Minor Beastmen/Summoner Info/Dengenki Article

[Hyan]

That would go against the whole customization thing though- why not make the sword-user be able to charm things of same level as the classless beastmaster? If he wants to be a sword-user with a pet and not get called gimp, he should be able to do it.

[LD]

LD, that a response to my post? Because you're kinda agreeing with me there. There doesn't have to be any pet classes for there to be "get an NPC to fight with you" ability.

You're saying that there ISN'T going to be such an ability.

[Hyan]

No no, I'm saying that said ability exists within the whole Armoury system, but is not exclusive to any "class" per se. It's in the skill tree/armor/weapon/whatever, free for any class to pick up if they want to use a pet.

[LD]

Ohhh, so this IS a stupid argument. When you said there will be no pet classes, the emphasis was on classes rather than pet. Stupid me for not realizing I got caught in another war of fucking semantics. I am not being sarcastic, I am very mad at myself.

Will there be classes in the sense that there will be a set of limits imposed on what abilities you are allowed to attach to yourself? Probably not.
Will there be classes in the sense that most people will mainly be a DD, tank, or healer? Probably, it depends entirely on what most people do.

[Khamsin]

That would go against the whole customization thing though- why not make the sword-user be able to charm things of same level as the classless beastmaster? If he wants to be a sword-user with a pet and not get called gimp, he should be able to do it.

Because ultimately, there has to be some mechanism to prevent people to be gods at everything. I imagine it'd be something like crafting skill, where to a point you can skill everything, but can only excel in one. If you skill up something else, your highest skill deteriorates

I don't know exactly how FFXIV will do it, or how many different things you can excel at, but there'll probably something in place keeping you from being an expert in everything at once.

As far as not being called gimp for sacrificing one skill for another, that's what customization is all about. If you sacrifice some combative capability to tame animals, then you're filling a different role than a pure warrior. That's not the same as being gimp.

[Hyan]

Well, let's say that you can strengthen your pet by the use of whatever system in place. That would mean that there's less room to customize/strengthen the master, so it kinda balances itself out in the end, in theory.

That still doesn't mean that they couldn't make a system where an axe-user is as good with dealing pets as a sword-user, allowing for much greater customization than if axe-user was ultimately better than sword-user while handling pets. If you received some other benefit from wielding a sword that would put the character on par with the axe-user while having a pet available, then that'd be okay. Not sure if that's what you meant though.

[Nirokun!]

You both are saying the same thing but getting to that point differently. Be the "inclination" to using a pet attached to the weapon, or attached to something else, you're both saying that pets have the possibility to be used. One way is just as fine as the other, because you've both made it clear that no single weapon-user will be able to do everything at the same time. Khamsin is saying that certain weapons may perhaps lend themselves to certain types of pets (more restrictive customization) and Hyan is saying that perhaps pet-proficiency won't be attached to weapons at all (more free customization.) Either you need to use Weapon A to be good with a pet, or not use Weapon A, and use Weapon B instead. It isn't implying that you are proficient with both using pets and using weapon B--Weapon B is just as useless as Weapon A with respect to the player who is extremely proficient at manipulating their pet in both examples. Both are feasible given what we know about their Armory system.

[miokomioko]

One is saying there will never ever be a "class" in FFXIV that focuses on controlling an NPC in battle. This is a baseless assumption unless he has some crystal ball I'm not aware of.

[Khamsin]

If summoner is ever introduced in FFXIV, I'll probably specialize in summoning and white magic. Then I can backup cure when I'm not busy calling out my awesome avatars during xp parties.

[niwaar]

If summoner is ever introduced in FFXIV, I'll probably specialize in summoning and white magic. Then I can backup cure when I'm not busy calling out my awesome avatars during xp parties.

Lol ...

