Previous
>>Not a Bug
>>Mana Regen boosters are working properly (specifically Blessing of the Fae).
Hey Raesh, I just tested this out with my Bard, Cleric, and Moon Mage, and there's either something not working properly, or it's tuning is off.
Bard
Before the changes the size of the attunement regeneration pulses at cap (I can no longer quite cap it) was effectively doubled. I.e. when at low mana without BOTF it was 4% regenerated on my self-cast bard, but with it it was at 8%. Mid-way full it was 3%/6% and finally 2%/4% when near full. There was never an extra pulse of attunement regen added every so often like with Shadowling. It was just a straight up, very noticeable increase in size of the base attunement regeneration.
Now the size of the standard attunement regenration pulse is 3% (with the occasional 4% likely due to rounding) with or without botf in effect. Like before this is still not an extra pulse of mana every so often. This does not seem like it's working as intended, or if it is then the effect is so small that it's not apparent. Especially when considering how apparent it used to be.
Cleric
I don't have exact numbers from before the change, but my base regeneration pulses were similar to the Bard before (4, 3, and 2% as he got closer to full attunement) without PoM up. With PoM up (I think around 180 mana was what I used to cast it at) these were greatly increased. I would say comparable to the Bard where it was around double or so. Whatever the numbers were, it was a very noticeable difference.
Now, my base regeneration pulses without PoM are 2% or 3%, with each about as likely, so it's probably around 2.5%. With PoM cast at 200 mana now, however, it is almost always 3% (with the very occasional 2%). While this is an increase, showing that something is in fact working, it doesn't seem to be by much at all. If I had to guess, based on the Bard's experience with base regeneration rate, I would say that it is due solely to the indirect increase to regeneration from the increase in maximum attunement pool from PoM which is likely still working, while the direct increase to the base attunement regeneration that used to happen in addition to that isn't working.
Moon Mage
Before the change, a Shadowling wouldn't increase the base regeneration size at all except slightly via a smallish boost to maximum attunement pool, so I would always see 4, 3, and 2% as the attunement pool filled up. If it was completely tanked I might see a 5%. How Shadowling worked to increase regeneration, was instead by adding a large extra shot of attunement regen every 20-30 seconds or so. It was around 8-10% at a time with a capped shadowling, iirc. This was the same whether in the room or invoked.
Now, my base regeneration is 2% and 3% occurring about equally, so similar to the Cleric. With Shadowling up, that base regeneration is still split evenly between 2 and 3% so there's no real change from before. And the Shadowling is pulsing an extra 5-6% every 30 seconds or so. This is the same whether it is invoked or in the room. So, the ability does seem to be working as intended in this case, although it's a bit less of an effect than before.
Summary
-Increased attunement pool size does seem to be in place for abilities that grant it, and it does seem to be increasing attunement regen slightly just like it used to.
-Attunement regen that is done via additional pulses every so often appears to be working, although it's not quite as effective as it used to be. It seems to be a reasonable amount, so I will call this working.
-Attunement regen that is done via increasing the base attunement regeneration size does not appear to be working, or if it is the value is set far too low for it to be noticeable, especially in comparison with before.
Since Bards and Clerics abilities primarly rely on the third type of attunement regeneration for their ability to work, those two guild's abilities aren't working as far as I'm concerned. Moon Mages rely on the second form for their ability's regeneration, and so it does seem to be working for them, albeit at a slower rate than before.
P.S. As an aside, since we're on the topic of bugs, the bug that was making it so that some, but not all, of my characters couldn't properly target a spell via an opening TARGET command has not made it's way over to Prime even though the issue still exists over there for them. Everything related to that appears working just fine.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
ABSOLON
DR-GREJUVA
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 09:05 AM CDT
I thought we'd posted an explanation about this, but apparently not. My apologies.
Early in the development of M3.2, we discovered a math error in the core regen mechs that was multiplying the numbers provided by some abilities (notably PoM and BotF, but not Shadowling) while slashing others (mostly the debuffs). This was likely something that only existed during part of M3.1.
We deployed the fix to the Test instance, then discussed among staff to readdress these intended numbers, which had been determined back in M3.0. For the time being, we decided to stick with those numbers. That said, we're still monitoring and tweaking many aspects of mana regen, so this isn't set in stone. But I wouldn't expect PoM and BotF to return to the buggy M3.1 numbers -- they were terribly overpowered.
Hope this clarifies where we're at.
GM Grejuva
Early in the development of M3.2, we discovered a math error in the core regen mechs that was multiplying the numbers provided by some abilities (notably PoM and BotF, but not Shadowling) while slashing others (mostly the debuffs). This was likely something that only existed during part of M3.1.
We deployed the fix to the Test instance, then discussed among staff to readdress these intended numbers, which had been determined back in M3.0. For the time being, we decided to stick with those numbers. That said, we're still monitoring and tweaking many aspects of mana regen, so this isn't set in stone. But I wouldn't expect PoM and BotF to return to the buggy M3.1 numbers -- they were terribly overpowered.
