Previous
>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.
240 does not require a channel to achieve its guaranteed results, though it's a possibility. 240 also works with 515.
>There exist high TD creatures.
Creatures do not exist with spiritual TD that cannot be overcome by spiritual pures with enhancives and their increased access to spiritual CS boosters.
>If comparable numbers of high DS and high TD creatures exist, then we have achieved goal, which is parity, not perfection.
Comparable numbers of both creatures don't exist.
This summary should focus on identifying issues and letting GMs work through the details of the data-based problems. I'm not here to assign percentages to variables within a spell, that is unlikely to be exactly as Estild threw together and tossed up for appraisal. I will be satisfied with a solution as long as my 3 criteria are met.
LADYFLEUR
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/26/2017 09:51 PM CDT
>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.
It doesn't seem logical to me that a further nerf is necessary because tools are meant to provide options, not have one or the other to box everyone into one path. As Estild said that any potential solution would not work with 515, that should be sufficient to preserve 515 as it is for those who choose to utilize different tools, while adding in a more powerful option with 940 for maximum potential realized at the post-cap level.
Other classes similarly have many different types of tools so they can use what is best for the situation at hand. Just like clerics have 340 and 240.
It doesn't seem logical to me that a further nerf is necessary because tools are meant to provide options, not have one or the other to box everyone into one path. As Estild said that any potential solution would not work with 515, that should be sufficient to preserve 515 as it is for those who choose to utilize different tools, while adding in a more powerful option with 940 for maximum potential realized at the post-cap level.
Other classes similarly have many different types of tools so they can use what is best for the situation at hand. Just like clerics have 340 and 240.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/26/2017 10:40 PM CDT
I'll also note that hard channeling is not an acceptable option as a requirement for a solution for wizards as while spiritual pures have the option to do that to achieve better results earlier, it is not a requirement to hit 1.0 casts/kill at a post-cap level.
For the spiritual pures, reliable CS-based immobilization is also achievable at second 0, on top of being able to instantly kill single targets at second 0. There are certain creatures, particularly at cap, that even a spiritual pure would not stand in front of and hard channel without first employing a disabler that guarantees immobilization. Wizards have 512 now, but it takes 24 mana and 6 seconds without 515 (as a proposed solution would exclude) to even disable a creature, melts against a wizard's cheaper bolt options, and is ineffective against some creatures that are fire-based, without accounting for the increased mana cost. I am NOT asking for a single target CS-based disabler for wizards. I'll be satisfied with no channel requirement to achieve the same results.
>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.
I agree with all of this, which is why I explicitly laid out the 3 criteria required for parity in effect, and a near 1.0 cast/kill result is supported by data. It's also why I explicitly mentioned "even when uphunting". As for the latter point, 240 works against all creature types using the offensive warding spells available to the spiritual pures, which is why I explicitly mentioned "a nearly indeterminate range of creatures".
For the spiritual pures, reliable CS-based immobilization is also achievable at second 0, on top of being able to instantly kill single targets at second 0. There are certain creatures, particularly at cap, that even a spiritual pure would not stand in front of and hard channel without first employing a disabler that guarantees immobilization. Wizards have 512 now, but it takes 24 mana and 6 seconds without 515 (as a proposed solution would exclude) to even disable a creature, melts against a wizard's cheaper bolt options, and is ineffective against some creatures that are fire-based, without accounting for the increased mana cost. I am NOT asking for a single target CS-based disabler for wizards. I'll be satisfied with no channel requirement to achieve the same results.
>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.
I agree with all of this, which is why I explicitly laid out the 3 criteria required for parity in effect, and a near 1.0 cast/kill result is supported by data. It's also why I explicitly mentioned "even when uphunting". As for the latter point, 240 works against all creature types using the offensive warding spells available to the spiritual pures, which is why I explicitly mentioned "a nearly indeterminate range of creatures".
KANDOR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 09:08 AM CDT
I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that bolts aren't a problem until post-cap. They are precisely as unreliable due to EBP and crit location at level 10 as they are at level 100. The critters and hunting grounds may require different strategies, however, and warding spells become better at higher levels. As critters become more dangerous, having a spell like 940-as-suggested that is expensive but allows bolts to hit rather like warding spells would be very useful, and it would go a long way toward fixing the issues we've identified with bolts. Both at 40 and post-cap.
Regarding post-cap hunting, I'd suggest that NOTHING should be reliable when hunting critters 10 levels above you. If any profession has spells or maneuvers that are reliable, the level-to-level component of these should be reviewed. Call it a nerf; I don't care. Compare 100 to 100; 100 to 110+ should be a calculated risk.
Regarding post-cap hunting, I'd suggest that NOTHING should be reliable when hunting critters 10 levels above you. If any profession has spells or maneuvers that are reliable, the level-to-level component of these should be reviewed. Call it a nerf; I don't care. Compare 100 to 100; 100 to 110+ should be a calculated risk.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 09:09 AM CDT
Pre-cap bolts aren't any more unreliable in terms of cast/kill or time/kill parity than pre-cap warding spells, which are the criteria that Dev uses.
Every profession has abilities that allow for reliable hunting. I disagree with nerfing the entire game, which would actually cause a mass exodus. No one cares right now because many wizard players moved on to playing other characters that were acquired in other ways.
Every profession has abilities that allow for reliable hunting. I disagree with nerfing the entire game, which would actually cause a mass exodus. No one cares right now because many wizard players moved on to playing other characters that were acquired in other ways.
PEREGRINEFALCON
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 09:12 AM CDT
>> Regarding post-cap hunting, I'd suggest that NOTHING should be reliable when hunting critters 10 levels above you. If any profession has spells or maneuvers that are reliable, the level-to-level component of these should be reviewed. Call it a nerf; I don't care. Compare 100 to 100; 100 to 110+ should be a calculated risk.
Agree with your primary point but also consider that someone who it 2x capped, 4x, capped, 6x capped while level 100, has significantly more training and should have training options to offset that comparison some so that you are no longer looking at 100 to 110+ but something more on par with the 110 to 110+ comparison. Should that be at 2x training, 4x training, something else? I don't know but part of the argument being put forth is that wizards do not have the same post cap training opportunities to achieve this to the same degree that other pure professions might.
-- Robert
Agree with your primary point but also consider that someone who it 2x capped, 4x, capped, 6x capped while level 100, has significantly more training and should have training options to offset that comparison some so that you are no longer looking at 100 to 110+ but something more on par with the 110 to 110+ comparison. Should that be at 2x training, 4x training, something else? I don't know but part of the argument being put forth is that wizards do not have the same post cap training opportunities to achieve this to the same degree that other pure professions might.
-- Robert
BLSLOVE
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 09:27 AM CDT
I could see swapping 415 and 915, and returning the Fire Lore benefits 415 previously used for dual cast. It would give wizards more of a reason to train in their base circle which would benefit other spells as well as giving a highly reliable killing CS spell in their main circle. It's a bit strong for a minor circle that most professions have access to, and Weapon Fire as it currently is seems sufficiently powerful for a minor spell circle.
I understand this still isn't as beneficial as spiritual CS base circle attack warding spells considering wizards have to pump ranks into major elemental for use of 516, but in my opinion I believe this might be a good change.
I understand this still isn't as beneficial as spiritual CS base circle attack warding spells considering wizards have to pump ranks into major elemental for use of 516, but in my opinion I believe this might be a good change.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 10:01 AM CDT
I wouldn't consider 415's effect, even pre-nerf, to be on the same level of reliability as the post-cap CS spells or spell solutions available to the other pures. This is understandable, as it was indeed a minor circle spell. However, Dev has said they consider wizards to be primarily bolters, which is why I would like to see wizards have some sort of spell or spell solution that allows the same level of cast/kill parity and reliability to be achieved with bolts, with no cooldown.
GS4-ESTILD
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 10:38 AM CDT
A couple of questions I'm interested in hearing answers on:
1.) What would make channeling a bolt worth it?
2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.
GameMaster Estild
1.) What would make channeling a bolt worth it?
2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.
GameMaster Estild
ARCHSENEX
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 10:45 AM CDT
For 2, I haven't followed all the threads, but I know "single core tap" is probably a loaded subject... but...
I have enjoyed the direction elements have gone, with "basic elements" and "hybrid elements" (just need a good fire/earth one...) and would like if bolts reflected that.
Honestly, I still wonder why wizards don't have Minor Bolt/ Major Bolt/ Bolt Ball - where lore allows you to cast the one you want, rather than having spells with dedicated bolt effects. It's not like wizards need the slots or anything, but it simplifies down the system greatly, and is in line with Cone of Elements, 502, etc. "Modern" wizards have spells that they set the element of (which strikes me more as "element master" than spells that are static
Allowing for higher lore to allow you to combine bolts would be on interest, a combined Water/Lightning bolt, that both soaks and stunshocks, a combined water/fire bolt, that both soaks and steam crits, is an idea.
Additionally, I've wondered why wizards can't do some sort of bolt barrage. 940 was something in that stylistic vein to me, but being able to cast water, lightning, impact as a three bolt combo spell (with mana cost, I'm not expecting it for free, 25 or some mana is what I'm thinking) where the effect of one applies before the next hits, etc.
This is just idea phase though, I haven't given it serious thought.
My understanding is that the biggest problem with channeling is the danger of being in a higher stance. If wizards could somehow channel more effectively from lower stances, with some sort of method, it would at least mitigate the cost. To my knowledge, the biggest problem with channel isn't so much that the benefit really needs significant pumping, but rather that the cost is too high for said benefit.
I have enjoyed the direction elements have gone, with "basic elements" and "hybrid elements" (just need a good fire/earth one...) and would like if bolts reflected that.
