RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Gegenji · **03-30-2015, 01:21 PM**

(03-30-2015, 01:13 PM)Zyrusticae Wrote: TBH, I think the gear restrictions are an anachronism and completely unnecessary given how the game functions. Each job is hard-locked into their role; there is not nearly enough ability versatility via cross-classing to allow any job to step outside of their role. If things like Shield Oath and Defiance were cross-class-able, yes, this would be an issue, but since they are not, it is completely unnecessary to restrict gear choices for any reason outside of class visual differentiation (a reason that is quickly becoming entirely moot with the number of people wearing all-class glamours to battle), and maybe to get people to GRIND MOAR because they can't share gear between DRG/NIN/MNK/WAR/PLD. Obviously, I think both of these reasons are weaksauce and would much prefer to be able to glamour my gear to look however I want it to look, regardless of whether it suits the "flavor" of the class or not.

What about PvP then? You can hide your weapon while sheathed, so what's to keep someone from glamouring their BLM to look like a PLD and then dropping a Flare on you? Then again, my own argument doesn't hold much water in this regard since you could technically glamour yourself to look naked with any class. I had originally thought that was one of the reasonings for it (identifiable "roles" from a distance for PvP), but the Emperor's New stuff kinda blows that out of the water.

... I wonder if PvPers actually do that, though...

Honestly, I wouldn't mind more All Class glamourable armor... but for a completely different reason. I kinda want to be able to make an IC "battle-crafter" - running around with a "warhammer." However, I'd be limited solely to the all-class and crafting gear.

Zyrusticae · **03-30-2015, 01:30 PM**

They had similar reasoning for why they restricted glamours in the first place, but then they added GREAT BIG GLOWING LETTERS calling out the class of the player beneath, making it entirely pointless. I make my target selections in Frontlines purely by class name and little else.

Distinct glamours actually help in this case because usually I can easily differentiate targets from one another by visual confirmation alone. I just have to learn to associate glamours with people and their classes first, which doesn't take long.

Gegenji · **03-30-2015, 01:48 PM**

(03-30-2015, 01:30 PM)Zyrusticae Wrote: They had similar reasoning for why they restricted glamours in the first place, but then they added GREAT BIG GLOWING LETTERS calling out the class of the player beneath, making it entirely pointless. I make my target selections in Frontlines purely by class name and little else.

Distinct glamours actually help in this case because usually I can easily differentiate targets from one another by visual confirmation alone. I just have to learn to associate glamours with people and their classes first, which doesn't take long.

See, I don't PvP, so I didn't know they did that. If that's the case, then the only real argument I can see for glamouring anything onto anything (save for weapons, of course) kind of falls apart.

No Longer Exists · **03-30-2015, 02:19 PM**

*Peeks out from under the hat on the floor* Three things.

One: The reason why there is a delineation between heavy armor for tanks, medium armor for melee dps, and light armour for magical dps/healers in FF14:ARR is this. Because Yoshi and the Devs say so.

I know we've become a community of "but it's my money, you should do as I say", however, that's still not the case nor will it ever be in the foreseeable future. I'm willing to bet a small pile of gil that this will not change because they do not want to change it and it is their toy that they have built which we are playing with (and paying for the right to play with). While the devs attempt to cater to us as much as possible, they DO have to weigh these things and make choices.

Point number two is in reference to the DnD comparison: I'd like everyone to put on two oven mitts over whichever hand you use most (Yes, both on that hand) and then spend three hours trying to do stuff. This is what Arcane Spell Failure is for, to realistically show that while you have a ten pound metal gauntlet on, you can't make intricate finger motions or accurately pull the right combination of spell materials (Remember: Wizards use component items for spells, while Sorcerers did not hence their different options of armor). While 14 does not reference the use of components when spellcasting as a BLM or THM which nullifies comparison to DnD, I refer you to point 1: The Devs said No.

P.S.: Clerical Spellcasting is through your holy symbol and is more of a "INSERT GOD'S NAME HERE.....DO THIS FOR ME, O MIGHTY ONE" than a "Occulus Reparo." Ergo, could wear armor that was more restricting to movement. Same goes for Paladin.