Hope this clarifies where we're at.
GM Grejuva
DERIUM
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 09:29 AM CDT
> Early in the development of M3.2, we discovered a math error in the core regen mechs that was multiplying the numbers provided by some abilities (notably PoM and BotF, but not Shadowling) while slashing others (mostly the debuffs). This was likely something that only existed during part of M3.1.
That's... disappointing. I felt like these two abilities (POM + BOTF) gave the guilds a unique magical identity. Bards with the occasional every-day buffing and clerics as the magic guild that had more mana (back to guild identity).
> That said, we're still monitoring and tweaking many aspects of mana regen, so this isn't set in stone.
Right now, I see no reason to ever pick up BOTF. It costs more mana to run than I get back, it's imperceptible to others in the room, and it takes the cost of a cyclic (when there are far better choices for both buffs and combat).
> But I wouldn't expect PoM and BotF to return to the buggy M3.1 numbers -- they were terribly overpowered.
They were also highly limited. BoTF requires sacrificing other cyclics, which is a big deal for a bard. PoM was self-only, ritual, and one that can't easily be put back up in combat if you let it drop. The primary purpose seemed to be ressing, which is a boon for everyone. I would request that you re-evaluate these regens and consider bringing them back up to M3.1 levels.
ILLIENA
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 10:23 AM CDT
So I gathered some data. I drained my MM's attunement to zilch and then timed how long it took to return to full. Three times vanilla, three times with a capped BOTF.
Control: 233 seconds, 234 seconds, 229 seconds
BOTF: 173 seconds, 177 seconds, 170 seconds
So it looks like a capped BOTF increases mana regeneration by about 33%.
Control: 233 seconds, 234 seconds, 229 seconds
BOTF: 173 seconds, 177 seconds, 170 seconds
So it looks like a capped BOTF increases mana regeneration by about 33%.
DERIUM
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 10:53 AM CDT
> So it looks like a capped BOTF increases mana regeneration by about 33%.
So using your method with a magic secondary at slightly more than 360 attunement.
At an 8 / 25 streams (best I can do right now),
With BOTF: ~196s
Without BOTF: ~222
That translates to ~11% gain which matches your 33% for a capped spell. So it seems that you're right. I'm unclear on how it's increasing, if it's just a fraction of a point that I couldn't normally see with each pulse, a random pulse that I was missing, or a fraction of a second faster pulse times; however, it is there.
Interestingly enough, regen rates are very close for prime and my secondary. I'd guess the the 10 second difference was mostly related to pool size (I assume your moon mage has a larger pool than my empath).
GMs, I'd still like a pass at this. Regen from these spells feels iconic and limiting by their nature. I think the old numbers are closer to where it should be, and I like the idea of bards being sought out for their unique utility in the same way empaths and clerics are today.
FLINT-TIPPED
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 11:05 AM CDT
I wouldn't expect much from 3 mana above minimum prep from any spell.
Vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
Vote:
http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html
ILLIENA
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 11:07 AM CDT
> Interestingly enough, regen rates are very close for prime and my secondary. I'd guess the the 10 second difference was mostly related to pool size (I assume your moon mage has a larger pool than my empath).
Actually, I don't have a good explanation for why it takes him longer to refill. From the 3.2 change document:
The percentage of mana you recovered with each pulse is no longer dependent on skill set placement and Attunement skill. Attunement continues to drive the size of your mana pool, so it will still result in more absolute mana recovered per pulse but it will not decrease the time to recover your entire pool.
By my reading of this, it sounds like attunement recovery is a percentage of your pool each pulse, and that percentage remains constant except when affected by certain special abilities. So it would seem like everyone should normally refill from empty in the same amount of time. Maybe you weren't getting all the way to empty?
Actually, I don't have a good explanation for why it takes him longer to refill. From the 3.2 change document:
The percentage of mana you recovered with each pulse is no longer dependent on skill set placement and Attunement skill. Attunement continues to drive the size of your mana pool, so it will still result in more absolute mana recovered per pulse but it will not decrease the time to recover your entire pool.
By my reading of this, it sounds like attunement recovery is a percentage of your pool each pulse, and that percentage remains constant except when affected by certain special abilities. So it would seem like everyone should normally refill from empty in the same amount of time. Maybe you weren't getting all the way to empty?
DERIUM
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 11:12 AM CDT
> I wouldn't expect much from 3 mana above minimum prep from any spell.
It's 33% of the cap, which is probably right for 33% of the total mana. I still think the 33% cap is too low though.
ABSOLON
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 11:13 AM CDT
<<That said, we're still monitoring and tweaking many aspects of mana regen, so this isn't set in stone. But I wouldn't expect PoM and BotF to return to the buggy M3.1 numbers
Okay, that's fine, since it appears to be around tenth of a percent per second increase for the Cleric currently with a near min prep cast and a little over a quarter of a percent on the moon mage per second increase with a capped cast. I can see those being the acceptable range of values... but the Bard... The poor Bard...
