
Originally Posted by
Yoli
Two things. First, regarding tiers, second, regarding actual fluff.
First, were tiered spells that eventually got rendered useless really a problem in the context of a game where you spend a decent amount of time at the level bracket where it's useful? And, as I pointed to with cure, at least some important tiered spells didn't loose their function simply because more powerful versions came along. I guess, ideally, I'd half agree with you and say that things like protect/shell/fire should have been placed on a single spell that increases in power system, while anything that could benefit from allowing more user thought/input should remain on a tiered system (cure, curaga... I'm sorry for mostly coming up with whm examples. It's just that that and drg was all I really ever did). It's probably not too hard to set up a system like that, and it would make sense. But they obviously slacked in other areas of coding, so it isn't really surprising they just used a single tiered system rather than a mix.
Even if it got redone, I think there's at least /some/ merit to having a single way spells work in your game, rather than having a two-in-one system. And if you're only going to take one approach, I like the tiered one that allows user input on things where it matters, even if a few spells get rendered useless at 75 (or 65, or 55) in the process. I like that more than going the other way, and eliminating the sort of choices you got from having multiple versions of certain spells around. I mean, what's the drawback? If you're using a macro, there's no difference to you at all. If you're typing in a spell, the only difference is that you have to do /ma "fire IV" <t> instead of /ma "fire" <t>. Again, that's basically the same thing. If you're scrolling through the menu to select your spell then there's a difference.... but did people really do that frequently? I can only speak to myself, but I know I rarely did. Plus, as has been pointed out, going in this direction allows for a greater amount of increasingly shiny animations.
Second, as far as actual "fluff" spells like holy that never had any real function (other than possibly pulling, and adding a momentary sense of progression for unlocking them)... I have no problem with them being included, as long as they're not spammed. I was completely serious in my earlier post when I said I liked holy despite it's being pretty useless throughout the game. Everyone had some sort of junk abilities/spells anyways. I remember a good deal of terrible ninja weapon skills that didn't get used, but looked kind of neat, for a dd example. Is a game really better if it's streamlined and doesn't have these abilities? In terms of playing, if you just wanted to min/max your damage output, you'd use the same skills whether the poor one's were included or not. So what's the downside to including them other than tying up a tiny bit of extra memory? If you're going to ignore it either way, no one becomes unhappy by its inclusion. And if playing with it makes 1 person happy, then why not?
Only alternative I can see is to have a perfectly balanced game where you replace those skills with skills that are equally useful to the best in all situations, or at least in selective situations. The first approach kind of kills the player's sense of progression: it's odd to be using your level 1 WS at 75 and seeing the same return as if you had used your newly unlocked WS from your relic weapon. I'd argue that that's horrible design, actually. The second approach might work if it was well designed... I think they'd have trouble making a perfectly designed game where everything has it's place as "the best for X". There's a lot of reasons for that... in XI at least, many players frequently ended up simply avoiding areas X/Y/Z where the monsters used tougher attacks. I feel they'd still avoid those areas regardless of whether their blade: ei worked as well as blade: jin or not.