I think a paladin and dark knight could exist side by side... but the key is that dark knight couldn't be different by being a better DPS job. Warrior is already almost overpowered in that regard, and the last thing we want is a repeat of version 1.x (when warriors were WAAAAAAAAAAAAY overpowered compared to paladins).
What if the primary difference was in how each job bolstered its defenses? Whereas paladin has a few simple "button press" defensive cooldowns, maybe dark knight's would have one or two fewer "button press" cooldowns and a couple of extra drain-oriented abilities? Or something like "soul drain," which lets the dark knight drain his MP to gain a temporary defense boost? Or maybe even a move in which the drk can trigger a defense boost after getting critically hit by a mob (call that ability, "Taste of Blood")? The dark knight could even have an ability where he can mitigate damage in a pinch by spreading out the damage he takes across the whole party.
Both jobs would still be blood tanks, but with their own styles to make one "light" and one "dark." But neither would need to have a DPS edge, so both could remain balanced with each other and warrior.
·Theme
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XIV
- General Discussion
- Will the expansion be geared towards end-game players?
Will the expansion be geared towards end-game players?Follow
Thayos Redblade
Jormungandr
Hyperion
Jormungandr
Hyperion
Quote:
A lot of the mechanics you're citing, looking at it brief, could be functional, to a degree. Trading Emnity for some sort of damage component was an idea I pitched months ago. But it does not detract from other problems or again, my premise that such efforts in the specific section I listed about transferring a the weapon?
Can it be done? Yes, anything can be done with the game if the development team makes the effort to do so. However, whether or not they choose to do so or agree with you, is a question neither of us has the answer to, and honestly, I no longer have the desire to continue to speculate with you personally on. My discussion was originally targeted at Lyrailis, which you seemed fit to interject yourself into, and with a rude tone that I've ignored up until this point.
We can return to the subject at hand when you learn not to lace insults into your speech. Frankly, it's a waste of my time to try to glean your argument out of underhanded attacks.
Can it be done? Yes, anything can be done with the game if the development team makes the effort to do so. However, whether or not they choose to do so or agree with you, is a question neither of us has the answer to, and honestly, I no longer have the desire to continue to speculate with you personally on. My discussion was originally targeted at Lyrailis, which you seemed fit to interject yourself into, and with a rude tone that I've ignored up until this point.
We can return to the subject at hand when you learn not to lace insults into your speech. Frankly, it's a waste of my time to try to glean your argument out of underhanded attacks.
Argumentative tone is my thing, I agree that much, but it is only an insult if you choose to take it as one. That is outside of my influence entirely.
However, the argument seems to have come a close on my behalf as well. People saying "it can't be done" and "it won't be done" are in reality as speculative as anyone else. Acting as if the armoury system has some inherent flaws that make it unable to be implemented is lazy argument at best, as it has been proven to be entirely untrue. The armory system is fully capable of being much more flexible than some people want to assume. Now, whether the devs want to use that flexibility to their advantage is a question only the devs know the answer to.
Case closed.
Edited, Sep 19th 2014 3:47pm by Hyanmen
Pardon me as I wax philosophical with this post. I enjoy mulling things over towards the end of my work day.
There is a multitude of online guides online, as well as college and private classes that can assist you with directing the tone of your text. It is quite possible to control of the writer to direct the course of tone of their writing. Personally, it's an effort I've been striving to improve upon myself, and seems to be having the desired effect with some people.Though I'll confess that I can be downright critical and cutting if I don't watch myself.
Keep in mind that it is never my intention to belittle or insult an individual so much as question the ideas and arguments presented, or the way it is being presented if it is disrespectful. Every view point is different and in that difference, it becomes impossible to reconcile with everyone. Same with design philosophies of video games.
No less so than a director and programming staff could alter the parameters of a game then a writer can choose whether or not to change their tone to their audience. And while each individual and group can receive both differently, to disregard responsibility for such is a good way to earn a bad reputation - for the writer or the developer.
Similarly, it's game of gains and losses whenever one decides to alter either of these subjects, which is the question I raised previously: Is it worth for the developers to go contrary to their established design theme? While you see the matter as simple, I do not. Similarly, you may not find it simple to alter the tone of your writing, or have it be worthwhile to do so for that sake of an outspoken individual.
I found it worth my time though. Perhaps SE will find it worth their time to expand the weapons of each class. If so, I just hope they take greater care in understanding their whole audience when doing so, then they have thus far.
Hunts was a debacle, Housing, a disaster. I'd like them to be careful with Job expansion and balancing.
Edited, Sep 19th 2014 4:20pm by Hyrist
There is a multitude of online guides online, as well as college and private classes that can assist you with directing the tone of your text. It is quite possible to control of the writer to direct the course of tone of their writing. Personally, it's an effort I've been striving to improve upon myself, and seems to be having the desired effect with some people.Though I'll confess that I can be downright critical and cutting if I don't watch myself.
Keep in mind that it is never my intention to belittle or insult an individual so much as question the ideas and arguments presented, or the way it is being presented if it is disrespectful. Every view point is different and in that difference, it becomes impossible to reconcile with everyone. Same with design philosophies of video games.
No less so than a director and programming staff could alter the parameters of a game then a writer can choose whether or not to change their tone to their audience. And while each individual and group can receive both differently, to disregard responsibility for such is a good way to earn a bad reputation - for the writer or the developer.
Similarly, it's game of gains and losses whenever one decides to alter either of these subjects, which is the question I raised previously: Is it worth for the developers to go contrary to their established design theme? While you see the matter as simple, I do not. Similarly, you may not find it simple to alter the tone of your writing, or have it be worthwhile to do so for that sake of an outspoken individual.
I found it worth my time though. Perhaps SE will find it worth their time to expand the weapons of each class. If so, I just hope they take greater care in understanding their whole audience when doing so, then they have thus far.
Hunts was a debacle, Housing, a disaster. I'd like them to be careful with Job expansion and balancing.
Edited, Sep 19th 2014 4:20pm by Hyrist
Hyrist wrote:
Hunts was a debacle, Housing, a disaster. I'd like them to be careful with Job expansion and balancing.
Quote:
Similarly, it's game of gains and losses whenever one decides to alter either of these subjects, which is the question I raised previously: Is it worth for the developers to go contrary to their established design theme? While you see the matter as simple, I do not. Similarly, you may not find it simple to alter the tone of your writing, or have it be worthwhile to do so for that sake of an outspoken individual.
Yes, that you act like the burden of change is on me entirely is rather insulting. Because let's face it; there is an alternative to what you're proposing. You could grow a thicker skin.
I have said enough of your alleged "established design theme" to once again state that it is completely and utterly subjective to even claim that there is some "established design theme" outside of your own perception of the system. You are once again taking your own subjectiveness, turning it into a fact, and then looking at the debate through your own self-made reality. Whether it is "worth it" to "go contrary" is only a valid question if what you think of the system is really the "established design theme" in the first place.