I'd be happy if the Bard got that kind of increase, but it isn't anywhere close to happening since his effect is just barely higher than a min prep cast of PoM when affecting others and a ridiculously laughable effect on himself that actually resulted in regenerating mana far slower due to the cost of the spell. Just to reiterate this: As a Bard, the AoE effect at near cap is barely better than the self-only minimum prep effect of a Cleric and nowhere close to that of the AoE lunar-only effect of a Moon Mage. And it results in a significant net loss of regeneration for yourself, as large in magnitude as a capped Shadowling bonuses a Moon Mage's attunement, so it's now only worth using if you want to boost other people's regeneration instead of your own. All that AND it takes up the cyclic slot and requires a slot spent on Area Casting feat to affect non-grouped players. Blessing of the Fae is quite frankly horrible now.
What would fix it would be to grant the bard a larger increase on himself to compensate for the net loss of mana due to the cost of the enchante. Just enough to make it comparable on himself to the other abilities. I.e. a range of about 0.1% to 0.28% per second increase. Also, the AoE effect on others needs to be boosted a bit. An effect at near cap that's barely better than minimum prep of the other spells isn't enough.
Logs and Testing Results:
Cleric - Near minimum spell gives total increase of 0.1002242 mana%/second.
Without PoM - goes from 14 to 98 mana% in 203.9250656 seconds for a rate of 0.4119160 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/tgh8Jan8
With PoM (200/700 mana) goes from 15 to 98 mana% in 162.0649889 seconds for a rate of 0.5121402 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/AkuZY2Uf
Bard - Near capped spell gives a total net decrease of 0.2798094 mana%/second on self, and 0.1209083 mana%/second on others.
Self without BotF goes from 13 to 98 mana% in 102.0900059 seconds for a rate of 0.4425008 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/nWZkvr5X
Self with BotF (20/25 mana) goes from 16 to 98 mana% in 504.0216401 seconds for a rate of 0.1626914 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/nTPYpuPP
Same Cleric as above with BotF (20/25 mana) goes from 15 to 97 mana% in 153.8968568 seconds for a rate of 0.5328243 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/HW0Lkj8a
(Note: For anyone actually reading the logs, the pulses that happen off the 6 seconds where there's a large drop in mana for the Bard and no change on the Cleric are just the cyclic pulses which don't actually have any effect except deduct the attunement cost of cyclic maintenance.)
Moon Mage - Capped spell gives a total increase of 0.2817634 mana%/second.
Without Shadowling goes from 14 to 98 mana% in 192.0070037 seconds for a rate of 0.4374840 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/ygyCrNLw
With Shadowling (100/100 mana) goes from 15 to 97 mana% in 114.0087975 seconds for a rate of 0.7192474% mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/pMbLQVi1
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Okay, that's fine, since it appears to be around tenth of a percent per second increase for the Cleric currently with a near min prep cast and a little over a quarter of a percent on the moon mage per second increase with a capped cast. I can see those being the acceptable range of values... but the Bard... The poor Bard...
I'd be happy if the Bard got that kind of increase, but it isn't anywhere close to happening since his effect is just barely higher than a min prep cast of PoM when affecting others and a ridiculously laughable effect on himself that actually resulted in regenerating mana far slower due to the cost of the spell. Just to reiterate this: As a Bard, the AoE effect at near cap is barely better than the self-only minimum prep effect of a Cleric and nowhere close to that of the AoE lunar-only effect of a Moon Mage. And it results in a significant net loss of regeneration for yourself, as large in magnitude as a capped Shadowling bonuses a Moon Mage's attunement, so it's now only worth using if you want to boost other people's regeneration instead of your own. All that AND it takes up the cyclic slot and requires a slot spent on Area Casting feat to affect non-grouped players. Blessing of the Fae is quite frankly horrible now.
What would fix it would be to grant the bard a larger increase on himself to compensate for the net loss of mana due to the cost of the enchante. Just enough to make it comparable on himself to the other abilities. I.e. a range of about 0.1% to 0.28% per second increase. Also, the AoE effect on others needs to be boosted a bit. An effect at near cap that's barely better than minimum prep of the other spells isn't enough.
Logs and Testing Results:
Cleric - Near minimum spell gives total increase of 0.1002242 mana%/second.
Without PoM - goes from 14 to 98 mana% in 203.9250656 seconds for a rate of 0.4119160 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/tgh8Jan8
With PoM (200/700 mana) goes from 15 to 98 mana% in 162.0649889 seconds for a rate of 0.5121402 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/AkuZY2Uf
Bard - Near capped spell gives a total net decrease of 0.2798094 mana%/second on self, and 0.1209083 mana%/second on others.
Self without BotF goes from 13 to 98 mana% in 102.0900059 seconds for a rate of 0.4425008 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/nWZkvr5X
Self with BotF (20/25 mana) goes from 16 to 98 mana% in 504.0216401 seconds for a rate of 0.1626914 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/nTPYpuPP
Same Cleric as above with BotF (20/25 mana) goes from 15 to 97 mana% in 153.8968568 seconds for a rate of 0.5328243 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/HW0Lkj8a
(Note: For anyone actually reading the logs, the pulses that happen off the 6 seconds where there's a large drop in mana for the Bard and no change on the Cleric are just the cyclic pulses which don't actually have any effect except deduct the attunement cost of cyclic maintenance.)
