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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

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.

---

To be completely fair though, any set up that is "1 melee, 1 phys ranged, 1 caster and 1 wildcard" will need that wildcard to be in melee range so that it's possible for a melee to fill it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

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.

---

no there are no ways of designing fights with a 1/1/1/+1 role in mind except simply acting it out like the most restricted composition (double melee), at least not if they want to keep using things like "everyone stay in position x" mechanics, as in that case either there are 4 slots in melee range (that can technically be filled by everyone) or every melee combo in existence will get bend over backwards. they literally have to let 4 slots in melee range open for these kind of mechanics unless they want to actively punish you for double melee, that alone proves exactly nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

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.

---

what other things ?


define "other things", just saying "other things" is pretty much an argument in bad faith, it means nothing, while sounding like some all emcompassing big revelation.
either way, let me help you out here for a bit.

1)historical data
2)current balance
3)class distribution
4)design changes


these are (some, i'm sure there are more) things that can point in any direction and give us insight into design intents, as sadly you didn't provide us with more specific info aside from "other things" and the notion that it is both current and historical data that gives us insight into squares design intent i'll have to make due with what i came up with on the top of my head here.

so lets start with

1) historical data-> this is an mmo, its quite normal to change around certain design decisions over time, "historical data" in itself without a point of comparison is quite literally worthless in this case, especially as even if you assume the devs would like to keep the original design intend as the status quo (which before clear prove is simply an assumption) the simple fact is that the sorrounding circumstances simply are vastly different today, the current class distribution (more on that later) for one is simply vastly different than when the game launched.

2) current balance-> why do you say its the over corrected smn thats the problem ? like yea, i'm not saying smn is not overtuned, but why not look at blackmage ? blm is "easy" to balance right in the sense that it offer nothing but damage, if you really want to go the 2/1/1 route than you have to assume square balances the casters against each other, therefore even if they failed miserably at that, intent wise it would mean someone at square though what rdm/smn offered in comparison to blm was at least close to equal.
so tell me, what was it that blackmage offers, and even offered back at shb launch ? it was melee levels of damage. so either blackmage was overpowered from the start of shadowbringers, and didn't get fixed in the slightest since than, or "melee levels of damage" is what square thinks the casters should have before you correct them down somewhat for superior support (read, a rezz), which again if balanced right would mean double caster would be of equal value to double melee.

3) class distribution-> back when the game launched it was quite clearly designed with an overabundance of melees in mind, which in turn got filled by a second melee, that is what we had and made perfect sense back than, it is however not what we have now, edit:as vendalwind righfully pointed out we simply don't know what the next classes will be, my original line here was along the lines of "and its also not what we are moving towards", which made it sound as if i could see the future, either way the rest following is an open statement so it can stand as is, with that being said. yes, maybe we will get 2 melees with the next addon, but what if not ? the simple fact is, when the game launched 2/1/1 made the most sense, in fact smn was a last minute addition, the game was quite literally designed with the goal to take "one of every job", smn threw a wrench in that so obviously the next thing that came out was a melee so double melee (and realistically 2/2, double melee double "ranged) was again the most balanced outcome. since than however we have continiously moved away from that class distribution, at current 1/1/1+1flex simply makes more sense than 2/1/1 given the classes we actually do have, especially as if classes actually had "equal value" which is the goal of balance, not "equal numbers", than the last slot would sort itself out by availabity of classes and players either way.

4) design changes-> that ones a bit iffy as there design changes can happen for a multitude of reasons, and often any given design change doesn't happen just for "reason x" but for "underlying reasons y and z", however it would certainly have been possibly to change up things to actively punish groups for taking 3 ranged (which the game does NOT do).

lets take an historical example and actually compare it to today, during t11 you had to kill adds, one only took magical, one only physical damage, these where clearly designed in a way your 1 caster had about as much to do as your 2 melees+1bard , you could do it with double caster but that meant your melees had to work extra hard on their add while your casters had basically nothing to do. Square could design fights like this, or make it so theres a debuff that allways tethers your 2melee 2ranged except when you break up that formula, or a debuff only hitting melees or ranged instead of "dps" (so by using the "wrong" combo the fight would get harder as you would have to adjust on the fly/certain players would potentially have to deal with an overabundance of mechanics) however they have not done so in ages.or what when people started stacking classes ?(well bards), they invented the lb penalty for dupe classes. when people originally where stacking classes they did something to discourage it. nowadays people run double caster over double melee and they do exactly nothing, if they wanted to make it clear by they expect you to take double melee then why not partially tie lb generation to having double melee ? no i don't think they should do this, but in the past (which is why i say "historical data is useless without comparison points) they readily punished players for taking the wrong class combinations, so why not punish players for doing it wrong now ? at the very least it shows that square is not as strict in how they envisioned class distribution in the past.

