Why the class system isn't bad, feat. Ranger

[Neela]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOHZBr4u7yk - look at these morons. Go do your lvl 30 quest scrubs. /s

u know that this is just a challenge?... we also do it on our server time by time farming stuff as first cls just to give the bordemness a little spin... have you ever tried it yourself - using all the xskills is just a lot of fun though? .____.

[Okamimaru]

I had originally hoped the job system would be closer to ff tactics with having to unlock jobs by leveling other related jobs... and allowing more cross job skills to give characters a bit more flexibility and uniqueness... having a main job and a sub job that you could mix and match as you wanted...

[Acidblood]

...

While I agree to an extent, what you are talking about is more of a ground up re-work than a modification... and if FFVIX was fundamentally designed differently then it could be a pretty good system.

The problem is that FFXIV, like most theme park MMOs, is designed around the meta of DPS, DPS, and more DPS*... and as we have already seen with the likes of MNK, PLD, and WHM, it doesn't matter how many options (jobs, classes, selectable skills, etc.) players have, if it doesn't increase the all mighty DPS it's not going to get (widely) used.

The one advantage FFXIV has, at least compared to most other MMOs, is that each job has a very distinct mechanic / playstyle, so even if a job is not 'meta', it still gets used based on personal preferences: e.g. I personally prefer the playstyle of PLD over WAR, and the mechanics of BLM over SCH (but I know others who are the opposite).

If this distinctness was to be reduced, it would not significantly add to the game... Using Bard and Ranger as an example, if Ranger is simply to be the personal DPS version of Bard, then if Bard does not provide more overall DPS it is not going to get used, and if it does, then anyone playing Ranger is going to be told to switch to Bard. And if Ranger is going to be more distinct than that, then why not just have it as a separate, stand alone, job (even if the lore at low levels is connected)?

* This is in comparisons to an FF Tactics style game, where survival can matter just as much, if not more, than DPS… i.e. taking a few extra turns is worth it if you can comfortably ensure (via the use of non-DPS abilities) that all your characters will survive.

[Shurrikhan]

While I agree to an extent, what you are talking about is more of a ground up re-work than a modification... and if FFVIX was fundamentally designed differently then it could be a pretty good system.

The problem is that FFXIV, like most theme park MMOs, is designed around the meta of DPS, DPS, and more DPS*... and as we have already seen with the likes of MNK, PLD, and WHM, it doesn't matter how many options (jobs, classes, selectable skills, etc.) players have, if it doesn't increase the all mighty DPS it's not going to get (widely) used.

The one advantage FFXIV has, at least compared to most other MMOs, is that each job has a very distinct mechanic / playstyle, so even if a job is not 'meta', it still gets used based on personal preferences: e.g. I personally prefer the playstyle of PLD over WAR, and the mechanics of BLM over SCH (but I know others who are the opposite).

If this distinctness was to be reduced, it would not significantly add to the game... Using Bard and Ranger as an example, if Ranger is simply to be the personal DPS version of Bard, then if Bard does not provide more overall DPS it is not going to get used, and if it does, then anyone playing Ranger is going to be told to switch to Bard. And if Ranger is going to be more distinct than that, then why not just have it as a separate, stand alone, job (even if the lore at low levels is connected)?

* This is in comparisons to an FF Tactics style game, where survival can matter just as much, if not more, than DPS… i.e. taking a few extra turns is worth it if you can comfortably ensure (via the use of non-DPS abilities) that all your characters will survive.

That's the thing: as long as DPS remains almost purely a long-term metric, perhaps even regardless of the viability of (status effect, etc.) utilities, there can be no real differentiation. Until there is a synergetic use for burst, be it defensive or offensive or both at once in purpose, to differentiate from long-term damage, and until there is a very real threat to enemy burst that is distinct from "white damage" rather than both being equally tunneled into a single specialist responsibility, there will only really be one meta. Meta variation requires versatility in how output can be perceivably measured, and that is probably going to occur primarily through undermechanics. A game that has only a bare-bones take on additional systems (e.g. enmity) and, at best, %HP triggers for bonus abilities, isn't going to have the foundations to build real variance.

Better a re-work than to be fatally capped...

[dragonseth07]

snip

We already have specific uses for burst damage in the form of every DPS check ever, starting all the way back in Ifrit's Nail. And burst survival in the form of tankbusters, what everyone saves their CD's for.

Am I just misunderstanding you here?

[Shurrikhan]

We already have specific uses for burst damage in the form of every DPS check ever, starting all the way back in Ifrit's Nail. And burst survival in the form of tankbusters, what everyone saves their CD's for.

Am I just misunderstanding you here?

We have it for specific encounters, but very use little generally. These are rarities, limited mostly to raiding. In any other case it doesn't matter at what rate damage is output, only that it is. Compare that to games that have some manner of damage-based interrupt. In those, damage isn't just a completion metric, be that for an encounter or a specific add or phase; it's your lifeblood, which you must coordinate to survive. Even better, perhaps, is when undermechanics can distinguish between interrupt contribution and pure damage contribution. At that point you have a balance alike to tanking vs. pure damage, but without limiting sabotage of enemy output to tanks and a bare-bones attention system (enmity). It's not "everyone" saving their CDs for tankbusters; the vast majority of players are absolutely unaffected by their existence. And that's because we remove that consideration from general responsibility and lock it away among specialists. Now, that is simply the default way things would work when allowing only for mitigation through modification to input (incoming damage), but the real question is -- why stop there? If we could affect more than just (long-term) completion metrics with our damage, the game could get far more complex, allowing for far more variation in its metas.

[AquaU]

It's me


I couldn't figure out how to message you soooooo imma just leech off this thread