Restricting Weapon skills to original class.

[Augury]

So because they are weaker they are less likely to be used, so what's the point in equipping them other than to be a gimptard.

Of course lets not forget that the reason this game has no unique rolls or classes is because anyone can equip any skill or piece of armour, it all goes back to bad design choices by Tanaka really, I'm sure there as many people who will disagree with me as who will agree though as the discussion in the general forum proves.

If anything Yoshi-p needs to make a poll dedicated to the armour system, the equipment system and the overall lack of uniqueness between classes in this game.

I don't think popular opinion is what would make this game better. The polls exist to see what PLAYERS THINK is the problem, not what actually is. Uniqueness is a PLAYER MADE concept above all else, and thus the future game should promote this to some degree, but not drive it to the other extreme.

It's also nothing about "gimptard" skills. Weapons need the identity of "I'm good at fighting under these conditions", but weapon skills exist to bridge what one weapon cannot do effectively by giving it the ability to do so, without allowing another weapon-class to use the same skill more effectively. Yoshi's team has the absolute potential to take this one by the throat and incorporate the job system as something which creates the desired uniqueness, and the armory fill the need to round things out. The level of depth this offers is far too attractive to sacrifice one concept for the other. Tanaka isn't dumb, and his ideas are not bad, but they did not cover all of the needs that a full game requires. The mistake was in making him the producer, not making him a member of the team assigned to build this game.

[MeowyWowie]

Of course lets not forget that the reason this game has no unique rolls or classes is because anyone can equip any skill or piece of armour, it all goes back to bad design choices by Tanaka really, I'm sure there as many people who will disagree with me as who will agree though as the discussion in the general forum proves.

This.

Class uniqueness seems to be a big issue with a lot of players. But at the same time, when suggestions like the OP's are presented many people still disagree. Being flexible is a good thing, yes. But too much of a good thing is not necessarily good, and FFXIV is a perfect example of this. If we want unique classes then we have to compromise somewhere.

While I understand the argument about incapacitation, it's still a moot point. Every DoM can incapacitate 4 parts, Pugilist can do 5. And if you have only 2 different DoM in one party, the chance of not being able to incapacitate one part is 25%. That goes for any combination of 2 DoM, and you'll still more than likely be able to incapacitate everything. Check for yourself: http://lodestone.finalfantasyxiv.com...84d9ed371bd789

The only people I could see really complaining about this is the ones who use Arrow burns to kill everything, which sadly is the majority, at least on my server. Again, any change is a good change in my book.

Edit: It's 25%, not 33% as I previously stated.

[Volsung]

No.
There really would be no point then to the system.

[Jinko]

Of course they could give skills which allow mages to incapacitate using magic under the right circumstances.

Ie freeze a body part or something.

[Arcell]

Of course they could give skills which allow mages to incapacitate using magic under the right circumstances.

Ie freeze a body part or something.

Like Flashfreeze? It's only temporary but it can knock the buffalo down.

[Roaran]

I think it's important to distinguish various reasons for and against restricting weapon skills. Things like being able to have all incapacitation effects aren't really important, as they can be fixed/tweaked and there's also the fact that many classes are already capable of performing these incaps. There are a few exceptions, but I don't believe it is necessarily an important issue.

That aside, a lot of people LOVE the armoury system. I consider myself one of them. But there is a significant problem with this game design. First, if every weapon can have acess to every weapon skill, this would mean two things:

*Weapon Effects must be able to transfer between weapon types. Each weapon effect created must be compatible with all weapon types in other words.

*Each Weapon animation must match up to each weapon effect.

Now the reason this is true is because the Dev team would otherwise have the incredibly insane task of creating unique effects & animations for every single weapon skill and every combination of weapon type. So if we have say, 6 weapon types and 4 weapon skills each, we would need 84 different sets of effects and abilities, not including II and potentially III versions.

Where as, with restrictions, there would be, if we keep 6 weapon types and 4 weapon skills each as an example, 24 unique weapon effects and animations.

The point is much less work and with fewer #, probably safe to say the quality will be much better as well.




At the end of the day it is a choice between:

Being able to use sub-optimal weapon skills for their occasional tactical uses.

Or

Having unique and more visually impressive abilities.

[Augury]

I think it's important to distinguish various reasons for and against restricting weapon skills. Things like being able to have all incapacitation effects aren't really important, as they can be fixed/tweaked and there's also the fact that many classes are already capable of performing these incaps. There are a few exceptions, but I don't believe it is necessarily an important issue.

That aside, a lot of people LOVE the armoury system. I consider myself one of them. But there is a significant problem with this game design. First, if every weapon can have acess to every weapon skill, this would mean two things:

*Weapon Effects must be able to transfer between weapon types. Each weapon effect created must be compatible with all weapon types in other words.

*Each Weapon animation must match up to each weapon effect.

Now the reason this is true is because the Dev team would otherwise have the incredibly insane task of creating unique effects & animations for every single weapon skill and every combination of weapon type. So if we have say, 6 weapon types and 4 weapon skills each, we would need 84 different sets of effects and abilities, not including II and potentially III versions.

Where as, with restrictions, there would be, if we keep 6 weapon types and 4 weapon skills each as an example, 24 unique weapon effects and animations.

The point is much less work and with fewer #, probably safe to say the quality will be much better as well.




At the end of the day it is a choice between:

Being able to use sub-optimal weapon skills for their occasional tactical uses.

Or

Having unique and more visually impressive abilities.

Even though I disagree with it, I like your argument . But the Devs can recycle animations to represent non-native weapon skills, or they could boil down the number of skills and use a smaller pool of more significant skills which could be juggled anyways, since the Armory system will probably act to replace the sub-job system.

[SuzakuCMX]

Everyone skimmed over my post ;--:

[Reika]

Each weapon has it's own affinities. Look at iron baghnakhs. 70% slashing, 30% blunt. How many slashing attacks does pugilist get? 0. They also have weapons that have piercing affinity.

Gladiators have variety of swords with slashing, peircing, and blunt. one even has wind.
Marauder Bardichs have more blunt than slashing, Bjuh has more slashing than blunt, Bills have slashing blunt and piercing.
Archers have arrows with 70% projectile, 30% slashing.
Lancers have Lances with pure peircing, but halbard and spears also have slashing, and 2 or so have blunt.

So you cant say X classes weapon cant do blunt damage, or piercing damage, or whatever. Some weapons are better at doing a certain damage type than others, that is what weapon affinity is for. and that justifies the use cross-class weapon skills. I use Brandish II, Circle Slash II, skull sunder II, and Riot Blade on my pugilist, Because my weapon is better at slashing than blunt..

Marauders' Brutal Swing: "Strike with the flat of your weapon.." Swords and spears dont have flats on their weapons? Even pug weapons have flats: backhand! You can only justify archer not being able to use this skill, but every other weapon is a go.

The archer skill barrage doesnt even list a damage type does it? "Get the most out of your weapon, dealing up to four fold damage and increasing enmity". I dont see anything that says projectile damage here, yet it is learned by ranking up archer. I will damn well use it on my marauder, pugilist, and gladiator. it is something MEANT to be cross-classed. And I will tell you, this skill actually does not do a lot of damage as archer, and uses 4 arrows in the process. Tho, it doesnt do a lot of damage on other classes either, and only hits once ; ;.

Gladiator skill Rage of Halone does peircing damage. "Halone guides your weapon.." Can just stop there, as it does not specifically say sword. A Lance and a Bow/arrow are weapons too, guided by halone. I wonder if a lancer would like to have a shot at it, since their weapons have the highest piercing damage affinity. another skill that is probably MEANT to be cross classed. and this skill does a lot of damage at higher ranks, getting hit or not.

Then there is the skill Red Lotus. Deals fire damage. No swords that specifically list fire affinity, Why not invoke the power of fire with an axe or a bow too? I even use this as Mage, since they actually make better use of it.

Then there are skills like Quick Nock and Arrow Helix. Names already imply they require bows and arrows. and thus they arent cross classable.

There are also some skills that are just stupid to try to use on a certain classes. Like an Archer wouldnt want to use Circle Slash, Brandish, or aura pulse, because they still only aoe around the user, not the target, unlike wide volly.

you can say not every skill has the look and feel of using it on its main class, but does it really look the best on its main class? Take brutal swing for instance. I like how it looks when swinging a sword much more than swinging an axe. Try it sometime. You actually do do a different move than you do with your sword skills.

[Roaran]

Everyone skimmed over my post ;--:

Suzaku raised a very good point in his post, thanks for pointing this out. Forgive me if I oversimplify it, but he suggested that each player ends up selecting a few skills from a wide range of skills, and this selection is what makes each player unique.

I love this point, as I wholly agree with it. The armoury system has great strengths to it, and this is definately one of the strongest.


Though my problem lies in the ultimate lack of choice that this same system creates. A player does have many choices, yet, (and I don't want to exaggerate or underestimate) probably 75% of these choices are sub-optimal at best. Some classes greatly benefit from some abilities (Defender II for THM is awesome).

Which is why I specifically targeted ONLY weapon skills. I think of it as a cost/benefit analysis.

On the one hand, I like the armoury system for abilities, as it simply works very well. Magic in general as well. Simple activation animations and casting animations are sufficient enough for these abilities to be used among all the classes.

Yet, for Weapon skills, I see a distinct difference. This availability seems to place a limit on what they're capable of. I also point out skills such as Luminous Spire and Simian Thrash... these are prime examples of what skills COULD be like, but are generally not.