your very own argument that square COULD design fights differently should beg the question why they don't, they COULD punish players for taking 3 ranges, yet they don't do it. having a caster sit in the melee spot is not "heavily modifying strategies" on the groups part, if anything its the extra melees that may require that.


edit2: with all that being said, on a personal level i don't really care either way, i would be perfectly accepting of getting at least one new melee and going to a clear 2/1/1 split, in fact as far as i'm concerned they should just merge the phys/casters into the role of ranged, do whatever they need to do so they feel they can give them comparable numbers/support on a level a group would not be punished for taking either over the other and than they can enforce a 2/2 split in any way they see fit, what bothers me however is that people use "it has allways been that way, just look how the game started out" as a reason to either get one role clearly over represented, or , and that actually is important for the question of the thread, shackling down squares future design decisions, because if you really believe 2/1/1 is some god intendet design that should in a just world never be overturned than square simply HAS to next offer a melee, in fact we are lacking 2 right now, the whole "it has allways been that way, of course its intendet" does nothing but force the developers hands in what to develop next, which helps no one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akiudo

...

---

You are over doing it Akuido. this thread is not on this subject. At the end of the day I just personally get tired of ratio distribution that favor caster and ranged getting a new class, when melee have had the least role growth since release. And I believe/have an opinion that suggests one of the new classes (if we get two) will be a melee or a hybrid type melee and the other will be a healer.

I'll say this again which you reinforced already:
"There is no evidence to the contrary. Those that believe otherwise just feel the evidence [supporting two melee slots] isn't convincing." for varying reasons such as your post above.

I will address one point of yours from #3)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akiudo

it is however not what we have now, and also not what the game is moving towards.

---

This statement is mildly erroneous. Yes it is not what we have now, but there is no evidence it's not what the game is moving towards when you look at the role:to slot ratios over the course of the game. I've discussed this with you or others before so I'll try to keep it simple. (but it still has to be long to make sense)
Release:
8 party slots, 2melee,2ranged,2tanks,two healers. a slot for each 1:1 ratio, with SMN being kinda an odd cookie connected to SCH. so ranged could be considered 2.5/3. What would keep things as balanced as possible since dps are more commonly played?: +1 melee.
+NIN
3melee,3ranged,2tanks,2healers: dps ratios 3:2 T/H 2:2. Suggested role add? T/H
+AST, DRK, MCH
melee ratio 3:2, Ranged 4:2 T/H 3:2 Suggested role add? Melee again:
+SAM +RDM AND ROLE DIVIDE
now two ratios could be considered for the predictions of the future. AND the melee having two spots is questioned for the first time in stormblood.

With 2 melee spots designated Method 1: melee 4:2, Ranged 5:2, Tank 3:2, Healer: 3:2 With 2 melee spots designated OR Melee 4:2 Caster: 3/2, PhysR 2:2 Tank 3:2, Healer: 3:2
Without: Melee 4:1.5, Ranged 5:2.5 OR Melee 4:1.3, Caster 3:1.3 and ranged 2:1.3

At this point given either model adding a new melee without dividing melee roles as well would be inadvisable because of the T/H ratio. One ratio yields that phys ranged is the most needed alongside tanks and healers. What we get:
+GNB +DNC
Tanks now have the 4:2 Casters and ranged are now equivalent, but one model now slants very much to suggest we need a new melee.
the Melee ratio 4:2 Ranged ratio 6:2 Tank 4:2 Healer 3:2
In this moment to me the most likely thing REGARDLESS of if they subdivide roles it to +Melee +Healer. If melee is subdivided into hybrid melee (which NIN suits well with his ranged adaptability at this point that could be further built on) then adding a new Hybrid melee such as BST makes perfect sense. And adding a new healer makes sense.

