What Classes Do You Want to See Next?

[Shurrikhan]

I am in agreement on this. While I think Shurrikhan's idea of having a small cast of pets is probably the best way they could implement a BST, it would still be a pet class with all the pet bugs. And if we take out the pets and make them a casting rotation, it's just like every other class (you compare it to SMN but I'm actually getting more MNK vibes with Couerl/Raptor forms).

Just two quick notes:

• I think the idea could certainly be read either way, but I had most imagined it akin to an impactful Fists of Wind/Fire/Earth, whereby all but 3-to-6 player abilities (which total to about two-thirds of your hotbar) would be swapped in accordance with your pet (though an increased portion of them would still function rather similarly in sub-type B, since it might otherwise get just a bit overwhelming, even when amounting for the change in direction I'd like to see per Background Change #2).

• Each pet would have its own pallet of CDs, but under the same (shared) cooldowns, so you wouldn't be obliged to swap them just to perform your rotation; rather, there'd be occasional means by which less potency could still nonetheless, through utility, be an rDPS gain, be that through downtime reduced or healing GCDs saved or perhaps even a second-tank made just barely unnecessary.

• I suspect fixing pet behavior will be worthwhile regardless. To otherwise locks out far too much (including opportunities for Trusts and Squadrons). I know development has historically, and especially of late, preferred shortsighted fixes, but I don't think that's a course we can keep without some serious problems down the road.

[SeverianLyonesse]

Just two quick notes:

• I think the idea could certainly be read either way, but I had most imagined it akin to an impactful Fists of Wind/Fire/Earth, whereby all but 3-to-6 player abilities (which total to about two-thirds of your hotbar) would be swapped in accordance with your pet (though an increased portion of them would still function rather similarly in sub-type B, since it might otherwise get just a bit overwhelming, even when amounting for the change in direction I'd like to see per Background Change #2).

• Each pet would have its own pallet of CDs, but under the same (shared) cooldowns, so you wouldn't be obliged to swap them just to perform your rotation; rather, there'd be occasional means by which less potency could still nonetheless, through utility, be an rDPS gain, be that through downtime reduced or healing GCDs saved or perhaps even a second-tank made just barely unnecessary.

I don't dislike this concept at all. Again, it is very focused compared to most other BST proposals I've seen. It's like a simplified version of BLU's role swapping.

• I suspect fixing pet behavior will be worthwhile regardless. To otherwise locks out far too much (including opportunities for Trusts and Squadrons). I know development has historically, and especially of late, preferred shortsighted fixes, but I don't think that's a course we can keep without some serious problems down the road.

I think we are probably past pets in XIV. I think after years of trying to make them work, the devs have given up and want to focus on making rotations as consistent as possible, and abandoning pets was the easiest solution. Like an elemental system, I don't think they could ever bring it back without (a) players clamoring for all the previous pet jobs to be returned back to the way they were, and simultaneously (b) complaining that the whole transition is more of a regression than an evolution.

I have made peace with the fact that XIV just isn't the pet MMO, and that the concept shined a lot stronger in X, XI, and XII.

[Shurrikhan]

I think we are probably past pets in XIV. I think after years of trying to make them work, the devs have given up and want to focus on making rotations as consistent as possible, and abandoning pets was the easiest solution. Like an elemental system, I don't think they could ever bring it back without (a) players clamoring for all the previous pet jobs to be returned back to the way they were, and simultaneously (b) complaining that the whole transition is more of a regression than an evolution.

I understand that concern but I think all it needs to be averted is a unique, significant offering. For instance, consider an action that you can actually execute, queued, even when in the middle of your (the master's) animation. That's significantly more fluid than even a common oGCD.

I feel the reason the devs were able to remove pets with so little resistance (still hardly "little" on the whole, but far less than you'd see in most MMOs) was that even the initial iteration was so barebone. Going back to that meager allowance would indeed be regressive, but going past it... not so much.

Consider GW2 and their mounts, for instance. Had they merely matched other MMOs' mounts after having centered its experience for so long on having no mounts, it would have perhaps felt a betrayal; but by going beyond it to have one of the most involved mount experiences, it was applauded both by its players and those outside it, forming one of the largest contributing factors, allegedly, to new players joining with Path of Fire (the expansion in which mounts were finally released).

Simply put: Going half-assed will put development on its ass and make it look ass; actually doing a great job, though, forgives nearly all past encounters with a given subject, and often carries its own redemption or innovation story just through the contrast.