>>that we can agree to for the State of Wizards as an open issue.

I wouldn't feel comfortable myself stating we're there. But - it requires others' thoughts. So - you tell me. Are we agreed?

Doug

>I wouldn't feel comfortable myself stating we're there. But - it requires others' thoughts. So - you tell me. Are we agreed?

What do you (or anyone) feel is wrong with bolts pre-cap?

~ Methais

>In addition, bard songs are unlike any other circle's in that spell hindrance results in no mana cost, allowing a bard to have more armor protection without suffering material consequences.

No cast RT either, which is pretty nice.

~ Methais

<<cloud spells that are archaic in today's GemStone

Man, 913 (Death Cloud) was a staple for me back in the day since it was hard to beat its raw mana efficiency at low levels when you could just sit in defensive and stare at something until it died. It was my primary weapon from Ghoul Masters in the graveyard up through the Spider Temple. Of course, Arcane Blast was not a thing then, but I feel like I would have really missed that mana efficiency at low levels.

As a modest point of correction I did say certain level of content maturity and certain sense of consensus. In offering opinions, I believe firmly there are no absolutes. I'm not striving for 100% of anything. The dialog itself is key - and should be encouraged openly. I invite feedback and ideas - especially now, early in the process.

The concept of the commentary option, the intent to link directly the information provided by various wizard players in support of their views (where provided), and the simple fact that it will be open, scrutinized and reviewed by our peers is driven specifically to help limit biased filtering and misrepresentation - deliberate or no.

I will admit freely and openly to being human. As humans, we each of us have our biases, and we will frequently choose to represent our opinions based on our unique set of experiences. Even when I might not agree with an opinion or premise, I'm mature enough to realize a good portion of that may be simply because I don't share the same experiences. At least 40% of the time, anyway. :) So I rarely feel someone is deliberately attempting to misrepresent something.

Though without the peer input / open review concept, the risk you mention is very, very real. I know this, I publicly acknowledge this, and that's why I'm doing this exercise openly.

Doug

It's important to realize that people directly reaching out to you are going to heavily select for already agreeing with you. That of course applies to Doug as well (or anyone). Seeking out people who agree with you and bias confirmation is an impossible-to-avoid human thing.

So it makes sense to lay out what you want and see where it goes. (And if Doug is willing to do the organizational leg-work, that's great IMO.) I don't see how organizing how active forum posters feel could be anything but a useful data point for the GMs. But it's important to remember it is just a data point. We just don't have the same data or vantage point as the GMs. Furthermore, we can make mistakes and so can the GMs.

So organize and lay out what you want and see where it goes. If it doesn't work, try another angle. I know Estild was talking about your running some experiments on the test server? If it still doesn't work... meh. This is just a game we're geeking out over here. :)

It's important to realize that just as many players don't talk to any other particular player for many reasons, that are irrelevant to the discussion except in the context that it affects the sample that is represented in a so-called "consensus". As such, this project by definition will exclude a significant portion of the population as well as misrepresent the degree to which players feel a certain way about a subject from the start. At this point, anything but open forum discussion is simply a waste of GM and player time.

In my state of wizards document, I spoke from my own perspective as a post-cap pure wizard, and that is all any of us can do. I disagree with whitewashing or providing a laundry list of issues invented to apply to everyone when no one has ever provided evidence of such a problem backed by data or irrefutable logic.

I disagree with giving Doug's off-forum communications any more weight in representing a portion of the population, when Methais's and my posts have been repeatedly discredited to attempt to frame our views as unique to us and us alone. Doug is his own voice, which he's certainly welcome to provide, and that's all I'll agree on about this write up. He certainly does not speak for me, Methais, or a number of other players who choose not to engage off the forums.

By the same token, though, I am more likely to give weight to viewpoints expressed visibly than to those merely reported upon.
If I can read a message from AgreeingWizard3782 (or a Wiki-edit from the same source, on Doug's sandbox) I'm a lot more likely to credit that as an actual person agreeing with a viewpoint than I am, "...and other folks agree with what I've said."

To some extent I lend more credence to what is here than to what is on the Wiki, because players can GET to here from inside the game (from the menu bar in the Wizard, or just the "bbs" command typed) where they cannot similarly get to the Wiki. (Though I have requested just that addition, like a 'wiki' command being added.)

I am absolutely and fundamentally 100% behind stating clearly that the only linking from summary to detail should be that which is sourced from here on these forums. That actually makes my task of gathering and linking infinitely simpler for a number of reasons, starting with disclosure / release challenges and automation.

I'm also absolutely and without any reservation 100% behind saying the opinion / observation / data offered in the post should only be reflected as the author's own, without attempt to speak to reinforcing opinions from any other party that cannot be directly linked from these forums. That again significantly simplifies my task.

This will perhaps restrict input somewhat, but leavea little ambiguity or doubt as to what to expect during the peer review. One post, one voice.

It will, however, need to be accepted and adopted across the board. I think I've expressed clearly enough my expectation that there is no unilateral standard that will ever be acceptable. I think this is an exceptional primary rule of engagement for us to follow, personally.

It will be hard; challenging even, and we'll have to sort through as a community how we will deal with situations where this primary rule of engagement isn't adhered to. But we can certainly start with it, and tailor as we go.

Doug

>>It's long, but a good read.

>>https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ztCpIMioNZa61wW8xdN994RZcn5QTGQXmKHEOOPSlc/

Thanks for putting that up. I agree that it is thorough and a good read. Don't agree with some of it - and as you note, some of it has been overcome by recent implementations. But one core concern does still remain unaddressed. My primary reason for being happy that it is here is that now this summary statement has one core link document with observations. The only thing better would be if it were actually on the WIKI to direct link. Perhaps Fleurs will put it there, or permit another to.

Keystone Go-To Attack Spell
Overview:	Most spell using professions have a keystone attack spell (or spells) that they utilize for capped hunting. As reference - Immolate (519) used to function as this spell before changes.
Problem:	No reliable single-target single-cast death-dealing spell or combination of spells available to the wizard
Detail:	Wizard bolt / ball spells - intentionally or no - are attrition-based spells, wizard CS-based spells are few and those spells do not perform as well as other profession CS-based spells
GM solution:	Earthen Fury (917) with implementation of Standard Maneuver Roll 2.0 (SMRv2)
Opinion:	Recent implementation, seems to be favorably adopted by wizards. Other professions' players are reporting it too powerful for PCs to manage
PC Solution:	Prior to Earthen Fury (917) implementation, several suggestions provided - return death-dealing reliability to Immolate (519), create second-cast supercharged capabilities (like Spirit Slayer (240)), fix bolt / ball spells to fill the niche,

From: https://gswiki.play.net/User:DOUG/Sandbox_Player_State_Of_Wizardry (13 Jan 2017 revision)

Doug

This summary statement is not what my summary says at all and is exactly what I mean by misrepresenting arguments presented. I don't say that most professions have a keystone attack spell. I say that most professions have post-cap spells or spell combos that deliver a reliable (which I'll clarify to be very high probability), single target instant kill.

Further, no GM that I've seen has suggested that 917 is intended to be the solution to a single target solution. It doesn't even work reliably on many creatures, being entirely crit-based. It's an excellent offensive option, but it's DoT, crit-based, and in no way on par with the solutions I'm seeking.

Estild has told us that he considers 515 to be equivalent to 240. It's not.

The continued inability to comprehend and accurately convey the statements that people actually presented verbatim is what contributes to my disagreement about the approach of this exercise. I further disagree with any feedback collection exercise that requires working with Doug.

My only issues with wizards are 1) the lack of a limited duration booster or other spell solution that provides:
a) the same level of quality of life in actual casts/kill, which directly impacts risk for death achieved at second 0 vs. death BY second 3,
b) high probability of a reliable near 1.0 actual casts/kill resulting in death at second 0, even when uphunting, on a nearly indiscriminate range of creatures,
c) with no cooldown
as is achievable by all of the spiritual pures at the well post-cap level.

and 2) the continued disparity in choices that wizards, with only a single lore sphere, have to face vs. the superior implementation of the SLR for clerics that allows other training requirements to compensate for having only one sphere to train in.

>>But one core concern does still remain unaddressed.

I should amend this to clarify - there are four general post-cap concerns Fleur noted. I've managed to start summarizing one, perhaps two. I'm not ignoring the others.

There's a tale about that comma at the end of the 'PC Opinion' line and the next thing being specific wizard concerns. I stopped my editing to jump into lores (another key component in Fleur's write-up) and started gathering posts from the forums to see if it deserved a general note, a specific note, or incorporation into the existing (provided) general note. It probably is a mixed bag (like the bolt summary) and so probably will show up as 'general' to be referenced in other general or specific problem areas.

Which led me to the belief I was slightly insane and put me on the path of automation. I still haven't fully recovered. ;) But I do acknowledge that it is incomplete - I think I said highly draft at the outset, but wanted to clarify.

Freely accepting all help with it!

Doug

917 doesn't do its damage immediately, 1 cycle, 2 seconds, 1 cycle, 2 seconds, 1 cycle..

Proposed 940 is 3 (or more, that needs to be mathed) at once, in line with other multi-cycle spells.

>> I Honestly think it's a GREAT spell... for group hunting, where you want to help your team, get a damage tag in, etc. Popping it onto three bandits and then waiting while your group kills them off etc. is a good tactic. It's just not well designed to kill enemies quickly in a solo context.

This definitely depends on your targets (and your training). In the Sanctum, for example, it is pretty much a near guaranteed (95%) kill for Fanatics and shapers (it's just a matter of seeing which of the cycles they die on, frequently on the 2nd one).

Against squares it has mixed results. Against pures / critters without a lot of maneuver defense / it is very deadly.

-- Robert

I also don't remember any GMs mentioning 917 as being the solution to our single target kill problem. Which makes sense (it not being the solution that is), as it's a crit based DoT. Don't get me wrong, it's a great spell and is extremely effective vs. squishy targets, but it struggles pretty hard against more heavily armored targets. I'm curious where you got the info from though, about it being Dev's solution to our single target kill problem.

>Wizard bolts, in single target context (only, our AoE has never seemed a problem to me) need a modest boost in killing ability (only, so not mana efficiency, accuracy, damage dealing, or killing speed (on a long timeline)). It is pretty apparent, to me, the difference between dead and wait three seconds, and three seconds until dead.

This pretty much sums it up with bolts, imo.

>I keep hearing that many options (like 917) don't work post-cap because they're crit based. But then I hear that proposed Elemental Overload would fix the issue by increasing crit chance with multiple damage cycles. Am I missing something here?

A lot of things at cap are immune to crits. Most undead things, rift crawlers seem to be part time crit immune for some reason, everything in the Confluence, etc., and 917 is never going to bleed something out in one cast, which would still take 10 seconds to run all of its cycles.

It's not that the spell doesn't work. It hits pretty hard vs. squishy targets. Most other things though, it struggles. It's great for things like liches though, which tend to have both a high elemental TD and high bolt DS and wear robes. Versus anything crit immune though, almost anything is a better option.

~ Methais

Ultimately, 917 is not a bad spell, it just does not meet the need at hand. Hopefully we haven't over answered too much.

>>Wizard bolts, in single target context (only, our AoE has never seemed a problem to me) need a modest boost in killing ability (only, so not mana efficiency, accuracy, damage dealing, or killing speed (on a long timeline)). It is pretty apparent, to me, the difference between dead and wait three seconds, and three seconds until dead.

>>My current supported effort to close the gap is still 940 - Elemental Overload, as put forth by Estild, as it addresses one of the largest gaps between most warding spells and bolts, which is Multiple Damage Cycles, which greatly increases the chances of a Fatal Crit, and thus would make bolt channeling attractive. This would achieve the mentioned increase in killing ability without adjusting the other factors, and in terms of killing speed, would be the same (assuming 3 bolts to kill is average, which Estild has put forth and I have no reason to challenge).

I'll do my best to keep up personally with suggested edits, but I am only human, need to eat / sleep / play, etc. I'm sure others will be happy to help, too!

For this, I want to make a couple of points. These are my opinion, and as such would only be referenced as needed in the summary. In this case, this isn't highly likely, until we get into tradeoff pro / con discussions - if that occurs.

After my points, I'll put up another post with some suggested edits to the wiki information, to see if it passes muster. I intend to keep the two separate to ensure I get my voice ;), while at the same time trying to keep the summary as objective as I possibly can - with all your help!

On 940 Elemental Overload. My opinion: Love it, wouldn't mind seeing it myself. Two important caveats in my view.

1) I'm pretty sure (and can post the link to confirm) that Estild's tone was one of 'this is what I was considering, before I did 515'. (Please note, not a quote, my words my impression.) It doesn't mean much other than if that's accurate, we should probably understand that there may be a knock-on effect to 515. It seems logical to me (my opinion) because it appeared to me that Estild made trade-off decisions while incorporating player feedback from the forums.

2) For some creatures in the lands, even Elemental Overload (940) isn't a ;totalsolution . There are two primary types of creatures where this still might not close the gap (as I understand it, and in my opinion). The first is high bolt DS creatures - even with a +25 AS boost as part of the package, there are some creatures that your 'average' well-post capped wizard still might not reach, or might not reach with a significant enough result to do a real / fatal crit. Yes - they can be set up with other wizard spells and chances increased. But if we're focusing on a single spell cast type activity - that test fails. The second is that some specific creature types (non-crit, like non-corporeal undead) will be easier to reach, but the result remains attrition-based, and so in this case it may not be possible to meet the terms of 'reliability' as expressed earlier via this mechanism.

For all that, I'm more than happy to incorporate. Attempt coming up next post.

Doug

Overload would probably end 515, and 515 ends 940. They are two modes, not intended to stack.

940 would also be almost expecting channelled bolts. A tangential goal is to make bolt channel an effective option, which is hard rt. i would plan most kill assumptions for 940 scenarios around a channel.

I like both the points - we can keep those around for incorporation into data/opinion behind the summary and link them in!

I would point out though, that there's been a lot of dialog about 3 second hard round time for wizards. My personal stance in that is that I'm not a huge fan (and so don't channel often, but do test it periodically), largely because that would be 'wizard only' pinch. I'm not fanatic about it - but parity would seem to include a sense of 'cast and act' that is absent in the channel bolt scenario.

The trade off, channel CS spell, exists - but I've seen enough data/observation and data/logs to believe that it is not required (especially well-post cap) and therefore isn't really a viable parity position. I don't know that we've attempted a data/stat_analysis on it, but wouldn't recommend it - it seems intuitive enough to not require such an extreme perspective.

But who knows! I learn new stuff every day - perhaps there are other reasons and it does need to be tested. . .

I hope others will share their opinions directly.

Doug

Correction, 30. 20 sounded low.