Welcome to the Shining Force Central Forums!
SFC Forums Index Shining Forums Shining Force III SFIII Translation Project
Register for your free forum account now or Login to remove this advert.

David's Class Options

Updated 6/11*

A place for those working on the Shining Force III Translation Patch.

Re: David's Class Options

Postby knight0fdragon » Fri Apr 26 2019 3:16am

legalize freedom wrote:Commandant seems like a weaker version of Commander and Marshall seems more like an option for starting class and a weaker version of Warden. Same strengths and weaknesses. I also have come to see the weaknesses of Chieftain being too much. Not sure if it is strong enough to remain an option.

What about Guardian as a starting class option? He starts out as a guardian of Stump, Hedva, Gracia and Elbesem. He is promoted long before Gracia splits (when it would become odd). It fits both leadership and battle skills. A weakness if taken literal or fantasy-wise would be that he doesn't have that great of a defense, but I see the description more as a duty or role than a physical trait.


.... what world are you living in..... that is exactly the opposite of what you just said.


Marshalls are equal rank or sometimes even greater than generals, And Commandants are equal to or greater than Commanders lol. This list is one of the few that actually combines peacetime titles with war time titles, making it decent for David since everybody here is having a hard time distinguishing the two.

Guardian sounds like a person who has high defense.
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Rune » Fri Apr 26 2019 7:24am

Yeah, Marshal is like as high as it gets.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7431
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Fri Apr 26 2019 12:36pm

I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. A repeat of my previous quick research reveals the same results.
Speaking strictly in US terms, Marshal can describe a position at virtually any level of society. Local, federal, military, civilian law enforcement, parade... (in fact, parades get GRAND Marshals :D )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal

Marshall with two L's is a name.

Commandant is similar in that it can be used in many settings, but is described as someone in charge of a military academy. Strictly speaking of the US marine corps, it would be the highest rank, but that is a narrow view of the overall word. Commandant the rank globally is a mid-level military or police rank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant_of_the_Marine_Corps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant_(rank)


Commander is also used generically like the others, but is in line with David's situation. He commands an armed forces unit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander

So what am I missing?


My extended thoughts on Guardian: It would seem to be more flexible than I initially considered. I think it could work in his first or final class. Many of the final classes are "holy". Apostle, Paladin, Holy Dragon, etc. and Guardian has a bit of that and it works thematically as a lead up to the final battle. It wouldn't work in the second class because of what is happening in game. This could solve our Striker problem.

Elven Ranger/Warden
Commander
Guardian

Guardian
Commander
General

Thoughts?
Last edited by legalize freedom on Fri Apr 26 2019 12:41pm, edited 2 times in total.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby DiegoMM » Fri Apr 26 2019 12:37pm

trivia: in brazilian portuguese, the offical translation of Lord of the Rings translates Ranger as "Guardião", that of course means Guardian.
We dont have a good word for ranger that dont sound like a scoutboy.
Speaking...tires me.
Fighting...tires me
I'm tired.
Speaking...tires me.
Fighting...tires me
I'm tired.
DiegoMM

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 510
Joined: Wed May 05 2010 2:48pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby knight0fdragon » Fri Apr 26 2019 3:48pm

legalize freedom wrote:I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. A repeat of my previous quick research reveals the same results.
Speaking strictly in US terms, Marshal can describe a position at virtually any level of society. Local, federal, military, civilian law enforcement, parade... (in fact, parades get GRAND Marshals :D )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal

Marshall with two L's is a name.

Commandant is similar in that it can be used in many settings, but is described as someone in charge of a military academy. Strictly speaking of the US marine corps, it would be the highest rank, but that is a narrow view of the overall word. Commandant the rank globally is a mid-level military or police rank.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant_of_the_Marine_Corps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commandant_(rank)


Commander is also used generically like the others, but is in line with David's situation. He commands an armed forces unit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander

So what am I missing?


.... the fact you said the titles are weaker, when even your lists show they aren’t? This is a military game, so it makes sense that the military definitions take priority. A ranger is also used to classify a chef, but I would never ask Justin to make me dinner.

