Previous
Moon Mages are in the process of getting a new Telekinetic Throw, Telekinetic Storm, and Crystal Spike. I assume Partial Displacement, Dinazen Olkar, and Burn are right around the corner...
It's Burn that concerns me. If Burn gets a rewrite to resemble the new TM system, will Smite Foe and Branch Break get similar changes or will they remain far more powerful and efficient spells in tert guilds than anything similar of Moon Mages and Clerics? On that note, will Aesrela Everild get an up-tweak to compensate for its relative extreme weakness compared to Burn, Branch Break, and others?
Palasix
JESTRAM
OLESH
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/18/2005 07:17 PM CDT
The GMs recognize that there is a problem, apparently, in the stat vs stat contest spells. However, only SvA spells are slated to be changed. SvA spells will have a damage cap and will be much less cost effective than equivalent TM spells. So Branch Break will be changed; Smite Foe will not.
However, given that these changes are a part of the Great Spell Review, something which (for WMs at least) hasn't been high enough priority to recieve any attention in... 2 months, at least. So I wouldn't expect any changes soon.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
However, given that these changes are a part of the Great Spell Review, something which (for WMs at least) hasn't been high enough priority to recieve any attention in... 2 months, at least. So I wouldn't expect any changes soon.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
DR-VALDRIK
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/19/2005 06:08 PM CDT
The contested spells are getting reviewed as well, yes. The problem is, with the adjustments to the contested spells -- they have to all go out at one time rather than as they are finished. The goal here is to maintain the idea that pound for pound, TM spells are going to be your heaviest damaging spells of any.
~V
<--- Warrior Mage Haiku --->
My pants are aflame
I did not learn water spells
so now I must ARGGHHHH
http://www.livejournal.com/users/valdrik/
http://www.naebunny.com/TopFrameSet.htm
~V
<--- Warrior Mage Haiku --->
My pants are aflame
I did not learn water spells
so now I must ARGGHHHH
http://www.livejournal.com/users/valdrik/
http://www.naebunny.com/TopFrameSet.htm
OLESH
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/20/2005 07:27 AM CDT
Okay, question for you then Valdrik - we know the SvA spells are being taken care of and we are thankful.
Are there any plans to look at the other contested spells with a similar eye? I know that there are certain contested SvS WM spells I have that I have almost never seen resisted (fail due to MR yes, resisted only once or twice ever) in the last 40 circles, and it's very rare that I can't pull off our (few) WvW spells without using much more than min prep.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
Are there any plans to look at the other contested spells with a similar eye? I know that there are certain contested SvS WM spells I have that I have almost never seen resisted (fail due to MR yes, resisted only once or twice ever) in the last 40 circles, and it's very rare that I can't pull off our (few) WvW spells without using much more than min prep.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
DR-VALDRIK
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/20/2005 10:24 AM CDT
All contested spells that do damage will be looked at.
~V
<--- Warrior Mage Haiku --->
My pants are aflame
I did not learn water spells
so now I must ARGGHHHH
http://www.livejournal.com/users/valdrik/
http://www.naebunny.com/TopFrameSet.htm
~V
<--- Warrior Mage Haiku --->
My pants are aflame
I did not learn water spells
so now I must ARGGHHHH
http://www.livejournal.com/users/valdrik/
http://www.naebunny.com/TopFrameSet.htm
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/20/2005 11:21 AM CDT
<<All contested spells that do damage will be looked at.
~V>>
Define "do damage" please?
Potentially lethal damage? Vit damage? Any damage?
For instance, MB can do up to severe nerve damage, but no more. I think tingle can do some minor nerve damage too - not sure.
They obviously don't do damage the way smite foe or branch break do damage, however.
~V>>
Define "do damage" please?
Potentially lethal damage? Vit damage? Any damage?
For instance, MB can do up to severe nerve damage, but no more. I think tingle can do some minor nerve damage too - not sure.
They obviously don't do damage the way smite foe or branch break do damage, however.
FULTONJ1
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/20/2005 11:41 AM CDT
<<Define "do damage" please?
Telling your mother-in-law to save you a seat in hell.
Trebber
Telling your mother-in-law to save you a seat in hell.
Trebber
WYATTB2
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/27/2005 09:00 AM CDT
<<will Smite Foe and Branch Break get similar changes or will they remain far more powerful and efficient spells in tert guilds than anything similar of Moon Mages and Clerics?>>
This is a bit late but I'll respond. Smite Foe (I can't speak for Branch Break) is only more powerful and efficient in terms of PvP. When its comes to critters its not nearly as effictive. The issue is that SF goes after stamina and critters tend to have much higher stamina then players espically as one goes up the critter ladder. If SF were to taken down several notchs to make in line with not being a powerful spell in PvP it would make it a less then usless spell aginst critters. Would I be aginst making SF a targeted spell? Not really assuming that I did not have to start at zero ranks of TM and have the spell to totally useless for a very long time until I got the ranks to near my magic prime ranks.
This is a bit late but I'll respond. Smite Foe (I can't speak for Branch Break) is only more powerful and efficient in terms of PvP. When its comes to critters its not nearly as effictive. The issue is that SF goes after stamina and critters tend to have much higher stamina then players espically as one goes up the critter ladder. If SF were to taken down several notchs to make in line with not being a powerful spell in PvP it would make it a less then usless spell aginst critters. Would I be aginst making SF a targeted spell? Not really assuming that I did not have to start at zero ranks of TM and have the spell to totally useless for a very long time until I got the ranks to near my magic prime ranks.
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/27/2005 10:15 AM CDT
<<Would I be aginst making SF a targeted spell? Not really assuming that I did not have to start at zero ranks of TM and have the spell to totally useless for a very long time until I got the ranks to near my magic prime ranks. >>
It won't be made TM, and if it were, you wouldn't be getting grandfathered ranks. That's only ever happened, AFAIK, when a new skill that was also a requirement for circling was implemented.
You wouldn't have to start at zero TM, of course - you'd start at whatever ranks you already have from classes. :)
About the only thing they've said about the change is that contested damage spells will have hard caps on the damage they can deal. In other words, you probably won't be one-shotting things with them anymore.
I'd imagine it will be similar to the damage caps on limb-hits, but there are some other possibilities. Don't know if the scaling will be adjusted, or the damage simply capped. I would assume the former.
It won't be made TM, and if it were, you wouldn't be getting grandfathered ranks. That's only ever happened, AFAIK, when a new skill that was also a requirement for circling was implemented.
You wouldn't have to start at zero TM, of course - you'd start at whatever ranks you already have from classes. :)
About the only thing they've said about the change is that contested damage spells will have hard caps on the damage they can deal. In other words, you probably won't be one-shotting things with them anymore.
I'd imagine it will be similar to the damage caps on limb-hits, but there are some other possibilities. Don't know if the scaling will be adjusted, or the damage simply capped. I would assume the former.
OLESH
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/27/2005 10:15 AM CDT
As a member of the tert guild, you don't get access to targetted magic. Targetted magic is a magic prime perk, since targetted magic spells are supposed to the 'cream of the crop', so to speak. That's why non TM damage dealing spells are getting a damage cap applied and a downtweak across the board.
While the GMs do not, as a rule, design things for the explicit purpose of PvP, the fact is that people will engage in PvP whenever it is not explicitly disallowed (and oftentimes even then). And seeing how guilds/abilities/spells are used and compare in PvP is a pretty simple and intuitive way to examine balancing issues.
Your spells are supposed to be not as good as the magic prime perk (TM spells) - but in many cases, because you need no skill to hit things and affect them, magic tert spells end up being much superior. Example: Smite Foe. It's a spell vs stamina spell, but one balanced for use on critters. This means that the caster can obtain a huge relative advantage so as to be able to affect creatures, who have giant stamina compared to players.
Consequently, when the spell is used on players, it's ridiculously effective at destroying even players who have a stamina advantage over the caster. Branch break operates in a similar manner, although being a SvA spell there's not even the excuse that it's balanced for use on critters.
A damage cap resolves the discrepancy between critter damage and player damage in the harshest means possible - from the paladin standpoint, it would be significantly better to have the spells caster advantage removed or even reversed than to limit the maximum damage output of the spell.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
While the GMs do not, as a rule, design things for the explicit purpose of PvP, the fact is that people will engage in PvP whenever it is not explicitly disallowed (and oftentimes even then). And seeing how guilds/abilities/spells are used and compare in PvP is a pretty simple and intuitive way to examine balancing issues.
