Lore-"based" or not, they went through all this trouble to simplify the battle system with new UI components and consolidating so more casual players wouldn't get as confused, then they leave in this obtuse numbered naming system.
I had a healer using Cure III on me because they figured a higher number meant it was a better heal than Cure or Cure II. I mean come on. It's dumb and needs to go away. Amdapor is a dead state after all.
-
05-23-2017, 01:07 PMJeykama
-
05-23-2017, 01:11 PMShougun
Would like a different name if -ga and stuff is lore blocked. The numbers as the lore says signifies is about hierarchy, and II is not necessarily less than III if you're in a group scenario.. which means II is not less than III sometimes.
(So all AoE get their own hierarchy and single target their own).
Sure different language different lore but I consider different languages their own sort of dimension though, since we do have small changes here and there and they sort of exist on shattered planes of themselves. Also at least for English it is developed at the same time and has reason to be considered not below Japanese but on par with, so whatever difference exists in ours is not necessarily a change from source but just a difference in realm (as our team also happens to work directly with the lore as well and is far more than a regular localization, at least some members of our team are developers of some content).Quote:
Originally Posted by Lambdafish
You're right that lore can be changed and I don't really care if it is or not, I just would like to see the naming system show the difference better for AoE/not and their tier. I understand the team decided that the -ga -ja and such is abnormal for the general public but I II (AOE) III is a little confusing. I -Ra II or whatever, it's not really important to me what it becomes just that I think it would be nice to be a bit easier to read. To me II is not inherently below III as the numbers suggest. -
05-23-2017, 01:49 PMLambdafishLore can be changed. The lore bit that actually explains the I, II, III is actually different in different languages because they do use ra, ga, ja.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shougun
The lore in question is just a passage in one of the books in Gubal (HM). In other languages, the book is written exactly the same except substituting the -ra, -ga, -ja instead of I, II, III. It is as simple as rewriting the passage to replace the I, II, III, and given how hidden away the lore passage is, it wouldn't affect anything at all. Also, the thing about different dimensions is the wrong way to look at it, minor changes are normal in localisation, given the translator's interpretation of the source material.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shougun
-
05-23-2017, 02:16 PMRongwaySo much this.Quote:
Originally Posted by alimdia
Suffix-based names only make sense when the suffixes themselves are meaningful units of speech. XI did this beautifuly:
---: Single target
-ra: Point blank AoE
-ga: Targeted AoE
-ja: Targeted AoE with elemental persistence
But if we're just going to name everything Spell-Spellra-Spellga-Spellja just for the sake of having them sound like Final Fantasy spells, it bears no more meaning than Spell-SpellII-SpellIII-SpellIV.
I would love to see suffixed spell names, but it would only make sense if naming could be consistent between spell families, and it won't.
If all the fans want is that spell families go ()-ra-ga-ja, then we end up with this:
Code:Spell family --- -ra -ga -ja
=======================================
Stone t=1 t=1 t=1 t=1 (all same single target spell, at different power levels)
Aero t=1 t=1 AoE ?
Fire t=1 tAoE t=1 t=1
Blizzard t=1 pbAoE t=1 t=1
Thunder t=1 AoE t=1 AoE
Cure t=1 t=1 AoE ?
If suffix-based naming is going to work, we'll still need numbers anyway:
Stone, Stone II, Stone III, Stone IV
Aero, Aero II, Aeroga, AeroIII/AerogaII (I didn't catch if IV was AoE or not)
Fire, Firaga (targeted AoE), Fire II, Fire III
Blizzard, Blizzara (PBAoE), Blizzard II, Blizzard III
Thunder, Thundaga, Thunder II, Thundaga II
Cure, Cure II, Curaga, Curesomething -
05-23-2017, 02:29 PMPomPomFlare
Go away from my black mage with your retarded suffixes!
-
05-23-2017, 03:37 PMHiraQin
So is this part of lore different when playing with german client?
Or why do I have f.e. Steinga,Steinra...Vitra,Vitaga...Feura,Feuga and so on?
(Stone2,Stone3....Cure2,Cure3..Fire2,Fire3) -
05-23-2017, 04:56 PMTriColorsEnglish Localization team tends to do whatever it wants, even the story and characters' personalities differ from actual JP/other clients.Quote:
Originally Posted by HiraQin
-
05-23-2017, 05:09 PMalimdiaDE and JP use suffixes I believe, not sure about FR.Quote:
Originally Posted by HiraQin
Lore is not the actual reasoning, the EN loc team decided not to use it, the screenshot posted before was an afterthought made many years after release to try to give some validity to the system already in place. -
05-23-2017, 05:30 PMYasminouFrench uses adjectives: extra for -ra spells, méga for -ga spells and since there is no (interesting) -ja adjective in French, they use giga for -ja spells.Quote:
Originally Posted by alimdia
The fire line spell is thus: Feu, Extra feu, Méga feu, Giga feu. -
05-23-2017, 05:58 PMTaranTatsuuchi
I know there was a huge thread on this back around launch...
Trying to see if I can find it for posterity...
I did find this one
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...spells-names!?
Not the original thread, the original was apparently nuked with the beta boards
But, there's a copy of one of the larger dev responses in that later thread, this one in particular
http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...=1#post2499266