Hyrist wrote:
Hunts was a debacle, Housing, a disaster. I'd like them to be careful with Job expansion and balancing.
When the playerbase acts like every single content is made entirely for them, while that isn't the case, there is no way SE can win with anything they will ever do.
Players like me or others can have qualms with particular areas of the game all they want.
SE won already. Turned a game that was in shambles into a successful mmo.
SE won already. Turned a game that was in shambles into a successful mmo.
I'm going to continue to draw the personal to professional parallels I have thus far as, mulling it over. Due to size of each reply in subject, I've split the responses to each subject into individual posts.
I wish to clarify, that this is not a matter of burdens so much as choices. If you feel there is a burden of change placed upon you, then perhaps it is due to the specific circumstances of this discussion.
To review: You chose to interject yourself into a conversation that was addressed specifically for another individual. When addressing me, you chose your writing tone, and even acknowledged later that the argumentative tone was 'your thing' therefore you were aware that others would find it displeasing.
In contrast, I chose to address your interjection, and chose to ignore your tone untill it become something I found intolerable. I then I chose to instead address a similar statement provided in a more respectful tone. However, as you had addressed me, rather than simply ignore you, I stated the reasons why I did not want to further address the topic with you.
I'd hesitate to state that such a matter is a burden, so much as you had competition for my attention and I chose the route that, and I quote 'wanted me to reply'.
This is where I draw the parallel to businesses. I'm being more general than video game design on this because this sort of choice is presented to me in my own field on a daily basis.
To reestablish the quote:
We have, as consumers, and individuals, the advantage of choice. Whether or not it is a game that fits our ideals, or an individual that suits our reading preference. There are plenty of people, and games, we can chose to interact with.
You are right in saying that I could 'grow a thicker skin' (Which, I have to chuckle a bit at, I'm sorry. I deal with customers daily on top of being a Guild officer and Raid leader. I'm ok with the thickness of my skin.) However, why would I when someone else provides a similar, yet more pleasant alternative to an engaging discussion?
Similarly, a company needs address this concern in the face of their competition. If they disregard the desires of one particular demographic, you can be assured that another will attempt to capitalize on the oversight. Thus the burden of choice is weighed and measured.
Back to us personally: I have to wonder aloud if you realize you've also already made the change, at least temporarily. You're debating actions rather than individuals, viewpoints rather than people. If and when that reverts back, however, you can expect me to maintain my original stance. I am comfortable with my decision on that matter. But as it stands, I have no problem discussing matters academically with you. And the fact that you disagree with my stances and attempt to disprove my assertions isn't the issue. This is an internet forum after all and we're here to have intellectual discussion. And even with your insults you are a far cry better than most conversations sparked in the official forums.
So, with that said. No. I don't expect you to change. I don't feel as if you should feel burdened to change either. That's not my intent and I apologize if my statement previously did not make that clear enough. I simply made a choice not to tolerate a particular of your behavior. You can choice not to alter that behavior and I will respect that decision, if not the behavior itself. As far as how it reflects upon you as an individual; that would be presumptuous for my tastes. I don't know you; I only know what you show in posts. You could be a war vet who uses such demeanor to deal with PTSD, or even one of the hosts of Top Gear, for all I know. I can only deal with what information I am provided. So I do what I can to reserve judgment.
But as I said before, I won't waste my time trying to pull out an argument from an insulting tone, especially not in the face of good alternatives. If you feel burdened by that position, perhaps that pressure is, in part, internal. However, that is a speculation.
Edited, Sep 20th 2014 11:02am by Hyrist
Quote:
Yes, that you act like the burden of change is on me entirely is rather insulting. Because let's face it; there is an alternative to what you're proposing. You could grow a thicker skin.
I wish to clarify, that this is not a matter of burdens so much as choices. If you feel there is a burden of change placed upon you, then perhaps it is due to the specific circumstances of this discussion.
To review: You chose to interject yourself into a conversation that was addressed specifically for another individual. When addressing me, you chose your writing tone, and even acknowledged later that the argumentative tone was 'your thing' therefore you were aware that others would find it displeasing.
In contrast, I chose to address your interjection, and chose to ignore your tone untill it become something I found intolerable. I then I chose to instead address a similar statement provided in a more respectful tone. However, as you had addressed me, rather than simply ignore you, I stated the reasons why I did not want to further address the topic with you.
I'd hesitate to state that such a matter is a burden, so much as you had competition for my attention and I chose the route that, and I quote 'wanted me to reply'.
This is where I draw the parallel to businesses. I'm being more general than video game design on this because this sort of choice is presented to me in my own field on a daily basis.
To reestablish the quote:
Quote:
Similarly, it's game of gains and losses whenever one decides to alter either of these subjects, which is the question I raised previously: Is it worth for the developers to go contrary to their established design theme? While you see the matter as simple, I do not. Similarly, you may not find it simple to alter the tone of your writing, or have it be worthwhile to do so for that sake of an outspoken individual.
We have, as consumers, and individuals, the advantage of choice. Whether or not it is a game that fits our ideals, or an individual that suits our reading preference. There are plenty of people, and games, we can chose to interact with.
You are right in saying that I could 'grow a thicker skin' (Which, I have to chuckle a bit at, I'm sorry. I deal with customers daily on top of being a Guild officer and Raid leader. I'm ok with the thickness of my skin.) However, why would I when someone else provides a similar, yet more pleasant alternative to an engaging discussion?
Similarly, a company needs address this concern in the face of their competition. If they disregard the desires of one particular demographic, you can be assured that another will attempt to capitalize on the oversight. Thus the burden of choice is weighed and measured.
Back to us personally: I have to wonder aloud if you realize you've also already made the change, at least temporarily. You're debating actions rather than individuals, viewpoints rather than people. If and when that reverts back, however, you can expect me to maintain my original stance. I am comfortable with my decision on that matter. But as it stands, I have no problem discussing matters academically with you. And the fact that you disagree with my stances and attempt to disprove my assertions isn't the issue. This is an internet forum after all and we're here to have intellectual discussion. And even with your insults you are a far cry better than most conversations sparked in the official forums.
So, with that said. No. I don't expect you to change. I don't feel as if you should feel burdened to change either. That's not my intent and I apologize if my statement previously did not make that clear enough. I simply made a choice not to tolerate a particular of your behavior. You can choice not to alter that behavior and I will respect that decision, if not the behavior itself. As far as how it reflects upon you as an individual; that would be presumptuous for my tastes. I don't know you; I only know what you show in posts. You could be a war vet who uses such demeanor to deal with PTSD, or even one of the hosts of Top Gear, for all I know. I can only deal with what information I am provided. So I do what I can to reserve judgment.
But as I said before, I won't waste my time trying to pull out an argument from an insulting tone, especially not in the face of good alternatives. If you feel burdened by that position, perhaps that pressure is, in part, internal. However, that is a speculation.
