Even if having all your job at max level doesn't affect your ability to make money, it does affect your ability to participate in the content made for that Discipline. "Impacting the economy" is the main content available to DoH and DoL classes. While having all 50's in those disciplines does improve your ability to make money, everyone has the same ability to level those classes and thus effect the economy. Limiting the ability of one discipline to access all advanced classes is exactly the same as limiting another discipline's ability to access all advanced classes.
The same can be said for classes and jobs. Having access to only one job wouldn't prevent you from having all battle classes at max level. It is an unnecessary limitation on both disciplines and goes against the idea of the armory system.
The same can be said of having all jobs at 50. There's no variance and little interplay between players, outside of static groups. I won't say everyone, but the majority of PUG's only want whichever job is hot at the time. Restricting people to a single job would make those jobs more rare and valuable.
Just because less people would be able to make the items(less supply) does not mean that the demand for those items would be greater. How good the item itself is is what would drive demand.
I can only see this as a bad thing; so, we'll have to agree to disagree. It is an artificial limitation anyway, because I would just make 8 alternate characters to have all the specializations anyway. But this would be an unfair restriction to any non-legacy players that would have to pay for the additional character slots. Besides that fact that I really don't want to have to level all the DoH classes 8 times.
I don't actually agree with limiting everyone to a single job; I'm just trying to point out that it is just as absurd to limit DoH as it is to limit DoW/DoM.
TL;DR: Having unnecessary limitations on DoH/DoL classes is bad. Mmm'k.
On topic: The list looks pretty cool, but I don't see a need to split it off of the goldsmith class.


Reply With Quote

