FFXI wanted access to those spells they mostly did it for the sake of the latter if we're looking at effective uses in using all of its tiered options. If all they wanted was a low-attack spell for pulling or something, then a cross-classable spell from ARR do the trick just fine. Heck, it's even a valid option in ARR because you don't have to sit down to heal MP (although it's mostly negated by the fact that most melee classes have a ranged attack option anyway).

The fundamental problem here is that FFXI and ARR is not the same. It may share the same player models, quite a few of the same enemy models, several terms like Linkshells and Weaponskills and classic FF names of spells, but it is NOT THE SAME. What works in one doesn't necessarily translate to success in the other. IT'S ALL IN TEH NAME OF BALANSU!

Joking aside, all of this is in the dev's hand. If they've decided this is the best course of action, all we can do is submit feedback and try to steer them in a more favorable direction. Too many people think they can turn them completely around. I especially hate those people clamoring for ditching PS3 and release ARR on the PS4 onry. Good god.

That's a fair argument, but it doesn't apply to tiered spells. Aero3 is not a "more unique" spell than Aero2 (it's just the-same-but-more), and simply replacing Aero2 with Aero3 as you level up (which is effectively what XIV does) doesn't really make the game look more well-planned, any more than eliminating your ability to buy or equip low-level gear would make the gear progression look more well-planned.

See, the thing is I view as tiered spells already DO exist in ARR. In ARR, a higher tiered spell does not only more damage, but also does a few things extra. Even lower tiered spells sometimes have that plus alpha stuff. Your argument of tiered spells in the standard FF progression of Aero > Aero 2 > Aero 3 > etc where the only difference is the same-but-more. The biggest difference between the standard model and ARR is, like you said, where spells become more powerful and costly as the players level up. But is this any different from people who play a game under the standard model that stops using the lower tiered spells as soon as they learn a higher tiered one? Again, in the end it all falls back to the argument of having 'more options' versus 'streamlining'.

The option to not cast also exists in a world with tiered spells. Removing tiered spells just changes your options from cast big spell/cast smaller version of that spell/[do something else]/do nothing to cast big spell/[do something else]/do nothing. And sometimes the choice to cast a smaller version is what you would want.

Again the argument of having 'more options' versus 'streamlining'. But given the four options under the tiered spell system, frankly, I think the choice of being able to cast a smaller version of a spell is rarely chosen, especially when there are tons of 'smaller versions' options to choose from (ex: ALL tier III and lower spells for BLM - the majority of them will never be used per encounter). And, like I said, I already view as tiers already existing in ARR. It's like the difference of casting Stone vs Stone II when the situation calls for it.

Again, that comparison doesn't really apply. We all know that the people who want FFXI-like HNMs would not be happy if they simply existed; they must have desirable drops worthy of the effort.

You'd be surprised. People were even calling for Jormungund like mobs. And yes, I mean drop-wise too.

And putting desirable drops on XI-style HNMs is in direct conflict with not forcing players to endure that kind of nonsense to get good gear.

In contrast, the direct conflict of tiered spells is... "forcing" players to ignore some spells they don't want to use anyway. And it's not even necessarily that; SE could implement some sort of hold-the-button or double-click option (or, ideally, something better, as I'm no UI designer) where players could choose to have the ability to cast a lower-level/cost version of their "untiered' spells. That would keep things nice and simple for the max-potency-at-all-times crowd, without subjecting them to long lists of spells to ignore.

Or they could just implement the solution clamored for in XI: an "unlearn spell" button, which solves the problem at every level.

The 'direct' conflict tiered spells have is, again, the fact that it makes the game less streamlined. It could also be argued that it clutters the UI, but I guess that's a minor detail when the option to set abilities on the hotbar exists.

However, this issue only applies to the abilities that can be cross-classed. It frankly wasn't much of a problem in FFXI because of the existence of macros, but unlike FFXI, in ARR all abilities of the primarily learned class/job are automatically set on the hotbar so it DOES clutter up the UI.

Of course, like you said, an "unlearn spell" button or an option to remove automatically set abilities on the hotbar will solve this problem. But by doing this, it still doesn't change the fact that the 'unlearned' abilities will not be making a comeback for most people because it means that the ability has become obsolete. ARR tries to make each spell/ability have a purpose all the way up to 50, not just a purpose in 'minor, situational' uses but a purpose where it could be used in almost every single encounter. The solution here is to have more options that are constantly used, not 'only used under this certain special situation', which is a problem most lower-tiered abilities have.

[Enygma55]

D3 is suffering from this problem which they plan to patch. The game drops so many rares/legendaries with useless stats that no one wants. What they plan to do is try to have less items drop but more quality stats so 95% of all drops arnt crap.

Quality vs Quantity I suppose.

This is the same idea FFXIV is trying to achieve with designing spells/abilities where they are all useful 80% of the time. Some spells will still be tiered to account for level growth and learning new things but they are more than just +dmg.

[miokomioko]

Some spells will still be tiered to account for level growth and learning new things

I don't even see that at all. The tiered spells that exist mostly exist for different effects through the same element, but also encouraging combos, which are bigger MP and time commitments with larger damage value, thus require a little more thought/strategy.

[Obsidian]

Pretty sure we've had this argument before (certainly because Spider Dan keeps bringing it up whenever possible). All in all it's pretty entertaining to watch Spider Dan cling to tiered spells like he's hanging off the edge of a cliff.

Wouldn't be hangin' there if he could just Stone III a slab of rock out underneath his feet. Can't do that with I/II.

[Kachiko]

Pretty sure we've had this argument before (certainly because Spider Dan keeps bringing it up whenever possible). All in all it's pretty entertaining to watch Spider Dan cling to tiered spells like he's hanging off the edge of a cliff.

I wouldn't call it 'hanging off a cliff' so much as he enjoys the tiered spell FFXI game mechanic within the constraints imposed by the FFXI game itslef. The problem is that ARR isn't using the FFXI constraints, thereby making the desire for a tiered spell game mechanic irrelevant within the ARR world. Yoshi understands this, I think the vast majority of MMO players understand this, and we're just indulging the spirit of Debate until we see P3 of ARR, when we'll be able to make a fairly definitive statement on how successful the game is likely to be.

[Lucavi]

Well a mod hasn't told him, and everyone else, to shut up about it, so its likely to continue until some fresh news develops.

[Spider-Dan]

It's more like I don't like the idea of my existing spell growing in MP cost.

In previous FFs (including XI), spells get more powerful as you level up (that is, the same spell); Cure2 at LV50 is significantly weaker than it is at LV15, but it costs the same MP the whole time. In XIV, this is also the case... but the spell keeps increasing in MP cost. That's what I don't care for.

From an MP budgeting standpoint, I'd rather have spells that maintain fixed costs. Part of the advantage of leveling up is getting more MP, but your increased MP is deceptive because all your existing spells cost more too. Why not just have fixed costs and smaller MP gains?

This is before considering the fact that with this kind of "MP inflation," gear or buffs that provide fixed bonuses (e.g. MP+50 or 5MP/tick) become weaker and weaker as you gain levels.