Class Trees

[Sqwall]

Thank you, and it’s okay. Only a week back on these forums since like early 2.0 and I’m already used to the trash. It’s best to just avoid continuing to converse with that and find the people who want to have a real discussion.

People have strong feelings about what they want to see out of this game so they will lash out if someone’s vision isn’t congruent with theirs. I’m not going to lie, I fall for it t too, but I do make an attempt to be fair and discuss the pros and cons of adapting or updating a system. What I won’t do is attack someone’s character to frame my rebuttal to a reasonable argument. That’s terrible debate skills. As soon as poo starts flinging we have lost our track of discourse.

I agree 100%. I always try to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to nay sayers, but in the end they will never be swayed. Shame. I sometimes wonder if they enjoy the game at all. Just play all brooding like while grumbling.

[Eliadil]

Now there’s complaints because X, Y, and Z jobs do things way too similar.
My opinion specifically is that jobs should have explicit identity.

I wouldn't say that they are too similar, but the issue we had in stormblood is that each job had it's "thing", and some were just way, way, way better than the others and thus shaped a really strict meta. Dragoon had the piercing debuff, which was intended to be one of its support feature, as well as its critical rate buff. Turns out Bard was just way, way, way too good with a dragoon and thus they became mandatory due to how absurdly well their specific buffs worked with each others.

Right now, there isn't any job that does the same as the other ones, even among tanks who are the most... Standardized of the bunch they each feel unique (except maybe war who feels a bit... Left behind). The issue is that some jobs have little things that gives them an identity, but also can be a detriment.

Monk has Brotherhood, on paper it looks really fine, being a physical damage buff. However, when you take into account that double caster is a thing, and a really good one... Well suddenly Brotherhood looks way worse on some scenarios.

The same can be said about RedMage. Sure, instant-raise is a thing. But let's be honest, when your group stops dying in an encounter... Well raise suddenly lose an interest, and Red Mage gets kinda punished heavily in damage for having this option, even when they don't need it. But sure, all in the name of job identity.

Stuff then gets really weird when you look at SMN, the king of casters right now. Not only does it have incredibly high damage, it also has a damage buff given by its pet (This sounds like strong job identity) AND IT CAN ALSO RAISE PEOPLES because it's reminicent of its ties to Scholar. As well as having Physick, but it kinda sucks right now so... Oh did I mention that it has also Bahamut Trance and Phenix Trance which makes the SMN able to instant-cast for a big part of its rotation ? Well that's another facet of this job's identity.

But I think you begin to see the point. Job identity and having specific bonuses are fine, but you often end up at either Monk or RDM side of the coin, which is where identity can ruin optimal performance in scenarios like party finder for example (which is what a really big part of the playerbase use), where you cannot control what job you will get with you. Or you end up like a SMN who can do everything and do it well because "duh, job identity".

We can however all agree that we all like being able to perform optimally. That was kinda the point of this thread. Skill trees to be able to perform optimally no matter the situation.

But on the other hand, it's better if each job has its own identity ? Well... both options at the same time... Seems hard to do. Especially to balance while releasing content at a regular pace, which is one of the strongest points of ff14.

[Mikey_R]

While I would agree that no two jobs should play the same, I am also of the opinion that no job should be left out of certain content just because it happens to lack some sort of utility. I will try and expand further by providing an example, in this case tank stuns/silence/interrupt.

Back in ARR and HW, all tanks could stun, they all done it differently, but they all could, however, only 1 could silence, that being PLD. This could in theory exclude certain groups from certain things, as an example having a DRK/WAR tank combo but needing a silence. When they made role skills, they added the capability to both stun and silence to all tanks. This would (in theory at least) mean any content that requires a silence or a stun, no matter what tank combination you pick, you would have access to the required utility. The fact the game really doesn't utilise this fact in raids is disappointing, but it doesn't stop the case that theoretically, they could design content with that in mind.

Going to Job specialisations, an example was tank. You can either go more defensive or more damage, with the idea that certain content would require one or the other. However I would counter and say, what about when you get more gear? Suddenly, that fight that required a more defensive kit can be more offensive. Every fight (excluding Ultimates) will get easier as you upgrade your gear through the raids. This results in less defensive play and more offensive, which means, by the end of the tier, that fight you designed to be defensive orientated is now being fought with an offensive build. But you have to also remember you have to tune the fights for the lowest ilevel set for the raid, so just putting up big numbers doesn't help.

There was mention of putting multiple esuna curing status on the main tank, then do a raid wide. Assuming the debuffs will make the tank be hit very hard by the raid wide, there is a simple solution. Tank swap, mitigate the damage and pre-plan. Since fights are scripted, you can prep with an AoE shield, then, the tank gets the debuffs, healers can esuna while the tanks mitigate the damage and depending on the debuff, the tanks can swap, AoE goes out, healers heal up. Again remembering the AoE cannot be strong enough to kill the party but at the same time, you need to have enough time to remove the worst debuffs before the AoE comes out.

Everything is a fine balancing act around tanks, healers and DPS. I would also argue that designing fights around a specific skill set reduces the customisation as you are still required to have X, Y and Z, meaning there is really no choice. I might not have articulated my points in the most comprehensible manor, things sound good in my head, but they might not translate well over text, but I hope you can see the view point I am trying to get across.

TL;DR, some amount of homogenisation is good and skill trees are again an illusion of choice, even if you design content around specific sets.

[Mhaeric]

*snif* *snif* *snifff* Smells like vindication in here. Finally someone that punctuates and understands sentence structure. *points at screen* IS THAT A PARAGRAPH? *swoons*

I totally agree with you. This thread went off the rails and border lined on bullying.

That's a rather amusing and self-unaware combination of back-to-back statements.

[AceofRains]

X

X

Okay, yeah def. both of you make really good points about this. My whole schtick is about seeing Classes utilized as the vessel for jobs and jobs being the specializations themselves. Like that was the original intention of the job stones when they were introduced back in 1.4. Some classes give you the option to play a different style of a role, like Gladiator as Paladin or Dark Knight, and others might give you the option to switch role altogether, like our current Summoner and Scholar.

What I do know is that unless jobs and content become super bland, there will always be a meta. I think that designing fights that require the use of status healing could be an effective approach to those specializations. Like giving Red Mage Erase, or even a “VerWall” spell. Giving Monk Chakra with the ability to remove the ailments of nearby allies. Those little things go a long way towards identity. And if you need them during a hardcore fight then they suddenly become a lot more useful at facilitating a mechanic that Healers can’t overcome alone. As many jobs that can raise, I’m also surprised that Paladin hasn’t even gotten a raise. Some fights might require heavier DPS checks, so you’ll take things like Black Mage. Some bosses might favor hitting back lines, some might hit front line. In hardcore content, it should be normal to be selective about which jobs get in to execute the strategy- besides, most rewards can be applied universally and don’t have to be used on your progression job.

I think that in a game where jobs are the selling point, and we can play all jobs on one character, not only should the process of leveling be expedited by binding expansion jobs to classes, but jobs should have a little more situational use. I get some people like to play their favorites, and good balance does ensure that good players can continue to make it through on what they’re good at. The bigger problem with a job being excluded is not that the job itself is excluded, but when a player only has that job and the player is excluded. But over all I will always be of the mind that encouraging metas and specialization is the better road.

[Sqwall]

While I would agree that no two jobs should play the same, I am also of the opinion that no job should be left out of certain content just because it happens to lack some sort of utility.

And this is one of the things I wrestle with. In designing a tree/spec it's hard to balance identity with balancing the endgame. I want each class to be useful, but not turn into a exclusive endgame. While trying to move away from the only usefulness in DPS classes to solely be KILL THE THING.

Others have mentioned SMN being the best example of job identity, and I completely agree with this. Compare that with Monk and you have some large differences, as monk hasn't really evolved as much as SMN. You bring up some good points and it truly is hard to balance.

[Sqwall]

That's a rather amusing and self-unaware combination of back-to-back statements.

Well don't throw stones in a glass house.

[AceofRains]

Well don't throw stones in a glass house.

Trust me, this is the shining example of what I meant when I said it’s better to ignore them. He’s more interested in the drama than discussing the topic. Don’t get sucked in.

