Reconvene the Magic Council Please - Spell names in 5.0 please fix. [Request]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KisaiTenshi

Now, the a better fix however, would require a combo system. Where you start all cast with the same spell (a la monk) eg Cure, followed by "Group Hug", which turns it into Medica, and followed by "Regen" which turns it into Medica II. Unfortunately this is too hard to pull off in a game where bad players just want to maximize DPS over healing. Now, there is another option...

Reverse the way combos work. Make the Player-center/Target-center, Party and Regen effects be like the Ninja Mudra's, and they increase the cast time or cast mp cost, and that allows it to be extended to things like Aero and Holy as well. Imagine being able to throw Aero III and Holy where the tank is positioned.
If you screw up a combo, the worst that happens is you heal the target.

---

This is a good idea, for a different game. We don't need to turn all the mage jobs in this game into NIN though.

I fart in the Magic Council's general direction. I've been using -ra/-ga/-ja and I don't intend to stop. (On a semi-related note I believe -gun has also been used in some games? Maybe KH?) Give us back those lovely suffixes please; I/II/III/IV/etc. are boring.

It's probably best not to go by FFXI's way of using suffixes anyway, since FFXIV's spell list isn't as big as FFXI's. If people really want to separate the AoE spells from the single target spells (to make it less confusing or whatever), why not rename the AoE spells? (with the exception of WHM/SCH spells... unless they get a fourth Aero/Miasma)

Fire II - Scorch, Blizzard II - Frost, and Thunder II/IV - Storm/Stormga (Thunder III will also be changed to Thundaga. If SE actually did this, then I'd also be fine with Thunder not being renamed to Bolt. Thunder and Storm).

That's just an idea. I'm fine with numbers, anyway.

The issues I see with the whole Magic Council thing is that, from a lore standpoint, they did a pretty shitty job.

The naming convention they came up with "to avoid confusion" is actually really counter-intuitive and inconsistent. SE can easily fix this, seeing this only happens with the english translation, and give everyone a simpler and more consistent magic system.

Numbers for potency, suffixes for targets: -ga AoE around target, -ra AoE around caster. Easy as that.

It really bugs me that magic is all over the place with numbers and names. It goes against everything else they do to "streamline" and make the game more accessible.

Sure. Why not?

No thanks. I've always hated that -aja -ara crap. Probably biased because old school Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest was my jam.

I really dislike the added suffixes to spells. I think the number system is simple and gets the point across. At a glance you know that Cure 2 is stronger than Cure 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rubiss

No thanks. I've always hated that -aja -ara crap. Probably biased because old school Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest was my jam.

I really dislike the added suffixes to spells. I think the number system is simple and gets the point across. At a glance you know that Cure 2 is stronger than Cure 1.

---

But Cure 3 is not stronger than Cure 2. Your argument falls flat immediately. Medica 2 is not a straight upgrade from Medica. Thunder 1/3 is superior to Thunder 2/4 in single target situations. Fire 2 is not better than Fire 1 and so on and so forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima

But Cure 3 is not stronger than Cure 2. Your argument falls flat immediately. Medica 2 is not a straight upgrade from Medica. Thunder 1/3 is superior to Thunder 2/4 in single target situations. Fire 2 is not better than Fire 1 and so on and so forth.

---

You understand, at a glance, which spell is higher tier. Cure 3 certainly is stronger than Cure 2, given that there is more than one target. Medica 2 is more potency than Medica 1 for the same GCD. You could perhaps make a case for moving AoE spells away but I personally like the number system. It's more clear and I prefer the old school naming scheme.

I really dislike when they did it to Dragon Quest too. Like between Blaze, Blazemore and Blazemost and Frizz, Frizzle and Kafrizz and then later Kafrizzle, like what am I even seeing?

I think their reasoning was to future-proof spells so we didn't end up with a spellbook cluttered with cure/cura/curaga/curaja/curada/curacura/cucamonga/chimichanga/etc, but then they just called it Tetragrammaton instead of Cure IV anyway, and went hard on bible names for spells which has it's own problems like Benediction and Benison mean the same thing but are very different spells.

Cure and Cure II: Single target heal
Cure III: Multi target heal centering on a selected target
Medica I and Medica II: Multi target heal centering on self

This isn't complicated.

Cure and Cure II stay the same.
Cure III is renamed to Cura
Medica I and Medica II stays the same.

Cura is naturally more powerful than regular Cure, which is reflected in potency.

Fire, Fire III and Fire IV: Single target damage
Fire II: Multi target damage centering around the target

For this we apply the same rules as before.

Fire II becomes Fira. The only thing inconsistent with before is that Fira has less potency than Fire, which is an inconsistency that already exists, so it only fixes 1 out of 2 inconsistencies, which is better than 0.

Thunder III is renamed to Thunder II
Thunder II and Thunder IV are renamed to Thundara and Thundaga

This also remains consistent with -ara -aga being multi target centered around your target, but has a similar potency problem with Fire, which is simply an already existing problem that will remain unfixed.

Blizzard is the complicated one. Blizzard III and IV would be renamed to Blizzard II and III, which remains consistent. Blizzard II is does not center around a target, but centers around yourself. As such I would suggest not renaming this Blizzara. Of course, if this is the only one with such an inconsistency, this is still overall an improvement.