Results 1 to 10 of 130

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Player
    Raven2014's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    1,636
    Character
    Ribald Hagane
    World
    Gilgamesh
    Main Class
    Goldsmith Lv 50
    Quote Originally Posted by Shurrikhan View Post
    Fair, enough. That said, I guess just I'd rather start with simply "What seems fun and fitting for a MCH, specifically?" rather than defaulting immediately to mirrors of existing abilities or returned Role Actions, if that makes sense?
    The original 3.0 MCH was good as a "base", if anything it give the class a "unique" style of play. The reason why it was so ill received was because they decide to apply the same style to BRD. Most people playing BRD at the time understandably played it because of the mobility it has, so understandably they got pissed. And I think SE took that as people just don't like the style so when they revert BRD, they also revert MCH. So BRD got its identity back, while MCH ... MCH had nothing, its original vision got scrapped and now it's struggle in the twilight zone between several things while not be able to settle to be anything.


    Honestly, over the year it's one of the decision I think most baffling. At that point, BRD was unique in its style, and so MCH. I never understood why they have to insist of making them the same, first by changing BRD style into MCH, then revert MCH style into BRD instead of just developing 2 different unique paths. Note that I never said the 3.0 MCH was good or fun to play, it needed work. But stripping its original vision isn't one of those work.
    (2)

  2. #2
    Player
    Shurrikhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    12,853
    Character
    Tani Shirai
    World
    Cactuar
    Main Class
    Monk Lv 100
    Quote Originally Posted by Raven2014 View Post
    The original 3.0 MCH was good as a "base", if anything it give the class a "unique" style of play. The reason why it was so ill received was because they decide to apply the same style to BRD. Most people playing BRD at the time understandably played it because of the mobility it has, so understandably they got pissed. And I think SE took that as people just don't like the style so when they revert BRD, they also revert MCH. So BRD got its identity back, while MCH ... MCH had nothing, its original vision got scrapped and now it's struggle in the twilight zone between several thing while struggle to be anything.
    I'm a little confused by this. Gauss Barrel and Wanderer's Minuet were identical mechanics, sure, but nothing about the ammo or MCH's formerly faux-combos were "the same style," and that survived until Shadowbringers (an expansion after BRD "got its identity back," if one wanted to so fixate on a single ability), well after their rotational identities were otherwise at their most distinct. (The only increasedly shared grounds were from Role Actions --Ballad/Paeon and Promotion being unfortunately absorbed into the shared Refresh/Tactician-- but that affected only support tools, not the job's own gameplay).

    I never understood why they have to insist of making them the same, first by changing BRD style into MCH, then revert MCH style into BRD...
    On both counts... ???

    Note that I never said the 3.0 MCH was good or fun to play, it needed work. But stripping its original vision isn't one of those work.
    I... think... I agree? I'm just really having trouble making sense of your frames of reference here.
    (1)