Break the Trinity System Please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inflorescence

Do I think that support roles could exist in FFXIV? Absolutely, but only because it does an incredible job of making each class play differently. Playing PLD and then switching to WAR doesn't just change your animations and damage/enmity values, it actually makes you completely relearn how to play the game. And when you do learn, you find yourself in the exact same position; you find out that the classes are, in fact, completely balanced. Every other role in the game shares this balance, and it's that mastery of understanding how to balance classes while providing a totally unique experience to each job that gives me faith that SE will eventually introduce a class whose main focus is in managing buffs and debuffs.

---

I just got WHM to 50 today after playing SCH as my healer class for the past year. Have to re-learn how to heal entirely, because it is quite different from how Scholar plays.


Also having seen how Ninja has been evolving as my friends have leveled it up, gives me hope for the future of this game having more diverse and interesting roles to play in battle.

^I have hope too :)

Red Mage & Agent should be very interesting I think.

We don't want a broken game. The more you change the more it will stay the same. Call the roles whatever you like, it won't be long before people figure out the efficient mix of "tank, healer, and dps". If not you will have one OP class and everyone will be there and that will be that.

^by that logic we'd only have 1 melee DPS instead of 3.

People will still play any of DRG, MNK, or NIN.

Expansions are a good time for revision of such systems like revising Class/Job System or implementing Supports (possible revision of Party Makeup's).

Besides, we basically already have a Support in Bard.

It's supportive capabilities don't damper it's worthiness in group.

It gimps it's DPS to give party more DPS, etc.

It's an enabler.

Deeper Support Jobs could always use the DPS flag too so party makeup doesn't require change.

Let's say by default a Support does 80% dps, but through effective use of skills it can do 100% or increase a party member's DPS to 120%, bringing with it additional utility from other Jobs.

Sure, it wouldn't technically break the Trinity as this thread originally proposes but it's workable within the game's framework as most people seem to want (and how SE is likely to include more Support-Types).

Benefits? Enhance a BLM for nuke-phases, enhance a DRG for quick-burn, enhance a MNK for sustained encounters. You personally wouldn't really shine in any of these categories but would bolster others efficiently to crush enemies.

Solo, you wouldn't really be gimped albeit not the quickest farmer ever. Probably the ultimate Solo'er though with all the add'l tools like how SCH/SMN are awesome doing Alex Maps alone.

What? You can do stuff breaking the trinity system, I remember doing primals with 1 tank and 7 sch xD, u can always do stuff with diferent kind and f parties xD

Many people are waiting for true support type jobs, could work them into 8 man stuff easily but may be difficult for 4 man dungeons. In lotro the small party size was only 3 players so working in a burglar (support mostly) was really difficult and no one wanted to take a burg for 3 mans. I hope SE figures out how to incorporate red mages :3

The trinity system is fine as is. I'd just like it if healers will have more support abilities

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramul

Emergent gameplay was the intent behind 1.0. With players being able to cross class more viable skills, but that was never fully realized.
This game is constructed on the trinity idea. It demands it of the playerbase.

---

I was referring more to the path themepark MMOs have taken, not strictly 1.0 to 2.0. The trinity system tank/heals/dps is the most slimmed down design you can build a game against given that players will always look for ways to increase damage output.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toodles

^by that logic we'd only have 1 melee DPS instead of 3.

People will still play any of DRG, MNK, or NIN.

---

That's because within the DPS role, so long as each class does similar damage, people will play it. The difference is how each class operates.

Quote:

---

It gimps it's DPS to give party more DPS, etc.

Deeper Support Jobs could always use the DPS flag too so party makeup doesn't require change.

Let's say by default a Support does 80% dps, but through effective use of skills it can do 100% or increase a party member's DPS to 120%, bringing with it additional utility from other Jobs.

---

You still haven't solve the original problem. That support class will now be required to do end game raiding. Raid leaders will basically tell those players they have do their best to maintain the 120% improvement. Devs will have to design encounters with them in mind, and have to somehow entice people to play it. You've effectively gimped everyone who doesn't have the class. The current design, spreading out the buffs and debuffs among classes, on long cooldowns or at costs is probably the most efficient way to ensure people can still have buffs, but not require everyone to have them.

^what... no.

It's simply a modality. It approaches DPS differently.