Moon Mage - Capped spell gives a total increase of 0.2817634 mana%/second.
Without Shadowling goes from 14 to 98 mana% in 192.0070037 seconds for a rate of 0.4374840 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/ygyCrNLw
With Shadowling (100/100 mana) goes from 15 to 97 mana% in 114.0087975 seconds for a rate of 0.7192474% mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/pMbLQVi1
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
DERIUM
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 11:14 AM CDT
> By my reading of this, it sounds like attunement recovery is a percentage of your pool each pulse, and that percentage remains constant except when affected by certain special abilities. So it would seem like everyone should normally refill from empty in the same amount of time. Maybe you weren't getting all the way to empty?
Using genie. My mana bar read as 0% each time. As I think about it though, it may not be a problem. I would would guess a +/- 12s margin of error due to the timing on the initial and final pulse, as well as how much the final pulse overfills the bar.
ABSOLON
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 11:22 AM CDT
<<Self without BotF goes from 13 to 98 mana% in 102.0900059 seconds for a rate of 0.4425008 mana%/s - http://pastebin.com/nWZkvr5X
Slight typo here, that doesn't affect the math which was done correctly. That should read 192.0900059 seconds. The math was done with the correct number.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Slight typo here, that doesn't affect the math which was done correctly. That should read 192.0900059 seconds. The math was done with the correct number.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
ABSOLON
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 11:27 AM CDT
Oh, and before people ask, the Bard was in a room with this as the mana to gauge how much the spell was costing to run:
> conc mana
You reach out with your senses and hear shining (13/21) streams of harmonious Elemental mana coursing through the area.
Concentrating harder on the sounds you hear, you can sense flickering (8/21) mana to the east.
Roundtime: 3 sec.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
> conc mana
You reach out with your senses and hear shining (13/21) streams of harmonious Elemental mana coursing through the area.
Concentrating harder on the sounds you hear, you can sense flickering (8/21) mana to the east.
Roundtime: 3 sec.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
ABSOLON
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 11:37 AM CDT
Gah, triple post. Sorry. Bad habit, I know I have.
I want to say that I'm pretty sure we've had this same discussion about BotF in the past when it was first converted over to modern magic or something. I remember it being tweaked up on ourselves or the maintenance cost tweaked down to compensate for the cost of maintenance before, at any rate.
I'm having one heck of a deja-vu about it that's for sure.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
I want to say that I'm pretty sure we've had this same discussion about BotF in the past when it was first converted over to modern magic or something. I remember it being tweaked up on ourselves or the maintenance cost tweaked down to compensate for the cost of maintenance before, at any rate.
I'm having one heck of a deja-vu about it that's for sure.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
DR-RAESH
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 01:46 PM CDT
Most of these are 10-40% increase to each pulse of mana recovery, depending on how much you've invested.
I agree that BotF is in an odd place (Bard cyclics are in an odd place...) and it's a clear case of the Bard sacrificing for the betterment of the group.
Shadowling is... shadowling is weird. It works on it's own special snowflake mechanic. It would be simpler, frankly, if I murdered that mechanic and put it onto the core but I spent a lot if time when I made them mobile making them mobile version more or less mimic the normal version for... reasons? and I'm not sure it's a good use of my time to redo all of that right now.
-Raesh
"It was wise enough to know itself, and brave enough to BE itself, and wild enough to change itself while somehow staying altogether true." ― The Slow Regard of Silent Things
I agree that BotF is in an odd place (Bard cyclics are in an odd place...) and it's a clear case of the Bard sacrificing for the betterment of the group.
Shadowling is... shadowling is weird. It works on it's own special snowflake mechanic. It would be simpler, frankly, if I murdered that mechanic and put it onto the core but I spent a lot if time when I made them mobile making them mobile version more or less mimic the normal version for... reasons? and I'm not sure it's a good use of my time to redo all of that right now.
-Raesh
"It was wise enough to know itself, and brave enough to BE itself, and wild enough to change itself while somehow staying altogether true." ― The Slow Regard of Silent Things
ABSOLON
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 02:07 PM CDT
<<Most of these are 10-40% increase to each pulse of mana recovery, depending on how much you've invested.
Yeah, I'm happy with the Moon Mage one, and assuming the Cleric one scales to a similar level I'm happy with it as well. But the Bard one only being around a 10-15% increase at cap kind of sucks given all the downsides to it. :/
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Yeah, I'm happy with the Moon Mage one, and assuming the Cleric one scales to a similar level I'm happy with it as well. But the Bard one only being around a 10-15% increase at cap kind of sucks given all the downsides to it. :/
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
DR-RAESH
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 02:15 PM CDT
>>I'm happy with the Moon Mage one
Special snowflake mechanic.
