Changing Class in Dungeons

[Skivvy]

I think it would be great to allow you to change to (only) a missing job whenever your party is down a player (someone has dropped, etc). If you lose a tank or healer, change jobs and fill much quicker from the DPS queue. I really don't see any way this could be abused.

This is how I imagined it as well.

To prevent abuse, they could implement the following:

-Only allow a job change when a member is missing
-Make the party vote to approve the change
-Don't allow a job change when there is loot on the table

[Airget]

This is how I imagined it as well.

To prevent abuse, they could implement the following:

-Only allow a job change when a member is missing
-Make the party vote to approve the change
-Don't allow a job change when there is loot on the table

Could still be abused, think about a group of 3 enter, and the person wanting healing gear just didn't feel like healing but wants to need on potential on last chest.

Before they get to last boss they vote kick the healer and then vote to change the person who wants healing gear into healer. Then a random DD joins oblivious to what just happened.

[Skivvy]

Could still be abused, think about a group of 3 enter, and the person wanting healing gear just didn't feel like healing but wants to need on potential on last chest.

Before they get to last boss they vote kick the healer and then vote to change the person who wants healing gear into healer. Then a random DD joins oblivious to what just happened.

Very true, but honestly, any system can (and will) be abused. I think in this case, the benefit of having this as option would far out-weigh the potential abuse that may happen. And my list definitely wouldn't cover everything, just a good starting point as to the restrictions they could place in order to keep the abuse at bay. Guess I should have used "limit abuse" vs. "prevent abuse". D:

[L-D-Omlette]

Could still be abused, think about a group of 3 enter, and the person wanting healing gear just didn't feel like healing but wants to need on potential on last chest.

Before they get to last boss they vote kick the healer and then vote to change the person who wants healing gear into healer. Then a random DD joins oblivious to what just happened.

There aren't any instances where this would really make sense. It seems like an extreme edge case. It would also fall into reportable for abuse of the vote-kick system.

Whilst the intent is good, it would be exploited by denying people who don't have certain jobs leveled, I can get any runs with my DRG, but that would change if this was added the basic would be BLMs only for trash, change to specific classes for the mini bosses then change back to BLM for more trash, and to specific jobs for the boss, just look at all brayflox HM myth speed runs all are BLM only just to kill aoe trash down it will be the same if class changes in dungeons were allowed (remember AV in 1.0, all BLMs for the run, and change to MNK for the boss? how does anyone think that will be different now?

You're ignoring the premise for the need/request for this feature; to replace a missing member. Your scenario wouldn't be possible under those conditions.

[Jinko]

Could still be abused, think about a group of 3 enter, and the person wanting healing gear just didn't feel like healing but wants to need on potential on last chest.

Before they get to last boss they vote kick the healer and then vote to change the person who wants healing gear into healer. Then a random DD joins oblivious to what just happened.

That is why people are suggesting you can only need on the class/job you originally entered the dungeon as.

[Daenerys_Sedai]

abuse potential is high. think chests, etc.

[Jinko]

abuse potential is high. think chests, etc.

How can it be abused if people are suggesting a vote option.

[Daenerys_Sedai]

How can it be abused if people are suggesting a vote option.

Search forums for "Vote Kick" and "Vote Abandon" and all the problems that have arisen there..

[L-D-Omlette]

Search forums for "Vote Kick" and "Vote Abandon" and all the problems that have arisen there..

These are completely different though. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Job change would have to be triggered by the person requesting to change, not by someone trying to force another to change. I think Skivvy pretty much nailed it to prevent abuse.

-Only allow a job change when a member is missing
-Make the party vote to approve the change
-Don't allow a job change when there is loot on the table

I would adjust the last to encompass all of the same logic used to determine when vote kicking is locked, but this would prevent the vast majority of potential abuses.

[Daenerys_Sedai]

These are completely different though. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Job change would have to be triggered by the person requesting to change, not by someone trying to force another to change..

While dissimilar in implementation, the abuse still operates the same in that: you have a group of say 5 FC members who want an individual member to get loot. Whether it's a vote to allow that member to change to said job or to kick someone they don't want getting the loot, they still hold the majority.
That's not to say that there isn't a solution or workaround, but as we know, solutions usually come after the abuse has run for a few weeks