Who's got the Gambits playing the game for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zargabaath

And not using gambits does not hinder gameplay as much. Using Wait mode is a bit too slow and I could see that pressing "Square" to bring up the menu every time an action bar fills can be tedious, probably more tedious and hectic than using normally. But the player still has the ability to use magick, espers, & teckniks while without junctioning all there is in Final Fantasy VIII: Attack & Item (I believe).

At least I have never said playing without gambits for the party leader would feel like the older games, though the ATB is different from Turn-based. Active Dimension Battle is very much ATB with the ability to move around the battlefield. Gauges still fill up. Controlling the party leader does give the player more control & the game plays similar to a Star Ocean, a Tales of, or Rogue Galaxy game(s); people don't complain with those games. Yes I can foresee complaints that Final Fantasy isn't supposed to be like those games. However without any change to the series there would have always been elemental crystals and turn-based combat. The series can also be inspired or take from another source; Final Fantasy & Final Fantasy II had things in them from Hayao Miyazaki's films (Laputa: Castle in the Sky & Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind). Though in the case of gambits and gameplay, Final Fantasy XII wasn't inspired by those games I listed but by American Football.

---

Nah, it doesn't hinder gamplay that much, it is like you said, tedious.
I remember a BCE(bad camera enemy) was next to me and I started to attack it, I didn't know what it was or if it was invisible but if I did it manually, I would have gotten a cheap shot.
Does it make the game harder? No, in all seriousness, it may make the game easier if you use the "wait" system. But, for me, the main game went by quickly and the superbosses I would have never waited through using manuals.

Oh and, some monsters are assholes lol, the ones with super Def for Hp.]

I brought up FF8 to just say that I am using what is given to me, not abusing it.

Oh and you can only Attack without junctions, you need to use junction for Items as well.

Making long posts is a risk for me with my dying computer so i'll keep it short.

Gambits are supposed to be part of the game, use them and its boring, don't use them and you are ignoring an important part of the game and it still only hurts gameplay.

Gambits were a mediocre idea to make a terrible battle system function better. Use them and it's just an AI set by the user which makes the game boring. Don't use them and you ignore the purpose not to make the game harder, just more frustrating. Materia and Junctions are a core part of the battle/customization of their games and with or without them the games battles can still be good. Keep or lose the gambits and its lose/lose either way, boring or tedious take your pick.

The gambit system does not have to be used you can turn gambits off and control all your characters manually, but for ease of use I would prefer to use the Gambit system than individually picking each charcters action during a a battle. Also you can override Gambit action if your needs require you too do so you still have the ability for ultimate contro of your characters if you don't want to use the Gambit System. Your choice.

Gambits are so annoying. I find that whenever I use them I end up dying faster..?

I love the gambit system because i used the gambit system to afk train all my characters to lvl 60 becasue i kept dieing to cid with his franfrit

i just set the gambits then go off to revise as they take care of the boss. i beat vayne by that, and all i did was read ouran high school host club. i chipped in for the end. just for the quickenings though

Well, I have them to attack the nearest visible -which I think many have- and when an allies HP are about 50%, I'll have them cast Curaga.
That's pretty much all of my gambits, so I'm not using them that much.
But at some moments I really have to customize them until my brain can't take it anymore x)

The fact that you can walk away from the game with the gambits on just shows how bad of a game it is. You are not even playing this game, you are just watching it. Yeah sure you can set it so that there are no gambit, but SE intended you to use the gambits, otherwise why have them there. The fact that they gave you a choice to set gambits for all three characters is bad, it takes you out of the game and gives you less control, something went wrong there. The point of a game is to give you that sense of control and individual development, this game lets you sit on the sofa or actually leave the game and play something else. That's bad programming.

I think having the Gambits system is one of the main reasons that, although I have had the game since it came out.....I have never finished it.

I always ended up falling asleep.....then waking up next morning with the title screen on, having had a game over.....about just after I fell asleep.

