The Lameness of Non-Systematic Illusionist Spell Names

[Bawang]

<div><p>I've noticed that when higher level Illusionists on this board are talking about their spells I often have no idea what they're talking about. For this we can thank SOE and their lame non-systematic way of naming our spells. Just as an example, common sense would tell you that (lvl 23) Phantasmal Splendor and (lvl 29) Phantasmal Charge are in the same line. But common sense has nothing to do with how these names were picked. How am I supposed to figure out that (lvl 47) Terrifying Vision is a form of root? At least the preceding spells had either the word "Bind" or "Lock" in it.</p><p>EQ1 spells were for the most part systematic in their naming. You often get the sense that EQ2 developers wanted to do things differently from EQ1, even when it was a step backward. You'd hope there'd be someone at the top to put a stop to this kind of stupidity.</p><p>Figuring out how to play an Illusionist is hard enough without having developers make life more complicated just because they feel like been whimsical.</p></div>

[Locke-]

I suggest you just read and memorize the illusionist spell list.

[bluejello]

you're being sillyI tend to remember things by visual instead of names. I recognize spell lines and particular spells by the icon image. Even though, I still manage to remember most of the names and what they do. Maybe you just need to work on your memory skills <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><div></div>

[enc]

<div></div>memorizing them isn't that hard, and besides, i used to hate that numeric spell system. SpellName IV doesn't do it for me.