In the current meta class to role meta distribution because of caster balancing has role distribution as such:
4:1 melee, 3:2 Caster, 3:1 ranged. This imbalance suggests to me that two melee spots are intended, cause when they are not melee are the hardest spot to get in a group by a distinct margin. where as the flipped ratio favoring melee 4:2, 3:1,3:1 the ratios are more balanced and caster/ranged are in a worse situation equally.

In short the game, by its growth path, is not moving towards a wildcard position. to maintain role to slot balance(considering that data point independent of others) the most healthy thing would be to continue the 2 melee slot style and add another melee+healer. OR to just add a healer next expac and nothing else.

There is no evidence that 2 melee slots is "not what the game is moving towards." because the only piece that could suggest that is only in the current build (not historical, can't establish a pattern) and would have happened as the necessary step before a 5th melee was added regardless.

TLDR: Even if 2 melee spots was the intended design, todays current iteration/role distribution would have occurred in line within that model, so todays current model does not point towards any specific future. In fact the only thing that suggests the 2 melee spot design will no longer be intended is that SMN and BLM both out dps melee classes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendalwind

In this universe..... they are designed specifically to allow for 2 melee dps. Has been that way in terms of fight design since the game first came out.

---

"To allow for" is not the same as "balanced around." Fights in this game do not require 2 melee, they are not even remotely balanced around 2 melee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

Look at how mechanics are divided up in many of those fights. Often there often are mechanics that have 4 close positions (suitable for the 2 tanks and 2 melee) and 4 far positions (suitable for the 2 healers and 2 ranged).

---

Again, just because the fights ALLOW YOU to use double melee does not mean they are BALANCED AROUND using double melee. It would be more accurate to say they are designed for using 2 ranged, 2 tanks, and 2 healers. Everything else is purely a matter of preference although the role bonus is an incentive for you to bring at least one melee, one caster, and one phys ranged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katie_Kitty

...

---

You are arguing for no reason. Picking a fight while putting words in my mouth.
I never said "balanced around"
(the one place i use the word 'balance' in this thread is in reference to role-to-slot ratio balancing. nothing else)
I said what I said "designed specifically"
And they are.
Designed specifically with melee in mind.
you are straw manning by putting words in our mouths that we didnt even say. we aren't talking about balance here. Thread subject is predictions for next expac classes.
These are the reasons behind our predictions.

Please take your argumentative fallacies outta here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendalwind

You are arguing for no reason. Picking a fight while putting words in my mouth.
I never said "balanced around"
(the one place i use the word 'balance' in this thread is in reference to role-to-slot ratio balancing. nothing else)
I said what I said "designed specifically"
And they are.
Designed specifically with melee in mind.
you are straw manning by putting words in our mouths that we didnt even say. we aren't talking about balance here. Thread subject is predictions for next expac classes.
These are the reasons behind our predictions.

Please take your argumentative fallacies outta here.

---

as you are saying "we" aswell as "our mouth" here i assume you are at least trying to speak for ultimatecalibur here, which i'm therefore gonna quote here


(for context, this is what he was answering)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Katie_Kitty

In what universe is this even remotely true? You could argue that parties are expected to have at least 2 ranged to go along with two tanks and two healers but there is absolutely nothing about ex/savage that requires or even encourages the use of two melee. Double melee is not even that prevalent in raids especially these days when SMN and BLM make an awesome double caster pair.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimatecalibur

Look at how mechanics are divided up in many of those fights. Often there often are mechanics that have 4 close positions (suitable for the 2 tanks and 2 melee) and 4 far positions (suitable for the 2 healers and 2 ranged).



Double Caster is an anomaly due to how much Summoner and Black Mage both currently outperform the Melee dps. Black Mage ends up being given a melee position so they do not need to move as much.

