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

[Rubiss]

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?

[Ultima]

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 understood at a glance which spell was higher tier when we had the Cure/Cura/Curaga system and I'd rather use that because that's what I grew up with and it caused an interesting shift in naming. The difference between 1/2/3 and Cure/Cura/Curaga is minimal because nobody reads their tooltips anyway and nobody wants to play the game properly to begin with.

Cure 3 is a meme skill that is only used in that scenario where you can get everyone clustered together, but on an individual cast it is weaker than Cure 2. You'd have an argument if Cure 3 healed more if it only had a single target, but someone will see "Cure 3" and think that it's better to use this over Cure 1 or Cure 2. They'd be wrong, but there's no reason to use Cure 1 in 99% of scenarios because you have the mana to spare for Cure 2. If Cure 2 is outright superior to Cure 1 and costs twice as much mana as Cure 1. Then you give them Cure 3 and, oh... this isn't superior to Cure 2 and it doesn't cost twice as much mana.

Medica 2 is not more potency IMMEDIATELY, Medica 2 is weaker but has a HoT that will heal for more total potency at the end.

I like that DQ magic system because it gives personality to the game.

By the way, the Cure/Cura/Curaga naming scheme exists in pretty much every other language's version of XIV, just not NA because they think we're stupid. The very lore that started this thread, I think in Japanese says they switched from numbers to the spell suffix system.

[Vstarstruck]

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?

Cure III and cure II are not based on the same spell at all. Cure III is a TINY, rarely used aoe spell, while cure II is a stronger heal on one target, they should not be in the same naming line because cure III is NOT an upgrade to cure II, its a completely different spell.

I agree with changing the naming. It is not necessary per say but at the same time the current naming structure makes no sense. Also changing the name of cure III can prevent the few new people here and there that fall for that "noob trap" It does happen, do not deny it never does.