Your spells are supposed to be not as good as the magic prime perk (TM spells) - but in many cases, because you need no skill to hit things and affect them, magic tert spells end up being much superior. Example: Smite Foe. It's a spell vs stamina spell, but one balanced for use on critters. This means that the caster can obtain a huge relative advantage so as to be able to affect creatures, who have giant stamina compared to players.
Consequently, when the spell is used on players, it's ridiculously effective at destroying even players who have a stamina advantage over the caster. Branch break operates in a similar manner, although being a SvA spell there's not even the excuse that it's balanced for use on critters.
A damage cap resolves the discrepancy between critter damage and player damage in the harshest means possible - from the paladin standpoint, it would be significantly better to have the spells caster advantage removed or even reversed than to limit the maximum damage output of the spell.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
WYATTB2
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/27/2005 11:08 AM CDT
Alright here is an out of the blue brainstormed idea (in other words don't get all over my case if this idea is deeply flawed in someway). What if Smite Foe had two checks rather then one. One aginst PM and the second aginst stamina as usual. So that when the Paladin casts SF it first checks aginst the victims PM and that reduces the effectivness of the cast spell itself. If it passes that check then whatever power is left in the spell then hits the stamina check.
This allows those that want to use it in PvP to no longer have a uber spell of doom used aginst them and allows the Paladin to still have be an effective spell aginst 99% of the non magic using critters in the realm.
This allows those that want to use it in PvP to no longer have a uber spell of doom used aginst them and allows the Paladin to still have be an effective spell aginst 99% of the non magic using critters in the realm.
OLESH
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/27/2005 04:51 PM CDT
Nope. Part of the reason there was a magic rewrite was so that it wasn't necessary to train magic skills in order to be able to defend against spells.
You might just have to buckle down and admit that you will actually have to put some effort into casting your uber spell of doom.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
You might just have to buckle down and admit that you will actually have to put some effort into casting your uber spell of doom.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
WEILM
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/27/2005 05:11 PM CDT
>>Alright here is an out of the blue brainstormed idea (in other words don't get all over my case if this idea is deeply flawed in someway). What if Smite Foe had two checks rather then one. One aginst PM and the second aginst stamina as usual. So that when the Paladin casts SF it first checks aginst the victims PM and that reduces the effectivness of the cast spell itself. If it passes that check then whatever power is left in the spell then hits the stamina check.
Several flaws, here.
1) SF, like any spell, already has two checks built-in. The first one is against MR, and the second is the stat vs stat check.
2) A check against PM would (severely) penalize several guilds in PvP against stat spells, namely Thieves, Traders, the unguilded, and, especially, the Barbarians.
3) Again, non-TM spells use lame-duck checks, in order to avoid "giving away" the TM skill, since they do not use anything approaching a real skill vs skill check, which is the only real way to attempt to keep things balanced.
TM vs Shield/Evasion is much more balanced than any stat vs spell, especially when it uses a stat that that character has bumped up out of all relation to real need. All stats around 20, except Discipline (or whatever) at 50+. Riiiight.
So, in order to turn TM spells into what they are supposed to be, which is the be-all and end-all of combat/damage spells, non-TM spells will have their top ends (and possibly the rest of the range, as well) brought into line with equivalent TM spells, with the advantage going where it belongs, with the TM spells.
4) Solomon has made a blanket statement, several times in the recent past, that there would be no more skills with ranks grandfathered. The closest that will come will be the Mech Lore split, and those ranks exist in a different form.
If (and I would suggest it, myself, despite the short-term pain that would be involved) all spells with a potentially damaging component were turned into true TM spells, including the ability to teach TM, it would be better all around, as it would move the Magic skill set more into alignment with most other skill sets.
It would put the damage spell advantage back where it belongs, with the Magic primaries, without having to put any new caps onto spells, other than what would be needed to bring the new TM spells into alignment with existing TM spells of the same tier.
TM would be able to be treated, even more, as the weapon-oid skill that it is; and hopefully regain the respect that it deserves.
~Kyn (Kynevon)
Info Page http://kynevon.info
Mac OS X FE http://tinyurl.com/9xjyj
Amagaim's What to Hunt Chart
Excel format: http://tinyurl.com/44jlt
HTML format: http://tinyurl.com/6tpls
Several flaws, here.
1) SF, like any spell, already has two checks built-in. The first one is against MR, and the second is the stat vs stat check.
2) A check against PM would (severely) penalize several guilds in PvP against stat spells, namely Thieves, Traders, the unguilded, and, especially, the Barbarians.
3) Again, non-TM spells use lame-duck checks, in order to avoid "giving away" the TM skill, since they do not use anything approaching a real skill vs skill check, which is the only real way to attempt to keep things balanced.
TM vs Shield/Evasion is much more balanced than any stat vs spell, especially when it uses a stat that that character has bumped up out of all relation to real need. All stats around 20, except Discipline (or whatever) at 50+. Riiiight.
So, in order to turn TM spells into what they are supposed to be, which is the be-all and end-all of combat/damage spells, non-TM spells will have their top ends (and possibly the rest of the range, as well) brought into line with equivalent TM spells, with the advantage going where it belongs, with the TM spells.
4) Solomon has made a blanket statement, several times in the recent past, that there would be no more skills with ranks grandfathered. The closest that will come will be the Mech Lore split, and those ranks exist in a different form.
If (and I would suggest it, myself, despite the short-term pain that would be involved) all spells with a potentially damaging component were turned into true TM spells, including the ability to teach TM, it would be better all around, as it would move the Magic skill set more into alignment with most other skill sets.
It would put the damage spell advantage back where it belongs, with the Magic primaries, without having to put any new caps onto spells, other than what would be needed to bring the new TM spells into alignment with existing TM spells of the same tier.
TM would be able to be treated, even more, as the weapon-oid skill that it is; and hopefully regain the respect that it deserves.
~Kyn (Kynevon)
Info Page http://kynevon.info
Mac OS X FE http://tinyurl.com/9xjyj
Amagaim's What to Hunt Chart
Excel format: http://tinyurl.com/44jlt
HTML format: http://tinyurl.com/6tpls
ZAIRIUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/28/2005 12:10 PM CDT
Actually all spells that negatively effected another should have to use TM in the spell check. Granted they'd have to teach it then and some old players would grump about having to start at 0. But pissing off old players when making the game better always happens in muds.
'Slimy Yet Satisfying' - Miko Mido
Supreme Bunny Overlord Zairius
'Slimy Yet Satisfying' - Miko Mido
Supreme Bunny Overlord Zairius
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/28/2005 02:48 PM CDT
Actually, that'd be a more or less utterly stupid thing to do.
Not much point in using any spell with the primary purpose of making something easier to hit - in the case of magic primaries, usually with a TM spell - if it has to go through the exact same check as the TM spell in the first place.
Why bother tingling something's shield when odds are, if you can't hit it with a TM spell past the shield to begin with, you can't tingle it past the shield either?
Cast a lightning bolt.
Not much point in using any spell with the primary purpose of making something easier to hit - in the case of magic primaries, usually with a TM spell - if it has to go through the exact same check as the TM spell in the first place.
Why bother tingling something's shield when odds are, if you can't hit it with a TM spell past the shield to begin with, you can't tingle it past the shield either?
Cast a lightning bolt.
WEILM
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/28/2005 05:04 PM CDT
>>Why bother tingling something's shield when odds are, if you can't hit it with a TM spell past the shield to begin with, you can't tingle it past the shield either?
Because Tingle wouldn't be defended against by shield, for one thing.
Not all TM-based spells have to be defended against by the exact same defensive weightings, as LB, for example, ignores shield as a defense.
Even "pure" TM spells use stats like Discipline and Agility in their calculations as modifiers, after all.
Besides, if all spells used the exact same mechanics, they would be pretty boring in the long run, after all. Which is why there are different weapon types, even within the exact same weapon skill, cutters vs slicers vs bashers.
~Kyn (Kynevon)
Info Page http://kynevon.info
Mac OS X FE http://tinyurl.com/9xjyj
Amagaim's What to Hunt Chart
Excel format: http://tinyurl.com/44jlt
HTML format: http://tinyurl.com/6tpls
Because Tingle wouldn't be defended against by shield, for one thing.
Not all TM-based spells have to be defended against by the exact same defensive weightings, as LB, for example, ignores shield as a defense.
Even "pure" TM spells use stats like Discipline and Agility in their calculations as modifiers, after all.
Besides, if all spells used the exact same mechanics, they would be pretty boring in the long run, after all. Which is why there are different weapon types, even within the exact same weapon skill, cutters vs slicers vs bashers.
~Kyn (Kynevon)
Info Page http://kynevon.info
Mac OS X FE http://tinyurl.com/9xjyj
Amagaim's What to Hunt Chart
Excel format: http://tinyurl.com/44jlt
HTML format: http://tinyurl.com/6tpls
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/29/2005 12:52 AM CDT
<<Because Tingle wouldn't be defended against by shield, for one thing.>>
Says who? If the offensive half were based on skill, there would automatically be no option but to do the same with the defensive half. That means defensive skills.
Quite the assumption you're making there, that electrical energy directed from the caster to the target, using TM-based equations, wouldn't be able to be intercepted by a shield. Most similar spells to tingle from a "targeting" standpoint?
Gar zeng, chain lightning. Both shield blockable.
Perhaps that was a bad example, though.
Would mental blast not have to compete against evasion? Would Thunderclap be dodgeable? The whole concept of basing the current contested spells on targeted magic is really too asinine for consideration.
A huge portion of the contested spells in the game - especially those belong to magic primes - primarily serve the function of allowing for more effective use of other offensive abilities - typically TM, in the case of magic primes.
<<Not all TM-based spells have to be defended against by the exact same defensive weightings, as LB, for example, ignores shield as a defense.>>
Which is a feature of being DFA, and nothing more. Last I checked, tingle doesn't come from the sky.
That being the case, there's no basis for the assumption that tingle, using TM Vs. defensive skill checks, would exclude shield.
<<Even "pure" TM spells use stats like Discipline and Agility in their calculations as modifiers, after all.>>
Yes, in the same way evasion uses refles and bows use agility. Not terribly relevant.
<<Besides, if all spells used the exact same mechanics, they would be pretty boring in the long run, after all. Which is why there are different weapon types, even within the exact same weapon skill, cutters vs slicers vs bashers.>>
All TM spells more or less DO use mechanics that are extremely similar - and they are pretty damn boring. About the only exceptions, currently, are DFA.
Scaling the equation for "non damage TM spells" to be as accurate as they would have to be to make them worth using under those mechanics would defeat the purpose of changing the mechanics entirely.
Not scaling them as such would defeat the purpose of having the spells in the first place.
Says who? If the offensive half were based on skill, there would automatically be no option but to do the same with the defensive half. That means defensive skills.
Quite the assumption you're making there, that electrical energy directed from the caster to the target, using TM-based equations, wouldn't be able to be intercepted by a shield. Most similar spells to tingle from a "targeting" standpoint?
Gar zeng, chain lightning. Both shield blockable.
Perhaps that was a bad example, though.
Would mental blast not have to compete against evasion? Would Thunderclap be dodgeable? The whole concept of basing the current contested spells on targeted magic is really too asinine for consideration.
A huge portion of the contested spells in the game - especially those belong to magic primes - primarily serve the function of allowing for more effective use of other offensive abilities - typically TM, in the case of magic primes.
<<Not all TM-based spells have to be defended against by the exact same defensive weightings, as LB, for example, ignores shield as a defense.>>
Which is a feature of being DFA, and nothing more. Last I checked, tingle doesn't come from the sky.
That being the case, there's no basis for the assumption that tingle, using TM Vs. defensive skill checks, would exclude shield.
<<Even "pure" TM spells use stats like Discipline and Agility in their calculations as modifiers, after all.>>
Yes, in the same way evasion uses refles and bows use agility. Not terribly relevant.
<<Besides, if all spells used the exact same mechanics, they would be pretty boring in the long run, after all. Which is why there are different weapon types, even within the exact same weapon skill, cutters vs slicers vs bashers.>>
All TM spells more or less DO use mechanics that are extremely similar - and they are pretty damn boring. About the only exceptions, currently, are DFA.
Scaling the equation for "non damage TM spells" to be as accurate as they would have to be to make them worth using under those mechanics would defeat the purpose of changing the mechanics entirely.
Not scaling them as such would defeat the purpose of having the spells in the first place.
OLESH
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/29/2005 02:05 AM CDT
The two damaging spells which are most complained about are Smite Foe and Branch Break. Both spells can with sufficient skill and mana overcome a severe stat disadvantage and in fact be used as instant kill spells. More mana compensates for poorer stats up to the cap, and the amount of compensation possible is fairly significant.
Part of the problem is that these spells are not tweaked and balanced to be cast on even ground, namely, other players who have roughly the same stats and their own complete ability set.
This is just my opinion, as someone who plays a WM as well as a thief, and on occasion has dabbled in paladinhood (as well as every other guild). You have TM spells, which are (right now) the magic prime perk - basically, lightning bolt, fire ball, DO, harm evil. That sort. Relatively unchanged.
Then, you have stat vs stat spells. In my opinion, these spells should be useful mainly to those who specialize - owing to the nature of magic, I would balance the equations in favor of the defender, and drastically reduce the possible effect of additional mana. So, if you're trying to cast ice patch or harawep's bonds against someone who severely outclasses you in the relevant stats, it doesn't matter how much mana you put in, it isn't going to happen. On the other hand, against someone who's only slightly superior to you, you may need to use a large amount of mana but you can probably land the spell. Someone who's at your level or a little lower, some additional mana will be necessary, but not much.
Magic should not be the superweapon that wins all battles against impossible odds. Currently, the majority of contested spells can overcome tremendous (in my opinion) stat disadvantage - particularily the contested spells like Halt or Mental Blast that do not have degrees of success (Mental Blast has two levels of success, but given that even a partial success is extremely debilitating and a quick follow up cast ALWAYS results in putting the target to sleep...).
Personally, I would like to see some TM spells that don't directly do damage. If I recall, Energy Manacles initially taught TM (and possibly used it) until it was changed. I'd like to see something like that - a TM spell that does not do damage, but increases accuracy/strength with more mana much like an SvA spell. And it would be defended against with the relevant stats and skills - evasion, shield, possibly parry if appropriate (to crib an idea from Diablo II, a spell which magically animates a weapon and can be directed to attack a target with the caster's skill would be defended against with parry).
I don't agree with magic tert guilds being cut off from TM spells and the TM mechanics, and seeing as the magic secondary guilds consists of Bards and Empaths, they're not likely to care much about it. I think that there's definately room for a wider variety of spells - some overlap/redundancy wouldn't be a bad thing, either. A warrior mage could, say, choose between a spell which launches a globe of magically cooled water that freezes on impact, or the existing ice patch spell - both would accomplish basically the same thing, but one would be a TM spell, use TM mechanics, and rely on skills over stats, and the other would be the existing SvA spell and use stats instead of skills.
Wow, this post is long. I'll cut it short here and just go to bed.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
Part of the problem is that these spells are not tweaked and balanced to be cast on even ground, namely, other players who have roughly the same stats and their own complete ability set.
This is just my opinion, as someone who plays a WM as well as a thief, and on occasion has dabbled in paladinhood (as well as every other guild). You have TM spells, which are (right now) the magic prime perk - basically, lightning bolt, fire ball, DO, harm evil. That sort. Relatively unchanged.
Then, you have stat vs stat spells. In my opinion, these spells should be useful mainly to those who specialize - owing to the nature of magic, I would balance the equations in favor of the defender, and drastically reduce the possible effect of additional mana. So, if you're trying to cast ice patch or harawep's bonds against someone who severely outclasses you in the relevant stats, it doesn't matter how much mana you put in, it isn't going to happen. On the other hand, against someone who's only slightly superior to you, you may need to use a large amount of mana but you can probably land the spell. Someone who's at your level or a little lower, some additional mana will be necessary, but not much.
Magic should not be the superweapon that wins all battles against impossible odds. Currently, the majority of contested spells can overcome tremendous (in my opinion) stat disadvantage - particularily the contested spells like Halt or Mental Blast that do not have degrees of success (Mental Blast has two levels of success, but given that even a partial success is extremely debilitating and a quick follow up cast ALWAYS results in putting the target to sleep...).
Personally, I would like to see some TM spells that don't directly do damage. If I recall, Energy Manacles initially taught TM (and possibly used it) until it was changed. I'd like to see something like that - a TM spell that does not do damage, but increases accuracy/strength with more mana much like an SvA spell. And it would be defended against with the relevant stats and skills - evasion, shield, possibly parry if appropriate (to crib an idea from Diablo II, a spell which magically animates a weapon and can be directed to attack a target with the caster's skill would be defended against with parry).
I don't agree with magic tert guilds being cut off from TM spells and the TM mechanics, and seeing as the magic secondary guilds consists of Bards and Empaths, they're not likely to care much about it. I think that there's definately room for a wider variety of spells - some overlap/redundancy wouldn't be a bad thing, either. A warrior mage could, say, choose between a spell which launches a globe of magically cooled water that freezes on impact, or the existing ice patch spell - both would accomplish basically the same thing, but one would be a TM spell, use TM mechanics, and rely on skills over stats, and the other would be the existing SvA spell and use stats instead of skills.
Wow, this post is long. I'll cut it short here and just go to bed.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
WYATTB2
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/31/2005 05:45 AM CDT
<<I would balance the equations in favor of the defender, and drastically reduce the possible effect of additional mana.>>
This only issue I have with that is that, at least in terms of Smite Foe, it makes the spell less then useless on 99% of critters over a certain level because a critters stamina is going to outclass the Paladins by many times. Personally, if it were up to me I would have never made so that you could cast it on other players because everyone knew this line of complaining was going to happen as soon as it git used in PvP,
This only issue I have with that is that, at least in terms of Smite Foe, it makes the spell less then useless on 99% of critters over a certain level because a critters stamina is going to outclass the Paladins by many times. Personally, if it were up to me I would have never made so that you could cast it on other players because everyone knew this line of complaining was going to happen as soon as it git used in PvP,
OLESH
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/31/2005 12:46 PM CDT
To be quite frank, that's neither my fault nor my problem. Warrior Mages have spell vs stamina spells which are balanced more properly - rather, to say that while like all stat vs stat spells it is very difficult to resist them, the fact remains that players who put in the effort resist them quite handily, and they are very difficult to pull off against the creatures who have high stamina (and not so difficult against the creatures that do not).
A spell does not have to and SHOULD NOT always work well in every circumstance. If you design a SvS spell that is made to break through the high stamina of tough creatures, then why make it SvS at all? In effect, it is a spell which pretends to be able to be resisted. Smite Foe is a SvS spell. Therefore, it should be difficult to land on creatures with high stamina. It should not have been tweaked and balanced so that people with less stamina should still be able to use it to great effect on people and things with significantly higher stamina. (As well as the other stats that apply).
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
A spell does not have to and SHOULD NOT always work well in every circumstance. If you design a SvS spell that is made to break through the high stamina of tough creatures, then why make it SvS at all? In effect, it is a spell which pretends to be able to be resisted. Smite Foe is a SvS spell. Therefore, it should be difficult to land on creatures with high stamina. It should not have been tweaked and balanced so that people with less stamina should still be able to use it to great effect on people and things with significantly higher stamina. (As well as the other stats that apply).
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/31/2005 02:40 PM CDT
<<Warrior Mages have spell vs stamina spells which are balanced more properly>>
Actually, WM SvS spells are incredibly broken too.
My little 55th WM with 20 something stamina has knocked out 150th circle empaths with 60-70 stamina using vertigo.
Not with a big prep, mind you - with just enough to get past MR.
Actually, WM SvS spells are incredibly broken too.
My little 55th WM with 20 something stamina has knocked out 150th circle empaths with 60-70 stamina using vertigo.
Not with a big prep, mind you - with just enough to get past MR.
OLESH
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/31/2005 07:35 PM CDT
I didn't say ALL of them were balanced properly. Vertigo doesn't care about level of success for the sleeping effect... there's a random chance each pulse to knock unconscious, even if you can't do more than unbalance them a little on regular pulses. Ignoring the random chance of unconsciousness, the amount that a person is unbalanced depends on the degree by which you beat their stamina.
At low levels of success, the unbalancing effect is marginal, and abilities that recover balance completely negate the unbalancing effect of vertigo. The only really bad thing about the spell is the random chance of unconsciousness; otherwise I'd say it's very well balanced.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
At low levels of success, the unbalancing effect is marginal, and abilities that recover balance completely negate the unbalancing effect of vertigo. The only really bad thing about the spell is the random chance of unconsciousness; otherwise I'd say it's very well balanced.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/31/2005 09:41 PM CDT
At 7 mana, there shouldn't be ANY degree of success given the disparity of stats involved.
OLESH
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
05/31/2005 10:51 PM CDT
Don't know what to tell you, except that I would have to see it for myself. I regularily use 20 mana, minimum, on other players (more on barbarians), and I can safely say that I'm above 55th circle and most certainly have more in the relevant stats than you do.
A 150th circle ANYTHING should be causing a 7 mana vertigo to fail from MR alone, so you'll understand if I consider your post hyperbole and don't take it as fact. It does not mesh with my experience in the least.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
A 150th circle ANYTHING should be causing a 7 mana vertigo to fail from MR alone, so you'll understand if I consider your post hyperbole and don't take it as fact. It does not mesh with my experience in the least.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/01/2005 12:00 AM CDT
It was, in fact, more or less literal.
I retract the part about 150th, however - this was before the new empath reqs were released - placing the target in question at 99th-going-on-150th.
My moonmage is 116th with skills to circle to 150th, and substantially more in every relevant stat than the WM in question.
Here you go.
>prep vert 7
That won't affect your current attunement very much.
You trace an arcane sigil in the air, shaping the pattern of the Vertigo spell.
>cast memn
You gesture at Memnoch.
You have difficulty manipulating the mana streams, causing the spell pattern to collapse at the last moment.
>prep vert 8
That won't affect your current attunement very much.
You trace an arcane sigil in the air, shaping the pattern of the Vertigo spell.
>
>cast memn
You gesture at Memnoch.
You meticulously alter the air flow and pressure around Memnoch's head.
Memnoch suddenly turns pale and begins to look unsteady.
>
...
>
Memnoch looks slightly ill and wobbles.
Memnoch collapses to the ground!
Memnoch lapses into unconsciousness.
Same was true for the empath in question, despite OBSCENELY high relevant stats for SvS.
As long as it isn't stopped by MR, success is guaranteed.
In conclusion, you lose.
I retract the part about 150th, however - this was before the new empath reqs were released - placing the target in question at 99th-going-on-150th.
My moonmage is 116th with skills to circle to 150th, and substantially more in every relevant stat than the WM in question.
Here you go.
>prep vert 7
That won't affect your current attunement very much.
You trace an arcane sigil in the air, shaping the pattern of the Vertigo spell.
>cast memn
You gesture at Memnoch.
You have difficulty manipulating the mana streams, causing the spell pattern to collapse at the last moment.
>prep vert 8
That won't affect your current attunement very much.
You trace an arcane sigil in the air, shaping the pattern of the Vertigo spell.
>
>cast memn
You gesture at Memnoch.
You meticulously alter the air flow and pressure around Memnoch's head.
Memnoch suddenly turns pale and begins to look unsteady.
>
...
>
Memnoch looks slightly ill and wobbles.
Memnoch collapses to the ground!
Memnoch lapses into unconsciousness.
Same was true for the empath in question, despite OBSCENELY high relevant stats for SvS.
As long as it isn't stopped by MR, success is guaranteed.
In conclusion, you lose.
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/01/2005 12:02 AM CDT
Also note that, due to the way MR works, all one point over what is resisted by MR is, essentially, a min-prep with no MR reduction at all.
In other words, the literal amount of mana isn't really relevant - only the amount required to achieve success.
From what I've seen, if you surpass MR, success is achieved in all circumstances with min prep using vertigo.
In other words, the literal amount of mana isn't really relevant - only the amount required to achieve success.
From what I've seen, if you surpass MR, success is achieved in all circumstances with min prep using vertigo.
JUASON
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/01/2005 12:29 AM CDT
From what I've seen Vertigo is effective if you have a decent advantage with SvS stats against the defender. Having really focuses on my strength, discipline and stamina I expect to be able to vertigo most things I hunt. I'll say this, many things I hunt still easily resist vertigo or are barely effected by it. Though, with a ton of mana I can land it on things I probably shouldn't be. The same goes for players to a point. Many higher circle players need a decent amount of mana for me to affect. Considering vertigo is a very slow acting spell, the unsconsciousness is nothing like mind blast, and its random, I feel this balances it out well. It is more a hunting tool for me.
RACEKING
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/01/2005 02:38 AM CDT
Vertigo is so slow that it's not anywhere close to being overpowered. If a mage attacked anyone with such a large skill and stat gap that is being claimed here I would expect that mage to be dead long before the first pulse of vertigo hits. I dont see a problem with not being immune to vertigo based upon how slow it is. If someone you so clearly outclass cast vertigo on you, you clearly have time to deal with the problem mage well before you fall unconscious. People with higher stats resist the spell quite well, they just arn't 100% immune to it's effects.
>touch master
You gingerly touch a gaunt shadow master. The only good master is a dead master!
>touch master
You gingerly touch a gaunt shadow master. The only good master is a dead master!
OLESH
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/01/2005 03:44 AM CDT
Again; I believe I mentioned that the chance for unconsciousness happened regardless of success level, however I also mentioned that the actual balance hit from a low level of success is entirely negligible. Anyone actively regaining balance in combat is not going to care about vertigo, and the only risk is the random chance of unconsciousness (which I personally dislike).
What you are describing, regarding the spell suceeding as long as you beat MR, happens with ALL stat vs stat spells after a point. Vertigo is certainly no exception, but as mentioned earlier, actually requires a sizable advantage to be effective without relying on the random small chance of unconsciousness. Compare to other stat vs stat spells such as halt or mental blast, where there is no serious advantage required - even a minimal success is fully incapacitating.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
What you are describing, regarding the spell suceeding as long as you beat MR, happens with ALL stat vs stat spells after a point. Vertigo is certainly no exception, but as mentioned earlier, actually requires a sizable advantage to be effective without relying on the random small chance of unconsciousness. Compare to other stat vs stat spells such as halt or mental blast, where there is no serious advantage required - even a minimal success is fully incapacitating.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/01/2005 08:49 AM CDT
<<What you are describing, regarding the spell suceeding as long as you beat MR, happens with ALL stat vs stat spells after a point. >>
No, actually, it doesn't. You may as well stop posting at this point because you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.
The vast majority of contested spells in the game will not succeed at the minimum mana required to beat MR when they are disadvantaged in the statistics contest.
Most of them can be made to succeed provided substantial mana is used above and beyond that which is simply required to defeat MR.
There is no such substantial mana required with vertigo. It ONLY requires that you defeat the magic resistance and that is it - it's clearly broken and trying to argue that it isn't is laughable.
No, actually, it doesn't. You may as well stop posting at this point because you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about.
The vast majority of contested spells in the game will not succeed at the minimum mana required to beat MR when they are disadvantaged in the statistics contest.
Most of them can be made to succeed provided substantial mana is used above and beyond that which is simply required to defeat MR.
There is no such substantial mana required with vertigo. It ONLY requires that you defeat the magic resistance and that is it - it's clearly broken and trying to argue that it isn't is laughable.
KEWLITE2
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/01/2005 09:42 AM CDT
From what I've seen with vertigo and tested myself it seems to be based more on strength than stamina even though its listed as SvS.
Reason I state that is I use to have a tog warmie with 40 str, disc, stamina and it was extremely easy for me to vertigo people with more stamina but less strength where they couldn't affect me at all without using around 25+ mana. So yes vertigo can be resisted. Though the stats it uses and in what order seems to be different
Reason I state that is I use to have a tog warmie with 40 str, disc, stamina and it was extremely easy for me to vertigo people with more stamina but less strength where they couldn't affect me at all without using around 25+ mana. So yes vertigo can be resisted. Though the stats it uses and in what order seems to be different
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/01/2005 10:41 AM CDT
The issue isn't really a vertigo one, it's SvS in general. There isn't an SvS spell in the game that I know of with a reasonable check.
Since I had TDPs to throw around, however, I went ahead and bumped my MMs str to 40 and stamina to 33 - just to humor you. I already know how the spell easily defeats 70 stamina at effectively min prep. We'll try a 16 point discrepancy in strength, and call the 7 point stamina difference "window dressing".
The increase in stats had the effect of increasing the amount of mana needed to surpass magic resistance by 1.
Nothing more.
Additionally, those of you claiming the balance hit is "negligable" on what could only be low-level success given the stats involved are seriously confused.
Here is a 9 mana cast, the minimum required to breach the defender's MR - effectively a "min prep" cast, in terms of effect.
Attacker:
Strength : 24 Reflex : 34
Agility : 27 Charisma : 16
Discipline : 35 Wisdom : 38
Intelligence : 33 Stamina : 26
Defender:
Strength : 40 Reflex : 70
Agility : 40 Charisma : 55
Discipline : 85 Wisdom : 50
Intelligence : 70 Stamina : 33
Cast 1:
Mors gestures at you.
Your ears suddenly pop, and a wave of dizziness floods over you.
Roundtime: 2 seconds.
R>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are off balance.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are badly balanced.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are very badly balanced.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are very badly balanced.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are extremely imbalanced.
>
The unsteadiness and nausea you felt wears off.
Cast 2:
Mors gestures at you.
Your ears suddenly pop, and a wave of dizziness floods over you.
Roundtime: 2 seconds.
R>bala
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
You collapse to the ground!
The world goes black as the lack of air takes its toll on you...
P>
You are very badly balanced.
P>stand
You're unconscious!
P>stand
You stand back up.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
You collapse to the ground!
The world goes black as the lack of air takes its toll on you...
P>stand
You're unconscious!
P>stand
You stand back up.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are extremely imbalanced.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are extremely imbalanced.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are hopelessly unbalanced.
>
The unsteadiness and nausea you felt wears off.
While I'm at it, I'll address the fairly ludicrous claim that "all contested spells work like that."
Tingle at 30:
Mors gestures at you.
Mors stares at your hands for a moment, but nothing happens.
IP @ 10:
Mors gestures at you.
A sheet of slippery ice forms beneath you!
You barely manage to stay on your feet on the treacherous ice.
IP @ 35 (note: Caster has 620 TM, target has 250 evasion. Not certain on how much it factors in right now but it won't be relevant for long anyway):
Mors gestures at you.
A sheet of slippery ice forms beneath you!
You barely manage to stay on your feet on the treacherous ice.
TC @ 35:
You gesture.
An enormous clap of thunder booms through the area, rattling the teeth in your jaw.
Memnoch winces but is unaffected.
The noise rocks your body, shaking your chest and head with its force!
You are stunned!
Managed to knock myself stupid, but not the target.
Tremor @ 30:
Mors gestures.
The earth beneath your feet begins to shake violently!
Mors manages to stay upright, but looks a bit wobbly!
You manage to remain upright!
>
The ground rumbles and shakes with a violent aftershock!
Mors manages to stay upright, but looks a bit wobbly!
You manage to remain upright!
>bala
You are solidly balanced.
>
In conclusion:
No, all contested spells do not behave that way.
Yes, vertigo is borked.
Since I had TDPs to throw around, however, I went ahead and bumped my MMs str to 40 and stamina to 33 - just to humor you. I already know how the spell easily defeats 70 stamina at effectively min prep. We'll try a 16 point discrepancy in strength, and call the 7 point stamina difference "window dressing".
The increase in stats had the effect of increasing the amount of mana needed to surpass magic resistance by 1.
Nothing more.
Additionally, those of you claiming the balance hit is "negligable" on what could only be low-level success given the stats involved are seriously confused.
Here is a 9 mana cast, the minimum required to breach the defender's MR - effectively a "min prep" cast, in terms of effect.
Attacker:
Strength : 24 Reflex : 34
Agility : 27 Charisma : 16
Discipline : 35 Wisdom : 38
Intelligence : 33 Stamina : 26
Defender:
Strength : 40 Reflex : 70
Agility : 40 Charisma : 55
Discipline : 85 Wisdom : 50
Intelligence : 70 Stamina : 33
Cast 1:
Mors gestures at you.
Your ears suddenly pop, and a wave of dizziness floods over you.
Roundtime: 2 seconds.
R>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are off balance.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are badly balanced.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are very badly balanced.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are very badly balanced.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are extremely imbalanced.
>
The unsteadiness and nausea you felt wears off.
Cast 2:
Mors gestures at you.
Your ears suddenly pop, and a wave of dizziness floods over you.
Roundtime: 2 seconds.
R>bala
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
You collapse to the ground!
The world goes black as the lack of air takes its toll on you...
P>
You are very badly balanced.
P>stand
You're unconscious!
P>stand
You stand back up.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
You collapse to the ground!
The world goes black as the lack of air takes its toll on you...
P>stand
You're unconscious!
P>stand
You stand back up.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are extremely imbalanced.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are extremely imbalanced.
>
You feel slightly ill as the air around your head pulses in bizarre ways.
>bala
You are hopelessly unbalanced.
>
The unsteadiness and nausea you felt wears off.
While I'm at it, I'll address the fairly ludicrous claim that "all contested spells work like that."
Tingle at 30:
Mors gestures at you.
Mors stares at your hands for a moment, but nothing happens.
IP @ 10:
Mors gestures at you.
A sheet of slippery ice forms beneath you!
You barely manage to stay on your feet on the treacherous ice.
IP @ 35 (note: Caster has 620 TM, target has 250 evasion. Not certain on how much it factors in right now but it won't be relevant for long anyway):
Mors gestures at you.
A sheet of slippery ice forms beneath you!
You barely manage to stay on your feet on the treacherous ice.
TC @ 35:
You gesture.
An enormous clap of thunder booms through the area, rattling the teeth in your jaw.
Memnoch winces but is unaffected.
The noise rocks your body, shaking your chest and head with its force!
You are stunned!
Managed to knock myself stupid, but not the target.
Tremor @ 30:
Mors gestures.
The earth beneath your feet begins to shake violently!
Mors manages to stay upright, but looks a bit wobbly!
You manage to remain upright!
>
The ground rumbles and shakes with a violent aftershock!
Mors manages to stay upright, but looks a bit wobbly!
You manage to remain upright!
>bala
You are solidly balanced.
>
In conclusion:
No, all contested spells do not behave that way.
Yes, vertigo is borked.
OLESH
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/01/2005 03:04 PM CDT
You're conveniently ignoring specific sections of my post - in this case, me mentioning that the balance hit is negligible if you are actively gaining balance. There's a reason why I don't generally bother casting vertigo on critters who are at melee with me - instead, I cast static discharge. There's also a reason why I don't bother casting vertigo at low mana in PvP - when I'm facing people who have larger than a 7 point stamina advantage, they quite frequently resist the spell (and other SvS) if I use insufficient mana.
Second, you're only testing warrior mage contested spells, which (ha!) for the most part are balanced properly. Throw in a paladin with comparable stats, and try halt and smite foe. Throw in a similar moon mage, and see how burn, mental blast, and hypnotize stack up. You're also entirely neglecting frostbite and static discharge, both of which are spell vs stamina.
Third, you're comparing a relatively minor disadvantage in spell vs stamina stats to gigantic disadvantages in WvW and SvA - of COURSE none of the WvW or SvA spells is going to work, when there's a difference of 50 disipline, 36 reflexes, 37 intelligence, and 39 charisma. Even the agility, which is closer than the others, is still 13 points higher on the defender.
And finally, fourth, you're not considering that the issue may be in the spell vs stamina equations themselves, rather than with the individual spells. Your lack of 'testing' with other SvS spells leaves this particular line of inquiry inconclusive.
To sum up, in your testing the defender's advantage in SvS is fairly negligble. The defender's advantage in SvA and WvW is significant. The SvS spell was not resisted, while the SvA and WvW spells were resisted. So, you've proven that an insignificant advantage by the defender can be overcome by the attacker with the minimum mana necessary to breach the defenders MR.
Bravo. Of course, according to you, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, since after all, I don't attempt to support my point with flawed experiments.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
Second, you're only testing warrior mage contested spells, which (ha!) for the most part are balanced properly. Throw in a paladin with comparable stats, and try halt and smite foe. Throw in a similar moon mage, and see how burn, mental blast, and hypnotize stack up. You're also entirely neglecting frostbite and static discharge, both of which are spell vs stamina.
Third, you're comparing a relatively minor disadvantage in spell vs stamina stats to gigantic disadvantages in WvW and SvA - of COURSE none of the WvW or SvA spells is going to work, when there's a difference of 50 disipline, 36 reflexes, 37 intelligence, and 39 charisma. Even the agility, which is closer than the others, is still 13 points higher on the defender.
And finally, fourth, you're not considering that the issue may be in the spell vs stamina equations themselves, rather than with the individual spells. Your lack of 'testing' with other SvS spells leaves this particular line of inquiry inconclusive.
To sum up, in your testing the defender's advantage in SvS is fairly negligble. The defender's advantage in SvA and WvW is significant. The SvS spell was not resisted, while the SvA and WvW spells were resisted. So, you've proven that an insignificant advantage by the defender can be overcome by the attacker with the minimum mana necessary to breach the defenders MR.
Bravo. Of course, according to you, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, since after all, I don't attempt to support my point with flawed experiments.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/01/2005 04:11 PM CDT
<<There's also a reason why I don't bother casting vertigo at low mana in PvP - when I'm facing people who have larger than a 7 point stamina advantage, they quite frequently resist the spell (and other SvS) if I use insufficient mana.>>
I note you don't seem to be posting any evidence to back that up.
I have yet to see anyone post anything showing a cast of vertigo being resisted in any fashion other than straight MR.
Lot of people CLAIMING the contest can be lost. Not a whole lot of demonstrating, however.
We have one person claiming, "omg it's teh strength not teh stamina!" 16 point discrepancy? Effective Min prep still works.
<<Second, you're only testing warrior mage contested spells, which (ha!) for the most part are balanced properly. Throw in a paladin with comparable stats, and try halt and smite foe. Throw in a similar moon mage, and see how burn, mental blast, and hypnotize stack up. You're also entirely neglecting frostbite and static discharge, both of which are spell vs stamina.>>
Actually, I flat out can't MB or calm someone with even very slightly more in WvW stats than I have at min prep. I have to use substantially more mana.
Way to rely on hearsay, though, chief!
<<Third, you're comparing a relatively minor disadvantage in spell vs stamina stats to gigantic disadvantages in WvW and SvA - of COURSE none of the WvW or SvA spells is going to work, when there's a difference of 50 disipline, 36 reflexes, 37 intelligence, and 39 charisma. Even the agility, which is closer than the others, is still 13 points higher on the defender.>>
I'm also comparing what is EFFECTIVELY MIN PREP with SvS to prep amounts VASTLY beyond min prep, too.
Additionally, the results are EXACTLY the same if I use the empath who has the same SvS massive advantage, relatively speaking, that the MM has in WvW/SvA. 70+ stam. Absolute minimum to defeat MR is all that's necessary.
Finally, the only purpose of those non-vertigo spell casts was to disprove your utterly asinine statement to the effect that ALL contested spells tend to succeed if they defeat MR.
<<And finally, fourth, you're not considering that the issue may be in the spell vs stamina equations themselves, rather than with the individual spells. Your lack of 'testing' with other SvS spells leaves this particular line of inquiry inconclusive.>>
You'd have a point if the VERY first line of my previous post had NOT read:
"The issue isn't really a vertigo one, it's SvS in general. There isn't an SvS spell in the game that I know of with a reasonable check."
NB, FRB, etc. are all similarly borked to varying degrees. Vertigo is simply the only one convenient for me to demonstrate with at the moment. Most everyone is familiar with the brokenness of FRB already, and there is a nice thread on NB in the empath forum. Search Responses to GMs for "Churtie".
<<Bravo. Of course, according to you, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, since after all, I don't attempt to support my point with flawed experiments.>>
You don't attempt to support your point with any evidence at all.
I note you don't seem to be posting any evidence to back that up.
I have yet to see anyone post anything showing a cast of vertigo being resisted in any fashion other than straight MR.
Lot of people CLAIMING the contest can be lost. Not a whole lot of demonstrating, however.
We have one person claiming, "omg it's teh strength not teh stamina!" 16 point discrepancy? Effective Min prep still works.
<<Second, you're only testing warrior mage contested spells, which (ha!) for the most part are balanced properly. Throw in a paladin with comparable stats, and try halt and smite foe. Throw in a similar moon mage, and see how burn, mental blast, and hypnotize stack up. You're also entirely neglecting frostbite and static discharge, both of which are spell vs stamina.>>
Actually, I flat out can't MB or calm someone with even very slightly more in WvW stats than I have at min prep. I have to use substantially more mana.
Way to rely on hearsay, though, chief!
<<Third, you're comparing a relatively minor disadvantage in spell vs stamina stats to gigantic disadvantages in WvW and SvA - of COURSE none of the WvW or SvA spells is going to work, when there's a difference of 50 disipline, 36 reflexes, 37 intelligence, and 39 charisma. Even the agility, which is closer than the others, is still 13 points higher on the defender.>>
I'm also comparing what is EFFECTIVELY MIN PREP with SvS to prep amounts VASTLY beyond min prep, too.
Additionally, the results are EXACTLY the same if I use the empath who has the same SvS massive advantage, relatively speaking, that the MM has in WvW/SvA. 70+ stam. Absolute minimum to defeat MR is all that's necessary.
Finally, the only purpose of those non-vertigo spell casts was to disprove your utterly asinine statement to the effect that ALL contested spells tend to succeed if they defeat MR.
<<And finally, fourth, you're not considering that the issue may be in the spell vs stamina equations themselves, rather than with the individual spells. Your lack of 'testing' with other SvS spells leaves this particular line of inquiry inconclusive.>>
You'd have a point if the VERY first line of my previous post had NOT read:
"The issue isn't really a vertigo one, it's SvS in general. There isn't an SvS spell in the game that I know of with a reasonable check."
NB, FRB, etc. are all similarly borked to varying degrees. Vertigo is simply the only one convenient for me to demonstrate with at the moment. Most everyone is familiar with the brokenness of FRB already, and there is a nice thread on NB in the empath forum. Search Responses to GMs for "Churtie".
<<Bravo. Of course, according to you, I clearly don't know what I'm talking about, since after all, I don't attempt to support my point with flawed experiments.>>
You don't attempt to support your point with any evidence at all.
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/01/2005 05:49 PM CDT
<<<<Second, you're only testing warrior mage contested spells, which (ha!) for the most part are balanced properly. Throw in a paladin with comparable stats, and try halt and smite foe. Throw in a similar moon mage, and see how burn, mental blast, and hypnotize stack up. You're also entirely neglecting frostbite and static discharge, both of which are spell vs stamina.>>
Actually, I flat out can't MB or calm someone with even very slightly more in WvW stats than I have at min prep. I have to use substantially more mana.
Way to rely on hearsay, though, chief!>>
Just gonna go ahead and pre-emptively elaborate on this right now and head off the inevitable unsubstantiated argument that's no doubt coming.
Attacker:
Disc: 85
Int: 70
Char: 55
Defender:
Disc: 80
Int: 80
Char: 40
Total difference: 10 points in favor of the attacker.
Calm:
Min prep: 3
>prep calm 10
That won't affect your current attunement very much.
You spread your hands apart then slowly bring them together, fingers interlocked.
>cast fatal
You gesture at Fatal.
He pauses for a brief moment, but is otherwise unaffected.
Roundtime: 2 seconds.
R>
You feel fully attuned to the mana streams again.
R>prep calm 11
That won't affect your current attunement very much.
You spread your hands apart then slowly bring them together, fingers interlocked.
>cast fatal
You gesture at Fatal.
He pauses for a brief moment, but is otherwise unaffected.
Roundtime: 2 seconds.
R>
You notice Azark slip into a hiding place.
R>prep calm 12
That won't affect your current attunement very much.
You spread your hands apart then slowly bring them together, fingers interlocked.
>
You feel fully attuned to the mana streams again.
>cast fatal
You gesture at Fatal.
He looks somewhat less aggressive.
Roundtime: 2 seconds.
Also, as an aside, I tried WD - allegedly SvS though I can't confirm that myself - against the above target.
With an 8 point advantage in str and only a 17 point disadvantage in stamina, I had to go 8 over min prep to affect him.
I have, so far, seen one lost-contest with vertigo. Target had 32 str, 50 stamina. I haven't been able to repeat it on the same target, using the same mana (9), a single time yet. Every other cast has landed.
Total stat discrepancy: 32 points in favor of defender.
I will go ahead and hypothesize that your response will include a claim that the 10 point attacker advantage in the calm test is negated because it's largely coming from charisma, which is likely not the most significant stat.
The fact of the matter is, with one of the WvW spells YOU specifically mentioned, and with extremely even stats, it takes me 8 over min prep to land the spell.
With stats VASTLY skewed in favor of the defender, I have thus far managed to land all but a single cast of vertigo at what is effectively min prep.
I eagerly await your wholly unsubstantiated, evidence-free explanation for why the above makes sense.
Actually, I flat out can't MB or calm someone with even very slightly more in WvW stats than I have at min prep. I have to use substantially more mana.
Way to rely on hearsay, though, chief!>>
Just gonna go ahead and pre-emptively elaborate on this right now and head off the inevitable unsubstantiated argument that's no doubt coming.
Attacker:
Disc: 85
Int: 70
Char: 55
Defender:
Disc: 80
Int: 80
Char: 40
Total difference: 10 points in favor of the attacker.
Calm:
Min prep: 3
>prep calm 10
That won't affect your current attunement very much.
You spread your hands apart then slowly bring them together, fingers interlocked.
>cast fatal
You gesture at Fatal.
He pauses for a brief moment, but is otherwise unaffected.
Roundtime: 2 seconds.
R>
You feel fully attuned to the mana streams again.
R>prep calm 11
That won't affect your current attunement very much.
You spread your hands apart then slowly bring them together, fingers interlocked.
>cast fatal
You gesture at Fatal.
He pauses for a brief moment, but is otherwise unaffected.
Roundtime: 2 seconds.
R>
You notice Azark slip into a hiding place.
R>prep calm 12
That won't affect your current attunement very much.
You spread your hands apart then slowly bring them together, fingers interlocked.
>
You feel fully attuned to the mana streams again.
>cast fatal
You gesture at Fatal.
He looks somewhat less aggressive.
Roundtime: 2 seconds.
Also, as an aside, I tried WD - allegedly SvS though I can't confirm that myself - against the above target.
With an 8 point advantage in str and only a 17 point disadvantage in stamina, I had to go 8 over min prep to affect him.
I have, so far, seen one lost-contest with vertigo. Target had 32 str, 50 stamina. I haven't been able to repeat it on the same target, using the same mana (9), a single time yet. Every other cast has landed.
Total stat discrepancy: 32 points in favor of defender.
I will go ahead and hypothesize that your response will include a claim that the 10 point attacker advantage in the calm test is negated because it's largely coming from charisma, which is likely not the most significant stat.
The fact of the matter is, with one of the WvW spells YOU specifically mentioned, and with extremely even stats, it takes me 8 over min prep to land the spell.
With stats VASTLY skewed in favor of the defender, I have thus far managed to land all but a single cast of vertigo at what is effectively min prep.
I eagerly await your wholly unsubstantiated, evidence-free explanation for why the above makes sense.
DR-ANNWYL
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break ::NUDGE::
06/01/2005 07:09 PM CDT
Folks,
Address the points of a post not the posters.
Further bickering will be removed and this thread ended.
Annwyl
Senior Board Monitor
If you've questions or comments, take it to e-mail by writing Senior Board Monitor DR-Annwyl@play.net, or Message Board Supervisor DR-Cecco@play.net.
Address the points of a post not the posters.
Further bickering will be removed and this thread ended.
Annwyl
Senior Board Monitor
If you've questions or comments, take it to e-mail by writing Senior Board Monitor DR-Annwyl@play.net, or Message Board Supervisor DR-Cecco@play.net.
OLESH
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break ::NUDGE::
06/01/2005 07:58 PM CDT
Well, if you want, I could provide the messaging for a resisted vertigo or frostbite. However, as I only play one character at a time, I cannot provide information as to the stats of the person I am casting on. All I could possibly say is that the other person has more than me, and that's not particularily helpful at all.
There is a large degree of testing possible upon this very subject, but due to the many hidden factors (how much particular stats actually contribute, and the weighting on each side, as well as how much additional mana actually contributes), a comprehensive set of experiments is beyond my means.
For example - when dealing with stat vs stat spells, is success determined by comparing the ratio of the attacker's total to the defender's total? Or is success determined based on a fixed stat advantage?
Specifically, if I have 25s in all my stats, and you have 20s, will I get the same degree of success at the same mana as I would if I had 50s in all my stats and you had 40s? Like so many other things in DR, it's possible - even likely - that as stats get higher, the difference in stats must be larger to generate the same effect.
Have I tested this? No. I lack the resources to do so. I suspect there might be something to it, however.
Take my musings as you will - there's no need to post further in this thread. Since it appears you have no interest in holding a civil discussion, I'm no longer going to read this particular thread.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
There is a large degree of testing possible upon this very subject, but due to the many hidden factors (how much particular stats actually contribute, and the weighting on each side, as well as how much additional mana actually contributes), a comprehensive set of experiments is beyond my means.
For example - when dealing with stat vs stat spells, is success determined by comparing the ratio of the attacker's total to the defender's total? Or is success determined based on a fixed stat advantage?
Specifically, if I have 25s in all my stats, and you have 20s, will I get the same degree of success at the same mana as I would if I had 50s in all my stats and you had 40s? Like so many other things in DR, it's possible - even likely - that as stats get higher, the difference in stats must be larger to generate the same effect.
Have I tested this? No. I lack the resources to do so. I suspect there might be something to it, however.
Take my musings as you will - there's no need to post further in this thread. Since it appears you have no interest in holding a civil discussion, I'm no longer going to read this particular thread.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
LORDLOL
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/02/2005 05:06 AM CDT
I went ahead and tested this tonight, I have more detailed results, with 1 second intervals, but I'll just go over the main results. They seem to contradict the below comments.
> You're conveniently ignoring specific sections of my post - in this case, me mentioning that the balance hit is negligible if you are actively gaining balance. There's a reason why I don't generally bother casting vertigo on critters who are at melee with me - instead, I cast static discharge.
Attackers relevent statistics: 30 Strength, 20 stamina, 20 charisma.
Defenders relevent statistics: 30 strength, 30 stamina, 50 charisma.
I wasn't actively gaining balance while the spell was in effect, but I would be surprised if it would have negated the balance hit, especially given what I've seen it do to the balance of creatures while assessing after casting the spell. There is 8 seconds in between pulses.
First pulse --> somewhat off balance.
Second pulse --> very badly balanced.
Third pulse --> completely imbalanced.
> There's also a reason why I don't bother casting vertigo at low mana in PvP - when I'm facing people who have larger than a 7 point stamina advantage, they quite frequently resist the spell (and other SvS) if I use insufficient mana.
I also tested Vertigo against my Empath.
Attackers relevent statistics: 30 Strength, 20 stamina, 20 charisma.
Defenders relevent statistics: 20 strength, 60 stamina, 50 charisma.
He was able to fight off casts lower than 12 mana. From casts at 12 mana, he was "hopelessly unbalanced" or "completely imbalanced" for the last 2-3 pulses.
I'm not sure if you consider 12 mana to be high, but with a stamina advantage of 40, the spell was still very effective in my opinion.
wandering, not wondering - not praying for, nor pondering...
> You're conveniently ignoring specific sections of my post - in this case, me mentioning that the balance hit is negligible if you are actively gaining balance. There's a reason why I don't generally bother casting vertigo on critters who are at melee with me - instead, I cast static discharge.
Attackers relevent statistics: 30 Strength, 20 stamina, 20 charisma.
Defenders relevent statistics: 30 strength, 30 stamina, 50 charisma.
I wasn't actively gaining balance while the spell was in effect, but I would be surprised if it would have negated the balance hit, especially given what I've seen it do to the balance of creatures while assessing after casting the spell. There is 8 seconds in between pulses.
First pulse --> somewhat off balance.
Second pulse --> very badly balanced.
Third pulse --> completely imbalanced.
> There's also a reason why I don't bother casting vertigo at low mana in PvP - when I'm facing people who have larger than a 7 point stamina advantage, they quite frequently resist the spell (and other SvS) if I use insufficient mana.
I also tested Vertigo against my Empath.
Attackers relevent statistics: 30 Strength, 20 stamina, 20 charisma.
Defenders relevent statistics: 20 strength, 60 stamina, 50 charisma.
He was able to fight off casts lower than 12 mana. From casts at 12 mana, he was "hopelessly unbalanced" or "completely imbalanced" for the last 2-3 pulses.
I'm not sure if you consider 12 mana to be high, but with a stamina advantage of 40, the spell was still very effective in my opinion.
wandering, not wondering - not praying for, nor pondering...
OLESH
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/02/2005 11:06 AM CDT
>> >>There's also a reason why I don't bother casting vertigo at low mana in PvP - when I'm facing people who have larger than a 7 point stamina advantage, they quite frequently resist the spell (and other SvS) if I use insufficient mana.
Okay. I think I've figured where the communication error has occurred, after some of my own testing.
This statement appears to be somewhat misleading; for that I apologize. The majority of people who I engage in PvP against whom vertigo would be worthwhile are barbarians; this necessitates that I use enough magic to break through their magic resistance.
However, if I don't completely dominate their magic resistance, the power of my spells is generally dramatically reduced. Upon reflection and some (quite exhaustive) log searches, I have never failed a vertigo, frostbite, or static discharge against anyone who wasn't a dancing barbarian who was at least my circle; generally 10 or more circles higher.
Case in point: Veeg shrugs off nearly everything I throw at him while he's dancing dragon, be it vertigo, frostbite, or static discharge. I can hit him a little bit with a frostbite near capped, but his MR is so powerful compared to my PM that is simply reduces my spell power to the point where nothing is effective - even though I'm using noticably more mana than necessary to beat his MR, his MR is still dragging my spell power down into the ditch.
I'll do more testing when I get some time and find a barbarian who's got nothing better to do than let me cast on them over and over.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
Okay. I think I've figured where the communication error has occurred, after some of my own testing.
This statement appears to be somewhat misleading; for that I apologize. The majority of people who I engage in PvP against whom vertigo would be worthwhile are barbarians; this necessitates that I use enough magic to break through their magic resistance.
However, if I don't completely dominate their magic resistance, the power of my spells is generally dramatically reduced. Upon reflection and some (quite exhaustive) log searches, I have never failed a vertigo, frostbite, or static discharge against anyone who wasn't a dancing barbarian who was at least my circle; generally 10 or more circles higher.
Case in point: Veeg shrugs off nearly everything I throw at him while he's dancing dragon, be it vertigo, frostbite, or static discharge. I can hit him a little bit with a frostbite near capped, but his MR is so powerful compared to my PM that is simply reduces my spell power to the point where nothing is effective - even though I'm using noticably more mana than necessary to beat his MR, his MR is still dragging my spell power down into the ditch.
I'll do more testing when I get some time and find a barbarian who's got nothing better to do than let me cast on them over and over.
Orpheus: "You've been powering this machine with a forsaken child?"
Venture: "What? It's not like I used the whole thing."
MORS-INCARNATUS
Re: Smite Foe and Branch Break
06/02/2005 01:18 PM CDT
<<Case in point: Veeg shrugs off nearly everything I throw at him while he's dancing dragon, be it vertigo, frostbite, or static discharge. >>
That's a function of MR, though.
MR largely affects every spell of the same "type" (beneficial, TM, detrimental, etc.) to a similar - but not identical - degree.
It essentially works by directly reducing the amount of mana in the "cast". If it reduces it below the min prep, the spell is entirely negated as there isn't enough mana left for the spell pattern to be maintained.
I'm not interested in the effects of MR. I'm specifically talking about the spell vs. stat contest.
<<I can hit him a little bit with a frostbite near capped, but his MR is so powerful compared to my PM that is simply reduces my spell power to the point where nothing is effective - even though I'm using noticably more mana than necessary to beat his MR, his MR is still dragging my spell power down into the ditch.>>
Frostbite I have actually gotten consistent "varying degrees of success" with.
Example:
If mors and memnoch are in a room, and mors isn't using ES/MOF, at the minimum Mors can cast FRB at without a full resist, he will thrash himself, but only marginally affect Memnoch. Another point of mana has a slightly greater effect. 2-3 more will thrash Memnoch just as well as Mors. The affect of stats on the spell contest is WAY more visible than it is with Vertigo, though still incredibly off kilter.
It's not his MR continuing to drag your spell down. It has reduced the effective mana of the cast by whatever amount it absorbed. You simply don't have enough mana left in the spell pattern, at that point, to get full success out of the spell contest - especially Vs. Dragon Dance-bolstered stats. You would likely get similar results casting on someone at the same effective mana, with the same effective str/stam, but none of the MR that Veeg has.
That's a function of MR, though.
MR largely affects every spell of the same "type" (beneficial, TM, detrimental, etc.) to a similar - but not identical - degree.
It essentially works by directly reducing the amount of mana in the "cast". If it reduces it below the min prep, the spell is entirely negated as there isn't enough mana left for the spell pattern to be maintained.
I'm not interested in the effects of MR. I'm specifically talking about the spell vs. stat contest.
<<I can hit him a little bit with a frostbite near capped, but his MR is so powerful compared to my PM that is simply reduces my spell power to the point where nothing is effective - even though I'm using noticably more mana than necessary to beat his MR, his MR is still dragging my spell power down into the ditch.>>
Frostbite I have actually gotten consistent "varying degrees of success" with.
Example:
If mors and memnoch are in a room, and mors isn't using ES/MOF, at the minimum Mors can cast FRB at without a full resist, he will thrash himself, but only marginally affect Memnoch. Another point of mana has a slightly greater effect. 2-3 more will thrash Memnoch just as well as Mors. The affect of stats on the spell contest is WAY more visible than it is with Vertigo, though still incredibly off kilter.
It's not his MR continuing to drag your spell down. It has reduced the effective mana of the cast by whatever amount it absorbed. You simply don't have enough mana left in the spell pattern, at that point, to get full success out of the spell contest - especially Vs. Dragon Dance-bolstered stats. You would likely get similar results casting on someone at the same effective mana, with the same effective str/stam, but none of the MR that Veeg has.
