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 Rune » Sun Apr 28 2019 6:02pm

knight0fdragon wrote:
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


The ??? was because you are completely wrong about what the definition of straw man argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I think this topic has thoroughly established that we all suck when it comes to words.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7410
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby knight0fdragon » Sun Apr 28 2019 6:32pm

Promotions play no major pivotal part of the story (with the exception of Gracia and all that jazz with being able to promote, but the underlying class still has no role.)

No, I never said lore has no deciding factor for class, I said it can’t be a major factor. David’s Commander title has nothing to do with the story, it has to do with him commanding an army to take on a tank, not sending a band of people to open a dam

Classes are not just for flavor, they have a purpose. It is a tool to help you decide what type of abilities your character has. If it was just meant to sound “cool”, then they would have used more unique sounding names.
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby knight0fdragon » Sun Apr 28 2019 7:23pm

Rune wrote:
The ??? was because you are completely wrong about what the definition of straw man argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I think this topic has thoroughly established that we all suck when it comes to words.


... how is that wrong? You apply an invalid argument (aka the straw man) to make the person attack the new argument (aka the straw man). In my example we would end up arguing about the son of an elf not believe in commanders.


My argument is currently about what does “Class” mean and how does it apply in the game, so that we can properly give David a class. The accused strawman arguments do not deflect from trying to define it.
-- ANTI ELDAR APPRECIATION SOCIETY --

SF3 Tran. Project:
People helping:
Aho,Belegdol,???,Aspartate,Ark666,Dr.Doom,CyberWarriorX,StoneTheRock,an.donor,legalize freedom

Myspace page for DS work
Knight0fDragonDS
-- ANTI ELDAR APPRECIATION SOCIETY --

SF3 Tran. Project:
People helping:
Aho,Belegdol,???,Aspartate,Ark666,Dr.Doom,CyberWarriorX,StoneTheRock,an.donor,legalize freedom

Myspace page for DS work
Knight0fDragonDS
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Sun Apr 28 2019 8:19pm

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

Don't be ridiculous. Of course we are. If growth had nothing to do with what we're talking about, you would have specified exactly what level of character we're talking about. And if you wanted to double back and retroactively say we're talking about max level, well then that's simply the ultimate product of stat growth doing its thing. Unless you define a specific level along the way that we're talking about, frozen in isolation, then you can't separate stat growth from stat lines. Hell, the argument could even be made that unless you're talking about strictly level 1, then stat growth will always be inseparable from stat lines because the stat line of any given character at any given level is going to be a direct result of their stat growth. Stat growth is what makes the stat line of any given character or branch of characters what they are.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Speed is not the only stat. I never said "not everyone's class is determined by a stat." Making the statement "This character is X class because they have A attack, B defense, C agility, D luck, E movement, F dodge rate, G crit rate, and H resists" (where each of those variables can be a range, of course) is the same thing as saying "this character has A attack, B defense, C agility, D luck, E movement, F dodge rate, G crit rate, and H resists because they are X class." If you strawman my argument by changing it to a single stat, then yeah. You'd have a point. But that wasn't my argument. No, of course not everyone with a speed of 7 is a Knight. But everyone with a speed of 7, pretty good attack, excellent defense, decent but not incredible agility, 5 luck, 7 movement, average dodge rate, average crit rate, and mostly underwhelming magic resistances is PROBABLY a Knight. Some classes are pretty decently determined by stats, and some stats are pretty decently determined by class. It's the same thing when you consider the entire collection of stats instead of just cherrypicking one stat.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Granting wishes or being a clerical mage are not stats. Dragons do not have a universally generalizable stat line to the best of my knowledge. Men certainly don't. Fire resistance is a stat, of course, but your assumption doesn't actually hold up, and "Dragonman" tells you nothing as Cyclops does not have exceptional fire resist. Only 5% before and after promotion. That is tied for his highest resist, but that's pretty abysmal for a class 3 character. Most promoted characters have at least one resistance that's at least 10. His fire resist is nothing to write home about. Yes, Tortoise suggests a high defense, but it does not suggest anything else. There is no inherent attack range implied by "Tortoise." There is no inherent agility range implied by "Tortoise". There is no inherent luck range implied by "Tortoise". There is no inherent movement range implied by "Tortoise". We can assume that Tortoise will have the same dodge rate as every other non-flying character, but that's only due to the mechanics of Shining Force giving all non-flying characters the same dodge rate, and has nothing to do with any implication inherent to "Tortoise". There is no inherent crit range implied by "Tortoise". There are no inherent magic resist values inherent to "Tortoise". Again, you can't just cherry pick one stat and then declare "Oh, look, stats are determined by class."

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Robot does not have a "unique" stat. There is no stat that Robot gets which no other classes get. All of the stats are universal across every character and enemy in the game. Everyone gets attack, everyone gets defense, everyone gets agility, everyone gets luck, everyone gets movement, everyone gets dodge and crit, and everyone gets magic attack and magic defense. There is no stat that is unique to Robot.

However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that perhaps you actually meant to say "even Robot has a unique stat LINE." First of all, yes, some classes do have general stat tendencies (like Knight, as discussed above). But even then, they're not universal. Zynk has a medium to high HP. high attack. and medium to high defense. Adam, on the other hand, has a medium to high HP. medium Attack. and medium Defense. So yeah, actually, Zynk (Robot A) has higher defense than Adam (Robot B). Secondly, and more importantly, This is another strawman because the argument you're trying to refute is not an argument that I made. I never said that the Robot class in Shining Force doesn't have general stat tendencies. I said that there's nothing inherent about the word "robot" that would dictate what any of the stats must be for a robot character, in and of itself. Yes, the developers made their arbitrary decisions about what those stat generalizations would be, and they do exist. But that does not mean that the label of "Robot" dictated them in any way. There is no reason why a robot (note the small R) should have high or low defense. Some robots are very tough, while other robots are extremely easy to damage. Some robots are extremely lethal, other robots couldn't hurt anyone even if it somehow wanted to. Some robots are alarmingly fast, while other robots literally aren't even mobile. In-game, the nature of each individual Robot's character and circumstances surrounding their lore ("is this robot built to be able to fight?", for example, which of course, they both are, or "what kind of materials are they made from?", or "how easy are they to dismantle?") will set the course for their individual stat lines. The answers to many such lore-related questions pertaining to those characters may even be vague and nebulous, but nevertheless, the fact remains that the label of "robot" being used for their class name does not INHERENTLY IMPLY a single thing about what those characters' stat lines should be, IN AND OF ITSELF.

knightOfdragon 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."

Yes, I am using it in a correct way. And no, a strawman is not quite applying an invalid argument to make your case. That's almost right, though. A strawman is when person A presents an argument against person B that seeks to refute a point that person B never actually made. In a strawman, the presented argument is invalid specifically because it's not addressing the argument it's supposed to be refuting. It's removing the original argument and replacing it with an invented one (ie, a straw man) which is weaker than the original argument it's replacing (ie, a STRAW man), which seeks to remove the strength of your target's argument, making it far easier to refute than the argument they actually presented. This is the opposite of a steelman which replaces the original argument with a stronger one in order to give the target of your refutation the strongest position they could possibly have.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

No, you're not. Or, at the very least, that's not the case that you've actually presented (more on that two paragraphs down). Maybe it's the case that you meant to present, but it's not what's actually come off your fingertips. I would agree with this argument. I never claimed that character classes play a role in the story/lore/whatever, and I would agree that they don't. So again, you're arguing against a strawman.

What I've been saying is that the lore (though not so much the story) has some degree of influence on class labels, not that class labels play a role in the story. Again, I refer back to Isabella. Her lore as being the princess of the Empire has an influence on her class label being Princess. Her class label being Princess doesn't play a role in the story, the lore plays a role in her class label. Or with the protagonist "Hero" class. The lore of these characters being heroes (note the small H) has an influence on their class label. This class label does not play a role in the story, but this lore plays a role in the class label.

The argument that you've actually presented is that there is always something inherent about the words themselves that are chosen for class labels that automatically imply what any given character's stat line should look like. And as this is the argument you've actually presented, this is the argument that I seek to refute. Although not entirely, because in many cases, your argument is certainly correct. Sometimes, a class label can, indeed, inherently imply what some or even most of a given character's stat line should look like. Like with Knight, for example (with the understanding that Knights in SF are always centaurs. Otherwise, it would inherently imply nothing about their agility unless we knew they were still otherwise mounted).

knightOfdragon wrote:This is a 1 directional argument I am making, Class ->"Lore"

I'm terribly sorry, but I don't know how "Class ->"Lore"" is intended to be read. "Class to lore"? "Lore from class"? "Class and then lore"? I don't really know what this means. I'm going to once more give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that this doesn't mean "class to lore", because that would mean you're arguing against your own point, because that would mean that class does play a role in the lore, which I don't imagine you're trying to say. But given that, I have no idea what this means.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Right. Exactly. In other words, class labels don't necessarily inherently dictate things like stat lines in and of themselves because they're determined more by lore than they are by things like in-game combat potential. "Class" is never used in the game. In other words, you COULD have a Robot with higher defense than another Robot. Or you COULD have a Mage with lower agility than another mage. Or you COULD have a Knight that doesn't have 0 MP. Or you COULD have a Monster with low damage output. Or you COULD have a centaur with low agility. And, in fact, literally all of those things are manifest throughout the series. And you COULD have a Guardian who doesn't have exceptional defense. And on that note, I think I should point out that David's defense isn't actually all that low. In fact, his defense is actually pretty decent. His defense is fairly comparable to Knights, actually. I mean like, a quick look in my Save Editor, and I'm seeing Campbell, level 17, class 2: Defense 47. Dantares, level 15, class 2: Defense 41. David, level 17, class 2: Defense 49 (with no unfair defense boosting items). So even if a Guardian class DOES somehow HAVE to have high defense, which is the entire premise of this argument, it is moot because David DOES actually have high defense.

knightOfdragon wrote:"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.

Yeah, but we don't KNOW just from the class label (at least not necessarily) what the stat line of a character is going to look like or how that character will perform in battle. We can make ASSUMPTIONS based on class label, but we can't KNOW until we actually investigate their stats and use them in battle, as evidenced by your incorrect assumptions regarding Cyclops above. Yes, high fire resist is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make for a so-called Dragonman, but the assumption was still wrong. The Dragonman label DID NOT actually dictate a high fire resist. Should it have? I don't think it's unfair to say it should have. But nevertheless, it didn't. His class is "Dragonman" because he is, in fact, a dragon man (note the small D and two words). That is lore. Story is what HAPPENS in a fictional world, but lore is what IS in a fictional world, and Cyclops IS a dragon man. You might also assume a character labeled with "Dragonman" to have exceptional agility. But guess what? His agility stat kind of blows. But you might even disagree and might NOT assume a Dragonman to have high agility. The assumptions we make about the implications of a class label are subjective. And that's okay. There's nothing inherently wrong with such subjective assumptions. So I'm not knocking that. But to try to pass off those subjective assumptions as somehow being objective--to suggest that all class labels necessarily have objective implications regarding what a stat line should look like--or suggesting that the game treats them as universally objective, is ridiculous.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Well, not all three. They're the same in Scenarios 1 and 2, but that's not important. Your point here is absolutely correct. In other words, as you just admitted, lore is the more important factor when it comes to class labels.

knightOfdragon wrote:The class still falls into some kind of standard convention...

It certainly does. I never said that it doesn't. There are arbitrary conventions established within the game environment. This is true. What's not true is the claim that those conventions are somehow inherently determined by the class label, as I'll further elaborate in the next quote response below.

knightOfdragon wrote:... like a "Princess" does not have the most powerful attack, because we as the player would not associate a "princess" in that way.

We, as the player, would also not associate a "princess" with healing magic. Not inherently, anyway. Some of us might make that assumption, but there is nothing inherent about the "princess" label that just screams out or inherently dictates, "Oh. She must have priest spells." There is a convention, but it's not an objective or inherent one.

knightOfdragon wrote:These are all terrible arguments, because you are picking an individual stat and asking for a specific number.

Actually, I'm taking an individual stat and asking for a VAGUE number, like "high," "low", "exceptional", "average", or other such things. And I'm doing so because that's the standard that you've established in your argument. YOU'RE the one who's making the argument that class titles have INHERENT AND OBJECTIVE implications that dictate what ANY character's stats must look like. If this were true, then you would be perfectly capable of answering any of these questions. I'm treating your argument by its own standards. And, of course, in the cases where this IS true, we can answer the questions quote comfortably. How much defense is dictated by Knight? A lot. How much attack is dictated by Swordsman? At least good, but possibly up to exceptional. How much attack is dictated by Mage? Exceptionally low. But the reason you can't answer the questions I presented in your quote is because those questions are exemplifying the fact that class labels DO NOT ALWAYS have inherent implications that must necessarily dictate stat values IN AND OF THEMSELVES.

knightOfdragon wrote:"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.

EEEEEEEEEEEXACTLY! Thank you for proving my point. Class labels, do not, in fact, necessarily determine what stats must look like in and of themselves; you cannot always know what stats will look like from the word(s) that constitute(s) their class label.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Exactly. Thank you for furthering my point. This is exactly what my question was drawing attention to as evidence that class labels do not always have inherent implications about stat lines.

knightOfdragon wrote:But a dragonman would tell us we are expecting a man with the power of a dragon, so we are expecting a fighter.

Maybe YOU'RE expecting a fighter. But again, that's just your subject assumption. There's nothing objectively inherent in the word "dragonman" that must entail "fighter". It also doesn't inherently imply "the power of a dragon". In fact, I would (and this is my own subjective assumption here) NOT expect a dragonman to have the power of a dragon, because he's limited by being a man. I might expect him to have a power greater than that of a typical man, but not reaching the point of a full-on dragon. And regarding the "fighter" assumption, one could be equally likely to expect a fighter, a rogue, a monk, a wizard, or even a priest from that label. And even if one's assumption in that regard happens to be correct, it's not going to be because that assumption was somehow inherent to the word "dragonman". If it were, then there would only be room for ONE assumption.

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

If you choose to associate it with magic AT ALL, which is another personal and subjective assumption. And even if you DO choose to associate it with magic, there's nothing inherent about the word "princess" that dictates that it can't be an evil princess who practices black magic. But the point is that it's not inherent. You cannot just take the word "princess" and then just be like, "oh, well, princess MUST mean that she casts holy magic" unless princesses casting holy magic was just somehow normal and an inseparable part of the definition of the word "princess". But if you look across all the princesses from history and from fantasy combined, I'm preeeeetty darn sure that the vast majority of them will not cast magic AT ALL, let alone holy magic. And of the ones that DO cast magic, they won't all be utilizing holy magic. Some of them will be utilizing dark magic, or perhaps even some sort of nature magic. And probably others, too. And if you look up the word "princess" in any dictionary, it's absolutely and definitely not going to say "holy magic user" anywhere. And EVEN if we limit our contextual usage of the word "princess" to the Shining Force franchise (which is a perfectly fair thing to do), Princess Anri is a mage, and Princess Ellis does not cast any magic AT ALL. The only way that the label of "Princess" can INHERENTLY imply "holy magic user" is if it were normal and expected according to either the dictionary definition of the word, or AT LEAST the lore of the fictional universe in which it is being used. Neither of which holds up.

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

No it doesn't, and no we shouldn't. It tells us that the character INTENDS to guard or has the OBLIGATION OR DUTY of guarding. But it doesn't tell us that they're good at their job, or that they're exceptional at it. Poco from Arc the Lad, for instance, even says himself that he's a shitty member of the Drummer Corps, but he's still a drummer. And again, we should expect that a Monster will have high attack, or at least I would personally expect a Monster to have high attack, but we don't see that either. When you're young, your mother is your guardian. Does she have high defense? And I know you're going to say that this is a different context, but that just helps to further my point. Words have multiple different potential contexts that they can be used in. Just because a word is being used in a context other than the context that you would like it to be used in doesn't make it wrong. But none of that even matters, because David does have high defense!

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

AHAH! YOU'VE ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD! :0 You just forfeited your entire argument and agreed with me. There is nothing inherent about the word Monster that dictates that it must necessarily have high attack. I would personally ASSUME that a character with that label would have a high attack, which is completely subjective (and I actually even admitted in the very body of text that you quoted that that was just my personal assumption), but you're absolutely right. There is nothing inherent to that word that suggests that it somehow must. So we have to take it a step further to determine what they can do. Like investigating their stats and using them in battle yourself to find out what they can do. You can't just KNOW from the automatic implications of the label, which runs completely contrary to your argument. This shows me that you don't care about what's true, you just want to win the argument. Because you just threw away the integrity of your own argument and took up my argument which you supposedly don't even believe just to discredit me when it suited you.

knightOfdragon wrote:"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

I never said that we should think that they are strong attackers. Again, another strawman. Quite the contrary. This is one of the examples where a class name DOES make some implications about stats, where a low attack stat is inherently implied, and an example to the contrary would be the exception to the rule. And no. You're the one who said that class names tell you inherently what a character's stat line will look like, so we DO have to go deeper in order to verify the truth (or lack thereof) of that claim. And when we do that, we find that your claim doesn't hold up. "Magician" makes SOME implications about their stat line, but not the whole thing. And unless we can extrapolate their entire stat line from their class label, then class labels do not dictate stats. They might dictate SOME stats SOME of the time. But even then, there's room for exceptions in basically all cases. "Magician" makes an implication about low attack, and it makes an implication of at least the existence of MP, and it makes an implication of low defense, but it makes no inherent implication about agility (although the SF franchise does have the arbitrary established convention of Mages having pretty good agility, that is not inherent to the word), and it makes no implications about crit, specific magic attacks (although it does imply that least some magic attacks will be at least good), or magic resists. So your claim that class labels inherently dictate stat lines does not hold up.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Princess" tells us nothing by name, nothing by definition, so we need to further go down the ladder to determine what she can do.

EXACTLY! Case closed. Why do I even need to respond at all when you're just arguing against yourself for me? lol

knightOfdragon wrote:Oh shes your typical white virgin pricess, probably white magic.

Yeah. "PROBABLY." As in, not inherent to the word. And even then, it's an assumption that she would cast magic at all. Assumptions are not inherent.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Guardian" tells us they Guard by name, so it would be wrong to think that they are designed for anything other than defence.

Poppycock. There's no reason why a character labelled as "Guardian" should be unable to produce decent damage output. And it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that they guard in combat (which is what I have to assume that you mean, otherwise you wouldn't be saying anything about defense as a stat, because stats only pertain to combat). OTHER CONTEXTS FOR THAT WORD EXIST AND ARE A THING. He could be guarding something outside of combat too, in a context that has nothing to do with his stats. Isabella doesn't "princess" in combat. If the class label had to define how they fight in battle, then the Princess class label would not be a thing because the Princess-labelled character does not engage in a single princess-related activity during combat. Neither would Robot be a thing, or Golem, or Birdman, or Beastman, or Hero, or Unicorn, or doubtless several others. Hell, even Gladiator wouldn't be a thing. Unlike Champion, which you tried to suggest requires some kind of arena to be applicable, Gladiator actually requires some kind of arena to be applicable. But nobody cares. We just accept it for what it is and move on.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Ranger" tells us they attack at a range by name, so it would be wrong for us to assumption.

First of all, that is not a sentence. Secondly, attacking by range is not a stat line. It IS something that they do in combat (which is something you mentioned before), so you have a point there. But the fact that there are SOME class labels that make inherent implications about what they do in combat does not negate the fact that there other classes that don't. And as long as there's even a SINGLE class that doesn't, that means that it's not against the rules of the franchise for a class name to not inherently say anything about what a character does in combat or anything about their stat line.

knightOfdragon wrote:"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

Bull. Knight tells us high defense above anything else. Knight tells us at least decent attack. But I've already gone over this earlier in this post.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Battler" tells us they battle by name, so we would expect higher attack stats

Yeah. But again, just because there are some classes that make some implications about stats doesn't mean that ALL classes make implications about stats, and it doesn't mean that they make implications about the entire stat line, and it doesn't mean that they necessarily make implications about what they do in battle. Especially when there are BLATANT EXAMPLES of classes that don't make inherent implications about stats (entire stat line or otherwise), and don't make inherent implications about what they do in combat.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Commander" tells us they Command by name, so we would assume that they run an army

But this is both lore and story. I thought that lore and story didn't play a role in class titles, according to you. Here you are discarding your own argument when it suits you again. I mean, he certainly doesn't fight in this capacity during in-game combat. Never at any point do you use any kind of skills or such with David that tells the rest of the army what to do. So this has NOTHING to do with in-game battle, which you seem to insist is an absolute requirement.

knightOfdragon wrote:(which is why I feel that Davids class should stay a variant of this, because it is what he does).

That's fair enough. I can totally understand wanting to maintain a class label due to lore reasons. Perfectly reasonable. Though kind of strange when you've been arguing against both the existence and the merit of lore-based classes this whole time.

Also, my "Overseer" suggestion is a variant of this. It also solves your perceived wacky problem two quotes below this paragraph.

knightOfdragon wrote:Of course this runs into a problem with the 4 Commanders/Generals, because they do not command any armies,

As far as I'm aware, they do, in fact, command armies. They're just different armies. That is a little odd, I suppose, but again, we just accept that for what it is and move on.

knightOfdragon wrote:so I would argue that we would need to look further because this game does not allow additional commanding units outside of David.

Wat?

knightOfdragon wrote:This is an exception class of course, because the Commanders are special exception units in this game.

Not saying you're wrong, but aside from their unique weapon variants, what exactly do you mean?

knightOfdragon wrote:On a personal level I always felt the class should be called Ex-Commander.

Why? Also, that would be really lame. lol.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

I absolutely and completely agree.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Only if you have a complete and total pragmatics fail and can't put into consideration that the word is being used in a different context. It's not our fault if somebody totally sucks at pragmatics and refuses to accept that words can be used in different contexts than the context they would like them to be used in. And besides, David DOES have a high defense.

knightOfdragon wrote:David is not the "Guardian" of Stump Village

knightofDragon wrote:He may protect it, he may "guard" it, but he is not the "Guardian" of it class wise

Wat? "He may flip burgers at McDonald's, but he's nto a McDonald's burger flipper." Uhhh.... Well, okay then. I didn't realize we'd actually taken a hard left into Crazy Town.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

You know that being a guardian doesn't mean you have to have a title, right? You can be a guardian of something without having any sort of title whatsoever to stick in your ear, let alone pass on to someone. Again, even a scrawny boy with a stick in his hand and a pot on his head (or even without a pot on his head or any kind of armour whatsoever) who decides to guard his village, in any capacity, for any length of time, is a guardian. He doesn't need to be told to do it. It doesn't have to be his occupation. He doesn't need a title. He's still a guardian. Just because David isn't their official, decorated guardian with some sort of honoured title doesn't mean that he isn't a guardian of Stump Village. It's not like a political title like "Chieftain" where you need the actual title in order to be that thing. Maybe he's not THE guardian of Stump Village, I can give you that. But he's undeniably A guardian of it. And when he inevitably returns to Stump Village after the events of the game, you can bet your bottom asshole that he will be resuming those duties, and in a far more experienced capacity. It's not like the people of Stump Village are gonna' be all like "Smeg you, David. Johnny's our guardian now. There's only room for ONE guardian 'round these parts."

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Who cares?

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

Everyone in Medion's army is a guardian of Gracia. When you're part of an army (especially a medieval army), you're the guardian of whatever the hell you're told you're the guardian of. lol

knightOfdragon wrote:I am going to double down that class plays no aspect in the lore, so lore should not be a strong deciding factor

Class plays no aspect in the lore, so the lore shouldn't play an aspect in class? That's ridiculous. And extra ridiculous when considering that there are already many examples of the lore playing an aspect in class.

knightOfdragon wrote:and we should definitely not use a title that will end up being confusing unless you actually focus on the lore.

"Unless you actually focus on the lore." Right. Exactly. Just like the game itself does, and just like the game expects the player to do.

legalize freedom wrote:Fair enough if you would choose not to consider the lore or story when deciding classes. 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.

^ This. Exactly.

legalize freedom wrote: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.

^ This also. Exactly. Well said. Very succinct. I know I'm not very succinct. lol. I take a bajillion words to get my point across. It always impresses me when someone can make such a good point in so few words.

knightOfdragon wrote:No, I never said lore has no deciding factor for class, I said it can’t be a major factor. David’s Commander title has nothing to do with the story, it has to do with him commanding an army to take on a tank, not sending a band of people to open a dam

Why can't it be a major factor? It's a major factor for several other characters. Also, commanding an army to take on a tank EXPLICITLY pertains to the story. lol.

knightOfdragon wrote:Classes are not just for flavor, they have a purpose. It is a tool to help you decide what type of abilities your character has. If it was just meant to sound “cool”, then they would have used more unique sounding names.

He said "primarily" flavour. He did not say "just" for flavour.

knightOfdragon wrote:... how is that wrong? You apply an invalid argument (aka the straw man) to make the person attack the new argument (aka the straw man). In my example we would end up arguing about the son of an elf not believe in commanders.

Firstly, no. You don't apply an invalid argument to make the person attack the new argument. You apply an invalid argument (ie, a strawman) to the OTHER PERSON and then YOU attack that argument that you just applied to the other person. You don't make the other person attack your strawman. You attack the strawman yourself, having applied it to the other person by treating it as though it's the argument that they made when, in fact, they did not. You're talking about a red herring, not a strawman.
Last edited by Tor_Heyerdal on Sun Apr 28 2019 8:33pm, edited 7 times in total.
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: 352
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Rune » Sun Apr 28 2019 8:23pm

knight0fdragon wrote:
Rune wrote:
The ??? was because you are completely wrong about what the definition of straw man argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I think this topic has thoroughly established that we all suck when it comes to words.


... how is that wrong? You apply an invalid argument (aka the straw man) to make the person attack the new argument (aka the straw man). In my example we would end up arguing about the son of an elf not believe in commanders.


That's simply not the definition of a straw man argument, I don't know what else to tell you. You can read the definition and examples yourself. Whether you insist on misusing the term or not is up to you.

Now, I am not claiming you were using a straw man argument, but I am saying Tor correctly (whether justly or not) used the term and you have not.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7410
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Sun Apr 28 2019 8:31pm

I'm going to remention this because I edited this point into my previous post while you were posting that, Rune. You say "I don't know what else to tell you", but what else there is to be told is that knightOfdragon is confusing a strawman with a red herring.
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: 352
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Rune » Sun Apr 28 2019 8:38pm

I once overheard a fight where a husband told his wife he wouldn't be her red herring. I'm still not sure what he meant by that.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7410
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby knight0fdragon » Sun Apr 28 2019 11:50pm

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

Don't be ridiculous. Of course we are. If growth had nothing to do with what we're talking about, you would have specified exactly what level of character we're talking about. And if you wanted to double back and retroactively say we're talking about max level, well then that's simply the ultimate product of stat growth doing its thing. Unless you define a specific level along the way that we're talking about, frozen in isolation, then you can't separate stat growth from stat lines. Hell, the argument could even be made that unless you're talking about strictly level 1, then stat growth will always be inseparable from stat lines because the stat line of any given character at any given level is going to be a direct result of their stat growth. Stat growth is what makes the stat line of any given character or branch of characters what they are.


No, growth is something different, and no I would not, because at no point have I ever discussed specifics in numbers. You can have a character who had high agility not have it high anymore because you had terrible RNG every level up (Garosh bug anyone lol) Same goes with a tank character being pumped with stat boosters to give them high agility.

We are only talking about expectation of stats based on class, that is it.



Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Speed is not the only stat. I never said "not everyone's class is determined by a stat." Making the statement "This character is X class because they have A attack, B defense, C agility, D luck, E movement, F dodge rate, G crit rate, and H resists" (where each of those variables can be a range, of course) is the same thing as saying "this character has A attack, B defense, C agility, D luck, E movement, F dodge rate, G crit rate, and H resists because they are X class." If you strawman my argument by changing it to a single stat, then yeah. You'd have a point. But that wasn't my argument. No, of course not everyone with a speed of 7 is a Knight. But everyone with a speed of 7, pretty good attack, excellent defense, decent but not incredible agility, 5 luck, 7 movement, average dodge rate, average crit rate, and mostly underwhelming magic resistances is PROBABLY a Knight. Some classes are pretty decently determined by stats, and some stats are pretty decently determined by class. It's the same thing when you consider the entire collection of stats instead of just cherrypicking one stat.


This is called an example, I am already wasting my time having to over explain myself with every little detail because you constantly are adding more then what is being said.

Again, Stop using “strawman”. That is not what a strawman is, you referring to it as a strawman is the strawman, because I have to attack how wrong it is.. You are the one who said it was inferred, I was simply explaining why your statement can’t be implied and hownit was 1 direction.

You really need to understand game mechanics. We are not going to remember the stats of 60 characters, but we will remember Knights have high speed, Monks can heal, Archers can shoot at a range etc.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:Granting wishes or being a clerical mage are not stats. Dragons do not have a universally generalizable stat line to the best of my knowledge. Men certainly don't. Fire resistance is a stat, of course, but your assumption doesn't actually hold up, and "Dragonman" tells you nothing as Cyclops does not have exceptional fire resist. Only 5% before and after promotion. That is tied for his highest resist, but that's pretty abysmal for a class 3 character. Most promoted characters have at least one resistance that's at least 10. His fire resist is nothing to write home about. Yes, Tortoise suggests a high defense, but it does not suggest anything else. There is no inherent attack range implied by "Tortoise." There is no inherent agility range implied by "Tortoise". There is no inherent luck range implied by "Tortoise". There is no inherent movement range implied by "Tortoise". We can assume that Tortoise will have the same dodge rate as every other non-flying character, but that's only due to the mechanics of Shining Force giving all non-flying characters the same dodge rate, and has nothing to do with any implication inherent to "Tortoise". There is no inherent crit range implied by "Tortoise". There are no inherent magic resist values inherent to "Tortoise". Again, you can't just cherry pick one stat and then declare "Oh, look, stats are determined by class."


DFG you need to let go with this obsessive need of very fine detail and being so articulate. Unlike you, I hate having to write a damn essay every time we talk, so I am not going to say “stats and abilities” every time it is needed. Yes there are generalizations we can make about man and dragon, not sure what world you are living in. I also said we expect a fire resistance, not a high fire resistance, stop trying to add words. Also at no point did I say class determines all stats, stop trying to over analyze shit. I am not cherry picking, you are just being damn anal retentive about it. The “tortoise” is a high defense character, the title suggests that is his purpose. I would expect him to have high def and low agility, everything else I would have to expand on. If I need a punching bag in my army, I instantly know a tortoise can be a punching bag.



Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Robot does not have a "unique" stat. There is no stat that Robot gets which no other classes get. All of the stats are universal across every character and enemy in the game. Everyone gets attack, everyone gets defense, everyone gets agility, everyone gets luck, everyone gets movement, everyone gets dodge and crit, and everyone gets magic attack and magic defense. There is no stat that is unique to Robot.

However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that perhaps you actually meant to say "even Robot has a unique stat LINE." First of all, yes, some classes do have general stat tendencies (like Knight, as discussed above). But even then, they're not universal. Zynk has a medium to high HP. high attack. and medium to high defense. Adam, on the other hand, has a medium to high HP. medium Attack. and medium Defense. So yeah, actually, Zynk (Robot A) has higher defense than Adam (Robot B). Secondly, and more importantly, This is another strawman because the argument you're trying to refute is not an argument that I made. I never said that the Robot class in Shining Force doesn't have general stat tendencies. I said that there's nothing inherent about the word "robot" that would dictate what any of the stats must be for a robot character, in and of itself. Yes, the developers made their arbitrary decisions about what those stat generalizations would be, and they do exist. But that does not mean that the label of "Robot" dictated them in any way. There is no reason why a robot (note the small R) should have high or low defense. Some robots are very tough, while other robots are extremely easy to damage. Some robots are extremely lethal, other robots couldn't hurt anyone even if it somehow wanted to. Some robots are alarmingly fast, while other robots literally aren't even mobile. In-game, the nature of each individual Robot's character and circumstances surrounding their lore ("is this robot built to be able to fight?", for example, which of course, they both are, or "what kind of materials are they made from?", or "how easy are they to dismantle?") will set the course for their individual stat lines. The answers to many such lore-related questions pertaining to those characters may even be vague and nebulous, but nevertheless, the fact remains that the label of "robot" being used for their class name does not INHERENTLY IMPLY a single thing about what those characters' stat lines should be, IN AND OF ITSELF.


Tor_Heyerdal wrote:
knightOfdragon 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."

Yes, I am using it in a correct way. And no, a strawman is not quite applying an invalid argument to make your case. That's almost right, though. A strawman is when person A presents an argument against person B that seeks to refute a point that person B never actually made. In a strawman, the presented argument is invalid specifically because it's not addressing the argument it's supposed to be refuting. It's removing the original argument and replacing it with an invented one (ie, a straw man) which is weaker than the original argument it's replacing (ie, a STRAW man), which seeks to remove the strength of your target's argument, making it far easier to refute than the argument they actually presented. This is the opposite of a steelman which replaces the original argument with a stronger one in order to give the target of your refutation the strongest position they could possibly have.


No you are not using it in a correct way because I am not changing the damn argument, you simply are not understanding the argument because you keep on inferring and implying things that are not in my text, and I constantly have to clarify. Just like the definition of straw man. Yes, you apply/add/present/ whatever synonym you want here the invalid argument/argument never made/whatever other synonym you want to add here to make your case/refute the case/ whatever synonym you want to add here.




Tor_Heyerdal wrote:

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

No, you're not. Or, at the very least, that's not the case that you've actually presented (more on that two paragraphs down). Maybe it's the case that you meant to present, but it's not what's actually come off your fingertips. I would agree with this argument. I never claimed that character classes play a role in the story/lore/whatever, and I would agree that they don't. So again, you're arguing against a strawman.

What I've been saying is that the lore (though not so much the story) has some degree of influence on class labels, not that class labels play a role in the story. Again, I refer back to Isabella. Her lore as being the princess of the Empire has an influence on her class label being Princess. Her class label being Princess doesn't play a role in the story, the lore plays a role in her class label. Or with the protagonist "Hero" class. The lore of these characters being heroes (note the small H) has an influence on their class label. This class label does not play a role in the story, but this lore plays a role in the class label.

The argument that you've actually presented is that there is always something inherent about the words themselves that are chosen for class labels that automatically imply what any given character's stat line should look like. And as this is the argument you've actually presented, this is the argument that I seek to refute. Although not entirely, because in many cases, your argument is certainly correct. Sometimes, a class label can, indeed, inherently imply what some or even most of a given character's stat line should look like. Like with Knight, for example (with the understanding that Knights in SF are always centaurs. Otherwise, it would inherently imply nothing about their agility unless we knew they were still otherwise mounted).

knightOfdragon wrote:This is a 1 directional argument I am making, Class ->"Lore"

I'm terribly sorry, but I don't know how "Class ->"Lore"" is intended to be read. "Class to lore"? "Lore from class"? "Class and then lore"? I don't really know what this means. I'm going to once more give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that this doesn't mean "class to lore", because that would mean you're arguing against your own point, because that would mean that class does play a role in the lore, which I don't imagine you're trying to say. But given that, I have no idea what this means.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Right. Exactly. In other words, class labels don't necessarily inherently dictate things like stat lines in and of themselves because they're determined more by lore than they are by things like in-game combat potential. "Class" is never used in the game. In other words, you COULD have a Robot with higher defense than another Robot. Or you COULD have a Mage with lower agility than another mage. Or you COULD have a Knight that doesn't have 0 MP. Or you COULD have a Monster with low damage output. Or you COULD have a centaur with low agility. And, in fact, literally all of those things are manifest throughout the series. And you COULD have a Guardian who doesn't have exceptional defense. And on that note, I think I should point out that David's defense isn't actually all that low. In fact, his defense is actually pretty decent. His defense is fairly comparable to Knights, actually. I mean like, a quick look in my Save Editor, and I'm seeing Campbell, level 17, class 2: Defense 47. Dantares, level 15, class 2: Defense 41. David, level 17, class 2: Defense 49 (with no unfair defense boosting items). So even if a Guardian class DOES somehow HAVE to have high defense, which is the entire premise of this argument, it is moot because David DOES actually have high defense.

knightOfdragon wrote:"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.

Yeah, but we don't KNOW just from the class label (at least not necessarily) what the stat line of a character is going to look like or how that character will perform in battle. We can make ASSUMPTIONS based on class label, but we can't KNOW until we actually investigate their stats and use them in battle, as evidenced by your incorrect assumptions regarding Cyclops above. Yes, high fire resist is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make for a so-called Dragonman, but the assumption was still wrong. The Dragonman label DID NOT actually dictate a high fire resist. Should it have? I don't think it's unfair to say it should have. But nevertheless, it didn't. His class is "Dragonman" because he is, in fact, a dragon man (note the small D and two words). That is lore. Story is what HAPPENS in a fictional world, but lore is what IS in a fictional world, and Cyclops IS a dragon man. You might also assume a character labeled with "Dragonman" to have exceptional agility. But guess what? His agility stat kind of blows. But you might even disagree and might NOT assume a Dragonman to have high agility. The assumptions we make about the implications of a class label are subjective. And that's okay. There's nothing inherently wrong with such subjective assumptions. So I'm not knocking that. But to try to pass off those subjective assumptions as somehow being objective--to suggest that all class labels necessarily have objective implications regarding what a stat line should look like--or suggesting that the game treats them as universally objective, is ridiculous.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Well, not all three. They're the same in Scenarios 1 and 2, but that's not important. Your point here is absolutely correct. In other words, as you just admitted, lore is the more important factor when it comes to class labels.

knightOfdragon wrote:The class still falls into some kind of standard convention...

It certainly does. I never said that it doesn't. There are arbitrary conventions established within the game environment. This is true. What's not true is the claim that those conventions are somehow inherently determined by the class label, as I'll further elaborate in the next quote response below.

knightOfdragon wrote:... like a "Princess" does not have the most powerful attack, because we as the player would not associate a "princess" in that way.

We, as the player, would also not associate a "princess" with healing magic. Not inherently, anyway. Some of us might make that assumption, but there is nothing inherent about the "princess" label that just screams out or inherently dictates, "Oh. She must have priest spells." There is a convention, but it's not an objective or inherent one.

knightOfdragon wrote:These are all terrible arguments, because you are picking an individual stat and asking for a specific number.

Actually, I'm taking an individual stat and asking for a VAGUE number, like "high," "low", "exceptional", "average", or other such things. And I'm doing so because that's the standard that you've established in your argument. YOU'RE the one who's making the argument that class titles have INHERENT AND OBJECTIVE implications that dictate what ANY character's stats must look like. If this were true, then you would be perfectly capable of answering any of these questions. I'm treating your argument by its own standards. And, of course, in the cases where this IS true, we can answer the questions quote comfortably. How much defense is dictated by Knight? A lot. How much attack is dictated by Swordsman? At least good, but possibly up to exceptional. How much attack is dictated by Mage? Exceptionally low. But the reason you can't answer the questions I presented in your quote is because those questions are exemplifying the fact that class labels DO NOT ALWAYS have inherent implications that must necessarily dictate stat values IN AND OF THEMSELVES.

knightOfdragon wrote:"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.

EEEEEEEEEEEXACTLY! Thank you for proving my point. Class labels, do not, in fact, necessarily determine what stats must look like in and of themselves; you cannot always know what stats will look like from the word(s) that constitute(s) their class label.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Exactly. Thank you for furthering my point. This is exactly what my question was drawing attention to as evidence that class labels do not always have inherent implications about stat lines.

knightOfdragon wrote:But a dragonman would tell us we are expecting a man with the power of a dragon, so we are expecting a fighter.

Maybe YOU'RE expecting a fighter. But again, that's just your subject assumption. There's nothing objectively inherent in the word "dragonman" that must entail "fighter". It also doesn't inherently imply "the power of a dragon". In fact, I would (and this is my own subjective assumption here) NOT expect a dragonman to have the power of a dragon, because he's limited by being a man. I might expect him to have a power greater than that of a typical man, but not reaching the point of a full-on dragon. And regarding the "fighter" assumption, one could be equally likely to expect a fighter, a rogue, a monk, a wizard, or even a priest from that label. And even if one's assumption in that regard happens to be correct, it's not going to be because that assumption was somehow inherent to the word "dragonman". If it were, then there would only be room for ONE assumption.

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

If you choose to associate it with magic AT ALL, which is another personal and subjective assumption. And even if you DO choose to associate it with magic, there's nothing inherent about the word "princess" that dictates that it can't be an evil princess who practices black magic. But the point is that it's not inherent. You cannot just take the word "princess" and then just be like, "oh, well, princess MUST mean that she casts holy magic" unless princesses casting holy magic was just somehow normal and an inseparable part of the definition of the word "princess". But if you look across all the princesses from history and from fantasy combined, I'm preeeeetty darn sure that the vast majority of them will not cast magic AT ALL, let alone holy magic. And of the ones that DO cast magic, they won't all be utilizing holy magic. Some of them will be utilizing dark magic, or perhaps even some sort of nature magic. And probably others, too. And if you look up the word "princess" in any dictionary, it's absolutely and definitely not going to say "holy magic user" anywhere. And EVEN if we limit our contextual usage of the word "princess" to the Shining Force franchise (which is a perfectly fair thing to do), Princess Anri is a mage, and Princess Ellis does not cast any magic AT ALL. The only way that the label of "Princess" can INHERENTLY imply "holy magic user" is if it were normal and expected according to either the dictionary definition of the word, or AT LEAST the lore of the fictional universe in which it is being used. Neither of which holds up.

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

No it doesn't, and no we shouldn't. It tells us that the character INTENDS to guard or has the OBLIGATION OR DUTY of guarding. But it doesn't tell us that they're good at their job, or that they're exceptional at it. Poco from Arc the Lad, for instance, even says himself that he's a shitty member of the Drummer Corps, but he's still a drummer. And again, we should expect that a Monster will have high attack, or at least I would personally expect a Monster to have high attack, but we don't see that either. When you're young, your mother is your guardian. Does she have high defense? And I know you're going to say that this is a different context, but that just helps to further my point. Words have multiple different potential contexts that they can be used in. Just because a word is being used in a context other than the context that you would like it to be used in doesn't make it wrong. But none of that even matters, because David does have high defense!

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

AHAH! YOU'VE ACTIVATED MY TRAP CARD! :0 You just forfeited your entire argument and agreed with me. There is nothing inherent about the word Monster that dictates that it must necessarily have high attack. I would personally ASSUME that a character with that label would have a high attack, which is completely subjective (and I actually even admitted in the very body of text that you quoted that that was just my personal assumption), but you're absolutely right. There is nothing inherent to that word that suggests that it somehow must. So we have to take it a step further to determine what they can do. Like investigating their stats and using them in battle yourself to find out what they can do. You can't just KNOW from the automatic implications of the label, which runs completely contrary to your argument. This shows me that you don't care about what's true, you just want to win the argument. Because you just threw away the integrity of your own argument and took up my argument which you supposedly don't even believe just to discredit me when it suited you.

knightOfdragon wrote:"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

I never said that we should think that they are strong attackers. Again, another strawman. Quite the contrary. This is one of the examples where a class name DOES make some implications about stats, where a low attack stat is inherently implied, and an example to the contrary would be the exception to the rule. And no. You're the one who said that class names tell you inherently what a character's stat line will look like, so we DO have to go deeper in order to verify the truth (or lack thereof) of that claim. And when we do that, we find that your claim doesn't hold up. "Magician" makes SOME implications about their stat line, but not the whole thing. And unless we can extrapolate their entire stat line from their class label, then class labels do not dictate stats. They might dictate SOME stats SOME of the time. But even then, there's room for exceptions in basically all cases. "Magician" makes an implication about low attack, and it makes an implication of at least the existence of MP, and it makes an implication of low defense, but it makes no inherent implication about agility (although the SF franchise does have the arbitrary established convention of Mages having pretty good agility, that is not inherent to the word), and it makes no implications about crit, specific magic attacks (although it does imply that least some magic attacks will be at least good), or magic resists. So your claim that class labels inherently dictate stat lines does not hold up.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Princess" tells us nothing by name, nothing by definition, so we need to further go down the ladder to determine what she can do.

EXACTLY! Case closed. Why do I even need to respond at all when you're just arguing against yourself for me? lol

knightOfdragon wrote:Oh shes your typical white virgin pricess, probably white magic.

Yeah. "PROBABLY." As in, not inherent to the word. And even then, it's an assumption that she would cast magic at all. Assumptions are not inherent.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Guardian" tells us they Guard by name, so it would be wrong to think that they are designed for anything other than defence.

Poppycock. There's no reason why a character labelled as "Guardian" should be unable to produce decent damage output. And it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that they guard in combat (which is what I have to assume that you mean, otherwise you wouldn't be saying anything about defense as a stat, because stats only pertain to combat). OTHER CONTEXTS FOR THAT WORD EXIST AND ARE A THING. He could be guarding something outside of combat too, in a context that has nothing to do with his stats. Isabella doesn't "princess" in combat. If the class label had to define how they fight in battle, then the Princess class label would not be a thing because the Princess-labelled character does not engage in a single princess-related activity during combat. Neither would Robot be a thing, or Golem, or Birdman, or Beastman, or Hero, or Unicorn, or doubtless several others. Hell, even Gladiator wouldn't be a thing. Unlike Champion, which you tried to suggest requires some kind of arena to be applicable, Gladiator actually requires some kind of arena to be applicable. But nobody cares. We just accept it for what it is and move on.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Ranger" tells us they attack at a range by name, so it would be wrong for us to assumption.

First of all, that is not a sentence. Secondly, attacking by range is not a stat line. It IS something that they do in combat (which is something you mentioned before), so you have a point there. But the fact that there are SOME class labels that make inherent implications about what they do in combat does not negate the fact that there other classes that don't. And as long as there's even a SINGLE class that doesn't, that means that it's not against the rules of the franchise for a class name to not inherently say anything about what a character does in combat or anything about their stat line.

knightOfdragon wrote:"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

Bull. Knight tells us high defense above anything else. Knight tells us at least decent attack. But I've already gone over this earlier in this post.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Battler" tells us they battle by name, so we would expect higher attack stats

Yeah. But again, just because there are some classes that make some implications about stats doesn't mean that ALL classes make implications about stats, and it doesn't mean that they make implications about the entire stat line, and it doesn't mean that they necessarily make implications about what they do in battle. Especially when there are BLATANT EXAMPLES of classes that don't make inherent implications about stats (entire stat line or otherwise), and don't make inherent implications about what they do in combat.

knightOfdragon wrote:"Commander" tells us they Command by name, so we would assume that they run an army

But this is both lore and story. I thought that lore and story didn't play a role in class titles, according to you. Here you are discarding your own argument when it suits you again. I mean, he certainly doesn't fight in this capacity during in-game combat. Never at any point do you use any kind of skills or such with David that tells the rest of the army what to do. So this has NOTHING to do with in-game battle, which you seem to insist is an absolute requirement.

knightOfdragon wrote:(which is why I feel that Davids class should stay a variant of this, because it is what he does).

That's fair enough. I can totally understand wanting to maintain a class label due to lore reasons. Perfectly reasonable. Though kind of strange when you've been arguing against both the existence and the merit of lore-based classes this whole time.

Also, my "Overseer" suggestion is a variant of this. It also solves your perceived wacky problem two quotes below this paragraph.

knightOfdragon wrote:Of course this runs into a problem with the 4 Commanders/Generals, because they do not command any armies,

As far as I'm aware, they do, in fact, command armies. They're just different armies. That is a little odd, I suppose, but again, we just accept that for what it is and move on.

knightOfdragon wrote:so I would argue that we would need to look further because this game does not allow additional commanding units outside of David.

Wat?

knightOfdragon wrote:This is an exception class of course, because the Commanders are special exception units in this game.

Not saying you're wrong, but aside from their unique weapon variants, what exactly do you mean?

knightOfdragon wrote:On a personal level I always felt the class should be called Ex-Commander.

Why? Also, that would be really lame. lol.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

I absolutely and completely agree.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Only if you have a complete and total pragmatics fail and can't put into consideration that the word is being used in a different context. It's not our fault if somebody totally sucks at pragmatics and refuses to accept that words can be used in different contexts than the context they would like them to be used in. And besides, David DOES have a high defense.

knightOfdragon wrote:David is not the "Guardian" of Stump Village

knightofDragon wrote:He may protect it, he may "guard" it, but he is not the "Guardian" of it class wise

Wat? "He may flip burgers at McDonald's, but he's nto a McDonald's burger flipper." Uhhh.... Well, okay then. I didn't realize we'd actually taken a hard left into Crazy Town.

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

You know that being a guardian doesn't mean you have to have a title, right? You can be a guardian of something without having any sort of title whatsoever to stick in your ear, let alone pass on to someone. Again, even a scrawny boy with a stick in his hand and a pot on his head (or even without a pot on his head or any kind of armour whatsoever) who decides to guard his village, in any capacity, for any length of time, is a guardian. He doesn't need to be told to do it. It doesn't have to be his occupation. He doesn't need a title. He's still a guardian. Just because David isn't their official, decorated guardian with some sort of honoured title doesn't mean that he isn't a guardian of Stump Village. It's not like a political title like "Chieftain" where you need the actual title in order to be that thing. Maybe he's not THE guardian of Stump Village, I can give you that. But he's undeniably A guardian of it. And when he inevitably returns to Stump Village after the events of the game, you can bet your bottom asshole that he will be resuming those duties, and in a far more experienced capacity. It's not like the people of Stump Village are gonna' be all like "Smeg you, David. Johnny's our guardian now. There's only room for ONE guardian 'round these parts."

knightOfdragon wrote: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.

Who cares?

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

Everyone in Medion's army is a guardian of Gracia. When you're part of an army (especially a medieval army), you're the guardian of whatever the hell you're told you're the guardian of. lol

knightOfdragon wrote:I am going to double down that class plays no aspect in the lore, so lore should not be a strong deciding factor

Class plays no aspect in the lore, so the lore shouldn't play an aspect in class? That's ridiculous. And extra ridiculous when considering that there are already many examples of the lore playing an aspect in class.

knightOfdragon wrote:and we should definitely not use a title that will end up being confusing unless you actually focus on the lore.

"Unless you actually focus on the lore." Right. Exactly. Just like the game itself does, and just like the game expects the player to do.

legalize freedom wrote:Fair enough if you would choose not to consider the lore or story when deciding classes. 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.

^ This. Exactly.

legalize freedom wrote: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.

^ This also. Exactly. Well said. Very succinct. I know I'm not very succinct. lol. I take a bajillion words to get my point across. It always impresses me when someone can make such a good point in so few words.

knightOfdragon wrote:No, I never said lore has no deciding factor for class, I said it can’t be a major factor. David’s Commander title has nothing to do with the story, it has to do with him commanding an army to take on a tank, not sending a band of people to open a dam

Why can't it be a major factor? It's a major factor for several other characters. Also, commanding an army to take on a tank EXPLICITLY pertains to the story. lol.

knightOfdragon wrote:Classes are not just for flavor, they have a purpose. It is a tool to help you decide what type of abilities your character has. If it was just meant to sound “cool”, then they would have used more unique sounding names.

He said "primarily" flavour. He did not say "just" for flavour.

knightOfdragon wrote:... how is that wrong? You apply an invalid argument (aka the straw man) to make the person attack the new argument (aka the straw man). In my example we would end up arguing about the son of an elf not believe in commanders.

Firstly, no. You don't apply an invalid argument to make the person attack the new argument. You apply an invalid argument (ie, a strawman) to the OTHER PERSON and then YOU attack that argument that you just applied to the other person. You don't make the other person attack your strawman. You attack the strawman yourself, having applied it to the other person by treating it as though it's the argument that they made when, in fact, they did not. You're talking about a red herring, not a strawman.

[/quote]

No, you both attack the straw man, Not just you, otherwise it is not an argument, it is a statement.
I am done, to much TLDR of me repeating myself and defending myself against things that are not being said. I do not care anymore
knight0fdragon

User avatar
Shining Hero
Shining Hero
 
Posts: 1191
Joined: Fri Nov 05 2004 5:36am
Location: Good ol(Not Really) Pennsylvania USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Mon Apr 29 2019 2:18am

Sounds like a good place to get back to the task at hand.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Mon Apr 29 2019 3:33am

knightOfdragon wrote:No, growth is something different, and no I would not, because at no point have I ever discussed specifics in numbers. You can have a character who had high agility not have it high anymore because you had terrible RNG every level up (Garosh bug anyone lol) Same goes with a tank character being pumped with stat boosters to give them high agility.

We are only talking about expectation of stats based on class, that is it.

No. That's not the argument you've set forth. Your position was not that we're talking about expectations. Your position was that class determines stats. Expectations are subjective and personal. One thing determining another thing is objective and impersonal. Here, look. Here's you saying that we're talking about class determining stats. These are on page 3 of this thread:

knightOfdragon wrote:Class is used as a determination for stats

knightOfdragon wrote:There are definetly things that a "Dragonman" determines.

^ This is where this whole argument began. This was the foundational premise of your argument.

And here, you're implying it:
knightOfdragon wrote:A "Guardian" tells us this character is designed to guard, and as such, we should expect the character to have a high defense.

You don't just say that we CAN expect, you're saying that we SHOULD expect. Because of your initial premise that class is used as a determination for stats as a blanket statement. You didn't say "sometimes", or anything like that. You just said "class determines stats." Period. You didn't say "I personally infer my own expectations about stats sometimes from class labels", which would be perfectly fair enough. And, granted, you do go on to talk about your personal expectations. But you use your personal expectations as support for your argument that classes determine stats, suggesting that you're conflating your own personal expectations with actual determination. Also, stat growth is, as I said before, inseparable from stats. Even your expectations regarding stats are a direct result of your expectations regarding stat growth. Unless we're talking about level 1, a character cannot have ANY stats unless they grew to reach that point.

knightOfdragon wrote:This is called an example

A cherrypicked and therefore irrelevant example. The statement "not everyone with speed 7 is a Knight" (which was your argument at that time) is cherrypicked and irrelevant because it's deliberately neglecting the fact that if you include the other stats in that evaluation, it doesn't hold up anymore.

knightOfdragon wrote:Again, Stop using “strawman”. That is not what a strawman is, you referring to it as a strawman is the strawman, because I have to attack how wrong it is.. You are the one who said it was inferred, I was simply explaining why your statement can’t be implied and hownit was 1 direction.

Again, for the third time, you're mistaking "strawman" for "red herring". When you change the subject with a new argument to detract from the original argument and make everyone start arguing about that new subject, that's called a red herring. That's not a strawman. You are just plain wrong about what a strawman is.

knightOfdragon wrote:You really need to understand game mechanics. We are not going to remember the stats of 60 characters, but we will remember Knights have high speed, Monks can heal, Archers can shoot at a range etc.

Yeah. Like I've already said many times, there are plenty of classes that do make inherent implications to some degree or another about what their respective characters can do. All I've been saying is that this is not universally true. You cannot know what every single character's stats are going to be or what every single character can do it in combat based solely on their class label. And I'm not going to explain why all over again, as I've already explained it pretty thoroughly up to this point. And the fact that some classes do not make inherent implications about stats or combat abilities means that not every character's class has to, including the potential Guardian suggestion.

knightOfdragon wrote:DFG you need to let go with this obsessive need of very fine detail and being so articulate.

I don't know what "dfg" means, but in the rest of that statement, all I'm hearing is, "you need to let go of this need to make a good argument."

knightOfdragon wrote:Unlike you, I hate having to write a damn essay every time we talk, so I am not going to say “stats and abilities” every time it is needed.

Yet another assumption. I do not, in fact, enjoy having to write an essay every time we talk. It's actually very stressful. For several of my posts in this thread, I have waited a day before bothering with it because I can't exactly cope with the work load involved all the time and need to mentally prepare myself for the task. I'm not writing these essays because I enjoy writing these essays. I'm writing these essays because Shining Force is very important to me and I feel like I have to because the argument has to be made, and you're just giving me SO much to reply to that I can't keep it brief unless I ignore 90% of what you say. But due to the fact that I have respect for you, I cannot bring myself to ignore 90% of what you say, and due to the fact that I have tremendous respect and massive adoration for this topic (Shining Force lore, Shining Force lexical convention, Shining Force's quirky way of labeling things, and just all 'round Shining Force in general) I feel compelled to give this debate the attention to detail and the effort that it deserves. Besides, I'm more or less always like this. This is the way I talk, even in person.

In my experience, if you don't say "stats and abilities" every time it is needed, people tend to misconstrue your argument. That's why legal documents are written that way, where they repeat every little thing every time so as to be as specific and unambiguous as possible, because people will misconstrue just about anything. I'm seeking to avoid problems pertaining to pragmatics, such as the misconstrual of deixis, for example. I'm not psychic, so I can't know how well you'll be able to interpret what I'm saying if I'm not specific and pedantic about it, so I'm making the effort to try to be as clear and pragmatically unambiguous as I can. And I understand that I may not always succeed in that endeavour, but damned if I'm not going to try my best.

knightOfdragon wrote:Yes there are generalizations we can make about man and dragon, not sure what world you are living in.

Subjective generalizations, sure. But nothing (or at least very little) definitive that's determined by the words composing class labels. For me, personally, I would subjectively generalize dragons to have very high attack, very high defense, very high agility, very high luck for the purposes of status resistances, very high movement, very high dodge, very high crit, very high fire damage bonus, and very high fire resist. But I'm not going to actually expect that perceived generalization of "dragon-ness" to actually be applied to a character in-game because that would be ridiculously OP. And maybe your perceptions of generalized dragon-ness are different. Okay, that's fine. But that very difference of expectation goes to show that "dragon" doesn't actually determine much. If it did, it would be determined for us, and there wouldn't even be any room for personal expectations.

As for "man", well, men run the gamut, don't they? There are no generalizations for "man". Except for MAYBE movement being 5. But I'm not 100% certain that there no exceptions to that, so I don't want to even claim that much. But men can have attack values from dismal to amazing, defense values of dismal to amazing, agility values of dismal to amazing, counter/dodge/crit values of dismal to amazing, and magic attack and magic resist stats from anywhere to anywhere else. "Man" is probably one of the least generalizable and most nebulous terms (stat-wise) that you could possibly come up with. Not sure what kind of world you're living in, where humans are mostly just all the same. I could make some guesses, but they're rude, so I won't.

knightOfdragon wrote:I also said we expect a fire resistance, not a high fire resistance, stop trying to add words.

Actually, this is what you said:
knightOfdragon wrote:I would expect a dragonman to be resistent to fire,

You didn't say "to have a fire resistance." You didn't say "to have any sort of fire resist value at all." You didn't say "to have maybe a bit of fire resist." You said "to be resistant to fire." If you buy some clothing that boasts being resistant to fire in its advertising, are you not going to feel like you've been lied to if that clothing turns out to be only kind of, sort of, a little bit fire resistant and handles the fire okay for a few moments but then more or less burns up after that? Call me presumptuous, but I think so. People don't hear "fire resistant" or "resistant to fire" and think "oh, he must mean just a little fire resistant." No, people hear fire resistant and think you must mean at least decently fire resistant. Maybe not completely fire proof, but at least a noteworthy level of fire resistance. Otherwise, it wouldn't be worth noting. Maybe what you meant to say was "any level of fire resistance at all, as long as it's more than 0", but that's not even close to what you actually said. I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that maybe that's what you actually meant to say, but if it was, then it wasn't even worth bringing up in the first place.

knightOfdragon wrote:Also at no point did I say class determines all stats, stop trying to over analyze shit.

Maybe not explicitly, but pragmatically. I said that class doesn't always determine stats. You disagreed and said I was wrong. If I was wrong about class not always determining stats, then class must always determine stats. If you thought I was correct in saying that class doesn't always determine stats, you would've just agreed with me from the start rather than arguing against that point.

knightOfdragon wrote:I am not cherry picking, you are just being damn anal retentive about it.

Yes, I'm being anal. My being anal doesn't mean you're not cherrypicking, though. You take the position that stats are always determined by class, and then you exemplify that point by using a single stat that does illustrate your point while conveniently ignoring all the other stats in the same stat line that discredit your point. That is cherrypicking by definition.

knightOfdragon wrote:The “tortoise” is a high defense character

Right. See? There you go. You literally just cherrypicked in your very next sentence, using a single stat that does illustrate your point while conveniently ignoring all the other stats in the same stat line that discredit your point. Tortoise inherently implies high defense. But it does inherently imply anything about attack, agility, movement, luck, dodge/crit/counter, or magic damage/resist.

knightOfdragon wrote:I would expect him to have high def and low agility

You might personally expect him to have low agility, and that's fair enough, but that's not inherently implied by the word "tortoise". There are plenty of tortoise species out there which are actually rather swift and speedy.

knightOfdragon wrote:everything else I would have to expand on

In other words, class doesn't always determine stats.

knightOfdragon wrote:No, you both attack the straw man, Not just you, otherwise it is not an argument, it is a statement.

Statements are used as arguments in a debate. Person A makes a statement (or series of statements), and then person B makes a counter-statement (or series of counter-statements) that are intended to serve the purpose of discrediting Person A's statement(s). That's what a debate is. An exchange of statements (and also sometimes questions) which present arguments. If I say "the sky is blue", I'm making the argument that the sky is blue. If you say "well, the sky is orange right now", you are making the counter-argument that the sky is orange right now, and implying that, at the very least, the sky isn't blue right now, or at most, that it's never blue. To say that statements are not arguments shows an egregious lack of understanding of what an argument is.

knightOfdragon wrote:I am done, to much TLDR of me repeating myself and defending myself against things that are not being said. I do not care anymore

I've been able to demonstrate with direct quotes that you have, in fact, said the things I've been arguing against. And I'm not sure what you mean by "too much TLDR of me repeating myself". How can you not read your own posts for being too long? You can't write something without simultaneously reading it.
If you don't care anymore, though, then that's your call. Not really sure what to say to that. If you're really done, then don't feel obligated to respond to this if you don't want to. I, on the other hand, will likely never stop caring, as I care about Shining Force to a degree that would probably be deemed a biased conflict of interest in court. lol.

legalize freedom wrote:Sounds like a good place to get back to the task at hand.

Wait... you mean we left the task at hand? I was to the understanding that the purpose of this entire sub-debate was to establish the credibility (or lack thereof) of "Guardian" as a potential class for David. That seems on point to me.
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: 352
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Rune » Mon Apr 29 2019 12:09pm

knight0fdragon wrote:No, you both attack the straw man, Not just you, otherwise it is not an argument, it is a statement.


Quite explicitly, no, you are wrong.

"A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent."

That's the first sentence from wikipedia, but feel free to check any dictionary or other source.

If both people are attacking the straw man, then one is not giving the impression of refuting the other's argument. The idea of the phrase is that you are replacing your opponent with a straw man. Spend two minutes on wikipedia and tell me I'm wrong.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7410
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Mon Apr 29 2019 12:33pm

Tor_Heyerdal wrote:Wait... you mean we left the task at hand? I was to the understanding that the purpose of this entire sub-debate was to establish the credibility (or lack thereof) of "Guardian" as a potential class for David. That seems on point to me.


Yes, we've barely tended to the task at hand at all. This wasn't intended to be a debate. (and please don't "debate" any of this post) Again I appreciate your passion for SF, but sharing ideas is what I'm asking of you (and everyone else) here.

I requested input on class names. Share ideas and give reasons why they will work. I will parse them and ask further questions as needed. Certainly give cons of existing ideas as well, but please do that to me or in general.

There is no need to debate opinions and certainly no need to directly attack/counterattack. That's not what we do in this corner of the internet.

We have managed a few in the course of all this, but I have had to wade through a mile of waist deep crap to get them. So yes, a little focus would be much appreciated.

I will soon (over the next day or two) add the ones that have come up to the first post so we can look at them and pick the strongest entries. They have gotten more complicated than just the two lines, but I think that's a good thing.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Tor_Heyerdal » Mon Apr 29 2019 5:47pm

legalize freedom wrote:Share ideas and give reasons why they will work. I will parse them and ask further questions as needed. Certainly give cons of existing ideas as well

^ That's literally debate, though. Make suggestions, give reasons to back up those suggestions, and discuss any cons pertaining to those suggestions (presumably, giving reasons to back up the idea that the cons are cons). That's debate. lol. You're saying this forum is for debate, simultaneously telling me not to debate. If this forum isn't for debate, then it has no reason to even exist. If there's no room for debate, then just make your executive decision for the rest of us and be done with it.

legalize freedom wrote:There is no need to debate opinions and certainly no need to directly attack/counterattack.

If there's no need to debate, then there's no need to offer suggestions and discuss their pros and cons, because that's debate. You're contradicting yourself. Perhaps more importantly, no one has attacked anyone. Debate does not constitute attack. Neither knight nor myself have made any ad hominem, character assassination, name calling, degradation, insulting, or any other such thing that can be construed as attack. All we've done is explain why we feel the other is wrong (ie, discuss the pros and cons of suggestions). Albeit, at great length. That's not attack by any stretch. By telling us that there's no need to debate, you're effectively telling us that there's no need for anyone to even post at all, as the focus of this thread is to debate the pros and cons of class suggestions. If we can't do that, then we can't really say anything.

legalize freedom wrote:We have managed a few in the course of all this, but I have had to wade through a mile of waist deep crap to get them. So yes, a little focus would be much appreciated.

That "mile of waist deep crap" was all discussing the supposed cons of Guardian, which is what you're telling us to do. So yes, that was focused. Just because it's very l o r g e does not mean it wasn't focused.

legalize freedom wrote:and please don't "debate" any of this post

Well, with that, you're effectively asking me to just sit down and accept without any objection the patently false accusation that I've been attacking people. I can't do that, as I've attacked no one. And despite how strongly I've disagreed with knight, neither has he. You can call me an asshole if you want. You might even be right. I'm certainly not very likable. And the debate surely didn't make anyone feel good. But that doesn't mean he or I have been attacking anyone.

legalize freedom wrote:I will soon (over the next day or two) add the ones that have come up to the first post so we can look at them and pick the strongest entries. They have gotten more complicated than just the two lines, but I think that's a good thing.

Right on.
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: 352
Joined: Fri Jan 11 2013 4:18am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Mon Apr 29 2019 6:16pm

I said please.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Rune » Mon Apr 29 2019 7:34pm

Alright, so I wanted to see if there's really anything else to suggest. I went through wikipedia's entries for d&d alternate classes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... 5_editions) and prestige classes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes). Afterall, nerds have put a lot of time into it.

Besides, mild variants of what we already have, there's not much. My interest were ones that sounded relevant for David, I ignored whether or not David would fit that D&D class.

There's some rather weak ones. I think all of the current starting classes suggested are better:
forest walker, forest master, wilderness protector, warmaster, fist of the forest

The only high end thing I saw that I would suggest is divine champion (for the final class). To me, this knocks out the questions about what is a champion, and it fits with the holy theme present some third promotions.



Also, can someone remind me, does David do anything in scenario 3 or does he just disappear into the background like almost everyone else?
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7410
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Tue Apr 30 2019 12:05pm

Rune wrote:Alright, so I wanted to see if there's really anything else to suggest. I went through wikipedia's entries for d&d alternate classes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_a ... 5_editions) and prestige classes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes). Afterall, nerds have put a lot of time into it.

Besides, mild variants of what we already have, there's not much. My interest were ones that sounded relevant for David, I ignored whether or not David would fit that D&D class.

There's some rather weak ones. I think all of the current starting classes suggested are better:
forest walker, forest master, wilderness protector, warmaster, fist of the forest

The only high end thing I saw that I would suggest is divine champion (for the final class). To me, this knocks out the questions about what is a champion, and it fits with the holy theme present some third promotions.



Also, can someone remind me, does David do anything in scenario 3 or does he just disappear into the background like almost everyone else?


Thanks for looking, Rune!

I don't believe David has any meaningful part in Sc3. He may be a party in a conversation talking strategy, but nothing too personal to him. However, I will check to be sure.


Update:
There are a few blind spots where the files don't identify the speaker in Remotest temple, so I need to rectify that before being able to say for sure. He does speak in a short conversation with Kahn at the ending about returning to Elbesem and supporting Gracia.

~9-121~ David:
The ship is well prepared.
~9-122~ David:
We have fine weather to travel by ship today. We should reach Elbesem with no problems.
~9-123~ David:
But what awaits us in the Holy Land of Elbesem... is the reconstruction of the Elbesem faith.
~9-124~ Kahn:
David, I will support Gracia, no matter what. Your help will be needed.
~9-125~ David:
Is it true Gracia... can't regain his power?
~9-126~ David:
This must be kept secret from the emperor.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Rune » Tue Apr 30 2019 6:24pm

Thanks for checking. I asked for the reason that if he doesn't have much a story role, then I am not concerned much with his final class past it sounding cool.
Bury me with my money.
Bury me with my money.
Rune

User avatar
Shut the feck up fatty.
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 7410
Joined: Thu Sep 16 2004 9:33pm

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Tue Apr 30 2019 6:34pm

That is true for most everyone in the first two forces. They pop in, get promoted and go to the final battle.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Apr 29 2006 4:09am
Location: Texas, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby Hattari » Wed May 01 2019 11:13am

For the 1st class, I second forest walker (essentially a rewording of elven ranger, if preferred). Trooper maybe? Personally, I'd recommend keeping things simple and going with elven ranger, but the point is to share the most accessible options - not my preferences.

2nd class? I think commander or commando more than suffice.

3rd class: I second considering divine champion. Or holy champion; forest champion. Champion almost sounds "too good" for David, but he is one of the few required party members, and he receives a fair amount of dialogue in the story compared to most non-heroes, so it's fitting. He's basically one of Gracia's right-hands, along with Kahn.

Alternatively... I still think General would work well, and I'm in the minority here, but I'm not completely opposed to sticking with striker - just maybe jazz it up with something like holy striker or assault striker.

These are just nominations for the team's consideration.
Hattari

User avatar
Shining Member
Shining Member
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jan 20 2009 8:11am
Location: Central Ohio, USA

Re: David's Class Options

Postby legalize freedom » Wed May 01 2019 1:05pm

The first post has been updated with the latest options. Are there any we can eliminate as being weaker? Currently 7 options and that is probably too many for a poll.

My thoughts:

Warden seems like it is a weaker version of Guardian. They are interchangeable, but work better in different lines. Both would work in the General line and I'm not sure which of the three General options works best. Warden works better with the Commando line (Guardian to Striker would be odd). Guardian works better with the Sentinel line.

Chieftain removed from contention.


Thanks for your feedback Hattari, but most of those options are too long. Elven Ranger is already stretching it.


Update:
I believe this is one of David's lines from Remotest HQ
~9-115~ Line:
I've strayed from Gracia, but... he's currently serving the Julian army. He plans to train to be an Elbesem monk, and Kahn has a lot of faith in him.
legalize freedom

User avatar
Shining Legend
Shining Legend
 
Posts: 1903
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