I am reading this thread trying to understand your belief in what exactly the armory system is. Because quite frankly I had a different view on it entirely. From what I had understood and heard from others was that the system was to be in fact an "archetypal" system more than a class system. (Yes this is the semantics argument that was going on earlier in this thread). The 4 disciplines as the archetypes, hunter, gatherer, crafter and healer so to speak (not exactly but go with me.)

I was under the assumption that you could only gain skill in one of these archetypes and use major skills from that weapon/magic types skill set at a time. We have done away with subjobs so "as far as I know" there will be some system in place to use other skillsets to some diminished value as in XI. Many people have spoke of similar systems such as used with Blue Mage in XI for example or even the simple old "half the skill level of your current weapon skill" system.

What it seems like being discussed here is you believe that once you have said skill you retain it in all forms. Customization like this would do nothing but overpower the hardcore and underpower the casual player. Which is something they have gone out of their way to insist they do not want to do. Accessibility is the new line all MMOs are towing (save for Aion whose grind is insane and not accessible to a casual player).

I am just curious since you seem so adamant about the Armory system Hyan, if you could go about explaining how the subskill sets will come into play? I personally think your idea of pure customization is intriguing but from a gameplay standpoint it presents incredible balance issues in the longterm.

As for pets ... as far as I know we dont know if there will be skill trees in this game. If there are choices to be had, why cant that be a choice? Why can't summoning magic be a type of magic?

In the end, we know very little until they actually release the innerworkings of at least the Discipline of Magic and eventually the beta. Just hope its soon.

[miokomioko]

The only facts that you can talk about regarding this is the fact that Square-Enix stated that there will be no "pet jobs" upon initial release of FFXIV as well as any details vaguely explained through the Armory System's Leeroy tutorial on the official site.

Anything else here is more retarded speculation.

Also, it's not that "lol" to assume/hope that a "summoner" class would have some access to white magic. Princess Garnet, Eiko, Rydia, Yuna, and others come to mind immediately. I'm not sure what is so far-fetched about it.

[Hyan]

One is saying there will never ever be a "class" in FFXIV that focuses on controlling an NPC in battle. This is a baseless assumption unless he has some crystal ball I'm not aware of.

It is not baseless, because of how the whole thing works. The classes are named after weapon types, although this is more apparent in the Japanese version. And there is a reason for that, which I explained earlier.

With this in mind, having pet users be actual classes (aside from SMN) wouldn't make any sense. If you have a class system where the names are taken from the weapon types, you're not suddenly going to change it all and introduce a pet class. There would be a sword-user, lance-user, bow-user, and... a beastmaster! It's not really the purpose of the class system to limit the player as it was in XI. Having a pet "class" would limit the player, and it's not something that they'd Have to do, the opposite actually, so I don't see much reason to.

I am just curious since you seem so adamant about the Armory system Hyan, if you could go about explaining how the subskill sets will come into play? I personally think your idea of pure customization is intriguing but from a gameplay standpoint it presents incredible balance issues in the longterm.

As for pets ... as far as I know we dont know if there will be skill trees in this game. If there are choices to be had, why cant that be a choice? Why can't summoning magic be a type of magic?

Each weapon type probably has certain skills native to it, and there might be skills that are available to many/any weapon types (like that Provoke like ability SE was talking about at GC09, perhaps some more like Berserk). You'd be able to use skills from other weapon types, but they'd be less effective (how much, I don't know. However, if there's an overall limit to how many skills you can have at time, and those subskills count into that limit, it shouldn't be that much less effective). Lots of customization to be had like this, although people will once again make cookie-cutter builds sooner or later. Hopefully even still there'd be more untraditional builds available (say, Pugilist + enspells?). It might not be that hard to balance in the end, since let's say that if a skill is too strong when used with weapon type X, SE can raise the amount of "points" the skill takes to be able to "equip" it, thus you couldn't have as many other skills in your arsenal if you used that particular skill anymore.