Honestly, I still wonder why wizards don't have Minor Bolt/ Major Bolt/ Bolt Ball - where lore allows you to cast the one you want, rather than having spells with dedicated bolt effects. It's not like wizards need the slots or anything, but it simplifies down the system greatly, and is in line with Cone of Elements, 502, etc. "Modern" wizards have spells that they set the element of (which strikes me more as "element master" than spells that are static
Allowing for higher lore to allow you to combine bolts would be on interest, a combined Water/Lightning bolt, that both soaks and stunshocks, a combined water/fire bolt, that both soaks and steam crits, is an idea.
Additionally, I've wondered why wizards can't do some sort of bolt barrage. 940 was something in that stylistic vein to me, but being able to cast water, lightning, impact as a three bolt combo spell (with mana cost, I'm not expecting it for free, 25 or some mana is what I'm thinking) where the effect of one applies before the next hits, etc.
This is just idea phase though, I haven't given it serious thought.
My understanding is that the biggest problem with channeling is the danger of being in a higher stance. If wizards could somehow channel more effectively from lower stances, with some sort of method, it would at least mitigate the cost. To my knowledge, the biggest problem with channel isn't so much that the benefit really needs significant pumping, but rather that the cost is too high for said benefit.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 11:20 AM CDT
>1.) What would make channeling a bolt worth it?
CHANNELing a bolt would only be worth it if it resulted in a mean 1.0 cast/kill, which would mean EBP would need to be addressed on a much greater level on all creatures than it is now. Not 1.1, not 1.3, 1.0. A spiritual pure has the option to not CHANNEL their post-cap spell/spell combo if facing a dangerous foe that would be deadly if not immediately killed. These include non-corporeal undead that don't stun, capped creatures with spike thorn or other maneuvers. If a spiritual pure hunts a creature where 1.0 is not possible, they have the option to not hard channel so if 1 cast does not achieve a kill, they can run away. But more likely, they would first utilize their reliable CS-based single target or mass disablers instead upfront, boosted by 240 or 340.
As it is, wizards are weaker in terms of both reliable disabling and reliable single target killing at second 0, so I disagree with continuing to try to force a hard CHANNEL requirement. It would prevent a solution from allowing wizards to hunt the more challenging creatures that the post-cap spiritual pures can and that I also previously enjoyed with acceptable levels of risk.
I've added an addendum and detailed this further in my analysis that I recently submitted.
>2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.
Requiring different element combos would add more restrictions than options because a creature that is vulnerable to fire is often immune to cold and vice versa, and the opposite element would actually end up healing the creature and achieve a worse result. Something that inadvertently produces a lightning combination might kill you in the wrong area. This is also why ATTUNE RANDOM is like playing Russian roulette.
I'm looking for flavor that produces a powerful combination within a single spell, instead of requiring wizards to use 3-4 different spells to achieve one result. The latter literally just requires wizards to manually hit a string of macros to achieve the same result that a cast of 719, or 317, or any of the other empath spells achieves by requiring wizards to manually activate each and every cycle to achieve one kill. It's tedious over time and extremely lacking in the fun factor.
This is partly why 950 was so well received, because it allows one to create their own bolt combinations while preserving quality of life in terms of cast/kill and death at second 0. If we had a single target solution that addressed my 3 criteria but allowed one to select their own bolting combo, that could also be interesting. What I'm looking for is a way to achieve reliability, rather than the lottery upon lottery factor we have now. A slew of individual bolts may activate more flares on a runestaff, but it is also highly lottery based. It is never going to hit 1.0 cast/kill with the other restrictions that bolts face.
I'm willing to forgo that lottery opportunity for a more reliable option that requires choosing the combination of bolt cycles and paying the mana cost upfront, in order to achieve the 3 points that I deem critical to a solution.
CHANNELing a bolt would only be worth it if it resulted in a mean 1.0 cast/kill, which would mean EBP would need to be addressed on a much greater level on all creatures than it is now. Not 1.1, not 1.3, 1.0. A spiritual pure has the option to not CHANNEL their post-cap spell/spell combo if facing a dangerous foe that would be deadly if not immediately killed. These include non-corporeal undead that don't stun, capped creatures with spike thorn or other maneuvers. If a spiritual pure hunts a creature where 1.0 is not possible, they have the option to not hard channel so if 1 cast does not achieve a kill, they can run away. But more likely, they would first utilize their reliable CS-based single target or mass disablers instead upfront, boosted by 240 or 340.
As it is, wizards are weaker in terms of both reliable disabling and reliable single target killing at second 0, so I disagree with continuing to try to force a hard CHANNEL requirement. It would prevent a solution from allowing wizards to hunt the more challenging creatures that the post-cap spiritual pures can and that I also previously enjoyed with acceptable levels of risk.
I've added an addendum and detailed this further in my analysis that I recently submitted.
>2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.
Requiring different element combos would add more restrictions than options because a creature that is vulnerable to fire is often immune to cold and vice versa, and the opposite element would actually end up healing the creature and achieve a worse result. Something that inadvertently produces a lightning combination might kill you in the wrong area. This is also why ATTUNE RANDOM is like playing Russian roulette.
I'm looking for flavor that produces a powerful combination within a single spell, instead of requiring wizards to use 3-4 different spells to achieve one result. The latter literally just requires wizards to manually hit a string of macros to achieve the same result that a cast of 719, or 317, or any of the other empath spells achieves by requiring wizards to manually activate each and every cycle to achieve one kill. It's tedious over time and extremely lacking in the fun factor.
This is partly why 950 was so well received, because it allows one to create their own bolt combinations while preserving quality of life in terms of cast/kill and death at second 0. If we had a single target solution that addressed my 3 criteria but allowed one to select their own bolting combo, that could also be interesting. What I'm looking for is a way to achieve reliability, rather than the lottery upon lottery factor we have now. A slew of individual bolts may activate more flares on a runestaff, but it is also highly lottery based. It is never going to hit 1.0 cast/kill with the other restrictions that bolts face.
I'm willing to forgo that lottery opportunity for a more reliable option that requires choosing the combination of bolt cycles and paying the mana cost upfront, in order to achieve the 3 points that I deem critical to a solution.
PEREGRINEFALCON
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 11:35 AM CDT
>> 1.) What would make channeling a bolt worth it?
Hmmm... I really dislike the concept of channeling bolts in general. Stancing offensive to hard RT is just not something I want to do as a wizard. I'd rather see this scrapped entirely and have us look at a different approach to improving bolts.
Short answer - the benefit would have to be so over the top that it wouldn't make sense to do it. Plus I probably still wouldn't like it because I don't want that style of play for my wizard - I have plenty of other characters that stance offensive to hard RT (e.g. Warriors, Paladins, etc). Why strive to make the wizard combat experience more like a square instead of looking for alternative / different play styles?
>> 2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.
I've found that I actually like the fire / acid flavor that is added to 906/904 from lore (ignoring any discussion around summation seeds). It adds fun to the game. Combo casts are generally not interesting because, as you say, why prep with 903 when you can just cast 910 twice? That said, alternating fire and cold against stone creatures is interesting (I forget which critters this works on) and effective.
Brainstorming a few ideas along the fire / acid line which I find enjoyable:
- Cold: has a chance to slow the opponent. A slowed opponent then has a chance to be frozen (frozen targets have a chance of being shattered on a subsequent strike). These can be high seed / low chance results but then it would make casting cold over and over more interesting (for me). It has both the cool factor and elemental flavor that I want and expect to see for elemental lores.
- Air: has a chance to disorient a target such that their EPB / DS / CMANs defenses are reduced (with noticeable messaging when this occurs - it's not cool or interesting if the numbers change and no one sees it!). Occasionally there a strike will result in their defenses being DOWN - STRIKE NOW! as a result.
- Earth: Has a chance to pummel a target reducing their defense (reduced padding / resistances for creatures that have it). For crit resistant / immune critters maybe occasionally setting them up that the next strike can be a normal Crit (bypassing the normal resistance)
- Lightning: strikes have a chance to disorient / numb the target possibly restricting their actions to basic attacks (no casting, maneuvers, special actions for the next round).
Some of these effects aren't necessarily tied to the element I placed them in (e.g. lightning or air or even earth could potentially be 'disorienting') but basically add some additional potential with each type of bolt which might drive a wizard to want to use a bolt for a chance at a given effect - also, this adds some level of sense of element to wizards that want to focus on certain elemental bolts for their play style (then throwing rocks isn't the same as throwing fireballs with a different <insert element here> message - now the play style feels slightly different due to additional effects that sometimes occur.
My 25 silvers worth with 10 minutes or so of thought on the subject.
-- Robert aka Faulkil
Hmmm... I really dislike the concept of channeling bolts in general. Stancing offensive to hard RT is just not something I want to do as a wizard. I'd rather see this scrapped entirely and have us look at a different approach to improving bolts.
Short answer - the benefit would have to be so over the top that it wouldn't make sense to do it. Plus I probably still wouldn't like it because I don't want that style of play for my wizard - I have plenty of other characters that stance offensive to hard RT (e.g. Warriors, Paladins, etc). Why strive to make the wizard combat experience more like a square instead of looking for alternative / different play styles?
>> 2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.
I've found that I actually like the fire / acid flavor that is added to 906/904 from lore (ignoring any discussion around summation seeds). It adds fun to the game. Combo casts are generally not interesting because, as you say, why prep with 903 when you can just cast 910 twice? That said, alternating fire and cold against stone creatures is interesting (I forget which critters this works on) and effective.
Brainstorming a few ideas along the fire / acid line which I find enjoyable:
- Cold: has a chance to slow the opponent. A slowed opponent then has a chance to be frozen (frozen targets have a chance of being shattered on a subsequent strike). These can be high seed / low chance results but then it would make casting cold over and over more interesting (for me). It has both the cool factor and elemental flavor that I want and expect to see for elemental lores.
- Air: has a chance to disorient a target such that their EPB / DS / CMANs defenses are reduced (with noticeable messaging when this occurs - it's not cool or interesting if the numbers change and no one sees it!). Occasionally there a strike will result in their defenses being DOWN - STRIKE NOW! as a result.