To this day I can't figure out what I think of the gambits. Sometimes they were a great help to me, than other times they were the cause of my game overs. I tweaked them alot though as the game went on based on my party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 01habbo

The fact that you can walk away from the game with the gambits on just shows how bad of a game it is. You are not even playing this game, you are just watching it. Yeah sure you can set it so that there are no gambit, but SE intended you to use the gambits, otherwise why have them there. The fact that they gave you a choice to set gambits for all three characters is bad, it takes you out of the game and gives you less control, something went wrong there. The point of a game is to give you that sense of control and individual development, this game lets you sit on the sofa or actually leave the game and play something else. That's bad programming.

---

I love how today's kids can't make decisions for themselves. For instance, multiplayer is huge part of Call of Duty games, do I really have to play it, well, by habbo's logic yes because Activision intended for me to play it, why else would they include it. I however say no because I hate playing with kids and men who behave like kids, simple as that.

Just recently I found a great adventure game, it contains old school puzzles, it also gives you an option to skip any puzzle you want, in other words you can beat the game without doing anything really. Now, does that mean it's a bad game? Far from it, just because some tard went the easy street does not mean it's a bad game, game itself can't be blamed for your own choice, for something you did.

Same with Final Fantasy XII, Square gave you a choice, it's up to you to chose in which manner you're gonna play the game. If by any chance Final Fantasy XII plays itself, it's because you set it that way, and if you don't like it than go with combination that suits you the most, how hard is that. And if your really want to have full control over your characters turn off the gambits, I'm sure Square wont sue you. If by any chance you're still wondering why Square included gambits if it's ideal to play without them, well, some people require help, and it's always nice to have an option where you can set your AI behavior the way you want, to change it depending on various circumstances.

When I first beat the game i had easy gambit combos, just so I can better focus on the story. Other playthrus I've changed up Gambit combos for more cool strategic battles.

I used the gambits to their full advantage. Does that mean I can't think for myself, make my own decisions and what have you? NO! Here's why:

I carefully picked my gambits according to the battle. I thought everything through to a tee. If something wasn't going right, I would take over the character and fix whatever went wrong. Sure, there were times where I could walk away, but that was because my characters were strong enough to handle it themselves. If I was fighting something like Fenrir/Fafnir (or one of the stronger hunts/monsters) I would always monitor everything. Constantly switching leaders to make sure no one went stupid on me.

The gambits were convenient. Instead of always healing my party through the battle menu, they would just do it themselves, leaving me to worry about the attack. I even had a triangle going on sometimes when I had 1 char on full offence and the other 2 as archers/magic. It was fun.

If you're walking away from the TV screen while playing, I think there's something either seriously wrong with you, or you have placed so much trust in your gambits, you feel as if you're not playing the game at all. If you weren't playing the game, how did you get the gambits the way they were in the first place? You must have played the game in order to set it up so perfectly. Is that still bad programming?

Also, a tip for you all. If you're finding yourself bored watching battles, start running around the monster. Your character will still attack, but I did that to avoid getting hit. Especially when my character was the one that was targeted. The monster can't hit a moving target very often and it'll move onto another character soon enough. That was the key to my success.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanatos

I love how today's kids can't make decisions for themselves. For instance, multiplayer is huge part of Call of Duty games, do I really have to play it, well, by habbo's logic yes because Activision intended for me to play it, why else would they include it. I however say no because I hate playing with kids and men who behave like kids, simple as that.

Just recently I found a great adventure game, it contains old school puzzles, it also gives you an option to skip any puzzle you want, in other words you can beat the game without doing anything really. Now, does that mean it's a bad game? Far from it, just because some tard went the easy street does not mean it's a bad game, game itself can't be blamed for your own choice, for something you did.

Same with Final Fantasy XII, Square gave you a choice, it's up to you to chose in which manner you're gonna play the game. If by any chance Final Fantasy XII plays itself, it's because you set it that way, and if you don't like it than go with combination that suits you the most, how hard is that. And if your really want to have full control over your characters turn off the gambits, I'm sure Square wont sue you. If by any chance you're still wondering why Square included gambits if it's ideal to play without them, well, some people require help, and it's always nice to have an option where you can set your AI behavior the way you want, to change it depending on various circumstances.

