Talk:Aqua Squire class series

Merge with Mariner?

This class, quite literally, is Mariner by another name. The only reason it lacks frost is the same reason Angel has douse - they made the frost effect 'special.' Would it not be better to merge this with Mariner, since they're quite literally the same class? 70.253.93.66 15:21, 28 June 2012 (CDT)

I don't think they're quite the same class. They have similarities in statistical lineups and Psynergy pools. But given the differences between the Adepts that access each one, I think that, in practice, the two function differently enough to stay separate. --Sippyjuice 18:01, 28 June 2012 (CDT)

...No they don't. You would literally use Aqua Squire as you would Mariner, it's literally the same. The only difference is that Amiti has a mage build, while Piers had a fighter build. It's like arguing that Felix's Brute line is totally different from Jenna's brute line because the adepts are so different. But... you know... they're not. In this case, Aqua Squire has everything that Mariner does, save for the name. Another example, Blast (Nova) and Starburst should be considered the same spell, as it's just one renamed to be another. In this case, Mariner was renamed to make more sense with Amiti's heritage. Sure, it was more or less half-assed, putting Aqua- in front of the Squire line and calling it a day, but that doesn't change the fact that in terms of hard data, statically it's identical. 70.253.93.66 18:18, 28 June 2012 (CDT)

...I suppose whether to merge them actually is a good question, because of the Wind Seer class series having different Psynergy sets between generations but the GSU article working despite that. It is also true we don't give separate articles to Fire/Fireball/Inferno and Fireball/Fire Orb/Inferno because they have both some different names and some different gameplay specs, so maybe it is worth merging these class pages somehow. Though it'd probably take two separate class statistics tables to accommodate the two different sets of names... Erik the Appreciator 20:12, 28 June 2012 (CDT)

I think we can manage with just one stat table. However, I'd like to point out that using the Starburst and Fireball Psynergies as examples isn't quite right. In both cases, only some of the Psynergies are renamed. Others (Inferno, Nova, and Supernova) remain the same. Same thing with the Swordsman/Crusader class: Only the Crusader class had its name changed, while all other classes in the series kept their old names. Mariner and Aqua Squire, though, don't share any names in common. That isn't to say that they shouldn't be merged, just keep in mind that this "rename" (if that really is all it is) isn't the same as most. The World's Hungriest Paperweight 21:23, 28 June 2012 (CDT)

With the Wind Seer and the Guard class, I think a single article is sufficient because the only difference is the change of a single Psynergy line in the lineup. There aren't any changes to statistics or class names to suggest that the two versions are completely different. For the various renames however, there was usually a specific reasoning behind them. Fire was reworked as a Utility Psynergy, while the other cases appear to have been renamed for purposes of clarity.

If the Aqua Squire was indeed a reworking of the Mariner class, I would expect a similar situation. But instead, we not only have a difference in Psynergy lineup, but a complete difference in class names, with little to imply a simple renaming, as with the Crusader class. If they were merged, the analysis part would be simple to handle; we could use the set up for the Samurai class series. But it would be harder to justify the differences in naming structure, since we really don't know if it is a simple case of renaming. --Sippyjuice 23:04, 28 June 2012 (CDT)

I don't agree with the merge. They're for two different (unrelated) characters. Sure the statistics are exactly the same and the Psynergy set-up is quite similar, but like Sippyjuice said, they're two different class series (by name). The Wind Seer, Guard, and Water Seer are merged because the same family member use the same class just one different Psynergy series. Piers and Amiti aren't related. Even though the statistics are the same, doesn't mean the class as a whole is.

Even if the pages were merged, I don't think it should be named Mariner. It's a warrior class series while Aqua Squire is a mage class series with warrior type Psynergy. The analysis section and trivia section would have to be split for both characters so readers don't get confused. It just makes it more confusing for newcomers. Chinkycandie 04:18, 29 June 2012 (CDT)

...You guys do remember that they turned Frost into a McGuffin in this game, right? Angel has Douse instead of Frost, your argument is invalid. There are plenty of valid ways of arguing your point, but saying that it can't be a renamed Mariner to fit his background because it gets Douse instead of Frost? Newsflash, if Piers himself was in this game, he wouldn't have Frost because the guy who made the game had the brilliant idea of making a very common field effect something you have to go get. I mean, hell, what's the first thing you do when you get Amiti? You go get the frost psynergy. You can't claim bad game design here. And you, Chinky... So basically, your argument is that despite the fact that these two classes, save for name and for a single spell line that's different because of stupid plot decisions, are... completely different types of classes? Am I hearing that right? So your argument is "Let's all ignore the fact that it's got the stats of a fighter and has an EPA like every other warrior class in the series, because it's Amiti's class so it has to be a magic one!". No. It doesn't work that way. It's the same class, regardless of who's using it - they didn't even give him even a different EPA, it's the Mariner's signature setup. It really makes no sense to me, honestly... the kid lives in a freaking desert. Why the hell does he even have an ice-based base class? If he could use an EPA, it should be water based, maybe something unique... but it's literally a copy paste of Mariner, with a half-assed naming method, and with ONE alteration because again, the designers were idiots and made Frost a plot coupon.

