Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 01:13 PM CDT
DARAGON99
Personally, I have no issues with it, but there are a couple different things I can think of that could improve it for people who think there is a problem with bolting.
1. Allow Bolts to be aimed at different body parts.
2. Weapon AS is increased with Combat manuevers on top of weapon training, Ranged weapon AS is increased with Perception and Ambush on top of weapon training, why not add something that increases Bolt AS the same way?


Thanks for the feedback regarding this specific point. Is this just a perceived problem at capped hunting grounds and one that could be remedied by us reviewing said creatures' bolt DS?

ASPEN
2. #2 is okay, but if you understand how game balance works, you'll understand its pointless. GMs are, apparently, happy with AS/DS ratios right now, if not they could just downtweak critter DS. If you got a major AS boost you'd just find critter DS goes up and instead of having a bonus you now have what is essentially a tax.


As noted above, I'm not against reviewing specific creatures' bolt DS. I know some of them are very high. I'd be interested in some specific examples from wizards showing the disparity where they think there is a problem.

Siruman
As a younger wizard of 43 levels, I like to hunt, and I like to enchant things. That is how my spec is set up. I am a runestaff user and I bump up that defense bonus with MIU and Arcane symbols. At this time, I hunt efficiently and I can enchant 6x with not much issue. However, the changes that are proposed appear to force me to go in one direction or the other in order to be good in one. I am a gamer. I play this game because I love it and I love the things my character can do. I love having the variability to break up the hunt, rest, hunt, rest. The lore requirements will definitely hurt my current play style, because I want to be good at hunting and enchanting. I don't expect to be a master at everything, but setting up my character to only enchant with my lores is just not fun for me. I play my wizard, I hunt with him. I don't have a bot. If you guys go ahead with this, I hope that you lower some costs to our training or increase points. I don't see this working out at all because of lore costs.


That's the intended goal of lores. It forces individual players to diversify their training for certain benefits. Those decisions are what make your character different than every other level 43 runestaff using wizard. I'm sure there are sorcerers who want to be the best demonologist and the best necromancer, but you can be the best at one or the other, or decent at both.

GameMaster Estild
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 01:17 PM CDT

Gotta agree with Whirlin. Especially about the seed values.

Look at 909, for example:

Seed 4 / 2 means
60 ranks (ie: level 60 @ 1x all earth lore, which is a significant investment) = +4
Next step isn't for another 25 ranks (level 85 at this rate)
If you decide to go super hardcore and double earthlore all the way to cap?
result: +8
For a level 100 wizard who has spent 1800 mtps? Not exactly blowing my skirt up, here.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 01:20 PM CDT
>Is this just a perceived problem at capped hunting grounds and one that could be remedied by us reviewing said creatures' bolt DS?

It's not a perceived problem. It is a problem. Such as when there are multiple endrolls in the hundreds, and it still takes 6 casts to kill one creature, vs. the single cast of 720. Timed events such as Duskruin cannot be completed even multiple times post-cap.

>inc 904
You gesture at a spotted giant leopard.
You hurl a hissing stream of acid at a spotted giant leopard!
AS: +615 vs DS: +448 with AvD: +33 + d100 roll: +27 = +227
... and hit for 48 points of damage!
Acid raises angry red welts on the arm!
The giant leopard is stunned!
[Spell re-prepared]
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
>inc 904
You gesture at a spotted giant leopard.
You hurl a hissing stream of acid at a spotted giant leopard!
AS: +615 vs DS: +428 with AvD: +33 + d100 roll: +39 = +259
... and hit for 57 points of damage!
Spray eats through the skin on the hand and dissolves some ligaments!
[Spell re-prepared]
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
>inc 904
You gesture at a spotted giant leopard.
You hurl a hissing stream of acid at a spotted giant leopard!
AS: +615 vs DS: +413 with AvD: +33 + d100 roll: +50 = +285
... and hit for 78 points of damage!
Acid spray dissolves flesh exposing the muscles over the ribs!
[Spell re-prepared]
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
>inc 904
You gesture at a spotted giant leopard.
You hurl a hissing stream of acid at a spotted giant leopard!
AS: +615 vs DS: +413 with AvD: +33 + d100 roll: +28 = +263
... and hit for 71 points of damage!
Acid dissolves the elbow ligaments. Arm swings in a very odd manner!
[Spell re-prepared]
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
>inc 904
You gesture at a spotted giant leopard.
You hurl a hissing stream of acid at a spotted giant leopard!
AS: +615 vs DS: +400 with AvD: +33 + d100 roll: +6 = +254
... and hit for 68 points of damage!
Acid dissolves the elbow ligaments. Arm swings in a very odd manner!
The giant leopard mewls in pain as he slumps to the ground and licks his wounded left foreleg.
[Spell re-prepared]
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
>inc 904
>You gesture at a spotted giant leopard.
You hurl a hissing stream of acid at a spotted giant leopard!
AS: +615 vs DS: +356 with AvD: +33 + d100 roll: +49 = +341
... and hit for 91 points of damage!
Burn to the elbow eats through tendons. Muscles snap free!
The giant leopard lets out a final caterwaul and dies.


As to your second point:
>That's the intended goal of lores. It forces individual players to diversify their training for certain benefits. Those decisions are what make your character different than every other level 43 runestaff using wizard. I'm sure there are sorcerers who want to be the best demonologist and the best necromancer, but you can be the best at one or the other, or decent at both.

Yes, this is well understood. The problem is that the lore thresholds for any significant benefit appear far higher than they are for the spiritual or sorcererous lores. Sorcerers only have to choose between demonology or necromancy, and other spiritualists only have to split their lore three ways. A four-way split with multiple lore requirements for each renders any potential build basically mediocre at best. Why do we need to settle for being mediocre, when none of the other pures do?

