Save the Armory system

[Konachibi]

Perhaps I failed to explain myself adequately. I feel like that is the only explanation as your interpretation of my meaning is way off. I even drew diagrams and people still mistake my meaning. I didn't think I could get any plainer. Oh well.

Here goes!

First of all, while it is true that I did not create the armory system, it is also true that Yoshi did no such thing either. So we are both at equal liberty to weigh in on the discussion. Yoshi believes jobs should be advanced classes, I think they should not be advanced classes.

As per your suggestion previously, jobs should be something separate from the class system entirely.

Second of all, in case you hadn't noticed, what they intend to do is implement jobs in such a way that each class becomes one job. In other words, jobs will be locked to one weapon, and each class will be forced into one specific role. If that is above your head, may I draw your attention to the fact that classes are single weapon users. In the japanese version of the game, the classes are referred to lance-user, sword-user, and so on. Thus to lock a job to one class is equivalent to locking one job to one weapon.

To elaborate further on the point of "locking each class to one specific role", it is prudent to bear in mind that classes are not meant to be steadfast roles. Thus to position jobs as classes, and by extension, classes as roles, is to miss the point of the armory system. If you would kindly refer to the O.P., I explained this more thorooghly.

You wouldn't see a Gladiator wielding a magical staff and a wand.

You wouldn't see a Botanist trying to log trees with a fishing rod.

Not to run by stereotypes but I couldn't really picture a Paladin in full plate armour taking pot-shots at a marmot with a bow and arrow either.

People expect thieves to use daggers and paladins to use swords and shields and archers to use bows and arrows and miners to use mining axes etc. Because really, that's what makes them what they are, sure some diversity with the style of weaponry would be nice, like Paladins being able to use an array of 1-handed weapon types such as maces, swords and axes, heck, in the case of Gladiators they can already do this, being able to wield just a sword, a sword and shield, or a dagger with/without shield. SE haven't said anything about jobs not being able to use a small variety of similarly based weaponry.

If you try to make jobs seperate from the class system though you're just going to turn them into yet more classes. Biggest problem with that is even though it'll operate as if it were a seperate class it'll still have many of the same abilities, skills and spells as another class, which will RETRACT from the games diversity, not improve it. A 180 degree sweeping strike is a 180 degree sweeping strike, no matter what name you give it, if two classes can do a move that's too similar, one of those classes loses a tiny amount of it's appeal. Plus it'd be pretty annoying if a Paladin had just one move you'd like your Gladiator to have, so you have to rank up Paladin for days/weeks, doing all the same attacks and using the same weaponry types, just to gain that one ability.

So yeah the idea I had earlier today with the whole *going to menu, selecting job, click apply* would be nice, but if I were playing a Gladiator and switched to a Paladin, I'd expect it to be pretty much the same stuff, since they use the same weapons, wear the same armour, both use shields etc.

As for roles, Conjurers wear cloth, cloth is notoriously not good at absorbing an incoming blow from a very large and angry dragon, you couldn't make a conjurer into a tank, so it can only be used as DD or Healer... whaddya know, that's exactly what they do already. Gladiators have heavy armour, can take a beating, but have really low MP, you wouldn't want a Gladiator as your healer as he'd run out of mana almost instantly, so he's only good for DD and tanking. Weeeell whaddya know, that's exactly what he already does.

You talk about locking classes in roles using jobs, as if they aren't already to quite a degree. These 'limitation's' you say are coming with jobs already exist, the only reason you're arguing about it now is that jobs pointed out their limitations as well as their advancement. They said "We can't do this anymore, BUT we're absolutely awesome at doing THIS!" and instead of you going "ooo yay they can do this" you went "oh no they can't do that", ignoring the fact that to some extent their class-equivalent wasn't exactly any good at doing 'that' in the first place.