It wouldn't be a requirement any more than any other Job, especially if they implement more than one.

Some fights would favor it's utilization but that's the same as "it's better to have only 1 Melee in this fight or a mix of Physical/Magical damage"... we have that currently.

Only the most hardcore of raiders who say "no X Job, it does 1% less DPS in our comp" would make it so, but that's normal (MNK>DRG, etc.) & already exists in ARR.

They could balance DPS-Support just fine as seen with BRD.

They wouldn't have to entice people to play it either, the people who want to will just like today... people who like tanking tank, people who don't... Don't.

There's such a thing as balancing roles/Jobs to be viable but not OP/UP, it's entirely possible to do with DPS-Support hybrids.

Might as well ask people to break the wheel. Reinventing the wheel, whatever you call it, is still the wheel. Even tracked vehicles are in essence using wheels inside the tracks, and requires a lot more maintenance. Short of flying or sailing where wheels don't apply, I am not sure the bull-headed endeavor to reinvent the wheel will achieve much.

The attempt to replace the trinity with some odd version of the trinity is still the trinity. Actually at theoretical level, you got offense, defense and support, and all characters are some combinations of those. Because at the end of the day, you either do damage to the opponent or you take damage from the opponent, or you assist in either endevour. Healers are just a specialized subset of support favoring defense, i.e. taking hits. The aggro system is just a tool to let a single tank be whole offensive live, without it you'd need a lot more tanks to tank all the mobs. You can tweaks things, but you can not possibly break the trinity system, unless it is a completely different type of game we are playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toodles

^what... no.

It's simply a modality. It approaches DPS differently.

It wouldn't be a requirement any more than any other Job, especially if they implement more than one.

Some fights would favor it's utilization but that's the same as "it's better to have only 1 Melee in this fight or a mix of Physical/Magical damage"... we have that currently.

Only the most hardcore of raiders who say "no X Job, it does 1% less DPS in our comp" would make it so, but that's normal (MNK>DRG, etc.) & already exists in ARR.

Theycould balance DPS-Support just fine as seen with BRD.

They wouldn't have to entice people to play it either, the people who want to will just like today... people who like tanking tank, people who don't... Don't.

There's such a thing as balancing roles/Jobs to be viable but not OP/UP, it's entirely possible to do with DPS-Support hybrids.

---

So, now, instead of asking for pure support roles, you're suggesting that Square create a new hybrid/DPS role that can either do full damage or boost the party's damage. In other words, you've gone full circle and are, in essence, asking that the bard's buff spells be stronger.

However, let's put this to the test. You create this Bard+ class and it registers as DPS. This means for the duty finder, the class is irrelevant. If a party gets one and the person decides to play his support role, that means everyone else will be doing more damage, so the run will go a little faster. Otherwise, it has no bearing on the game. This means that for leveling and some early endgame gearing purposes, the class isn't needed, since the designers cannot guarantee the class is present. In more organized raids, should the class's support spells actually be more beneficial, any good raiding FC will require that person play in support mode. So this means the class's abilities will only be useful in raiding. This is close to what the bard is.

Or the designers could go out, and add the support role in. Now, everyone's duty finder queue times suddenly increase. It's now 1 tank, 1 healer, 2 damage, and 1 support for light, and 2 tanks, 2 healers, 4 dmg, and 1-2 support for full. This of course translates into raids, where the support role is now needed. You've gimped everyone else for the sole purpose of having a support class. Meanwhile, the more organized FC will investigate ways to optimize setups so that the support person can be supplanted with a better damage class, because hey, more damage means a faster clear. Sure, that means the support person would be playing 100% damage, which renders the support aspect useless.

I realize you don't like the trinity, but as I said, the tank/healer/damage role is the most basic group setup in a theme park raiding MMO you can get. Square's setup o spreading CC and support around the classes (like Blizzard has done) is most efficient design. It guarantees you can fire off a CD during a burn phase, but it also ensures you can complete an encounter without the CD.

"In other words, you've gone full circle and are, in essence, asking that the bard's buff spells be stronger."

Never once did I say make Bard's buff spells stronger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toodles

"In other words, you've gone full circle and are, in essence, asking that the bard's buff spells be stronger."

Never once did I say make Bard's buff spells stronger.