---

here the other half of "you" is outright answering "where does square encourage double melee" with "often there are fights that have 4 closed slots" which is what i originally argued against, all that is is actually enabling you to take double melee, further evidence at least in this post which started the whole thing is completly absent.

also the whole "double caster is an anomaly thing" you do know that redmage does dps on the level of the weaker three melees right ? while offering WAY better progress tools at that. redmage on shiva is 4th place, on idol even blackmage can't keep up with the melees so redmage falling behind shouldn't mean much and on ramuh+ifrit/garuda it sits pretty much equal to the other melees. yes , redmage gets punished for double caster, but really with the amount of extra support it still isn't really behind, especially considering the buffer it actually has on dragoon/monk. so sorry, but ouright dismissing "double caster" because obviously thats only because they are too strong while using arguments like "double melee is intendet, just look at the boss, there are 4 slots close to the boss" is as bad an argument as any in favor of double caster. at least i'll outright admit that unless square offers some clear cut statement on the whole thing only the future will really show in which way the game design will evolve.


yes, you personally did not say these things, at least not in such absolute and "of course i'm right, just look at this perfect evidence and disregard everything else" way, but that is the argument you jumped in to defend and reaffirm, you yourself felt the need to not only respond for you personally to katie but for both of you, so no, its not putting words into your mouth, YOU as a collective that you as a person just counted yourself in for made exactly these arguments without any backing up aside from "it has allways been that way and just see what lengths square goes too to make it even possible to take double melee so of course they want you to do just that"

Your lack of actual argument here humors me. Have fun proliferating an argument without any evidence. And once again assuming too much into a post.

You are both terrible at actually reading words at face value. Stop extending everything into something to argue against.

I said one sentance with 'we' in it: because he also NEVER used the phrase Katie said he did.

Stop extending beyond the context of the initial post. His momentary bringing up dps as an anomaly in argument does not magically make that the focal point of his argument.

Edit: (removed an uneccesary insult)

Why cant you just leave be and let it lie that some of us think evidence points to a new melee? All of this is just who hah guessing anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendalwind

Why cant you just leave be and let it lie that some of us think evidence points to a new melee? All of this is just who hah guessing anyways.

---

for the same reason you discount things like "blackmage obviously was balanced against the melees from the start, so even if classes where balanced inside their role that would still mean someone at square at least tried balancing the casters "at melee level" even if that failed completly" as "not evidence". or the fact that an actual flexible last spot (and not double caster all the way, cause all were talking when you brought that up was meta) would indeed be fairer to classes as a whole.

you read these things and simply go "but thats not evidence, at best thats an opinion" and than follow up with "evidence" like "square designs fights with 2 melees in mind (which they do, totally with you there) , therefore they want you to take two melees, completly ignoring that in fact they would have to design it that way completly independent from their actual intent unless they actively tried punishing you for double melee, which obviously they wouldn't do.

I'm not saying i'm any better in that regard, most of us most likely aren't, but there is zero need for that high horse of yours.

anyways, where i will agree with you is that at the end its a guessing game at this point either way.

as far as new classes are concerned ? i'll take what i can get, be that melee,ranged or heal, i only hope that square can make up their mind and get something usefull out of it, cause this current 1,6 melee/1,6caster/0,8 phys ranged situation isn't working out, either it needs to be a clear cut with 2 melee, aside from flat out enforcing it this would need the casters brought down quite a bit, or the last slot needs to be truly flexible between all 3 dps roles.

This place turned into a shitshow fast. If it’s not arguing about why we need 17 melee it’s people begging for whips and throwing cards.

And I feel like “well a group COULD bring two of any role means this or that” doesn’t mean anything because that’s not how they base what gets released for a class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BasicBlake

This place turned into a shitshow fast. If it’s not arguing about why we need 17 melee it’s people begging for whips and throwing cards.

And I feel like “well a group COULD bring two of any role means this or that” doesn’t mean anything because that’s not how they base what gets released for a class.

---

may i inquire whats your problem with people asking for whips or throwing cards ? i mean i'm not into the whole whip thematic, but it isn't really anymore out there than other weapon types, and if a monk can infuse his fists with enough spiritual energy to hit people just as hard as others while using bfs or lances or whatever and literal magic does exist i also don't see whats bad about throwing cards?

anyways, personally i think if we will get anything it will be (finally) a healer, if only so people don't start rioting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akiudo

may i inquire whats your problem with people asking for whips or throwing cards ? i mean i'm not into the whole whip thematic, but it isn't really anymore out there than other weapon types, and if a monk can infuse his fists with enough spiritual energy to hit people just as hard as others while using bfs or lances or whatever and literal magic does exist i also don't see whats bad about throwing cards?

anyways, personally i think if we will get anything it will be (finally) a healer, if only so people don't start rioting.