Three: These tropes came from the middle ages, where scholarly men (Wise Ones aka Wizards) were not warriors and devoted their time to thought instead of physical prowess. As such, they were not accustomed to carrying an extra 30-70 pounds of metal on their person. (The average weight of a newborn child is 7.5 lbs, the range is 5 - 10 lbs) <-- this means that knights, generals, and anyone rich enough to afford expensive plate armour were carrying roughly 5 to 10 newborn children on their personage during wars. Go ahead, try it out for yourself with sacks of flour.

Now, the argument being made for glamouring negates this issue as its an illusion, not actual 70lb plate mail. Again, I refer you to point 1: The Devs said No.

P.S.: The dev team CHOSE to give us a glamour system, they didn't HAVE to.

Cheers.

-Black Hat.

Melkire · **03-30-2015, 02:41 PM**

-pops in-

Haven't read anything in this thread since the very first post, but I want to point out:

Spellcasters wearing cloth goes back to certain mythologies (Greek, Norse, etc.) where gods were so powerful thanks to their magic that they didn't need to bother with armor, since no mortals would ever get even remotely close. Some gods were so obscene in this regard that they could snuff out other gods just as easily (mythologically-accurate non-Disney Zeus comes to mind). They didn't bother with armor because cloth - or lack thereof - was just so much more comfortable.

The ones who did wear armor did so because they were usually lesser beings of magic, or else were deities of war, like Ares.

Ever wonder why Zeus goes around wearing almost nothing? It's because you'd fry via lightning bolt before you could much more than twitch. The same holds true for most sorcerers, wizards, priests, and users of magic / avatars for divine intervention: magic is the ultimate offense and therefore the ultimate defense. They're so far above mortals with their puny copper, brass, silver, and steel weapons that they don't need to bother protecting themselves and instead opt for comfort.

See Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards.

-pops out-

Erik Mynhier · **03-30-2015, 03:03 PM**

(03-30-2015, 02:19 PM)Black Hat Wrote: *Peeks out from under the hat on the floor* Three things.

One: The reason why there is a delineation between heavy armor for tanks, medium armor for melee dps, and light armour for magical dps/healers in FF14:ARR is this. Because Yoshi and the Devs say so.

I know we've become a community of "but it's my money, you should do as I say", however, that's still not the case nor will it ever be in the foreseeable future. I'm willing to bet a small pile of gil that this will not change because they do not want to change it and it is their toy that they have built which we are playing with (and paying for the right to play with). While the devs attempt to cater to us as much as possible, they DO have to weigh these things and make choices.

Point number two is in reference to the DnD comparison: I'd like everyone to put on two oven mitts over whichever hand you use most (Yes, both on that hand) and then spend three hours trying to do stuff. This is what Arcane Spell Failure is for, to realistically show that while you have a ten pound metal gauntlet on, you can't make intricate finger motions or accurately pull the right combination of spell materials (Remember: Wizards use component items for spells, while Sorcerers did not hence their different options of armor). While 14 does not reference the use of components when spellcasting as a BLM or THM which nullifies comparison to DnD, I refer you to point 1: The Devs said No.

P.S.: Clerical Spellcasting is through your holy symbol and is more of a "INSERT GOD'S NAME HERE.....DO THIS FOR ME, O MIGHTY ONE" than a "Occulus Reparo." Ergo, could wear armor that was more restricting to movement. Same goes for Paladin.

Three: These tropes came from the middle ages, where scholarly men (Wise Ones aka Wizards) were not warriors and devoted their time to thought instead of physical prowess. As such, they were not accustomed to carrying an extra 30-70 pounds of metal on their person. (The average weight of a newborn child is 7.5 lbs, the range is 5 - 10 lbs) <-- this means that knights, generals, and anyone rich enough to afford expensive plate armour were carrying roughly 5 to 10 newborn children on their personage during wars. Go ahead, try it out for yourself with sacks of flour.

Now, the argument being made for glamouring negates this issue as its an illusion, not actual 70lb plate mail. Again, I refer you to point 1: The Devs said No.