---

You started by asking for a full support role. Then you asked for a support/dmg that queues as dmg and can reduce its damage to buff the group or play at full dmg. Which is what a bard does. So no, you never explicitly asked for buffs to the bard's spells. You have asked for bard++, at which point the question is one of deciding if a new dmg/support class is needed, or if the existing class needs to be improved.

^yeah, a Bard does that.

Where is this idea of Bard++ coming from if I didn't suggest buffs to Bards which you admit now.

Buffs to Bards aren't even implied in my posting.

Your whole premise of Bard++ & me suggesting it is so ridiculous.

I also love how it's 2 +'s now... rofl.

Meow mix is for kitty cats, not Galka's

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toodles

^yeah, a Bard does that.

Where is this idea of Bard++ coming from if I didn't suggest buffs to Bards which you admit now.

Buffs to Bards aren't even implied in my posting.

Your whole premise of Bard++ & me suggesting it is so ridiculous.

I also love how it's 2 +'s now... rofl.

---

It's not hard to understand. You want a DPS Hybrid that buffs the party but as it seems for you, Bard isn't doing it to a good enough level therefore, buffs to Bard would be implied in your ideology even if you didn't mention them per say. If bards would be buffed, then you'd have a class that according to you, would be a true DPS/Support hybrid.

Then again, your whole ideology doesn't take into account past MMO history on how Supports (Bard and Red Mage FFXI), Hybrid (Bards in FFXIV and Archon in Rift) are always going to be staple to a raid group if they are strong enough and you thinking that only the 1% will drop people for said classes is an utopic thought.

^because past designs are fallible and just because that 'was' the case doesn't mean it 'has' to be the case in the future.

The problem is past faults (some purposeful) in design making Supports' party-contribution too great (if displacing/sharing a DPS slot)... like you mentioned, "if they are strong enough".

Well yeah, duh, that goes without saying (hence, why I didn't say it).

Also, the 1% was meant as an obvious hyperbole. Utopic & blatant exaggeration aren't the same.

It all comes down to balancing, if a Support didn't 'necessarily' bring "more" to the table than a DPS then a majority of players wouldn't pay any mind since they aren't typically your min-max elitists (which' what I was getting at in my "1%").

Of course, it would need to not bring any less of a contribution either to be designed right.

Let me chart it out like this...

Tanks - 30% enmity gain 30% defense-buffs 40% dps.
Healers - 20% party-buffs 20% dps 60% healing.
DPS - 10% utility 20% self-buffs 70% dps.
Bard - 10% utility 10% self-buffs 10% party-buffs 70% dps.
Support - 15% utility 25% self/party-buffs 60% dps.

Keep in mind, those figures are VERY ROUGH & ONLY INTENDED FOR ILLUSTRATION.

Also, they're meant to demonstrate inputs & not contributions (in other words, 70% of a DPS' button-clicks are strict damage-dealing actions).

Looking at these figures, it's not that Bard needs buffs to better fulfill a Supportive Role... it's that Bard in its current iteration is very "Support-Lite" by design.

It's Support Capabilities don't take an extremely 'active' approach. Your literal actions are more primarily focused on DPS'ing your opponent, periodically toggling a Supportive Ability that applies to the entire party... which' essentially a "passive" method of supporting allies.

Functionally, I would consider that "Support-Lite". More of a "True DPS-Support" Hybrid's literal actions/efforts would be focused on augmentation/detriment of allies/opponents... it's approach would be more "active" in supporting parties.

Does that make sense?

I think the "feel" of a Support could be plausibly achieved via design whilst retaining balance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toodles

^yeah, a Bard does that.

Where is this idea of Bard++ coming from if I didn't suggest buffs to Bards which you admit now.

Buffs to Bards aren't even implied in my posting.

Your whole premise of Bard++ & me suggesting it is so ridiculous.

I also love how it's 2 +'s now... rofl.

---

Don't get too overworked by a simple change. It's a "programmer's joke" referencing C and C++.

Quote:

---

^because past designs are fallible and just because that 'was' the case doesn't mean it 'has' to be the case in the future.

---

So, rather than admit something was a mistake, we should just keep refining it. We'll get ir right this time, I swear!

Quote:

---

It all comes down to balancing, if a Support didn't 'necessarily' bring "more" to the table than a DPS then a majority of players wouldn't pay any mind since they aren't typically your min-max elitists (which' what I was getting at in my "1%").