---

Because we realistically only have a finite amount of spots left in each role.

How are they going to design the individual cards per encounter? Is each trial going to give a different colored bedazzled card? And I’m not sure if you have seen a whip before but there is only so many things you can change/add to it to make it a unique drop for each tier. Not to mention the animations for the whips, it’s not a gunshot or a throw, an arrow, that is a whole ass weapon you have to somehow pretend is a ranged weapon and then have animations for it lashing however many yalms.

So it’s not about wether it “can” exist in a world where people punch or use magic. I just don’t think they would waste one of our very few spots left on them.

And don’t get me wrong, I love this game, I have since 1.0 but we are fooling ourselves if we think we are going to get some of the things suggested. 14 plays it very safe, they aren’t gonna add some “sacrifice your own health to heal” cutting edge Korean grindcore mmo gameplay or some of the other things people are asking for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akiudo

for the same reason you discount things like "blackmage obviously was balanced against the melees from the start, so even if classes where balanced inside their role that would still mean someone at square at least tried balancing the casters "at melee level" even if that failed completly" as "not evidence". or the fact that an actual flexible last spot (and not double caster all the way, cause all were talking when you brought that up was meta) would indeed be fairer to classes as a whole.

you read these things and simply go "but thats not evidence, at best thats an opinion" and than follow up with "evidence" like "square designs fights with 2 melees in mind (which they do, totally with you there) , therefore they want you to take two melees, completly ignoring that in fact they would have to design it that way completly independent from their actual intent unless they actively tried punishing you for double melee, which obviously they wouldn't do.

I'm not saying i'm any better in that regard, most of us most likely aren't, but there is zero need for that high horse of yours.

anyways, where i will agree with you is that at the end its a guessing game at this point either way.

as far as new classes are concerned ? i'll take what i can get, be that melee,ranged or heal, i only hope that square can make up their mind and get something usefull out of it, cause this current 1,6 melee/1,6caster/0,8 phys ranged situation isn't working out, either it needs to be a clear cut with 2 melee, aside from flat out enforcing it this would need the casters brought down quite a bit, or the last slot needs to be truly flexible between all 3 dps roles.

---

Fair enough :) and you are correct about me, i often take a high horse stance and i am sorry about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BasicBlake

snip

---

somewhat with you on the whip, i kinda feel like they could get by by simply making an animation for length x and than acting like its the air vibrations that hit the enemy or whatever,but generally a fair point. about the cards though ? you think that would be any worse than whats currently going on with scholar/summoner? or is it more like "its bad enough allready, lets not make it worse?" honest question here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vendalwind

Fair enough :) and you are correct about me, i often take a high horse stance and i am sorry about that.

---

lets just say you sometimes have strong opinions, though i know i'm not any better in that regard so lets just bury the hatchet with that ?


to get this back on track though, my bet is on chemist as a heal, on a potential dps i really have no idea and would just be taking guesses, the whole "role balance" discussion aside though, i actually would love rune knight as a kinda melee redmage, so basically complete melee with 1-2 ranged skills that could be used for movement phases aswell as magical buffs for itself and potentially others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Akiudo

somewhat with you on the whip, i kinda feel like they could get by by simply making an animation for length x and than acting like its the air vibrations that hit the enemy or whatever,but generally a fair point. about the cards though ? you think that would be any worse than whats currently going on with scholar/summoner? or is it more like "its bad enough allready, lets not make it worse?" honest question here.



lets just say you sometimes have strong opinions, though i know i'm not any better in that regard so lets just bury the hatchet with that ?


to get this back on track though, my bet is on chemist as a heal, on a potential dps i really have no idea and would just be taking guesses, the whole "role balance" discussion aside though, i actually would love rune knight as a kinda melee redmage, so basically complete melee with 1-2 ranged skills that could be used for movement phases aswell as magical buffs for itself and potentially others.

---

With scholar and astro though, the focus are the astroglobe and the book, not the cards (for auto attacking). People are speaking up in regards to a ranged physical dps using throwing cards as a main source of damage. With them both being healers you don't spend a lot of time seeing the auto attacks, but if you have a class designed around throwing cards, you are going to need those cards to look FF14 weapon worthy. Which I think would be hard to accomplish with that kind of class.

