+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Final Fantasy 14 (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=41)
+--- Forum: FFXIV Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) (/showthread.php?tid=14029)
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - Warren Castille - 10-27-2015
(10-27-2015, 02:16 PM)Empath Wrote: it's not really about it being 'viable', because, again, those words only depict what order you received the spells in in the Japanese incarnation and multiple other final fantasy titles (+ kingdom hearts). Fire, Fira, Firaga, and Firaja have different uses for different situations, exactly how they function is irrelevant. They are nearly the same in terms of game design, it's as simple as remembering that you received Fira before Firaga.
Okay. Can you rewrite the BLM fire kit then in terms that would be acceptable to you? Just do Fire1-4 and Flare.
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - Empath - 10-27-2015
(10-27-2015, 02:22 PM)Warren Castille Wrote:(10-27-2015, 02:16 PM)Empath Wrote: it's not really about it being 'viable', because, again, those words only depict what order you received the spells in in the Japanese incarnation and multiple other final fantasy titles (+ kingdom hearts). Fire, Fira, Firaga, and Firaja have different uses for different situations, exactly how they function is irrelevant. They are nearly the same in terms of game design, it's as simple as remembering that you received Fira before Firaga.
Okay. Can you rewrite the BLM fire kit then in terms that would be acceptable to you? Just do Fire1-4 and Flare.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean me to do. I've already stated how I would like the spells to be in the English version.
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - Warren Castille - 10-27-2015
I looked but didn't see it. Help me out here.
It isn't Fire, it's ______
It isn't Fire II, it's ______
It isn't Fire III, it's _______
It isn't Fire IV, it's _______
If the answer is "Fira Firara Firaga Firaja" then I'd like to know what you intend on adding if/when BLM gets new spells in 4.0 or 5.0.
I've never played a Kingdom Hearts game, but conventional FF treatment is that the suffix hierarchy is played straight. Fira is weaker than Firara is weaker than Firaga is weaker than Firaja. So why are we chain-casting Fira? Why is Firara weaker than Fira unless there's multiple targets?
Because we're going in circles, I'll just repeat what you said: It doesn't make sense anyway. So why substitute one name scheme that doesn't make sense for one that also doesn't make sense? I mean, besides "I like the other one more?"
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - SessionZero - 10-27-2015
It seems like an unnecessary and complicated change, IMO. As a main PvE-er I'd much rather be able to use "Fire 1, 2, 3" etc, rather than the -ra -ja -ga suffixes. Also, like Kage mentioned, no one is going to want to re-learn rotation names this late in the game.
Note that I am an old-school Final Fantasy guy, and I love the old incantations and spell names. I just don't think they translate well to an MMO aesthetic.
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - Garalona - 10-27-2015
They look neat, they sound neat, but they're really easy to mix up phonetically and unless you're a big nerd like me and have had the differences hammered into your head by playing every single game, it's easy to confuse which level is what potency.
I still like them for old time's sake. 1, 2, 3, etc. is inelegant but it works.
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - Floodclaw - 10-27-2015
So, would it be out of the picture to suggest an option to switch rather than a replacement? That would help everyone be happy. It might introduce confusion between players who refer to different spells in different ways, but I don't really consider that an issue.
And, again, the Japanese version of XIV already has the spells this way: eg Benefic II = Benefira, Thunder III = Thundaga, etc. If the Japanese version is going to have to find a way to name spells after -ja, then I don't see why the English version can't.
(And, just an observation, it's kind of odd how many people parrot the same points that were already addressed in the original post.)
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - No Longer Exists - 10-27-2015
(10-27-2015, 02:49 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: I looked but didn't see it. Help me out here.
It isn't Fire, it's ______
It isn't Fire II, it's ______
It isn't Fire III, it's _______
It isn't Fire IV, it's _______
If the answer is "Fira Firara Firaga Firaja" then I'd like to know what you intend on adding if/when BLM gets new spells in 4.0 or 5.0.
I've never played a Kingdom Hearts game, but conventional FF treatment is that the suffix hierarchy is played straight. Fira is weaker than Firara is weaker than Firaga is weaker than Firaja. So why are we chain-casting Fira? Why is Firara weaker than Fira unless there's multiple targets?
Because we're going in circles, I'll just repeat what you said: It doesn't make sense anyway. So why substitute one name scheme that doesn't make sense for one that also doesn't make sense? I mean, besides "I like the other one more?"