---

Do you NOT understand MMO players? The casual vs. hardcore, the claim of the "min-max elistist", they're nothing but fake drama created by the community. We all "want teh purplez" in the end, we all want to see content, we all want our characters to perform to the best of their ability, because in a raiding based themepark MMO, that's all there is. If the support class doesn't offer anything compelling over a damage class, and there is no requirement to play one, people will not play it. Do you not understand why tanks are always in demand?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gramul

I really wish they could.
All this shoehorning into roles stands for a lack of variety. No real stat jobs, no jobs that blur the line. Traditional FF jobs awkwardly twisted to match one of 3 roles. The series wasn't meant to have 3 kinds of jobs with moderate differences, it's a series with all sorts of crazy niches.

It would probably screw up their instanced content though so I don't see them ever doing anything for that.

---

I agree Gramul. :)

On a personal level, I loved the interesting / odd Jobs in Final Fantasy Tactics (and other traditional Final Fantasies - Relm (the artist), Strago (Blue Mage)), etc. Things like:


* Geomancer: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Geomancer_(Tactics)

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2..._Geomancer.jpg


* Time Mage: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Time_Mage_(Tactics)
http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2..._Time_mage.jpg


* Dancer: http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Dancer_(Tactics)
http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2.../8a/Dancer.jpg

etc., but as you said, I guess in MMOs this just isn't possible.

Although I'd say Bard in Final Fantasy XI felt more like a real "Support / Different" job than what we have now (which is mainly DPS).

It STILL works perfectly in games that have lasted and continued to release content long before WoW was even a dream in some solo players head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inflorescence

In order for a support role to be viable, it has to enhance the abilities of your party members at pretty close to exactly the same magnitude of your lost DPS (because you just can't do it without a healer or a tank, without some massive defense buffs, which would totally imbalance the game). Any higher, and parties quickly become, "[tank][tank][healer][healer][dps][dps][dps][<specific support class>]," and that kind of job obligation is exactly what FFXIV has always (rightly) striven against.

---

Bard says hi.


[tank][tank][healer][healer][dps][dps][dps][bard]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delily

So, rather than admit something was a mistake, we should just keep refining it. We'll get ir right this time, I swear!...

...If the support class doesn't offer anything compelling over a damage class, and there is no requirement to play one, people will not play it. Do you not understand why tanks are always in demand?

---

1) faulty/poor design was the mistake, not the premise... there's a difference between recreation & refinement. I'm not saying we mimic 100% models of the past that didn't work, that would be insanity.

2) people will play it who want to play Supports... just like how people play MNK over DRG because they prefer Monks & vice versa.

That second argument of yours is a terrible one that has no feet to stand on.

People will play it who like the Job/Role, just because it isn't for you or certain others, doesn't mean people won't play it.

You're acting like it's not possible whatsoever to get Supports to work within the current framework and that clearly isn't the case.

Also, not saying Supports should have 'nothing compelling' about them... just like the current model, every Job has something they can bring to the table (or should from their design-philosophy).

Any Job, Support or not, is intended to be designed with usefulness/viability in mind... compelling reasons they deserve a spot in party construction.

Its really a content balancing issue. You can't have any support class' group-wide buffs be too powerful for 8-man content or too weak for 4-man content.

For instance, if you send support_01 into Sashtasha HM and they can buff your DPS and Tank's output by 80% to make up for missing the other DPS, that ability would be ridiculously overpowered in 8 man content, buffing 3-4 other DPS and 1-2 other tanks! It would have to be time-restricted buffs to single players with weak non-tangible group buffs.

There are other kinds of utility besides just buffing damage.

Of course, things like crowd control, mp management, haste, slow, silence, meaningful AE stuns, and resist debuffs all went the way of the dodo after gaming was watered down.

However, if these things are made useful as they used to be - the new trinity becomes what the old trinity was - Heal/Tank/Utility... then fill in dps.

Either utility is critical or it's a waste of space. EQ always started with Tank/Healer/CC,Haste,Slow... You could use a shaman and cleric (haste/slows)... cleric and enchanter (haste/slows/CC/MP)... druid and enchanter(haste/slows/CC/MPx2)... Shaman and chanter (Haste,Slows,CC,MP)... or bard was ghetto haste/slows and mp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ehayte

Its really a content balancing issue. You can't have any support class' group-wide buffs be too powerful for 8-man content or too weak for 4-man content.

