Sambas dont work for RUN

[Losie]

The point is there's no reason why additional effects should stack. There's just absolutely no reason for it -- Frankly, there's no reason why people should be clamoring for RUN to sub Dancer, either. I do perfectly fine solo'ing with /WHM and /PLD as long as I keep aquaveil fresh between fights, hell even when I'm /SAM an Embolden'd Protect IV, Phalanx, and Regen IV works quite fine. As far as tanking goes, the job needs more gear and probably some merit abilities before that's a practical possibility.

There's absolutely nothing of substance to be gained by allowing Additional effects to stack -- most of the additional effects are incredibly limited in their usefulness as-is, and stacking them will never have any real benefit. It's like saying you should be able to stack Protect IV and Protect V together, except at least that would have some practical use.

No, that isn't the point, you just keep trying to come up with extreme situations to prove your point.

Unless a dev straight out says "only one additional effect should ever work, ever, and that is how it should work," then it's fair to discuss this. Should Sambas and rune fencer's abilities and such stuck? I don't know, should cocoon and protect? Why can you double up on def, but not additional effects? The obvious answer is the way the engine is programmed. Maybe people would care more about some weapons with additional effects IF stacking were viable.

It's also worth noting that Runes take precedence OVER any weapon affects, so.. hope there's not any snazzy additional effect things out there, because runes prevent them from ever working ( I had assumed the weapon would overtake whenever it proc'd, but not so. )

But yeah, you've got a weird standpoint based on some baseless assumptions. There is something of substance, and that is to allow better synergy between a few jobs and the way they interact in groups and as main/sub, and also to make weapons with additional effects more generally useful and interesting.

[Horadrim]

No, that isn't the point, you just keep trying to come up with extreme situations to prove your point.

Unless a dev straight out says "only one additional effect should ever work, ever, and that is how it should work," then it's fair to discuss this. Should Sambas and rune fencer's abilities and such stuck? I don't know, should cocoon and protect? Why can you double up on def, but not additional effects? The obvious answer is the way the engine is programmed. Maybe people would care more about some weapons with additional effects IF stacking were viable.

They've said several times over the years that they intentionally did not want them to stack. JA/Spell Additional effects are a choice -- you choose which ones you want, and if you want them to work over a weapon's base effect that's your decision.

That's why the conversation is asinine. It was their call, they made it, and there's no real justification for trying to call it a glitch or a flaw when it was a decision they consciously made. You can call it a bad decision, sure, but it's not a "flaw" in the system when it was something specifically designed to work a certain way.

It is amazing that you can tell me what i think. good job. Seriously though guy, shove off. If i wanted to play a word game, i'd go dig one out of the closet. Anyone not looking to get into a silly and pointless argument over nothing should be able to get my point, as i'm sure the OP who i was addressing did.

Our dialog is done. Go find another soul to hound.

Yeah that's pretty much how it goes.

Actually what you said at the start and finish is that you believe SE could already do it if they wanted to...



where as I think they cant, as they basically said in that post up above...
To me this implies they can not simply allow both effects, one has to have a higher priority, in this case, Enlight.

Actually, they say that they can. They just don't want to -- they intentionally designed it to work the way it does and to make it work differently they'd have to rework the design -- which is exactly what was said.

That does not even remotely sound like "We can't do it." It sounds significantly more like "We could, but why would we do that?"

It's like building a house and then deciding you want the front room to be a garage. Yeah, its right by the drive way -- you could convert it into a garage with some effort, time, and money; but if your original intention was to have a game room instead of keeping your car inside, why would you go though the hassle?

SE just doesn't WANT to make changes to a system that is functioning exactly how they originally wanted it to. Nothing they said implies otherwise.