A meta is merely what's optimal for the content presented; any "blame" therefore lies with the narrowness of the content or imbalances inherent in whom the content favors. Systematic removal of means of creative class interaction or character progression therebetween, however, has a lot to answer for...
Personally, I like the idea that certain jobs may be marginally more apt choices for particular fights in an otherwise standard composition, because one of, if not the, largest unique selling point(s) of XIV is the "anything and everything on a single character" concept. (Though such should also require that such swaps are highly feasible for player, without breaking up the sense of progression or contradicting the experience leading up to that point.) That said, leaving the classes then as mostly disjointed progressions given that concept makes no sense. How would changing from one finesse-based one-handed sword style after mastery to another, new but related style of the same characteristics leave me with only a hundredth of my former strength and health pool? How do so few things intercept? Why is there no impact between my progression choices when they're on the same character? These are absolutely immense areas of content, immersion, and design cohesion potential, almost each and every one of which have moved towards or reached a solution to or circumvention of the majority of our endgame content design limitations. And yet the design seems to go out of its way to ensure that things are disconnected and barebone. In early ARR, they spent almost as much content on hiding would-be content as on the content itself.
Why move the Maurauder's Guild from the pirate ships to the Coral Tower / Musketeer's Guild? To hide the progress towards a Gunner class and ignore suggestions of pirate-related plot integration and reiteratable class quests (not limited merely to Marauders, but merely anyone in association). Why move Gladiator quests from Colosseum trials to a revenge-and-romcom routine? Because people noted that a lot more could be done with the Colosseum. Why introduce the Thieves' Guild instead as the Rogue's Guild? Perhaps because, until that point, any associated lore would be ripe with moral conflict with possibility for real character choices and interactions, rather than merely caricatured crime-fighting?
Heck, why replace Fatigue with Rested Exp rather than fixing it as not to disproportionately limit non-casual players? To ensure that, for reasons of balance, there is no need to connect the classes by making it optimal instead that players focus all their rested exp on the class that can most benefit from it -- the lead class -- rather than being encouraged to build up supporting roles. Why create jobs, in the first place? To put the nail in the coffin of player choice as per the previous (poorly executed, but otherwise sound) make-you-own-job philosophy that the game was originally built on, so that there's less interactions to worry about down the line.
So many changes, so much work done... just to build a precedent for reduced workload by obscuring what potential existed. It's virtually the only true long-term design philosophy foresight we've seen -- prospect-trimming. And it's only natural that the game's potential, now, has suffered for it.



Reply With Quote




