How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Armoury System

[Anonymoose]

That's a matter of opinion.

In this case, he means that I'm spelling the name of the battle system correctly. Square Enix actually does localize the English client according to American grammar due to the larger consumer base unless making stylistic choices on named elements, which is what they've done here.

We'd go down to the armory to grab our weapons, but if you called it the "Armory System," you'd be mistaken. Check out the American version of the game's website. It's quite frequently misspelled by players.

EDIT: I'd pay to see the statistics on how the errors in the spelling of Armoury System compare to the errors in pronunciation of Thaumaturge or Leve, now that I think about it...

[Kinseykinz]

At the risk of derailing this topic into a discussion about what might possibly happen in the future... this is a perspective I've seen fairly often that also makes no sense to me. Gladiator doesn't just unlock a stout tanking role, gladiator is a stout tanking role. Could it really be turned into a pure DD with just 5 extra abilities? Not one nearly as viable as WAR, that's for sure, look at its damage output (as of v1.23). DRK is usually the go-to example for what GLA's second job should be (and I believe the example came from Yoshi-P himself, so it has some heavy backing)... but that just doesn't make sense with the current system unless they plan to change everything DRK has ever been.

Plus, in a rant I went off on in a previous topic, that means they need to think of a partner job as well as a corresponding class for every new job they want to add, and that seems to restrict the influx of new jobs more than the armory system as it is now ever has or will.

I suppose it's a discussion that will have to wait until we get a good look at ARR's set up, since Gladiator may now be a viable base for a DD, but if it stays as it is then I just don't see how this could possibly work well.

Well, for starters, jobs only gain '5 abilities' now because we're capped at 50. They will get more abilities as level cap rises. Also, the 'secondary' job that could spin off a class (if they ever had a more than 1:1 ratio), would most likely require more subclasses to unlock. So maybe Gladiator would unlock a DD job...but it would need GLA,LNC, and MRD a certain level to do it...etc.

Also, I never said GLA wasn't a good basic tank...but if you are doing something with a full party+versus harder hitting mobs, you aren't going in there GLA. This implies SE doesn't see GLA as 'tank enough'....in part because in order to make it that it doesn't take a solo GLA 10 hours to kill a bunny, they gave them some DD potential (and the potential to add other classes abilities to their list). So yes, while you could argue that they can pull the bulk of their 'solo dd potential' from other classes, and you'd be correct, the game wouldn't be considered balanced if a player couldn't kill a mob on GLA solo, using only native class abilities that people on other classes could kill, using only their native class abilities. The point is, GLA has 2 sides to it: Damage Dealing and Damage Mitigating. PLD plays up their Damage Mitigating skills, adding to those, but at the expense of raw DD. It would have potentially been just as easy for SE to do the opposite with GLA, and play up their DD side while minimizing their Damage Mitigating Side.

However, my greater point was, the flexibility and potential is there...I never said they are going to do it.

Also, the main point of the OP was just for the author to have a spot where is 'OP' is saved. It's kinda hard to derail a topic outside that, as as long as we're civil, and sorta talking about the same topic, or related rants, the mods won't lock/delete the OP. Either way, this little side-shoot wasn't that far off base as it's one of the reasons people dislike the class:job system. If they allow classes to branch out into multiple jobs, people get irritated due to weapon choice and 'they all seem the same' If instead the keep the 1:1 ratio, people will go 'why didn't they just combine the class into a job, having them separate is silly.'

[Anonymoose]

I got to play devil's advocate a little bit with Gahoo over at GamerEscape on these very topics and figured I might as well chime in. Keep in mind that these aren't necessarily the opinions I subscribe to, as I'd need to see something in practice before I thought it had potential, but let's advocate some devil!

Could Gladiator become a DD with a few extra abilities?

Not really, no - but you make the important point that Gladiator itself is a tank.

When Paladin is on, it gains massive bonuses to things that would normally cause hate corrosion. If you've tried playing both PLD and WAR against the same enemies, you'll notice that WAR just can't keep up when it comes to megabosses. You can sink all the money into enmity and HQ items you want, but over the course of a fight, the biggest hate boosters are abilities and heals whereas the biggest hate losses come from just getting hit. PLD takes individual hits better, losing a few less HP and checking better against MND/VIT calculations from enemy weaponskills, and keeps giving itself little boosters with cures. The takeaway point here is that PLD as is meant to monopolize hate, beyond that it requires outside support.

Turning PLD off and going GLA as a class doesn't mean you're a DD - it means that you have the ability to trade away what would be overkill on hate monopolization solo or in exp parties (smaller, less hard hitting trash mobs whose weaponskill checks are negligible), and in exchange hotbar a bunch of things that will make you require less external support to keep the rotation going.