Soooooo, yeah. Ja is actually the final suffix if you go by the games after 8 where the suffixes took over and it's been stated that the Ja suffix actually is the final form of a spell's evolution. I'm sure there are one or two odd examples but the concept is supposed to end there. This means that 4 is the highest possible magickal level of an elemental tier. Therefore, there couldn't be a spell higher until you get into the "ancient magicks" of Flare, Meteo/Meteor/Meteora, Ultima etc.
Anyways, the OP was looking for petition support and it appears that's not going to happen here at the RPC.
-Hatter
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - LiadansWhisper - 10-27-2015
(10-27-2015, 06:58 PM)Floodclaw Wrote: So, would it be out of the picture to suggest an option to switch rather than a replacement? That would help everyone be happy. It might introduce confusion between players who refer to different spells in different ways, but I don't really consider that an issue.
And, again, the Japanese version of XIV already has the spells this way: eg Benefic II = Benefira, Thunder III = Thundaga, etc. If the Japanese version is going to have to find a way to name spells after -ja, then I don't see why the English version can't.
(And, just an observation, it's kind of odd how many people parrot the same points that were already addressed in the original post.)
I don't feel like re-learning all of the spell names after two years.  ¯\(°_o)/¯
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - Oli! - 10-27-2015
(10-27-2015, 06:58 PM)Floodclaw Wrote: So, would it be out of the picture to suggest an option to switch rather than a replacement? That would help everyone be happy. It might introduce confusion between players who refer to different spells in different ways, but I don't really consider that an issue.
And, again, the Japanese version of XIV already has the spells this way: eg Benefic II = Benefira, Thunder III = Thundaga, etc. If the Japanese version is going to have to find a way to name spells after -ja, then I don't see why the English version can't.
(And, just an observation, it's kind of odd how many people parrot the same points that were already addressed in the original post.)
For Paragraph One, this still leads to confusion because people will call different spells different things, everyone will get confused, and communicating what people are trying to say and becoming confused regarding spell names (especially for new players) will become Just Horrible.
For Paragraph Two, It's not that the English version can't, it's that it Didn't. It's like saying America can't rename all its small towns to have -shire suffixes. Sure we can, it's just entirely useless save for cosmetics, and does nothing but confuse the hell out of people and outdate all existing guides and maps.
So the resulting conclusion is that this is Worse Than Useless, in the sense that it not only functions as being of No Change at best, but will also confuse tons of people at worst.
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - Edgar - 10-27-2015
I was raised on the suffix/legacy system of RaGaJaZa (Za was added in Kingdom Hearts 3D Dream Drop Distance, presumably as a stand-in for level 5 spellcraft) for spell terminology.
I think it sounds a lot cooler to say "Firaga!" than "Fire III!"
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - Cailean Lockwood - 10-28-2015
(10-27-2015, 02:49 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: I looked but didn't see it. Help me out here.
It isn't Fire, it's ______
It isn't Fire II, it's ______
It isn't Fire III, it's _______
It isn't Fire IV, it's _______
If the answer is "Fira Firara Firaga Firaja" then I'd like to know what you intend on adding if/when BLM gets new spells in 4.0 or 5.0.
*Fire, Fira, Firaga, Firaja
First one has always just been Fire, Blizzard, Aero etc, and the first upgrade then replaced the last letter with an -a, like Fira, Blizzara, Aera etc. ^^
I do see the points people make about the numeral ones being easier to manage and it's also easier to just add more numbers on a "Fire" spell for further upgrades... but I still think the "-a, -aga, -aja" spells sound cooler. And if Square Enix is just going to keep making spells like "Fire VIII" in the future, they need to replace the people who are giving these spells names. I'd rather they came up with completely other spells and names then, than just putting more numbers and upgrading current spells. That's just lazy design.
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - mongi291 - 10-28-2015
For the short time I played a mage, I preferred to go with a FFXI-like terminology, and say Fire III, Thundaga II, Blizzara IV, and stuff. Even enemies do that, sometimes.
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - Lydia Lightfoot - 10-28-2015
Chiming in again with a more serious response, the problem with either system (direct numeral progression or "alternative it's not numerals but basically the same as numerals" progression) is that they fail to take into account that the spells don't actually follow a sequence of potency.
In every Final Fantasy (excepting original versions of games made prior to the development of the programming needed to allow toggling between single or multi targeting), scaling of the spells meant nothing more than an increase in potency in exchange for an increase in MP cost (and/or spell level) and possibly increased casting time.