Edited, Sep 20th 2014 11:02am by Hyrist
Now, back to purely the game topic:
I disagree. In fact I wouldn't be so certain in my tone if I wasn't convinced that it was a fact. I'll list some evidence for you, though there is more that can be gleaned if you look yourself. I've watched and read pretty much every interview and update on FFXIV so not all of what I've read is easily referenced.
I acknowledge that I do not have a clear an definitive statement from the production manager stating that this is a solid, unified theme established by the development team (not to say that it does not exist, it's just difficult to peruse through years worth of interviews.) However I can cite no fewer than four different aspects, original description, game mechanics, class description, and recent activity, that, in my view, solidify my statement that the classes are, in fact, defined by their weapons.
We will begin, as the game, in its troublesome beginnings, with the initial pitch description on how Tanaka pictured the Armory system:
"The Armoury system is one of the foundations of the Final Fantasy XIV experience, simultaneously being both the impetus behind character development and a key factor determining individual gameplay.
By merely equipping any of a variety of weapons or tools, players can instantly change their active skills, thus enabling them to dramatically alter their style of play as well as their character's outward appearance. To take an example, let us follow a day in the life of Leeroy.
Leeroy recently chose to begin the journey down the path of the gladiator, trying his hand at the age-old art of swordplay for the first time. Even today, he woke at dawn to spend the daylight hours drilling relentlessly on the tiny wildlife just outside of town. Alas, opportunities often present themselves when least expected...
Without prior notice, some friends invite Leeroy to partake in an expedition in some nearby ruins. Upon joining their ranks, however, he observes that the other party members are seasoned warriors and accomplished mages all. Dismayed yet not given to despair, Leeroy sheathes his sword and takes up his well-worn staff, assuming the role of thaumaturge, his most advanced class. He bids farewell to the rodents and worms and races to meet his companions, basking in the confident light of his spellcasting abilities.
The party members go their separate ways following a successful outing, and while following the river back to town Leeroy is suddenly taken by the urge to fish. He secures his staff to his back in a deft, practiced motion, and on the recoil pulls out his beloved fishing rod. The gladiator and thaumaturge are gone now, and all that remains is Leeroy the fisherman. Three shining trout! Not a bad haul.
Upon arriving home, Leeroy puts aside his fishing rod and takes up his trusty hammer, blacksmithery having ever been one of his passions. He knows, as does any adventurer, that preparation is the key to any battle, and so sets to working the dents out of his armor and sharpening the edge of his blade. It's all in a day's work.
This is but a mere sample of what players can expect from the Armoury. With flexibility of gameplay and effective use of time at its core, the system is designed with emphasis on not only the in-game lifestyles of characters, but those of the players themselves as well. The Armoury awaits you!"
In the original description of the armory system it is plain to see that the ease of switching from one field of combat, to one another, to a field of gathering, to a field of crafting, was always intended to be as simple as changing the weapon or tool that it specializes in. There was no question of picking up the sword and then deciding what you wanted to be. It was defined the moment you picked it up.
This is further evidenced in the game itself. The weapons determine the class change, not anything else. This is contrary to FFXI in which the class is chosen, then the weapon. In 1.0, the fact that the classes were defined by the weapon and essentially little else because a matter of discussion and criticism. (I wonder how many people here still remember when the Tanky Lancer dominated most DPS slots?)
Nowadays, we have the advantage of the Job System, a stone that further defines a class. But the root weapon is still the determining factor. In fact equipping an artifact weapon forces the class into the job automatically.
Now, while this is just base function of the game. "Well we can add more weapons that function the same way, say, make Greatsword Automatically switch players to Gladiator." Then we limit the system in that weapons cannot be shared between classes. More on that point later.
As we've seen, time and time again, Lore is a big deal for Eorzea and how it functions. To see support for the theme that weapon determines the class, you need go no further than the FFXIV website and read the class descriptions to realize they're defined by their weapon, most notedly in the Deciples of War:
"Marauders are combat specialists whose weapon of choice is the greataxe—a fearsome arm long associated with Eorzea's pirates..."
"The path of the pugilist is one of incessant training aimed at mastering the traditional techniques of hand-to-hand combat. Though pugilists command formidable power when unarmed, they are wont to use metal, leather, and bone weaponry to maximize their destructive potential..."
"The lancer is a master of polearms—weapons which have evolved from humble hunting tools. In former times, the longspear saw the most widespread use, due in great part to the influence of the proud lancer legions of Ala Mhigo. The lancer's weaponry has since expanded to include other lethal implements such as the halberd and trident..."
"With a bow in hand and a quiver on his back, the archer strikes at the enemy from afar. In Eorzea, two schools of archery have risen to prominence: that of the longbow sentries of the Elezen military, and that of the shortbow hunters among the Miqo'te."
Even if we were to disregard 2 classes who are quite literally named after their weapon types, it's plain to see that in their description, these classes are viewed as weapon specialists. And while each class seems to have some variance in the manner of which they use the weapon, they don't slip outside their arching category.
Keep in mind, up until recently, all of this could have been argued as subjective and circumstantial. However, Square Enix recently did something to one class that pretty much solidified the theme here.
I'm going to site openly the description of the Gladiator class:
Note, Daggers were once (And still is) Listed under the purview of 1 handed weapons wielded by Gladiators. But that has since been taken away, and will be seen in the future class of Rogue and Job of Ninja.
Now, if there was no concern among the designers among the theme of the armory system, why did they remove a weapon type from a class so that it would be exclusive to one coming in? They could have easily kept the daggers the Gladiators had and issued separate, dual-dagger types for Rogues. They chose not to. Instead the items that were daggers on the Gladiator ends were re-designed and re-branded as swords, and gave dual-daggers to Rogues anyways.
You can assert that my viewpoint is subjective, but I challenge you to find evidence contrary to it. The pursuit of truth is filled with challenges to what we see as true. That's the fun of any field of study. But just because circumstances can change, does not disqualify the fact that it exists. By all indications, there is an ongoing theme of classes defined by their weapons. I wouldn't 'state it as fact' if I wasn't convinced both from personal experiences and evidence listed. And I am far from the only one who does so.
So if you'd like to continue to refute it, I'd like you to back it up, if it's worth your time to do so.
Quote:
I have said enough of your alleged "established design theme" to once again state that it is completely and utterly subjective to even claim that there is some "established design theme" outside of your own perception of the system. You are once again taking your own subjectiveness, turning it into a fact, and then looking at the debate through your own self-made reality. Whether it is "worth it" to "go contrary" is only a valid question if what you think of the system is really the "established design theme" in the first place.
I disagree. In fact I wouldn't be so certain in my tone if I wasn't convinced that it was a fact. I'll list some evidence for you, though there is more that can be gleaned if you look yourself. I've watched and read pretty much every interview and update on FFXIV so not all of what I've read is easily referenced.
