Changing Class in Dungeons

[AiChyan]

They simply need to make it so that in progress instances are prioritized over fresh ones. I can't fathom why this isn't the case yet :/

[Felis]

In short, 1.0 class stacking should come again
Kill trash mobs with all dps as BLM, switch to MNK at the endboss. Keep out of party if you don't have BLM or MNK.

[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..

[Skivvy]

They simply need to make it so that in progress instances are prioritized over fresh ones. I can't fathom why this isn't the case yet :/

Cannot "like" this enough! I've had a few runs where we lost a member, and I dropped to requeue as the missing job, but only fresh runs were coming up


Sure, this has the potential to give instant satisfaction to all those pesky tanks/healers who constantly withdraw looking for an in-progress run, but on the flip side, the rest of us wouldn't have to deal with the constant withdrawals. Win-win?

[tymora]

In short, 1.0 class stacking should come again
Kill trash mobs with all dps als BLM, switch to MNK at the endboss. Keep out of party if you don't have BLM or MNK.

Personally I think this is an entirely acceptable way of playing the game. In fact, it will fully utilize the Armory system.
- The "Need" function can be locked to the job you first enter with.

[MithrasInvictus]

Being able to change battle classes should not be an option. We ought to be able to change to a crafting class for emergency repairs, however. That wouldn't affect the dungeon progress, and would be quite handy.

[Gnova]

I've dealt with this mechanic in DCUO.
Someone queues as a tank or healer to get a quick instance pop and then switches to dps.
More often than not one of the dps then agree to switch to heals rather than wait even longer for another healer.
The abuser gets a fast queue time and makes someone who has waited patiently to play as DPS switch to something they didn't want to play.

If someone was to do this three or four times before not getting kicked they would still get a group much quicker as a dps.

Everyone should realize in 2014 that if a MMO mechanic can be abused/exploited it will.

[Gnova]

Personally I think this is an entirely acceptable way of playing the game. In fact, it will fully utilize the Armory system.
- The "Need" function can be locked to the job you first enter with.

You can't balance content with that playstyle.
Either you assume everyone had multiple jobs leveled and then make it impossible for groups filled with single job players or you make it ridiculously easy for groups that do job switches.

[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