Predictions for job(s) in the next expansion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SeikishiYuuki

Fights aren't really built around having 2 melee. I think internally the design is that Savage/Extremes are doable within having any combination of 2, 1, 1 as far as DPS rolls. It just works out that mechanics allow for the double melee or "fake" melee spot because otherwise it'd ruin someone. Let's be fair even considering that mechanics still often ruins melee where its a mild inconvenience at worst for a caster or phys ranged.

---

I want you to thi k about what you just said.

"Allow for double melee or "fake" melee spot because otherwise it would ruin someone."

That literally implies the fights are BUILT around having two melee when they are designed.

Additionally the game at release had a larger melee cast and caster wasnt even a unique role.

As the game progressed the roles divided, but melee still have the highest distribution, and thus the lowest chance of being desired for a raid spot right now, because dual caster is seen as better.

All evidence points towards 2 melee parties being the intent in fight design. There is no evidence to the contrary. Those that believe otherwise just feel the evidence isnt convincing.

This doesnt mean there HAS to be 2 melee. But fights in this game are 100% with out a doubt built around the premise of having two melee in a party.

How about gambler as the next ranged dps.. they would use cards or darts as their weapon and have some, not all, of their skill rely on the same rng luck for potency as casino machines use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warghoul570

How about gambler as the next ranged dps.. they would use cards or darts as their weapon and have some, not all, of their skill rely on the same rng luck for potency as casino machines use.

---

could work as ranged physical class, but they have to make it even more RNG than DNC considering their name "gambler" lol

or maybe they can make the RNG come from their mechanic, something like arranging poker card, pair = low damage, full house = big damage and so on. looks fun but mechanic wise it share a liiitle bit of similarity with AST card mechanic i guess.

and they better put gold saucer as the class origin lore

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gumas

could work as ranged physical class, but they have to make it even more RNG than DNC considering their name "gambler" lol

or maybe they can make the RNG come from their mechanic, something like arranging poker card, pair = low damage, full house = big damage and so on. looks fun but mechanic wise it share a liiitle bit of similarity with AST card mechanic i guess.

and they better put gold saucer as the class origin lore

---

I don’t know how familiar you are with final fantasy six but there was some rng involved with some of Setzer’s skills. Mainly a slot wheel skill that could either help or hurt the party. Another interesting skill he had that might as interest players is a gil toss. The attack did damage based on the amount of gil thrown(which was rng) plus it actually used your gil up for the skill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendalwind

I want you to thi k about what you just said.

"Allow for double melee or "fake" melee spot because otherwise it would ruin someone."

That literally implies the fights are BUILT around having two melee when they are designed.

Additionally the game at release had a larger melee cast and caster wasnt even a unique role.

As the game progressed the roles divided, but melee still have the highest distribution, and thus the lowest chance of being desired for a raid spot right now, because dual caster is seen as better.

All evidence points towards 2 melee parties being the intent in fight design. There is no evidence to the contrary. Those that believe otherwise just feel the evidence isnt convincing.

This doesnt mean there HAS to be 2 melee. But fights in this game are 100% with out a doubt built around the premise of having two melee in a party.

---

the thing is, while what you say is true people use this as an argument that square WANTS groups to be 2 melee 1phys/1caster, while in reality all it really proves is that fights are designed in a way to realistically allow double melee.

Square HAS to design fights in a way 2 melee are viable, otherwise double melee would be impossible without being the clearly worst combo, it is simply a necessity to design fights in a way as if you would take double melee. This however devalues any "square designs fights around 2 melees, therefore they want us to have 2 melees" argument, as this implies square does this to show you whats the intendet way, while in reality, as long as other evidence is absent all it proves is "square has accounted for the possibility you may want to take double melee"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Warghoul570

I don’t know how familiar you are with final fantasy six but there was some rng involved with some of Setzer’s skills. Mainly a slot wheel skill that could either help or hurt the party. Another interesting skill he had that might as interest players is a gil toss. The attack did damage based on the amount of gil thrown(which was rng) plus it actually used your gil up for the skill

---

i play FF6 back in the day, but i almost never use him because at that time iam just happy with my terra loki sabin and shadow lol and not helping he is the last character you get i think?

gil based attack is interesting but definitely not for poor player (*cough* me *cough*) unless we talking like 100 gil max though.

I we get a gambler job using cards then my best guess is that they may have a off skill mechanic that determines what type of off-skill attack the Gambler uses with Joker Card being the strongest.

AST already has cards (and I don't think they can be diversified like Swords can), so any hypothetical gambler would either be a Limited job or use something else...

I nominate Dice :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morningstar1337

I nominate Dice :P

---

dice, for RNG factor for crit (1-4 nothing, 5 direct hit, 6 crit), slot machine for buff chance? =D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akiudo

the thing is, while what you say is true people use this as an argument that square WANTS groups to be 2 melee 1phys/1caster, while in reality all it really proves is that fights are designed in a way to realistically allow double melee.

Square HAS to design fights in a way 2 melee are viable, otherwise double melee would be impossible without being the clearly worst combo, it is simply a necessity to design fights in a way as if you would take double melee. This however devalues any "square designs fights around 2 melees, therefore they want us to have 2 melees" argument, as this implies square does this to show you whats the intendet way, while in reality, as long as other evidence is absent all it proves is "square has accounted for the possibility you may want to take double melee"

---

No it does, because there are ways of designing fights that assume 1 melee, 1 physical ranged, 1 caster and a 4th that can be any of the 3 dps roles, but almost all fight mechanics are built and have been built so that there are 2 melee dps slots and 2 ranged dps slots. These are not cases of mechanics modified so that they can be done with 2 melee; These are mechanics that assume that 2 dps and both tanks will be in melee range of the boss and will get messed up unless a ranged dps in a 1 melee/3 ranged comp acts like a melee. The fights assume that the composition is 2 tanks/2 healers/2 melee/1 ranged/1 caster and often require (sometimes heavily) modified strategies if a different comp is used.

Other things also support that assertation and there is far less evidence, both currently and historically, that single melee/double caster is an acceptable situation and not a anomaly caused by the 5.1 changes that over-corrected the Summoner.