- Earth: Has a chance to pummel a target reducing their defense (reduced padding / resistances for creatures that have it). For crit resistant / immune critters maybe occasionally setting them up that the next strike can be a normal Crit (bypassing the normal resistance)
- Lightning: strikes have a chance to disorient / numb the target possibly restricting their actions to basic attacks (no casting, maneuvers, special actions for the next round).
Some of these effects aren't necessarily tied to the element I placed them in (e.g. lightning or air or even earth could potentially be 'disorienting') but basically add some additional potential with each type of bolt which might drive a wizard to want to use a bolt for a chance at a given effect - also, this adds some level of sense of element to wizards that want to focus on certain elemental bolts for their play style (then throwing rocks isn't the same as throwing fireballs with a different <insert element here> message - now the play style feels slightly different due to additional effects that sometimes occur.
My 25 silvers worth with 10 minutes or so of thought on the subject.
-- Robert aka Faulkil
ARCHSENEX
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 11:39 AM CDT
IF you standardize all elemental bolts to have combo kickers, so that if a creature is immune to 1, you can use it's opposite + a neutral to get a kicker, might be an idea.
For instance, Water + Fire = Steam, if you're up against something immune to water, you might do Fire + Air to get Plasma, or Fire + Earth to get (This is the problem one, there's no Lava crit...)
Meanwhite, for things immune to fire, you Might do Water + Air for Lightning, Water + Earth for Acid, etc. Basically, if one spell ALWAYS set up the next to get a kicker.
after that, being able to triple bolt (Water Air Earth) to get 3 bolts + 2 kickers, would make for a dynamic and fun gameplay.
ARCHSENEX
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 11:42 AM CDT
Before people say that switching elements would reduce the effect of lore... a guaranteed extra flare cycle should be greater than the DF increase from lore, shouldn't it?
"Channeling" bolts always struck me like the spell Arcane Missiles, from... a certain lesser known MMO. You put yourself into 3 seconds of hard rt equivalent (you can't move) and in exchange you get a more mana efficient damage. However, you always retain the CHOICE to move, lose the efficiency, and return to normal survival.
So if there was some way to make channel not hard RT, but rather "you will lose X mana if you move" it might be an idea.
This really is throwing out ideas though, they'd all need some baking.
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 11:45 AM CDT
It's possible channeling ends up being more of a pre-cap thing. I find it a very useful option, but it would obviously be much less powerful in a world where crits don't matter and monsters have a 2s RTs. As was mentioned powering it up enough to reliably kill would not be possible.
Maybe that could be a direction to take a high-level spell fix though? A spell that temporarily makes channeled bolts insane?
Maybe that could be a direction to take a high-level spell fix though? A spell that temporarily makes channeled bolts insane?
ARCHSENEX
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 11:46 AM CDT
Also, and this is a question for capped wizards... if you had access to a spell like the below, would you consider channeling?
Elemental Barrier - Costs 10 Mana - For 12 Seconds, You have 100 Phantom HP, that will absorb attacks before taking damage. IF the barrier absorbs the attack, you will not take damage or criticals.
The HP is supposed to be enough that 1 enemy is VERY unlikely to get through it, but 2 has a reasonable chance, and 3 will almost assuredly overwhelm it.
Elemental Barrier - Costs 10 Mana - For 12 Seconds, You have 100 Phantom HP, that will absorb attacks before taking damage. IF the barrier absorbs the attack, you will not take damage or criticals.
The HP is supposed to be enough that 1 enemy is VERY unlikely to get through it, but 2 has a reasonable chance, and 3 will almost assuredly overwhelm it.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 11:48 AM CDT
>Some of these effects aren't necessarily tied to the element I placed them in
While these sound interesting, tying specific elements of bolts to roles would allow for the same sub-par result at best that wizards face today. Due to many creatures being immune to certain elements, that would eliminate the use of those bolts when facing those foes. Some elements by nature have worse DF and crit tables than others, so those bolts are rarely used. There's no single target air bolt that's worth using. EBP is an issue with every creature, and I disagree with requiring air lore to address this offensive issue when air as a lore is already assigned a defensive role. What I don't want is to further conflate attunement/lore requirements into now different bolt types required to address each issue plaguing wizards, which would result in the change not addressing those same core issues for many creatures due to one of the above reasons.
It would further exacerbate the single sphere lore split issue that wizards face vs. clerics who have a single sphere and the other hybrid pures.
Wizard hunting is a headache without a script compared to any other pure. I'm looking for fun and quality of life above all.
While these sound interesting, tying specific elements of bolts to roles would allow for the same sub-par result at best that wizards face today. Due to many creatures being immune to certain elements, that would eliminate the use of those bolts when facing those foes. Some elements by nature have worse DF and crit tables than others, so those bolts are rarely used. There's no single target air bolt that's worth using. EBP is an issue with every creature, and I disagree with requiring air lore to address this offensive issue when air as a lore is already assigned a defensive role. What I don't want is to further conflate attunement/lore requirements into now different bolt types required to address each issue plaguing wizards, which would result in the change not addressing those same core issues for many creatures due to one of the above reasons.
It would further exacerbate the single sphere lore split issue that wizards face vs. clerics who have a single sphere and the other hybrid pures.
Wizard hunting is a headache without a script compared to any other pure. I'm looking for fun and quality of life above all.
ARCHSENEX
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 11:51 AM CDT
If the bolts were standardized into "Minor Bolt, Lesser Bolt, Major Bolt, Bolt Ball" with identical base DF's, then lore would become the only difference. That's another one of those quirks I don't really get or even like.. why bolts aren't equal at base.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 11:53 AM CDT
>Also, and this is a question for capped wizards... if you had access to a spell like the below, would you consider channeling?
No. I'm not looking for any more defensive/save me spells of any type. We have more than enough of those. Pures are not meant to be turned into tanks. Squares are the invulnerable tank class. If I wanted to be a tank who was willing to be subject to hard RT, I would play them more.
I disagree with continuing to try to turn wizards into underpowered paladins or squares and imposing cooldowns or hard RT requirements that no other pure is subject to. It inhibits mobility, stance changing, or fleeing the scene if an emergency befalls you. It prevents one from moving into another room and onto another creature if the kill is already achieved in 1 cast. These are limitations that the spiritual pures are not subject to.
No. I'm not looking for any more defensive/save me spells of any type. We have more than enough of those. Pures are not meant to be turned into tanks. Squares are the invulnerable tank class. If I wanted to be a tank who was willing to be subject to hard RT, I would play them more.
I disagree with continuing to try to turn wizards into underpowered paladins or squares and imposing cooldowns or hard RT requirements that no other pure is subject to. It inhibits mobility, stance changing, or fleeing the scene if an emergency befalls you. It prevents one from moving into another room and onto another creature if the kill is already achieved in 1 cast. These are limitations that the spiritual pures are not subject to.
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 11:54 AM CDT
<<Wizard hunting is a headache without a script compared to any other pure. I'm looking for fun and quality of life above all.
Something to consider- What if people actually like the increased complexity / tactics of hunting. I know I do. (This is the danger of saying other classes are X, so wizards should be too. There's often merit to that argument, but it's important to remember there are different classes / different playstyles for a reason.)
Put another way, the goal you describe of just typing inc <whatever> to kill things on site actually sounds pretty boring to me. Now maybe it makes sense at something way beyond cap just as a "power ceiling", but pushing wizards in that direction in general would make the game less enjoyable for me- regardless of what other classes can do. There are reasons I like playing a wizard.
Something to consider- What if people actually like the increased complexity / tactics of hunting. I know I do. (This is the danger of saying other classes are X, so wizards should be too. There's often merit to that argument, but it's important to remember there are different classes / different playstyles for a reason.)
Put another way, the goal you describe of just typing inc <whatever> to kill things on site actually sounds pretty boring to me. Now maybe it makes sense at something way beyond cap just as a "power ceiling", but pushing wizards in that direction in general would make the game less enjoyable for me- regardless of what other classes can do. There are reasons I like playing a wizard.
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 11:58 AM CDT
LabyFleurs- You consistently say spiritual pures have it way better, so why don't you play one? (I know this sounds like a "love it or leave it" thing, but it's not meant to be- I'm trying to figure out what you do find attractive about wizards that you want to retain while making them look more and more like what you say spiritualists are. It would be useful to know where you're coming from, so I can put your arguments in better context.)
PEREGRINEFALCON
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 12:06 PM CDT
>> Also, and this is a question for capped wizards... if you had access to a spell like the below, would you consider channeling?
>> Elemental Barrier - Costs 10 Mana - For 12 Seconds, You have 100 Phantom HP, that will absorb attacks before taking damage. IF the barrier absorbs the attack, you will not take damage or criticals.
I would not for the reasons stated a few posts prior (play style).
-- Robert
>> Elemental Barrier - Costs 10 Mana - For 12 Seconds, You have 100 Phantom HP, that will absorb attacks before taking damage. IF the barrier absorbs the attack, you will not take damage or criticals.
I would not for the reasons stated a few posts prior (play style).
-- Robert
PEREGRINEFALCON
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 12:18 PM CDT
>> While these sound interesting, tying specific elements of bolts to roles would allow for the same sub-par result at best that wizards face today.
For clarity - I was responding to the question of what would make bolts more interesting. I even made a point of bolding that part of Estild's question when I responded.
For the most part, most bolts don't do anything different at all (outside of DF and for critters with specific immunities). Adding additional features to bolts doesn't break anything that exists today - it just makes them more interesting. Adding functionality and flavor to bolts might inspire me to choose a bolt based on something other than DF and whether I am trying to hit a single target or multiple targets.
I believe I understand your mission statement for wizards at this point - I'm more interested in having more 'sense of element' / 'elemental flavor'.
