I wish Gunbreaker would be a DPS class.

[kikix12]

Double standards? That's an easy term to throw around. No, my standard is the one set by the game and it's own cross role system.

No, it's double standard. The game sets three roles.

Tank, healer and DPS. There is no "melee DPS" role, just like there is no "disciple of magic" role. Those are categories WITHIN a role ("disciple of..." is a category across roles...).

"Melee/Ranged/Caster DPS" are a type of DPS. Not a role. Don't believe?! Here. You can clearly see that they fall under a general role of DPS.
It's obvious that tanks and healers don't have such type distinction...seeing as they have only ONE type currently. I can assure you that as soon as they'll get at least two more of a different type (possibly even a single different class) they'll get divided just like this.

That's EXACTLY why yours is a double standard. You compare a sub-type of a role with a role and use that as argument that the ROLE to which that sub-type belongs to needs more new jobs than the ROLE that have a lot less jobs overall. If you don't understand that distinction...then it's a lost cause. You're just a DPS fanatic.

[Dualgunner]

No, it's double standard. The game sets three roles.

Tank, healer and DPS. There is no "melee DPS" role, just like there is no "disciple of magic" role. Those are categories WITHIN a role ("disciple of..." is a category across roles...).

"Melee/Ranged/Caster DPS" are a type of DPS. Not a role. Don't believe?! Here. You can clearly see that they fall under a general role of DPS.
It's obvious that tanks and healers don't have such type distinction...seeing as they have only ONE type currently. I can assure you that as soon as they'll get at least two more of a different type (possibly even a single different class) they'll get divided just like this.

That's EXACTLY why yours is a double standard. You compare a sub-type of a role with a role and use that as argument that the ROLE to which that sub-type belongs to needs more new jobs than the ROLE that have a lot less jobs overall. If you don't understand that distinction...then it's a lost cause. You're just a DPS fanatic.

When will this different type occur? Gunbreaker is certainly adding no new "type" of tank. Unless that interview is true and they're splitting them into MT and OT, in which case, I suppose then we have MT and OT type jobs now. That's its own can of worms. Even that aside, let's say they add a DoM tank, and keep cross-role: why wouldn't they keep that tank in the same cross role so it can benefit from all the tank job's essentials like provoke, rampart, and shirk?

It's still not a double standard though. I'm still working by the game's own, in-game role division outlined by the cross-role system. Not all DPS serve the same purpose and fulfill 'DPS' to different extents based on the level of party utility they bring. Unless you're going to tell me that if I want to play a Bard, I might as well play a Samurai since they're the same role anyway?

And instead of properly arguing the point, you're mudslinging "You're just a DPS fanatic!" and claiming I have double standards. None of which is appreciated, and I'd hope you're better capable of arguing in good faith than that.

[kikix12]

(...)why wouldn't they keep that tank in the same cross role so it can benefit from all the tank job's essentials like provoke, rampart, and shirk?

Because they don't have to?! Lucid Dreaming, Swiftcast, Surecast, Break, Second Wind, Invigorate and Diversion are all skills on two different lists. Sure, "Break" is basically useless (unless as a healer you absolutely cannot spend mana on attack spells), but all the other skills are incredibly useful or must-have (from when there was a limit, that is).

Similarly, there are only two tank skills that absolutely NEED to be there. Provoke and Shirk. All the other skills can be replaced with something else.

Yes, even Rampart. If the magical tanks had less innate defense for example, their version could have 25% reduction. Or they could have higher reduction with lower duration, or lower reduction with lower cooldown etc. Another skill that would need a direct equivalent would be low blow. Give magical tanks an AoE, but with a 1 or 2sec stun for example.

Convalescence?! "Increases the HP healed by targets spells by 25%." would be good replacement.

So...why have them share the skills?! Do you seriously think that the Melee, Ranged and Caster DPS couldn't have mostly the same skill lists?! It seems you forgot the very reason behind this systems inception.

It's still not a double standard though. I'm still working by the game's own, in-game role division outlined by the cross-role system.

Again, "Role" in this game is strictly Tank, Healer and DPS. The divisions within a role are not roles. And even if we'll assume they are, tanks and healers don't have this division only because they don't have the representatives for them. Basically, they still have those pseudo-roles, but they're at zero so aren't shown.