I acknowledge that I do not have a clear an definitive statement from the production manager stating that this is a solid, unified theme established by the development team (not to say that it does not exist, it's just difficult to peruse through years worth of interviews.) However I can cite no fewer than four different aspects, original description, game mechanics, class description, and recent activity, that, in my view, solidify my statement that the classes are, in fact, defined by their weapons.
We will begin, as the game, in its troublesome beginnings, with the initial pitch description on how Tanaka pictured the Armory system:
"The Armoury system is one of the foundations of the Final Fantasy XIV experience, simultaneously being both the impetus behind character development and a key factor determining individual gameplay.
By merely equipping any of a variety of weapons or tools, players can instantly change their active skills, thus enabling them to dramatically alter their style of play as well as their character's outward appearance. To take an example, let us follow a day in the life of Leeroy.
Leeroy recently chose to begin the journey down the path of the gladiator, trying his hand at the age-old art of swordplay for the first time. Even today, he woke at dawn to spend the daylight hours drilling relentlessly on the tiny wildlife just outside of town. Alas, opportunities often present themselves when least expected...
Without prior notice, some friends invite Leeroy to partake in an expedition in some nearby ruins. Upon joining their ranks, however, he observes that the other party members are seasoned warriors and accomplished mages all. Dismayed yet not given to despair, Leeroy sheathes his sword and takes up his well-worn staff, assuming the role of thaumaturge, his most advanced class. He bids farewell to the rodents and worms and races to meet his companions, basking in the confident light of his spellcasting abilities.
The party members go their separate ways following a successful outing, and while following the river back to town Leeroy is suddenly taken by the urge to fish. He secures his staff to his back in a deft, practiced motion, and on the recoil pulls out his beloved fishing rod. The gladiator and thaumaturge are gone now, and all that remains is Leeroy the fisherman. Three shining trout! Not a bad haul.
Upon arriving home, Leeroy puts aside his fishing rod and takes up his trusty hammer, blacksmithery having ever been one of his passions. He knows, as does any adventurer, that preparation is the key to any battle, and so sets to working the dents out of his armor and sharpening the edge of his blade. It's all in a day's work.
This is but a mere sample of what players can expect from the Armoury. With flexibility of gameplay and effective use of time at its core, the system is designed with emphasis on not only the in-game lifestyles of characters, but those of the players themselves as well. The Armoury awaits you!"
In the original description of the armory system it is plain to see that the ease of switching from one field of combat, to one another, to a field of gathering, to a field of crafting, was always intended to be as simple as changing the weapon or tool that it specializes in. There was no question of picking up the sword and then deciding what you wanted to be. It was defined the moment you picked it up.
This is further evidenced in the game itself. The weapons determine the class change, not anything else. This is contrary to FFXI in which the class is chosen, then the weapon. In 1.0, the fact that the classes were defined by the weapon and essentially little else because a matter of discussion and criticism. (I wonder how many people here still remember when the Tanky Lancer dominated most DPS slots?)
Nowadays, we have the advantage of the Job System, a stone that further defines a class. But the root weapon is still the determining factor. In fact equipping an artifact weapon forces the class into the job automatically.
Now, while this is just base function of the game. "Well we can add more weapons that function the same way, say, make Greatsword Automatically switch players to Gladiator." Then we limit the system in that weapons cannot be shared between classes. More on that point later.
As we've seen, time and time again, Lore is a big deal for Eorzea and how it functions. To see support for the theme that weapon determines the class, you need go no further than the FFXIV website and read the class descriptions to realize they're defined by their weapon, most notedly in the Deciples of War:
"Marauders are combat specialists whose weapon of choice is the greataxe—a fearsome arm long associated with Eorzea's pirates..."
"The path of the pugilist is one of incessant training aimed at mastering the traditional techniques of hand-to-hand combat. Though pugilists command formidable power when unarmed, they are wont to use metal, leather, and bone weaponry to maximize their destructive potential..."
"The lancer is a master of polearms—weapons which have evolved from humble hunting tools. In former times, the longspear saw the most widespread use, due in great part to the influence of the proud lancer legions of Ala Mhigo. The lancer's weaponry has since expanded to include other lethal implements such as the halberd and trident..."
"With a bow in hand and a quiver on his back, the archer strikes at the enemy from afar. In Eorzea, two schools of archery have risen to prominence: that of the longbow sentries of the Elezen military, and that of the shortbow hunters among the Miqo'te."
Even if we were to disregard 2 classes who are quite literally named after their weapon types, it's plain to see that in their description, these classes are viewed as weapon specialists. And while each class seems to have some variance in the manner of which they use the weapon, they don't slip outside their arching category.
Keep in mind, up until recently, all of this could have been argued as subjective and circumstantial. However, Square Enix recently did something to one class that pretty much solidified the theme here.
I'm going to site openly the description of the Gladiator class:
Quote:
Gladiators specialize in the handling of all manner of one-handed blades, from daggers to longswords, be they single- or double-edged, straight or curved. Tracing their roots to the Coliseum, where the roar of the crowd reigns supreme, these melee combatants have learned to seamlessly flow between attack and defense in a dance that delights the eye.
Making use of their skill with the shield, gladiators can also draw the attention and attacks of an enemy upon themselves, thereby protecting their comrades from harm
Making use of their skill with the shield, gladiators can also draw the attention and attacks of an enemy upon themselves, thereby protecting their comrades from harm
Note, Daggers were once (And still is) Listed under the purview of 1 handed weapons wielded by Gladiators. But that has since been taken away, and will be seen in the future class of Rogue and Job of Ninja.
Now, if there was no concern among the designers among the theme of the armory system, why did they remove a weapon type from a class so that it would be exclusive to one coming in? They could have easily kept the daggers the Gladiators had and issued separate, dual-dagger types for Rogues. They chose not to. Instead the items that were daggers on the Gladiator ends were re-designed and re-branded as swords, and gave dual-daggers to Rogues anyways.
You can assert that my viewpoint is subjective, but I challenge you to find evidence contrary to it. The pursuit of truth is filled with challenges to what we see as true. That's the fun of any field of study. But just because circumstances can change, does not disqualify the fact that it exists. By all indications, there is an ongoing theme of classes defined by their weapons. I wouldn't 'state it as fact' if I wasn't convinced both from personal experiences and evidence listed. And I am far from the only one who does so.
So if you'd like to continue to refute it, I'd like you to back it up, if it's worth your time to do so.
#134REDACTED,
Posted: Sep 21 2014 at 3:45 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) And why would I change my tone when clearly A) we are going to continue the discussion anyway and B) even if we didn't, that wouldn't affect me in any shape or form. Clearly we both can continue to do what we want without the one of us telling the other how he should/could be conducting himself? Either way, the only burden I feel here comes from your lectures towards my debating choices. Since your alternatives are clearly not any 'better', please stop already.
Quote:
I disagree. In fact I wouldn't be so certain in my tone if I wasn't convinced that it was a fact. I'll list some evidence for you, though there is more that can be gleaned if you look yourself. I've watched and read pretty much every interview and update on FFXIV so not all of what I've read is easily referenced.