So let's really analyze this:
Fire: Single target, 180 potency, 2.5 sec cast
Fire II: AOE, 100 potency, 3 sec cast
Fire III: Single target, 240 potency, 3.5 sec cast
Fire IV: Single target, 280 potency, 3 sec cast, special cast requirement
Fire II is basically a completely different spell. Why is it even Fire, and not something new? Blaze, Inferno, etc?
Blizzard: Single target, 180 potency, 2.5 sec cast
Blizzard II: PBAOE, 50 potency, 2 sec cast
Blizzard III: Single target, 240 potency, 3.5 sec cast
Blizzard IV: Single target, 280 potency, 3 sec cast, special cast requirement
Ice II is basically a completely different spell. Why is it even Fire, and not something new? Frost, Glacier, etc?
Thunder: Single target DOT, 270 total potency, 2.5 sec cast
Thunder II: Single target DOT, 330 total potency, 3 sec cast
Thunder III: Single target DOT, 390 total potency, 3.5 sec cast
This one's solid.
Cure: Single target, 400 potency, 2 sec cast
Cure II:Â Single target, 650 potency, 2 sec cast
Cure III: AOE, 550 potency, 2.5 sec cast
Cure III is similar but is a different spell progression, so it shouldn't be a Cure.
Medica: PBAOE, 300 potency, 2.5 sec cast
Medica II: PBAOE, 200 potency + HOT 500 total potency, 3.5 sec cast, 3 sec cooldown
These two spells are totally different. Medica II may as well have a 30 second cooldown, because other than having a wider radius of effect it doesn't seem like it'd be a good idea to use it before the HOT expires anyway. I'm not sure why these two are even named the same.
Stone: Single target, 140 potency, 2.5 sec cast
Stone II: Single target, 170 potency, 2.5 sec cast
Stone III: Single target, 210 potency, 2.5 sec cast
This one's solid... as stone. Hah.
Aero: Single target DOT, 200 total potency, instant cast
Aero II: Single target DOT, 250 total potency, 2.5 sec cast
Aero III: Single target DOT, 370 total potency, 3 sec cast
This one's solid. The first one being instant is odd but they progress in cast time over higher numbers, so it falls in line.
Ruin: Single target, 80 potency, 2.5 sec cast
Ruin II: Single target, 80 potency, instant cast
Ruin III: Single target, 120 potency, 2.5 sec cast
Ruin II falls out of place by suddenly not having a cast time, but then having one again with Ruin III. It doesn't seem like it should be part of the progression.
Bio: Single target DOT, 240 total potency, instant cast
Bio II: Single target DOT, 350 total potency, 2.5 sec cast
This one's solid. The first one being instant is odd but they progress in cast time over higher numbers, so it falls in line.
Miasma: Single target DOT, 300 total potency, 2.5 sec cast
Miasma II: PBAOE DOT, 70 potency, instant cast
Like Medica and Medica II, these two are totally different and shouldn't even be a progression.
My point here is that whether you want to use one set of terms or another, neither one is adequately utilized in this game to express an advancement of the spell as applies to other Final Fantasy games. What is the point of that point? Well, if you're going to complain about the names not matching prior games, you should logically also not like that the spells don't function the same way with the same name. If that doesn't bother you, then why does the name issue bother you?
Heck, at least the numeral method implies an IC development: Fire II might be the second method in which Thaumaturges have figured out via research and experimentation how to harness aether into controllable fire. Neat. In that interpretation, it doesn't even need to be a progression. Thinking of a real-world analogy, it'd be like calling VHS "Home Video", DVD "Home Video II", digital streaming "Home Video III", and Blu-Ray "Home Video IV" (and yes, I know I'm missing a bunch of ways people could watch videos at home, shh).
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - Kellach Woods - 10-28-2015
Old terminology completely screws ACN/SMN anyway...
IS IT BIO OR VIRUS?
RE: Do you support legacy terminology? ('-ra' '-ga' spells) - S'imba - 10-28-2015
Well to me it makes sense from a lore stand point for a mage to just number his spells. Easier to write and organize since mages tend to have that sort of mindset. Though the other names sound impressive I would imagine that a smart mage would do everything in his power not to announce the spell he was trying to cast in order to give his opponent less time to counter attack.Â
Though in reality I'd imagine it would depend on the mage and how they were taught. A mage from Ul'dah might number them but a mage from other lands might use the blizzaga type names.