Sounds like we might be in agreement on the interesting aspect even if it doesn't necessarily achieve both of our goals. :-)
-- Robert
For clarity - I was responding to the question of what would make bolts more interesting. I even made a point of bolding that part of Estild's question when I responded.
For the most part, most bolts don't do anything different at all (outside of DF and for critters with specific immunities). Adding additional features to bolts doesn't break anything that exists today - it just makes them more interesting. Adding functionality and flavor to bolts might inspire me to choose a bolt based on something other than DF and whether I am trying to hit a single target or multiple targets.
I believe I understand your mission statement for wizards at this point - I'm more interested in having more 'sense of element' / 'elemental flavor'.
Sounds like we might be in agreement on the interesting aspect even if it doesn't necessarily achieve both of our goals. :-)
-- Robert
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 12:22 PM CDT
Btw, I am very on-board with adding more tactics / flavor to different bolts other than a DF and whether or not it's a ball spell.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 12:33 PM CDT
>Sounds like we might be in agreement on the interesting aspect even if it doesn't necessarily achieve both of our goals. :-)
I am all for more interesting standalone bolts as an option, as long as Dev does not think that improved standalone bolts would solve the post-cap, single target kill probability issue.
I would not be okay with a bolt combination spell/solution that required additional lores to utilize these improved bolts within a combination in order to hit the 3 criteria I listed for a solution I'm seeking. This would exacerbate the lore split problem that post-cap wizards face.
If we can have both standalone, "interesting" bolts, while separately addressing the post-cap, single target reliability issue with a solution that includes a combination of baseline bolts, then I'm all for more options for everyone.
I am all for more interesting standalone bolts as an option, as long as Dev does not think that improved standalone bolts would solve the post-cap, single target kill probability issue.
I would not be okay with a bolt combination spell/solution that required additional lores to utilize these improved bolts within a combination in order to hit the 3 criteria I listed for a solution I'm seeking. This would exacerbate the lore split problem that post-cap wizards face.
If we can have both standalone, "interesting" bolts, while separately addressing the post-cap, single target reliability issue with a solution that includes a combination of baseline bolts, then I'm all for more options for everyone.
DOUG
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 01:18 PM CDT
>>1.) What would make channeling a bolt worth it?
Tough question! I am going to throw out a few ideas - but I don't expect them to work for everyone's play style. And I should probably preface this by saying that most of the time I set up and hunt areas where my wizards stroll around in offensive stance anyway - so the 'barrier' to channeling isn't so much stance dancing for me. But I do rely on mobility (moving out of the room) which is allowed with Cast RT, but not round time. That's a play style kind of thing, I get it. Just wanted to add that color before the suggestions.
- First, if there were some way to reduce the round time for channeling, that would be ideal for me personally (less time locked in a room or area).
- Second, if we have to stay at 3 times the round time - there should be a way to get 3 to 4 times the baseline punch (metaphorically speaking).
- Third, if we can't have 3 times the punch, but still have to stay at 3 times the round time - the reward should be far more substantive (higher risk and all).
>>2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.
That last idea above probably isn't really tenable. 'Reward' is too often seen either as experience or treasure - neither of which are shortcomings to the profession, and adjusting for one profession alone doesn't seem prudent.
The other two ideas, though - there might be something there. Here's an example.
515 active, channeled bolt incurs 1 sec hard round time.
Or, 515 active, channeled bolt actually triplicates bolt for 3 seconds hard round time (quadruplicates bolt?)
Or, totally off the wall - 515 active, and appropriate bolt spell / element chosen - target suffers an SMR v2 based attack which (entombs, encases, enswirls or enflames) the target significantly reducing crit randomization and / or EBP and the bolt then to match (one spell action, incurs hard roundtime).
Now - I've been using 515 because of existing spells / activities, 515 is the one that is presently positioned for no cool-down at post cap (checking a box, if you will). It may not be totally ideal because cool downs will exist prior to post cap. There are potentially ways to manage that as well - if it becomes an issue.
But let's step aside from that requirement for a moment - keep in mind, not all of these ideas are likely suitable for every play style. I really liked that the GM team heard the wizard desire to chain spells together. 950 is probably just as innovative for the game, in my view, as 520 is. Both - in my personal opinion - are two of the best designed spells I've seen released in a very, very long time.
But we should have a lower level spell that allows for daisy chaining a select number (3 maybe? even 2?) of spells to 'mix effects'. Spitballing - 915 (only because Weaponfire is very likely a low use spell) could be used to allow automatically divergent elements to be cast as a single spell. An example - incant 915 906 would automatically hit the target with 906 then 907. Incant 915 903 would automatically hit the target with 903 and then 910. Incant 915 505 would hit the target with 505 and then 510 (this one is loose, suggest alternatives!) The idea is 915 will take as input the first spell to affect the target and then automatically trigger the corresponding opposed element bolt for maximum effect. Note, this isn't a proposed post cap / single shot solution.
I also wonder - and this is out there, perhaps not even viable - if it might not be worth considering a spell that significantly increases the bolt DF (with some visual effects), rather than AS, crit thresholds, etc. I still don't know (and haven't seen it personally) if bolts have some magical cap to total damage allowed. I know crits do assigned damage. But if wizards = bolts and bolts = attrition, then it might be a good idea to consider how to significantly increase that attrition through some mechanism other than AS or crit. Say. . . 940, and during the active period, DF is tripled? It won't really make that much difference in terms of crit death, but if 3 bolts (general statement) will kill most creatures at like level, and a bolt plus boost can get the same damage as 3 bolts in a single cast - the crit might not be all that important.
Anyway, that's where my head is these days. Across the spectrum, I'd like to see happy wizard bolters. I'm not sure if happy wizard bolters exist after 20M experience, because of the challenges as Fleurs presents them. But happy bolting to 20M shouldn't be set aside, either! (That 20M is totally arbitrary, and no elves were harmed in the making of this post.)
Doug
Tough question! I am going to throw out a few ideas - but I don't expect them to work for everyone's play style. And I should probably preface this by saying that most of the time I set up and hunt areas where my wizards stroll around in offensive stance anyway - so the 'barrier' to channeling isn't so much stance dancing for me. But I do rely on mobility (moving out of the room) which is allowed with Cast RT, but not round time. That's a play style kind of thing, I get it. Just wanted to add that color before the suggestions.
- First, if there were some way to reduce the round time for channeling, that would be ideal for me personally (less time locked in a room or area).
- Second, if we have to stay at 3 times the round time - there should be a way to get 3 to 4 times the baseline punch (metaphorically speaking).
- Third, if we can't have 3 times the punch, but still have to stay at 3 times the round time - the reward should be far more substantive (higher risk and all).
>>2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.
That last idea above probably isn't really tenable. 'Reward' is too often seen either as experience or treasure - neither of which are shortcomings to the profession, and adjusting for one profession alone doesn't seem prudent.
The other two ideas, though - there might be something there. Here's an example.
515 active, channeled bolt incurs 1 sec hard round time.
Or, 515 active, channeled bolt actually triplicates bolt for 3 seconds hard round time (quadruplicates bolt?)
Or, totally off the wall - 515 active, and appropriate bolt spell / element chosen - target suffers an SMR v2 based attack which (entombs, encases, enswirls or enflames) the target significantly reducing crit randomization and / or EBP and the bolt then to match (one spell action, incurs hard roundtime).
Now - I've been using 515 because of existing spells / activities, 515 is the one that is presently positioned for no cool-down at post cap (checking a box, if you will). It may not be totally ideal because cool downs will exist prior to post cap. There are potentially ways to manage that as well - if it becomes an issue.
But let's step aside from that requirement for a moment - keep in mind, not all of these ideas are likely suitable for every play style. I really liked that the GM team heard the wizard desire to chain spells together. 950 is probably just as innovative for the game, in my view, as 520 is. Both - in my personal opinion - are two of the best designed spells I've seen released in a very, very long time.
But we should have a lower level spell that allows for daisy chaining a select number (3 maybe? even 2?) of spells to 'mix effects'. Spitballing - 915 (only because Weaponfire is very likely a low use spell) could be used to allow automatically divergent elements to be cast as a single spell. An example - incant 915 906 would automatically hit the target with 906 then 907. Incant 915 903 would automatically hit the target with 903 and then 910. Incant 915 505 would hit the target with 505 and then 510 (this one is loose, suggest alternatives!) The idea is 915 will take as input the first spell to affect the target and then automatically trigger the corresponding opposed element bolt for maximum effect. Note, this isn't a proposed post cap / single shot solution.
I also wonder - and this is out there, perhaps not even viable - if it might not be worth considering a spell that significantly increases the bolt DF (with some visual effects), rather than AS, crit thresholds, etc. I still don't know (and haven't seen it personally) if bolts have some magical cap to total damage allowed. I know crits do assigned damage. But if wizards = bolts and bolts = attrition, then it might be a good idea to consider how to significantly increase that attrition through some mechanism other than AS or crit. Say. . . 940, and during the active period, DF is tripled? It won't really make that much difference in terms of crit death, but if 3 bolts (general statement) will kill most creatures at like level, and a bolt plus boost can get the same damage as 3 bolts in a single cast - the crit might not be all that important.
Anyway, that's where my head is these days. Across the spectrum, I'd like to see happy wizard bolters. I'm not sure if happy wizard bolters exist after 20M experience, because of the challenges as Fleurs presents them. But happy bolting to 20M shouldn't be set aside, either! (That 20M is totally arbitrary, and no elves were harmed in the making of this post.)
Doug
CANDIDE
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 01:44 PM CDT
"1.) What would make channeling a bolt worth it?
2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.-Estild"
I remember Whirlin liking the killing power the change to channeling did. What more can be done? Fire wizards have the stance increase available from 520 to them which makes DS not a consideration but the hard rt makes it a spot use for me. I would like splash effects to allow for soaking/catching on fire/acid burn etc.