>>and assuming the Cleric one scales to a similar level I'm happy with it as well.
20-40%
>>But the Bard one only being around a 10-15% increase at cap kind of sucks given all the downsides to it. :/
10-40%. The bottom end of this could likely be pulled up.
We'll keep tinkering with these - I've got a few ideas but I also need to tinker with mana regen rates in general.
Buuuut I need break-lunch. I've finally caught up on sleep, so after some food I should be ready for another round of 3.2 clean up.
As an aside - Does anyone feel letting you go over your current mana pool limit is a useful mechanic to support. We tend to only let you go over by a few % and since mana regen is linear now... I'm just not sure why we're bothering with it when we can get more or less the same impact in cleaner ways with buffs that tend to come from the same spells.
-Raesh
"It was wise enough to know itself, and brave enough to BE itself, and wild enough to change itself while somehow staying altogether true." ― The Slow Regard of Silent Things
Special snowflake mechanic.
>>and assuming the Cleric one scales to a similar level I'm happy with it as well.
20-40%
>>But the Bard one only being around a 10-15% increase at cap kind of sucks given all the downsides to it. :/
10-40%. The bottom end of this could likely be pulled up.
We'll keep tinkering with these - I've got a few ideas but I also need to tinker with mana regen rates in general.
Buuuut I need break-lunch. I've finally caught up on sleep, so after some food I should be ready for another round of 3.2 clean up.
As an aside - Does anyone feel letting you go over your current mana pool limit is a useful mechanic to support. We tend to only let you go over by a few % and since mana regen is linear now... I'm just not sure why we're bothering with it when we can get more or less the same impact in cleaner ways with buffs that tend to come from the same spells.
-Raesh
"It was wise enough to know itself, and brave enough to BE itself, and wild enough to change itself while somehow staying altogether true." ― The Slow Regard of Silent Things
ASHAMAN1
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 02:20 PM CDT
>>As an aside - Does anyone feel letting you go over your current mana pool limit is a useful mechanic to support. We tend to only let you go over by a few % and since mana regen is linear now... I'm just not sure why we're bothering with it when we can get more or less the same impact in cleaner ways with buffs that tend to come from the same spells.
Honestly, current system it's of limited utility. Could be handy in the niche of pre-gaming for a big barrage or something, but for 98% of the time nah.
Samsaren
Honestly, current system it's of limited utility. Could be handy in the niche of pre-gaming for a big barrage or something, but for 98% of the time nah.
Samsaren
DERIUM
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 02:32 PM CDT
> As an aside - Does anyone feel letting you go over your current mana pool limit is a useful mechanic to support. We tend to only let you go over by a few % and since mana regen is linear now... I'm just not sure why we're bothering with it when we can get more or less the same impact in cleaner ways with buffs that tend to come from the same spells.
Not really, no. Cambrinth already fulfills this niche in a more controllable and consistent way.
JULIAN
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 02:47 PM CDT
>>As an aside - Does anyone feel letting you go over your current mana pool limit is a useful mechanic to support. We tend to only let you go over by a few % and since mana regen is linear now... I'm just not sure why we're bothering with it when we can get more or less the same impact in cleaner ways with buffs that tend to come from the same spells.<<
Doesn't seem super useful to me, no.
Mazrian
Doesn't seem super useful to me, no.
Mazrian
ILLIENA
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 05:14 PM CDT
> Using genie. My mana bar read as 0% each time. As I think about it though, it may not be a problem. I would would guess a +/- 12s margin of error due to the timing on the initial and final pulse, as well as how much the final pulse overfills the bar.
Oh, I feel dumb. I have Deep Attunement. I bet that's the source of the difference.
Oh, I feel dumb. I have Deep Attunement. I bet that's the source of the difference.
DARKNSBREATHING
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 05:31 PM CDT
I've noticed mana seems sub par as well, with 1100+ mana and a capped PoM running I've hit 0 several times now, when before I wouldn't drop below 30% or so when I would cast capped spells. This worries me a little, and more when I think of younger clerics and res. I dropped down to almost 0 mana when giving life to a deader the other day (2 capped rejuvenations, res at 35 (2 infuses at 35) and a min prep soul bond) and that wasn't even a hard res to do and I was of course using PoM. I can't imagine how it will be when I have to infuse more than twice to find someone. I kind of feel it's pointless to have such high levels of attunement then if it's not doing anything to benefit me.
DERIUM
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 05:42 PM CDT
> Oh, I feel dumb. I have Deep Attunement. I bet that's the source of the difference.
Me too: You recall proficiency with the magic feats of Sorcerous Patterns, Injured Casting, Deep Attunement, Raw Channeling, Efficient Channeling, Efficient Harnessing, Improved Memory and Magic Theorist.
ILLIENA
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 05:55 PM CDT
Okay, I guess we're back to rounding differences and pulse timings as an explanation, then.
SARAGOS
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 06:51 PM CDT
Thanks for the updates, Raesh!
