Mud Spikes, Wind Spikes, and Aqua Spikes

[Zyeriis]

Actually it was relevant. The statement that Water Wind and Earth elements already have a spike version can lead to the conclusion that it would be out of cannon for SE to add 3 new spike spells.

And I don't believe your example of Phalanx is relevant. The protect and shell lines of spells are also Light Element. I don't think it's unrealistic to concider Phalanx, Shell and Protect as separate spells outside these 8 elemental spikes. You could base this purely on the animations of the spells.

[Removed by Moderator according to the FINAL FANTASY XI FORUM Guidelines.] In short: Why so serious? Relax.

[Removed by Moderator according to the FINAL FANTASY XI FORUM Guidelines.]

I think some don't grasp the concept of "Spikes" as a general game term, not exclusively pertaining to FFXI's spike spells.

Spike terms in games, originated from items like Spike breastplate or spiked shield. Any time you tried to attack someone with such armor, you stood a decent chance of being impaled or injured by the spikes if they were to bash or tackle you. So in game terms, there is no such thing as a defensive "Spikes" unless it retaliates with damage in some way.

I don't think I would mind seeing new forms of spike spells, but I'm not sure they would be practical where many of the newer NM's have become increasingly resistant or immune to debuffs.

Hmm, I won't deny it probably wouldn't be practical against those newer NMs. That's not to say the spells would be entirely impractical. There are other parts of the game. And yeah, they're not spikes if there's no retaliation, thats the definition of the word.

Any one have input regarding the wind spikes? Would silence be too much? Is gravity not enough? I can't personally think of another decent wind based enfeeble for them. If it was gravity, wind spikes would make a nice kiting buff for when gravity wears off. Also, what about the Aqua spikes? Poison was the only water based enfeeble I could think of. Am i forgetting some? Also unsure of how potent it should be. i.e. Poison 1 vs. Poison 2, etc.

[Rambus]

it is not needed per say but i can see the logic augment to complete a spike list.

noodles355 your augment is not relevant.

I think some don't grasp the concept of "Spikes" as a general game term, not exclusively pertaining to FFXI's spike spells.

Spike terms in games, originated from items like Spike breastplate or spiked shield. Any time you tried to attack someone with such armor, you stood a decent chance of being impaled or injured by the spikes if they were to bash or tackle you. So in game terms, there is no such thing as a defensive "Spikes" unless it retaliates with damage in some way.

I don't think I would mind seeing new forms of spike spells, but I'm not sure they would be practical where many of the newer NM's have become increasingly resistant or immune to debuffs.

[noodles355]

You appear to have missed where I stated that they could be concidered as eight elemental buff spells, and not as 5 spike spells. And it's a fair point because they can. They could be interpreted as either way. Interpreting them as the latter, 8 elmenental buff spells, would leave no room for three new spike spells.

@Zyeriis, I think stating that I don't believe there is logical space for the spells is in fact on topic and not irrelevant. It is an opinion relating to the topic at hand. It holds exactly as much weight as your opinion that there is room for them, when concidering the relevance of the replies: both are an opinion based on an interpretation of the grouping of a set of spells. If you wish to dismiss my view that there isn't space for them then you should equally dismiss your view that there is space for them.

[Rambus]

You appear to have missed where I stated that they "weren't five spike spells, but 8 elemental buff spells". That is a fair point. They could be interpreted as either way. Interpreting them as the latter, 8 elmenental buff spells, would leave no room for three new spike spells.

@Zyeriis, I think stating that I don't believe there is logical space for the spells is in fact on topic and not irrelevant. It is an opinion relating to the topic at hand. It holds exactly as much weight as your opinion that there is room for them, when concidering the relevance of the replies: both are an opinion based on an interpretation of the grouping of a set of spells. If you wish to dismiss my view that there isn't space for them then you should equally dismiss your view that there is space for them.

No it is not a fair point and i think the phalanx point should killed your view, you also have pro and shell that is light based. there is no such thing as having too many buffs that is aliened with one element.

[noodles355]

The OP's argument for including the spells is that "They would complete the set of 8 elemental spike spells". The counter argument I am making is "The 5 spike spells are part of a group of 8 elemental buff spells, which would leave no room for them in the group".
It's a purely RP based point.

As I stated, the grouping of the spells as either 5 spike spells or 8 elemental buff spells is purely speculation and opinion. Both are purely as valid as each other as they are both just opinions.

