If it is not broken, DO NO FIX IT!

[Ablongman]

Again... Ultima Online and Darkfall are both MMORPGs where you can make what ever type of character you want. So this isn't something that only exists in single-player RPGs. If you try to argue if FFXIV is theme park or sand box it's probably supposed to be a theme park mmo... but uhhh I find we are having to make our own fun more than running content from SE so does that make it a sandbox at the moment?

The fact is that freedom to make any character you want means, by necessity, the freedom to mess up your character any way you like. Some choices will always be better than others. True balance is impossible, which would not matter if you did not have a community obsessed with being hardcore and min-maxing.

If character A can bring the debuffs you need, do exceptional damage and survive, why would you bring character B who free-formed it, has the debuff, but does less damage because he chose to allocate stat points to boost his self-healing? The ability to choose is golden, but mix-maxing is all about getting what you need and minimizing redundancy. A build that overlaps with the job of another member of your party is sub-optimal in a hardcore environment, and therefore, less desirable.

Long post short: Free-form is not free when some choices are better than others. And since true balance is impossible, there is always a "right" and a "wrong" way to build your character for endgame content.

Also, to your point about sandbox vs. theme park: this game is not a sandbox, it just sorely lacks meat on the bones. Take RIFT, for instance. 90% of the quest content in that game is glorified grinding. However, the quests justify it, give it a strong purpose, and guide you along a storyline that makes the game feel cohesive and alive.

Sandbox MMO's sound great in theory, until you realize that a lot of the players are not very good at content generation and storytelling. I presume many of us are here because we enjoy FF-style storytelling and gameplay, both of which FFXIV lacks right now.

[Abriael]

Long post short: Free-form is not free when some choices are better than others. And since true balance is impossible, there is always a "right" and a "wrong" way to build your character for endgame content.

Removing choice completely isn't for sure the right solution to the fact that there are some choices better than others.

As long as there is a sizable variety of viable and good choices then the fact that some choices are better than others is a complete non-issue.

[Ablongman]

Removing choice completely isn't for sure the right solution to the fact that there are some choices better than others.

As long as there is a sizable variety of viable and good choices then the fact that some choices are better than others is a complete non-issue.

I actually agree with you, but I do think there's a threshold where choice for the sake of choice gets academic. For instance, what's the use of a full-on support role when you can adequately spec support/DPS or support/heal and contribute more overall? At that point, full-on support is a choice, but not a viable one. Which begs the question: is it truly worth having?

I am for keeping the system in spirit, and instead finding ways through gameplay to make every choice viable in some way. I don't think physical/rank level is what's causing the issue.

[Xzen]

The fact is that freedom to make any character you want means, by necessity, the freedom to mess up your character any way you like. Some choices will always be better than others. True balance is impossible, which would not matter if you did not have a community obsessed with being hardcore and min-maxing.

If character A can bring the debuffs you need, do exceptional damage and survive, why would you bring character B who free-formed it, has the debuff, but does less damage because he chose to allocate stat points to boost his self-healing? The ability to choose is golden, but mix-maxing is all about getting what you need and minimizing redundancy. A build that overlaps with the job of another member of your party is sub-optimal in a hardcore environment, and therefore, less desirable.

Long post short: Free-form is not free when some choices are better than others. And since true balance is impossible, there is always a "right" and a "wrong" way to build your character for endgame content.

Well You can't main heal or Dot effectively on any classes but DoM. I think the idea is that you are supposed to be able to be versatile. Ok my grind party lost the Gladiator so now I'm going to tank as my Pugilist instead of DD. I change my actions to what I need for Tanking and on we go. This is better than sitting around waiting for the Gladiator we just invited to run from the node. Or if we couldn't find another Gladiator we could just continue on without them. The same applies to NM hunting.

[Ablongman]

Well You can't main heal or Dot effectively on any classes but DoM. I think the idea is that you are supposed to be able to be versatile. Ok my grind party lost the Gladiator so now I'm going to tank as my Pugilist instead of DD. I change my actions to what I need for Tanking and on we go. This is better than sitting around waiting for the Gladiator we just invited to run from the node. Or if we couldn't find another Gladiator we could just continue on without them.

Maybe, but there's such a thing as too much of a good thing. Sure, it's convenient for anyone to be able to change and do anything on the fly, but that will create the passive expectation in the community that everyone should be as flexible as you, or automatically become less valuable. So in your scenario, an inverted version of what I proposed still occurs. Now flexibility is the norm, and there is no choice but to be a jack-of-all-trades or get sat out of parties for someone who is.

There's no escaping this, really. There is no such thing as an absolutely free-form system, because even with equal balance and absolute versatility, some decisions are more right than others (in this case, choosing versatility over specialization).

[Xzen]

Maybe, but there's such a thing as too much of a good thing. Sure, it's convenient for anyone to be able to change and do anything on the fly, but that will create the passive expectation in the community that everyone should be as flexible as you, or automatically become less valuable. So in your scenario, an inverted version of what I proposed still occurs. Now flexibility is the norm, and there is no choice but to be a jack-of-all-trades or get sat out of parties for someone who is.

There's no escaping this, really. There is no such thing as an absolutely free-form system, because even with equal balance and absolute versatility, some decisions are more right than others (in this case, choosing versatility over specialization).

I don't think anyone expects people to have 3 or more classes to rank 50 or be that flexible.

[Ablongman]

I don't think anyone expects people to have 3 or more classes to rank 50 or be that flexible.

You would be mistaken. I know folks around these parts hate World of Warcraft, but it actually lends itself for this argument.

WoW relies on the trinity (tank, healer, DD). It used to be that you had to specialize your character in a talent tree, and collect gear that allowed you to perform your role. For instance, a priest could be Shadow spec, but had to equip spell damage gear to be effective. Whereas a healer needed gear that increased spell healing, and would be gimped using damage gear.

They merged the two statistics into spellpower, and homogenized gear. Then they added the ability to have a second talent spec, and changed the talent trees to allow a Shadow spec priest to use the same gear as a Holy or Discipline priest (the healing specs).

Right now, competitive raiding guilds often demand that applicants have a secondary role available, and are able to perform competitively at that role. Even in those guilds where such stipulations are optional, the applicant with the flexibility will be picked over the one without practically every time, simply because it makes the raid more adaptable.

So, long-winded example over with, people can and will expect flexibility if it is possible. It might not be right away, but as the months and years pass, not being flexible will be a hindrance and make you less desirable. It is not an exaggeration, it is human nature. I could get to work in a Fiat, but if the choice was between a Fiat and a Porsche for the same price, guess which one I'd take.