For instance, if you send support_01 into Sashtasha HM and they can buff your DPS and Tank's output by 80% to make up for missing the other DPS, that ability would be ridiculously overpowered in 8 man content, buffing 3-4 other DPS and 1-2 other tanks! It would have to be time-restricted buffs to single players with weak non-tangible group buffs.

---

problem with this is the idea that raid content should be balanced around group content in FFXIV.

I'm sorry but when available gear to non raiders is 40-50 ilvls above the dungeons requirements. They should not be considered when balancing. So what is their spells are broken as fuck in group content. Having ilvl 120 gear is broken as fk in group content.

Not attacking you but you're just restating what they have said. But the simple fact is they suck at balancing their game anyway so who cares.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toodles

1) faulty/poor design was the mistake, not the premise... there's a difference between recreation & refinement. I'm not saying we mimic 100% models of the past that didn't work, that would be insanity.

2) people will play it who want to play Supports... just like how people play MNK over DRG because they prefer Monks & vice versa.

That second argument of yours is a terrible one that has no feet to stand on.
People will play it who like the Job/Role, just because it isn't for you or certain others, doesn't mean people won't play it.

You're acting like it's not possible whatsoever to get Supports to work within the current framework and that clearly isn't the case.

Also, not saying Supports should have 'nothing compelling' about them... just like the current model, every Job has something they can bring to the table (or should from their design-philosophy).

Any Job, Support or not, is intended to be designed with usefulness/viability in mind... compelling reasons they deserve a spot in party construction.

---

So, all of those games that had tank/healer/DD/{support,CC}, just had it wrong then?

I'm not saying it's not possible, I'm saying it's not necessary. Right now, all classes bring some form of buffs and/or CC to the table in addition to the differences in how they fulfill their primary roles. They are short lived on long cooldowns (or tied to a resource) so that while they help people complete encounters, they aren't required. What possible value could a support class add to that, outside of fulfilling a few players' desire to play support? SE could go ahead and implement a full on support role, sure thing. But then we'd be back to bards and red mages in FFXI.

^no, contextually was speaking on the examples of ones people were saying broke the game or ruined it... not saying 100% of past examples were bad design.

Games are meant for enjoyment, if implementing Supports meant more people had more fun playing the game, it's worth a look.

Necessary doesn't really factor in.

PVP isn't 'necessary', more than 8-man's isn't 'necessary', Card Game isn't 'necessary'.

Surely enough people would love to play a Support-archetype in this game to merit its consideration.

I think LOTROs Captain class was the best support class I'd ever seen in a game. They could spec as tank, healer, or DD and subsequently support either of those roles best, while still being able to support the rest of the party. How were they balanced? They couldn't do any of this stuff to themselves. 8 man content always needed a captain but you could spec to be any of the 3 roles. I really like it and think it would work well here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord_Zlatan

I think LOTROs Captain class was the best support class I'd ever seen in a game. They could spec as tank, healer, or DD and subsequently support either of those roles best, while still being able to support the rest of the party. How were they balanced? They couldn't do any of this stuff to themselves. 8 man content always needed a captain but you could spec to be any of the 3 roles. I really like it and think it would work well here.

---

Captains were way powerful. The amount of damage/healing they could bring with their support was so good, every group, not every raid, every single group in the raid wanted their own captain.

While they were nice, captains or even anything similar could never work here. They made content that was remotely challenging a real joke due to how good their buffs were. They would literally kill the balance of this game.

Be still my heart- always loved being a support class. I especially miss Chanter (from Aion). The best and most loved support class I can think of. Loved those yummy mantras:

Victory Mantra - Increases Attack.
Shield Mantra - Increases Physical Defense, Block, Parry and Evasion.
Magic Mantra - Increases Magic Boost and Magic Accuracy.
Celerity Mantra - Increases Movement Speed.
Revival Mantra - Recovers HP.
Clement Mind Mantra - Recovers MP.
Intensity Mantra - Increases Crit Strike.
Protection Mantra - Increases All Elemental Defense.
Enhancement Mantra - Increases Stun Resist.
Invincibility Mantra - Recovers MP and increases Attack, Physical Defense, and Magic Boost.
Hit Mantra - Increases Crit Strike, Crit Spell, Strike Resist and Spell Resist

http://i.imgur.com/02bRTdb.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toodles

^no, contextually was speaking on the examples of ones people were saying broke the game or ruined it... not saying 100% of past examples were bad design.