[Rambus]

I think some don't grasp the concept of "Spikes" as a general game term, not exclusively pertaining to FFXI's spike spells.

Spike terms in games, originated from items like Spike breastplate or spiked shield. Any time you tried to attack someone with such armor, you stood a decent chance of being impaled or injured by the spikes if they were to bash or tackle you. So in game terms, there is no such thing as a defensive "Spikes" unless it retaliates with damage in some way.

I don't think I would mind seeing new forms of spike spells, but I'm not sure they would be practical where many of the newer NM's have become increasingly resistant or immune to debuffs.

like i said:
you also have pro and shell that is light based. there is no such thing as having too many buffs that is aliened with one element.

[Zyeriis]

You appear to have missed where I stated that they could be concidered as eight elemental buff spells, and not as 5 spike spells. And it's a fair point because they can. They could be interpreted as either way. Interpreting them as the latter, 8 elmenental buff spells, would leave no room for three new spike spells.

@Zyeriis, I think stating that I don't believe there is logical space for the spells is in fact on topic and not irrelevant. It is an opinion relating to the topic at hand. It holds exactly as much weight as your opinion that there is room for them, when concidering the relevance of the replies: both are an opinion based on an interpretation of the grouping of a set of spells. If you wish to dismiss my view that there isn't space for them then you should equally dismiss your view that there is space for them.

It doesn't matter how you put it. I've already proven that there is "room" for them with the phalanx/reprisal comparison. You bringing up protect/shell only goes further to prove it. It is irrelevant because there is no reason to not add them aside from your opinion on them fitting or not, which is in no way discussing the actual spells. I accurately surmised your point of view from the very first post you made. And as I've said before, I took it into consideration. "3 offensive spikes and 3 defensive spikes (not actually spikes)" in no way is a reason to not add them as that could just as easily be 6 offensive spikes and 6 defensive spikes (not actually spikes). Which, I remind you one last time, is the idea.

[Rambus]

It doesn't matter how you put it. I've already proven that there is "room" for them with the phalanx/reprisal comparison. You bringing up protect/shell only goes further to prove it. It is irrelevant because there is no reason to not add them aside from your opinion on them fitting or not, which in no way discussing the actual spells. I accurately surmised your point of view from the very first post you made. And as I've said before, I took it into consideration. "3 offensive spikes and 3 defensive spikes (not actually spikes)" in no way is a reason to not add them as that could just as easily be 6 offensive spikes and 6 defensive spikes (not actually spikes). Which, I remind you one last time, is the idea.

I think I bought up the pro and shell thing but i can state more elemental aliened buffs if they like to kill their irrelevant view.

[noodles355]

One could counter your argument by saying "Light Elemental defensive spells are an exception" due to Light element being used for spells that would otherwise have no elemental affinity. You could further argue that Reprisal is actually based off light magic through intent, whereas Phalanx, Shell and Protect are based off light magic because there is no "none" element for spells.

@Rambus, with such harsh dismissive replies such as "you are wrong" and "an irrelevant opinion" you are sounding hypocritical concidering your crusade for polite responses and constructive criticism. Is this a matter of "Do as I say, not as I do"? If you were to follow your own advice you would rephrase "you are wrong" with "I believe you are wrong for the following reasons" and "an irrelevant view" with "a view I disagree with".

[Zyeriis]

One could counter your argument by saying "Light Elemental defensive spells are an exception" due to Light element being used for spells that would otherwise have no elemental affinity. You could further argue that Reprisal is actually based off light magic through intent, whereas Phalanx, Shell and Protect are based off light magic because there is no "none" element for spells.

@Rambus, with such harsh dismissive replies such as "you are wrong" and "an irrelevant opinion" you are sounding hypocritical concidering your crusade for polite responses and constructive criticism. Is this a matter of "Do as I say, not as I do"? If you were to follow your own advice you would rephrase "you are wrong" with "I believe you are wrong for the following reasons" and "an irrelevant view" with "a view I disagree with".

Invisible, Sneak, Deodorize, are wind based.
Haste is wind based also. Where does this fit in? Is this another "exception" just because it doesn't fit in with what you are saying?
You can argue that those are different types of enhancing magic but, isn't that the point I'm trying to make?

(I won't deny the invis/sneak comparison is a bad one but the haste one isn't)