Previous
At the end of the day the people that want cyclics looked at are usually the ones that are unhappy that they have to work harder to produce the same effect... and usually from a pvp prospective because they tend to fall to that particular guild (or person) regularly. If it were ment to be for all guilds to be alike and not have anything that sets them apart then why even have guilds? Lets just all roll commoners and go with that, yes? No more barbs with their inner fire and roars, no more thieves with their backstabbing, clerics pfft. If you die from here on out too bad. We want no diversity!! (Insert sarcastic chanting here)
At the end of the day folks. They're different skills for different guilds. They all have their boons and banes. You upset because you always fail against x guild. Well, stop pvping that guild. The GMs have (and continue to) done a great job this game. So enjoy the game, enjoy the diversity, and enjoy the guild you choose to play.. or do like i do and play all guilds :p
DARKNSBREATHING
JHALIASCLERIC
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/05/2016 03:40 PM CDT
>If it were ment to be for all guilds to be alike and not have anything that sets them apart then why even have guilds?
I find this to be an incredibly unproductive straw man. No one, every, is saying that we should take away the things that make guilds unique.
But,
>At the end of the day the people that want cyclics looked at are usually the ones that are unhappy that they have to work harder to produce the same effect... and usually from a pvp prospective because they tend to fall to that particular guild (or person) regularly.
You are right about this much - I can tell you as someone who has 8 characters all trained to 80+, that there are discrepancies between the guilds, and some guilds have brokenly OP tools at their disposal. I don't mean 'x is a solid counter against y', I mean 'this ability is a one button victory'.
I find this to be an incredibly unproductive straw man. No one, every, is saying that we should take away the things that make guilds unique.
But,
>At the end of the day the people that want cyclics looked at are usually the ones that are unhappy that they have to work harder to produce the same effect... and usually from a pvp prospective because they tend to fall to that particular guild (or person) regularly.
You are right about this much - I can tell you as someone who has 8 characters all trained to 80+, that there are discrepancies between the guilds, and some guilds have brokenly OP tools at their disposal. I don't mean 'x is a solid counter against y', I mean 'this ability is a one button victory'.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/05/2016 04:03 PM CDT
>>At the end of the day the people that want cyclics looked at are usually the ones that are unhappy that they have to work harder to produce the same effect...
I'm a Necro player, which is arguably the DPS Elephant in the room. I see no reason why combat cyclics shouldn't be looked at under a fresh lens given how they're a new/tertiary source of damage/debilitation that throws global DPS expectations out of whack.
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.
I'm a Necro player, which is arguably the DPS Elephant in the room. I see no reason why combat cyclics shouldn't be looked at under a fresh lens given how they're a new/tertiary source of damage/debilitation that throws global DPS expectations out of whack.
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.
FRANKYFIGGS
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/18/2016 04:10 AM CDT
when I returned to DR the cyclics were new to me, and they are quite cool as a war mage. a spell like fire rain and AC seemed to be a cyclic before there were cyclics.
change the primary feat from raw channeling to dedicated cambrinth or whatnot, I would just ask that there be bigger and more varied cambrinths, even if handheld.
I think a cyclic that could be manipulated with meta spells during it's duration would be neat in a war mage sense, some sort of area storm that can do different things depending on your gestures, like every cliche fantasy novel where the mages is doing some intricate matrices, or even mickey mouse in that water tower with the brooms.
i think cyclics are a neat function, and will adapt to any future changes, but I like their concept.
a way for pvpers to dispell them would probably end alot of gripe over them.
-Munch-
change the primary feat from raw channeling to dedicated cambrinth or whatnot, I would just ask that there be bigger and more varied cambrinths, even if handheld.
I think a cyclic that could be manipulated with meta spells during it's duration would be neat in a war mage sense, some sort of area storm that can do different things depending on your gestures, like every cliche fantasy novel where the mages is doing some intricate matrices, or even mickey mouse in that water tower with the brooms.
i think cyclics are a neat function, and will adapt to any future changes, but I like their concept.
a way for pvpers to dispell them would probably end alot of gripe over them.
-Munch-
TOTLIIO
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/18/2016 08:02 AM CDT
>>a way for pvpers to dispell them would probably end alot of gripe over them.
This already exists. Dergati's spite. I believe it can be found on scrolls now too.
SPACEUNICORN
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/18/2016 10:24 AM CDT
>>I believe it can be found on scrolls now too.
Always could since the revision of sig spells quite a ways back, was just a backend error preventing it from being cast, fwiw. According to Grejuva anyways.
DERIUM
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/18/2016 11:49 AM CDT
I'm a big fan of cyclics, but I think that stuns should end them if they would pulse during the stun... for everyone. That includes the barbarian cyclic and the thief cyclic and the mage cyclic.
SPACEUNICORN
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/18/2016 11:54 AM CDT
>>I'm a big fan of cyclics, but I think that stuns should end them if they would pulse during the stun... for everyone. That includes the barbarian cyclic and the thief cyclic and the mage cyclic.
As all barbarian and thief buffs are essentially 'cyclic', you feel that if a thief or barbarian gets stunned, all their buffs should drop?
DERIUM
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/18/2016 12:05 PM CDT
> As all barbarian and thief buffs are essentially 'cyclic', you feel that if a thief or barbarian gets stunned, all their buffs should drop?
That's not what I'm saying. Only some abilities are classified as cyclics for barbarians, and I think they should follow the same rules.
- Famine
- Avalanche
- Dragon
- Earthquake
- Eagle
- Flashflood
Thieves are in a unique spot. They don't really have cyclics, but everything is a cyclic. I could see them getting a circle based ability that took concentration hits but let them keep the abilities going.
SPACEUNICORN
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/18/2016 12:10 PM CDT
>>That's not what I'm saying. Only some abilities are classified as cyclics for barbarians, and I think they should follow the same rules.
All forms function essentially the same. As well as all berserks functioning essentially the same. That is a mix of forms and berserks in your list, so chances are wherever you are reading your 'cyclic' labeling is a bit up in the air. If both forms and berserks should be removed on stun, then that leaves nothing but meditations running (which are in fact a bit more like barbarian ritual spells than cyclics, to be honest).
On top of that, you have flashflood in your list, whose function includes being a pulsing stun remover (among other things).
GOLDENOAK
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/18/2016 12:11 PM CDT
Why not have renewal of all cyclic abilities involve a skill contest where things like fatigue, stun, health, concentration, current attunement, and how long the cyclic has been running can substantially increase the difficulty of maintaining the ability/spell?
RCHIGHT
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/18/2016 01:21 PM CDT
IMO stuns should not stop anyone's cyclics. That should be left to some sort of debil/magic/roar. This is from both a PVP and PVE perspective.
Rhadyn da Dwarb - Blood for fire!
Barbarian Guild Suggestions
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h4L5hAxR1-VLDegDNZBIhGdo5bMgnCtm84Icm2E0utU/edit#gid=0
Rhadyn da Dwarb - Blood for fire!
Barbarian Guild Suggestions
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1h4L5hAxR1-VLDegDNZBIhGdo5bMgnCtm84Icm2E0utU/edit#gid=0
JHALIASCLERIC
Re: Magic 3.2 update
08/23/2016 07:02 AM CDT
> I could see them getting a circle based ability that took concentration hits but let them keep the abilities going.
Out of curiosity, how do you think Concentration is involved in Barbarian ability use?
Out of curiosity, how do you think Concentration is involved in Barbarian ability use?
HUTCHENS
Re: Magic 3.2 update
09/16/2016 08:07 AM CDT
I just read through this thread on a long flight. I am confused as to why and how we went from things should be more fun to things should be harder? Personally I like the strategy dynamic of cyclics. To me it does not mean cast and go to sleep. It means sacrificing a chunk of my other casting resources for a good feature. It's not a lot different than casting a 30 min buff every 29 minutes unless we make all buff spells like POM. There are very few mechanics that cannot be rendered academic.
JHALIASCLERIC
Re: Magic 3.2 update
09/16/2016 11:28 AM CDT
Because there's no strategy dynamic for most guilds? There's 'are you running your guilds cyclic? no? you should be!'
HUTCHENS
Re: Magic 3.2 update
09/16/2016 12:51 PM CDT
I can see that side. In which case I would love to see cyclics become less of a soft requirement without obliterating them. There is always the inevitable discussion of buff a so it it equal to b rather than need b. I honestly don't care if they buff spells that are not cyclic or nerf cyclics so they are less desirable. I still like the current set up. I do not always use cyclics because all my characters are on the low end of mid-level and cannot sustain extended casting of other spells with cyclics going. Maybe that is why I find it more of a tactical challenge.
HUTCHENS
Re: Magic 3.2 update
09/20/2016 02:26 PM CDT
So I have been giving some thought to this. Let's look at dual load as an example. It has been a while so bear with me if my fact here is wrong but, the second shot counts as a snap shot does it not? What if cyclics caused a penalty to additional offensive magics? This means an effective stat penalty to debilitation and an effective skill penalty to TM spells if cyclics were running? Magic primes would still hold an edge here, which acknowledges their focus on those types of skills. This could hopefully address the calamity from the pvp crowd while not rendering cyclics useless.
Again, I like the tactical choices they provide but I am not at a skill level where I can do very much at all if using cyclics. To put it in perspective at my level, I can run a cyclic indefinitely but if frequently cast any spells at min prep I will tank my mana pool. So for me, it means run one powerful ability at the cost of a lot of useful others or sacrifice really good abilities for some diversity. Maybe that was the way it was always intended and people just outpaced development?
Again, I like the tactical choices they provide but I am not at a skill level where I can do very much at all if using cyclics. To put it in perspective at my level, I can run a cyclic indefinitely but if frequently cast any spells at min prep I will tank my mana pool. So for me, it means run one powerful ability at the cost of a lot of useful others or sacrifice really good abilities for some diversity. Maybe that was the way it was always intended and people just outpaced development?