We already have a “Commander” title used for another purpose. Changing that title is the same reason why we are changing Ranger. If we are going to keep Commander, we need to keep General, and use whatever the first promotion name is across the board to stay consistent. This is why I offered Commandant, it is an alternative to Commander, it is a promotion seen after Warden in every definition of the word, and it kind of shows the team he takes to the tank, a band of military in training and monsters that needs a good leader to control the situation.
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Rune » Fri Apr 26 2019 6:31pm

legalize freedom wrote:I want to make sure we are talking about the same thing. A repeat of my previous quick research reveals the same results.
Speaking strictly in US terms, Marshal can describe a position at virtually any level of society. Local, federal, military, civilian law enforcement, parade... (in fact, parades get GRAND Marshals :D )
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal


Consider your counterexample. The grand marshal of a parade is the very top guy at the parade.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7431
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Fri Apr 26 2019 6:31pm

knight0fdragon wrote:.... the fact you said the titles are weaker, when even your lists show they aren’t? This is a military game, so it makes sense that the military definitions take priority. A ranger is also used to classify a chef, but I would never ask Justin to make me dinner.

We already have a “Commander” title used for another purpose. Changing that title is the same reason why we are changing Ranger. If we are going to keep Commander, we need to keep General, and use whatever the first promotion name is across the board to stay consistent. This is why I offered Commandant, it is an alternative to Commander, it is a promotion seen after Warden in every definition of the word, and it kind of shows the team he takes to the tank, a band of military in training and monsters that needs a good leader to control the situation.


I'm not sure what lists you're referring to (I don't have those two class names on the list for the reasons stated above), but I agree we can use any sense of the word that's appropriate. They are all titles with multiple meanings that can be used generically or specifically.

I'm not concerned with re-using Commander for David. I think that would be fine. Using with the General line would be the familiar progression, excepting starting class. If the other line were chosen in conjunction with something other than Commando as the final class, I still think it's reasonable that he would earn a title of Commander on his way to something more personal than General. David is going to be unique in one way or another.


Rune wrote:Consider your counterexample. The grand marshal of a parade is the very top guy at the parade.


But where does that leave the regular Marshal? :)
Last edited by legalize freedom on Fri Apr 26 2019 6:38pm, edited 2 times in total.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Rune » Fri Apr 26 2019 6:34pm

legalize freedom wrote:
Rune wrote:Consider your counterexample. The grand marshal of a parade is the very top guy at the parade.


But where does that leave the regular Marshal? :)


It leaves the regular Marshal being the top, or near top, guy wherever he is.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7431
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Fri Apr 26 2019 7:25pm

knightOfdragon wrote:Marshalls are equal rank or sometimes even greater than generals, And Commandants are equal to or greater than Commanders lol. This list is one of the few that actually combines peacetime titles with war time titles, making it decent for David since everybody here is having a hard time distinguishing the two.

Rune wrote:Yeah, Marshal is like as high as it gets.

Right. This is accurate. This is why I said that I don't think that Marshal quite fits the bill for David, as he's not actually the highest ranking, even if he is near the top. However, because he is near the top, I see it as a fair enough compromise. Plus, it sounds cool, and it also sounds like a thematically appropriate progression from Warden.

knightOfdragon wrote:Guardian sounds like a person who has high defense.

Here we go again with the bias. Being unbiased about it, I don't think that guardian sounds like someone who necessarily has to have high defense. It just sounds like someone who guards and defends something. He guards and defends Stump Village, while also watching over Medion's forces. It's equally as accurate as Warden.

legalize freedom wrote:but that is a narrow view of the overall word.

So what? You're allowed to use a word narrowly. If you weren't, then words wouldn't have narrow meanings among their potential interpretations.

legalize freedom wrote:My extended thoughts on Guardian: It would seem to be more flexible than I initially considered. I think it could work in his first or final class. Many of the final classes are "holy". Apostle, Paladin, Holy Dragon, etc. and Guardian has a bit of that and it works thematically as a lead up to the final battle. It wouldn't work in the second class because of what is happening in game. This could solve our Striker problem.

I agree. I also really rather like the idea of Guardian. It also solves the problem of General being not strictly cannon. And it works as a first or final class in the progression. I think this is one of the better suggestions made so far.

knightOfdragon wrote:This is a military game, so it makes sense that the military definitions take priority. A ranger is also used to classify a chef, but I would never ask Justin to make me dinner.

A very sensible argument. Military definitions should take priority when the context in which it's being used is clearly a military context. That just stands to reason.

knightOfdragon wrote:If we are going to keep Commander, we need to keep General, and use whatever the first promotion name is across the board to stay consistent.