P.S.: The dev team CHOSE to give us a glamour system, they didn't HAVE to.

Cheers.

-Black Hat.

Well that's that. Nothing more to add to it really.
[Image: the-natural-home-run-o.gif]

Edgar · **03-30-2015, 03:26 PM**

Not necessarily. This design decision has its effects on the Lore, and we being a Roleplaying community that works with said Lore, how we interpret it has a big impact, and that still warrants discussion.

In other words, the thread doesn't just end at "Devs said no."

No Longer Exists · **03-30-2015, 03:45 PM**

*Peers*Â

While I appreciate your stance, what actual impact does it have on RP? Community-wise or individually? Is RP an imitation of life or is it a fictitious effort at group-storytelling?Â

Am I a bowling ball dreaming I'm a hat?

Symbolically, the concept of the conversation is akin to "What if we rode on Elephants instead of drove cars?" It has no global impact whatsoever, but it might be fun to think about. Yes.

The design decision is factored into the lore, unless I misread, which to my mind (scattered as it is) denotes that attention was paid to the concept and it was ultimately denied. Hence: No.Â

I am by no means saying "Shut up, it's over." and I apologize profusely if that's how my post was interpreted. I am curious just HOW this truly impacts anything at all, if you don't mind me asking you to explain.

Gegenji · **03-30-2015, 03:53 PM**

Well, if there's a lore reasoning for why caster classes can't wear heavier armor, then that's something people might want to try to work with or work around. Heck, I completely missed the whole bit about there being aetherically-positive metals until Sounsyy pointed them out. While there may not be many ways to portray that in game on your character (beyond Magitek pieces and whatnot), it might be something someone might want to add to their character to add a little extra IC "punch" to their spells.

On the flip side, say metal armor (or just certain metals) interferes with casting magic. Then, couldn't a caster be restrained by forcing gauntlets made of them onto magically-inclined criminals as a sort of "magic-cuffs"? Figuring this sort of stuff out can have plenty of RP potential.

Along with that, since I'm playing a smith character, I'm actually rather interested in the idea of gilding armor to bolster magic resistance. It wasn't a focal point of the OP, but it is something that came out of the conversation. And now folks have lore credence to methods for bolstering their defenses against aetheric assaults.

Zyrusticae · **03-30-2015, 03:59 PM**

The whole premise of the thread is predicated on justifying why armor restrictions are the way they are, and I fundamentally disagree with those justifications. Saying "the devs decided it is so" is less a justification and more a statement of fact after the fact has already occurred, which makes it a useless observance considering it was already informed by the very premise of the thread. So repeating it over and over just feels like you're saying "shut up, there's nothing to discuss" because it's so, so useless.

And, for that matter, I would like to push more folks to then push Square Enix harder to lighten up on those archaic glamour restrictions. Yes, yes, "you should be happy with what you've got" and all that claptrap- look, just because I think things can be better does not make me somehow unappreciative of what I have. Contentment is not complacency and I will have no part in that kind of inaction.

No Longer Exists · **03-30-2015, 04:09 PM**

(03-30-2015, 03:53 PM)Gegenji Wrote: Well, if there's a lore reasoning for why caster classes can't wear heavier armor, then that's something people might want to try to work with or work around. Heck, I completely missed the whole bit about there being aetherically-positive metals until Sounsyy pointed them out. While there may not be many ways to portray that in game on your character (beyond Magitek pieces and whatnot), it might be something someone might want to add to their character to add a little extra IC "punch" to their spells.

On the flip side, say metal armor (or just certain metals) interferes with casting magic. Then, couldn't a caster be restrained by forcing gauntlets made of them onto magically-inclined criminals as a sort of "magic-cuffs"? Figuring this sort of stuff out can have plenty of RP potential.

Along with that, since I'm playing a smith character, I'm actually rather interested in the idea of gilding armor to bolster magic resistance. It wasn't a focal point of the OP, but it is something that came out of the conversation. And now folks have lore credence to methods for bolstering their defenses against aetheric assaults.