On the other note of your post I do think a chemist healer is coming. Though it will be more akin to Bajsaljen's Garlean Medic more so than "chemist". As for the other class I do think it is too soon for a 5th melee dps though. But 7.0?? I would more than welcome a Mystic Knight type melee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BasicBlake

And I feel like “well a group COULD bring two of any role means this or that” doesn’t mean anything because that’s not how they base what gets released for a class.

---

Pretty much yeah. it's absolutely wild to me that people here think square deciding "We really should make it possible for teams to run with double melee if they want" somehow equates to "DOUBLE MELEE IS WHAT WE BALANCE THE FIGHT AROUND AND EXPECT YOU TO USE". Simply allowing teams to use double melee is the absolute least they can do in order to make it possible for people to play the jobs they like.

There is no fight in this game that actively encourages the use of two melee. Meanwhile, just about every single fight essentially requires the use of ranged DPS unless melee enjoy throwing daggers/spears.

You make a melee handle those ranged mechs and it's a problem. But any ranged can fill in perfectly for any melee. You could run every single fight with no melee at all if you wanted to and nobody would even care or be bothered in the slightest.

So can we go back to the topic of discussion what we can guess what may be released in the future in this post?

On topic:

There is one thing I am curious how the Job developer team may handle and it is a Job that by lore focus on using the powers the WoL once had when he or she was the Original Soul.

It may be a interesting way to explain why WoL is so multi-talented compared to other people who awaken the Echo and how despite their soul being just as close to complete as WoL still lacks his or her multi-job/class talents since we know the more complete the Soul is the more of the Original Soul talents they reobtain.

Though there is a question on what kind of Job it maybe to represent WoL full potential in mastering all Jobs but my best guess will be a Nocits Job that uses Armiger mechanic either as a Job that has Mastery over Flying Weapons for Physical Range attacks or another Melee Combat job with Awakening Armiger as the Burst mechanic for the Armiger Job to evolve or access certain skills.

A shapeshifter class could be cool, with lvl 50-60 going for one job usingshapeshift and making IT be Healer or an other jobs shapeshift making IT dps etc

A scythe class

Warning Contains Spoilers for 5.3....

Well we finally got the

Soul Crystal of our character's original Soul


and it has the Symbol of the Sun on it. There is only two ways this can go and I am guessing the next part of the storyline will have our character finally Awaken their original powers, it becomes a new Job for our character we unlock in 6.0 expansion, or both outcomes.

It will be interesting if it turns out to be the source of a new job but only Job in FF series I know about that uses the Power of the Sun is Rain's Grandshelt Knight Job from FF Brave Exvius. Heck Rain's new Limit Break Extreme Nova for his Neo Vision self uses the power of 1000 suns to nuke a Galaxy and his King Rain version uses the power of a Sun to create Crimson Nova to blast a planet.

Definitely Chemist.

I mean, the amount of time we spent at the start of this patch on the little cat girl who was going to become a doctor and practice medicine seemed pretty telling to me. And I like it.

given what we saw during this patches storyline

chemist pretty much confirmed, i mean basically everyone screams for a healer, and yea the little girl that wants to help people with potions and stuff, that would be way to cruel a tease to just put it out, pretty sure heads will roll if at this point we don't get chemist.

possibilitys?
during the battle for novrand the summoned "creatures, light warriors, whatever..." had jobs like us, thief for well, thief? berserker for warrior ? , every cutscene enemy that looked like a paladin...

BUT
we also had a necromancer boss, considering every other enemy was basically a class thats ingame that is suspicious at least


further possibilitys? the way the final trial boss enchanted his sword and overall was mostly swordplay with a bit of magic thrown in could hint towards something like rune/mystic knight, considering it was basically an amalgamation of all the different warriors of lights (different jobs at that)

I would say with the amount that a certain job is brought up in the start of 5.3 quests, it would be a shoe in for healer.

Thank god it leaves Geomancer open for caster still. Haha

**Spoilers for the new dungeon**

So going through the dungeon, we see almost all the enemies are warriors of light being summoned in from elsewhere. And they all have familiar jobs (i.e. dragoon, bard, etc..). EXCEPT there are two (maybe 3 if you count the final boss) exceptions: the necromancer you fight in the second boss, and there is a common enemy called an "Ink Mage."

