Maybe we need a Cataclysm

[Iscah]

It really shouldn't have to be pointed out that we are witness to only one of the cataclysmic events that lead to the rejoining of one of Hydaelyn's shards. These things don't happen like weather change patterns. The 6th calamity iirc was 1500 summers past. Even if I'm off, it was a long arse time ago.

To be fair, in the alternate timeline we averted due to the events of Shadowbringers, we're only months (or less) away from the Eighth Calamity.

The events of Shadowbringers are also very clear that another Calamity is not something we should be wishing for.

[Stepjam]

Well we the players could theoretically wish for one for the sake of story possibilities.

Though I wouldn't want one to happen so soon considering we just averted one in 5.0

[linayar]

The OP is referring to only one thing: a sweeping change, by way of some large event, by which to reinvigorate the open world and various systems (e.g. of progression). All other parts of a "cataclysm", in reference to WoW or otherwise, are besides the point. Let's not conflate them.

The problem is that such a "sweeping change, by way of some large event," disturbs the leveling experience story-wise like Cataclysm in WoW. In FFXIV, 1.0 to 2.0 only works because it's a reset of the game and essentially your character (with people not remembering 1.0 characters).

So unless SE is willing to move the player starting experience forward in the story timeline, which is more doubtful now given the recent ARR revamp, another calamity would not be appropriate. Not to mention that Shadowbringers was about preventing a calamity and this overall story arc coming to its end, which should be the end of all calamities altogether, one way or another.

Sweeping change can still occur, but not with some large event that physically changes the existing world in a large scale like a calamity.

[Penthea]

Sweeping change can still occur, but not with some large event that physically changes the existing world in a large scale like a calamity.

I think the most likely thing to happen is if we do see another calamity it will be somewhere that we haven't been to yet. As you have said SE have just revamped ARR. There is no way they will render all that work irrelevant by having a calamity remove that content. Also by having it somewhere we haven't been to yet means the places that players love stay intact. I recall in WoW's Cataclysm expansion many players were upset by how some of the zones changed.

And no I don't mean a calamity by ascian design, I just mean a large scale disaster in general. SE have more or less closed the book on ascian calamities, and I get the impression that a certain someone who was revealed at the end of 5.3 msq is more interested in seeing people suffer rather than just erase them entirely. You can't play with your toys if they're turned to dust.

[Sequine]

First it's a calamity here. This isn't WoW.

And the only thing we need is to bring the Ascians/Garlemald story to a close. We don't need another world shattering event, just a closure to this already way to drug out storyline and the start of something new. With it they could introduce new systems and retire old ones. Could still keep the old storyline intact and have a new set of "starter" zones and just link them somehow early on so ppl have access to the original areas and stories as well as giving ppl the option to choose if they want to start in the new or old story.

Could even make coming back to the original areas a side quest that incorporate the original opening cutscene of coming to one of the 3 city states on the choco carriage.

So many possibilities.

One idea? Just consign the old MSQ to NG+, and allow new characters to access it after they finish the new one up to X point. I'm intentionally not going to pick a breakpoint because all of them have good reasons for and against being used.

[Razard]

Yeah. The writers' hands are really tied. I mean, it's not like it's a fantasy setting or anything... or that we go up against Zody who's part of the reason why we have shards?
But, that really shouldn't have to be pointed out.

On a more serious note, I don't really mind what the end up calling it if it were to happen, but I'm starting to like PSO's approach to it.

So if Frodo spent the entirety of the Lord of the Rings Flying to Mount Doom on a cloud of magical rainbow farts before defeating Sauron with a super powerful multicoloured guff. Your reposnse to people saying how utterly ridiculous that scenario would be: It'S noT LiKE iT's A FaNTaSy sEtTinG OR anYthInG GuYz.

Sigh, you can't deal with all your imaginary problems with calamities.

[MicahZerrshia]

One idea? Just consign the old MSQ to NG+, and allow new characters to access it after they finish the new one up to X point. I'm intentionally not going to pick a breakpoint because all of them have good reasons for and against being used.

There is no real need to push it to New Game+, there are already very few rewards to the msq and NG+ would take even these away. If nothing else, keeping it intact would be a great way to level alt jobs for new players with the added bonus of the mounts, orchestrations, furnishing, etc. already included in them. And not add the extra work for the devs of trying to find alternate ways to open dungeons and anything else locked behind the msq, like primals and raids.

[tdb]

I am going to share a real controversial opinion here, but maybe it would be a good idea to have another cataclysm. There is nothing really wrong with the game and it doesn't need a restart but I feel that something like this could really energize the players and maybe give the development team a chance to work themselves out of some of the very rigid loops they have designed. For instance we have been running roulettes for tomestones to get new gear for 7 years now.

I'm not convinced we'd need a calamity to change those traditional gameplay loops. There isn't any in-world reason why we have to keep getting new kinds of tomestones. Heck, I don't know an in-world reason for why we get any kind of tomestones, why we get different amounts and types from different kinds of content, and what does Rowena even do with them. There's no in-world reason for us to befriend three beast tribes per expansion and for them to offer us three quests per day, no more and no less. Even character levels have to be largely meaningless in-world, or else Garlemald should send a Lv70 soldier from Ghimlyt Dark into the Eorzean cities and capture them from their Lv35 defenders. The game can easily be freshened up without a calamity.

Introducing another calamity would likely involve a reset akin to the 2.0 release, and to be honest, I probably wouldn't have the energy to start over in a new game. Especially not at the moment when I barely have enough time to keep up with the patches.

[linayar]

I think the most likely thing to happen is if we do see another calamity it will be somewhere that we haven't been to yet. As you have said SE have just revamped ARR. There is no way they will render all that work irrelevant by having a calamity remove that content. Also by having it somewhere we haven't been to yet means the places that players love stay intact. I recall in WoW's Cataclysm expansion many players were upset by how some of the zones changed.

And no I don't mean a calamity by ascian design, I just mean a large scale disaster in general. SE have more or less closed the book on ascian calamities, and I get the impression that a certain someone who was revealed at the end of 5.3 msq is more interested in seeing people suffer rather than just erase them entirely. You can't play with your toys if they're turned to dust.

Yeah, the only problem with tying systems change to that type of event is that it will only be applicable to the new zones.

If the OP wants a change that affects the entire game at all levels, then it would have to be its own change with no tie to any world event.

One idea? Just consign the old MSQ to NG+, and allow new characters to access it after they finish the new one up to X point. I'm intentionally not going to pick a breakpoint because all of them have good reasons for and against being used.

That could've been a plausible idea before 5.3.

With 5.3, there is the ARR revamp and HW is now part of the free trial. They're not going to move that much content to NG+ anytime soon.

[Shurrikhan]

The problem is that such a "sweeping change, by way of some large event," disturbs the leveling experience story-wise like Cataclysm in WoW.

Not necessarily. Take the more recent change of the world being overrun by Nzoth's corruption, for example: that only takes effect after one has encountered Nzoth, in the endgame. Now, that particular example doesn't have the presence that the TC was looking for, as it was only ever meant to be a story-immersion component rather than sweeping change, but the same could as easily have occurred for Cataclysm, bringing players through what parts they wanted of the original experience and then reopening the original world through its changes after Deathwing's awakening.

It just depends on the changes one wishes to make and what range they wish to affect. The "sweeping change" could occur at endgame, and yet provide excuse for improvements at endgame and so forth that in turn provide excuse to make general improvements to the leveling experience, all without retroactively touching the game's storylines in any way.