Renaming Abilities?

Would anyone be interested in being able to rename your class features. Like, I'm not a fan of how spells are named Fire 1/2/3/4 and would rather use names like Fira/Firaga/Firaja and so forth. Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragonexx

Would anyone be interested in being able to rename your class features. Like, I'm not a fan of how spells are named Fire 1/2/3/4 and would rather use names like Fira/Firaga/Firaja and so forth. Thoughts?

---

Proceedings of the Council of Magi
Proceedings of the 284th Convocation of the Amdapori Council of Magi
A Vote was called to settle on a Name for a potent and newly fashioned Healing-Spell. Being that said Healing-Spell was an Augmentation of Curaga, erst the most potent Healing-Spell, the following Names were proposed by the Council.

Curago, Curaza, Curaja, Curagura

Finding the afore-written Names duly lacking in Gravity and the existing Hierarchy of Spell-Names needlessly abstruse, the Council did Vote by a margin of Seventeen to Three to do away with existing Naming-Conventions entirely and adopt a new system of numerical Spell-Names, as writ below, to be used henceforth.

Cure I, Cure II, Cure III, Cure IV

It is recorded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dragonexx

Would anyone be interested in being able to rename your class features. Like, I'm not a fan of how spells are named Fire 1/2/3/4 and would rather use names like Fira/Firaga/Firaja and so forth. Thoughts?

---

Not really interested in renaming my own abilities but you can make macros with no tooltip (not advised but hey). I wouldn't be opposed to this feature either, though.

THAT. SAID....

Fire/Blizz 1-4 need to use the a/ara/aga/aja system. The numbering makes it sound like each spell is an upgrade of the one before it, which isn't the case.

I am really baffled about the Fire I-IV stuff. German client uses the -ra/-ga/-ka System the usual main titles use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HeulGDarian

Finding the afore-written Names duly lacking in Gravity and the existing Hierarchy of Spell-Names needlessly abstruse, the Council did Vote by a margin of Seventeen to Three to do away with existing Naming-Conventions entirely and adopt a new system of numerical Spell-Names, as writ below, to be used henceforth.

---

Addendum: The Council has been made aware that Gravity is already in use as a spell-name and will vote on changing the above wording in the next session.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RicaRuin

I am really baffled about the Fire I-IV stuff. German client uses the -ra/-ga/-ka System the usual main titles use.

---

The version of the story I heard was it was localized to I-IV to be "less confusing" which is kinda funny, considering it usually leads to MORE confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayuhra

The version of the story I heard was it was localized to I-IV to be "less confusing" which is kinda funny, considering it usually leads to MORE confusion.

---

English always has the worst localisation team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayuhra

The version of the story I heard was it was localized to I-IV to be "less confusing" which is kinda funny, considering it usually leads to MORE confusion.

---

FFXI had it bang on with spell naming for those cases.

Single target spells: Fire, Fire II, Fire III, etc
AoE spells: Firaga, Firaga II, Firaga III

Simple. Easy to understand.

Yeah I never really agreed with the changes to spell naming conventions they done for English localisation. From what I understand the game mostly follows traditional naming conventions (Cure/Cura/Curaga) and their localised equivalents.

The numbers system just makes it seem like the spells are all direct upgrades. Even though Cure III is weaker than Cure II, Fire II is weaker than Fire I, Fire IV is stronger than Flare (on single target at least). Miasma I is a standard single target casted DoT, Miasma II is (was lol) an instant/cast AoE DoT for weaving

If you ask me it’s easier to think of how the spells work properly with the traditional naming. It’s just makes more sense when ‘Fire’ is the stronger single target and ‘Fira’ is the AoE but weaker on single target. Or Curaga being AoE but Cura being single. I wouldn’t expect Cure III to be weaker than Cure II outside of aoes, since the numbers just make it sounds like Cure III would be a stronger version of Cure / Cure II.

Not that I think they’d change the naming conventions now. Its been this way for so long that i think it’d have the opposite effect of making things clearer if they changed it now lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayuhra

Not really interested in renaming my own abilities but you can make macros with no tooltip (not advised but hey). I wouldn't be opposed to this feature either, though.

THAT. SAID....

Fire/Blizz 1-4 need to use the a/ara/aga/aja system. The numbering makes it sound like each spell is an upgrade of the one before it, which isn't the case.

---

That wouldn't be any less confusing considering if you play any of the Final Fantasies that use that naming system,

Fira is a strict upgrade to Fire, Firaga an upgrade to that, so just as the 1, 2, 3 system isn't intuitive, neither is that one. Also I'm pretty sure there's a lore tidbit in the game, though it's been years since I'd have seen it, where they said the citizens of Eorzea rejected that naming convention as being too unintuitive. So that means two things, the possibility for a non-Eorzean casting job using those names, but also a reason for the numeration of the spells as opposed to nonsensical names.