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).
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).
Lydia Lightfoot ~ The Reliquarian's Guild «Relic» ~ Lavender Beds, Ward 12, #41
This player has a sense of humor. If the content of the post suggests otherwise, please err on the side of amusement and friendship, because that's almost certainly the intent. We're all on the same team: Team Roleplayer! Have a smile, have a chuckle, and have a slice of pie. Isn't pie great?
This player has a sense of humor. If the content of the post suggests otherwise, please err on the side of amusement and friendship, because that's almost certainly the intent. We're all on the same team: Team Roleplayer! Have a smile, have a chuckle, and have a slice of pie. Isn't pie great?