Thank you for taking the time to look up evidence for your case. To be clear, since my stance is that there is no "established design theme", at least the way you claim there is, what I need to do is point out the vagueness, subjectivity, or errors in the four different aspects provided by you.
Quote:
We will begin, as the game, in its troublesome beginnings, with the initial pitch description on how Tanaka pictured the Armory system:
Quote:
Keep in mind, up until recently, all of this could have been argued as subjective and circumstantial.
Hm, you seem to have done my work for me already. Okay. Of course I hope I don't need to point out that Tanaka's FFXIV and Yoshida's ARR are two completely different games, with significant differences not just having to do with classes evolving into jobs but how you can have two jobs on one class. All we can say for certain is that the class system of the game shares the same name. For all intents and purposes, however, jobs have taken over classes.
Quote:
Lore is a big deal for Eorzea and how it functions.
I did already show you how to add to the lore without it ruining the existing lore. I find it odd that you would re-use the same point again. The Marauder's guild may find some long-lost weapon type (say, a weapon used by Marauder's in the Far West) which they then choose to adapt to their guild. Lore will not come in the way of the envisioned system, I assure you. It did not come in the way of THM/CNJ/WHM/BLM issue wherein the elements were split between the classes (which, in my mind, was the biggest leap of faith seen in the FFXIV-saga).
Quote:
Now, if there was no concern among the designers among the theme of the armory system, why did they remove a weapon type from a class so that it would be exclusive to one coming in? They could have easily kept the daggers the Gladiators had and issued separate, dual-dagger types for Rogues. They chose not to. Instead the items that were daggers on the Gladiator ends were re-designed and re-branded as swords, and gave dual-daggers to Rogues anyways.
Let me flip the argument for you. Look at how easily SE ignored the """established""" standards and did something they felt suited the game and their intentions better. In fact it clearly disproves your class descriptions as valid evidence towards an established design theme. More importantly, if this is "the theme" of the armoury system then why are CNJ and THM sharing the same weapon types?
For being an established design theme, there are way too many exceptions and ambiguity to be convinced (by what we can see in the game) that it is a fact. While this is my opinion at best, the idea that ACN would continue having two jobs while the game were fleshed out with more one class/one job combos doesn't sound logical at all. As it is, the ACN situation breaks the established design theme rather heavily, and will continue to do so until all classes have access to two jobs (or SCH is given it's own class). I don't see the latter happening personally. Now, this does not mean that if new jobs were added to the existing classes (to make the design more unified) the new jobs would have new weapons available to them. I sure hope they do, though, because it would be quite boring otherwise.
Quote:
Now, while this is just base function of the game. "Well we can add more weapons that function the same way, say, make Greatsword Automatically switch players to Gladiator." Then we limit the system in that weapons cannot be shared between classes. More on that point later.
Why can't they do it the way CNJ and THM work today? Some greatswords switch players to GLD, some greatswords do not.
Anyway, tell me, what is the established design theme: one class/one job or one class/two jobs? Or... one class/one job for 86,4% of classes, one class/two jobs for 13,6% of classes?
Edited, Sep 21st 2014 10:20am by Hyanmen
Hyanmen wrote:
Well, first of all, there is quite the leap of logic there. That I find my tone argumentative does not automatically equal that I would be aware others would find it displeasing. Argumentativeness is not a bad quality unless you personally decide to make it so.
I'm pretty sure most people think of argumentativeness as a bad quality. We're not talking about the ability to engage in debate. I know plenty of people that like to debate. I don't know anyone that likes it when other people are argumentative.
#137REDACTED,
Posted: Sep 21 2014 at 6:52 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Most people don't "like" to be proven wrong either. Not liking something does not mean it is bad in itself. I'm sure many people don't like argumentativeness. They simply have to learn to deal with it, just like they have to deal with someone proving them wrong once in a while.
Quote:
I did already show you how to add to the lore without it ruining the existing lore. I find it odd that you would re-use the same point again. The Marauder's guild may find some long-lost weapon type (say, a weapon used by Marauder's in the Far West) which they then choose to adapt to their guild. Lore will not come in the way of the envisioned system, I assure you. It did not come in the way of THM/CNJ/WHM/BLM issue wherein the elements were split between the classes (which, in my mind, was the biggest leap of faith seen in the FFXIV-saga).
I've already addressed this: Just because a theme has the capacity of change, does not in fact, deny that theme's existence.
We already have to justify one class being unlocked within the game's lore, who's path to being unlocked is tied into Post 2.0 game. We don't even know if that class is going to be accessible to new players at this point.
Quote:
Let me flip the argument for you. Look at how easily SE ignored the """established""" standards and did something they felt suited the game and their intentions better. In fact it clearly disproves your class descriptions as valid evidence towards an established design theme. More importantly, if this is "the theme" of the armoury system then why are CNJ and THM sharing the same weapon types?
Knew the subject of mages were going to come into play here, which is why I left it untouched intentionally.
The Staff/Wand objects for Conjurer and THM style differently in design and do not, in any fashion, alter the gameplay of the class. The fact that SE has taken the time to establish differences between these weapons means they're already aware of the fact that these classes mark a grey area in the Armory system. However, when your primary function in the class has little to do with the weapon you are using, that aspect becomes more flexible.
Meanwhile, they ignored nothing of established standards of Gladiator, who still stick to one handed weapons and shield. They actually took away something that was felt out of place, and changed nothing of Gladiator's mechanics.
Search 'FFXIV Gladiator Dagger' and you'll find threads right in front of you questioning why Gladiator had a dagger in its kit to begin with. Dig into either of those threads and you'll see other players also accepting that the Classes are defined by their weapons.
Now, if you're wanting my personal opinion on the taking away daggers form Gladiator, the only conclusion can be to reinforce that theme. There's no other reason to do it. Mechanically, nothing's changed, at all. If they weren't concerned for theme, they could have just as easily left it there. To your point: There could have been daggers equip-able only by Gladiators and Daggers only equip-able by Rogues. They did not go that route.
Quote:
Anyway, tell me, what is the established design theme: one class/one job or one class/two jobs? Or... one class/one job for 86,4% of classes, one class/two jobs for 13,6% of classes?
Neither, the established design theme is that the classes are defined by the weapons they use, most noticeably in the Disciples of War.
To break this down for you:
Gladiators: 1h Swords and Shield
Rogues: Dual Daggers
Lancers: Polearms
Puglist: HtH weaponry.
Archers: Bows
Murader: G-Axes
Arcanists: Grimories
Conjrers: Naturalistic Wands and Staves
Thamumaturges: Alchemic Wands and Staves
Nothing in Arcanist breaks this theme in the least: The Classes are still defined by the weapons the use and the professions they have. Arcanist's base skills don't even change with the exception of their Summon skills. Interjecting the 2 job mechanic into the argument is a red herring at best, a blatant attempt to pull the argument away from its core points at worst. (Nothing in Arcansit's 2 job mechanics breaks the fundamental class theme either. You're trying to interject exceptions where they don't exist.)