Games are meant for enjoyment, if implementing Supports meant more people had more fun playing the game, it's worth a look.

Necessary doesn't really factor in.

PVP isn't 'necessary', more than 8-man's isn't 'necessary', Card Game isn't 'necessary'.

Surely enough people would love to play a Support-archetype in this game to merit its consideration.

---

I don't think I've read a comment as wrong as "Necessary doesn't factor in". Simply because a portion of the player base thinks an idea should be fun isn't enough reason to warrant the addition of an idea, especially when that idea adds unneeded complexity to a core design element of the game. A good game is one that lays out a core design, and then sticks that as close as possible.

I'm not going to go into why adding in a support role adds complexity, there's a myriad of reasons that have been presented on this post. Your examples, do not support your claim.

FFXIV is a PvE raiding game. All other activities asides, players will spend the majority of their time in groups of varying size defeating trash mobs and running encounters. Therefore, 8 mans groups are a necessary aspect of that, since offering people different groups sizes offers people differing degrees of challenge. PvP and the card game (Triple Triad?) may not be necessary to that specific goal, but they do add something else people can do when they don't want to do dungeon dives. They are necessary in that they do not impact the core raiding game, and they do offer people some diversity because not everyone wants to run dungeons (or craft) all the time.

When don't stick to your design and don't care that much about balance, you get games like Everquest and FFXI, where's there's lot of jobs whose utility is situational. I think the designers are trying to avoid that.

^contextually we're talking about sticking to the design in the form of DPS-Support Hybrids like Bard... it wouldn't disrupt the game's core design/structure much at all. And I'm saying balance is a must.

Just because you have a Bard-alike that applies party-buffs in a manner that's less passive & global doesn't mean you're breaking the game if balance is kept in mind which I'm arguing is possible.

Making a Job who's focus is less on enemy mobs spamming it's attacks can be implemented properly without breaking the game.

I feel like you need to go back 5 or so pages & read through much more carefully, the context seems to keep flying over your head.

As a note, the topic of conversation switched from breaking the Trinity to diversifying it a while ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evtrai

No.

Go play GW2.

---

Seconded. Its a mess. It really is. I mean, it "works" but its awkward and you die alot. I <3 Trinity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delily

When don't stick to your design and don't care that much about balance, you get games like Everquest and FFXI, where's there's lot of jobs whose utility is situational. I think the designers are trying to avoid that.

---

Can I just say as a retired bleeding edge world first raiding enchanter from EQ, that the situational usefulness was what made it so effing amazing! Some raids, I just buffed and tried to throw in my damage (which was a bit subpar, but my buffs made up for it)... and some raids, crowd control was a critical aspect of the encounter and I and my ENC comrads shined like the sun.

The difference between a good and not so good ENC was HUGE and obvious. You were CCing mobs that would destroy you in one hit and then wipe your raid. That game had something that this game didn't- variety in encounter mechanics that were based on class based skills -and- encounter mechanics that utilized support class skills. That game let everyone shine at some point... it wasn't a keyboard mashing jumprope mess.

You had pulling teams, you had tanks, you had healer teams, you had CC teams. You even had some dps teams (casters/melee). Everyone here is the same- just mashing their buttons while the entire group "jumps"!! at the same time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toodles

Necessary doesn't really factor in.

PVP isn't 'necessary', more than 8-man's isn't 'necessary', Card Game isn't 'necessary'.

Surely enough people would love to play a Support-archetype in this game to merit its consideration.

---

I hope you consider the amount of work involved for your request. Not only on the Dev end and all released content that needs to be adjusted and balance. All the counters the community will attempt to shortcut or make things easier.

DF may force Role requirements. However, if anything so much gives an upper hand in content. You will see the community exploit premades in PF to replace specific Role spots. Which could create necessity and shun other roles and/or jobs.

Then the Dev Team is in a hard spot to rebalance and/or enforce even stricter rules, sacrificing the freedom of custom makeups entirely. This is by no means a simple process or request.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toodles

^contextually we're talking about sticking to the design in the form of DPS-Support Hybrids like Bard... it wouldn't disrupt the game's core design/structure much at all. And I'm saying balance is a must.
Just because you have a Bard-alike that applies party-buffs in a manner that's less passive & global doesn't mean you're breaking the game if balance is kept in mind which I'm arguing is possible.

Making a Job who's focus is less on enemy mobs spamming it's attacks can be implemented properly without breaking the game.

I feel like you need to go back 5 or so pages & read through much more carefully, the context seems to keep flying over your head.

As a note, the topic of conversation switched from breaking the Trinity to diversifying it a while ago.

---

The context does not go over my head. I am fully aware you had 2 proposals, a full on Support role, and hybrids. I am against the addition of a new support role, primarily because it adds unneeded complexity to. I don't disagree with more dps/support roles, as I suspect we'l see more of that. However, I think a better solution is to strengthen the existing design of spreading buffs, debuffs, and CC around ALL classes, and building encounters that aren't movement based DPS races.

Quote:

---

Can I just say as a retired bleeding edge world first raiding enchanter from EQ, that the situational usefulness was what made it so effing amazing! Some raids, I just buffed and tried to throw in my damage (which was a bit subpar, but my buffs made up for it)... and some raids, crowd control was a critical aspect of the encounter and I and my ENC comrads shined like the sun.

The difference between a good and not so good ENC was HUGE and obvious. You were CCing mobs that would destroy you in one hit and then wipe your raid. That game had something that this game didn't- variety in encounter mechanics that were based on class based skills -and- encounter mechanics that utilized support class skills. That game let everyone shine at some point... it wasn't a keyboard mashing jumprope mess.

You had pulling teams, you had tanks, you had healer teams, you had CC teams. You even had some dps teams (casters/melee). Everyone here is the same- just mashing their buttons while the entire group "jumps"!! at the same time.

---

The only reason the design team can't do that currently is they can't rely on a certain class's skill to be present. Part of solving that is strengthening the existing design.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delily

The only reason the design team can't do that currently is they can't rely on a certain class's skill to be present. Part of solving that is strengthening the existing design.

---

Why not? If two support roles branch off a single class, then there's no reason they can't. That would be requiring one of two jobs to be present. They do that with tanks and healers already. They can even have you choose which job, by making them use different stats, so you can't be both - forcing a choice like tanks and healers make (actually more of one, since you can't be both... but can be both tank or healer jobs)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApolloGenX

Why not? If two support roles branch off a single class, then there's no reason they can't. That would be requiring one of two jobs to be present. They do that with tanks and healers already. They can even have you choose which job, by making them use different stats, so you can't be both - forcing a choice like tanks and healers make (actually more of one, since you can't be both... but can be both tank or healer jobs)

---

They do what with tanks and healers? The only job that can change it's role is the arcanist, and I read that's not a model they want to continue in the future because of gearing issues (since summoners and scholars share stats, but serve 2 different roles). Although, your post does make me think a better solution is to open up more cross class skills. Since I main arcanist, I'd could see giving repose to scholars and sleep to summoners a way to ensure that skill is present. However, I think it's possible to do that with other classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delily

They do what with tanks and healers? The only job that can change it's role is the arcanist, and I read that's not a model they want to continue in the future because of gearing issues (since summoners and scholars share stats, but serve 2 different roles). Although, your post does make me think a better solution is to open up more cross class skills. Since I main arcanist, I'd could see giving repose to scholars and sleep to summoners a way to ensure that skill is present. However, I think it's possible to do that with other classes.

---

I can't remember but I think the whm job was unlocked with cnj/acn.... and the sch job was acn/conj... right? So don't all fights require both of those classes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApolloGenX

I can't remember but I think the whm job was unlocked with cnj/acn.... and the sch job was acn/conj... right? So don't all fights require both of those classes?

---

As far as I know, the current encounters require a healer, with either job working just fine. That's similar to how the tanks and damage classes are interchangeable. The role is needed, the class is not. The situation we're trying to avoid is where you need a specific class, or more precisely, a specific skill, to finish an encounter. The most extreme encounter I came across was in DAoC, where a stage of the Apocalypse fight can only be done by clerics; as in the boss could only be hurt by that class, and clerics were the lowest played class at the time.