2.If all the elements had an effect from splashes as well as from the bolt and those effects could combo from another we could start piling on effects on creatures. I do not know if this would be what helps bolts over the top though.
GBB
2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.-Estild"
I remember Whirlin liking the killing power the change to channeling did. What more can be done? Fire wizards have the stance increase available from 520 to them which makes DS not a consideration but the hard rt makes it a spot use for me. I would like splash effects to allow for soaking/catching on fire/acid burn etc.
2.If all the elements had an effect from splashes as well as from the bolt and those effects could combo from another we could start piling on effects on creatures. I do not know if this would be what helps bolts over the top though.
GBB
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 01:52 PM CDT
>But I do rely on mobility (moving out of the room) which is allowed with Cast RT, but not round time.
I also agree that movement/mobility is what matters to me most when it comes to the hard RT argument.
>I really liked that the GM team heard the wizard desire to chain spells together. 950 is probably just as innovative for the game, in my view, as 520 is. Both - in my personal opinion - are two of the best designed spells I've seen released in a very, very long time.
I agree with this.
>But if wizards = bolts and bolts = attrition, then it might be a good idea to consider how to significantly increase that attrition through some mechanism other than AS or crit. Say. . . 940, and during the active period, DF is tripled?
I haven't run the math, but I would be satisfied with a solution that delivers on the 3 criteria I listed without a hard CHANNEL RT. Spiritual pure CS combos also work with powered up attrition, but they're not subject to EBP. As I've said, I have faith in Dev's creativity to get a solution implemented that fulfills stated goals as long as they're aware of what they are upfront.
I also agree that movement/mobility is what matters to me most when it comes to the hard RT argument.
>I really liked that the GM team heard the wizard desire to chain spells together. 950 is probably just as innovative for the game, in my view, as 520 is. Both - in my personal opinion - are two of the best designed spells I've seen released in a very, very long time.
I agree with this.
>But if wizards = bolts and bolts = attrition, then it might be a good idea to consider how to significantly increase that attrition through some mechanism other than AS or crit. Say. . . 940, and during the active period, DF is tripled?
I haven't run the math, but I would be satisfied with a solution that delivers on the 3 criteria I listed without a hard CHANNEL RT. Spiritual pure CS combos also work with powered up attrition, but they're not subject to EBP. As I've said, I have faith in Dev's creativity to get a solution implemented that fulfills stated goals as long as they're aware of what they are upfront.
DRUMPEL
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 02:43 PM CDT
>1.) What would make channeling a bolt worth it?
To me, nothing. At least not with how bolts are currently handled. I already have to stance offensive to sling a bolt and back defensive to stay protected as much as possible. The addition of 520 is a nice spell for a little crit protection, but it still doesn't mean I can take a hit like a square/semi that has redux or at least heavier armor. For my wizard, I see 520 addition being the offset to the lack of RT reduction he gets to 535 as compared to most other wizards out there since a lot of them tend to have some kind of air lore training (even if it's just 20 ranks for Tonis Bolt).
Being forced to hard RT to channel a bolt, odd things can happen in that time I'm stuck in hard RT. I still can't stand there and take a physical hit like a rogue/warrior/bard/paladin/ranger. I just never understood the whole concept of forcing wizards of taking extra risk where no other pure has to. You can cast a CS spell (with or without channel) from any stance. I can't stand in forward stance and channel bolts - my AS is too low to be a useful attack method. Whereas a cleric can stance forward, one open hand and get a phantom +12 to the warding margin and still hunt effectively because stance doesn't have any impact on your CS.
Wizards were told they should be strong bolters with CS to be a secondary attack. 519 was reduced in functionality, 514 was never any good for anyone that's not 2x EL:E for their level (even if you are, the damage isn't all that impressive if you don't have a high enough CS), 915 is a joke of spell to use against like level (anything 15+ levels under can get destroyed by the spell, but even then there is the failed successful cast issue the spell has and many times the first flare causes the target to drop the weapon) and 415 isn't reliable enough to be a solid hunting spell (no one wants to use 409).
Adding a hard RT option to improve bolts is retarded. The only way I'd see channel being viable to bolts would be a re-write on how bolts function. I've posted about it before and I don't wish to put it all in this post again.
>2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.
I'm not sure there'd be an easy answer for this. What I'd imagine would require a lot of creatures to have weaknesses added in for elements and resistances against others. We have all these bolt spells, but very few creatures really have any kind of weakness to specific elements/bolts.
A stone creature, it certainly entertaining to see one get cooled off and then heated up rapidly they crack and get damaged, but doing such a thing requires two casts (907 and 906 for example). This means 6 seconds of cast time to get a neat effect that does some damage or 2 seconds if you're under 515. Not to mention the fact that you get very little damage in return for the neat effect. You could do more damage simply casting 904 3x or even a successful strike of a single 910/510 bolt. Personally, I figure a stone creature wouldn't do well against acid, but that's not the case. They defend against it just as well as a flesh/blood creature (I'm not talking about AvD or natural crit padding and such things). Each creature responds to having acid on them in the same manner. Stone creatures, in my opinion, should be weak against acid. Flesh/blood creatures should be weak to fire/lightning. Elemental creatures should be immune to their element and very weak against their counter element. I'm sure there'd be more to it than just that.
Right now, the difference between my wizard casting 904 at a target or 510 could be compared to a warrior swinging a broadsword (904) or a maul (510). There's no real difference other than one hits harder than the other. I can get acid burn, but those flare up 2x and are 5 seconds between flares that do minor flare damage for the most part. I can get off 3 more spells before the second flare strikes the target, usually by then the target is already long dead. The acid burn is neat, but not really reliable.
I could see a spell taking 915 slot that allows the combining of multiple bolts in a single cast to gain neat secondary damage to a target. This certainly wouldn't resolve bolting issues at post-cap, but it would be something to make bolts more interesting. However, it would require adjustments to bolts that do things such as 903 % chance to drench a target in water to be a constant benefit. The spell would always drench the target so any cast of lightning (901 or 910) would give a guaranteed extra damage crit by reacting with the water on the target.
915 could have a 30 minute duration
allows wizard to combine 2 bolts using INCANT <Bolt> <Bolt> with normal 3 second cast RT
Example: INCANT 903 901
Mana cost = 4 (3 for 903 + 1 for 901)
Would not work with 515
Would not work with 940 (if it comes to fruition)
Target would get hit with a bolt of 903, if hit, the target is instantly drenched and takes the normal damage 903 would give. Immediately a second bolt of 901 strikes the target, if hit, the target would take the normal damage of 901 and also receive a lightning crit on top of the two bolt damages.
As long as creatures have proper elemental weaknesses/strengths, combining certain bolts against them could prove to be extra lethal.
-Drumpel
To me, nothing. At least not with how bolts are currently handled. I already have to stance offensive to sling a bolt and back defensive to stay protected as much as possible. The addition of 520 is a nice spell for a little crit protection, but it still doesn't mean I can take a hit like a square/semi that has redux or at least heavier armor. For my wizard, I see 520 addition being the offset to the lack of RT reduction he gets to 535 as compared to most other wizards out there since a lot of them tend to have some kind of air lore training (even if it's just 20 ranks for Tonis Bolt).
Being forced to hard RT to channel a bolt, odd things can happen in that time I'm stuck in hard RT. I still can't stand there and take a physical hit like a rogue/warrior/bard/paladin/ranger. I just never understood the whole concept of forcing wizards of taking extra risk where no other pure has to. You can cast a CS spell (with or without channel) from any stance. I can't stand in forward stance and channel bolts - my AS is too low to be a useful attack method. Whereas a cleric can stance forward, one open hand and get a phantom +12 to the warding margin and still hunt effectively because stance doesn't have any impact on your CS.
Wizards were told they should be strong bolters with CS to be a secondary attack. 519 was reduced in functionality, 514 was never any good for anyone that's not 2x EL:E for their level (even if you are, the damage isn't all that impressive if you don't have a high enough CS), 915 is a joke of spell to use against like level (anything 15+ levels under can get destroyed by the spell, but even then there is the failed successful cast issue the spell has and many times the first flare causes the target to drop the weapon) and 415 isn't reliable enough to be a solid hunting spell (no one wants to use 409).
Adding a hard RT option to improve bolts is retarded. The only way I'd see channel being viable to bolts would be a re-write on how bolts function. I've posted about it before and I don't wish to put it all in this post again.
>2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.
I'm not sure there'd be an easy answer for this. What I'd imagine would require a lot of creatures to have weaknesses added in for elements and resistances against others. We have all these bolt spells, but very few creatures really have any kind of weakness to specific elements/bolts.
A stone creature, it certainly entertaining to see one get cooled off and then heated up rapidly they crack and get damaged, but doing such a thing requires two casts (907 and 906 for example). This means 6 seconds of cast time to get a neat effect that does some damage or 2 seconds if you're under 515. Not to mention the fact that you get very little damage in return for the neat effect. You could do more damage simply casting 904 3x or even a successful strike of a single 910/510 bolt. Personally, I figure a stone creature wouldn't do well against acid, but that's not the case. They defend against it just as well as a flesh/blood creature (I'm not talking about AvD or natural crit padding and such things). Each creature responds to having acid on them in the same manner. Stone creatures, in my opinion, should be weak against acid. Flesh/blood creatures should be weak to fire/lightning. Elemental creatures should be immune to their element and very weak against their counter element. I'm sure there'd be more to it than just that.
Right now, the difference between my wizard casting 904 at a target or 510 could be compared to a warrior swinging a broadsword (904) or a maul (510). There's no real difference other than one hits harder than the other. I can get acid burn, but those flare up 2x and are 5 seconds between flares that do minor flare damage for the most part. I can get off 3 more spells before the second flare strikes the target, usually by then the target is already long dead. The acid burn is neat, but not really reliable.