If it wasn't for Irene, I would agree with you. But Irene sets the precedent that inconsistency in this regard isn't strictly "against the rules", so to speak. Hera and Khan have a class line of Monk>Master Monk>Saint, but Irene has an inconsistent class progression of Monk>Master Monk>High Monk (or "Fist Master" (xD), depending on which translation you're going with). However, to play devil's advocate with myself, one could very rightly make the argument that they do have the same first AND second class, and not just the same second class. So perhaps this point doesn't really hold up. We might not need to keep General, but we would need to keep whatever the first class is, I suppose. But then... there are no first class Commanders are there? They all start at class 2, I believe, yes? So... I don't know. However, that said, if we DO want to be consistent about it (which, frankly, I'm all for), then Commandant is a decent way of keeping it separate from Commander.

Maybe this is just me, but I like the idea of emphasizing his role as a defender (in the lore, not in his stats, which is perfectly fine--not everyone's class is determined by their stats; some of them are determined by their lore, like Isabella, and that's okay). Both "Warden" and "Guardian" (my two favourite suggestions thus far) have connotations of defending something. Maybe we can come up with another class title that's in line with that? That is, if the rest of you also feel it's a fitting idea. A quick thesaurus search for "guardian" brings up several possibilities: attendant, champion (I know this one is on Penn already, and some people have some unreasonable biases against this one, but nevertheless), conservator, custodian (I imagine several people in here are likely to have biases against this one too, erroneously thinking that it only means janitor), defender, overseer, sentinel. Personally, I like those last two.

Warden > Sentinel > Guardian
or
Warden > Overseer > Guardian (<- this one probably works best out of these suggestions)
or
Guardian > Overseer > Sentinel

^ These could work pretty well, I think. They completely avoid the problem of compromising cannon (General), they completely avoid the problem of class inconsistency (Commander and Ranger), they completely avoid the problem of ambiguity (Striker), they completely avoid the problem of speculative/debatable cannon (Chieftain and Hunter), and they completely avoid the problem of "close, but not quite" (Marshal)... Well, okay, maybe "Sentinel" is still somewhat falling into that last category. But "Overseer" seems very appropriate for the events of late-game Scenario 2. And all four of these suggestions (Warden, Overseer, Sentinel, and Guardian) fully apply to his social role in his home of Stump Village, where they will likely still apply upon his return after the events of the game(s).
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Tor_Heyerdal

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Class Options

Postby knight0fdragon » Fri Apr 26 2019 7:57pm

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote:Guardian sounds like a person who has high defense.

Here we go again with the bias. Being unbiased about it, I don't think that guardian sounds like someone who necessarily has to have high defense. It just sounds like someone who guards and defends something. He guards and defends Stump Village, while also watching over Medion's forces. It's equally as accurate as Warden.


.... seriously? You want to design the 16 bit version of the game, and you do not understand game mechanics? If you have a character whose job is to defend or guard...... you give them a high defense.


@legalizefreedom

How much work would it be for us to get a list of all the classes and any English counter parts that are available with them (basically already assuming all 3rd promotions are japanese only)
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Fri Apr 26 2019 9:18pm

knightOfdragon wrote:.... seriously? You want to design the 16 bit version of the game, and you do not understand game mechanics? If you have a character whose job is to defend or guard...... you give them a high defense.

It's not a question of game mechanics, it's a question of semantics and lore. Not everyone's class is determined by their stats; some of them are determined by their lore, like Isabella, and that's okay. Other such examples could include Cyclops, Rollie, or Thousand, or even characters from other SF games like Bleu, Zynk, or Kiwi. Nothing about the stats of any of these characters (among others) is dictated by their class label. Many characters are classed for their lore qualities rather than their mechanics or stat qualities.

And you know full well that Guardian is not being proposed for the reason that his job (ie, combat role) is supposedly to defend or guard during in-game battle on the part of the player. This is a disingenuous strawman, because nobody's proposing that. The proposition is being made because guardianship is his central duty in his life as a person and as a character; as the warden of Stump Village and co-commander/sub-commander of Medion's army. Both for his people back at home as well as Medion's forces. Just because he's not a tank during in-game combat doesn't mean that he doesn't have protective duties as a character in the bigger picture of the story.

And semantically speaking, even if a scrawny boy armed with nothing other than a stick in his hand and a pot on his head decides to take it upon himself to guard his village against potential threats, he's a guardian, regardless of his defensive capabilities, or lack thereof. Maybe not the best guardian his village could hope for and hopefully not its only guardian, but a guardian nonetheless.