Not all DPS serve the same purpose and fulfill 'DPS' to different extents based on the level of party utility they bring.

Eh...not all tanks serve same purpose and fulfill 'Tanking' to different extents based on the level of party utility they bring either.

Paladin is a tank that supports other party members survival directly, as well as bolster his own beyond the other tanks. Shield lob for interrupting casts without cooldown and lowering incoming damage in groups, Shield Swipe and its pacification, Sentinel bringing the biggest damage reduction from tanks innate skills, Cover to protect others, Bulwark offering a very consistent damage reduction, Hallowed Ground being the single most powerful defensive skill in the whole game (better than even limit break, but personal).


...I had twice as much written down...but gotta love the post limit...I made a mistake trying to copy it and lost it. So I'll keep it at that...Not going to spend another half an hour trying to rewrite it because of this forums horrible design.

[whiskeybravo]

That's EXACTLY why yours is a double standard. You compare a sub-type of a role with a role and use that as argument that the ROLE to which that sub-type belongs to needs more new jobs than the ROLE that have a lot less jobs overall. If you don't understand that distinction...then it's a lost cause. You're just a DPS fanatic.

I don't read his comment in the same context. Sounds to me like he's saying that we have enough dps roles, but if they are going to add more dps roles it should be a ranged physical since they are currently the least represented within that DPS sub-category. As in, we need a 3rd ranger more than we need a 5th melee. No double standard in that.

[Dualgunner]

I don't read his comment in the same context. Sounds to me like he's saying that we have enough dps roles, but if they are going to add more dps roles it should be a ranged physical since they are currently the least represented within that DPS sub-category. As in, we need a 3rd ranger more than we need a 5th melee. No double standard in that.

Yes, this is basically what I am saying, but I will add the caveat that pointing out subroles within XIV's DPS is a reaction to everybody screaming how DPS deserve no new jobs until 7.0. I made a mistake earlier in the thread with my counting, and have apologized for it; I'll outline it again: I miscounted because my brain counted our third expansion as 4.0 (due to not taking ARR as 2.0 into immediate consideration), so I kneejerked at not wanting a new DPS till 6.0.

Whether or not tanks and healers need variety is beside the point when you say dps should get no new jobs until 6 or 7.0. Thats 4 to 6 years of nothing for rangers or casters as well as melee dps.

Ranger dps are far less represented than tanks or healers. Only two jobs are in that role, if we're going to talk about needing variety.

In this quote, I don't dispute we need a tank or a healer. Actually, if you look at posts in my other threads, I think we do. Emboldened is the point I was trying to make, which Whiskey touched on: whether or not we need new tanks, saying DPS shouldn't get any new jobs until 7.0 is silly and needlessly vindictive.

You can argue that Ranged Tanks are the least represented job in the game. That's fine. I doubt Gunbreaker is going to be breaking that though, and they'll all still be melee tanks. Perhaps they could break them into Off Tank / Main Tank if Yoshida is really thinking about that. I'll cede Kikix brought up some good points about cross roles shared across the sub roles, so perhaps they could do that, we'll have to see.

But I stand by that, until they decide to divide the tanks and healers into sub roles, Ranged DPS is the least represented style of play.

[kikix12]

But I stand by that, until they decide to divide the tanks and healers into sub roles, Ranged DPS is the least represented style of play.

See?! I don't have an issue with this. It IS the least represented style of play.

It is not however the least represented role. That is a major difference because "role" does indeed dump all DPS into one pull of 9 jobs, but "style of play" does not.

I'm not the one that pooled them together.

Please learn how to read.

You should learn how to read because Hakuro89 is right. You are the one that pooled them together. I never said that the total of healers and tanks are the most underrepresented. I said that those two roles are underrepresented. Seeing as they both have only one overall style of play each and the same amount of total numbers (3), I'm just not going to waste time saying "Tanks are the most underrepresented role. And healers are too.". That's stupid from a writing points of view (not to mention illogical). I'm just going to say that healers and tanks are the two most underrepresented roles.

[Dualgunner]

See?! I don't have an issue with this. It IS the least represented style of play.

It is not however the least represented role. That is a major difference because "role" does indeed dump all DPS into one pull of 9 jobs, but "style of play" does not.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here, simply because we define our terminology differently and neither of us is willing to accept the other's as anything resembling correct.