[Mikey_R]

Considering the trouble they had balancing Summoner and Scholar while they were attached to each other, I really do not see it happening at all, especially since they have said they will never do it again and the way the 2 jobs are handled now, it wouldn't surprise me if they were fully split next expansion.

What I believe most do not realise is that by adding another job to a class, that job is stuck with that classes abilities to work with. Taking your example with Gladiator. DRK would be stuck with all the Gladiator abilities, including Fight or Flight, Iron Will and Circle of Scorn. Add to this that any adjustment to any Gladiator ability would also affect both PLD and DRK. Just by changing one thing it could throw the balance out. This is essentially why SMN and SCH were so hard to balance. A change in a DoT or ruin affected both, which often made them see saw between which one was too strong. This is ultimately why the current iteration of SCH literally only takes Resurrection from Arcanist, everything else in the SCH kit is classed as a SCH ability, even if it has the same name as the SMN equivalent.

This also doesn't address the issue of different weapons for different jobs and how the animations play out. If you notice, the same ability is used the same regardless of weapon, every tank uses Interject/Low Blow/Reprisal etc. the exact same way. The same is true of Scholar and Summoner, they use spells in the same way. So, even if you go the route of, you equip a DRK Job Stone, you can use great swords, how would the animation for something like Fast Blade look when used with a great sword. It probably wouldn't look good at all. Not to mention that weapons are tied to classes and not jobs, hence Summoner and Scholar using the same weapon.

You could say, well, when you equip the DRK Job Stone, you update the animations. At this point, you might as well make a whole new job and not tie it down with the added restrictions imposed upon it by having it be tied to a class that already has another job attached to it. Bear in mind, since you used 2 tanks as an example, I used 2 tanks. The situation gets weird when you try and make a Healer/DPS or Healer/Tank. their class kit will be based mostly on healing, leaving no room for a comprehensive dps/tanking style to fit without completely reworking all the level up abilities for the class anyway.

All in all, I really do not see how it could be beneficial to have 2 jobs off of 1 class. They tried it, realised how much of a nightmare it was to balance, and have all but scrapped it since. This same logic could in theory give an insight into why skill trees are hard to balance, but that is a different challenge altogether.

And this is one of the things I wrestle with. In designing a tree/spec it's hard to balance identity with balancing the endgame. I want each class to be useful, but not turn into a exclusive endgame. While trying to move away from the only usefulness in DPS classes to solely be KILL THE THING.

Others have mentioned SMN being the best example of job identity, and I completely agree with this. Compare that with Monk and you have some large differences, as monk hasn't really evolved as much as SMN. You bring up some good points and it truly is hard to balance.

Don't worry I feel the pain with monk. It was the second job I levelled after Paladin and after Heavensward it has been a struggle to continue to use it. Which is a shame, because I enjoy the freeform combos and positionals, that's why I tried it in the first place, but with essentially no evolution through the expansions...yeah.

[AceofRains]

Considering the trouble they had balancing Summoner and Scholar while they were attached to each other, I really do not see it happening at all, especially since they have said they will never do it again and the way the 2 jobs are handled now, it wouldn't surprise me if they were fully split next expansion.

Jobs don’t need to share anything other than EXP for this to work. The problem with Summoner and Scholar was not their nature of binding to Arcanist- that’s their greatest strength, that you have a 2 in 1 role swap. The problem was that they tried to share so many abilities instead of letting them be their own unique things but still come from Arcanist’s level.

Sharing Bio and Ruin doesn’t seem to prove problematic. there almost the same as how almost melee job has a 3 step combo. Those were the “Weaponskills”. It was other things like Aetherflow, Shadowflare, Bane, and other DPS things that made Scholar far superior to the other Healers when it came to DPSing. So they ended up gutting them, a decision that I wholeheartedly agree with.

They could even revamp the pre-30 levels of each class that give you a taste of both paths, but you lose them when you specialize. For example, Arcanist has access to Physic, which is neat early on, but we know when it becomes Summoner it’s absolutely useless and therefore should no longer exist on Summoner. Or even Summoner losing access to Ressurection. (If they wanted to be thematically cool about it, Phoenix should be able to Raise only while it’s Summoned.). Scholar lost access to bane and fester. Idk. It’s common sense to me.