You're essentially saying "Guardian can't work because this particular context that it's not actually being used in doesn't apply." If you won't be satisfied until we come up with something that works in every single possible context that the chosen word can possibly be used in, even when we're only using the chosen word with the intent of a single, specific context, then we're gonna' be here a long time, because language just doesn't work like that. There's no such thing as universally applicable context. We have to choose a context to use any given choice in, and it can't possibly incorporate all other potential contexts, and we have to trust the players to not be so stupid that they can't figure that out.

However, all of that said, I can at least compromise with the admission that "Guardian" might work better as a first class than as a third class for the reason which you're objecting.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Tor_Heyerdal

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Class Options

Postby knight0fdragon » Fri Apr 26 2019 10:22pm

You have it backwards, Stats are determined by class, not the other way around. "Class" has more meaning to what a player can do, as opposed to what the story dictates (but it does play a tiny role to keep things simple for players,) which is why it is important in game mechanics. Isabella is your stereotypical pricess, and her stats reflect that way, same goes for all of the races classes you mentioned. "Class" really has absolutely nothing to do with the actual story in shining force. Promotions do not change the story, I do not even know if they change NPC text. The importance of class is mostly for deciding how to lay out your army. That is why I keep reiterating we should not be focussing on the story element when it comes to David's class. We need a word that can help use sort of identify what David really is in battle, which is why I made the comment that if I was going to play a Guardian, I would assume the Guardian would be a character with a high defence. Same as if I was playing a Ranger, I would expect somebody who can attack at a distance, and not somebody who can cook up a meal for the battalion.

Basically, we should be able to use "class" to play our battles without any story, ala a board game or DND, that is how I have always seen how we should be treating it.
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Rune » Fri Apr 26 2019 10:59pm

knight0fdragon wrote:You have it backwards, Stats are determined by class, not the other way around.


This is false. Look at the stat growth charts from Shining Force 2. Stats are done at a character level, with some correlation by class. In particular, I bet that if we went through all of the examples, we could find cases where the average stat of a character 1 from class A is higher than that of a character 2 from class B and average stat of character 3 from class A is lower than that of character 4 from class B.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7431
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Fri Apr 26 2019 11:27pm

knightOfdragon wrote:You have it backwards, Stats are determined by class, not the other way around.

Again, another strawman, because I never claimed that class is determined by stats (ie, "the other way around"). I never said that class was strictly determined by anything. I said that SOME characters have classes that reflect their lore, while other characters have classes that reflect their stats. I said that not all characters' classes are determined by their stats. This, of course, implies that not all characters' stats are determined by their class. And no, stats are not always determined by class. There is nothing about "Dragonman", for example, that determines very much of anything regarding how much stats Cyclops should have. There is nothing about "Tortoise" that suggests anything about what stats kiwi should have except for defense. There is nothing about "Robot" that suggests anything about what stats Zynk should have. So you're just flat-out wrong when you say that stats are determined by class. It's fair enough to say that stats are OFTEN determined by class, but as a blanket statement, this doesn't hold up.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Class" has more meaning to what a player can do, as opposed to what the story dictates (but it does play a tiny role to keep things simple for players).

Sometimes, yes. But not universally. "Princess" has zero meaning regarding what the player can do with Isabella. "Dragonman" has almost zero meaning regarding what the player can do with Cyclops. "Robot" has zero meaning regarding what the player can do with Zynk.

knightOfdragon wrote:Isabella is your stereotypical pricess, and her stats reflect that way, same goes for all of the races classes you mentioned.

In what way? How much agility is dictated by Robot? How much luck is dictated by Dragonman? How much Attack is dictated by Unicorn? How much MP is dictated by Princess? None. Robots can be fast or slow. Dragonmen can (in theory) be lucky or unlucky. Unicorns can (in theory) be aggressive and strong or docile and meek. Princesses don't even necessarily have to have magic at all, let alone any amount of MP. Their stats are not determined by their classes, their stats are determined by their characters.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Class" really has absolutely nothing to do with the actual story in shining force.

Again, not universally, no. It's true that it usually doesn't. But that doesn't mean it never does. You would honestly stand there and tell me with a straight face that Isabella being princess of the Empire has NOTHING to do with the story? That is literally a plot/setting/lore/story element. By even having anything to do with the Empire at all, it has to do with the story.

