


2 pld, 2 whm and 2-3 of same DPS all found in duty finder, Good luck trying to get a LB for anything lol.
For some fights I think this will really mess things up if it is too slow, currently some groups have to "wait" on Titan to get half a LB bar, now they have to wait even longer making it more difficult in later stages.. Will you get LB in time for Ifrit for the nails? Not fully needed but it helps a lot.
For my coils, LB is pretty useless so for my FC so it doesnt affect us, we only use it on T1 to kill the last snake which even then not really needed, T1 doesnt matter how slow it is we already have it by last node so can be slower, even then not needed, Turn 4 we use it a Nook to prevent POX, bu then we're almost mid way through bar 3 and we only need 2, but we can probably make do with loosing it completely.
I think it might affect strategies that kind of rely on it being fully charged at certain times.
I wonder though, if LB was slow to begin with and the update said "Parties with less duplicate classes would result in a faster LB progress" which is identical, would people still be upset?
Yes the thinking of "you cant take this or that job into Coil"( for example) does need to go away. But WHY penalize people if their group just HAPPENED to have a set up that they preferred to play two jobs together? My group is PLD, PLD, BRD, BRD, BLM, DRG, WHM, & SCH. We all CHOSE to play this set up b/c we had the jobs already geared and if not, GEARED them for COIL b/c it works for us to get through it. Now we get penalized for forming a party that WORKS??? We now have to consider either taking time away from even doing it to re-gear/re-level, or kicking long time friends since 1.0 from our static. I just think its stupid. I like the OP's suggestion.
My suggestion - Instead of penalizing teams with duplicate characters, give a buff to unique team formations instead. The players should be given the liberty to decide what characters they wish to play.
All i wanna know is... what about dutyfinder? Does that penalty exist if you go through dutyfinder? If it does, what a horrible mistake.


This change kinda makes sense, as Yoshi has confirm the incoming of Hybrid Jobs and there are 2 slots in a party make up that is designated for them. I guess he wants us to get used to not stacking Jobs and having 1 of each Job to make the game more balanced.
my thoughts on it
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."
I really don't get why the Limit Break gauge was adjusted. Is there really a point to penalize people for that?

I can understand their concern about class stacking. It's to prevent having 2 Paladins, 2 Warriors, 2 Bards, 2 BLMs, etc.
For healers, it's not a big deal. In any content that matters you generally see groups running with WHM/SCH.
Tanks is another story. You often only see double paladin as of 2.0. With the 2.1 changes, Warrior got a huge boost not only in tanking capability, but they got BRD's RoD debuff AND can increase slashing damage. You want to take a Warrior for variety.
DPS is hit or miss. It shouldn't be hard to find varied DPS in the game for coil groups. It sucks for premades that already ran dual bard or dual blackmage, but I can see WHY SE wanted more variance in the parties. Bringing only 1 melee sucks, there should be incentive to have both Monk and Dragoon in a party. That's just my thought on it though.
I do feel, however, that instead of NERFING Limit Break guage, they should INCREASE the Full Party stat bonuses a group gets if it's completely varied. Boost how much STR, DEX, MND, INT, and PIE a group gets if everyone's a different class. Bam. Not only are you not screwed in Twintania limit break building, and not only do you have classes that can completely support one another, but your stats are increased. I'm not saying it has to be a huge increase, but any increase is a good increase.

You mean, they indirectly made Coil a little harder if you rely on class stacking? Yoshida has always been against the stacking of classes and this goes back to 1.0 when it happened in most end game content (mass of BLMs in Ifrit for example).
Now, you are encouraged to actually make use of a Paladin + Warrior, rather than 2 Paladin or 2 Warrior. 2 Bards is also something you should do with caution. I expect a reasoning behind this is to give a good reason for players to let others play jobs they want to play, rather than forcing them to play a specific job so that they can actually do content. They could have provided bonuses for mixed party setups, but then the balance would come with a reduced amount of that stat bonus you get in other situations. All this really means is that, if you want to class stack, you should be prepared enough that you cannot rely on having the LB available - it's a crutch action, not something to always utilize.
I say this knowing that it will also affect my own Coil group; we often use 2 BRDs, and also have 2 of us on DRG (because we like to play the jobs we want to rather than what works the best).

I just like that the best way to fill your LB gauge is to play like shit and almost let people die.
Only people that rely on class stacking are going to notice this, people who play mixed and just clear things no matter how their setup is, won't see any difference.
You people act like they NEED LB's to clear encounters while you know well enough that it's not the case.
If you rely on the LB to clear encounters, you should re-evaluate your groups performance.
This just encourages people to have more variety in their group setups, which honestly, it not a bad thing if you ask me for the community.
People get being excluded from raids and what not, just because they are playing a class that isn't as viable as other's, which is something the devs apparently frown upon(and so do I)
I'm all for this change to be honest.
I'm not saying every group that has multiple of the same class is stacking purposely and excluding other classes, but it seems most actually are.
All in all though, I think people who are against it are severely overreacting.
Last edited by Heartwire; 12-16-2013 at 03:17 AM.
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Cookie Policy
This website uses cookies. If you do not wish us to set cookies on your device, please do not use the website. Please read the Square Enix cookies policy for more information. Your use of the website is also subject to the terms in the Square Enix website terms of use and privacy policy and by using the website you are accepting those terms. The Square Enix terms of use, privacy policy and cookies policy can also be found through links at the bottom of the page.


Reply With Quote