I could see a spell taking 915 slot that allows the combining of multiple bolts in a single cast to gain neat secondary damage to a target. This certainly wouldn't resolve bolting issues at post-cap, but it would be something to make bolts more interesting. However, it would require adjustments to bolts that do things such as 903 % chance to drench a target in water to be a constant benefit. The spell would always drench the target so any cast of lightning (901 or 910) would give a guaranteed extra damage crit by reacting with the water on the target.
915 could have a 30 minute duration
allows wizard to combine 2 bolts using INCANT <Bolt> <Bolt> with normal 3 second cast RT
Example: INCANT 903 901
Mana cost = 4 (3 for 903 + 1 for 901)
Would not work with 515
Would not work with 940 (if it comes to fruition)
Target would get hit with a bolt of 903, if hit, the target is instantly drenched and takes the normal damage 903 would give. Immediately a second bolt of 901 strikes the target, if hit, the target would take the normal damage of 901 and also receive a lightning crit on top of the two bolt damages.
As long as creatures have proper elemental weaknesses/strengths, combining certain bolts against them could prove to be extra lethal.
-Drumpel
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 02:46 PM CDT
>I too don't remember any explicit declaration. If I were really concerned about trying to prove me right and others wrong, I'd likely ask questions about what spells we ARE testing, when we run off and test reliable killing, how posts pointed out that it didn't actually replace 519 (meaning at some level some of us thought it might but seemed dissatisfied, etc).
This has nothing to do with you specifically and everything to do with the document being accurate.
On a random note, since I don't know a whole lot about how the wiki works, what's to stop some random troll from logging on and obliterating the whole document, littering it with bad info, etc.? I'm sure people have backups and all that to easily restore it, but aside from that. Just curious.
>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.
He also mentioned that whatetever the "solution" was, it wouldn't work with 515. I don't think 515 is going to get nerfed again, it just won't work with 940 or whatever it ends up being.
>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 wouldn't want channel to be a requirement for the spell. Have it provide a bonus like an extra cycle or something, but not a requirement just to use the spell.
One thing with 940 that I haven't really seen mentioned yet is will it be as effective (at least mostly) vs. uncrittable targets? Based on the loose example clip Estild posted, it appeared to be pretty crit reliant. Which I know wasn't a concrete example, but still worth a mention.
>I could see swapping 415 and 915, and returning the Fire Lore benefits 415 previously used for dual cast. It would give wizards more of a reason to train in their base circle which would benefit other spells as well as giving a highly reliable killing CS spell in their main circle. It's a bit strong for a minor circle that most professions have access to, and Weapon Fire as it currently is seems sufficiently powerful for a minor spell circle.
>I understand this still isn't as beneficial as spiritual CS base circle attack warding spells considering wizards have to pump ranks into major elemental for use of 516, but in my opinion I believe this might be a good change.
Ideally, 513 + all of our MjE warding spells would be moved to the wizard sphere. It would solve a lot of problems, but it's also something I don't see happening.
>1.) What would make channeling a bolt worth it?
Being able to aim it at specific locations instead of the current increased chance to hit a vital area, and completely eliminates the chance of EBP. Against uncrittable targets, I honestly have no idea.
>2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.
515 EVOKE Burst Fire. Possibly with an AS booster. Doesn't necessarily have to cost 15 mana.
- Rapid Fire overrides Burst Fire and vice versa.
- Works similar to 950. I'd expect it to be restricted to just bolts, though I would like to see at least some of our setup spells (512, 502, 912, even 915 despite it being trash, etc.) included on top of the bolts. That way setup spells can still be used without effectively being a waste of time vs. just firing another bolt, as our current setup spells like 502 don't result in enough additional damage from the DS pushdown to justify the cast time vs. using that time to just fire another bolt. On an unrelated note, 502's DS pushdown should either be timer based instead of set to 2 casts, or be allowed to increase the amount of casts it stays active for via a TP sink.
- Fires a base of 3 bolts at normal mana cost, possibly increased (the amount of bolts, not the mana cost) by lore or EMC or some other TP sink.
- If it were to work with bolts only and a TP sink allowing for more bolts would be OP, maybe instead of extra bolts slots past 3, it instead allows you to fill that 4th or 5th slot (slot for lack of a better term, you'd still be able to cast them before the bolts, otherwise it would be pointless) or whatever with one of our setup spells...502, 512, 912, etc.
Similar to 950 overall, but with a base of 3 bolt spells instead of 6, and single target only.
If you wanted to make the bolt part look cooler, instead of 3 completely separate bolts, have them condensed into one cast/endroll/EBP chance, with results looking similar to how Estild's 940 example looked. Any non-bolt setup spells included in the burst would have to be done separately due to using different mechanics. It would still happen all in one cast though.
Something like that anyway.
~ Methais
This has nothing to do with you specifically and everything to do with the document being accurate.
On a random note, since I don't know a whole lot about how the wiki works, what's to stop some random troll from logging on and obliterating the whole document, littering it with bad info, etc.? I'm sure people have backups and all that to easily restore it, but aside from that. Just curious.
>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.
He also mentioned that whatetever the "solution" was, it wouldn't work with 515. I don't think 515 is going to get nerfed again, it just won't work with 940 or whatever it ends up being.
>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 wouldn't want channel to be a requirement for the spell. Have it provide a bonus like an extra cycle or something, but not a requirement just to use the spell.
One thing with 940 that I haven't really seen mentioned yet is will it be as effective (at least mostly) vs. uncrittable targets? Based on the loose example clip Estild posted, it appeared to be pretty crit reliant. Which I know wasn't a concrete example, but still worth a mention.
>I could see swapping 415 and 915, and returning the Fire Lore benefits 415 previously used for dual cast. It would give wizards more of a reason to train in their base circle which would benefit other spells as well as giving a highly reliable killing CS spell in their main circle. It's a bit strong for a minor circle that most professions have access to, and Weapon Fire as it currently is seems sufficiently powerful for a minor spell circle.
>I understand this still isn't as beneficial as spiritual CS base circle attack warding spells considering wizards have to pump ranks into major elemental for use of 516, but in my opinion I believe this might be a good change.
Ideally, 513 + all of our MjE warding spells would be moved to the wizard sphere. It would solve a lot of problems, but it's also something I don't see happening.
>1.) What would make channeling a bolt worth it?
Being able to aim it at specific locations instead of the current increased chance to hit a vital area, and completely eliminates the chance of EBP. Against uncrittable targets, I honestly have no idea.
>2.) What could make bolting more interesting instead of just casting the same bolt over and over? Using different elements for different effects is something that has a lot of potential (like cold and fire against stone creatures), but as is, it's hardly worth casting 903 to soak a target, just to follow up with 910 when you could just cast 910 twice.
515 EVOKE Burst Fire. Possibly with an AS booster. Doesn't necessarily have to cost 15 mana.
- Rapid Fire overrides Burst Fire and vice versa.
- Works similar to 950. I'd expect it to be restricted to just bolts, though I would like to see at least some of our setup spells (512, 502, 912, even 915 despite it being trash, etc.) included on top of the bolts. That way setup spells can still be used without effectively being a waste of time vs. just firing another bolt, as our current setup spells like 502 don't result in enough additional damage from the DS pushdown to justify the cast time vs. using that time to just fire another bolt. On an unrelated note, 502's DS pushdown should either be timer based instead of set to 2 casts, or be allowed to increase the amount of casts it stays active for via a TP sink.
- Fires a base of 3 bolts at normal mana cost, possibly increased (the amount of bolts, not the mana cost) by lore or EMC or some other TP sink.
- If it were to work with bolts only and a TP sink allowing for more bolts would be OP, maybe instead of extra bolts slots past 3, it instead allows you to fill that 4th or 5th slot (slot for lack of a better term, you'd still be able to cast them before the bolts, otherwise it would be pointless) or whatever with one of our setup spells...502, 512, 912, etc.
Similar to 950 overall, but with a base of 3 bolt spells instead of 6, and single target only.
If you wanted to make the bolt part look cooler, instead of 3 completely separate bolts, have them condensed into one cast/endroll/EBP chance, with results looking similar to how Estild's 940 example looked. Any non-bolt setup spells included in the burst would have to be done separately due to using different mechanics. It would still happen all in one cast though.
Something like that anyway.
~ Methais
DRUMPEL
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 02:57 PM CDT
>>But if wizards = bolts and bolts = attrition, then it might be a good idea to consider how to significantly increase that attrition through some mechanism other than AS or crit. Say. . . 940, and during the active period, DF is tripled?
I don't think they'd go as far as even doubling the DF of bolts under 940. Right now 510 already gains a +.083 to DF. Putting my 510 DF as such:
To triple them my 510 DF would look like this:
-Drumpel
I don't think they'd go as far as even doubling the DF of bolts under 940. Right now 510 already gains a +.083 to DF. Putting my 510 DF as such:
| Cloth | Leather | Scale | Chain | Plate |
| .793 | .603 | .543 | .518 | .523 |
To triple them my 510 DF would look like this:
| Cloth | Leather | Scale | Chain | Plate |
| 2.379 | 1.809 | 1.629 | 1.554 | 1.569 |
-Drumpel
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 03:05 PM CDT
Also just to follow up on the CHANNEL thing, I'd still prefer to not have to use it at all. No caster likes or wants hard RT, which is probably why CHANNELing doesn't seem to get used all that much by anybody of any profession.
~ Methais
~ Methais
VANKRASN39
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 03:07 PM CDT
>which is probably why CHANNELing doesn't seem to get used all that much by anybody of any profession.
what evidence do you have to back that up?
DOUG
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 03:27 PM CDT
>>On a random note, since I don't know a whole lot about how the wiki works, what's to stop some random troll
I hear ya about accuracy. And I think that's a part of the general concern - bias and experiential explanation cause problems. It requires two things to overcome - a community willing to work towards consistent accuracy (that peer review thingie), and editors who operate first on that feedback. As to the inadvertent or intentional discord edits can cause - the WIKI has an easy version compare / roll back feature.
Honest mistakes are easy to correct. Intentional defacing may require a bit of extra coordination (preventing this is something only the SIMU team can do, on an account basis - much like board lockout). But recovering from the effects is as straight forward as though it were a mistake.
And given that the WIKI editing isn't a thing for everyone, I always operate under the 'honest mistake' theory. Hate to see someone try to help and be afraid to mess things up. Just isn't likely, truthfully.
Doug
I hear ya about accuracy. And I think that's a part of the general concern - bias and experiential explanation cause problems. It requires two things to overcome - a community willing to work towards consistent accuracy (that peer review thingie), and editors who operate first on that feedback. As to the inadvertent or intentional discord edits can cause - the WIKI has an easy version compare / roll back feature.
Honest mistakes are easy to correct. Intentional defacing may require a bit of extra coordination (preventing this is something only the SIMU team can do, on an account basis - much like board lockout). But recovering from the effects is as straight forward as though it were a mistake.
And given that the WIKI editing isn't a thing for everyone, I always operate under the 'honest mistake' theory. Hate to see someone try to help and be afraid to mess things up. Just isn't likely, truthfully.
Doug
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 03:48 PM CDT
Spiritual pures do use CHANNEL, but it's not a requirement to achieve the post-cap results mentioned. It's a bonus to hit them earlier or with fewer enhancives/boosters.
Spiritual pures also have far more reliable single target and mass CS-based disablers that can be boosted via both 340 and 240 to achieve guaranteed immobilization at second 0, barring a fumble.
>1.) What would make channeling a bolt worth it?
I'll clarify for Estild's question that I may have initially confused my response with his proposed 940 that requires CHANNELing. I am explicitly against requiring a hard CHANNEL for a 940 or other spell booster/high level solution that is intended to address the post-cap, single target probability issue for the previously mentioned reasons
If he's asking about CHANNELing a single standalone bolt on top of that solution, it is never worth it for a single bolt with one cycle of damage, especially when bolts are subject to EBP and many creatures that post-cap pures enjoy hunting are immune to 909 stomp. It's too much putting all eggs in one cycle of lottery basket, while my spiritual pures occasionally CHANNEL even without 240 depending on the creature because that CHANNEL already affects the entire warding spell with its multiple cycles of damage, and warding spells are not subject to EBP and only suffer a 1% fumble rate of failure. With EBP and attrition based bolting, it's always better to use 515+bolts for standalone bolts than to CHANNEL.
If the ask is CHANNEL for a standalone bolt, I disagree with this way of approaching wizard design because it's an attempt to box wizards into hard RT for a magical spell ability with only one cycle/shot at the lottery, which is something no spiritual pure has to suffer. Hard RT, outside of multi-cycle warding spells, is mostly intended to be something that melee users suffer. This is part of the price they pay for having no mana cost and nearly limitless hunting. A pure's hunt is over when their mana runs out. Hard RT for a pure makes no sense except as a bonus for multi-cycle warding spells when the danger can be neutralized upfront. It really has no place as a requirement for standalone bolting.
In order for a standalone CHANNELed bolt to work, it would basically have to become a splintered bolt that produces multiple simultaneous cycles, or essentially much of what I'm seeking in a 940 booster solution with the additional 3 criteria I mentioned. I disagree with changing bolts as a whole or CHANNELing of a single bolt in general, outside of a spell booster ability because it would unbalance the entire bolting system. Pre-cap bolting would be even more powerful vs. pre-cap warding, while the spiritual pures would also have access to an ability that would further let them have their cake and eat it. I would disagree with such a system-wide move, as wizards have already been told we'll never be as effective with any warding spell as a spiritual pure. Everything mentioned in this paragraph would lead to actual profession homogenization, so I disagree with this approach of changing the entire system of CHANNELed standalone bolts.
Spiritual pures also have far more reliable single target and mass CS-based disablers that can be boosted via both 340 and 240 to achieve guaranteed immobilization at second 0, barring a fumble.
>1.) What would make channeling a bolt worth it?
I'll clarify for Estild's question that I may have initially confused my response with his proposed 940 that requires CHANNELing. I am explicitly against requiring a hard CHANNEL for a 940 or other spell booster/high level solution that is intended to address the post-cap, single target probability issue for the previously mentioned reasons
If he's asking about CHANNELing a single standalone bolt on top of that solution, it is never worth it for a single bolt with one cycle of damage, especially when bolts are subject to EBP and many creatures that post-cap pures enjoy hunting are immune to 909 stomp. It's too much putting all eggs in one cycle of lottery basket, while my spiritual pures occasionally CHANNEL even without 240 depending on the creature because that CHANNEL already affects the entire warding spell with its multiple cycles of damage, and warding spells are not subject to EBP and only suffer a 1% fumble rate of failure. With EBP and attrition based bolting, it's always better to use 515+bolts for standalone bolts than to CHANNEL.
If the ask is CHANNEL for a standalone bolt, I disagree with this way of approaching wizard design because it's an attempt to box wizards into hard RT for a magical spell ability with only one cycle/shot at the lottery, which is something no spiritual pure has to suffer. Hard RT, outside of multi-cycle warding spells, is mostly intended to be something that melee users suffer. This is part of the price they pay for having no mana cost and nearly limitless hunting. A pure's hunt is over when their mana runs out. Hard RT for a pure makes no sense except as a bonus for multi-cycle warding spells when the danger can be neutralized upfront. It really has no place as a requirement for standalone bolting.
In order for a standalone CHANNELed bolt to work, it would basically have to become a splintered bolt that produces multiple simultaneous cycles, or essentially much of what I'm seeking in a 940 booster solution with the additional 3 criteria I mentioned. I disagree with changing bolts as a whole or CHANNELing of a single bolt in general, outside of a spell booster ability because it would unbalance the entire bolting system. Pre-cap bolting would be even more powerful vs. pre-cap warding, while the spiritual pures would also have access to an ability that would further let them have their cake and eat it. I would disagree with such a system-wide move, as wizards have already been told we'll never be as effective with any warding spell as a spiritual pure. Everything mentioned in this paragraph would lead to actual profession homogenization, so I disagree with this approach of changing the entire system of CHANNELed standalone bolts.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 04:12 PM CDT
>bias and experiential explanation cause problems
Much of what you refer to as "bias" is actually difference in preferred play style. And that's fine, as we all enjoy this game in different ways, even when it comes to combat. In general, what most everyone is asking for are tools that enhance their preferred style of combat. Tools that post-cap pure wizards used to have, and other post-cap pures still have, but post-cap pure wizards no longer do.
As far as experience, it is also a factor, but thus far, the post-cap issues raised are backed up by design precedent or inconsistency (i.e. logical reasoning) and supporting empirical data. My one core ask is entirely based on precedent and existing data. Sometimes that gets lost because I try to only post the entire book-long explanation every day instead of every hour (hyperbole). I haven't seen any pre-cap issues raised so far that are backed up by supporting data that indicates a disparity vs. what pures with pre-cap warding spells suffer. That doesn't mean that data doesn't exist. It means I don't have it, am not about to manufacture it, and in my experience leveling every pure from level 0, have not faced it myself.
Much of what you refer to as "bias" is actually difference in preferred play style. And that's fine, as we all enjoy this game in different ways, even when it comes to combat. In general, what most everyone is asking for are tools that enhance their preferred style of combat. Tools that post-cap pure wizards used to have, and other post-cap pures still have, but post-cap pure wizards no longer do.
As far as experience, it is also a factor, but thus far, the post-cap issues raised are backed up by design precedent or inconsistency (i.e. logical reasoning) and supporting empirical data. My one core ask is entirely based on precedent and existing data. Sometimes that gets lost because I try to only post the entire book-long explanation every day instead of every hour (hyperbole). I haven't seen any pre-cap issues raised so far that are backed up by supporting data that indicates a disparity vs. what pures with pre-cap warding spells suffer. That doesn't mean that data doesn't exist. It means I don't have it, am not about to manufacture it, and in my experience leveling every pure from level 0, have not faced it myself.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 04:26 PM CDT
>I don't think they'd go as far as even doubling the DF of bolts under 940.
If it helps to hit the 3 criteria to achieve parity with the spiritual pures in a different way, I don't see why increased DF shouldn't be considered as part of any potential solution.
One thing I'll note is I disagree with any further comparisons of wizard spell abilities to mstrike, as Dev has previously mentioned. We're not talking about melee weapons, which can be enhanced by weighting, flares, any kind of combat script upgrades, CMANs that add in many other abilities, etc. Physical weapons can also be AIMed. Spells have a mana cost, and should not be subject to a cooldown, especially since not even the first use is resource-free.
I'm purely looking to compare any potential bolt solution to what post-cap spiritual pures can achieve with their offensive CS spells that are either powered up attrition or go straight to death after a certain warding margin.
If it helps to hit the 3 criteria to achieve parity with the spiritual pures in a different way, I don't see why increased DF shouldn't be considered as part of any potential solution.
One thing I'll note is I disagree with any further comparisons of wizard spell abilities to mstrike, as Dev has previously mentioned. We're not talking about melee weapons, which can be enhanced by weighting, flares, any kind of combat script upgrades, CMANs that add in many other abilities, etc. Physical weapons can also be AIMed. Spells have a mana cost, and should not be subject to a cooldown, especially since not even the first use is resource-free.
I'm purely looking to compare any potential bolt solution to what post-cap spiritual pures can achieve with their offensive CS spells that are either powered up attrition or go straight to death after a certain warding margin.
DOUG
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 05:27 PM CDT
>>Much of what you refer to as "bias" is actually difference in preferred play style. And that's fine, as we all enjoy this game in different ways, even when it comes to combat. In general, what most everyone is asking for are tools that enhance their preferred style of combat. Tools that post-cap pure wizards used to have, and other post-cap pures still have, but post-cap pure wizards no longer do.
>>As far as experience, it is also a factor, but thus far, the post-cap issues raised are backed up by design precedent or inconsistency (i.e. logical reasoning) and supporting empirical data. My one core ask is entirely based on precedent and existing data. Sometimes that gets lost because I try to only post the entire book-long explanation every day instead of every hour (hyperbole). I haven't seen any pre-cap issues raised so far that are backed up by supporting data that indicates a disparity vs. what pures with pre-cap warding spells suffer. That doesn't mean that data doesn't exist. It means I don't have it, am not about to manufacture it, and in my experience leveling every pure from level 0, have not faced it myself.
I think these are good amplifications. I like them. They resonate. Two things:
1) I agree that there's a delta in what types of 'data' we're seeing available to us. And I, like you (I suspect!) would only go after data and analyze were it critical to something I wanted badly.
2) I think in any effort there are probably four types of data (kind of tipped my hand to this earlier, both when we first started all this in 2016, and in a recent post). There's opinion, observation, log (numbers), and analysis. The delineation between the first two is tricky, but the last two are fairly straight forward and pretty easy to spot. In order to effect a decision the strongest position is analysis, then so on backwards through the list.
My only real challenge is that brainstorming space protection. I agree that I haven't seen a ton of pure data (log / numbers and analysis) in the general wizard profession area. There are a few bright spots (some DRUMPEL posts, a couple of CANDIDE posts, CURTIS' scorecard idea I offer purely as examples and knowing that I missed some others like BLACKKOBOLD, HJELTE. . . and where the hell's MARK?!?!), but so far it's admittedly a bit light. What I want to try to do though, is encourage those with the opinions and observations no matter where they are in the level spectrum to head in that direction. So I try very hard to make sure that opinions and observations aren't 'closed out' as 'not relevant'. I don't know if they are or aren't.
And yep - human! Guilty both of failure in the attempt, and guilty of doing exactly that myself! I know. It's damned hard, especially as impassioned as I can be about things. I am going to keep trying, though.
Doug
>>As far as experience, it is also a factor, but thus far, the post-cap issues raised are backed up by design precedent or inconsistency (i.e. logical reasoning) and supporting empirical data. My one core ask is entirely based on precedent and existing data. Sometimes that gets lost because I try to only post the entire book-long explanation every day instead of every hour (hyperbole). I haven't seen any pre-cap issues raised so far that are backed up by supporting data that indicates a disparity vs. what pures with pre-cap warding spells suffer. That doesn't mean that data doesn't exist. It means I don't have it, am not about to manufacture it, and in my experience leveling every pure from level 0, have not faced it myself.
I think these are good amplifications. I like them. They resonate. Two things:
1) I agree that there's a delta in what types of 'data' we're seeing available to us. And I, like you (I suspect!) would only go after data and analyze were it critical to something I wanted badly.
2) I think in any effort there are probably four types of data (kind of tipped my hand to this earlier, both when we first started all this in 2016, and in a recent post). There's opinion, observation, log (numbers), and analysis. The delineation between the first two is tricky, but the last two are fairly straight forward and pretty easy to spot. In order to effect a decision the strongest position is analysis, then so on backwards through the list.
My only real challenge is that brainstorming space protection. I agree that I haven't seen a ton of pure data (log / numbers and analysis) in the general wizard profession area. There are a few bright spots (some DRUMPEL posts, a couple of CANDIDE posts, CURTIS' scorecard idea I offer purely as examples and knowing that I missed some others like BLACKKOBOLD, HJELTE. . . and where the hell's MARK?!?!), but so far it's admittedly a bit light. What I want to try to do though, is encourage those with the opinions and observations no matter where they are in the level spectrum to head in that direction. So I try very hard to make sure that opinions and observations aren't 'closed out' as 'not relevant'. I don't know if they are or aren't.
And yep - human! Guilty both of failure in the attempt, and guilty of doing exactly that myself! I know. It's damned hard, especially as impassioned as I can be about things. I am going to keep trying, though.
Doug
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 06:03 PM CDT
>1) I agree that there's a delta in what types of 'data' we're seeing available to us. And I, like you (I suspect!) would only go after data and analyze were it critical to something I wanted badly.
Without the desire to script hunt or access to the types of tools that Dev has, along with the test server, I only go after data collection if it's going to be actually looked at by someone and if there's an area of glaring disparity that I feel is critical to my enjoyment of the game. The rest of the changes, I can take or leave, but to date no proposed solution has yielded the result I'm seeking.
>2) I think in any effort there are probably four types of data (kind of tipped my hand to this earlier, both when we first started all this in 2016, and in a recent post). There's opinion, observation, log (numbers), and analysis. The delineation between the first two is tricky, but the last two are fairly straight forward and pretty easy to spot. In order to effect a decision the strongest position is analysis, then so on backwards through the list.
I disagree that opinion is factual data. There's initial observation (for example, the feeling of having a problem in daily hunting in a certain area) and log (numbers) that count as facts. Analysis is simply what one does with the former points. People's opinions can be based on anything, including personal preferences, but in general, I try to support mine with factual data and analysis where possible.
GM Viduus's previously posted advice is excellent here: "Strong arguments to open discussion lead with evidence and conclude with personal insight."
Dev GMs love numbers, but they run plenty of them themselves. I'm not going to waste time doing that work that is going to be independently validated unless it's apparent that something is being missed, as was the case with 515 vs. 240. While I have an interest in overall mechanics, if something is working, I don't dissect it down to the level of modeling out every formula. That's my idea of work, not fun or where I believe my time is best spent.
Without the desire to script hunt or access to the types of tools that Dev has, along with the test server, I only go after data collection if it's going to be actually looked at by someone and if there's an area of glaring disparity that I feel is critical to my enjoyment of the game. The rest of the changes, I can take or leave, but to date no proposed solution has yielded the result I'm seeking.
>2) I think in any effort there are probably four types of data (kind of tipped my hand to this earlier, both when we first started all this in 2016, and in a recent post). There's opinion, observation, log (numbers), and analysis. The delineation between the first two is tricky, but the last two are fairly straight forward and pretty easy to spot. In order to effect a decision the strongest position is analysis, then so on backwards through the list.
I disagree that opinion is factual data. There's initial observation (for example, the feeling of having a problem in daily hunting in a certain area) and log (numbers) that count as facts. Analysis is simply what one does with the former points. People's opinions can be based on anything, including personal preferences, but in general, I try to support mine with factual data and analysis where possible.
GM Viduus's previously posted advice is excellent here: "Strong arguments to open discussion lead with evidence and conclude with personal insight."
Dev GMs love numbers, but they run plenty of them themselves. I'm not going to waste time doing that work that is going to be independently validated unless it's apparent that something is being missed, as was the case with 515 vs. 240. While I have an interest in overall mechanics, if something is working, I don't dissect it down to the level of modeling out every formula. That's my idea of work, not fun or where I believe my time is best spent.
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/27/2017 06:40 PM CDT
>Before people say that switching elements would reduce the effect of lore... a guaranteed extra flare cycle should be greater than the DF increase from lore, shouldn't it?
It should be, yes. Unfortunately though, it usually isn't.
>Elemental Barrier - Costs 10 Mana - For 12 Seconds, You have 100 Phantom HP, that will absorb attacks before taking damage. IF the barrier absorbs the attack, you will not take damage or criticals.
The first hit will likely stun you for at least a few rounds, which will buy the critter enough time to burn through that extra HP and then laugh at your corpse.
Aside from that, I'm not really looking for more defensive based stuff anyway, or anything involving hard RT as a caster. I didn't like CHANNEL on my cleric when it first came out, and I like it even less for wizards. Most wizards in general seem to not like it.
>LabyFleurs- You consistently say spiritual pures have it way better, so why don't you play one?
/popcorn
>what evidence do you have to back that up?
No, because I wasn't presenting it as a fact. Emphasis on the word "SEEM", as in based my own experiences over the years. Like when I'm out running around and see other casters killing things, it's clear they're not using CHANNEL when they're looting their target instantly. I rarely see someone kill something and not loot instantly. It's anecdotal, sure, which is why I used the word "seem" instead of throwing it out as a hard fact.
I'm sure spiritual pures do still use it, I'm not denying that. Certainly much more than a wizard would, with stance not being an issue. But spiritual pures also don't HAVE to use it to get the same end result 99% of the time.
>and where the hell's MARK?!?!
Who's Mark?
~ Methais
It should be, yes. Unfortunately though, it usually isn't.
>Elemental Barrier - Costs 10 Mana - For 12 Seconds, You have 100 Phantom HP, that will absorb attacks before taking damage. IF the barrier absorbs the attack, you will not take damage or criticals.
The first hit will likely stun you for at least a few rounds, which will buy the critter enough time to burn through that extra HP and then laugh at your corpse.
Aside from that, I'm not really looking for more defensive based stuff anyway, or anything involving hard RT as a caster. I didn't like CHANNEL on my cleric when it first came out, and I like it even less for wizards. Most wizards in general seem to not like it.
>LabyFleurs- You consistently say spiritual pures have it way better, so why don't you play one?
/popcorn
>what evidence do you have to back that up?
No, because I wasn't presenting it as a fact. Emphasis on the word "SEEM", as in based my own experiences over the years. Like when I'm out running around and see other casters killing things, it's clear they're not using CHANNEL when they're looting their target instantly. I rarely see someone kill something and not loot instantly. It's anecdotal, sure, which is why I used the word "seem" instead of throwing it out as a hard fact.
I'm sure spiritual pures do still use it, I'm not denying that. Certainly much more than a wizard would, with stance not being an issue. But spiritual pures also don't HAVE to use it to get the same end result 99% of the time.
>and where the hell's MARK?!?!
Who's Mark?
~ Methais
