You know something I'd wish?

[F-Gattaca]

You guys ever notice that the basic types still have stats that they top their respective "pure expert" types in?

Like Fortegunner vs. Ranger. Ranger beats Fortegunners in TP, DFP, and MST (at least it does for me as a male CAST). Sure, it's poor in relation to everything else as a Fortegunner, but if you notice, compared to every other type each one will usually beat out the others in two or three stats, barring weapon availability.

This is off the top of my head and it would take a metagaming guru like Pillan to inspect this, but it almost seems like the basic types are, statwise, balanced against the expert types ... if only they could wield the same quality weapons.

I kinda wished that the basic types did indeed have the ability to wield A and S-rank weapons, instead of getting limited to C and B-rank weapons. I'd happily deal with the decreased range of weaponry available and switch back to a Ranger if they could.

Imagine if that were so; the basic types, if they could wield S-ranks where they could wield B-ranks, and A-ranks where they could wield C-ranks, would offer their own unique pallete of available S-ranks compared to the expert types, on top of the areas where they reign king in stats.

For example, if they could do that, a Ranger would get to wield S-rank rifles, shotguns, SMGs, as well as single and dual pistols. Not a single ranged type allows for that same specific range of weaponry.

What do you guys think? If this kind of thing were true, would you go back to a basic type? I know I would. I'd love to have the abiity to wield an S-rank mechgun without having to be a Guntecher, as I don't do teching at all.

[Hrith]

The major hinderance of basic classes is not B grade weapons, it's Lv20 PAs.

[Darkly]

I think the idea behind expert classes is that you choose something to specialise in, therefore you ignore, or have weaker stats in places you dont specialise in.

So for the basic classes, eg. ranger while he may have a certain affinity towards guns he can still use a variety of melee weapons, what i mean is he isn't specific in his skills and weapons etc. which is why its a basic class.

But i do agree that having basic classes having s-ranks and a ranks aswell is a cool idea, in my head a ranger sounds like a weaker but more well rounded fortegunner, which is a very good alternative actually.

[F-Gattaca]

The major hinderance of basic classes is not B grade weapons, it's Lv20 PAs.

That's a good point ... I, personally, don't understand why the basic types are balanced and have stats they excel in over all other types, when they're so gimped with weapon quality and PA caps. Why didn't they just make expert types superior in every respect?


On 2007-09-16 10:56, Darkly wrote:
I think the idea behind expert classes is that you choose something to specialise in, therefore you ignore, or have weaker stats in places you dont specialise in.

So for the basic classes, eg. ranger while he may have a certain affinity towards guns he can still use a variety of melee weapons, what i mean is he isn't specific in his skills and weapons etc. which is why its a basic class.


Well ... the only problem with that is a Ranger has access to the same spread of melee weapons that a Fortegunner does.

When it comes to Ranged though, it's a different story; the Ranger has a unique spread of usable weapons with respect to the gunner Expert types, and the overall spread of weapons is much more limited when compared to any one Expert type.

It doesn't feel like a "basic, broad general class" that advances into a "specialized class" due to that; for example, a Fighgunner can wield nearly as many ranged weapon types as a Ranger can, on top of having access to nearly the entire set of melee weapons.

So it feels almost the opposite; like Rangers would be the go-to type for a strict but highly skilled set of weapons, were the Expert types "bloom out" and have a wide range of weapons to choose from.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: F-Gattaca on 2007-09-17 08:12 ]</font>

[panzer_unit]

Basic classes probably have respectable stat modifiers just so you don't get hosed as a low-level character. Remember back in the days when you actually had to play for a while as a basic class and do really hard missions to get reasonable MP? Yeah.

I'd play around with basic classes even if they were stuck at B-rank weaponry. It's really not so bad, depending on the weapon class a high-grind B weapon can compete reasonably well with low-grind A.

[SStrikerR]

if they could use A and S ranks, whats the point of expert classes except for the higher PAs
thats the point of expert classes.
although if you perfer stats over PAs, grinder yourself some of the best B rank weapons to 10, and you're set.
although you wont look as cool =P

[Jarek]

There have been times I've considered going back to basic force class over fortetecher..
First some stats of my Human F @ lv90.
___FO10-FT10___
HP:1543-1311. Force wins by 232
ATP:425-357. Force wins by 68
ATA:213-169. Force wins by 44
TP:1078-1170. Fortetecher wins by 92
DFP:143-84. Force wins by 59
EVP:479-588. Fortetecher wins by 109
MST:273-438. Fortetecher wins by 165
STA:12-12. Even.

So to quickly summarize that,
HP: Who wouldn't want more hp on a techer? The only good that comes with low hp is getting staggered after your spell *dings* to actually recover quicker with some of the longer casting techs.
ATP: who cares about atp on a force or ft, really.
ATA: Could be useful for equipping bows earlier, but since force only offers C rank, and no cards, it's not really helpful.
TP: The gap here is honestly not that large, it's similar to say a human ft vs a newman ft.
DFP: The stat itself is hardly useful, but it would allow Force to actually use any armor it wanted.
EVP: Well, more can't hurt, but you can't really rely on it.
MST: FT has more here too, but force's higher hp pretty much offsets it.

The main thing FT has going for it is what kef said, the PA level limit. LV30 techs with their tech% and element % will do a good deal more damage than a force's lv20. And that gap will only widen when AoI rolls around and FT gets lv40 attack techs.
I found it surprising how frail FT was when I changed class from force 10, but I guess that's the price you pay for going after maximum power. One of these days if I'm bored enough, I'll try grinding some 6* stuff and see how it goes. http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_wacko.gif

[MrNomad]

too bad you cant do the same with the hunter base and all the other hunter expert classes. While it does have a good selection of weapons to start, there are plenty more (and better) weapon selections in the expert classes. A fF gets every melee weapon except double saber, not to mention a lot of S rank melee weapons. A FG not only has every weapon except now with a double saber not an axe but they also have a great gun selection too, almost making them a class above fF in a way. A WT again has more weapons to select and wands to cast resta and buffs. Most of those classes have lvl 30 skills, stats that are alittle better than hunter and A and S rank weapons, and as much as people dont want me to say, A ranks are buyable so get over it and get some, besides come the day they balance out elemental % that 40% b rank wont look as good as that 20% a rank unless you go all out and grind that mutha. Once AoI comes fF will have lvl 40 skills, FG will have lvl 40 skills and lvl 30 bullets, WT will have lvl 30 everything, each class gets more S ranks and each gets a new weapon.......So really, going back to hunter doesnt fancy me at all http://www.pso-world.com/images/phpbb/icons/smiles/icon_razz.gif But thats my opinion, I could be wrong. pew pew