You should learn how to read because Hakuro89 is right. You are the one that pulled them together. I never said that the total of healers and tanks are the most underrepresented. I said that those two roles are underrepresented. Seeing as they both have only one overall style of play each and the same amount of total numbers (3), I'm just not going to waste time saying "Tanks are the most underrepresented role. And healers are too.". That's stupid from a writing points of view (not to mention illogical). I'm just going to say that healers and tanks are the two most underrepresented roles.

Actually, you said that I did in your post responding to him.

Dualgunner however said that ranged DPS are more underrepresented that tanks and healers and as such they should have importance over tanks and healers. That's the crux of the problem. We will be getting a tank and healer, but technically, even then, they are still more underrepresented with 0 for two out of three categories and with under half of the total amount of DPS. That's what I have a problem with.

Which of course, is itself a strawman since I never said that ranged dps should have importance over tanks and healers. But in the exchange between you and Whiskey, you are the one who grouped them together.

Humorously though, even split down the middle, both have 3 which is still more than 2.

[Kaedan]

Humorously though, even split down the middle, both have 3 which is still more than 2.

But the primary purpose of those two jobs is to DPS. There are 7 other jobs whose purpose is to DPS.

There are only 3 jobs total whose primary purpose is to tank. And only 3 jobs total whose primary purpose is to heal.

Thus, new jobs whose primary purpose it is to tank and heal are a MUCH higher priority than ones to DPS.

Now, the next DPS jobs (which will be at or close to 6.0) should most definitely be ranged physical, since they are the least represented OF the DPS jobs.

[Dualgunner]

But the primary purpose of those two jobs is to DPS. There are 7 other jobs whose purpose is to DPS.

I could argue the primary purpose of ranged dps is to provide resource support, damage support, and mitigation support, as both of them have reduced damage compared to other dps and (at least BRD) is basically mandatory in every group because of the sheer level of relief they bring, not the dps they bring.

Thus, new jobs whose primary purpose it is to tank and heal are a MUCH higher priority than ones to DPS.

Did I ever argue otherwise? My argument has always been "Saying DPS shouldn't get new jobs till 7.0 is silly just because melee dps are heavily represented already." I have accepted GNB as tank and fully expect DNC to be healer, and have been saying for the past year it'll be nice to see some more of those, but I hope they don't screw them up.

My issue comes up when people rally the party line of "DPS don't need any new jobs ever" because, while yes, there are only three tanks, the fact remains if I want to tank I have three options. If I want to be a damage focused caster, I only have three options. If I want to be a ranger, I only have two options. DPS isn't split into subroles for no reason, it's done because no matter how much you stretch it, the difference between Samurai and Black Mage is far greater than the difference between Dark Knight and Warrior. Meanwhile, Samurai and Monk make a far greater analogy to Dark Knight and Warrior because they're in the same subrole.

Now, the next DPS jobs (which will be at or close to 6.0) should most definitely be ranged physical, since they are the least represented OF the DPS jobs.

Glad we can agree on that at least.

[kikix12]

Actually, you said that I did in your post responding to him.

"Apples and oranges are juicy" doesn't mean that apples and oranges are juicy together but that either of them can be used to get juice. If I'd want the tanks and healers to be counted as one I'm pretty sure I should have used "with", as in, "tanks with healers" that actually pools them together.

Basically "There are cows, pigs and chickens on this place so it's a farm." means that those are things you find on a farm. But you can have a farm with only cows and pigs, for example. As it is, what I said was that they are in the same situation. Not that they are one and the same.

My issue comes up when people rally the party line of "DPS don't need any new jobs ever" because, while yes, there are only three tanks, the fact remains if I want to tank I have three options. If I want to be a damage focused caster, I only have three options. If I want to be a ranger, I only have two options.

If I want a magical tank I have zero options. If I want a melee healer I have zero options. If I want a ranged physical healer I have zero options. Except for ranged tank, all those are not present even though the game most certainly allows that. There is no reason why we should dismiss them as a possibility. You can tank with spells, heal at range by throwing potions or such and heal while attacking in melee. Square simply didn't go around to make such tanks and healers. In comparison, you have ranged DPS role. And I'm pretty sure that 2 is more than 0.