Thread: Things from 1.0 era that could return

Albeit with some requisite improvement...

Character Levels

Originally, we leveled characters, not just weapon proficiencies, causing one to have both a Character Level (across all classes) and a Proficiency Rank (class-specific). Rather than suddenly losing 90% of your stats because you switched from a spadone to an bastard sword still 80% the former's length, you kept them; you just wouldn't have acquired as many skills for that blade yet and suffered reduce effectiveness with cross-class skills whose acquisition rank exceeded your current weapon's rank.

That being said, I'd remove the player-chosen stat allocation, afforded with each level, in order not to hamper late-game choice unless one could truly find use enough for any hybrid niche and my third point were fully polished.

Full slew of cross-class actions

Originally, not all cross-class actions were optimal or ideal, but if you could feasibly do with one weapon or its complementary areas of learning what you could do with another and its complements, you were allowed to use it. I'd go back that.

That said, I'd also expand -- such as to involve traits -- and tailor it a bit, rather than leaving it so haphazard. In part, this is because I want to see more class acquisitions that aren't so directly related to just using their weapon, such as a Lancer taking on unique considerations in terms of range or momentum or an Archer on focus or weak points, but I also just think it could make for a much more intuitive and seemingly cohesive and complete experience for our character development.

No two classes following quite the same role

Originally, there were no wholly interchangeable classes. They typically shared some small characteristic with another job, but those characteristics did not funnel reductively or synonymously into roles. Pugilist and Gladiator were both good Tag-teamers, helpful in sabotaging enemies' offensive efforts while another tanked and in rapidly swapping in or out, but an optimized Gladiator still played a very different part than a Marauder (which was arguably equally alike to a Lancer as a sort of Strike Leader). Not only did the jobs play a bit differently, but they held different functions and capacities. Ideally, I'd expand upon that, putting their themes and playflows first, rather than mere role templates. If this means that the average player has to be aware of how the other classes in their party play in order to optimize their own performance, as they would need in any MOBA or Hero-based Shooter, so be it. Rather, the better for it.

Stats allowing role-flexibility

Originally, every class used each stat to some degree. The implementation left much to be desired, but I think the concept is commendable and gives a powerful opportunity, allowing us -- by more than just our choice of class or job -- whether we are built more around burst or sustain, focused or unfocused effect, supportive utility or pure throughput, etc., etc., through our stats and the classes/job's interactions with those stats.

If you want a Monk capable of hitting the thresholds in a given hit to break through opponents' guards or armor, you'd have more Strength and the Monk's role would shift accordingly from the typical balanced front-line brawler to a more deliberate spearhead. If you want one who can further distract and evade weaker attackers, taking pressure off your main tank, you'd pick up some enmity tools, enough Intelligence to make use of them, and then a hefty chunk of Dexterity for dodge and Mind for sustain and protection against being blindsided. A Monk capable of disrupting elementals or rapidly changing specialties via Fists of Earth, Wind, or Fire? Stack some Intelligence. A Monk capable of abusing its self-purification to soak up debuffs? Stack Vitality and Mind, with enough complementary stat to keep the debuffer's attention.

Breaker, Strike Leader, Vanguard, Harrier, Saboteur, Tag-Team, Flexible Buffer, Soaker, a good half of all possible positions that may be taken up in a party, any one job could take with the right stats. And there'd be an added benefit: The more alike the stats, the more alike the position / party play, so if you've already geared up and played a traditional White Mage, you'd already have a significant step, in terms of experience and gear readied, towards playing Monk like a backing healer.

Fatigue

No, really. Fatigue is essentially starting with rested experience on every job, rather than a single job's worth split among all of them, and gives that rested experience over a rate of linear decay rather than the bonus merely being present (+50%) or absent (+0%). It therefore encourages you to spread your leveling hours around, seeing more of what the game has to offer, rather than encouraging you to spend it only on the job you most want it.

Ideally, of course, I'd make some changes. I'd reduce the maximum difference between rested and non-rested (previously causing fatigue to reduce you to some 20% of your maximal experience rate), such as to a mere half the intake and I'd have experience gained on any given job offer rested experience to others, albeit at a lesser rate than it's consumed. In that way, spreading your experience across even just 3 or 4 jobs would be enough to feel like you're not wasting your experience gains, even while still decreasing the relative costs of multi-leveling.

____________________

On a related note, things I don't care to see make a return:

Bonus Chests for Speedrunning

Simply because speed of completion already seems a fine enough reward on its own.

Battle Regiment

This feature was there for only a fleeting moment anyways, but it only felt like it badly slowed down and clunk-ified combat. I can perhaps get behind the basic concept of having effects from our actions onto which others can capitalize, but I hate the idea of those effects being consumable, let alone restrained to such linear sequences. Such felt less like the skills themselves providing those openings than the skills being devalued to whatever could provide that place in a chain. Essentially, it was a budget skillchain/magic-burst system but with a traditional XIV further lack of polish.

Originally Posted by Wissp

If you looked into the history of 1.0, the gaming community pretty much agreed with you. So despite the fond reminiscing of some cherry-picked aspects of the original game here in this thread, the game crashed and burned, BADLY.

I have said before to folks who wish they played 1.x that 1.x was a horrific mass of technical jank and questionable design choices. It's just a horrific mass of technical jank and poor design choices that we can, on occasion, be nostalgic about. Now that we're at a safe distance.

Originally Posted by Wissp

both the good and the very, VERY bad

The marketplace used to run like our housing system does now! There were instanced market wards, and if you were able to get one of the market stalls in those wards, you could put a retainer out with inventory to sell (like you can in the front yard of your house even now). And instead of a search engine, you got to go wander through each market ward, talking to each retainer at each stall to see if they were selling things! Doesn't that sound amazing?

*smile is visibly strained, and a small tic begins near the corner of Pax's eye*

After reading through this thread, 1.0 seems like a very different beast.

Having only started a few months ago, I'd love to go back and experience this stuff. Sounds neat.

I dream one day of a 'FFXIV Classic' but from what I've seen, technical glitches and bugs and inconveniences were a huge part of 1.0 as well, so I don't know how 'Classic' they could actually make it without revising and fixing a bunch of stuff.

...FFXIV: A Realm Revisited. Yeah, that's the ticket.