Anyway, summoning magic can very well be a type of magic, and having other pets would be a possible choice as well. But aside from summoning, those pets could be available to any weapon type, or more than one. When you think about it, it was possible in XI too, although your BST had to be 75 to fully use it to your advantage. The system kinda removes the hurdle of having to level BST to 75 to use the system on other classes as well. If they didn't name the classes as they did, I'd believe that there could have been a BST "class" in XIV too, but I just don't see them adding a class that is completely opposite from other classes (except if they really want to limit the classes that can use pets, which might or might not happen. Depends on how confident SE is in their system I guess).

If it turns out to be like this, it's no wonder SE didn't want to implement pets to the game right at the start. If there is that much customization, lots of things can go wrong too like niwaar said. They rather see what happens first, and act based on that rather than guessing now. If the system is too difficult to handle, they'll just limit the pets to one class, making it easier to manage.

[Spira]

i was actually under the impression that classes aren't truly distinctions built into the system.. but rather moulds that you can eventually shape into.

Like there probably is no Paladin class either, but if a Gladiator happens to have learnt some white magic on a magic-based discipline before hand and uses it secondarily, then effectively he could be a 'paladin' class..

a similar case could be built with Dark Knight or Red Mage. since there are no jobs, and classes themselves are only differentiated by weapon, the REAL classes themselves are for players to build...

in that sense, if rearing a beast happened to fall under Disciples of the Land and you mastered like a basic call beast ability, bringing that over to support any weapon you prefer with a pet would give you a 'beastmaster' class regardless of what weapon you pick.. the 'class' is only in name but it gives you an idea of what it encompasses...

at least, thats the impression i gather from the interviews and the reports..

[miokomioko]

probably

The only word that mattered in that pile of text. Stop the speculations. Above all, stop the arguments about what the future will or will not hold based entirely on your speculations.

[Hyan]

Exactly Spira. Not a "beastmaster" class as in "the name that shows up in the search is Beastmaster" but "you use pets to fight your foes, so although the mould you use is a Lancer you're a beastmaster".

Same case could be used for my Pugilist + enspell example. That's not a Monk, thats more like a Magifist if we're accurate. The "class" is only in name.

[Hyan]

The only word that mattered in that pile of text. Stop the speculations. Above all, stop the arguments about what the future will or will not hold based entirely on your speculations.

It is not purely speculation, there are facts to build upon and it is pretty apparent that this is how they're going to do this system. What I said to niwaar was speculation because what he asked was my opinion about how it's going to be like, but what I told you was not speculation at all. The classes are the weapon types. Pets aren't a weapon type.

[Lurking Badger]

Well, if you want to base your argument on the etymology of the job names, then how would you explain the names on the official site that doesn't follow the pattern?
Ie Marauder, Tailor, Alchemist, (and it's not there but I remember seeing it before) Thaumaturge.

[Tulun]

As long as they don't fuck it up, the ability to call a pet would be good. I think Dragoon probably has the only 'well designed' pet in 11.

I also hope that, if the ability exists, it will not too greatly hinder your choices.

[Hyan]

Well, if you want to base your argument on the etymology of the job names, then how would you explain the names on the official site that doesn't follow the pattern?
Ie Marauder, Tailor, Alchemist, (and it's not there but I remember seeing it before) Thaumaturge.

Basically, the translation team wanted to add some flavor to the class names to not make them feel quite as generic as in the Japanese version, while still trying to retain the purpose of the whole classes deal.

And I don't think that Tailor nor Alchemist break the pattern. They're quite self-explanatory, like most of the class names.

Thaumaturge basically means a "miracle maker", and if that's what the class does, then it fits the pattern nicely.

Marauder is imo the only one that stands out from the names. That class is simply named "axe-user" in the Japanese version though, so I dunno what the translation team is thinking.

[Lurking Badger]

Then there is no reason there couldn't be a whip weapon and the class named Tamer.

Well, excpet from SE stating there will be no pet class, but in theory, it's not incompatible with the armory system.