Thread: 1UP.com's new interview with Yoshida regarding 2.0

Originally Posted by Hyrist

I understand and agree with the philosophy, but you're not going to get around that without some sort of compromise.

For example, if you're group is supersaturated on Paladins, and you refuse to go on Dark Knight on a Job locked run, your group is either forced to rotate Paladins (not likely in long dungeon runs) or you pretty much get the axe for that run until you find some group that agrees specifically with every stance you have.

Which I'm fine with. I've willingly sat out of raids in WoW if they were full on DPS (if I was playing on paladin) or tanks (if I was on my warrior). That's not exactly a bad thing. Specially in the latter because everyone needed a tank for something.

I disagree as far as something that is tied to a loot system, at least for the overall goals of a dungeon. They can be helpful if applied correctly, but the mechanic itself is toxic and should be dealt with great care. Right now, it's harming the game's overall health.

There's a reason I said "something nice". In the case of the example I mentioned (Culling of Stratholme), what you got for clearing the 25-minute objective was an extra badge you could use to trade for gear (in a model where you were trading 70 or 80 badges per piece of gear) and a Bronze Drake mount. That's it.

Mash? There was no character called Mash in FFVI my friend.

He was renamed to Sabin in the US version of VI. >.>;;;

This to a certain degree can be duplicated with the Class/Job system, especially as more jobs begin to allow certain classes more diversified role.

When you have limited MP pools and variances in potency, this is not really the case unless point allocation for classes gets reverted to what it was when the game launched and traits become spread out again.

I both agree and feel the same way. But I believe this can be achieved by allowing a class to assume multiple roles through multiple job sets.

Through this the players who want to strike an identity still get that identity by saying "I am a Lancer"(Self example.) And while they have preference to say Dragoon, like I do. They still maintain that base identity when having to switch jobs (and therefore roles).

Story time: I was on the #11 guild on my server in WoW during WotLK. I was able to get away with focusing my class (Paladin) into the DPS spec of that class (Retribution), which I chose solely because I liked hitting things with a light-imbued 2-handed hammer. This was fine and dandy with my guild because respeccing cost money and on any hybrid it was a total pain. Dual specs came in (basically what you're suggesting), and it became the blessing and curse of the hybrids, because my guild started subtly asking me to pick up offspec gear for tanking and healing. I got them to shut up when I decided to pay the 10K gold for dual spec, then specced myself into the very hated and very useless shockadin set up, making them say "yeah, between that shockadin spec and your DPS spec....just come as DPS". And so I was happy again.

I come back for Cataclysm and every hybrid is suddenly expected to have two specs for raiding and keeping them geared. Sure, between justice points and PuGs it is feasible, but I hate healing and hate the pally tanking model. It was harder to get people outside of PuGs to leave me alone for focusing on DPS. There's been arguing over that in and out of the game because I certainly wasn't the only one who liked one aspect of a class and wanted to focus on it, but there you have it. It echoes too much of the BS from FFXI where you instantly sucked for not leveling X job (in my case it was NIN), but forced into the narrow margin of class.

The moral of the story is that flexibility, while nice, needs to be kept on a tight leash.