Please do not lock Jobs to the Weapon Class that unlocks them.

[Amineri]

Caught up on the current "state of the argument".

Seems like people are arguing the two extremes...

1) Jobs and classes are completely unlocked, allowing any combination of job and class
2) Jobs and classes are completely locked, so that each job is only allowed on one class (the one the opened it up)

There is a LOT of room in-between these two extremes. There is certainly the possibility that a particular class opens up a job, and that class has the highest affinity to that job, but that some OTHER classes can still be used with the job, even if not all of them are.

Option 1 allows the most player freedom, but also creates the most burden for the developers, in allowing every combination balancing becomes potentially more difficult. It also creates the most confusing situation for players (especially new players), as the myriad choices could be overwhelming. Also, certain class/job combinations may not fit with the game story-lore that SE is creating.

Option 2 is the most restrictive for players, and essentially locks players into the single role as SE envisions it, not as the player envisions it. This option also has problems with lore, primarily the historical final fantasy lore wherein multiple weapons (even if not all) were available to most jobs.

Both sides of the discussion have some good points -- as I read more and more, I think that the middle road is more appropriate.

Each job can have a small number of allowed classes it can be equipped with.

Some jobs may have more (e.g. WAR, RDM), some jobs may have fewer (e.g. WHM, DRG). This also allows SE the ability to unlock more job/class combinations later, if they feel it is beneficial (and after they have the time to balance the combination.)

So. What are the objections to this system?

[Lerris]

Caught up on the current "state of the argument".

Seems like people are arguing the two extremes...

1) Jobs and classes are completely unlocked, allowing any combination of job and class
2) Jobs and classes are completely locked, so that each job is only allowed on one class (the one the opened it up)

There is a LOT of room in-between these two extremes. There is certainly the possibility that a particular class opens up a job, and that class has the highest affinity to that job, but that some OTHER classes can still be used with the job, even if not all of them are.

Option 1 allows the most player freedom, but also creates the most burden for the developers, in allowing every combination balancing becomes potentially more difficult. It also creates the most confusing situation for players (especially new players), as the myriad choices could be overwhelming. Also, certain class/job combinations may not fit with the game story-lore that SE is creating.

Option 2 is the most restrictive for players, and essentially locks players into the single role as SE envisions it, not as the player envisions it. This option also has problems with lore, primarily the historical final fantasy lore wherein multiple weapons (even if not all) were available to most jobs.

Both sides of the discussion have some good points -- as I read more and more, I think that the middle road is more appropriate.

Each job can have a small number of allowed classes it can be equipped with.

Some jobs may have more (e.g. WAR, RDM), some jobs may have fewer (e.g. WHM, DRG). This also allows SE the ability to unlock more job/class combinations later, if they feel it is beneficial (and after they have the time to balance the combination.)

So. What are the objections to this system?

Same as option 2. Allowing the jobs to played on a limited number of classes is no different than allowing each to play on one, as the options are defined as SE envisions them rather than as the player envisions them.

I like the unlimited flexibility possibility, but feel it's an unrealistic expectation due to the balancing complexity on top of the armoury system. I'd rather see a balanced system that works over a system that's broken because the developers found the complexity unmanageable.

[Sorel]

Each job can have a small number of allowed classes it can be equipped with.

Some jobs may have more (e.g. WAR, RDM), some jobs may have fewer (e.g. WHM, DRG). This also allows SE the ability to unlock more job/class combinations later, if they feel it is beneficial (and after they have the time to balance the combination.)

So. What are the objections to this system?

By having some Jobs that can have more allowed classes than other Jobs, you create a built-in mathematical imbalance that would have to be compensated for. Otherwise, you get Jobs that are more versatile than others, making them more valuable in a party (case in point RDM/WHM vs. WHM/BLM in FFXI). The Development Team would have to balance that out, since they imposed the arbitrary limit in the first place, and implied that any combination that they dictated should be effective at something.

But if there are no restrictions, the Development Team does not have to (though they may still want to) balance the various combinations out, because they never officially endorsed any particular one. If you decide to play a Lancer with a Paladin Job, it's completely OK for you to suck. SE probably won't do anything to make you comparable to a Gladiator with the same Paladin Job.

If however, SE says you are allowed to play Gladiator, Marauder, and Lancer with the Paladin Job, now they have to make sure that all three combinations are balanced because they dictated it.

That's why restrictions and dictates cause MORE balance issues than letting players decide what should and should not be combined.

[Amineri]

If however, SE says you are allowed to play Gladiator, Marauder, and Lancer with the Paladin Job, now they have to make sure that all three combinations are balanced because they dictated it.

You raise a good point, regarding player expectations that, in a limited scenario, all available options would be "equally as good".

However, I was thinking of the opposite situation. If all job/class combinations are available, and SE hasn't had time to test all combinations (very likely), there is a good possibility of a completely game-breaking combination coming out that SE didn't foresee.

Having those 'overpowered' combinations in the game, and then removing or nerfing them later, seems to create more ill-will than simply not having the combination available at the beginning.

I guess the question is which option would damage player expections more:

1. OMG, SE made WAR/LNC more gimp than WAR/GLA .... waaaah!
2. OMG, SE just nerfed my awesome DRG/THM that I spent months leveling up ... waaaah!
3. OMG, SE only allows me to play WAR/GLA, not WAR/MRD .... waaaah!

[Zenaku]

By having some Jobs that can have more allowed classes than other Jobs, you create a built-in mathematical imbalance that would have to be compensated for. Otherwise, you get Jobs that are more versatile than others, making them more valuable in a party (case in point RDM/WHM vs. WHM/BLM in FFXI). The Development Team would have to balance that out, since they imposed the arbitrary limit in the first place, and implied that any combination that they dictated should be effective at something.

But if there are no restrictions, the Development Team does not have to (though they may still want to) balance the various combinations out, because they never officially endorsed any particular one. If you decide to play a Lancer with a Paladin Job, it's completely OK for you to suck. SE probably won't do anything to make you comparable to a Gladiator with the same Paladin Job.

If however, SE says you are allowed to play Gladiator, Marauder, and Lancer with the Paladin Job, now they have to make sure that all three combinations are balanced because they dictated it.

That's why restrictions and dictates cause MORE balance issues than letting players decide what should and should not be combined.

i can say the same thing about letting everyone be everyone they have to balance every job for every class and make sure everything is well balance overall vs just balance it for 1-2class

[Sorel]

i can say the same thing about letting everyone be everyone they have to balance every job for every class and make sure everything is well balance overall vs just balance it for 1-2class

Except that SE is not obligated to make every Job balanced with every Class if they don't dictate restrictions. SE does not have to maintain the illusion of balance between Archer-Paladin, Pugilist-Paladin, Lancer-Paladin, Marauder-Paladin, and Gladiator-Paladin. Archer-Paladin can totally suck compared to Gladiator-Paladin and SE wouldn't have to do anything about it.

That's because the player community would pretty much give a collective "Duh, of course! What else did you expect??". That would also hold true of Marauder-Paladin vs. Gladiator-Paladin. One may edge out the other in some aspect or another, but SE does not have to keep them balanced, because they let you have the entire gamut of possibilities for Paladin ... both great and not-so great.

Once SE states there can only be Marauder-Paladins & Gladiator-Paladins, they MUST keep the two balanced because their statement/restriction implies one should be as effective as the other. If one becomes more effective as a Paladin than the other, it invalidates the entire premise of having the restriction in the first place (i.e. to prevent not-so-great Class-Job combinations). So SE would have to constantly keep the two balanced.

Now multiply that constant balancing act across all the SE restricted Class-Jobs combinations ... versus ... having no restrictions and only nerfing two or three overpowered Class-Job combinations.

One may disagree with the policy of nerfing, but it is far easier and more efficient than re-balancing entire subsets of classes and jobs whenever a new Job or Class or Ability is introduced.

[Cairdeas]

Except that SE is not obligated to make every Job balanced with every Class if they don't dictate restrictions. SE does not have to maintain the illusion of balance between Archer-Paladin, Pugilist-Paladin, Lancer-Paladin, Marauder-Paladin, and Gladiator-Paladin. Archer-Paladin can totally suck compared to Gladiator-Paladin and SE wouldn't have to do anything about it.

That's because the player community would pretty much give a collective "Duh, of course! What else did you expect??". That would also hold true of Marauder-Paladin vs. Gladiator-Paladin. One may edge out the other in some aspect or another, but SE does not have to keep them balanced, because they let you have the entire gamut of possibilities for Paladin ... both great and not-so great.

Once SE states there can only be Marauder-Paladins & Gladiator-Paladins, they MUST keep the two balanced because their statement/restriction implies one should be as effective as the other. If one becomes more effective as a Paladin than the other, it invalidates the entire premise of having the restriction in the first place (i.e. to prevent not-so-great Class-Job combinations). So SE would have to constantly keep the two balanced.

Now multiply that constant balancing act across all the SE restricted Class-Jobs combinations ... versus ... having no restrictions and only nerfing two or three overpowered Class-Job combinations.

One may disagree with the policy of nerfing, but it is far easier and more efficient than re-balancing entire subsets of classes and jobs whenever a new Job or Class or Ability is introduced.

Sorel you really should just re-write my first post for me xD

[Amineri]

Except that SE is not obligated to make every Job balanced with every Class if they don't dictate restrictions. SE does not have to maintain the illusion of balance between Archer-Paladin, Pugilist-Paladin, Lancer-Paladin, Marauder-Paladin, and Gladiator-Paladin. Archer-Paladin can totally suck compared to Gladiator-Paladin and SE wouldn't have to do anything about it.

That's because the player community would pretty much give a collective "Duh, of course! What else did you expect??". That would also hold true of Marauder-Paladin vs. Gladiator-Paladin. One may edge out the other in some aspect or another, but SE does not have to keep them balanced, because they let you have the entire gamut of possibilities for Paladin ... both great and not-so great.

Once SE states there can only be Marauder-Paladins & Gladiator-Paladins, they MUST keep the two balanced because their statement/restriction implies one should be as effective as the other. If one becomes more effective as a Paladin than the other, it invalidates the entire premise of having the restriction in the first place (i.e. to prevent not-so-great Class-Job combinations). So SE would have to constantly keep the two balanced.

Now multiply that constant balancing act across all the SE restricted Class-Jobs combinations ... versus ... having no restrictions and only nerfing two or three overpowered Class-Job combinations.

One may disagree with the policy of nerfing, but it is far easier and more efficient than re-balancing entire subsets of classes and jobs whenever a new Job or Class or Ability is introduced.

I can get on-board with this argument. I think I'm like Cairdeas ... I think more in terms of logic and structure than in terms of people's perceptions (which I just don't get )

[Zenaku]

I can get on-board with this argument. I think I'm like Cairdeas ... I think more in terms of logic and structure than in terms of people's perceptions (which I just don't get )

it's about realism Final Fantasy have some type of realism and rule they follow yes each game have it own rule and some even break rules made from other Final fantasy but the main point SE is getting with ffxiv is realism. Look how much work they did into the world to get realism each gear in the game you can tell what it made of.

Now how Realistic is to see a PLD without a cape or sword? some use hammer but really don't think they add hammer as a Wep in the game. How Realistic to see a Monk use a G.K?

Allow Jobs to use more wep if it fit with there job Monk= Hand to hand and staff RDM=Staff,sword Samurai= G.K,Polearm,bows PLD= Sword,Great Sword Warrior = Sword,Great Axe, one hand-axe. But don't allow everyone to use everything

Like i said before if unlocking a job is at level 30 class then i just level up 1 class to max level and each one to 30 and i have all jobs max level 50 without level up the class pass 30 even if am gimp with spell i still got enough to party with.

[Cairdeas]

it's about realism Final Fantasy have some type of realism and rule they follow yes each game have it own rule and some even break rules made from other Final fantasy but the main point SE is getting with ffxiv is realism. Look how much work they did into the world to get realism each gear in the game you can tell what it made of.

Now how Realistic is to see a PLD without a cape or sword? some use hammer but really don't think they add hammer as a Wep in the game. How Realistic to see a Monk use a G.K?

Allow Jobs to use more wep if it fit with there job Monk= Hand to hand and staff RDM=Staff,sword Samurai= G.K,Polearm,bows PLD= Sword,Great Sword Warrior = Sword,Great Axe, one hand-axe. But don't allow everyone to use everything

Like i said before if unlocking a job is at level 30 class then i just level up 1 class to max level and each one to 30 and i have all jobs max level 50 without level up the class pass 30 even if am gimp with spell i still got enough to party with.

"Realistic" How realistic is it to suddenly forget how to use a sword because you've been training with a spear for a while and mastered a special skill that teaches you how to jump into the air really high and crash on to a enemy? Not very realistic at all >.>