Is there any kind of data you're specifically looking at for Elemental Efficacy that would help? In general, my feeling is that the current situation is fine if you have time to harness/cambrinth, but feels more punishing then I expected otherwise. That's not the worst thing in the world right now, but if you continue on with your plans to apply this to cambrinth and harness usage too, it's kind of scary to me and why I'd like to see some sort of adjustment. I don't know if the issue is that current numbers are +/- 10% to room mana, which can have a bigger result than seems intuitive, as ABSOLON suggested, but the range of the end result seems a little high to me.
IMO, a more moderate effect is desirable for our game because, due to how spells are designed to be a unique thing, there's only a limited ability to just use a different spell. I'm not going to just use SW instead of SUF - they do different things. If the right tool for the job is DFA, armor piercing, or heavy TM, right now I've only got on choice. I either use it or I don't.
A heavy efficacy affect encourages trying to use a different spell instead, which we have limited support for in the current paradigm due to spell design and slot issues. A more moderate one functions as flavor. "Oh, Fireball is harder to cast in the snow. That makes sense!"
IMO, the current situation isn't outrageous. My sense is that it could just go down a bit, and without having done intense testing it feels like a bigger than the MM difference. The main reason I'm bringing this up is because I'm worried about what it will look like if we lose the insulating effects of cambrinth/harnessing.
- Saragos
Is there any kind of data you're specifically looking at for Elemental Efficacy that would help? In general, my feeling is that the current situation is fine if you have time to harness/cambrinth, but feels more punishing then I expected otherwise. That's not the worst thing in the world right now, but if you continue on with your plans to apply this to cambrinth and harness usage too, it's kind of scary to me and why I'd like to see some sort of adjustment. I don't know if the issue is that current numbers are +/- 10% to room mana, which can have a bigger result than seems intuitive, as ABSOLON suggested, but the range of the end result seems a little high to me.
IMO, a more moderate effect is desirable for our game because, due to how spells are designed to be a unique thing, there's only a limited ability to just use a different spell. I'm not going to just use SW instead of SUF - they do different things. If the right tool for the job is DFA, armor piercing, or heavy TM, right now I've only got on choice. I either use it or I don't.
A heavy efficacy affect encourages trying to use a different spell instead, which we have limited support for in the current paradigm due to spell design and slot issues. A more moderate one functions as flavor. "Oh, Fireball is harder to cast in the snow. That makes sense!"
IMO, the current situation isn't outrageous. My sense is that it could just go down a bit, and without having done intense testing it feels like a bigger than the MM difference. The main reason I'm bringing this up is because I'm worried about what it will look like if we lose the insulating effects of cambrinth/harnessing.
- Saragos
DR-RAESH
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/29/2016 07:05 PM CDT
>>Is there any kind of data you're specifically looking at for Elemental Efficacy that would help? In general, my feeling is that the current situation is fine if you have time to harness/cambrinth, but feels more punishing then I expected otherwise. That's not the worst thing in the world right now, but if you continue on with your plans to apply this to cambrinth and harness usage too, it's kind of scary to me and why I'd like to see some sort of adjustment. I don't know if the issue is that current numbers are +/- 10% to room mana, which can have a bigger result than seems intuitive, as ABSOLON suggested, but the range of the end result seems a little high to me.
The efficacy numbers are not +/- 10%.
And, yes, this will ultimately be applied to harness and cambrinth too (working on that now actually) which will be a bigger deal for sorcery.
I think the most likely path is that I'll tone down Efficacy as cambrinth and harness are brought under the same umbrella. I want you to be able to tell if the conditions are good or bad, but I don't want it to be a crippling penalty.
-Raesh
"It was wise enough to know itself, and brave enough to BE itself, and wild enough to change itself while somehow staying altogether true." ― The Slow Regard of Silent Things
The efficacy numbers are not +/- 10%.
And, yes, this will ultimately be applied to harness and cambrinth too (working on that now actually) which will be a bigger deal for sorcery.
I think the most likely path is that I'll tone down Efficacy as cambrinth and harness are brought under the same umbrella. I want you to be able to tell if the conditions are good or bad, but I don't want it to be a crippling penalty.
-Raesh
"It was wise enough to know itself, and brave enough to BE itself, and wild enough to change itself while somehow staying altogether true." ― The Slow Regard of Silent Things
JHALIASCLERIC
Re: Magic 3.2 update
07/30/2016 02:06 PM CDT
Out of curiosity, is there anyway to tell what feats characters have? Might be a good way to identify what people consider requirements vs what people think of as choices for their playstyle.
SARAGOS
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/01/2016 01:48 AM CDT
Raesh - The boost for mana feels quite nice, and I definitely notice a difference. Thanks!
> Out of curiosity, is there anyway to tell what feats characters have? Might be a good way to identify what people consider requirements vs what people think of as choices for their playstyle.
I don't believe so, but you could always start a thread and ask about it. I'd participate.
- Saragos
> Out of curiosity, is there anyway to tell what feats characters have? Might be a good way to identify what people consider requirements vs what people think of as choices for their playstyle.
I don't believe so, but you could always start a thread and ask about it. I'd participate.
- Saragos
JERRY
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/01/2016 01:13 PM CDT
enter spell. You should see a list of the spells you have learned and right under that it should read "You recall proficiency with the magic feats of" followed by the feats you have learned. At least that is what I see. After that it lists settings.
- Naturn
SARAGOS
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/01/2016 08:01 PM CDT
> enter spell. You should see a list of the spells you have learned and right under that it should read "You recall proficiency with the magic feats of" followed by the feats you have learned. At least that is what I see. After that it lists settings.
You know, it never occurred to me that this might have been the question. I assumed he/she was asking if you can tell what feats other people have.
- Saragos
You know, it never occurred to me that this might have been the question. I assumed he/she was asking if you can tell what feats other people have.
- Saragos
JERRY
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/02/2016 08:51 AM CDT
It would be interesting if we could see what feats others choose and their choices for their stats. It would help us a lot for adjusting our own build too, but I am sure pvpers would be quick to exploit it. It is good we can't see other people's stats.
- Naturn
- Naturn
ABSOLON
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/02/2016 08:55 AM CDT
I'm 99% sure the question was simply if the GMs are able to survey which feats players have chosen similar to how they can pull up stats on race and guild. E.g. 50% of all players know Deep Attunement, 2% of all players know Warding Mastery, etc.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
JHALIASCLERIC
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/02/2016 09:52 AM CDT
>I'm 99% sure the question was simply if the GMs are able to survey which feats players have chosen similar to how they can pull up stats on race and guild. E.g. 50% of all players know Deep Attunement, 2% of all players know Warding Mastery, etc.
Yes, the intent being if 100% of people have Raw Channeling, it's not really a feat that is a 'choice', but rather a requirement.
Basically use the same strategy Blizzard used when determining what skills and passives needed tweaking in Diablo 3. If every Wizard is running with Blur, then we should understand Blur to be a skill that isn't a player choice, but a required patch on a problem in the class.
ABSOLON
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/02/2016 10:03 AM CDT
Just got around to running the test on my Bard again to get a feel for the regen changes.
tl'dr version: Use BotF at your personal cap if the priority is to help others regenerate faster, but use BotF at minimum prep if the priority is to help yourself regenerate faster.
Long version:
The self effect is noticeably better, but can still be an overall loss on time to regenerate for yourself depending on mana used. It takes about a minute longer than without the spell running to go from 0 to 100% since the change, using the same potency and room as my previous tests (personal cap). It used to take about 5 to 6 minutes longer before the change, so it's definitely a huge improvement.
I was able to adjust the mana I used to balance the returns against the costs based on the room mana available and end up with a net gain in regeneration, but the granularity seems to boil down to: personal cap is best for helping others and minimum prep is best for helping yourself.
A 20 mana cast (my personal cap) in a 14/21 mana room resulted in taking around a minute longer to regenerate to full from nothing than without the cyclic. Regen pulses on myself were about 4.5% every 6 seconds with a cyclic cost of 8% every 20 seconds, which is a net result of around 2.1% per regen pulse or around a 20% loss in personal regen speed. This is the mana I would use if wanting to bonus other people's regeneration, but I would take a loss myself. I.e. I would really only use this amount of mana in a triage situation.
You reach out with your senses and hear luminous (14/21) streams of harmonious Elemental mana coursing through the area.
Concentrating harder on the sounds you hear, you can sense flickering (8/21) mana to the east.
You sense the Blessing of the Fae spell upon you, which will last until you fail to provide 20 mana for it.
You sense the Blessing of the Fae spell matrix in the area, which will last less than a roisan.
Roundtime: 3 sec.
A 10 mana cast in the same room resulted in regenerating to full from nothing about 10-15 seconds faster than without the cyclic. Regen pulses on myself were just under 4% every 6 seconds with a cyclic cost also just under 4% every 20 seconds, which is a net positive of around 2.8% per regen pulse or around a 10% gain in personal regen speed.
Using a 5 mana cast (minimum prep) in the same room resulted in regenerating to full from nothing about 30 seconds faster than without the cyclic. Regen pulses on myself were around 3.5% every 6 seconds with a cyclic cost of around 1.5% every 20 seconds, which is a net positive of around 3% per regen pulse or around a 20% gain in personal regen speed. This is the mana I would use if I wanted to benefit my own mana regeneration.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
tl'dr version: Use BotF at your personal cap if the priority is to help others regenerate faster, but use BotF at minimum prep if the priority is to help yourself regenerate faster.
Long version:
The self effect is noticeably better, but can still be an overall loss on time to regenerate for yourself depending on mana used. It takes about a minute longer than without the spell running to go from 0 to 100% since the change, using the same potency and room as my previous tests (personal cap). It used to take about 5 to 6 minutes longer before the change, so it's definitely a huge improvement.
I was able to adjust the mana I used to balance the returns against the costs based on the room mana available and end up with a net gain in regeneration, but the granularity seems to boil down to: personal cap is best for helping others and minimum prep is best for helping yourself.
