That was always my concern too.. It seems that people always wants something or the contrary of something, while we could sometimes have both.
I mean, a friend of mine really would love a bow job but HATES BRD, and he knows that he will never get it because it would step on Bard toes (even with using another weapon like a crossbow), even people here on the forum aknowledge that the 2 Jobs "would be too similar".
Same thing for:
Gunner- there Is already MCH (also, lol since it is more a gadgeteer, this also is a general opinion)
A paladin healer version- there Is already PLD
A time mage - AST has already some time magic flavor
Geomancer- WHM under level 70 already uses its elements
As already stated in MANY other posts across the years, Ranger could UNLOCK (or split) from archer at level 30, Geomancer (dps) from conjurer at level 30 and so on.
The different between this and NEW JOBS would be that they would share some skills and playstyle.
I know that it would never happens, because "SE SAID SO" (Even if it would not be the first time that SE, or Yoshi says something just to throw it in the garbage later, like the fact that personal houses would have never been demolished for example), what i find infuriating is the mindset that this and other things would be fisically impossible for SE to do..
Another idea that somebody trhowed on the forum, was something on the line of "jobs reskins", again in the example of bard, you could create 2 skins that plays exactly the same but with different animations, one musically themed and one arrows themed.
All of these above would not substitute the developments of "really new" jobs, but could go on par with it. Creating more "personalization options" across the board, so in the end we would have, instead of 18 jobs, dunno.., 36 jobs.. and 18 different playstyles..
--"bUT dUUUUUDE, wHy WAste developERs TiME and money THat could go on OThERR STuff?"
--"Dunno?? Maybe it would be fun? It would attract a lot of more people into the game? It would increase appeal to other Final fantasy fans or even other gamers that still dont have theyr dream job in the game?"
The fact that the ACN/SCH/SUM stuff is so demonized, even from SE itself, is mindblowing to me. I am around since 2.0 and i always found really FUN that SCH and SUM shared some mechanics, like the dot spread stuff, STILL retaining in my opinion theyr job identities. People throw around the "The class split is difficult to balance" flag. But is it really the truth? Is it really THAT difficult to balance the first 30 levels (or more ) of skills sharing?
Another fitting exemple is MCH: a person here in the forum once said that "corsair class" (of wich we still have some remnants underground the Marauder guild in limsa), would have no sense since you could just count the first 30 levels of MCH as "corsair". I went and look at the JOB and he was right: The first 30 level skills of MCH are all (or almost all cant remember right now) gun based skills, WHILE AFTER 30 are all gadget things. Why could we not "split" (use another verb if you dont like this) mch at level 30 and create another class that has the same first 30 levels foundation and build with more gun skills, creating a real Gunner?
In my opinion (ad i dont think you can change my mind on this), sharing base classes, or create classes reskin would:
-Create A LOT more jobs with less general work involved;
-Create "parental" relationships on different jobs. This imho would be fun on the lore and job mechanical side.
I repeat, just in case i was not clear: i am not saying that you'll never have to do new tipes of gameplays (like it is now when you add a new job), i am saying that you could ALSO once in a while add a BRANCH job or a resking job, when said job would be too much tematically similar to another already existing.
When i see how this ideas just get attacked ISTANT with no mercy makes me think that nowadays people just lacks imaginative ways to do things and resolve problems, or to think outside roles and boxes (boohhhh a meleee healer, call the police!!!!).
Edit: text limit and grammar



Reply With Quote

