I'm not going through all this quote bullshit for you to miss the point again.
You know, it's really difficult to understand whether you actually read anything because you're not responding to anything I posted at all. You keep regurgitating the same ridiculous stance that I've provided example after example showing how retarded it is. Personally, I'm getting sick of repeating myself, and I'm beginning to think that you're just too thick to understand the mechanics of this game, let alone have an opinion on it worth correcting.
It isn't the fact that they would have the ability to remove enmity, the problem is how much.
This is the first time you've clearly stated your point. Until now you've just been on a tirade against hate manipulation in general "encouraging bad players". I've given example after example of why that statement is ridiculous, but now that you're changing your tune, maybe we can get somewhere.
You're right, allowing a SCH to remove ALL hate from a party member would be going overboard. The only thing I've been trying to point out is that some form of hate manipulation could be a possible addition to the job.
Furthermore, if the only thing your so adamantly opposed to is TOTAL hate removal, then the OP's idea isn't "bad any way you slice it"- it merely needs to be adjusted to be viable.
Your ending question to your post proves you're not even reading what I have to say, or you'd have realized that never once have I been discussing TOTAL hate removal. In every instance, I've described hate manipulation
- not complete hate removal.
A job being able to keep a mob on them is not the same as removing the enmity from a player.
They are both
aspects of enmity control. One is direct, the other is indirect, but they are both related. If you don't understand that, then you have no business playing this game, let alone trying to comment on it's mechanics.
Bad players are bad players because of their playstyle.
No, bad players are bad because they rigidly stick to one playstyle, no matter the situation. Good players know how and when to adapt themselves. Here, I'll add yet another example that you'll probably ignore:
A DRK has to play differently depending on what job is tanking his party. If there's a PLD tank, the DRK doesn't have to hold back as much as if he has a NIN tank. Furthermore, if he sees that the PLD isn't holding hate well, then he must adjust his playstyle further to compensate, resulting in holding back more.
A bad DRK is the one who will not take these things into account when attacking the mob.
Cures generate a lot of hate. On monsters where there are area of effect attacks and the mage is forced to keep all members cured, he will generate hate. Oddly enough, all my Linkshells have been able to deal with this issue for years without problem. Which is why I said it wasn't necessary.
Just because one method exists to deal with such a situation doesn't mean that other methods
can't be implemented as well. You're just being short sighted and closed minded. Your imagination is pathetic.
Besides, SE already stated that it wants jobs to grow horizontally, not vertically. This means two things: 1) jobs are going to have an expanded range of tasks they can complete. Inevitably, that means more jobs are going to have similar abilities- hence why I believe SE is currently giving more jobs enmity manipulation abilities. 2) Adding similar abilities means that SE is going to implement new
ways to perform the same tasks. That's why we have a DNC, who is a healer, but does so in a different way from any other healer in the game. Sure, people were healing just fine before DNC, but that's no excuse for SE to never try something different
I want SE to focus on something that is useful, not just usable. AoE Gravity: cool? Sure. Useful? Very few situations.
And yet they added it, didn't they? What does that tell you about SE's thinking process? What does it say about the similarities between your priorities for FFXI and SE's priorities for FFXI?
Seriously, answer that because maybe if you do, it'll open your eyes to how things work in this game, and how they are likely to work in the future.
I'm going to ask you a question that just might show you where my problem with this idea sits, because you haven't seemed to pick it up.
Why should Scholar be given an ability that completely removes enmity from a player whereas the closest a Thief can get is move half of the enmity to themselves?
I'm going to give you the common courtesy of specifically answering your question in the hopes that you'll have the decency to actually return the guesture this time.
I don't think they need an ability that "completely" removes enmity. I never once claimed that they did. This entire time I've been in support of an enmity manipulation ability, but I never once said it should remove ALL hate.
A pair of spells that function similarly to BRD's Adventurer's Dirge and Foe Sirvante would fulfill that nicely.