Adding additional weapons to a single class, especially weapons out of category that would cause skill revision, breaks the established theme of classes being defined by their weapon types. Gladiator suffers no changes mechanically for having dagger taken away. Where as to accommodate a two handed weapon, it would have to change. However, for a change as large as that, I personally feel it would be contrary to what is already established and better suited as its own identity, as previously stated.
Quote:
Why can't they do it the way CNJ and THM work today? Some greatswords switch players to GLD, some greatswords do not.
Nothing say's they can't do anything. They could make chocobo's shoot lightning out of their **** if they wanted to.
The question raise is whether or not they should. And my argument is that they've got a good thing going for them identifying their class by their weapons and it'd likely do Greatsword better justice if it had its own Class and all the trimmings that went with it, than half-*** an excuse as to why Gladiators suddenly started using Greatswords, and then rework the class structure to fit two entirely different weapon types.
I've already gone over the reasons why I feel it wouldn't be wise. Not all of it has to do with the theme you seem intent on insisting doesn't exist either. I've listed mechanical reasons why you wouldn't want to do that as well - balancing being a major factor.
But as we're arguing ourselves into circles yet again let me flip the question on the head: Why are you so insistent on adding more weapons to classes? What is your goal specifically for that possibility?
What I've seen establish thus far is what I would like to see them build upon; A weapon establishes the set initial identity for a class, then, alterations or reinforcements are added to that style based upon the Job Stone and job mechanics built upon it. I see difficulties with that, but I believe keeping it that cut and clear will benefit the game more in the long run than turning around and adding multiple weapon types to each class (in that those weapons change the class mechanics, not more or less be aesthetic differences as per Conjurer and Thaumaturge.)
#139REDACTED,
Posted: Sep 21 2014 at 11:10 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Half-***? Please, this is much simpler and logical than the elements-debacle from few years ago. It makes perfect sense, but if you personally don't *like* the idea... well, that's no one's concern but yours. Hell, we got no excuses why suddenly GLD cannot use daggers either.
After doing some thinking... I really don't see why we'd give Greatsword to GLA.
While I'd like to see GLA be able to do a DPS role for solo work (being a career PLD sucks when you want to kill anything solo anytime today, meanwhile healers get DPS options that are far better than a PLD's "DPS", and no, Sword Oath does not count), I don't really see Greatswords as being the way to do it.
IMO, if we want to give a good DPS option to GLA (it really should have one, as should MRD), we should be looking at something else the GLA could use in the offhand other than a shield.
What could that thing be? Well, what did Roman Gladiators use? GLA in XIV seems to be somewhat loosely based upon Roman Gladiators. I can tell you that Romans did not use greatswords in the arena. To even try to tell that to a historian would get you laughed out of the building.
We could, perhaps, make a new off-hand weapon/item type (perhaps a sickle?) that GLA would use on the DPS job.
The DPS job itself would keep all of GLA's abilities (like all other jobs), but have traits associated with it that convert enmity to extra damage on Savage Blade/Rage of Halone that are available even Pre-30 (like Summoner or Scholar Abilities) as long as you have the job's stone equipped.
You could do all sorts of things with the combo system to keep gameplay fresh as a DPS GLA, perhaps Rage of Halone combos into something else, or maybe there's a trait at Lv30 which makes Rage of Halone cause a debuff that you will want to keep on the mob, allowing you to do another combo (new abilities, etc) for extra damage or something.
You could even add spiked shields as the aforementioned off-hand item; these shields would have a lot less defense and blocking power (but would add damage to your attacks), but abilities gained by the job at Lv30+ (some of which would be available at low level to make sure the job would function as a DPS under Level Sync) would add the shield as an offensive weapon and give you attacks you could use with the shield beyond shield bash/swipe.
While I'd like to see GLA be able to do a DPS role for solo work (being a career PLD sucks when you want to kill anything solo anytime today, meanwhile healers get DPS options that are far better than a PLD's "DPS", and no, Sword Oath does not count), I don't really see Greatswords as being the way to do it.
IMO, if we want to give a good DPS option to GLA (it really should have one, as should MRD), we should be looking at something else the GLA could use in the offhand other than a shield.
What could that thing be? Well, what did Roman Gladiators use? GLA in XIV seems to be somewhat loosely based upon Roman Gladiators. I can tell you that Romans did not use greatswords in the arena. To even try to tell that to a historian would get you laughed out of the building.
We could, perhaps, make a new off-hand weapon/item type (perhaps a sickle?) that GLA would use on the DPS job.
The DPS job itself would keep all of GLA's abilities (like all other jobs), but have traits associated with it that convert enmity to extra damage on Savage Blade/Rage of Halone that are available even Pre-30 (like Summoner or Scholar Abilities) as long as you have the job's stone equipped.
You could do all sorts of things with the combo system to keep gameplay fresh as a DPS GLA, perhaps Rage of Halone combos into something else, or maybe there's a trait at Lv30 which makes Rage of Halone cause a debuff that you will want to keep on the mob, allowing you to do another combo (new abilities, etc) for extra damage or something.
You could even add spiked shields as the aforementioned off-hand item; these shields would have a lot less defense and blocking power (but would add damage to your attacks), but abilities gained by the job at Lv30+ (some of which would be available at low level to make sure the job would function as a DPS under Level Sync) would add the shield as an offensive weapon and give you attacks you could use with the shield beyond shield bash/swipe.
Yep. Done going in circles. I'll leave others to decide which points more weight on that argument. There's no point in going over the same exact matters one way or another. Time will tell. I'm good with where I put my chips. Looking forward to the expansion.
I'm of the mind that it would be a good idea if SE placed each Class with one Job Role in DPS, and another Job role in either healer or Tank. This would encourage players to gear out of DPS without having to go through the leveling process.
Of course, this comes with its own difficulties, most visibly in Thaumaturge.
As far as job skills and equipment for Gladiator going into a DPS class? There are options. Job skills can be turned into new segments for combos and stances that could improve damage. Or, there can be some skills that are default altered by equipping a the job stone, such as it was done with summoner.
In either case. We'll see if SE keeps with the trend or if they change it. Right now I'm content to watch. I've a couple of characters looking for some new classes to define themselves with, and I'll likely play around with Ninja when it comes out. But needless to say I'm more interested in the expansion than I am in 2.4 or 2.5.
Lyrailis wrote:
While I'd like to see GLA be able to do a DPS role for solo work (being a career PLD sucks when you want to kill anything solo anytime today, meanwhile healers get DPS options that are far better than a PLD's "DPS", and no, Sword Oath does not count), I don't really see Greatswords as being the way to do it.
I'm of the mind that it would be a good idea if SE placed each Class with one Job Role in DPS, and another Job role in either healer or Tank. This would encourage players to gear out of DPS without having to go through the leveling process.
Of course, this comes with its own difficulties, most visibly in Thaumaturge.