Let us 3x elemental lores as the elemental masters, and then we can have this discussion.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 01:30 PM CDT

Also is taking 2min breaks every few minutes seriously the plan for warmages? How was this decided to be an improvement to the class? This is like doubling the mana cost for any casting class and then saying, well you can go to a node and chill out for 4 minutes to get mana back... hardly sounds like a fun time.

If you expect warmages to swing during this (long!) haste downtime, we need some serious AS improvement.

If you expect us to switch to bolting, understand that means we can't be blowing huge amounts of mana on haste so we end up getting very little value for extreme TP costs to train in weapons and CM.

Warmage was already a below-standard spec and it's just being kicked into the dirt with these changes, I don't really get why.

Making absurdly inefficient cooldown reduction via earth lore doesn't cut it. A) the training path is already very expensive and B) the benefits are nowhere near good enough for the cost (and opportunity cost of more CM).
Giving the warmage cooldown benefit for ranks in CM and weapon skills seems like the obvious way to go here. Alternatively giving earthlore a SIGNIFICANT boost in AS generation could work as well along with way better rate of cooldown reduction, moving warmages away from CM towards a more lore-focused build.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 01:35 PM CDT

>>That's the intended goal of lores. It forces individual players to diversify their training for certain benefits. Those decisions are what make your character different than every other level 43 runestaff using wizard. I'm sure there are sorcerers who want to be the best demonologist and the best necromancer, but you can be the best at one or the other, or decent at both.<<

Haven't seen much comment to some of my ideas and suggestion. I know GMS are listening and to be honest as much as it might seem to some that I'm advocating for less of this I am not. What I am looking for is this, but possibilities. If you want a Damage Water Mage... you can do it. (Or at least that is the Dream.) My concern is that this will not be the end result. I am afraid that we will get, "Well water mages only get one thing of note, reduced enchant times, but since they are worst at hunting that time you save isn't really worth it."

Now tempering that last statement. Ice Patch did get a boost... Great direction! However I'm still concerned or growing more concerned that the lore boosted spells will end up being good for that specific lore type and generally of limited use to others so now the wizard has 1/4 the spell list. That is why I am an advocate of... Elemental Bolt (Insert your damage type here.) As a core attack spell of the class with other spells providing damage + secondary effect based on lore. It keeps the spell list open and useful to all wizards. So you want to be best Water Mage! Great you can be, and you could go toe to toe with a Fire Mage... and which of you trained better and uses your spells best (With secondary effects and such.) will determine who is best. (I know this isn't a PVP game but players do compare builds.)

Again I feel that the current flow is becoming more limiting to creativity and RP. Now some people will say that RP doesn't matter for points... but let's be blunt. This is a game and if you don't gain EXP it is hard to say I'm a great Water Mage, but I don't have Lore because I can't afford the points because hunting is too slow and everyone uses the NPC locksmith or a pocket picker so I don't get much work picking.

I do like the idea of having a mage be great at something by investing in it, but making it so keyed to Lore seems a bit off to me. I main a sorcerer. I am a decent at both build for now. Probably end up going with Necro though, because to be honest it is infinitely more useful to me than Demon and to be blunt I don't see how any other conclusion can really be made. (I may be wrong and someone wants to run the math but there are too many benefits to necro for me.) The problem with Elemental Lore is there are 4 instead of 2... and the spells are using all four. So instead of the sorcerer idea of 1 Spell list that your lore choices might split to a 50/50 being great at... For wizards it is 3 spell lists (sort of) split to 25% you would be great at.

Also I've looked at the math and wizards point out that most builds, even pures find it rough to get the additional points for even a 1x in lore. Maybe they are over stressing some things they don't need but it does seem a little tough.

I get where you're coming from Estild... and I'm hoping you get to your goal, I'm just hoping it comes in a smooth and nice path that ends with a happy ending not a bitter struggle that leaves a bad taste in too many mouths. I have faith this will work out in the end, I'm choosing to do that, but I also won't stop commenting and suggesting until the dust clears. Hopefully that is good.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 01:40 PM CDT
I know Wizards keep getting worried about incoming Maneuvers; many of them train Disarm (to keep their weapon) or Feint (to keep from being put into RT, as well as for using it their-own-selves).

What if "Stone Skin" were changed such that it affected one (or more, with enough Spell ranks) body parts, even selectable (with enough Lore ranks) effects?
- Cast on your hands, you have a Stone Grasp (no--well, maybe a 'distant'--relation). Depending on thickness of the Skin, you have one ('thin') or more ('thick', 'hard', 'daunting', 'insurmountable') faux ranks of Disarm providing protection/likelihood of holding onto your weapon.
- Cast on your legs/feet (Kung Fu "Root the Mountain"!) you have less chance of being knocked down. This helps alleviate some of the issues of losing Haste when trying to stand back up, because, you know: not prone.
- Cast on your armor, it effectively gives faux AsG. (There was a thread about this... somewhere... recently. Maybe I made it too powerful, but hey: it's a 20th level spell in a Major list, it should have some damn "Oomph!" to it.)
- Cast on other body parts, it does <something else>. On your head, less likely to get stunned, maybe. On your back, less likely to be Sheer Feared. On your nerves, less likely to be stunned. (He's got nerves of... stone?)
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 01:43 PM CDT
I'm don't think 3x lore is the answer, considering the cost that would entail. (6 + 12 + 24 = 42mtps/level!)

But looking at the rate of benefit in the sorc lores really make me wonder why ours seem to get gains so much slower. Also, considering we have to split 4 ways instead of 2, I would expect them to be better, if anything. A sorc can basically receive the lion's share from BOTH his lores, while there's no way in hell a wizard will be getting decent benefits from four lores.



The 415 change is a good example of the direction we should be heading. Fire lore bonus / 2 -> leads to % chances that are attainable with reasonable investment and the effect is undeniably useful!

Compare that to the 501 change -> Seed1 % chance, with no base. So for the same amount of Firelore that would provide you with a 50% proc rate on 415 (24 ranks), we get.... 6% chance at making the creature groggy. Which is also a MUCH less useful effect than an extra damage flare.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 01:45 PM CDT
And I'll echo what someone else said overnight: All this muck with the Lore is well and good, but other spells (both new implementations and rebuilds) frequently look at # of spells known to unlock additional effects.

How about some love in that direction for the Minor/Major/Wizard base lists, as well as Lore?

Maybe at "10 ranks over the spell's level" you get Seed-1 to the costs of the benefits? Make it Seed 10/Step 10, so the next tier is at (10 + 20 ==) 30 ranks over, and the next tier at (10 + 20 + 30 ==) 60 ranks over.

With some built-in way to reduce the horrendous SeedX values chosen--I still disagree with how difficult so many of them were made--simply for training in learning how to work the spells better, I could then get behind some of those higher Seeds. Knowing 66 Major spells to turn a Seed6 Haste effect into a Seed3 is a lot more palatable.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 02:50 PM CDT
It's not a perceived problem. It is a problem. Such as when there are multiple endrolls in the hundreds, and it still takes 6 casts to kill one creature, vs. the single cast of 720. Timed events such as Duskruin cannot be completed even multiple times post-cap.


Duskruin has absolutely no impact in how we balance the game itself.

GameMaster Estild
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 03:16 PM CDT


Even taking Duskruin out of it, he's spending WAY more time in front of the creature, drastically increasing his risk. Also increasing his hunting time by 6 fold. Surely that has to be considered?
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 03:16 PM CDT
>Duskruin has absolutely no impact in how we balance the game itself.

That's what we keep hearing, when all evidence is to the contrary. Even if the game is not balanced for Duskruin, becoming the slowest killing pure class and the only class in the game unable at all to complete Duskruin within the time limit even multiple times post-cap, is also problematic when it comes to creating pay events involving combat.

In any case, it's not so much bolt DS that is the issue. It's that it takes too many bolts to result in a kill. Standing in offensive vs. guarded for the other pures, while wearing some of the lowest AsG armor, or being unable to disable non-corporeal undead effectively makes certain areas too dangerous to be viable.

At cap, in hunting areas that are maneuver intensive or involve creatures who can cast instantly deadly spells (oh look, 720 again!), how do you suggest wizards tackle hunting sentries and greater water elementals in Nelemar? The other three pures can all do it. Removing this hunting area as an option for wizards would make wizards the weakest pure class.

Similar concerns apply to the Scatter and being able to kill or disable before the creature kills you. See fallen crusaders, fetish masters. Bolts don't stun for as long or effectively as CS-based spells. Level-based disablers are risky and largely an ineffectual gamble, vs. CS-based disablers.

But the bottom line is, people played wizards because of their unique offensive capabilities. Players of wizards found the current styles of hunting to be fun. Forcing us to become like every other pure means we may as well do that instead, except for having invested too much time, energy, and money in our characters for that to be too onerous an option vs. quitting and finding something more fun to do.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 03:17 PM CDT
>Thanks for the feedback regarding this specific point. Is this just a perceived problem at capped hunting grounds and one that could be remedied by us reviewing said creatures' bolt DS? -Estild

Pretty much.

>As noted above, I'm not against reviewing specific creatures' bolt DS. I know some of them are very high. I'd be interested in some specific examples from wizards showing the disparity where they think there is a problem. -Estild

Keep in mind that...

>inc 904
>You gesture at a spotted giant leopard.
>You hurl a hissing stream of acid at a spotted giant leopard!
>AS: +615 vs DS: +448 with AvD: +33 + d100 roll: +27 = +227
>... and hit for 48 points of damage!
>Acid raises angry red welts on the arm!
>The giant leopard is stunned!
>[Spell re-prepared]
>Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.

...without enhancives, toys, etc, a level 100 wizard's self cast AS is roughly 470-490 or so, depending on race and society. As a Voln Half-Elf, I bolt at 471 without enhancives. Not sure what level those leopards are, but that's a ridiculous bolt DS unless everyone is expected to run around with max enhancives and Heroism items and whatnot.

Plane 4 and Scatter aren't much better. Crawlers often have a bolt DS of 400-450 (or 480, forgot which), crusaders are frequently the same but are also non-corporeal and have really fast health regen (which Immolate helped with, but if the disabling part is going away then you're gonna need a lot of enhancives or a string of high d100 rolls to kill them in any reasonable amount of time, and that's assuming more stuff doesn't show up to join in). Scatter stuff is about the same. I'm on Teras so I can't go get any hard Rift numbers, but chances are Taverkin already posted some clips and I just haven't gotten to the post yet.

Cerebralites I don't remember giving me any real issues with bolt DS.

Nelemar isn't really an issue either, though sentries occasionally have a really high bolt DS, but that can at least be dispelled most of the time into a reasonable range, and OTF isn't a real post cap area and doesn't deserve to be acknowledged.

~ Methais
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 03:27 PM CDT
Actually, I'll add warcamping as an area involving high bolt DS and in which speed is a huge factor in either killing or being killed as a pure. To become the slowest killing pure class, with the stance and armor differences vs. the other pures, would make warcamping the least viable as a wizard of the pure classes.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 03:50 PM CDT
LADYFLEUR
That's what we keep hearing, when all evidence is to the contrary. Even if the game is not balanced for Duskruin, becoming the slowest killing pure class and the only class in the game unable at all to complete Duskruin within the time limit even multiple times post-cap, is also problematic when it comes to creating pay events involving combat.


What evidence? Give me examples of mechanical changes we've implemented globally because of how it was used in Duskruin Arena. If you have issues with imbalances within Duksruin, you should mention it the appropriate event folder, as it's not going to carry any weight in this discuss.

GameMaster Estild
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 03:53 PM CDT


>It's not a perceived problem. It is a problem. Such as when there are multiple endrolls in the hundreds, and it still takes 6 casts to kill one creature, vs. the single cast of 720. Timed events such as Duskruin cannot be completed even multiple times post-cap.

>inc 904
>inc 904
>inc 904
>inc 904
>inc 904
>inc 904

1: Stop casting a level 4 spell. Implosion is a level 20 spell. This is like saying 702 isn't good because it kills in more casts than 519. Whut?

2: 720 can kill in 1 cast, the average is probably about 2 casts though. Even against these weak arena critters.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 04:00 PM CDT


>But looking at the rate of benefit in the sorc lores really make me wonder why ours seem to get gains so much slower. Also, considering we have to split 4 ways instead of 2, I would expect them to be better, if anything. A sorc can basically receive the lion's share from BOTH his lores, while there's no way in hell a wizard will be getting decent benefits from four lores.

Oh my poor mathematically challenged friend.

Sorcerers pay 0/6 for sorcery lore to benefit 1 spell circle.
Sorcerers pay 0/7 for elemental lore to benefit 1 spell circle.
Sorcerers pay 0/7 for spiritual lore to benefit 1 spell circle.

Wizards pay 0/6 for elemental lore to benefit 3 spell circles.

So when you say a sorcerer is getting the "lion's share" of his lore benefit so easily, do you mean a baby lion?

In a fair world, sorcerers would pay 0/2 for sorcery lore because we get 1 third the benefit compared to clerics or wizards. It is the only lore, in the entire game, that affects only a single spell circle. Or GMs would add sorcerer lore benefits to 400s and 100s (I'll hold my breath).

So be careful what you wish for, if you really want to jones on sorcery's lore implementation the GMs will need to launch two new mangler skills for you to train in, major elemental lore and wizard lore. Good luck with that.

I'm not even bringing up that wizards have two private spell circles, whereas sorcerers have two circles we share with pretty much everyone, even warriors and rogues (blech). Oh wait, looks like I brought it up....
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 04:02 PM CDT
>2: 720 can kill in 1 cast, the average is probably about 2 casts though. Even against these weak arena critters.

We're talking about speed of kill here, which is important for pures in killing or being killed. Rapid fire bolting aside, 519 was the closest wizards had to the speed of kill of 720. 519 routinely results in no death even with 2-5 casts, depending on your luck. Now we're told it's still too overpowered, needs to be nerfed down to the efficacy of 1115 or 317 with one reduced crit cycle, when it costs 2-4 mana more. And no one sees anything wrong with this picture.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 04:02 PM CDT
Here you go, Methais.

Glistening Cerebralite

Strategy: Hurl boulder until dead.

High end DS = 368
Low end DS = 271
Avg. DS = 325
Crittable? = Yes (head/eye, and back via nerve damage)
Kills: 40
Critical kills: 9
Critical % per kill = 22.5%
Critical % per cast = 6.77%

Hit Breakdown:
1 hit = 12.5%
2 hit = 5%
3 hit = 30%
4 hit = 42.5% *
5 hit = 10%

EBP %: 0.75%

Total mana = 1330
Total casts = 133
Total RT = 399
Avg. RT per kill = 9.975
Avg. casts per kill = 3.325
Avg. mana per kill = 33.25

Enormous Rift Crawler

Strategy: Wait for target to attack, hurl boulder until dead.

High end DS = 398
Low end DS = 306
Avg. DS = 357
Crittable? = Yes
Kills: 26
Critical kills: 11
Critical % per kill = 42.3%
Critical % per cast = 10.58%

Hit Breakdown:
1 hit = 15.3%
2 hit = 11.5%
3 hit = 3.8%
4 hit = 23%
5 hit = 26.9% *
6 hit = 11.5%
7 hit = 7.7%

EBP %: 2.88%

Total mana = 1040
Total casts = 104
Total RT = 312
Avg. RT per kill = 12
Avg. casts per kill = 4
Avg. mana per kill = 40

Fallen Crusader

Strategy: Call wind until successful (84.44% success rate), hurl boulder until dead.

High end DS = 395
Low end DS = 218
Avg. DS = 299
Crittable? = No
Kills: 38
Critical kills: 0
Critical % per kill = 0%
Critical % per cast = 0%

Hit Breakdown:
2 hit = 5.3%
3 hit = 68.4% *
4 hit = 18.4%
5 hit = 5.3%
6 hit = 2.6%

EBP %: 0%

Total mana = 1800 [1260 (Hurl Boulder), 540 (Call Wind)]
Total casts = 171 [126 (Hurl Boulder), 45 (Call Wind)]
Total RT = 513
Avg. RT per kill = 13.5
Avg. casts per kill = 4.5
Avg. mana per kill = 47.37

General:

Total kills: 104
Total mana: 4170
Avg. mana per kill: 40
Total RT: 1224
Avg. RT per kill = 11.77

~Taverkin
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 04:07 PM CDT
<StoneSkin ideas> -- Me, #1732

When cast on your left hand (if you're a sword-and-board, or bow) then StoneSkin unlocks an ability to gain more than +50 limit on Elemental Barrier/430. Released up to Min(Spells/2 | Level).

When cast on your right hand (if you're <any melee weapon>, or runestaff), then StoneSkin unlocks the same ability for Elemental Targeting/425. Same cap.




Put a maximum number of body parts you can affect with StoneSkin. (Oh, for the love of god you teenage boys, not THAT one, jeez. "Yeah, yeah, "I'm hard as a rock,"" we've heard it all before. Grow up. Try the pot grass, next.)

More Lore Benefits unlocks higher numbers of body parts you can affect.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 04:08 PM CDT


>At cap, in hunting areas that are maneuver intensive or involve creatures who can cast instantly deadly spells (oh look, 720 again!), how do you suggest wizards tackle hunting sentries and greater water elementals in Nelemar? The other three pures can all do it. Removing this hunting area as an option for wizards would make wizards the weakest pure class.

Don't?

Not every critter is going to work for every player. Wizards, perhaps more than most, will deal with this.

But on the flip side, wizards, more than every other profession, has huntable critters that are more vulnerable to it. I'm sure I don't need to tell you how to hunt as a wizard, but in addition to using a higher level bolt than a 4th level spell when you're postcap, you should seek out elemental based critters that receive double damage to opposite element attacks. How easy are skeletal ice trolls, fire elementals, glacei, slushes, etc for wizards? Critters with high health in thick armor without elemental weaknesses are not easy for wizards.

I'm quadruple cap with more toys than Geoffrey the Giraffe and I don't like hunting water elementals. Even though they're elemental there isn't really a good angle for the elemental damage wizards excel at. You're certainly not alone in not liking them. I bet you cold/water wizards will find something in the Sea of Fire to kill.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 04:14 PM CDT


>We're talking about speed of kill here, which is important for pures in killing or being killed. Rapid fire bolting aside, 519 was the closest wizards had to the speed of kill of 720. 519 routinely results in no death even with 2-5 casts, depending on your luck. Now we're told it's still too overpowered, needs to be nerfed down to the efficacy of 1115 or 317 with one reduced crit cycle, when it costs 2-4 mana more. And no one sees anything wrong with this picture.

You don't like 908, or 910? I hunt with 713, which is like 908 for 5 more mana. I can usually kill things in 2-3 casts with it. FI leaving off treasure when it kills quickly is definitely something others gloss over as a real cost of using the spell.

You're postcap, you shouldn't still be using 904 as your prime hunting spell.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 04:17 PM CDT


actually like level, its probably an average of 2 casts for 713 (908 for 5 more mana). I don't use the demon component (adds 2 mana to each cast). I often kill in 1 hit, rarely more than 3, so 2 on average.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 04:22 PM CDT


<Oh my poor mathematically challenged friend.

Oh you're right, I was just counting the two sorc lores because those are the only ones I ever hear anybody training in. Both of those give excellent value. I figured you would completely ignore elemental lore and spirit lore since the benefits don't come anywhere near what you get for the sorcerer ones.

Our enviously described 'private lists' are almost all available spells via scrolls and imbeds which is part of the reason for the crippling haste nerf. They are so bloated with repeat spells and useless gimmicks that you could boil that down to one solid list and probably still have space left over.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 04:30 PM CDT
>You're postcap, you shouldn't still be using 904 as your prime hunting spell.

Not that I need to explain myself to you, but I don't use 904 as my prime hunting spell. I use it in Duskruin because even with 500+ mana, there are mana concerns when asked to kill 25 creatures via bolts mostly, because many and any of these creatures can be fire immune by the end. So the cough cough is not always a viable option.

Even 2-3 casts at a sentry without a guaranteed disable or kill is death or worse, ends up endangering everyone else in the area if left spawned and unchecked, as I'm sure you well know. Removing it as an option for hunting when all of the other three pures are able to safely hunt the second floor is an untenable prospect. Not only would wizards become the slowest killing, weakest pures but also gimped to the level of a square who isn't meant to hunt sentries. When a creature is intended to be able to be hunted by a class, that should apply to all pure classes. Since we're making every pure cookie cutter for the sake of equality and completeness.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 05:59 PM CDT


>Not that I need to explain myself to you, but I don't use 904 as my prime hunting spell. I use it in Duskruin because even with 500+ mana, there are mana concerns when asked to kill 25 creatures via bolts mostly, because many and any of these creatures can be fire immune by the end. So the cough cough is not always a viable option.

You complained though because of the number of casts. I know what you mean about mana. I'm at 412, you've a bunch more mana than me.

I run out of mana, two runs ago I fried my nerves and had to surrender, this run I had to use that ability that shall not be named. Many runs I end up using one of my self charging wands, I don't do as many runs as you so by the time I do another one charges have come back.

Check this out.

A haggard snow witch begins to shiver.
>sign of secretjuju
You shudder as your life force is torn and reshaped!
You feel drained!
>720 wit
You chant a prayer to Fash'lo'nae while tracing a glowing yellow slit-pupiled eye in the air as your eyes flare with yellow light.
Your spell is ready.
>
You gesture at a haggard snow witch.
A void rips open in the area, directly above a haggard snow witch!
Debris slams into a haggard snow witch's head!
+106 Hits.

Everything in the room seemed to stay in place. The void disappears without further incident.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
>
A haggard snow witch throws her head back and howls, shaking off the stun!

720 wit
You chant a prayer to Fash'lo'nae while tracing a glowing yellow slit-pupiled eye in the air as your eyes flare with yellow light.
Your spell is ready.
>You gesture at a haggard snow witch.
A void rips open in the area, directly above a haggard snow witch!
Blood begins to gush from a haggard snow witch's nose and ears!
+52 Hits.

Everything in the room seemed to stay in place. The void disappears without further incident.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.

A haggard snow witch throws her head back and howls, shaking off the stun!
>720 wit
You chant a prayer to Fash'lo'nae while tracing a glowing yellow slit-pupiled eye in the air as your eyes flare with yellow light.
Your spell is ready.

You gesture at a haggard snow witch.
A void rips open in the area, directly above a haggard snow witch!
Debris strikes a haggard snow witch in the leg.
The snow witch's full plate protects her legs from injury.
+34 Hits.

Everything in the room seemed to stay in place. The void disappears without further incident.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.

>720 wit
You chant a prayer to Fash'lo'nae while tracing a glowing yellow slit-pupiled eye in the air as your eyes flare with yellow light.
Your spell is ready.

You gesture at a haggard snow witch.
A void rips open in the area, directly above a haggard snow witch!
Rather abrupt decompression causes a haggard snow witch to explode!
Billions and billions of tiny witch bits shower everything.
Quite severely dead.
Everything in the room seemed to stay in place. The void disappears without further incident.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.



This was that last run, just now. I already drained all my mana, I used my sign of secretjuju to replenish it, and then it took 4 casts of a level 20 spell to kill the thing. Your 6 casts of a level 4 spell aren't looking so bad.

>When a creature is intended to be able to be hunted by a class, that should apply to all pure classes. Since we're making every pure cookie cutter for the sake of equality and completeness.

Clerics get a lot of only critters, and wizards, quite frankly, have a ton of critters that they do better at than any other profession. I'm really not sure if a critter exists that sorcerers or empaths are the best at hunting. Honestly. I'll readily admit sorcerers have a lot of tools in our chest, we're jacks of all trades, but I don't think there is some critter out there that is more easily killable by a sorcerer than anyone else. There definitely exists such critters for wizards and clerics though.

So I don't really think its intended that we all hunt the same critters the same.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 06:53 PM CDT
In your own logs you're using the fact that you're able to drain your spirit for mana while having no negative repercussions on your offensive capabilities as a sign that wizards have it worse than sorcerers? All you did was accomplish pointing out that we don't have that kind of luxury when we rely on AS/DS rolls compared to CS or auto-hitting spells. Additionally, when we're taking a look at sorcerer spells, specifically both 719 and 720, their mana cost isn't reflected by their spell level. 719 gets mana returns, and focused 720 gets mana cost reductions based on Lores...

Ohh wait... sorry, not lores, EMC/SMC training.

~Whirlin
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 07:08 PM CDT
It amazes me how a few people claim they speak for all wizards.

It is a loud minority, less than ten percent of people who play wizards, up in arms.

Give it a chance before you rage quit.

Chad, player of a few
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 07:11 PM CDT


>In your own logs you're using the fact that you're able to drain your spirit for mana while having no negative repercussions on your offensive capabilities as a sign that wizards have it worse than sorcerers?

O rly?

Did you miss all the posts where I said I'm a rabid bolt user? People keep pointing at FI as if it is some awesome thing, so I posted a log of it. I will straight up trade FI for cone, even the new cone. If the GMs let me I would do that in a heartbeat. I actually am awesome enough (I know, I know, please hold your applause) to continue to bolt after draining my spirit. I can effectively bolt down to 2 or 3 spirit remaining, at that point I'm like a fresh young level 100 person, but I get it done. Though I am less effective yes, so I have to use less fun hunting methods like FI (boil earth, and I do believe you should get an FI or call lightning similar 525), or warding spells (immolation).

And yes, with 404 ranks in mana controls my FI costs less than 20 mana, but it is still a level 20 spell, and that is still way more mana (double) to kill that witch than fleurs spent in her 6 cast 904 kill. And yes, thats 404 ranks, because hybrid penalty, I get train in twice as much. If I want to enhance my CS I get to buy double the enhancives. If I want to get lore benefits in ALL my spell circles I train 0/21 per level.

All this comparing to sorcery stuff is nonsense. Trying to justify or wheedle GMs out of making a change that has been on the docket. for. years. is. nonsense. The fact is, Wizards and Sorcerers are on the same time. Empaths and Clerics are the cheaters, with their cheap physical training costs, thicker armor, getting the best of both worlds, and have you seen the nineteen functions of 325? Really, wizards and sorcerers are on the same side, we're the real pures. Those two other professions are semis in my opinion.

But the fact is haste, rapid fire, and cone needed fixing, and this change has been a long time coming, there is no argument to be made against them, that decision (correctly) has been made. Instead people should focus on ways to improve wizardry outside of keeping haste, rapid fire, and cone largely like they are today.

If mana is an issue something could be done with mana leech. If it is speed vs critters using manuevers there is tonis bolt, that could be beefed up, or similar effects added to other spells. Major fire could gain a latent burning status which some percentage of the time puts targets into RT as they try to get extinguished. Major shock could gain sporadic RT creating convulsions some percentage of the time. Sand storm... well what if sandstorm was some new kind of low DF high disable bolt spell when channeled at a target, (or vice versa, keeping the current incarnation under channel) modified by air and earth lores? Tonis bolt on steroids, similar to web bolt (the most awesome, it is known)? A bolt spell meant to disable more than kill? Suddenly it seems wizards are jonesing for disablers (they're overrated, trust me, death is a disabler too). (sorry, ain't got any ideas for warmages, never played as well, all my many wizards bolt, as do all my other pures, bolting rules!).

But the larger point, stop hating on the sorcerers, we're on the same team. Hate on the clerics. They even pay less for mana control than you do, what is the deal with that?
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 07:12 PM CDT
>In a fair world, sorcerers would pay 0/2 for sorcery lore because we get 1 third the benefit compared to clerics or wizards. It is the only lore, in the entire game, that affects only a single spell circle. Or GMs would add sorcerer lore benefits to 400s and 100s (I'll hold my breath).

I think lore costs should be way cheaper for all professions than they are. Doubling should be fairly easy to squeeze in for pures, and singling for semis should be the same. Unless they can double too, but I'm assuming they can only single. Let squares do it too. If someone wants to be a frost warrior and add ice effects to their attacks that do whatever, let them. As long as the numbers are done correctly it's not gonna be some game breaking catastrophe like I'm sure some people would think. Elemental lores don't have to just primarily affect wizard spells. And air for bards.

>I don't like hunting water elementals. Even though they're elemental there isn't really a good angle for the elemental damage wizards excel at.

Ewave then...

stance offensive\r incant 908\r incant 908\r incant 908\r incant 908\r stance defensive\r

With Rapid Fire of course.

>I bet you cold/water wizards will find something in the Sea of Fire to kill.

That's what you think. Just wait until they show up and find a bunch lockpicks running around.

~ Methais
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 07:13 PM CDT


in fact... I'll take this opportunty in the wrong folder to ask they add a certificate for self knowledge cone of elements added to an item of yours to the auction next year just so I can bid on it.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 07:34 PM CDT
Assuming that this isn't too much advertising in the eyes of Simutronics... I figure the best way to convey the strengths of my build, and the strengths of mages is just to livestream a hunt on my wizard, and compare it with a hunt on my sorceress tonight... I'll try to open up the stream around 9:30 on http://www.twitch.tv/lordwhirlin

I'll try to narrate, but I'll need someone to ensure my mic is working!

~Whirlin
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 08:06 PM CDT
<<...more toys than Geoffrey the Giraffe...>

I LOL'ed. Seriously. A lot.

SGM Sleken
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 09:55 PM CDT
Had about 9 people peak watching me play a text based game... Not only is that a surprisingly high volume for a FRIDAY NIGHT... but I think that put me in the running for the most successful text based game stream in the history of the internet (and let me tell you, that's a huge competition for that honor, I swear). I saved the stream on my twitch channel (for as long as Twitch lets you save them without paying them a cent), so if people want to check it out, they can head over there and listen to my one-way rambling responses to comments in chat, and watch me hunt... I even do a hunt on my Sorc for comparison's sake, and somehow managed to talk almost nonstop for 80 minutes.

I'll do my best to fix the audio before the next stream, but plan on doing these as new changes are released, and comment on them... Guess I'll be one of those people. Better than writing guides

Sadly, it has still not reached top Gemstone-related video ever released ever... That honor goes to Methais' video of all of the random sound clips he has mapped to various things when he hunts. You can find that one on Youtube. ... ... ... Lets Rock.

~Whirlin
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 11:15 PM CDT
You know, it just occurred to me ... since everyone agrees that war mages can't progress past level 80 and have to convert to bolters or immolation builds in order to be able to reach cap, there is no real reason to nerf them.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/28/2015 11:22 PM CDT
Virilneus 720 post


I don't understand why you cast 720 4 times instead of casting 711 3 times for a guaranteed death while the creatures is RT locked.

Yeah, I'll take a spell like 711, with the same lore requirements.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/29/2015 04:33 AM CDT
I picked an interesting time to reactivate my account it seems....

I apologize to any readers in advance if this is too long. I also apologize in advance to the GMs and developers if any of this comes off as unappreciative of the hard, excellent, and sometimes thankless work you are putting in to implement the recent changes. Most of the changes are overwhelmingly beneficial to the game. It is, however, inevitable, that losing what people know and love strikes them more compellingly than unknowns they stand to gain. The responses you receive to these announcements will, unfortunately, mirror this, and I genuinely hope you are not angered or discouraged that the negative feedback so far outweighs the positive. Whether it's the speed, power, and mana-efficiency provided by rapid fire, the maneuver RT mitigation of haste, or the universally effective disabling RT and high kill probability of immolate, every wizard will be losing something they have enjoyed for years.

I have played a melee wizard from level 1 to 100, and have been running haste with 100% uptime since 1998. While any changes to this will have a dramatic negative impact on my way of life, and while I am still unclear as to the reasons behind these changes, I understand that the decision has been made.

In an effort to acclimate myself to the coming changes, I made some attempts over the past couple days to include brief non-hasted intervals while hunting. The results were extremely discouraging. In OTF, most ithzir die in about 3-10 swings depending on luck with crits and how high their DS is, constructs take 7-10 hits, and gryphons take 5-8. I normally also use 1-3 feints per kill, both to keep them RT locked and to lower their DS to a hittable range. This is all normal for me, and I was predicting that swinging in 5 seconds and feinting in 3 seconds would make me a little bit less than 5 times as slow during my haste cooldowns. The reality was much, much worse.

Normally, creatures are constantly swarming into the room and my hunting involves keeping successive waves of ithzir and constructs prone with ewaves, keeping gryphons RT-locked with feint, and fitting in my fast but weak killing swings between. Very low DS, weak maneuver defense, and soft armour mean that this is the only way to stay alive as a warmage in this area. But without haste, the swings are so slow that I can barely get in a feint and one swing before everything in the room is back on its feet ready to kill me again. I spend more time controlling the crowd than swinging, and unfortunately tremors (although it's a great spell and I love it) is not effective for this purpose in areas where the creatures are fast enough to stand up and kill you between tremor rounds. Even when attempting to only fight lone creatures, I could not kill them quickly enough to prevent the swarm from gathering. Killing even one creature in a 2 minute span without haste required a lucky D100 and a lucky crit. Bandits were equally disheartening without haste. A typical 3 bandit encounter would take more than 2 minutes to resolve. The other capped hunting areas would presumably be as bad or worse. Without the speed advantage to compensate for low AS, inability to aim, and very high vulnerability, swinging a weapon as a wizard is not viable at this level.

So what can I do during my haste cooldown? Running away and hiding is unpalatable to me, from both a role-playing and game-enjoyment perspective. That leaves killing with spells, an already mana-intensive proposition made more so by a warmage's AS disadvantage (even with 513 running) compared to a typical bolting mage build, and exacerbated by the extraordinary mana costs of even part-time haste usage under the proposed changes. Additionally, full-time 919 is - and will remain - critical (even with 919, surviving an area web is a 50-50 shot for me) to self-spelled warmage hunting in OTF, bandits, and elsewhere, putting further strain on mana resources if I'm expected to be spell hunting part of the time.

I know that full time haste usage is off the table; I don't know why, but I know it is. I've accepted it. I urge you only to reconsider the extreme steepness of the haste reuse costs. If I have to bolt during my haste cooldown, please leave me with enough mana to do so. 6, 12, 18, 24, etc... would, I feel, be much more manageable: prohibitive enough to prevent anyone from running it full time, but not so onerous as to make hiding in a corner during haste downtime the only option.

With respect to 950: this is an excellent concept, and I look forward enthusiastically to its implementation. I hope we will be able to prepare a string of weapon attacks while time is frozen, and not just spells. I also feel that the 50 mana cost, by itself, will prevent people from abusing the non-emergency version without any daily usage limits. Finally, I hope that you will consider implementing it before the changes to 506, 515, and 519. Everyone who plays a wizard will be losing something they love and have grown accustomed to having for years. Gaining access to a powerful and useful new ability, rather just the promise of one down the road, will go a long way to assuaging the grief and anguish many of your loyal, long-time customers are feeling right now.



TLDR version


1) Please reduce haste reuse costs (e.g. 6, 12, 18, 24, 30) so we have enough mana to bolt during haste downtime
2) Please implement 950 - and make it awesome - before you implement all the nerfs
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/29/2015 04:47 AM CDT
Hmmm, I was going to say that apparently I was the only warmage ever to reach cap, and demand my own plaque in the Hall of Legends. Drat you, Mightons! You have stolen my thunder! (Thunderbolt: requires 202 ranks of water lore to get a decent DF). Oh well.

Still, your post pretty much states what I (and others) have been saying; nerfing haste is a crippling blow to us.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/29/2015 08:01 AM CDT


>I don't understand why you cast 720 4 times instead of casting 711 3 times for a guaranteed death while the creatures is RT locked.

711 to kill in 3 hits requires decent warding margins, I was also hoping 720 would kill faster than that. I was disappoint. Alas time travel is a wizard ability or I'd go back and change my spell selection. 711 may be guaranteed to take no more than 3 casts if you can ward at 140+ endroll (varies with lore), never fumbler or have an armor failure. However, it is also guaranteed never to take fewer than 3 casts. The average is probably 4 casts unless you're severely under hunting. 44 mana and say 15 seconds (giving some lag for command entering).

FI kills typically in probably about 2.5 casts like level, 7-10 casts at 5 levels above you, 1.5 casts at 5 levels under you. It is however more variable, 711 will be 3 casts, 4 casts, or 5 casts. Rarely with really bad luck it could be more than 5 casts, but of course never fewer than three. FI could be anywhere between 1 and 7 on like level. It probably averages to 2.5. Mana cost is 20-12 mana depending on training. So a sorcerer is looking at an average 50-30 mana and an average of 10 or 11 seconds to kill with FI for something like level. I am of course awesome (hold your applause) so my mana cost is the minimum. Ergo, FI on paper was the better choice than Pain, however it ended up being an unlucky run.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/29/2015 08:08 AM CDT


>Normally, creatures are constantly swarming into the room and my hunting involves keeping successive waves of ithzir and constructs prone with ewaves, keeping gryphons RT-locked with feint, and fitting in my fast but weak killing swings between.

There are areas of OTF more swarmy than others. If you want to avoid swarms Glory road is a good place to hunt, stay on the west end of it, walk east to find something, kill it, if it gets too swarmy, walk a room west again. Stay out of the west market no matter what you do, and north OTF if there is a group hunting up there. If there is no group, north OTF is also reasonable, with nodes right close by.

>Additionally, full-time 919 is - and will remain - critical (even with 919, surviving an area web is a 50-50 shot for me) to self-spelled warmage hunting in OTF, bandits, and elsewhere, putting further strain on mana resources if I'm expected to be spell hunting part of the time.

High level pures are not expected to hunt self cast. You learn magic item use, arcane symbols, and all the others not just for window dressing, it is expected that you put those skills to use somewhat for each hunt. The exception is of course the rift. OTF-style spell burst is even designed to allow pures to put up almost whatever spell they want, while only limiting squares. It is expected.
Reply
Re: Upcoming Spell Changes 08/29/2015 08:33 AM CDT
>Sadly, it has still not reached top Gemstone-related video ever released ever... That honor goes to Methais' video of all of the random sound clips he has mapped to various things when he hunts. You can find that one on Youtube. ... ... ... Lets Rock. ~Whirlin

As much as I wish that were true, a quick YouTube search indicated that my clip only had 154 views, my Stone Cold one only 472, and my Rapid Fire Immolate vs. troll warcamp one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aJm1sYlMjY) 593, with a bunch of other clips coming in ahead, with a steel golem being destroyed still at the top (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7EvuM3kRGU).

Skull Temple hunt with like 5900 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5k7gscKTVuc), with Wyrom's GS4 theme remix (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk6d7Wn32-U) coming in 3rd with a big 2106.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gemstone+iv&search_sort=video_view_count

/wrists

~ Methais
Reply