[dev1206] The effects of Protect and Shell have been made mutually exclusive

[DrekeLamorte]

Why deviate now?

Those things of which he mentioned, and essentially all recurring names in a series are called paying homage. This ISN'T FF6, or 7, or any other game, it's 14. If they want to use something preexisting, neat. If they want to do things differently, GOOD! Better even. If you want to play reincarnations of games you already know, go play them.

[Rutelor]

I am trying to look at this objectively, and though I try, I fail to understand where's the "wrong" aspect of it. I have to say from my very first FF game, the fact that you had to spend doubly for spells very few people chose to cast independently seemed somehow bizarre. It only seemed to artificially increase the feeling of complexity, whereas the reality was you needed to cast one gratuitous spell more.

Usually, these spells get combined in a macro and are cast sequentially. Only some players are selective, depending on the foes being fought and cast one or the other. On either of these cases, how is the situation changing by the streamlining decision here? This is one case in which I would say the change seems like better design.

R

[Lucifer]

Those things of which he mentioned, and essentially all recurring names in a series are called paying homage. This ISN'T FF6, or 7, or any other game, it's 14. If they want to use something preexisting, neat. If they want to do things differently, GOOD! Better even. If you want to play reincarnations of games you already know, go play them.

Please make a good point otherwise; stop trying to argue with me. You're clearly angry.

[Atoli]

Sadly, no it wasn't mistranslated. It says the exact same thing in Japanese.
The effects of Protect and Shell will not be effective at the same time... you know the rest.

[dev1206] The effect of "Shell" is added to the magic of "Protect" by a passive trait.

That's what it says in my language, and seriously, that's the only thing making any sense at all, because otherwise, how would you be using Protect at all after R24? After all, the overwriting is from a passive trait, so Protect would ALWAYS become Shell.
I think it's just formulated badly, and what actually is meant is that the original Protect effect, which only increased physical def will be overwritten with the new effect which increases both physical and magical def.

[Firon]

That's what it says in my language, and seriously, that's the only thing making any sense at all, because otherwise, how would you be using Protect at all after R24? After all, the overwriting is from a passive trait, so Protect would ALWAYS become Shell.
I think it's just formulated badly, and what actually is meant is that the original Protect effect, which only increased physical def will be overwritten with the new effect which increases both physical and magical def.

That makes the most sense to me

[Geesus]

I am trying to look at this objectively, and though I try, I fail to understand where's the "wrong" aspect of it. I have to say from my very first FF game, the fact that you had to spend doubly for spells very few people chose to cast independently seemed somehow bizarre. It only seemed to artificially increase the feeling of complexity, whereas the reality was you needed to cast one gratuitous spell more.

Usually, these spells get combined in a macro and are cast sequentially. Only some players are selective, depending on the foes being fought and cast one or the other. On either of these cases, how is the situation changing by the streamlining decision here? This is one case in which I would say the change seems like better design.

R

The "problem" is this "simplification" actually is becoming a limitation. For the examples you gave above, some people, myself is one liked knowing ok, I'm battling mage only mobs currently or their strengths were spells so Pro wasn't needed. It's an option. Usually you ADD things to a game that are missing not combine and remove them.

Yes, having them combined removes the extra action to a bar or macro in a macro set and no, not all of us used the spell in a macro, once you learned how to use the Con job correctly it wasn't needed that is.

Regardless, if Shell is no longer available, then the patch note shouldn't mention it cause it caused me this morning to go "wtf?" O.o If they are combined fine, w/e, but again, shouldn't mention shell. If it's to be used as someone else pointed out for let's say another mage class or as a Whm only spell, then SAY SOMETHING FFS!

That is the fault of SE currently. The "suspense" or "excitement" of waiting for new things is great EXCEPT, when you leave out the F*&KING DETAILS in the release notes a$$hats!

[KingZeus]

Might as well just name it Barrier...

[TheRac25]

chalk up another fail to se translators gogogo
most of their fail goes un-noticed

[Spellbinder]

That's what it says in my language, and seriously, that's the only thing making any sense at all, because otherwise, how would you be using Protect at all after R24? After all, the overwriting is from a passive trait, so Protect would ALWAYS become Shell.
I think it's just formulated badly, and what actually is meant is that the original Protect effect, which only increased physical def will be overwritten with the new effect which increases both physical and magical def.

That may be what it says in your language, but I'm telling you what it says in Japanese, the original language. Perhaps it's a Japanese typo then.

[Xeonerable]

Most people are used to... Protect= enhanced physical defense, shell= enhanced magic defense..

I agree they should rename the spell so it sorta accommodates both. I agree "Barrier" would work.. or heck
call it "Protective Shell" lol... combines both names into one.