There's plenty of ways you can argue for these two classes to be different, but the ones you used actually count against your arguments. Be wary of that in the future. Rolina 22:46, 24 July 2012 (CDT)

Regardless, Rolina, The two classes were not named the same in game, therefore, ARE NOT the same class. I don't care how you think, if the game does not call them the same, they are not. And I would like to warn you that your comments here are a little bit abrasive. If there are more such abrasive reactions I am not afraid to ban you. ~ dkpat 23:48, 24 July 2012 (CDT)

Whether or not they're to be merged is irrelevant here! You don't tank your own argument like that! It defeats the whole point! It's like arguing on behalf of dubs in the subs vs dubs debate, but then using Mass Effect and Uncharted's english dub as your example. Just one problem - you're on the side "Language of Localization", and you're using excellent examples for the side of "Language of Origin", the side you're supposed to be debating against! Why would they even do that? Honestly, I'm sure there's an argument they can use, but they shouldn't be using an argument that works against their favor like that! Hell, the first poster even flat out mentioned the whole Douse thing as well! You don't win a debate by sinking your own argument... I'm sorry if I came across rather brash, but... that's one of my pet peeves. If yer gonna debate, do it right. Rolina 00:51, 25 July 2012 (CDT)

They aren't the same in the Japanese version either from what info I have. According each article's infoboxes the Mariner class goes Mariner, Sea Fighter, Captain, Commander, and Admiral. The Aqua Squire is Water Soldier, Aqua Master, Aqua Lord, Aqua Prince, and Kaiser. That's enough for me to consider them different classes. --Sippyjuice 08:41, 25 July 2012 (CDT)

And again, that's not the issue I personally have. Personally, I'd do the opposite - I'd separate class versions based on generation, like you do djinn. For example, Wind Seer is used very differently in Dark Dawn than it is in TLA. It goes form being a Magic Attacker with some support, to a Support class with some Magic Attack - the way it's played is changed up simply because of the healing spell. My problem is that their examples to support their claims work against them. Basically, it's got little to do with the class itself, and more their methods in defending their stances. Same can be said of yours - By your logic, the Fireball and Fire lines should be separated, because of different names. Disregard the fact that they're exactly the same otherwise. A better argument is that they should be separated based on game generation. Sure, it was called Mariner in TLA, but if they're looking up DD stuff, they're not gonna be looking for Mariner, they're gonna be looking for Aqua Isaac. ER, Aqua Squire. Rolina 17:27, 25 July 2012 (CDT)

^ Rolina, you basically said the long version of what I've said. I'm a very "straight to the point" type person rather than explaining everything in long detail. But you said it in a more negative way. Its not for us to decide. Its just an opinion. Its up to the discretion of the admins. I don't see why we're even worked up about this. Its not like random contributors even reply back to things like this. They suggest something and that's the only time you actually hear from them. Chinkycandie 04:46, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

...I think you're missing the point here. Rolina hasn't expressed a clear opinion on whether or not to merge the articles (In fact, she appears to be neutral on the issue, as am I). Her main issue is that some of the arguments for or against the merge are actually self-defeating. In particular, the "Frost replaced with Douse" argument. At one point it was used as an argument against merging, despite the fact that the same thing happened to the Water Seer class series, which has both the GBA and DD versions merged together. As for her negativity, I'll agree that she needs to calm down a bit before she starts typing, but everyone has things that simply drive them bonkers. The World's Hungriest Paperweight 10:00, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

^This. So much this. I really don't care - I'm part of the GSHC, fixing issues like this is just what I do. But seeing someone tank their own argument irritates me, and I just have to say something about it. Yes, I know, I'm way more brash and harsh than I should be, but... well, sorry about that. I know I sound way meaner than I intend - if I sounded angry, it should only have been read with a tone of irritation, not flat out anger. Rolina 10:45, 26 July 2012 (CDT)

Well, okay, just so long as it is kept in the back of the mind that this site aims to be a professional-feeling environment where everyone is expected to play nice. If there is an issue with someone's logic or perspective that's brought up during a discussion, one should always err on the side of politeness.

Now, there is one particularly important policy issue I should lay out here: what genre of discussion is appropriate on the talk page for an article. Rolina's earlier posts are filled with opinions on the game / subject matter itself, which on a "Wikipedia-style wiki" isn't what an article's talk page is for. Like on Wikipedia, a talk page really does strictly exist to discuss factual and structural issues and improvements with the article and its contents. There certainly is a place in the talk page for conveying to another user why their logic may be off at that point in time, because it can be relevant to how and why there is ultimately a change in the article that needs to be either made or not made. But, what one thinks about Golden Sun or something in it should be relegated to their user page and the forums. Erik the Appreciator 13:03, 26 July 2012 (CDT)