However, this is yet another strawman as you're taking the argument I made and replacing it with a weaker one. I didn't actually say that classes have to do with "the story of Shining Force", I said that SOME classes have more to do with THEIR LORE. As in the lore for that respective character. Isabella is, of course, the most obvious example of this, as her central lore point is that she's the Princess of the Empire. If classes never had anything to do with the lore whatsoever, and instead had everything to do with in-game combat capacity, they would've called her a Priest/Cleric because that's the capacity she serves in combat in-game.

knightOfdragon wrote:Promotions do not change the story, I do not even know if they change NPC text.

Never said, suggested, or implied that they did.

knightOfdragon wrote:The importance of class is mostly for deciding how to lay out your army.

That's AN importance of class. But there are many classes, such as the ones I've named above (Princess, Dragonman, Robot, Monster, etc.) that do not say jack squat about their combat potential in and of themselves. You just have to use those characters to get to know how they operate and figure out through experience how they're going to fit into your army or not. Sometimes, a character just doesn't fit nicely into a broadly familiar archetype. Although as far as combat potential goes, David fits closest into the Commander/General archetype. So if your only metric is combat potential, then you really ought to be arguing in favour of that. But up until now, you've been quite adamantly against it, so you're now arguing against your own position that you've maintained up until this point. And I mean, if you've changed your mind about Commandant and have come to the conclusion that shoehorning him into the closest predefined archetype is what's best, then that's fair enough, I suppose.

knightOfdragon wrote:That is why I keep reiterating we should not be focussing on the story element when it comes to David's class.

The only "story element" that we're really putting focus on here is the tank battle. The rest of the focus behind title suggestions like Warden, Guardian, or even Commandant are focused on lore rather than story. But I'm beginning to get the idea that you're conflating these into the same concept. Which, alright, we can do that for the sake of simplicity, I suppose. I would reiterate that there are several classes that focus on "story" elements (although I do think "lore" is technically more accurate): Princess, Robot, Monster, Dragonman, or perhaps (keyword: perhaps) the best example of all: "Hero". It doesn't get much more "story element" than that. While "Hero" has established certain conventions regarding combat potential in the Shining Force franchise, they are entirely arbitrary, being based in practicality rather than any logic inherent to the semantic value of the word. There's nothing inherent to the label of "hero" that should determine any stats in and of itself.

knightOfdragon wrote:We need a word that can help use sort of identify what David really is in battle

That would only be true if there were no examples to the contrary to be found throughout the franchise or at least this particular line of the franchise. What does a Princess do in battle? Princesses don't participate in battles, so nothing. There is nothing inherent to the word "princess" that would help you to identify what Isabella does in battle. What does a Dragonman do in battle? Well, dragonmen don't exist, but presumably, they'd be able to do anything that a normal man can do in battle. That's so vague that he might as well not even HAVE a class label at all. There is nothing inherent to the word "dragonman" that would help you to identify what Cyclops does in battle. Now, if his class were "Dragon Whisperer" or something like that, then THAT would give you a pretty good idea as to what he does in battle. What does a Monster do in battle? Well, monsters don't exist, but presumably, they would eat your face and tear you to shreds at humanly impossible speeds. Yet, despite this, Kiwi has arguably (keyword: arguably) the lowest damage output in all of SF2. There is nothing inherent to the word "monster" that would help you identify what Kiwi does in battle. The fact that these counterexamples (and no doubt more) can be raised at all is indicative of the fact that not all class labels have to be direct tellings of what the characters labeled by those classes do in combat. "Princess" helps you identify Isabella's role in society (lore). "Dragonman" helps you identify Cyclops' race (lore). "Monster" helps you vaguely identify Kiwi's taxonomy (lore).

knightOfdragon wrote:which is why I made the comment that if I was going to play a Guardian, I would assume the Guardian would be a character with a high defence.

