Small tweak for RDM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archwizard

First off, Esuna doesn't have the same color animation as Vercure/Benefic. Esuna has a much deeper, richer shade of unambiguous indigo, while Vercure/Benefic use what appears to be a desaturated mixture of colors (silver, blue, purple).

Second, I checked in Ruby Sea against the Red Kojin enemies and Water Sprites, all of whom use the aquamarine swirl when casting Water that I described, which matches oGCDs.
I'll check Sahagin when I get home but since you didn't see Esuna as being different it's not looking good for ya.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archwizard

Gruntler based his observations on color in another thread. I was refuting them.

To argue against your "ice sounds and looking frosty", we see and hear crystals and crystallization. That's not proof of "ice".

---

And you absolutely didn't yourself.. not even to the length of actually find mobs to look at their animation either /s

That's not proof of pure crystal either: Do a quick run of Shiva and tell me they she use crytal and not ice.. Even, look at the weapon she drop..
Also, I can't even find a example of any enemy using pure aether crystal attack

You literally overlook anything that doesn't back your point while picking at straws to prove yours...

This is a weird hill to die on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardox

And you absolutely didn't yourself.. not even to the length of actually find mobs to look at their animation either /s

---

Something tells me you've never done well on persuasive essays. There's this thing called "addressing the argument" where you point out the flaws in their reasoning, rather than just calling it stupid and expecting anybody matching your IQ to see your point of view. Especially when the latter relies on a great deal of self-flattery.

Meanwhile, you yourself are also basing "evidence" of Fleche and Contre Sixte being ice-aspected purely on their animations and sounds as well, while simultaneously decrying others who do the same to refute it.

Quote:

---

That's not proof of pure crystal either: Do a quick run of Shiva and tell me they she use crytal and not ice.. Even, look at the weapon she drop..

---

Right, so at best we're coming to that there's no conclusive evidence one way or the other, and at worst it's still not doing ice damage.

If -- as you so love to point out -- the animations are not enough, then what is your evidence that it's ice-aspected without animations? Because the damage type doesn't support that.

Quote:

---

Also, I can't even find a example of any enemy using pure aether crystal attack

---

It's Final Fantasy, mate. Crystals are kind of a big deal. Just because you don't see enemies throwing actual shards of crystal to deal damage, doesn't mean there isn't evidence for crystallized aether -- that's literally what crystals are in this mythos.
What it does mean is we could potentially be the first to use it as an attack. Or we just aren't looking hard enough.

Quote:

---

You literally overlook anything that doesn't back your point while picking at straws to prove yours...

---

Whatever you say, Mr. Pot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabooa

This is a weird hill to die on.

---

I agree, it's a stupid argument. Elemental damage-type is purely cosmetic in the first place, since the game treats them all like "magic" damage and no enemy has elemental vulnerabilities/resistances anymore.

If we get new spells, who cares what element they are as long as they fit the kit. White Mages still aren't casting Meteor and Black Mages still aren't casting Raise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archwizard

/snip

---

Lets me get this straight:
You say it's better to address the argument (which is defined by considering an argument Respectfully, Fairly, Objectively, Accurately) and give me a personal jibe in the same sentence?

Then you point out that elemental damage-type is purely cosmetic but can't get over the point that Fleche and Contre Sixte are unaspected? It already been explained to you that the damage type was piercing so it would synergize with piercing debuff when those debuff were a thing.

Finally, when you say that animation is not a valid proof, it's sound debate. but when you get served that exact same argument it's no longer "addressing the argument"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardox

Lets me get this straight:
You say it's better to address the argument (which is defined by considering an argument Respectfully, Fairly, Objectively, Accurately) and give me a personal jibe in the same sentence?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardox

And you absolutely didn't yourself.. not even to the length of actually find mobs to look at their animation either /s

---

Nah, that's just matching the tone you set.

Quote:

---

Then you point out that elemental damage-type is purely cosmetic but can't get over the point that Fleche and Contre Sixte are unaspected? It already been explained to you that the damage type was piercing so it would synergize with piercing debuff when those debuff were a thing.

---

Elemental damage type is cosmetic because without elemental vulnerabilities or resistances to differentiate them, the game renders them all as "magic" damage. My fire spell of 270 potency does the same damage as my earth spell of 270 potency.
Ironically, the old physical debuffs towards Slashing, Blunt and Piercing damage actually made physical damage types relevant.
So yes, the two are simultaneously valid arguments.

Nobody actually said anything about synergizing with the piercing debuff, but it is worth pointing out that would be literally the only ability in our arsenal to use piercing damage, and we would have gotten more value out of a magic vulnerability debuff like Contagion regardless.

Quote:

---

Finally, when you say that animation is not a valid proof, it's sound debate. but when you get served that exact same argument it's no longer "addressing the argument"?

---

Well if you're going to ignore the progression of the argument to make a strawman...

To be clear: Gruntler made the case that the color and animations were one thing, I provided observations that his argument was incorrect.
I didn't say that animations in general were not solid proof. I refuted him on the level that he was arguing.

You then chimed in that I was basing my evidence on observation "and no hard data," implicitly stating that you considered animations not to be solid proof, while also claiming the Shiva swords are "evidence" and that magic vs physical damage types are irrelevant. That in itself is a hypocritical argument.

Plus I mean... you do know what ice is, right? Literally, scientifically, crystallized water -- "crystallize" is just another form of "solidify".
Compare an ice cube to a clear quartz crystal and they'll look very similar. That doesn't mean they're the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archwizard

/snip

---

Autoattack, corps-a-corps, engagement, displacement, Fleche, Contre Sixte and the unenchanted melee combo are all piercing damage.

A strawman argument is define «as giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent»
Here I'm not refuting anything, I'm stating something. I'm saying that your biased. You started by saying that you can't use animation to determine the the element of a spell, then latter started to make statement on elemental aspect of spells based on their animation. Then, when you got served the exact same statement you made yourself you started to object.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardox

You started by saying that you can't use animation to determine the the element of a spell, then latter started to make statement on elemental aspect of spells based on their animation. Then, when you got served the exact same statement you made yourself you started to object.

---

I "started" in this thread, because I knew the exact argument Gruntler was going to make, because he was simultaneously making the same argument in another thread.

I objected on the grounds that the evidence presented was not conclusive by its own merits; one does not need to take all evidence as equally valid just because they're all presented in the same argument, especially when so easily refuted as "Are you and I literally even looking at the same thing?"

Quote:

---

Here I'm not refuting anything, I'm stating something. I'm saying that your biased.

---

Coming from the guy who earlier simply said,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardox

I feel all CNJ/WHM healing spells are somehow water aspected... A bit like Legend of Mana

---

I don't think my bias and headcanon are affecting my arguments. I don't know what aspect Vercure or Benefic are, and I honestly don't particularly care -- but I know that the argument that they're

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gruntler

water-aspected by process of elimination.

---

... is insufficient and observably wrong.

Quote:

---

corps-a-corps, engagement, displacement, and the melee combo are all piercing damage that all use the int stat (except for the unenchanted version).

---

When Enchanted, the melee combo explicitly states that it is Unaspected damage and inherits from Embolden. It's only physical damage when unenchanted.
Regardless, we're still majority Magic damage and would have far greater benefit out of a Magic vulnerability buff, and that doesn't at all prove Fleche is an Ice spell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archwizard

Plus I mean... you do know what ice is, right? Literally, scientifically, crystallized water -- "crystallize" is just another form of "solidify".
Compare an ice cube to a clear quartz crystal and they'll look very similar. That doesn't mean they're the same.

---

I love you added that because, you know, it's exactly my point of view: Fleche is an Ice spell and what you see as "pure aether crystal" is really just big crystallized water rapiers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archwizard

Coming from the guy who earlier simply said

---

Yeah, you can see that sentence as biased, but you are not refuting my argument saying you overlook everything that don't validate your point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archwizard

When Enchanted, the melee combo explicitly states that it is Unaspected damage. It's only physical damage when unenchanted.
Regardless, we're still majority Magic damage and would have far greater benefit out of a Magic vulnerability buff, and that doesn't at all prove Fleche is an Ice spell.

---

You know that if everything scale on INT it doesn't make any difference if it's magical or not? The only thing you needed to know was the oGCD was boosted by DRG's piercing debuff and the potency of the enchanted melee combo and the spells blew the unenchanted potency combo out of the water.

Fleche is mechanically not a ice spell because it was a job design mechanic choice, not because of the lore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardox

I love you added that because, you know, it's exactly my point of view: Fleche is an Ice spell and what you see as "pure aether crystal" is really just big crystallized water rapiers

---

Gonna need evidence to support that, bud.

Quote:

---

You know that if everything scale on INT it doesn't make any difference if it's magical or not?

---

I wasn't arguing about it scaling off of INT, you were.
I was pointing out that on the whole we'd get more value out of magic vulnerabilities than piercing vulnerabilities. It scaling off INT doesn't make it any more affected by Contagion or Embolden.

Quote:

---

A strawman argument is define «as giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent»

---

But since we're officially at the point where more meta discourse is being made towards the style of presenting an argument than towards actual evidence in support or rebuttal of your headcanon, I think it's well past time to put this to rest.

Can you two take it to the Lore forum, where people might actually help you back up your claims, rather than having this completely off topic "debate" here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archwizard

If we get new spells, who cares what element they are as long as they fit the kit.

---

Well, to me it adds flavour to the Job and helps build a distinct identity compared to other Jobs... I'd like Red Mage to have a full stock of elements because the very idea of the Job is a combination of Black Mage and White Mage, and for much of this games life I've been fed the "We can't have a Job with all the elements because White Mage has half and Black Mage has the other half, and they're diametrically opposed" waffle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archwizard

White Mages still aren't casting Meteor and Black Mages still aren't casting Raise.

---

I'd actually be OK with Black Mage having Raise, albeit a version with a serious stipulation. I'd prefer Res-Mage to no longer be a thing, and that utility to just essentially be a healer/caster role action, but role actions are horrid and need to be deleted (if we still have Sentinel/Vengeance/Shadow Wall/Nebula, we can damn well just do away with role skills completely and bring back clone skills like Shadowskin and Leeches...).

Essentially, I'd say;

Red Mage gets Verraise, exactly as it is.
Summoner gets Resurrection, altered to have a bit of Phoenix flavour. Basically, slap Fire II on whoever you cast it on so it's potentially not a complete DPS loss.
Black Mage gets Reanimate, they get someone back up, but that person has the Walking Dead status effect and needs to be cleansed appropriately, still great for a clutch "Get the Healer up for LB3" moment.
Blue Mage gets Reraise off Kuribu at Lv60.

Really wish this game had more "These skills do the same thing, but in different ways and with different costs/benefits that are fitting to the Job using them", but oh well... I'll keep popping Rampart on Dark Knight I guess, even though Shadowskin still exists somewhere and looked far far better...