As far as job skills and equipment for Gladiator going into a DPS class? There are options. Job skills can be turned into new segments for combos and stances that could improve damage. Or, there can be some skills that are default altered by equipping a the job stone, such as it was done with summoner.
In either case. We'll see if SE keeps with the trend or if they change it. Right now I'm content to watch. I've a couple of characters looking for some new classes to define themselves with, and I'll likely play around with Ninja when it comes out. But needless to say I'm more interested in the expansion than I am in 2.4 or 2.5.
There's only one way to think about this topic. And it's certainly not my way.
Edited, Sep 23rd 2014 9:38am by Xoie
Edited, Sep 23rd 2014 9:38am by Xoie
Quote:
I don't know how they get around the problem of implementing the Gladiator's shield moves while running around with a two-handed weapon without making it needlessly complicated, let alone how to implement a Dark Knight with all those enmity and defense moves, but that's left as an exercise for the reader. Bottom line, it's the Gladiator's abilities that kills the concept, not the Armory System.
You missed about seven other reasons why I shut down that idea, the biggest debated topic by Hyanmen - is that the classes are defined by such weapons.
I can see a lancer getting other forums of lancer, or, in a stretch, an Archer getting different variances of Bows, possibly including a Crossbow. But the reason why Conjurer and Thaumaturge are allowed to 'share' differing weapon types is because of their residence in the Deciples of Magic, as well as their thematic similarities of being classic mages, in effect, being the exception that proves the rule.
Put a Greatsword on Maurader and you're going to get a thousand and one immersion breaking complaints. And seeming they just took away Gladiator's Daggers away from them. Then changed the name 'Thief' to Rogue, both simply to fit with the immersion and lore of the classes. I doubt you're going to seem make large scale weapon changes to classes if it effects their gameplay or lore in any major way.
As it is, Gladiators change is a minor text edit on the website they've thus far neglected to do and some name/graphic changes on a subset of weapons. They didn't have to rethink/rebalance skills on it.
Quote:
And seeming they just took away Gladiator's Daggers away from them.
Slightly off-topic, but I'm glad they did this.
Gladiators used to look SO silly wielding these tiny daggers while tanking huge bosses. I used to hate that when I started my GLA way back in March-ish, to the point that once I finally got to swords, I'd level with FATEs and cr*p just to get past the "dagger phases" so I didn't have to use a dagger.
Edited, Sep 22nd 2014 4:23pm by Lyrailis
Lyrailis wrote:
Quote:
And seeming they just took away Gladiator's Daggers away from them.
Slightly off-topic, but I'm glad they did this.
Gladiators used to look SO silly wielding these tiny daggers while tanking huge bosses. I used to hate that when I started my GLA way back in March-ish, to the point that once I finally got to swords, I'd level with FATEs and cr*p just to get past the "dagger phases" so I didn't have to use a dagger.
Edited, Sep 22nd 2014 4:23pm by Lyrailis
You're not the first I heard that from either.
Then again, I do know a couple people that prided themselves on taking their character up on purely daggers, but that was more of a self challenge thing when lacking a true dagger class.
I do like the design of the new swords they made in replacement for the daggers, but as a personal note I'm not sure what I think about the taking away of daggers completely from GLA. It does seem to be in the opposite of some of the player's requests to diversify the weapon availability for classes.
The thing I am puzzling over is how they're going to work the 2.2 - 2.3 plot in for those who make a B-line for Rogue/Ninja right off the bat. Thankfully I can answer my own question in that: I'll have a character that will be approaching the plot fresh and won't get through that content by the time 2.4 is out.
Ninja, in particular, will be the focus of how SE marries new classes with old lore. What they establish there will set the precedent.
If we wanted to have DRK get a scythe, I could see it going to Lancer actually. Unfortunately it'd be Ye Another DPS Role.
I'll wait and see how they plan to innovate. In XI, we kept thinking that after Aht Urghan they'd run out of ideas for jobs, then came along Dancer which inverted the entire healer paradigm by using TP based cures. There is still a lot of potential in the XIV armory system that they've yet to explore.
Now, as long as casting mudra in XIV doesn't require eight bazillion ninja tools...
I'll wait and see how they plan to innovate. In XI, we kept thinking that after Aht Urghan they'd run out of ideas for jobs, then came along Dancer which inverted the entire healer paradigm by using TP based cures. There is still a lot of potential in the XIV armory system that they've yet to explore.
Now, as long as casting mudra in XIV doesn't require eight bazillion ninja tools...
Catwho wrote:
If we wanted to have DRK get a scythe, I could see it going to Lancer actually. Unfortunately it'd be Ye Another DPS Role.
I'll wait and see how they plan to innovate. In XI, we kept thinking that after Aht Urghan they'd run out of ideas for jobs, then came along Dancer which inverted the entire healer paradigm by using TP based cures. There is still a lot of potential in the XIV armory system that they've yet to explore.
Now, as long as casting mudra in XIV doesn't require eight bazillion ninja tools...
I'll wait and see how they plan to innovate. In XI, we kept thinking that after Aht Urghan they'd run out of ideas for jobs, then came along Dancer which inverted the entire healer paradigm by using TP based cures. There is still a lot of potential in the XIV armory system that they've yet to explore.
Now, as long as casting mudra in XIV doesn't require eight bazillion ninja tools...
It won't. ~ <3
Hold on, I got a quote for you:
Quote:
Q: Throw abilities?
A: Said this before (at E3?) but there will never be items required for a job that can run out. “Sorry, Ninja, you’ve run out of the item so you can’t do dps anymore.†So not really “throw abilities†in the traditional FF sense.
A: Said this before (at E3?) but there will never be items required for a job that can run out. “Sorry, Ninja, you’ve run out of the item so you can’t do dps anymore.†So not really “throw abilities†in the traditional FF sense.
No ninja stars, no Ninjitsu Materials. No consumable-dependent classes, ever. At least, not in the sense that you have to purchase and can run out of stock.
Edit: Source
Edited, Sep 22nd 2014 5:18pm by Hyrist
Truthfully, there's no greater joy than spirited debate, where different ideas are thrust upon each other, not because there's consensus but because we don't know what the right course is until we've tested our ideas against the opposition. It's a refinement of ideas where flawed arguments melt away and strong ones surface to the make the case for and against. The undecided can then choose between positions or even form their own conclusion.
Edited, Sep 23rd 2014 9:53am by Xoie
Edited, Sep 23rd 2014 9:53am by Xoie
Quote:
If you can't see that a larger version of a Gladiator's sword is pretty consistent with the Gladiator theme in the same way two of the mage classes have varying sizes of magic sticks, then you're just being obstinate.
Gladiators in XIV are loosely based upon roman gladiators -- the theme is there, heck most of the imperial soldiers are named after classes of Roman gladiators, a lot of the equipment you use were used by the Romans (the gladius type swords, the scutum, hoplons, etc).
What did Romans NOT use at all, whatsoever?
That would be greatswords of any sort. Greatswords look cool and awesome, but they are very highly impractical, especially in arena-based combat (which is, you know, what a Gladiator does, even in XIV).
Weapons (all weapons, not just swords) in XIV seem to be a lot more practical and sensible in design and size than many other MMORPGs; I find it refreshing. Gone are the Cloud/Sephiroth Swords of Absurdity +1000. Even the two-handed axes used by MRD/WAR look very sensibly sized and shaped for the most part.
I'd rather we kept it that way. Sure, Greatswords could be done, but I still don't think giving them to GLA is the way to go. I really, really don't. It kinda breaks the Roman Gladiator theme they had going. If you wanna give a greatsword to MRD, meh. Why? They already use a two-handed melee weapon.
Xoie wrote:
Hyrist wrote:
But the reason why Conjurer and Thaumaturge are allowed to 'share' differing weapon types is because of their residence in the Deciples of Magic, as well as their thematic similarities of being classic mages, in effect, being the exception that proves the rule.
Or it's the rule that proves the rule, which is the only thing I'm pointing out here. It's possible because it's been done before, and quite successfully. Saying Disciples of Magic get to break the rule because "reasons," is not a convincing argument that Conjurers and Thaumaturges get to be the only exceptions.
The term you're looking for is precedent, and once they do that for Deciples of War, then you'd have some ground to stand on. As of this point, they have yet to institute a weapon that is out of category for a previous class.
Thaumaturge and Conjurer have both existed with wand and staff since the beginning. However, they have also had shield/cross-classing (Abilities from Gladiator involving a shield.)taken away from them (due to gladiator no longer offering cross-class shield skills). This basically removes the relevancy of the one and two handed weapon types for casters. (Except to split stats, which caused a bit of a fuss when the Twintania weapon for Black Mages ended up being a wand.)
By precedent, one or both of the classes are more likely to get their wants and shields taken away then Gladiator is to get a Greatsword, as they've already marginalized the impact of having a shield on a Mage Class. But I don't see that happening either. We will likely see more magic classes using differing focus implements.
Quote:
Quote:
Put a Greatsword on Maurader and you're going to get a thousand and one immersion breaking complaints.
If you can't see that a larger version of a Gladiator's sword is pretty consistent with the Gladiator theme in the same way two of the mage classes have varying sizes of magic sticks, then you're just being obstinate.
Call it what you will, I'm just basing this off of the trends I see. I don't see Gladiator Greatsword happening - not easily anyways. The same goes for making the same motions form 2-handed weapons to 1 handed weapons on Deciples of War. I'm willing to publicly state that I am wrong if and when it happens. It's speculation on a video game's patch development course, not predicting the fate of a nation or anything.
But let's play devils advocate with myself a moment: Anything can happen, and I've got a pretty wild imagination. Goodness knows SE through us for a ringer with the housing issue. A lot of us thought it would be individually instanced, and it wasn't.
The question is more can I see it happening and not causing a huge ruckus or seeming cheap and tacked on. Now, if you're challenging me to think of a way that it would work - I think separate guild houses for the alternate weapons would be a necessity for quality's sake. Let's say - to make Gladiator 2 Handed weapons work. Instead of person against person combat like was done Ul'dah, say that the style adapted in Ala Mhingo proper was pitting Gladiators against wild beasts, and the like. An expansion in Ala Mhingo would then host their own Gladiator Guild featuring access to greatswords, with its own plot path and quest skills, etc. Then, there would be no lore rewrite necessary as we're dealing with an unfamiliar branch of the profession.
Same could be done of Shield-Lancers of Ishgard, or Dual-Axe wielding Marauders. Lore is preserved this way and people seeking proper backgrounds for these new weapons don't feel short changed.
At that point though, I would say, why not simply make it its own class and broaden the content capability?
Based off of all the interviews and patches I've seen since 1.0, I feel that the FFXIV team is invested their class identity being based off of the weapons they use, and the Deciples of War, by my view, are far more cemented into this than the Disciples of Magic.
The only notions that I've seen that hint on breaking that trend, is the BG interview you cited earlier - which seems to hint at such a thing being a job-specific mechanic. Gladiator may not have access Greatsword, but the 'Dark Knight' Job that Hybridizes skills from Gladiator and Warrior, or Warrior and Lancer very well may, if that's the route they were referring to. (This may also work with the above idea of new guilds in new areas redefining what we know.)
They've gone through great (sometimes asinine, in my view) lengths to try to keep things preserved and fitting within established lore. You need look no further than the Seventh Umbral Era story-line in 1.0 that lead to the Calamity to see how far they will go to preserve continuity even while making profound changes. (Oddly enough, Mages stand as an exception to that as well, given the massive spell changes they undergone. Though, they did keep elements on Conjurer to preserve lore there. 1.0 was a mess x.x) So if the changes were to occur, I don't believe the matter will be a simple affair. But I'm not betting on it happening, nor do I expect it. And honestly, if I'm wrong, and it turns out good? Pleasant surprise.
Creating the art and animations for great sword would require a lot of time. It's not that I don't think it's worth the effort but if they're going to put that much effort in, then I would expect we'd see it released in a future content update and associated with a completely new class.
Unless the intent is to allow great sword to be a tanking weapon, you'd have to allow for other classes to cover multiple roles as well. Why bother leveling marauder/warrior if there's another class that can tank with both one or two handed weapons? If you allow great sword as a DPS weapon, you'd have many players upset that their favorite class or job couldn't fit multiple roles.
I just don't see them putting the resources into recreating a current class or job when they could actually add to the depth of classes and jobs by creating a new one to fit that purpose. If it were a game like TERA or WoW where you're bound to a single class I could completely understand. It just doesn't fit the mold of what's been laid out so far with the armory system in ARR.
Edited, Sep 22nd 2014 9:53pm by FilthMcNasty
Unless the intent is to allow great sword to be a tanking weapon, you'd have to allow for other classes to cover multiple roles as well. Why bother leveling marauder/warrior if there's another class that can tank with both one or two handed weapons? If you allow great sword as a DPS weapon, you'd have many players upset that their favorite class or job couldn't fit multiple roles.
I just don't see them putting the resources into recreating a current class or job when they could actually add to the depth of classes and jobs by creating a new one to fit that purpose. If it were a game like TERA or WoW where you're bound to a single class I could completely understand. It just doesn't fit the mold of what's been laid out so far with the armory system in ARR.
Edited, Sep 22nd 2014 9:53pm by FilthMcNasty
Rinsui wrote:
Only hips + boobs all day and hips + boobs all over my icecream
HaibaneRenmei wrote:
30 bucks is almost free
cocodojo wrote:
Its personal preference and all, but yes we need to educate WoW players that this is OUR game, these are Characters and not Toons. Time to beat that into them one at a time.
Recent Visitors: 143
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (143)
- Forums
- Final Fantasy XIV
- General Discussion
- Will the expansion be geared towards end-game players?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC