Mechanics Poll: Elemental Healing Spells + Weaken: Element.

[RavenOfRazgriz]

You have a Spell on your character, "Lightning Cure."  It is a Lightning Element Spell that restores the target's HP by 10.  Your current target is Weak: Lightning.  Should your Spell heal for 20, deal 10 damage, or deal 20 damage?

Repercussions of this question:

"Pisco Demon" monster with Weak: Lightning would be healed 20 HP if first is chosen, dealt 10 damage if second is chosen, dealt 20 damage if third is chosen.

Human "Carl" with an Ice Shield would be healed 20 HP if first is chosen, dealt 10 damage if second is chosen, dealt 20 damage if third is chosen.  If Human "Carl" also gains Absorb: Lightning somehow, there would be no difference if first is chosen and would heal 20 in both the remaining scenarios through the Weak plus Absorb stack.  (An alternate solution is to have Absorb and Weak merely reverse functions if "deal 10 damage" is chosen - so Absorbing the healing spell will result in double the effect, and being Weak to it will result in reversing it to damage, but this is neither here nor there.)

Which of these makes more sense from both a gameplay and a design standpoint and why?  Note that you can change your vote on this poll at any time, though it will close within the week.

[Celdia]

At the end of the day its still a 'Cure' spell, right? Its intended to heal damage? With the quirky exception of Undead why would a Cure spell ever deal damage? I can certainly see the versatility of such a spell and it could be fun to have around, but I see 'Lightning Cure' and I think of a healing formula skill with a lightning element flag. To me that means its going to Heal 2x to anything weak to Lightning element. Anything else just seems silly as hell.

[Glain]

Heal for 1x. Or maybe x/2!

I don't agree with any of the options. Why should Weak and Absorb take any effect when you're healing? Those should be disjoint states that affect how a character takes damage from an element. (That would also mean you can't stack them; why could you?)

And why would a character weak to an element be healed effectively by it? I'd say don't modify the heal at all, but if you really wanted to do something, then halve it!

Honestly, I wouldn't generalize the whole "undead reversal" concept... if that is indeed what's going on here? At least not in that way. Maybe have another way to do it, but doing it with Weak vs Absorb just doesn't seem right.

[Dome]

Why would you even want to create a spell like "Lightning Cure"?
Healing from a bolt spell should only come if you can absorb it with some gear/ability IMHO

[MysticKnightFF5]

Let's just stop questioning him on why he wants to make it and help him. He's clearly thought this through and isn't ignorant on what it means.
As for my input, I do like the "heal half" against weak: lightning, however I also like the idea of it dealing X*1 damage if they're weak to it.

[pokeytax]

As long as Weak + Absorb still heals 2x I think it's mostly academic. Mostly I don't want this to impact the relations I know and love, so don't get crafty and tell me I just ensured that Undead are immune to Cure now!

What you're describing depends on the patch. For different units, Weak could mean "completely exposed to" or "cannot exist in the presence of". At least from my viewpoint, Lightning Cure should heal double on a mechanical unit, Soothing Shower should do 50% damage to a Bomb, Hearth's Glow should do zero damage to a Skeleton, Holy Cure should do double damage to a Skeleton; but there's no reasonable way to implement all that.

If I had to choose I would say... 0 damage, honestly, but 10 damage works best of the poll options.

[RavenOfRazgriz]

Dome, just answer the question. 

Pokeytax, this is in regards to the default settings for FDC's formula hack.  It's not like these things are hard to change, but the point is to find a set of default settings that people won't NEED to edit often.  Defaults aren't worth much if every single person needs a custom build because they suck.

This won't turn into Undead being healed by Cure or anything of the sort. 

[Hana]

I would say healed for 2x as a general response, but I agree most with Pokeytax's ideas.

[Dome]

Dome, just answer the question

If you are weak to an element, you are "More influenced" by it...so, heal x2

[formerdeathcorps]

It's not just gameplay that matters here, but your visualization of "element", "healing", and "weak".  Clearly, this is an opinion that should be up to the patch creator, and such aesthetic understandings are far more important in figuring out what to do than gameplay mechanics (since those are easily adjusted to any reasonable aesthetic system).  Hence, Raven, I feel you are asking the wrong question and thus, if someone doesn't like any of the choices, you shouldn't browbeat them into answering the question.  Nor should you be telling me how I should make my formula hack or the weight of any given criteria (mechanics/aesthetics/usefulness/scaling...)

Without more elements or a more complex system of treating the existing elements (which are currently interchangeable), we have cannot do all the suggestions listed above, even though many of you have expressed ambivalence.  There doesn't exist a nice way to cover everyone without leaving some potential mechanic out.  Making it reverse only on undead, as Raven originally suggested to me, covers all the vanilla functions, but doesn't pass the bomb test (see below).  Making it the way I prefer covers all the vanilla functions, but as Raven points out, fails the healing test (see his first post).
Furthermore, there's the idea of opposing element.  Sand and water/ice put out fire.  Electricity ionizes dirty water.  Fire burns vegetation and melts ice.  Light abates darkness.  Arguably, it makes no sense to say that a bomb hit by a water sprinkle intended to heal flesh would do anything other than defuse the bomb's internal furnace.
This is counterbalanced by the belief that healing is fundamentally different than damaging, even if the element is the same.  Vanilla did not have this problem since healing had no element and couldn't take one (even though the spell quotes implied either holy or wind).  However, vanilla did emphasize the interchangeability of elements (fire1 = bolt1 = ice1 in power, MP cost, and CT cost, for example).  Thus, I could equally argue the correct extension of vanilla mechanics is to treat healing as separate from damage.

Now, personally...elements > weak > healing.
1) Healing is a matter of degree.  If I shine soothing light/warm air/small sparks at the right frequency, it heals, but if I up the intensity, it will scorch/electrocute.
2) Weak means not increased sensitivity to an element, but that the very fiber and soul of your being cannot stand it.  Thus, what would normally heal another, because of your inability to cope, becomes harmful.
3) Elements should form the basis of a magical system, not gradations nor this odd distinction between hurting and healing.

In a case like this, I'd rather just go with my own judgment, or code two possibilities in the final product that are mutually exclusive (they take the same space in BATTLE.BIN) and let the patch maker decide.  Thus, I personally will go with weak to element + heal of element = damage, probably at 1x to correctly mimic heal vs. zombies in FFT.

[Tea]

I always see "weak vs" as the opposite of "half", and "weak vs" as a movement on the damage scale, where healing is negative, as a movement to the more positive. Then it seems to me thus:
- Weak vs damage means more damage
- Half an element means less damage
- Weak vs a healing spell means less healing
- Half a healing spell means more healing, but that goes against the view that halving an element makes that element less effective in whatever it does.
Now, Having a healing spell and an elemental weakness make the healing spell hurt 1x, and have a halving element half the heal is all fine and dandy, but I would sorely miss the potential of having a way of elemental play that increases the heals, as "absorb" multiplying the heal also seems silly.
After a little thoughtgiving I would think this the best idea, of seperating healing and damage completely. This could be done by having double the elements. This allows, I think, for the greatest flexibility. Just have the healing one of the duo be absorbed by everything as default.

[Joseph Strife]

If target is normal it should heal for 2x, if it's undead it should damage

[Vanya]

If the target is weak to the element they should take normal damage instead of any healing.
That makes sense to me because of a real world effect.
Take penicillin or iodine, they are both intended to heal, but if you are allergic to (eg weak against) either substance they can harm or even kill you.

[Mando]

If the target is weak to the element they should take normal damage instead of any healing.
That makes sense to me because of a real world effect.
Take penicillin or iodine, they are both intended to heal, but if you are allergic to (eg weak against) either substance they can harm or even kill you.

This^, and in FFT terms...
If a bomb(fire element) and is weak to water. Why would "Soothing Water" (ex: healing water element spell) heal the bomb? I would think... it would harm the bomb. Hey but that's just the "real world" thought process...

[GeneralStrife]

This^, and in FFT terms...
If a bomb(fire element) and is weak to water. Why would "Soothing Water" (ex: healing water element spell) heal the bomb? I would think... it would harm the bomb. Hey but that's just the "real world" thought process...

I like that, but that would take some serious ASM. Right?

[MysticKnightFF5]

Stop questioning how easy it is. He's not questioning any of that.

Here's the question for those who missed it.
WHICH MAKES MORE SENSE, 2x heal, 2x damage, or 1x damage.

Beyond logic, all else can go fuck itself.

[Shade]

I would prefer that being weak to the element and having weak would make it half the heal and having half to the said element would double it.

[Zaen]

I would prefer that being weak to the element and having weak would make it half the heal and having half to the said element would double it.

This, but I'd prefer the elemental weakness make it take damage. I have to agree with the sentiment that if you're weak to something, it doesn't matter whether or not it's "healing", you're going to get hurt from it.

[The Damned]

(I actually have to somewhat side with FDC as well point out something Celdia mentioned about "Cure"--the fact that the ability in question is named "Lightning Cure" makes it seem somewhat leading, but that's a minor point ultimately.)

I personally have to go with the third option of Damage for 2x. I do this for more than (just) Devil's Advocate reasons, which I will try to explain (relatively) succinctly. It was more process of elimination rather than be thrilled about any choice:

1. Picturing Absorption and Weak: So, normally, when I picture Absorption, I guess picture whatever piece of equipment "turning down the intensity" as FDC and passing it along to the user in the form of something curative that it is still elementally what is/was. So, a raging fire becomes a soothing warmth, a frigid icestorm becomes simply cool, cutting gales become a nice breeze and so forth. Obviously, it doesn't turn down the intensity all the way to zero since that would be Nullification, which trumps Halving/Resisting and makes every other interaction become no interaction at all. So, the thing remains a curative of what it originally was, but even in curative form, it is still fundamentally its element and that the equipment is bypassing your normal defenses (pain, scarring, etc.) to instead heal you since blocking it out completely would, again, be Nullification.

Similarly, I picture Weak as "heightened sensitivity" to something (for the most part) and heightened sensitivity often makes even normally curative things damaging or even lethal if it's high enough, as Vanya pointed out.

Now, let's imagine that instead of say, Water element, there was an element for Poison as there often is in other Final Fantasy games. Human (enemy) characters are almost always weak to Poison elemental and take rather significant damage from it given that humans are (arguably) fundamentally weak to Poisons. Now, imagine, that this applied to the protagonists as well and that to combat it, the gear to choose from that either outright nullified any Poison elements they would encounter or absorbed it into them despite their fundamental weakness.

Do you really think they'd go for the latter based off mere descriptions even if the mechanics of it worked as they work in FFT vanilla? "Gee, absorb poisons into my body more easily? How could I resist?"

Yeah. No.

That's perhaps a poor example, though, so I'll go with a more real-life, "logical" one.

Imagine that you, unfortunately, got a rather nasty case of frostbite on, say, your right hand to the point where, even though it didn't fall off or otherwise die, it flares up with pain at the slightest feeling of cold forever more. Your hand is effectively Weak: Ice for the rest of your life. Do you think your hand would find it soothing if, say, you sprained it and had the option of only putting ice on it to ease the pain even though it had sensitivity? Even if you first covered in a glove that had "absorb: Ice"? No. It would just communicate, "Hey, this is cold! What were you thinking?! Get it the hell away from me!" as it bitched at you by becoming painful.

So that roles out healing at all for me, much less healing twice as much.

2. Mechanical Consistency: If Halve with Weak equals neutral damage, then why would Absorb with Weak also equal neutral damage? To me, this pretty much automatically eliminates the second option given how Halve and Weak are already opposed in vanilla; if Halve was lessened to Resist like how we've (read: a few other people and I have) talked about, then yeah, I could see Absorb plus Weak during neutral damage just because Resist + Weak would still do heightened damage, even if Weak itself were also reduced. (Obviously, this wouldn't apply if Weak was reduced to the same amount).

3: Tiresome Solutions: I'm not going to pretend that it doesn't personally annoy me when I see someone use "Weak plus Absorb = Profit!" even if I've used it myself a couple of times. To me, choices are all about having to actually choose something that leaves you with some type of weakness rather than being able to cover up every thing (at least if you're getting any special perks out of it); it's one of the reasons that I hate Monk so much. Turning what's supposed to be a weakness into a strength (rather than just covering up that weak point with something that blocks via outright nullification) that heals a stupid amount of HP (instantly) just seems extremely wrong.

I mean, sure, it's not game-breaking or anything and it's been around since vanilla (not that anyone really used Cursed Ring + Flame Shield in Vanilla), but it still seems like removing the healing aspect would go a long way in forcing people to think a bit more. As such, my feelings on this eliminated the first option (again).


So, it's less "Yay! Option three!" and more "Meh. Option three is all that's left." I'd gladly have it be damage 1x so long as mere resistance alongside weakness didn't heal the same amount; hell, I'd even considering it letting it be 0 damage where the equipment in question was "smart enough" to realize the person holding it couldn't handle whatever element in the even the smallest amount and thus redirected it else where or reduced everything to zero as fail-safe.

I'm just tired of it healing at all when it makes no real "sense" given that those things are fundamental weaknesses. If there was something like Debilitator in this game that could change elemental weaknesses mid-battle, I'd be willing to be more lenient, but there isn't, so I'm not.

[Kaijyuu]

I usually can get all worked up and have a strong opinion about stuff like this, but I can't bring myself to really care.


It depends on what you're going for. All implementations are valid; all make sense in their own way. I can't objectively say one is better than the other. 2x healing feels the most correct to me and is probably what I'd use, but I'd easily swing to one of the other implementations if I felt a need to.

All in all, I can't really say it much matters.