Transmigration wrote:
Asukuu wrote:
Transmigration wrote:
Asukuu wrote:
How long have wow and xi been around?
OF COURSE they have more job versatility for tanking healing etc. this is a "new" game you're not going to get more jobs NOW because you want them. What did xi have like 6 starting jobs at release...just deal with what they have for now and in the future more will be released.
OF COURSE they have more job versatility for tanking healing etc. this is a "new" game you're not going to get more jobs NOW because you want them. What did xi have like 6 starting jobs at release...just deal with what they have for now and in the future more will be released.
No one said anything about getting more jobs. We're discussing how redundant it is to have a classes around that won't be used once we reach endgame and how the classes themselves should stand on there own with the job as an option for group content.
Clearly you didn't play 1.0 for very long because all jobs had their role in end game situations, some more than others but there wasn't a job that was left completely out of anything. There were multiple strategies for iffy x, some had brd and mnk, some had war and drg. hm darnus had brds and mnks in one strat no brd in another, no mnk in another.
I realize jobs were used... I'm talking about the starting classes. Did anyone bring Gladiator? How about Conjurer? Archer? What I am saying is that unless they allow the starting classes to deviate from their uselessness in group content, only the jobs will be played.
I fully understand what you're saying, but that's the whole idea, at least it was the idea. I'm sure I've heard somewhere that's how they want to do things going forward. I believe that's the only reason they kept the class -> job system. Class for solo and low body count content where you may need a unique versatile ability setup, and jobs when you need specialization and don't need the extra versatility. I realize your argument about classes and group content being essentially incompatible, but that's how SE wants the game to go. I honestly don't mind it now, compared to when I first heard about Archer -> Bard back in the early parts of 1.0. I felt the same way as you as I play alot of Archers and Rangers in most games. The more I entertained the thought though the more I liked the idea. As long as I get to be an "Archer/Ranger" (no matter the form) wielding a bow as my main weapon I'm happy.