SE can you go back to your old philosophy for this game?

[Cabalabob]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=abE09-tqhoM

Basically, in 1.0 the mantra was vertical progression is capped but you can still progress horizontally. So a casual player could work on one job well while a hardcore player could work on every job well. That way they would be at the same level but the hardcore would have more variety.

Well for 2.0 and beyond they kept that vertical cap (daily and weekly lockout and caps) but seem to have dropped the horizontal aspect. Now a casual player can keep up with a hardcore player with 1 job, but the hardcore player finishes 1 job and then has nothing to do.

Can you go back to the old 1.0 philosophy and make weekly lockout and caps per job rather than per character? It seems logical in a game where the main selling point is levelling all jobs on one character.

[Edewen]

the main selling point? seem to be putting forth opinion rather than fact on that one.

If they capped things by job rather than character, people would feel obligated to do everything to maximize thier usefulness. raid groups would want you to be gearing multiple classes raiding every night. This seems like a terrible idea as it would only result in a lot of grind in order to be relevant. The headlines would read "lf raider for static. Must have tank, healer, and 2 dps jobs geared". screw that.

[Lone-wolfe-02]

But you can level all jobs on one character but no where does it say you can gear all jobs equally.

I would like if this was a thing regardless.

[Cabalabob]

If they capped things by job rather than character, people would feel obligated to do everything to maximize thier usefulness. raid groups would want you to be gearing multiple classes raiding every night. This seems like a terrible idea as it would only result in a lot of grind in order to be relevant. The headlines would read "lf raider for static. Must have tank, healer, and 2 dps jobs geared". screw that.

This is a very slippery slope argument, you can currently have 8 characters on 1 subscription and gear up different mains on each (something a lot of very hardcore players actually do to avoid the weekly caps) you don't see people demanding you have 4 alts with different jobs if you want to join their static or people feeling obligated to do so.

[Kaurie]

That is interesting, I've been advocating this change for quite some time (maybe ~ 2 years now?). I had no idea that it was how it used to be in 1.0

[Canadane]

the main selling point? seem to be putting forth opinion rather than fact on that one.

If they capped things by job rather than character, people would feel obligated to do everything to maximize thier usefulness. raid groups would want you to be gearing multiple classes raiding every night. This seems like a terrible idea as it would only result in a lot of grind in order to be relevant. The headlines would read "lf raider for static. Must have tank, healer, and 2 dps jobs geared". screw that.

The hardcore groups already do this via alt characters, though. The non-progression groups wouldn't ever actually ask for that, as you don't often see anytone asking for someone with multiple characters levelled and geared to join a static.

You may simply be trying to hyperbole the counter-argument here but when the hyperbole already exists you'll either need to stretch a bit more or rethink the argument!

[Talraen]

How do you propose to make this work? The video you linked is about the fatigue system, which everyone hated and was one of the first things they removed. But more importantly, it applies to earning experience, not gear. The problem with doing something like having the capped tomestone be per-job is things like accessories and shared gear. Do we really want wholly different sets, including accessories, for every job? Or do we want a system where healers and tanks (who can get scripture on three jobs and get the same stuff) have a major gearing advantage over other jobs?

[NefarioCall]

People have nothing to do when they get to the end because it's a vertical progression MMO, meaning there will never be an endgame...
wait ... what? Oh... Glamor is the endgame, right...

Were this a Horizontal MMO, the endgame would be 3 years worth of contents by now,
Heck, if it were partially Horizontal with each expansion we'd at least have 18 months worth of endgame.
But instead it's as small as it was at release. Just a couple things.

Honestly, i like your proposal OP. No reason not to. Just a silly design choice frankly to cap it at all.
I've got several jobs at 60 and i never cap my green tomes. Why? Because what's the point? It's a vertical MMO.
I cap em on red tomes MAYBE if i feel like doing something quasi temp useful eventually useless and stop there.
And only at this point because i know red is generally enough to finish the current expansion and i still feel yucky about it
If i suddenly wake up one day and decide i want to go super grindy on green to do that one endgame content,
Why cap me for it? Let me burn hard for a couple days to get my set and take on the one endgame content...
Because everything i worked for will be outdated next month anyway. And we'll all be... equal again! Just like you want SE.
Cap is totally pointless.

[Kaurie]

How do you propose to make this work? The video you linked is about the fatigue system, which everyone hated and was one of the first things they removed. But more importantly, it applies to earning experience, not gear. The problem with doing something like having the capped tomestone be per-job is things like accessories and shared gear. Do we really want wholly different sets, including accessories, for every job? Or do we want a system where healers and tanks (who can get scripture on three jobs and get the same stuff) have a major gearing advantage over other jobs?

You could make this work by making the tomestone week cap affect tomestones spent, rather than earned. At least, that is how I've suggested it over and over.

You could earn all the scriptures you want every day, 2000 in one day, no problem. However, you can only spend 450 per week on your WHM. Swap over to SMN and you can spend another 450.

This would require that roles do not share gear, or have the lock be based on role rather than job. Otherwise you could spend 450 on your WHM, swap to SCH, spend 450 and swap to AST and spend 450. It would also require either a re-working on the pricing of items, or have a token that you purchase for 450 and make items like a chest piece cost 375 scriptures + 1 totem (similar to Rowena Tokens for weapons, or they could just use the Rowena tokens).

[Talraen]

You could make this work by making the tomestone week cap affect tomestones spent, rather than earned. At least, that is how I've suggested it over and over.

You could earn all the scriptures you want every day, 2000 in one day, no problem. However, you can only spend 450 per week on your WHM. Swap over to SMN and you can spend another 450.

This would require that roles do not share gear, or have the lock be based on role rather than job. Otherwise you could spend 450 on your WHM, swap to SCH, spend 450 and swap to AST and spend 450. It would also require either a re-working on the pricing of items, or have a token that you purchase for 450 and make items like a chest piece cost 375 scriptures + 1 totem (similar to Rowena Tokens for weapons, or they could just use the Rowena tokens).

I can see a lot of downsides to having separate gear per job (such as a lot less flexibility in altering your main to fit into a raid, particularly for healers and tanks), but doing it by role seems reasonable enough. Or perhaps doing it by shared gearsets instead, so you can separately get gear for SMN/BLM, BRD/MCH, NIN, MNK, and DRG. I'd be OK with that, I think.

EDIT: Actually, for simplicity's sake, instead of having a 450 cap, why not simply "you can only buy 1 piece of gear per set per week." You can probably leave weapons out of it entirely, and just let people buy them whenever they have the tomes (the token system may make that a requirement anyway). There would still be issues with accessories shared between sets, but splitting those should solve that.