A 20 mana cast (my personal cap) in a 14/21 mana room resulted in taking around a minute longer to regenerate to full from nothing than without the cyclic. Regen pulses on myself were about 4.5% every 6 seconds with a cyclic cost of 8% every 20 seconds, which is a net result of around 2.1% per regen pulse or around a 20% loss in personal regen speed. This is the mana I would use if wanting to bonus other people's regeneration, but I would take a loss myself. I.e. I would really only use this amount of mana in a triage situation.
You reach out with your senses and hear luminous (14/21) streams of harmonious Elemental mana coursing through the area.
Concentrating harder on the sounds you hear, you can sense flickering (8/21) mana to the east.
You sense the Blessing of the Fae spell upon you, which will last until you fail to provide 20 mana for it.
You sense the Blessing of the Fae spell matrix in the area, which will last less than a roisan.
Roundtime: 3 sec.
A 10 mana cast in the same room resulted in regenerating to full from nothing about 10-15 seconds faster than without the cyclic. Regen pulses on myself were just under 4% every 6 seconds with a cyclic cost also just under 4% every 20 seconds, which is a net positive of around 2.8% per regen pulse or around a 10% gain in personal regen speed.
Using a 5 mana cast (minimum prep) in the same room resulted in regenerating to full from nothing about 30 seconds faster than without the cyclic. Regen pulses on myself were around 3.5% every 6 seconds with a cyclic cost of around 1.5% every 20 seconds, which is a net positive of around 3% per regen pulse or around a 20% gain in personal regen speed. This is the mana I would use if I wanted to benefit my own mana regeneration.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/02/2016 10:07 AM CDT
>>Yes, the intent being if 100% of people have Raw Channeling, it's not really a feat that is a 'choice', but rather a requirement.
Eh, I wouldn't necessarily come to this conclusion by default.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
Eh, I wouldn't necessarily come to this conclusion by default.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
KASHIK
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/02/2016 10:12 AM CDT
>>Eh, I wouldn't necessarily come to this conclusion by default.
Interesting... could I convince you to say a little bit more about that?
~Kashik
Interesting... could I convince you to say a little bit more about that?
~Kashik
ABSOLON
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/02/2016 10:25 AM CDT
It could also mean a feat was overpowered.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
DERIUM
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/02/2016 10:42 AM CDT
> It could also mean a feat was overpowered.
No.. Just.. no. Cyclics aren't reasonable without this feat. I would hang up my bard right now if it was removed.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/02/2016 11:15 AM CDT
>>No.. Just.. no. Cyclics aren't reasonable without this feat.
While I agree that raw channeling is an awesome quality of life boost for cyclic spells, there's probably an argument that raw channeling makes them too easy to maintain, because (with enough skill) you can literally forget about the spells being active for an infinite amount of time now.
>>I would hang up my bard right now if it was removed.
I have a feeling the cyclic-heavy nature of Bards is why they get it as a natural feat.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
While I agree that raw channeling is an awesome quality of life boost for cyclic spells, there's probably an argument that raw channeling makes them too easy to maintain, because (with enough skill) you can literally forget about the spells being active for an infinite amount of time now.
>>I would hang up my bard right now if it was removed.
I have a feeling the cyclic-heavy nature of Bards is why they get it as a natural feat.
Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.
ABSOLON
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/02/2016 11:27 AM CDT
I made no statements specifically about Raw Channeling.
<<I would hang up my bard right now if it was removed.
You seem to be lacking some information about the feat. Even if the feat didn't exist Bards would still have that function since it's an inherent ability for them. The natural version of the feat that Bards get is significantly less mana efficient than the feat, however, so Bards still do benefit from getting the actual feat for free at circle 2. But that would be the only loss for Bards in the current system if the feat suddenly didn't exist.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
<<I would hang up my bard right now if it was removed.
You seem to be lacking some information about the feat. Even if the feat didn't exist Bards would still have that function since it's an inherent ability for them. The natural version of the feat that Bards get is significantly less mana efficient than the feat, however, so Bards still do benefit from getting the actual feat for free at circle 2. But that would be the only loss for Bards in the current system if the feat suddenly didn't exist.
Elanthipedia - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Main_Page
Epedia Admins - https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Elanthipedia:Administrators
DERIUM
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/02/2016 12:19 PM CDT
> You seem to be lacking some information about the feat. Even if the feat didn't exist Bards would still have that function since it's an inherent ability for them. The natural version of the feat that Bards get is significantly less mana efficient than the feat, however, so Bards still do benefit from getting the actual feat for free at circle 2. But that would be the only loss for Bards in the current system if the feat suddenly didn't exist.
I'll admit that I didn't know this. I thought bards needed the feat. I still think this is overly punative, but if this happened then I would highly suggest that you couldn't lose your link to cambrinth any more. It would also make the dedicated cambrinth feat required, but it would create a market for larger worn camb. Interesting idea. I'm against, but I'll set the pitchfork aside.