Yeah, and if I was going to play a Monster, I would "assume" that the Monster would have some insanely high attack stat. But guess what. Kiwi still has tremendously shoddy damage output despite my assumptions. But I'm a big boy and learned to accept the situation for what it is, and to accept that my assumptions don't actually have any real bearing on anything. And I'm sure that someone here could probably make a compelling argument for why my assumption that Kiwi (as a "Monster") should have a high attack stat is equally as subjective. You're essentially assuming that "Guardian" has to be used in ONE SPECIFIC CONTEXT that it's NOT being used in when there are OTHER perfectly valid contexts that it can also be used in instead. You're arguing that "context A" is wrong because we're not using "context B". And again, if you're going to declare that the usage of a word is wrong because there is some conceivable context other than the context in which it's being used that would make that usage wrong were we to be using that context, then you'll have to argue against basically everything, as almost every word in the English language has multiple contexts in which it can be used, and we can't use all of those contexts for any given choice all at once. I mean, by this logic, even "Magician" is wrong because one context of that word is someone without any magical powers who just does parlour tricks. So because that context would be wrong if it was the intended context, the context in which it's actually intended must be wrong.

knightOfdragon wrote:Same as if I was playing a Ranger, I would expect somebody who can attack at a distance, and not somebody who can cook up a meal for the battalion.

Yeah, because the chef connotation of the word "ranger" has zero relevance or contextual bearing on anything to do with Justin at all, be it combat potential or character lore. "Guardian", on the other hand, has very significant relevance and contextual bearing on David's character lore.

Rune wrote:This is false. Look at the stat growth charts from Shining Force 2. Stats are done at a character level, with some correlation by class. In particular, I bet that if we went through all of the examples, we could find cases where the average stat of a character 1 from class A is higher than that of a character 2 from class B and average stat of character 3 from class A is lower than that of character 4 from class B.

Right.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Creator of Shining Force III: 16-bit (WIP).
Tjelladallak våriiikeõdõtsyk jeissõ'eilamnikinõhõn. Ii'tuntoimjähädälläjät, niin miietsy iimpa'tyõhõnja.
Tor_Heyerdal

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Sat Apr 27 2019 1:49am

I don't know if or when I'll make it through all of that, but Sentinel is epic.

Guardian
Commander / whatever
Sentinel


All Classes
http://sf3transftp.shiningforcecentral.com/Translation%20Task%20Files/CharactersSc3.doc
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby knight0fdragon » Sat Apr 27 2019 4:37am

Rune wrote:
knight0fdragon wrote:You have it backwards, Stats are determined by class, not the other way around.


This is false. Look at the stat growth charts from Shining Force 2. Stats are done at a character level, with some correlation by class. In particular, I bet that if we went through all of the examples, we could find cases where the average stat of a character 1 from class A is higher than that of a character 2 from class B and average stat of character 3 from class A is lower than that of character 4 from class B.



We are not talking about stat growth, that is a different concept that has multiple factors to deal with.


Again, another strawman, because I never claimed that class is determined by stats (ie, "the other way around"). I never said that class was strictly determined by anything. I said that SOME characters have classes that reflect their lore, while other characters have classes that reflect their stats. I said that not all characters' classes are determined by their stats. This, of course, implies that not all characters' stats are determined by their class. And no, stats are not always determined by class. There is nothing about "Dragonman", for example, that determines very much of anything regarding how much stats Cyclops should have. There is nothing about "Tortoise" that suggests anything about what stats kiwi should have except for defense. There is nothing about "Robot" that suggests anything about what stats Zynk should have. So you're just flat-out wrong when you say that stats are determined by class. It's fair enough to say that stats are OFTEN determined by class, but as a blanket statement, this doesn't hold up.



You said "not everyones class is determined by their stats"... you have this backwards. Class is used as a determination for stats, it does not imply "not everybodies stats are determined by their class", because you can have everybodies class determine stats but not have stats determine class. Knights having a speed of 7 does not mean everybody with a speed of 7 is a Knight.

There are definetly things that a "Dragonman" determines. I would not expect a dragon man to grant wishes or be a clerical mage. We have a general understanding of what a "dragon" is as well as a "man", so the stats behind it would reflect around that. I would expect a dragonman to be resistent to fire, and have the stats be between a human and dragon. "Tortoise" tells us this is a "high defense character" like you just claimed. Even "Robot" has a unique stat. Robot A does not have high defense, and Robot B have low defense. This is a strategy game after all, so consistency is important.

Again, not universally, no. It's true that it usually doesn't. But that doesn't mean it never does. You would honestly stand there and tell me with a straight face that Isabella being princess of the Empire has NOTHING to do with the story? That is literally a plot/setting/lore/story element. By even having anything to do with the Empire at all, it has to do with the story.

However, this is yet another strawman as you're taking the argument I made and replacing it with a weaker one. I didn't actually say that classes have to do with "the story of Shining Force", I said that SOME classes have more to do with THEIR LORE. As in the lore for that respective character. Isabella is, of course, the most obvious example of this, as her central lore point is that she's the Princess of the Empire. If classes never had anything to do with the lore whatsoever, and instead had everything to do with in-game combat capacity, they would've called her a Priest/Cleric because that's the capacity she serves in combat in-game.



Please stop using "strawman", you are not using it in the correct way. A strawman argument is when you apply an invalid argument to make your case. Like "David is not a commander because the son of an elf in this village do not believe in commanders."

I am making the case that a characters class plays no role in the story/lore/whatever other synonym you want to throw in here so you stop confusing yourself.

This is a 1 directional argument I am making, Class ->"Lore" If we erased all characters classes from game memory, and turned this game into a story only type game, nobody would know "class" even exists, because "class" is never used in the game.


"Class" is used by us, the players only, as a quick way to associate what characters stats/abilities may be. It is a tool for us.

Lore plays a little bit on the class.

This is also a 1 directional argument

This goes to my argument as to why some Classes may attach their story/lore to the title. The healer class name is different in all 3 scenarios, because it may not make sense for a team like Julian's to have a devout religious figure since it is such a diverse band, so they decided to change the class to something more appealing. The class still falls into some kind of standard convention, like a "Princess" does not have the most powerful attack, because we as the player would not associate a "princess" in that way.

How much agility is dictated by Robot?
How much luck is dictated by Dragonman?
How much Attack is dictated by Unicorn?
How much MP is dictated by Princess? None. Robots can be fast or slow. Dragonmen can (in theory) be lucky or unlucky. Unicorns can (in theory) be aggressive and strong or docile and meek. Princesses don't even necessarily have to have magic at all, let alone any amount of MP. Their stats are not determined by their classes, their stats are determined by their characters.


These are all terrible arguments, because you are picking an individual stat and asking for a specific number.
"Agility" is not something we would make as a deciding factor when selecting a "Robot". The Robot class would make us have to look at the stats to determine what type of fighter he is because it is too generic.

A "Dragonman" does not tell us anything about luck, If he was called a "Luck Dragon", we would know that class is based on luck. But a dragonman would tell us we are expecting a man with the power of a dragon, so we are expecting a fighter.

The stereotypical "Princess" is the white virgin woman, so you would associate that with white magic

A "Guardian" tells us this character is designed to guard, and as such, we should expect the character to have a high defense.

Yeah, and if I was going to play a Monster, I would "assume" that the Monster would have some insanely high attack stat. But guess what. Kiwi still has tremendously shoddy damage output despite my assumptions. But I'm a big boy and learned to accept the situation for what it is, and to accept that my assumptions don't actually have any real bearing on anything. And I'm sure that someone here could probably make a compelling argument for why my assumption that Kiwi (as a "Monster") should have a high attack stat is equally as subjective. You're essentially assuming that "Guardian" has to be used in ONE SPECIFIC CONTEXT that it's NOT being used in when there are OTHER perfectly valid contexts that it can also be used in instead. You're arguing that "context A" is wrong because we're not using "context B". And again, if you're going to declare that the usage of a word is wrong because there is some conceivable context other than the context in which it's being used that would make that usage wrong were we to be using that context, then you'll have to argue against basically everything, as almost every word in the English language has multiple contexts in which it can be used, and we can't use all of those contexts for any given choice all at once. I mean, by this logic, even "Magician" is wrong because one context of that word is someone without any magical powers who just does parlour tricks. So because that context would be wrong if it was the intended context, the context in which it's actually intended must be wrong.


No, a "Monster" does not tell us it has high attack, nothing in the name of "Monster" says they are strong. Nothing in the definition says they are strong. This means we have to take it a step further to determine what they can do.
"Magician" tells us they use Magic by name. We do not need to go any deeper so it would be wrong to think that they are strong attackers
"Princess" tells us nothing by name, nothing by definition, so we need to further go down the ladder to determine what she can do. Oh shes your typical white virgin pricess, probably white magic.
"Guardian" tells us they Guard by name, so it would be wrong to think that they are designed for anything other than defence.
"Ranger" tells us they attack at a range by name, so it would be wrong for us to assumption.
"Knight" tells us nothing by name, so we take it by definition to see they mean a Calvary type character because the definition matches the characteristincs
"Battler" tells us they battle by name, so we would expect higher attack stats

"Commander" tells us they Command by name, so we would assume that they run an army (which is why I feel that Davids class should stay a variant of this, because it is what he does). Of course this runs into a problem with the 4 Commanders/Generals, because they do not command any armies, so I would argue that we would need to look further because this game does not allow additional commanding units outside of David. This is an exception class of course, because the Commanders are special exception units in this game. They still have a commanding presense on the battle field, and are not weak stated at all. On a personal level I always felt the class should be called Ex-Commander. The other issue with Scenario 3 is that it was rushed, so who knows what the classes for them could have been and why we are debating David all together. There is also my other argument that each character actually commands a bunch of units. But either way, nothing about "Commander" is counter intuitive to the character.










That's AN importance of class. But there are many classes, such as the ones I've named above (Princess, Dragonman, Robot, Monster, etc.) that do not say jack squat about their combat potential in and of themselves.


This is not true, see my reason above. "I do not know what this characters class tells me" is also an important factor when you are deciding your troops, because you aren't lead on false assumptions. If you need a person with a high defense, the "Guardian" class is going to throw you off because it is counter intuitive.


Yeah, because the chef connotation of the word "ranger" has zero relevance or contextual bearing on anything to do with Justin at all, be it combat potential or character lore. "Guardian", on the other hand, has very significant relevance and contextual bearing on David's character lore.


No it doesn't, because David is not the "Guardian" of Stump Village, he is the unofficial leader of it. He may protect it, he may "guard" it, but he is not the "Guardian" of it class wise, this is lore we are adding. As far as Stump villiage is concerned, he has no class. If he was the "Guardian", he would not leave it defenseless to go off with Medion's army. He would "pass" that title onto another elf, and "they" would be the guardian, or there would be no guardian to defend it. Either way, the title would not transfer to Medion's battalian lore wise.

But anyway, if you are speed runner, you wouldnt even know that David is the "Guardian" of stump village, so when the speed runner goes to use him, they will get thrown off by his class.
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Rune » Sun Apr 28 2019 10:45am

knight0fdragon wrote:Please stop using "strawman", you are not using it in the correct way. A strawman argument is when you apply an invalid argument to make your case. Like "David is not a commander because the son of an elf in this village do not believe in commanders."


???
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7431
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Sun Apr 28 2019 2:14pm

A couple of points about David being a Guardian.

Not speaking from the player's or devs perspective, but just in game lore...

David may not have high defense compared to a heavily armed fighter, but he most certainly has the highest defense in Stump village.

The focus of his guardianship shifts when he leaves. Stump is relatively safe whereas Gracia is the one who needs guarding now, so I think it works fine.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby knight0fdragon » Sun Apr 28 2019 3:57pm

Rune wrote:
knight0fdragon wrote:Please stop using "strawman", you are not using it in the correct way. A strawman argument is when you apply an invalid argument to make your case. Like "David is not a commander because the son of an elf in this village do not believe in commanders."


???



That was for Tor_Heyerdal


A couple of points about David being a Guardian.

Not speaking from the player's or devs perspective, but just in game lore...

David may not have high defense compared to a heavily armed fighter, but he most certainly has the highest defense in Stump village.

The focus of his guardianship shifts when he leaves. Stump is relatively safe whereas Gracia is the one who needs guarding now, so I think it works fine.


Except David is not the Guardian of Gracia, because David does not leave with Julian and Gracia in chapter 4.

I am going to double down that class plays no aspect in the lore, so lore should not be a strong deciding factor, and we should definitely not use a title that will end up being confusing unless you actually focus on the lore.
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1209
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Sun Apr 28 2019 4:25pm

knight0fdragon wrote:Except David is not the Guardian of Gracia, because David does not leave with Julian and Gracia in chapter 4.

I am going to double down that class plays no aspect in the lore, so lore should not be a strong deciding factor, and we should definitely not use a title that will end up being confusing unless you actually focus on the lore.


Right, but as I mentioned, David is long promoted by the time Gracia leaves. And in the case that second promotion is Commander, would establish his focus on the Medion army well before that happens.

Fair enough if you would choose not to consider the lore or story when deciding classes (even if you did in this case). But we clearly need to ensure the class name works with whatever is going on in the game. Some class names are generic and are decoupled from the storyline, some are not. I think Guardian is plenty generic as to not depend on the storyline.

The classes in SF, while giving the player some indication of who the character is or what they can do, are primarily flavor. No real bearing beyond sounding cool. Most everything is controlled per individual character and in the case of stats, some randomness.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1946
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

PreviousNext

Return to SFIII Translation Project

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest