Why do we have classes AND jobs again?

[whoopeeragon]

I think he was being sarcastic, Turbo.

Then I really don't get what the sarcasm is for. Since classes worked before jobs got implemented, why can't people use them after jobs got implemented? Why did people have to be too settled into their jobs after implementation to try out different variations? What are you trying to get at, Valmonte, because sarcasm is not a good way to present arguments.

[Colvin]

Then I really don't get what the sarcasm is for. Since classes worked before jobs got implemented, why can't people use them after jobs got implemented? Why did people have to be too settled into their jobs after implementation to try out different variations? What are you trying to get at, Valmonte, because sarcasm is not a good way to present arguments.

believe it or not... I think he was agreeing with you. I got that from the sarcasm.

[Valmonte]

Then I really don't get what the sarcasm is for. Since classes worked before jobs got implemented, why can't people use them after jobs got implemented? Why did people have to be too settled into their jobs after implementation to try out different variations? What are you trying to get at, Valmonte, because sarcasm is not a good way to present arguments.

that there was no variation when classes were around, and that jobs actually allowed far more freedom to experiment than classes ever did.

when it comes down to it Pug and Monk are night and day when it comes to content, same with alot of the classes. they simply do not stack up for endgame content and when they are used for endgame its only for a certain skill to boost another skill.

[Colvin]

that there was no variation when classes were around, and that jobs actually allowed far more freedom to experiment than classes ever did.

Whoop. I guess I was wrong. My bad.

[Valmonte]

Whoop. I guess I was wrong. My bad.

We can agree to disagree, at least.

[whoopeeragon]

We can agree to disagree, at least.

Yes, I think we're gonna have to. You see adamant in your opinion of the armoury system, and me in mine.

[whoopeeragon]

that there was no variation when classes were around, and that jobs actually allowed far more freedom to experiment than classes ever did.

No variations and less freedom to experiment...sir, I don't know if you are being sarcastic anymore or truly trying to justify your apparent dislike for the armoury system. Case in point being vanilla FFXIV with the old armoury system - you can't say there was no variation or freedom in that system. Current system is yes, flawed, but even then it gives larger variation of abilities for classes to choose from then jobs (is your maths wrong? Freedom of choosing abilities on class - 10, freedom of choosing abilities on jobs - 5.) And you say no variation - sir, I see no variation between all the DRGs, WHMs, BLMs or all the jobs here. None at all.

You also seem to be basing this of specialised end-game content, which in case, yes, jobs are vastly better than classes. But what if you get content where maximum number is 4? And you are against an opponent that switches between magic immunity and physical immunity and regens if not enough damage is done? That's just one example, but what's to say that classes perform much better than jobs in some fights, just as how jobs perform better than classes in others?

Classes are hands down much more versatile and more varied than jobs, but the extent of how potent their skills are is less than jobs. So why can't we have both to cover both roles in content that may have both?