---

Yeah stick to the discussion please and don't start insulting me at the first sentence, I can make choices myself and I'm 23 thank you very much. Jeez.

The point is that the choice is still there, the choice still takes away the point of playing the game. Infact it's not even a choice it's like Square is saying Well do you want to watch or play the game? I'm sure most people brought the game to play it so they are led to not use some of the gambits anyway. Like I said yeah I could choose NOT to use them, but then that's just stupid. It's like not using a part of a game because it restricts gameplay. I believe that is something you only do yourself once you completed the game and want to give yourself a harder challenge, not the first time round. Yeah sure people want help, but they don't want the game played for them! It's still bad programming. Why should those who want a little help still be taken away from the game, anyone at any difficulty should be able to get as involved and in charge of the characters choices like anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 01habbo

The point is that the choice is still there, the choice still takes away the point of playing the game. Infact it's not even a choice it's like Square is saying Well do you want to watch or play the game? I'm sure most people brought the game to play it so they are led to not use some of the gambits anyway. Like I said yeah I could choose NOT to use them, but then that's just stupid. It's like not using a part of a game because it restricts gameplay. I believe that is something you only do yourself once you completed the game and want to give yourself a harder challenge, not the first time round. Yeah sure people want help, but they don't want the game played for them! It's still bad programming. Why should those who want a little help still be taken away from the game, anyone at any difficulty should be able to get as involved and in charge of the characters choices like anyone else.

---

Oh dear...

Anyway, You can still take charge even if you still have the gambits running your characters. You need to actually monitor them when things start to go south. You're still playing the game. Since the battle system is so open, it would be kind of hellish to control all 3 characters. If you had that, half of them would be standing there because (in my case) I get so focused on one character. Once you introduce the others, it gets harder to control everything. Especially when the battle goes south. I found that when Penelo was introduced as a playable character. I was so focused on Vaan, I neglected Penelo and prayed she wouldn't get killed. Having the gambits makes it so that you don't have to worry about all three (or two) of them at the same time. You need to put a lot of thought into the gambit system in order for it to work favorably. It makes you think and strategize just like any other Final Fantasy game. Is that still bad programming or lack of exploring your options?

The point I'm trying to get at is it makes it easy for easier battles. For harder battles are the ones you need to worry about it. If you're finding it too easy, you have the choice to ease up on the gambits. Once you're comfortable, make it a bit more challenging. It's all your choice though. I had to get a feel for the gambit system before I went all out. The gambit system allows you to see what your characters are capable of in the first place. Once I was at the final battle, I still found myself changing up my gambits.

Spoiler: Especially when he'd switch from a fully elemental to a full physical attack. If you had the gambits playing for you, you wouldn't be able to catch that and you could possibly fail. Then when you had to heal, I would still do it myself because I wasn't satisfied with how the gambits took care of that

The gambits are there to get you started. After that, you have the choice to keep them or ditch them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 01habbo

Yeah stick to the discussion please and don't start insulting me at the first sentence, I can make choices myself and I'm 23 thank you very much. Jeez.

The point is that the choice is still there, the choice still takes away the point of playing the game. Infact it's not even a choice it's like Square is saying Well do you want to watch or play the game? I'm sure most people brought the game to play it so they are led to not use some of the gambits anyway. Like I said yeah I could choose NOT to use them, but then that's just stupid. It's like not using a part of a game because it restricts gameplay. I believe that is something you only do yourself once you completed the game and want to give yourself a harder challenge, not the first time round. Yeah sure people want help, but they don't want the game played for them! It's still bad programming. Why should those who want a little help still be taken away from the game, anyone at any difficulty should be able to get as involved and in charge of the characters choices like anyone else.

---

In other words, you didn't get my Activision/Call of Duty reference, superb. Gambits are there to adjust your AI behavior, some require certain amount of help since battles can be quite often hectic, others don't need it at all, it's up to player to chose in which manner he or she's gonna play the game. And since Square gave you an option to adjust your AI behavior, from minimal help to none, to point where game plays itself, in other words something for every type of player, something you chose yourself is apparently a bad programing, if John Carmack was dead he would turn in his grave now.

No matter how much you convince yourself that gambits affect gameplay, they don't, you can play Final Fantasy XII in same manner with or without the gambits, they're not equivalent to junction, and materia system. To blame the game for something you did, something you chose to do because you had an option to do so is idiotic to say the least. Remember, it's called an option for a reason.

I still stay by my statment, I love kids who can't make decisions for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.Kyra

The gambits are there to get you started. After that, you have the choice to keep them or ditch them.

---

Kyra dear, you have a rep from me for this simple sentence that sums it all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by R.Kyra

Oh dear...

Anyway, You can still take charge even if you still have the gambits running your characters. You need to actually monitor them when things start to go south. You're still playing the game. Since the battle system is so open, it would be kind of hellish to control all 3 characters. If you had that, half of them would be standing there because (in my case) I get so focused on one character. Once you introduce the others, it gets harder to control everything. Especially when the battle goes south. I found that when Penelo was introduced as a playable character. I was so focused on Vaan, I neglected Penelo and prayed she wouldn't get killed. Having the gambits makes it so that you don't have to worry about all three (or two) of them at the same time. You need to put a lot of thought into the gambit system in order for it to work favorably. It makes you think and strategize just like any other Final Fantasy game. Is that still bad programming or lack of exploring your options?

The point I'm trying to get at is it makes it easy for easier battles. For harder battles are the ones you need to worry about it. If you're finding it too easy, you have the choice to ease up on the gambits. Once you're comfortable, make it a bit more challenging. It's all your choice though. I had to get a feel for the gambit system before I went all out. The gambit system allows you to see what your characters are capable of in the first place. Once I was at the final battle, I still found myself changing up my gambits.

Spoiler: Especially when he'd switch from a fully elemental to a full physical attack. If you had the gambits playing for you, you wouldn't be able to catch that and you could possibly fail. Then when you had to heal, I would still do it myself because I wasn't satisfied with how the gambits took care of that

The gambits are there to get you started. After that, you have the choice to keep them or ditch them.

---

And I get that I really do the idea to control your Ai characters is a good one however how SE set it up was not good, it's like giving the short straw to those who want help. It's like if you want lots of help, set up their gambits and watch them fight, a thing that soon becomes boring quickly. If people want help set a difficult setting so that atleast those who are not good at gaming still feel involved. They can choose easy and still feel in control of at least one character. The fact that people, even in this thread have stated that they ate popcorn or played a different game while watching this game suggests that something has gone wrong. Even if it's only a small part.

I get that, I get that they were trying to set a difficulty but each difficulty must have some challenge to them, they sapped all the fun out of the easiest setting 3 gambits. So it's like forcing you to play without a gambit anyway just so you can have a challenge, That's not fair, any part of the game should have some challenge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanatos

In other words, you didn't get my Activision/Call of Duty reference, superb. Gambits are there to adjust your AI behavior, some require certain amount of help since battles can be quite often hectic, others don't need it at all, it's up to player to chose in which manner he or she's gonna play the game. And since Square gave you an option to adjust your AI behavior, from minimal help to none, to point where game plays itself, in other words something for every type of player, something you chose yourself is apparently a bad programing, if John Carmack was dead he would turn in his grave now.

No matter how much you convince yourself that gambits affect gameplay, they don't, you can play Final Fantasy XII in same manner with or without the gambits, they're not equivalent to junction, and materia system. To blame the game for something you did, something you chose to do because you had an option to do so is idiotic to say the least. Remember, it's called an option for a reason.

I still stay by my statment, I love kids who can't make decisions for themselves.

---

Yes I'm sorry we all play different games I have no interest in war games but this isn't part of the discussion.

Like I said any part of the game should have some challenge to it, even if you are new don't know anything about the game, 3 gambits should be a challenge but it's not. The idea of difficulty settings is to let you choose a setting that suits you so that you have a challenge. 3 gambits does not give that challenge does not give them that involvement and in the end forces you to choose something else. That it is the fault SE for not thinking about the people who want the most help and still making it exciting for them. This not the fault of the gamer for choosing three gambits, like I said, people openly said in this thread that they ate popcorn while watching, that means something went wrong here.

Gambits do affect gameplay, I have no idea where you got that from that they don't, they do they are apart of the gameplay. Set them wrong you will die, set them right and then you could be watching a battle in which you are the victor. They also affect how involved you are in the game and how you play, have none then you have to juggle three character have none then you are simply just watching it.

Oh and btw you seem to assume that I chose 3 gambits, I never said anywhere that I myself chose three gambits. I chose 2 because not controlling anyone looked very boring. The bad programming is that SE did not consider all abilities of their audience and just because I don't agree with your opinion does not give you the right to put me down, So I ask once again to please focus on the discussion and not attack me personally.

I like to play like this.

Everyone has their set gambits, but certain things, mainly attacking (both magic and melee).

But the Leader of my party has Gambits turned off. The person I control does buffs for themselves and the other 2 players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 01habbo

Yes I'm sorry we all play different games I have no interest in war games but this isn't part of the discussion.

Like I said any part of the game should have some challenge to it, even if you are new don't know anything about the game, 3 gambits should be a challenge but it's not. The idea of difficulty settings is to let you choose a setting that suits you so that you have a challenge. 3 gambits does not give that challenge does not give them that involvement and in the end forces you to choose something else. That it is the fault SE for not thinking about the people who want the most help and still making it exciting for them. This not the fault of the gamer for choosing three gambits, like I said, people openly said in this thread that they ate popcorn while watching, that means something went wrong here.

Gambits do affect gameplay, I have no idea where you got that from that they don't, they do they are apart of the gameplay. Set them wrong you will die, set them right and then you could be watching a battle in which you are the victor. They also affect how involved you are in the game and how you play, have none then you have to juggle three character have none then you are simply just watching it.

Oh and btw you seem to assume that I chose 3 gambits, I never said anywhere that I myself chose three gambits. I chose 2 because not controlling anyone looked very boring. The bad programming is that SE did not consider all abilities of their audience and just because I don't agree with your opinion does not give you the right to put me down, So I ask once again to please focus on the discussion and not attack me personally.

---

You do realize you can set gambits any way you want, from having complete control over your characters by giving them commands yourself, thus playing Final Fantasy XII as older games in series, to little or huge boost from your AI companions. In other words those eager for excitement, but new to franchise can easily have control over the characters but still gain just enough help for them not to think that they're not the ones playing the game, because gambits allow you any combination whatsoever.

You speak of gambits as if they were same as materia or junction system, as if it was a battle system, something that has direct influence on gameplay. If you can turn it off and still play Final Fantasy XII in same manner than no, gambits do not affect gameplay.

I don't assume anything, what I don't understand is how can someone blame the game itself for something they did, something they chose to do, in your case it would be game playing itself were again player himself has to set it that way to happen. What's even more mind boggling is the fact that Square gave you an option to play Final Fantasy XII any way you want, from having control over entire party, even one character if that's what you wish, in easy manner or hard way, medium perhaps, it's all up to you, to chose your own style, knowing all that you dare to call it a bad programing. I said it once, and I'll say it again if John Carmack was dead he would turn in his grave hearing this.

As for Activision/Call of Duty reference, you don't have to be fan of shooters to get what I'm aiming at. Also, I'm not attacking you, far from it, I'm just trying to figure your logic here which is "I don't like what I've chosen, instead of setting it the way I want I'll blame the game itself because it gave me that option".

I really enjoyed the gambit system doing everything for me - made exploration more fun as you could take in the scenery more without having to worry so much about the local enemies. Obviously, no gambit combination is perfect and sometimes i had to take over when characters were doing something wrong, but most of the time it was very enjoyable. Plus, it's fun to just run around an area and grind exp without mashing the x button and picking different commands in the magic/techniques lists.

I Have The Gambits On At all Times So I Don't Have To Do Much Work, But Every Now And Then I'll Put In My Own Commands That Fit In To what I Actually want To Do For That Moment, Its Usually For Tough Boss Battles That I Let The Gambit System Do It's Thing Full Time, Since It Is Fine Tuned For Ultimate Party Heals And Constant Attacking, Since Its Faster That Way Than Wait For A Spell To Activate. I Only change It If I Have To In Case Of Barriers Or Immunities. I Like To Do Random Stuff, So I Will be Controlling My Character From Time To Time Without The Gambit System. So, Its Not Really A Problem For Me. Anyway, Good Luck With Gaming In The Future And Happy Posting :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanatos

You do realize you can set gambits any way you want, from having complete control over your characters by giving them commands yourself, thus playing Final Fantasy XII as older games in series, to little or huge boost from your AI companions. In other words those eager for excitement, but new to franchise can easily have control over the characters but still gain just enough help for them not to think that they're not the ones playing the game, because gambits allow you any combination whatsoever.

You speak of gambits as if they were same as materia or junction system, as if it was a battle system, something that has direct influence on gameplay. If you can turn it off and still play Final Fantasy XII in same manner than no, gambits do not affect gameplay.

I don't assume anything, what I don't understand is how can someone blame the game itself for something they did, something they chose to do, in your case it would be game playing itself were again player himself has to set it that way to happen. What's even more mind boggling is the fact that Square gave you an option to play Final Fantasy XII any way you want, from having control over entire party, even one character if that's what you wish, in easy manner or hard way, medium perhaps, it's all up to you, to chose your own style, knowing all that you dare to call it a bad programing. I said it once, and I'll say it again if John Carmack was dead he would turn in his grave hearing this.

As for Activision/Call of Duty reference, you don't have to be fan of shooters to get what I'm aiming at. Also, I'm not attacking you, far from it, I'm just trying to figure your logic here which is "I don't like what I've chosen, instead of setting it the way I want I'll blame the game itself because it gave me that option".

---

Sorry for the delay in the reply I had to think on this since I felt my arguement was going around in circles.

First of all bad programming was probably a very bad choice of words, I probably shouldn't have said that it's a very big certain statement to put out there a little bit too strong. Odd, would have been better as i do find the setting of 3 gambits to be just that, odd.

- I already understand all that, it's to adjust difficulty, I just have a problem with 3 gambits. I want to ask you a question, do you find nothing wrong or odd that a person is able to literally leave the game to go and do something else? You are happy to have such an option there? I just think that everything about a game should have you involved at all times. That is my logic, that all aspects of a game should be about gaming, that no option lets you leave the game. Isn't that counterproductive for the game? That the point of a game is to have you involved in any aspect of of it? What is the actual point of having 3 gambits? The last question is what I'm trying to get at.

- Well they do affect gameplay in a way, they affect how involved you are in battles, and how you play the game. I'm speaking of gameplay in it's most broad definition, I don't know whether you mean the more technical aspects or not.

- I'm not blaming the game for the actual choices that people make, although now I look back at my posts I was getting muddled and it did look like I was going down that road, which wasn't my intention. I'm critising the game for not having all bases covored, for not making each aspect as equally as involving as each other. :) Did that make sense? :o

But I myself never chose that option, I'm simply arguing from the point of view that I get irritated when I see that people have played the game and mostly just left it alone, or ate or played a different game. And it makes me think, is that even gaming? I don't think that is the point of the game, and if it is not the point of game then where has it gone wrong? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 01habbo

Sorry for the delay in the reply I had to think on this since I felt my arguement was going around in circles.

First of all bad programming was probably a very bad choice of words, I probably shouldn't have said that it's a very big certain statement to put out there a little bit too strong. Odd, would have been better as i do find the setting of 3 gambits to be just that, odd.

- I already understand all that, it's to adjust difficulty, I just have a problem with 3 gambits. I want to ask you a question, do you find nothing wrong or odd that a person is able to literally leave the game to go and do something else? You are happy to have such an option there? I just think that everything about a game should have you involved at all times. That is my logic, that all aspects of a game should be about gaming, that no option lets you leave the game. Isn't that counterproductive for the game? That the point of a game is to have you involved in any aspect of of it? What is the actual point of having 3 gambits? The last question is what I'm trying to get at.

- Well they do affect gameplay in a way, they affect how involved you are in battles, and how you play the game. I'm speaking of gameplay in it's most broad definition, I don't know whether you mean the more technical aspects or not.

- I'm not blaming the game for the actual choices that people make, although now I look back at my posts I was getting muddled and it did look like I was going down that road, which wasn't my intention. I'm critising the game for not having all bases covored, for not making each aspect as equally as involving as each other. :) Did that make sense? :o

But I myself never chose that option, I'm simply arguing from the point of view that I get irritated when I see that people have played the game and mostly just left it alone, or ate or played a different game. And it makes me think, is that even gaming? I don't think that is the point of the game, and if it is not the point of game then where has it gone wrong? :)

---

There's nothing odd where game gives you AI customization for every character at your disposal including the main one, it just shows that Square thought of every type of player, be it those new to franchise or those who find option where game grinds for you rather convenient, and if you haven't noticed there are two posts right after my last one in which two TFF members claim they use gambits to their fullest, in other words they like an option where they don't have to do everything on their own, if at all.

It's another thing entirely you have a beef with how others play the game, and it seems to me you don't quite understand what games truly are. If one game offers quality experience for several different types of players isn't that actually a good thing.

What really got me though, and do read your last part, this entire time you were pointing how flawed gambit system actually is solely on a base where you get irritated because some plonker went the easy street, a decision which he is entitled to. Shouldn't you be blaming the gamer itself because using your own logic here every game is counter productive as every game gives you an option to cheat, and there are always those who are gonna cheat. Now, if by any chance you think cheats are different from game playing itself, think again, take Sims games, using money cheat you skipped the part where you actually earn money yourself, it's like game played itself until it earned that amount of money. Another example maybe, using cheat to max your Digimon's in Digimon World 2 is like going away from your console and letting it train your Digimon's instead of you...same principle, only faster.

I tend to take the middle road with my gambits. On my North America FFXII, I have every character set up in such a way that buffs are automatically evenly spread, and every character has healing/status affect recovery abilities. This means that if I so choose I can sit back and let my characters to work for me (Which I did for Hell Wyrm aside from two points where I took over for some heavy duty healing hijinks), but more often than now I just take control of my party leader and manually control his actions while the other two act as AI Support.

On my FFXII-International Zodiac Job System, Gambits are a bit more simplistic, since everyone has a specific class/role. It requires a little more involvement since you can't build three all purpose Rape Machines(Tm) and have them handle everything. Normally I only manually control my tank so that I can draw stuff away from the mages who deal my damage, and handle healing manually via a red mage or other character so that I have a greater deal of control than I would if it just auto ran.

I never set up gambits for buffing. The only things I have gambits set up for are, well at the moment, they're something like this:

Attack on Nearest Visible
1,000 Needles on Flying Enemies (until I get Telekenesis, and except for my magic users, who will use magic on flying enemies)

and that's really it, though I do have my thief from each team, Vaan and Penelo, set up with Steal from Nearest Visible. Stealing from every enemy you attack really builds up your loot inventory nicely.

Late game it gets REALLY handy having each character with a seperate gambit for protectga/shellga/hastega and bubble or reverse.

I think my setup is roughly

Ally: Status KO = Renew
Ally: HP < 30/40/50% (depending on which character, it stays seperate so everyone doesn't heal at once) = Curaja
Ally: Any = Protectga/Shellga/Hastega (all three on each in differing orders so if someone is dead/occupied I can get buffs out)
Then any status remedies which differ from each character
Foe: Flying = Shock
Foe: Nearest Visible = Attack

it keeps a pretty close knit set of commands that everyone contributes to so I'm not reliant on any one character, and I use bubble belts so I never have to worry about that buff.