14' s hunt for new jobs may be overlooking a simple solution.

[Lyth]

It really helps to have some context for this.

The original article alluded to in the OP comes from the 'We Are Vana'diel' commemorative event website created for FFXI's 20th anniversary. This particular interview, entitled 'We discuss Vana'diel', was posted as a conversation between producer Matsui with Yoshi-p as a featured guest, although it's predominantly about XI. The excerpt in question comes from Part 2, with Part 3 coming out in about a week's time. Just bear in mind that the main subject of discussion is FFXI.

Yoshida: The FFXIV staff in charge of lore and items have a great respect for FFXI, so I believe the references come from their playfulness and their strong feelings towards previous titles in the series. Mr. Hayashi* in particular has a long history of developing items for FFXI as well, and he seems to bring over certain names that would evoke the memories of players who have played FFXI. I’ve never given him specific instructions regarding that aspect, but I do ask him to check with me when he’ll be using the name of an item with great importance to the series.

* Yosuke Hayashi, currently the Lead Item Designer of FFXIV.

Matsui: It’s honestly quite a struggle to give names to things in long-standing titles like FFXI and FFXIV.

Yoshida: Job names are especially tough. (laughs wryly) After all, there’s no point if a job is similar to its namesake in name only; its gameplay experience needs to match their pre-established design too. At this point, I’m thinking we have no choice but to come up with brand new jobs that haven’t appeared in the FF series before.

I certainly see why, considering there’s already 22 jobs in FFXI and 20 jobs in FFXIV.

Matsui: As long as new game elements aren’t being introduced, new jobs are designed to fulfill a battle role that can already be filled by an existing job. That said, we can’t release a superior version of a certain job, and a new job that offers the same experience as an existing one would defeat the purpose of adding a new job. In that sense, it’s very difficult to come up with a new job.

Yoshida: From a system perspective, if the number of jobs is fixed and well-balanced, there’s no need to add more, and adding new jobs would obviously cause a stir. But nevertheless, we always need to add more jobs to keep providing new gameplay experiences.

A lot of this simply comes down to player expectations. A job that's never been in the series before has no history or legacy, so you're free to take it in whatever direction that you want.

Contrast that with a job that we've seen before, and has had multiple different iterations across the series. If you're not faithful most to those, players will complain about the implementation of it. We've seen some of this already. And there will always be limitations on what can or can't be achieved in an MMO. As such, we are likely to see more jobs in the future that are brand new to the series, like Reaper.

[Lihtleita]

As such, we are likely to see more jobs in the future that are brand new to the series, like Reaper.

this is probably the best idea. reaper and gunbreaker take two weapon types that have been in the series before and give them their own job identity and lore. ffxi drks and squall simps are satisfied and it doesnt take away from any job already in the game.

[Kranel_San]

this is probably the best idea. reaper and gunbreaker take two weapon types that have been in the series before and give them their own job identity and lore. ffxi drks and squall simps are satisfied and it doesnt take away from any job already in the game.

Time to give me my Noctis-themed job. I want to summon different aetherblade weapons and teleport around



Regarding the OP. I always found it a bit of a dumb idea that weapons are restricted to single-job, making it harder to have Rune fencer (DPS DRK) and Berserk (DPS WAR) for example as they use the same weapons.

[LioJen]

Just a consequence of the original game being built on the Class and Armory system. The idea was that while your Class is based on your weapon, you could pick an assortment of cross-class skills and spec your stats to suit different builds for the same Class.

Of course this did not work out the way they intended, but instead of scrapping the system and starting over, they made superficial changes on top of those systems like the Job Stones, imposing the trinity roles. That's one of the main reasons I feel job design is so restricted even today, they are still limited by their decision to build off a completely incompatible design philosophy. The base game was not designed with Jobs as we know them in mind.

[Shurrikhan]

Just a consequence of the original game being built on the Class and Armory system. The idea was that while your Class is based on your weapon, you could pick an assortment of cross-class skills and spec your stats to suit different builds for the same Class.

Of course this did not work out the way they intended, but instead of scrapping the system and starting over, they made superficial changes on top of those systems like the Job Stones, imposing the trinity roles. That's one of the main reasons I feel job design is so restricted even today, they are still limited by their decision to build off a completely incompatible design philosophy.

No part of that initial design philosophy has remained since Stormblood.

That initial design philosophy, for one, didn't even have job stones, had class progression only as proficiency ranks separate from character level, had at least some value for each class from nearly every primary stat (building towards different prioritized niches/throughputs), and had virtually no limit placed on Cross-Class skills. The trinity roles that became concrete in HW (and arguably stretch back to 2.1 or even 2.0) have nothing to do with that initial vision. That initial vision could have been better, may be worse, but it certainly hasn't been relevant to present limitations in almost 10 years.

[LeonKeyh]

Regarding the OP. I always found it a bit of a dumb idea that weapons are restricted to single-job, making it harder to have Rune fencer (DPS DRK) and Berserk (DPS WAR) for example as they use the same weapons.

I don't think it's that much of an issue. SMN and SCH both use books but are different jobs. They can have "DRK Greatsword" and "RNF Greatsword"; Or, just use slightly different types like Sword/Rapier; e.g. "Greatsword" and "Claymore", or just different weapons all together; e.g. Bastard Sword and Dual Hand Axes.

[LioJen]

No part of that initial design philosophy has remained since Stormblood.

That initial design philosophy, for one, didn't even have job stones, had class progression only as proficiency ranks separate from character level, had at least some value for each class from nearly every primary stat (building towards different prioritized niches/throughputs), and had virtually no limit placed on Cross-Class skills. The trinity roles that became concrete in HW (and arguably stretch back to 2.1 or even 2.0) have nothing to do with that initial vision. That initial vision could have been better, may be worse, but it certainly hasn't been relevant to present limitations in almost 10 years.

The fact that classes still exist proves you wrong. The limitations of having each job be defined by their specific weapon is directly from that system. The job stones were an after-the-fact band aid on top of the class system to try and impose the trinity on a trinity-less system, and we are still using them. The old code and foundation is obviously still there, despite the complete 180 in design philosophy, which is why they are running into walls.

[Lihtleita]

The fact that classes still exist proves you wrong. .

the reason base classes still exist is because the devs dont want to redo 1-30 story quests

[Saimeren]

You look like Marilyn Manson.

[LeonKeyh]

You look like Marilyn Manson.

Oh-oh and I'm Dita Von Teese