Do you all think that these might be hints of jobs coming in the future?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ItMe

**Spoilers for the new dungeon**

So going through the dungeon, we see almost all the enemies are warriors of light being summoned in from elsewhere. And they all have familiar jobs (i.e. dragoon, bard, etc..). EXCEPT there are two (maybe 3 if you count the final boss) exceptions: the necromancer you fight in the second boss, and there is a common enemy called an "Ink Mage."

Do you all think that these might be hints of jobs coming in the future?

---

Honestly anything in 5.3 MSQ can be a hint at future jobs.

Heck...

We fight a Berserker as the final dungeon boss and also there is the Soul Crystal we obtained which contains the powers and memories of our character's original soul that has the Symbol of the Sun.

Expansion locales used to go hand in hand with the jobs, since we took a huge "lack of better terms" detour to a literal other dimension Shadowbringers was the exception. HW had the revolutionary Flintlocke wielding machinsts, Literal Dark Knights of the Holy see and Sharlyon Magiks of Astromancy all complementing their locales. SB had the far eastern Samurai and the not-so-far eastern hybrid magical discipline of Red magic. SHB we got the Thavnarian Dancer and the Ancient Garleon methods of the aspected Gunbreaker. funny enough these jobs would fit in with the potential 6.0 taking place in Garleon controled territory , perhaps a detour to our closest path of Radz-at-Han?

Ima guess well get either no job or just 1 with the sole condition that a majority of them get reevaluated, many jobs in SHB are inadequate. We dont need just Monk most of them need to be analysed especially with new skills

The 5.3 hints so many job, SE might be trying to hide the real clues

• Apothecary, due to how much the little girl tells the WoL about it. Could be a job with potion mixing like AST does with its cards back in HW/SB, minus RNG?
• Necromancer, the door to the job is now open since the main argument between the WoL and this job was the morality, how it doesn't feels right for the savior to raise the dead.
• Berseker, I still feel that Warrior is basically a berserker but it's not impossible to see a DPS Warrior? The dungeon might aswell be a "Here the jobs you'll never play!" message.
• Rune Knight, there's two massive hints in my opinion. The first is the Trial that casts blade enhancements. The second is at the very end of the MSQ.

At the very end of the MSQ, Alphinaud and Alisaie talks about how Y'shtola, Urianger and Thancred evolved and how they, the twins, are stagnating. It could hints that during 6.0, Alphinaud will switch job to the new healer, Alisaie to a Rune Knight.

OR they could have their own unplayable jobs like how Y'shtola is a sorceress, simply a Black Mage that also uses White Magic.

Also, a Necromancer as a healer might... not be impossible? We had Dancer as DPS so we could see another switcharoo. The reason I think about it is because we WILL have a healer but I don't see Alphinaud throwing potions and not casting spells at all.

Usually, X.4 hints the job but there is a lot of materials in this patch.

Hopefully zero spoilers:

I think I may be the only one not reading too much into the bosses in the new dungeon. 2/3 are already implemented in the game for the most part. With a third even having a voice line about being “tainted”. Not sure they are gonna add a tainted class/job to the game.

As for the trial. We already use that weapon. And they are able to use other things because of the... absorptions that happen right before the fight? At least that is where my mind went for those “certain abilities”. Hadn’t said character always been a very specific class since like always? I can’t remember I never played the game with them other than Dissidia.

!!SPOILER WARNING!!




During heroes gauntlet some of the spectres of heroes from other stars were different named classes. thief was just a renamed rogue but berserker and necromancer were new. could be a beta version of a new job.

Definitely spoilers
I am on mobile I have no idea how to make the drop downs sorry!


Also they are really trying to “anti blufever” this expansion. The sheer amount of classes brought up as possible so far in Shadownringers is wild.

Since 5.0 we have had the school for Geomancy open. Seer, Beastmaster and Medic brought up with Bozja. Apothecary with the main story, Thief, Ink Mage, Necro and Berserker with the dungeon. Even a nod to Mystic Knight thrown in.

They really don’t want us catching on this time.