Okay, now THIS is something to sink your teeth into. Good call! I hadn't even considered that. It's definitely worth looking into.

No Longer Exists · **03-30-2015, 04:26 PM**

(03-30-2015, 03:59 PM)Zyrusticae Wrote: The whole premise of the thread is predicated on justifying why armor restrictions are the way they are, and I fundamentally disagree with those justifications. Saying "the devs decided it is so" is less a justification and more a statement of fact after the fact has already occurred, which makes it a useless observance considering it was already informed by the very premise of the thread. So repeating it over and over just feels like you're saying "shut up, there's nothing to discuss" because it's so, so useless.

And, for that matter, I would like to push more folks to then push Square Enix harder to lighten up on those archaic glamour restrictions. Yes, yes, "you should be happy with what you've got" and all that claptrap- look, just because I think things can be better does not make me somehow unappreciative of what I have. Contentment is not complacency and I will have no part in that kind of inaction.

Apologies for the double post, I didn't see this come up.

How do you justify gravity? Or justify the physics behind an archer launching an arrow? There are certain things that are justified by forces beyond yours, ours, or anyone's means. Every change starts somewhere, you are correct, but sometimes the buck just stops. We can manipulate the effects, but not that basic understanding and the basic understanding is that there is no way to have a black mage in heavy armor. This isn't socio-political or a matter of consensus. It's for all purposes, a law of the universe Eorzea is based in. I'm not even certain that the devs created any lore about glamours other than "LOOK WHAT I CAN DO, YOU CAN TOO NOW. COME, LEARN."

While Newton possibly ran out into town square and yelled that about his findings on gravity, which were eventually proven to be what we call fact (I'm taking some creative license here), we have yet to disprove gravity itself. It is a law of reality. It can be manipulated but not changed.

(I'm rambling.)

Back on point, considering that Eorzea is a fictional reality with its own physics and laws of energy, matter, etc, it is naturally written in that they are (gasp) laws. Immutable. We, as RPers, can hand-wave that off if we like and decide it doesn't exist in our perception but that creates chaos. And now we've entered into the realm of philosophy and archaic existentialism, which was the predecessor of modern science. Modern science being what proves and disproves theories about our universe.

And finally, I am by no means a pessimist. I am, however, an obvious realist (if you hadn't guessed by now) and I am full of concern that there's such zeal for affecting change in a video game's very minor detailing system when there are so many things about our real world that could use the attention. Which is why I felt that "The Devs said No" was a proper response, because if they said No and "No means No" then we can devote our time and mental efforts to other enriching activities.Â

Also, this.Â Frustrated

Cheers!

-Black Hat

Berrod Armstrong · **03-30-2015, 04:29 PM**

(03-30-2015, 04:26 PM)Black Hat Wrote:
(03-30-2015, 03:59 PM)Zyrusticae Wrote: The whole premise of the thread is predicated on justifying why armor restrictions are the way they are, and I fundamentally disagree with those justifications. Saying "the devs decided it is so" is less a justification and more a statement of fact after the fact has already occurred, which makes it a useless observance considering it was already informed by the very premise of the thread. So repeating it over and over just feels like you're saying "shut up, there's nothing to discuss" because it's so, so useless.

And, for that matter, I would like to push more folks to then push Square Enix harder to lighten up on those archaic glamour restrictions. Yes, yes, "you should be happy with what you've got" and all that claptrap- look, just because I think things can be better does not make me somehow unappreciative of what I have. Contentment is not complacency and I will have no part in that kind of inaction.

Apologies for the double post, I didn't see this come up.

How do you justify gravity? Or justify the physics behind an archer launching an arrow? There are certain things that are justified by forces beyond yours, ours, or anyone's means. Every change starts somewhere, you are correct, but sometimes the buck just stops. We can manipulate the effects, but not that basic understanding and the basic understanding is that there is no way to have a black mage in heavy armor. This isn't socio-political or a matter of consensus. It's for all purposes, a law of the universe Eorzea is based in. I'm not even certain that the devs created any lore about glamours other than "LOOK WHAT I CAN DO, YOU CAN TOO NOW. COME, LEARN."