TL;DR

Going from PLD to GLA shouldn't make you a DD, it should make you more self-sufficient - and it does. You can solo some pretty challenging mobs as a classed-out Gladiator with thoughtfully chosen gear and abilities. Don't get me wrong, it'll take forever, but once you find the comfortable rotation, the thing's an energizer bunny.

Should weapons be 1:1?

Earlier, I was content to say that back when we could, we often didn't. I figure that the door is open if it'll make a difference in battle strategy, but if not, how much should we really care? But that Final Fantasy XI connection is always just a few feet away, so let's address it.

Let's get an easy one out of the way - semantic identity. Step back a moment and remember that we're playing a recreational computer program.

OH, NO, I'VE RUINED YOUR IMMERSION! Eorzea is a giant Skinner Box and we're all just just playing digital Dungeons and Dragons with an automatic calculator and Knee-SOKEN on ambiance!

No matter how you slice your gaming theory, according to the source code, the only difference between a sword and a swordfish is an art packet and some algebra. Should we care what we call a weapon if the only gain is semantic? Hell, Grand Theft Auto had DATs that technically reskinned a baseball bat as a dild-["No." - Moderator Team]. I know. It feels different, psychologically - but is that enough to get your pantalettes in a twist? Let's talk about things that might make a difference.

In Final Fantasy XI, more jobs could equip swords than could equip pants that would provide any protection from a kick to the rolanberries. Sweet freedom, right!? When you wanted a BLU sword, you opened up that list and you just started looking for things that ended in "Scimitar" or "Kalij" because those were the ones that had the stats you wanted.

Isn't it technically the same thing even if FFXIV separates Swords from Scimitars on the market list? We weren't sad earlier that we couldn't equip weapons that sucked for the job, are we now sad that we can't equip weapons that suck for that context? Isn't it a fair trade if SE gets to work with a simpler system and thus design more and more weapons that are tailored to your role?

The only argument I can think of against it at this point is for weapons like Joyeuse and the Kraken Club - but if SE has a 1:1 ratio, don't you think they'll make fun weapons for each role? And will those not probably contain all-around stats for your job; not just the really fun one that makes you look like you're having a Wii seizure?... Wiizure?

"Can you even name enough weapons for all the classes, Anonymoose?"

Yes. Yes, I can. And remember, different magics are different weapons now - but just to stop myself from cheating, I'll name no less than thirty:

Sword, scimitar, great sword, hook sword, katana, great katana, dagger, anelace, kukri, kris, bow, crossbow, mace, club, flail, whip, nunchucks, boomerang, knuckles, claws, war fans, war rings, wristblades, muskets, bombs, axe, great axe, warhammer, scythe, polearm, rod, staff, scepter, book, music, conjury, thaumaturgy, arcanism, mysticism, pets, machines, cards, dice, baton, tonfa, runes, aaaand BELLS (don't look at me like that, I didn't invent Geomancer, okay?)

Again, I've made no opinion yet - but they can do whatever they want and you'll probably not notice or care enough to make a difference in your perception of the game.

[Catapult]

As someone whose first MMO was XIV v1.0 (omg shock horror), I walked into the armoury system without preconceived opinions about how weapons and class systems should work.

Ok, so I had a vague idea, but only because my friends wanted me to pick up a "healer" class.

The problems I saw actually had nothing to do with binding weapons to class types, the nature of cross-class abilities, or how you changed classes. Rather, the problems were all about the polish. The idea seemed good, but the execution was... lacking. Oh, and the nasty nasty grind. So I went and played as a miner until the combat system picked up.

Fortunately for us, the 2.0 rebuild will allow them to re-create the system the way it should have been in the first place.

aaaand BELLS (don't look at me like that, I didn't invent Geomancer, okay?)

Too bad. I'm still looking forward to it.

[Kinseykinz]

I got to play devil's advocate a little bit with Gahoo over at GamerEscape on these very topics and figured I might as well chime in. Keep in mind that these aren't necessarily the opinions I subscribe to, as I'd need to see something in practice before I thought it had potential, but let's advocate some devil!

Should weapons be 1:1?

Earlier, I was content to say that back when we could, we often didn't. I figure that the door is open if it'll make a difference in battle strategy, but if not, how much should we really care? But that Final Fantasy XI connection is always just a few feet away, so let's address it.

Let's get an easy one out of the way - semantic identity. Step back a moment and remember that we're playing a recreational computer program.

OH, NO, I'VE RUINED YOUR IMMERSION! Eorzea is a giant Skinner Box and we're all just just playing digital Dungeons and Dragons with an automatic calculator and Knee-SOKEN on ambiance!

No matter how you slice your gaming theory, according to the source code, the only difference between a sword and a swordfish is an art packet and some algebra. Should we care what we call a weapon if the only gain is semantic? Hell, Grand Theft Auto had DATs that technically reskinned a baseball bat as a dild-["No." - Moderator Team]. I know. It feels different, psychologically - but is that enough to get your pantalettes in a twist? Let's talk about things that might make a difference.

In Final Fantasy XI, more jobs could equip swords than could equip pants that would provide any protection from a kick to the rolanberries. Sweet freedom, right!? When you wanted a BLU sword, you opened up that list and you just started looking for things that ended in "Scimitar" or "Kalij" because those were the ones that had the stats you wanted.

Isn't it technically the same thing even if FFXIV separates Swords from Scimitars on the market list? We weren't sad earlier that we couldn't equip weapons that sucked for the job, are we now sad that we can't equip weapons that suck for that context? Isn't it a fair trade if SE gets to work with a simpler system and thus design more and more weapons that are tailored to your role?

The only argument I can think of against it at this point is for weapons like Joyeuse and the Kraken Club - but if SE has a 1:1 ratio, don't you think they'll make fun weapons for each role? And will those not probably contain all-around stats for your job; not just the really fun one that makes you look like you're having a Wii seizure?... Wiizure?

Can you save this and tweak it a little when Black Mages whine to White Mages that it's unfair that Black Mages don't get to shoot brown spells out of their wrists? /em innocent smile

Also, I don't disagree with any of the other points you made (I was just trying to paint an example,of if something happened.) Only SE knows the if and how.

[gahoo]

Ok, since I was called out by name here - and since it is unclear who is the devil ...

I understand that the difference between the aforementioned dild and baseball bat is a graphic packet - but I think that's a strawman argument. That's akin to saying that the difference between the Lala and Roe is also just an art packet. Or that the difference between starting in Limsa and starting in Gridania is just the first few quests - which are the same except that the graphics of the NPCs you visit is different. It's all 0s and 1s, but it matters.

My point on 1:1 weapon:class/jobs is only this - it serves no purpose (i.e. no material upside) but has a downside (or at the very least a possible downside).

I am willing to hear upsides - but as far as I can tell at best it saves an extra click (since the code for selecting classes can be done just like selecting jobs, so all you'd need to do to actually select your class would be to use the proper soul crystal).

As for the downsides (in no particular order):

1. It means that you cannot have any exceptions. I'd like to see a system where my predominantly dagger wielding class at least has a selection (~15%) of random other weapons he can equip over time. Mix it up a little.

2. It means that you are forced to either (a) fit new desired classes into certain weapon types; or (b) create new classes to fit identified weapon types.

For example, (scenario a) let's say you wanted to add a Ranger class next - well he can't use daggers... or bows... or swords. So you are forced to make the Ranger class (and accompanying job) use what? Let's look at Moose's list... crossbow? boomerang? Sure those technically "work", but we don't really associate some jobs with these weapons. Or take Thief, you can say, well we wanted to have the Thief class use a dagger (so now Rangers are doubly out of luck), but daggers are already taken... so we'll give them kris, a sub-set of daggers (asymmetrical daggers) - which again makes no logical sense.

Or (scenario b), you want to use Scythes as a weapon class, since they are grounded in FF history, are different, etc. So now you are deciding which class to add not because of what is needed in game, or what is demanded, but because you've identified Scythes as the next weapon? That makes no sense from a development standpoint.

3. It's illogical that someone cannot grab, say, a Staff, without changing classes. If you have hands you can hold a Staff. Can you use it? Are you skilled with it? That's a different story. And if the game chooses to represent not being skilled with a weapon with the "you cannot equip this weapon" (like being the wrong level) that seems like a reasonable compromise (vs. allowing you to hold/don anything and taking it out on the player via stat decreases - recall that was what was tried at 1.x launch). But, the mere holding of a type of weapon does not, could not, certainly should not (subjective but so be it) magically change my very profession, skills, etc. The equipping of a magical crystal however - well that makes sense. It's magic. But each and every weapons hardly seems imbued with the same magically energy as a "multi-aspected crystal."

4. The original system was not created with this in mind - and we are fighting against it now. Gladiators were defined as specialists in "the handling of all manner of one-handed blades, from daggers to longswords, be they single or double-edged, straight or curved" (emphasis added). So why then, would a new class, such as a Red Mage, be granted the use of anelaces, let alone kukri or kris (shh... don't tell the Ranger or the Thief, now they might be 3x out of the money). Scimitars? That's a gladiator weapon according to the lore. Pugilists are masters of all "hand-to-hand combat" - meaning they are the ones using knuckles and claws (and presumably war rings and wristblades - whatever those are). So we originally created a system with broad categories - but these broad categories can only come back to haunt us 2, 3, 5, 10 years and 18 classes from now.

Ok that 4 downsides, and enough text... for now...