While Newton possibly ran out into town square and yelled that about his findings on gravity, which were eventually proven to be what we call fact (I'm taking some creative license here), we have yet to disprove gravity itself. It is a law of reality. It can be manipulated but not changed.

(I'm rambling.)

Back on point, considering that Eorzea is a fictional reality with its own physics and laws of energy, matter, etc, it is naturally written in that they are (gasp) laws. Immutable. We, as RPers, can hand-wave that off if we like and decide it doesn't exist in our perception but that creates chaos. And now we've entered into the realm of philosophy and archaic existentialism, which was the predecessor of modern science. Modern science being what proves and disproves theories about our universe.

And finally, I am by no means a pessimist. I am, however, an obvious realist (if you hadn't guessed by now) and I am full of concern that there's such zeal for affecting change in a video game's very minor detailing system when there are so many things about our real world that could use the attention. Which is why I felt that "The Devs said No" was a proper response, because if they said No and "No means No" then we can devote our time and mental efforts to other enriching activities.Â

Also, this.Â

Cheers!

-Black Hat

^ VIGOROUSLY POINTS TOWARD IN AGREEMENT

Zyrusticae · **03-30-2015, 04:42 PM**

(03-30-2015, 04:26 PM)Black Hat Wrote:

Show Content

spoiler'd for lengthApologies for the double post, I didn't see this come up.

How do you justify gravity? Or justify the physics behind an archer launching an arrow? There are certain things that are justified by forces beyond yours, ours, or anyone's means. Every change starts somewhere, you are correct, but sometimes the buck just stops. We can manipulate the effects, but not that basic understanding and the basic understanding is that there is no way to have a black mage in heavy armor. This isn't socio-political or a matter of consensus. It's for all purposes, a law of the universe Eorzea is based in. I'm not even certain that the devs created any lore about glamours other than "LOOK WHAT I CAN DO, YOU CAN TOO NOW. COME, LEARN."

While Newton possibly ran out into town square and yelled that about his findings on gravity, which were eventually proven to be what we call fact (I'm taking some creative license here), we have yet to disprove gravity itself. It is a law of reality. It can be manipulated but not changed.

(I'm rambling.)

Back on point, considering that Eorzea is a fictional reality with its own physics and laws of energy, matter, etc, it is naturally written in that they are (gasp) laws. Immutable. We, as RPers, can hand-wave that off if we like and decide it doesn't exist in our perception but that creates chaos. And now we've entered into the realm of philosophy and archaic existentialism, which was the predecessor of modern science. Modern science being what proves and disproves theories about our universe.

And finally, I am by no means a pessimist. I am, however, an obvious realist (if you hadn't guessed by now) and I am full of concern that there's such zeal for affecting change in a video game's very minor detailing system when there are so many things about our real world that could use the attention. Which is why I felt that "The Devs said No" was a proper response, because if they said No and "No means No" then we can devote our time and mental efforts to other enriching activities.Â

Also, this.Â

Cheers!

-Black Hat

See, the thing about all of this is that the devs ARE human beings, they HAVE demonstrated some level of response to player feedback, and the devs, being the true gods of Eorzea that create the reality of the game universe, have all the power in the world to affect this sort of change.

Even more than that, simply talking about this sort of thing and bringing it to their attention takes an absolute bare minimum of effort. I have enough hours in the day to devote to seemingly frivolous affairs like this while still doing things of actual importance, thank you very much. Smile

Remember, the only reason glamours are in the game at all is simply because players really, really wanted it and made it known. We can equally make it known that restricting it arbitrarily is simply not good enough. If you don't care enough to participate and think it a waste of time, that is entirely on you, and it is within your rights to refrain from wasting any further energy on the endeavor. Smile

Melkire · **03-30-2015, 04:47 PM**

...are we really getting into the "Powers That Be" discussion? Because I've had enough of that for one lifetime. Thank you, House M.D. fanbase.

Also, please note that we are retreading old ground here.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (5): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

Rant: Mages, Cuirass, and Trends

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes