Previous
I feel like elemental lore training should help mitigate the dangerous effects of using the wrong spell in the wrong room. Lightning mages, for example, who are well trained in air and water, should suffer very little chance of being electrified in a watery room. Do they already do this?
KANDOR
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/30/2017 04:26 PM CDT
>Which ones?
Maybe it was a bug and has been changed, but I swear at some point a few years back I went to the Bowels, and 510 didn't work on the earth elementals.
>Fire, yes, steam no.
I'm pretty sure a while back, steam elementals in the Confluence were also immune. Perhaps this was a bug and addressed.
>Creature immunity means very little when easily have other options to fall back on.
Creature immunity means that one is forced to fall back upon a lower DF or higher mana cost option, rather than a core option addressing all creature types. This is a level of flexibility that elementalists don't enjoy. It's an unnecessary obstacle that is exacerbated by the lore splits that one has to make to account for lores having roles, which is why I continue to disagree with tying high lore requirements to requiring use of specific bolts, as some suggestions have included. Just because someone uses 510 does not mean they have over 100 ranks of earth lore, and the same applies for any of the other elements and bolts.
>Your constant hyperbole undermines the legitimacy of many of your potentially valid concerns.
Your constant inability to see the elementalist point of view because of the spiritual bias in the way you view things is frustrating, but I don't dismiss what you say as "invalid" because you don't explain fully what you expect wizards to do. The fact remains that clerics never have to think about what spell to use with which creature because 317 will cause damage to all types of creatures that are not outright magic immune because of the plasma cycle. They have other "options", but these remain true options rather than forced mediocre combat style.
The fact is that powered up with 240, or demon flares for 713, the plasma cycle ensures that there is no creature that is immune that is not magic immune or cannot be killed with much higher reliability than a single type of wizard bolt. It's why 518 and 950, despite being powerful AOE options, do not ensure death for a room of creatures if some are immune to particular elements chosen.
I mean absolutely no disrespect in pointing out that the fact remains that there is a heavy bias towards spiritualists in the approach to wizard design, forcing repeated inconsistency in the approach to wizard design that constantly allows for sub-par results to be achieved at best, in lore training, combat options, and our discussions across the board. I look back at your approach to soliciting player feedback for the design of 340 for clerics in 2010 and 2011, and it was night and day from your approach to wizard development even when people have been trying to be civil and factual. I really find it incomprehensible the way you constantly attempt to discredit my factually and logically backed opinions.
Maybe it was a bug and has been changed, but I swear at some point a few years back I went to the Bowels, and 510 didn't work on the earth elementals.
>Fire, yes, steam no.
I'm pretty sure a while back, steam elementals in the Confluence were also immune. Perhaps this was a bug and addressed.
>Creature immunity means very little when easily have other options to fall back on.
Creature immunity means that one is forced to fall back upon a lower DF or higher mana cost option, rather than a core option addressing all creature types. This is a level of flexibility that elementalists don't enjoy. It's an unnecessary obstacle that is exacerbated by the lore splits that one has to make to account for lores having roles, which is why I continue to disagree with tying high lore requirements to requiring use of specific bolts, as some suggestions have included. Just because someone uses 510 does not mean they have over 100 ranks of earth lore, and the same applies for any of the other elements and bolts.
>Your constant hyperbole undermines the legitimacy of many of your potentially valid concerns.
Your constant inability to see the elementalist point of view because of the spiritual bias in the way you view things is frustrating, but I don't dismiss what you say as "invalid" because you don't explain fully what you expect wizards to do. The fact remains that clerics never have to think about what spell to use with which creature because 317 will cause damage to all types of creatures that are not outright magic immune because of the plasma cycle. They have other "options", but these remain true options rather than forced mediocre combat style.
The fact is that powered up with 240, or demon flares for 713, the plasma cycle ensures that there is no creature that is immune that is not magic immune or cannot be killed with much higher reliability than a single type of wizard bolt. It's why 518 and 950, despite being powerful AOE options, do not ensure death for a room of creatures if some are immune to particular elements chosen.
I mean absolutely no disrespect in pointing out that the fact remains that there is a heavy bias towards spiritualists in the approach to wizard design, forcing repeated inconsistency in the approach to wizard design that constantly allows for sub-par results to be achieved at best, in lore training, combat options, and our discussions across the board. I look back at your approach to soliciting player feedback for the design of 340 for clerics in 2010 and 2011, and it was night and day from your approach to wizard development even when people have been trying to be civil and factual. I really find it incomprehensible the way you constantly attempt to discredit my factually and logically backed opinions.
DEANSMITH
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/30/2017 07:52 PM CDT
Wow a lot to wade through in this forum lately...
To respond to GM Estild:
1) Aimed Bolts.
This should be a general change and have additional skills required for success (like relevant Mana Control(s) and Perception) and bolts could potentially have a modified (lower) DF or (higher) mana cost as well. Elemental Focus should provide a flat bonus to aiming success with a select few other spells providing a similar boost.
2) Raw Damage
I like the look of additional round of either raw concussion damage or an impact critical, but a large DF boost could do the trick too (but is more boring).
So something like this:
You channel at a Big Nasty.
You hurl a stream of fire at a Big Nasty!
The focused impact of your spell crushes the Big Nasty, causing 35 points of damage!
... and hit for 62 points of damage!
Nasty burns to chest make you wish you never heard of heartburn.
The Big Nasty is stunned!
Or this:
You channel at a Big Nasty.
You hurl a stream of fire at a Big Nasty!
... and hit for 62 points of damage!
Nasty burns to chest make you wish you never heard of heartburn.
The Big Nasty is stunned!
The focused impact of your spell crushes the Big Nasty!
... 25 points of damage!
Blow grazes left arm lightly.
3) Wizard specific - Allow access to Tonis Bolt, Steam Bolt, Major Acid and Minor Cold with no lore.
CHANNEL EVOKE 505, 903, 904, and 907. Pretty self explanatory.
4) Wizard specific - +50 - 100% chance to apply Stun Shock, Acid Burn, Soak and Ignite
Not an overwhelming benefit by any means, mostly for the flavor.
I do love the idea of bolts interacting with other spells, it just needs to be worth the set up. For example, I think that Chromatic Circle was a step in the right direction but the benefit is just too mild. To use that spell as an example, an interesting change would be if we could freely choose which element to cast and the debuff was then changed give an additional damage cycle when followed up with ANY elemental bolt. This would be sort of like giving a target an elemental weakness of your choosing, like with trolls and fire, but with more explosion added in. Normally, this would be concussion damage + impact damage + bolt, but it could also be modified to be concussion damage + impact damage + composite bolt.
Something like this:
You cast at a Big Nasty.
A Big Nasty is suddenly surrounded by a circle of flickering flames.
Warding failed!
The flickering flames quickly swirl around the Big Nasty, causing 35 points of damage!
... 25 points of damage!
Minor burns to abdomen. Looks painful.
The flickering flames leave the Big Nasty off balance and exposed to the elements.
You cast at a Big Nasty.
You hurl a stream of fire at a Big Nasty!
As your spell nears a Big Nasty, a roar fills the air as the surrounding mana ignites violently, causing 35 points of damage!
... 40 points of damage!
Hard strike to right leg breaking tendons and bone!
It is knocked to the ground!
The Big Nasty is stunned!
... and hit for 62 points of damage!
Nasty burns to chest make you wish you never heard of heartburn.
Or this:
You cast at a Big Nasty.
A Big Nasty is suddenly surrounded by a circle of flickering flames.
Warding failed!
The flickering flames quickly swirl around the Big Nasty, causing 35 points of damage!
... 25 points of damage!
Minor burns to abdomen. Looks painful.
The flickering flames leave the Big Nasty off balance and exposed to the elements.
You cast at a Big Nasty.
You hurl a stream of water at a Big Nasty!
As you cast, you meld your magic with the mana surrounding a Big Nasty and it ignites violently, causing 35 points of damage!
... 40 points of damage!
Hard strike to right leg breaking tendons and bone!
It is knocked to the ground!
The Big Nasty is stunned!
... and hit for 68 points of damage!
Boiling vapor strike leaves left arm quivering uncontrollably!
To respond to GM Estild:
| 1.) What would make channeling a bolt worth it? |
1) Aimed Bolts.
This should be a general change and have additional skills required for success (like relevant Mana Control(s) and Perception) and bolts could potentially have a modified (lower) DF or (higher) mana cost as well. Elemental Focus should provide a flat bonus to aiming success with a select few other spells providing a similar boost.
2) Raw Damage
I like the look of additional round of either raw concussion damage or an impact critical, but a large DF boost could do the trick too (but is more boring).
So something like this:
You channel at a Big Nasty.
You hurl a stream of fire at a Big Nasty!
The focused impact of your spell crushes the Big Nasty, causing 35 points of damage!
... and hit for 62 points of damage!
Nasty burns to chest make you wish you never heard of heartburn.
The Big Nasty is stunned!
Or this:
You channel at a Big Nasty.
You hurl a stream of fire at a Big Nasty!
... and hit for 62 points of damage!
Nasty burns to chest make you wish you never heard of heartburn.
The Big Nasty is stunned!
The focused impact of your spell crushes the Big Nasty!
... 25 points of damage!
Blow grazes left arm lightly.
3) Wizard specific - Allow access to Tonis Bolt, Steam Bolt, Major Acid and Minor Cold with no lore.
CHANNEL EVOKE 505, 903, 904, and 907. Pretty self explanatory.
4) Wizard specific - +50 - 100% chance to apply Stun Shock, Acid Burn, Soak and Ignite
Not an overwhelming benefit by any means, mostly for the flavor.
| 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 do love the idea of bolts interacting with other spells, it just needs to be worth the set up. For example, I think that Chromatic Circle was a step in the right direction but the benefit is just too mild. To use that spell as an example, an interesting change would be if we could freely choose which element to cast and the debuff was then changed give an additional damage cycle when followed up with ANY elemental bolt. This would be sort of like giving a target an elemental weakness of your choosing, like with trolls and fire, but with more explosion added in. Normally, this would be concussion damage + impact damage + bolt, but it could also be modified to be concussion damage + impact damage + composite bolt.
Something like this:
You cast at a Big Nasty.
A Big Nasty is suddenly surrounded by a circle of flickering flames.
Warding failed!
The flickering flames quickly swirl around the Big Nasty, causing 35 points of damage!
... 25 points of damage!
Minor burns to abdomen. Looks painful.
The flickering flames leave the Big Nasty off balance and exposed to the elements.
You cast at a Big Nasty.
You hurl a stream of fire at a Big Nasty!
As your spell nears a Big Nasty, a roar fills the air as the surrounding mana ignites violently, causing 35 points of damage!
... 40 points of damage!
Hard strike to right leg breaking tendons and bone!
It is knocked to the ground!
The Big Nasty is stunned!
... and hit for 62 points of damage!
Nasty burns to chest make you wish you never heard of heartburn.
Or this:
You cast at a Big Nasty.
A Big Nasty is suddenly surrounded by a circle of flickering flames.
Warding failed!
The flickering flames quickly swirl around the Big Nasty, causing 35 points of damage!
... 25 points of damage!
Minor burns to abdomen. Looks painful.
The flickering flames leave the Big Nasty off balance and exposed to the elements.
You cast at a Big Nasty.
You hurl a stream of water at a Big Nasty!
As you cast, you meld your magic with the mana surrounding a Big Nasty and it ignites violently, causing 35 points of damage!
... 40 points of damage!
Hard strike to right leg breaking tendons and bone!
It is knocked to the ground!
The Big Nasty is stunned!
... and hit for 68 points of damage!
Boiling vapor strike leaves left arm quivering uncontrollably!
GS4-ESTILD
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/30/2017 09:36 PM CDT
We'll end this topic (of effective means of communication) with the fact that at the end of the day, you're trying to persuade me and other Dev GMs. This applies to all posters - use whatever format you want, but you can attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
GameMaster Estild
GameMaster Estild
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/30/2017 10:06 PM CDT
I'll point to Estild's communications with cleric players during the design and pre-release of spell 340 as ideal:
https://gswiki.play.net/Symbol_of_the_Proselyte_(340)/saved_posts
"If we only made updates on the basis of need, the game would be rather static."
What players of all professions want are spells and tools that make things more fun, rather than allowing mediocrity to be achieved at best or introducing yet more tedium, especially for those who don't enjoy script hunting.
Instead, when wizard players make suggestions, we're met with comments from Dev about the "ridiculousness" of wizards wanting to have our cake and eat it too (like every other pure) in the Attunement thread, when design precedent and existing spells support a much higher power ceiling for every pure class than for wizards, including the pure spiritualist. This is probably why communications continue to break down because the approach from Dev to wizards is a constant attitude that what post-cap pure wizards want is ludicrous and unreasonable, which is a far more narrow-minded approach than the communications with spiritual pures. Recent comments about CHANNELed bolts continue to completely disregard what many people who pay for and play this game want from their profession, i.e. NOT hard RT, and instead continue to attempt to impose the severely limited, square/semi classification upon the pure elementalist class.
I don't want to be defined by a war mage's definition of fun, which is apparently the only acceptable fun we're allowed now, or the power ceiling achievable by every wizard pre-cap. It would be great if post-cap pure wizards were given real options, even at an increased mana cost for having to split the profession with the war mage contingent, than to be outright ignored or to have our arguments deemed categorically "invalid". It would be great, if the mutant war mage definition of fun is given priority consideration in wizard development, contrary to what Estild posted was his definition of a wizard, a class change option was granted, as when clerics and warriors splintered off to become paladins.
https://gswiki.play.net/Symbol_of_the_Proselyte_(340)/saved_posts
"If we only made updates on the basis of need, the game would be rather static."
What players of all professions want are spells and tools that make things more fun, rather than allowing mediocrity to be achieved at best or introducing yet more tedium, especially for those who don't enjoy script hunting.
Instead, when wizard players make suggestions, we're met with comments from Dev about the "ridiculousness" of wizards wanting to have our cake and eat it too (like every other pure) in the Attunement thread, when design precedent and existing spells support a much higher power ceiling for every pure class than for wizards, including the pure spiritualist. This is probably why communications continue to break down because the approach from Dev to wizards is a constant attitude that what post-cap pure wizards want is ludicrous and unreasonable, which is a far more narrow-minded approach than the communications with spiritual pures. Recent comments about CHANNELed bolts continue to completely disregard what many people who pay for and play this game want from their profession, i.e. NOT hard RT, and instead continue to attempt to impose the severely limited, square/semi classification upon the pure elementalist class.
I don't want to be defined by a war mage's definition of fun, which is apparently the only acceptable fun we're allowed now, or the power ceiling achievable by every wizard pre-cap. It would be great if post-cap pure wizards were given real options, even at an increased mana cost for having to split the profession with the war mage contingent, than to be outright ignored or to have our arguments deemed categorically "invalid". It would be great, if the mutant war mage definition of fun is given priority consideration in wizard development, contrary to what Estild posted was his definition of a wizard, a class change option was granted, as when clerics and warriors splintered off to become paladins.
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 01:19 AM CDT
Back on topic for this thread.
<<@Estild are Wizards supposed to be spiritual casters? Are all classes supposed to be homogenized to offer redundant play experiences?
This is something I'm honestly worried about. I feel like striving for ability-by-ability parity is not sustainable, development-wise. (Assuming it's even possible.) And it's arguably not super-important in a largely cooperative player-vs-environment game. To cite a specific example, I understand we have the most powerful room-clearer in the game in 950. Would it be unreasonable for other classes to demand a similarly-powered room clearer? If not, why is that different from the assumption that we should have the same % chance of instantly killing a single target as other classes? Why should that specific ability be singled out? For that matter, why can't other classes have an enchant-like ability? Why do only wizards and sorcerers get to do that? Shouldn't clerics be allowed to perma-bless weapons? etc, etc.
Couple that with how people tend to always view someone else's grass as greener, and that looks like an endless spiral to me.
I'm admittedly speaking from a bit of ignorance here since I don't even have a capped wizard- let alone multiple capped pures. But the primary argument I keep seeing is "spiritualists can do this specific thing", so we should be able to too- which doesn't strike me as a strong argument on its own.
Estild (or anyone with actual data)- Has there been any measurable exodus of players from wizards to other pures in light of changes of the last couple years? (I strongly believe in "follow the data", and that would be a good point to consider.)
<<@Estild are Wizards supposed to be spiritual casters? Are all classes supposed to be homogenized to offer redundant play experiences?
This is something I'm honestly worried about. I feel like striving for ability-by-ability parity is not sustainable, development-wise. (Assuming it's even possible.) And it's arguably not super-important in a largely cooperative player-vs-environment game. To cite a specific example, I understand we have the most powerful room-clearer in the game in 950. Would it be unreasonable for other classes to demand a similarly-powered room clearer? If not, why is that different from the assumption that we should have the same % chance of instantly killing a single target as other classes? Why should that specific ability be singled out? For that matter, why can't other classes have an enchant-like ability? Why do only wizards and sorcerers get to do that? Shouldn't clerics be allowed to perma-bless weapons? etc, etc.
Couple that with how people tend to always view someone else's grass as greener, and that looks like an endless spiral to me.
I'm admittedly speaking from a bit of ignorance here since I don't even have a capped wizard- let alone multiple capped pures. But the primary argument I keep seeing is "spiritualists can do this specific thing", so we should be able to too- which doesn't strike me as a strong argument on its own.
Estild (or anyone with actual data)- Has there been any measurable exodus of players from wizards to other pures in light of changes of the last couple years? (I strongly believe in "follow the data", and that would be a good point to consider.)
KRAKII
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 09:17 AM CDT
"You're 100% out of line in thinking you have the right to berate another customer about issues that are totally irrelevant to you. ... You need to start understanding how YOU come across in your overreaching lecturing." -- #5052, in response to #5051
You, uhh... Yeah, you just proved the point exactly.
There was nothing "berating" or "lecturing" in the post; it was coaching ("readers may be more receptive to a different delivery" type of thing) and explanatory ("people may react negatively to you because...").
He explicitly said that he WANTS you to get your point across better!
You, uhh... Yeah, you just proved the point exactly.
There was nothing "berating" or "lecturing" in the post; it was coaching ("readers may be more receptive to a different delivery" type of thing) and explanatory ("people may react negatively to you because...").
He explicitly said that he WANTS you to get your point across better!
DRUMPEL
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 09:18 AM CDT
>I'm admittedly speaking from a bit of ignorance here since I don't even have a capped wizard- let alone multiple capped pures. But the primary argument I keep seeing is "spiritualists can do this specific thing", so we should be able to too- which doesn't strike me as a strong argument on its own.
I haven't capped a character yet. I've been in the game since 1994 and I do believe my main wizard was around level 85 in GSIII (I started him around 1998), the conversion to GSIV dropped him back to low 60s. I've played him off an on since and he's edging closer and closer to cap, but without a hard push it'll probably be 3-5 years before he gets there (if I stick around that long). I've had plenty of issues with my wizard and bolting. You run into issues where a target turtles and won't come out its shell and your bolt AS just doesn't work and when your CS has issues penetrating the high ETD that a lot of creatures tend to have because he's not over trained in spells because he's only about 2.1x in spells to balance out TPs for other skills. While it's not common, it is an issue. This can be addressed by wizards through other means (914, but it's slow and not very powerful without a lot of lore or casting it multiple times and most recently 917) as long as the target isn't running from you and isn't resistant to crits or specific elements.
I see a lot of back and forth on the forums here - some is necessary and some is unwarranted to a point that it's disgusting to see people going at each other in such a manner. I see snide remarks made and folks defending their position - these shouldn't be needed. With all that said....
I've been having a fun time lately playing a newer character. He has decent CS for his level (just hit level 21) and his bolt AS I can easily achieve 239. For the most part, he can combat anything that comes at him.
Cast a spell, shoot a bolt. I can't really complain about it. CS is a litter tougher accept as a main form of attack since TDs and low CS at earlier levels (not to mention lack of mana, if though he's 2x HP), but it certainly is plausible to use CS spells. He's far better off though utilizing bolts since bolt DS tends to be rather low on most creatures he's gone up against so far.
Early combat, CS spells can be used, but it tends to be more mana intensive over bolts. However, he can mix/match to benefit his needs so he can fry out on his hunts.
I'm enjoying my hunts on this guy. If mana gets low, I can resort to the infamous 1700 spell (though the longer cast time is kind of off putting at level 21 so I haven't used it recently), but I prefer to pull out a wand and wave a few bolts. 239 bolt AS is awesome right now.
I've noticed there are a couple of CS based spells that do great damage for him. Any cast with an endroll resulting over 150, one spell will do anywhere from 70 to 100 damage and can sometimes crit kill. The other spell will do similar damage, but the mana cost is twice of the other spell. It's only when I can exceed 200 endrolls that the higher mana spell can do 100-150 damage. Right now the high mana cost spell isn't terribly useful simply due to low mana available and CS tends to be lower for casts when they're young, so getting solid endrolls isn't a common place right now.
I've got the the best of both worlds right now. I can decimate (okay, not necessarily decimate - yet, but hurt a lot) targets with CS spells or deal solid damage with bolts. The best of both worlds and as I progress higher and higher with this character, it appears he'll be able to hunt with CS spells or bolt spells up to cap.
By the way, he's an empath.
I've got a level 33 wizard that bolts, his bolt AS is 273 (this is with 425 @ 25 MnE, 513 @ 18 MjE and use of COL signs).
By the time my empath hits level 33, his bolt AS will be 289 (this is with Heroism, Bravery, COL and use of 513 that is easily accessible through imbedding).
By level 50 my wizard's bolt AS should be 322.
By level 50 my empath's bolt AS should be 325. If by some chance I really wanted to learn 240 by this time, he'd gain an extra 31 AS per bolt for 30 seconds to put him at 356 bolt AS (though it would be rather mana intensive for a level 50 empath, even at 2x HP and having 204 mana).
By level 85 my empath's bolt AS should be 400. The bolt AS of my higher level wizard is 416 at level 85.
Granted my empath doesn't have the access to some disablers like a wizard does (410/912), but he will have access to 1120 (which will be awesome) and bind and calm and web....why does it feel like my empath will be just as effective with bolts as my wizard up to cap? Maybe the wizard will eek past his bolt AS eventually, but bolts will always be the same regardless of what pure uses them.
CS spells, from what I've seen so far, are superior to what a wizard has access to. Bolts, they're easily accessible through wands and bolt AS is similar between the two groups. Why does it feel like my empath is a superior pure when it comes to bolts and CS spells over my wizards? Sure, my wizard can have a pretty decent spell like 917, but it doesn't work well against a good chunk of creatures, especially ones that are immune to stuns, are crit resistant or immune to fire/water elements.
I don't know, maybe I'm way off base here since my empath is only level 21 right now. I'm enjoying combat more with my empath over my wizards. Perhaps I needed a change of pace or perhaps this class just feels superior to my wizards....? I'm not entirely sure, but something seems better with an empath over a wizard at the moment for me.
-Drumpel
I haven't capped a character yet. I've been in the game since 1994 and I do believe my main wizard was around level 85 in GSIII (I started him around 1998), the conversion to GSIV dropped him back to low 60s. I've played him off an on since and he's edging closer and closer to cap, but without a hard push it'll probably be 3-5 years before he gets there (if I stick around that long). I've had plenty of issues with my wizard and bolting. You run into issues where a target turtles and won't come out its shell and your bolt AS just doesn't work and when your CS has issues penetrating the high ETD that a lot of creatures tend to have because he's not over trained in spells because he's only about 2.1x in spells to balance out TPs for other skills. While it's not common, it is an issue. This can be addressed by wizards through other means (914, but it's slow and not very powerful without a lot of lore or casting it multiple times and most recently 917) as long as the target isn't running from you and isn't resistant to crits or specific elements.
I see a lot of back and forth on the forums here - some is necessary and some is unwarranted to a point that it's disgusting to see people going at each other in such a manner. I see snide remarks made and folks defending their position - these shouldn't be needed. With all that said....
I've been having a fun time lately playing a newer character. He has decent CS for his level (just hit level 21) and his bolt AS I can easily achieve 239. For the most part, he can combat anything that comes at him.
Cast a spell, shoot a bolt. I can't really complain about it. CS is a litter tougher accept as a main form of attack since TDs and low CS at earlier levels (not to mention lack of mana, if though he's 2x HP), but it certainly is plausible to use CS spells. He's far better off though utilizing bolts since bolt DS tends to be rather low on most creatures he's gone up against so far.
Early combat, CS spells can be used, but it tends to be more mana intensive over bolts. However, he can mix/match to benefit his needs so he can fry out on his hunts.
I'm enjoying my hunts on this guy. If mana gets low, I can resort to the infamous 1700 spell (though the longer cast time is kind of off putting at level 21 so I haven't used it recently), but I prefer to pull out a wand and wave a few bolts. 239 bolt AS is awesome right now.
I've noticed there are a couple of CS based spells that do great damage for him. Any cast with an endroll resulting over 150, one spell will do anywhere from 70 to 100 damage and can sometimes crit kill. The other spell will do similar damage, but the mana cost is twice of the other spell. It's only when I can exceed 200 endrolls that the higher mana spell can do 100-150 damage. Right now the high mana cost spell isn't terribly useful simply due to low mana available and CS tends to be lower for casts when they're young, so getting solid endrolls isn't a common place right now.
I've got the the best of both worlds right now. I can decimate (okay, not necessarily decimate - yet, but hurt a lot) targets with CS spells or deal solid damage with bolts. The best of both worlds and as I progress higher and higher with this character, it appears he'll be able to hunt with CS spells or bolt spells up to cap.
By the way, he's an empath.
I've got a level 33 wizard that bolts, his bolt AS is 273 (this is with 425 @ 25 MnE, 513 @ 18 MjE and use of COL signs).
By the time my empath hits level 33, his bolt AS will be 289 (this is with Heroism, Bravery, COL and use of 513 that is easily accessible through imbedding).
By level 50 my wizard's bolt AS should be 322.
By level 50 my empath's bolt AS should be 325. If by some chance I really wanted to learn 240 by this time, he'd gain an extra 31 AS per bolt for 30 seconds to put him at 356 bolt AS (though it would be rather mana intensive for a level 50 empath, even at 2x HP and having 204 mana).
By level 85 my empath's bolt AS should be 400. The bolt AS of my higher level wizard is 416 at level 85.
Granted my empath doesn't have the access to some disablers like a wizard does (410/912), but he will have access to 1120 (which will be awesome) and bind and calm and web....why does it feel like my empath will be just as effective with bolts as my wizard up to cap? Maybe the wizard will eek past his bolt AS eventually, but bolts will always be the same regardless of what pure uses them.
CS spells, from what I've seen so far, are superior to what a wizard has access to. Bolts, they're easily accessible through wands and bolt AS is similar between the two groups. Why does it feel like my empath is a superior pure when it comes to bolts and CS spells over my wizards? Sure, my wizard can have a pretty decent spell like 917, but it doesn't work well against a good chunk of creatures, especially ones that are immune to stuns, are crit resistant or immune to fire/water elements.
I don't know, maybe I'm way off base here since my empath is only level 21 right now. I'm enjoying combat more with my empath over my wizards. Perhaps I needed a change of pace or perhaps this class just feels superior to my wizards....? I'm not entirely sure, but something seems better with an empath over a wizard at the moment for me.
-Drumpel
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 10:33 AM CDT
<<You run into issues where a target turtles and won't come out its shell and your bolt AS just doesn't work and when your CS has issues penetrating the high ETD
I haven't run into this yet, but I assume it's coming. (For now I can either just go to defensive and wait for them to swing or just STOMP, but I can imagine that not working when maneuvers become too dangerous to just take a swing and/or defensive bolt DS just becomes too high to overcome even with a knockdown.)
So my question is, does 912 help here? It seems like that's meant to be our built-in "turtle killer." If it doesn't work, why not?
(Feint is another possible option, but CMAN points (if even available) tend to need to go to disarm- at least until an in-game way to get back lost items is implemented. Sidenote to GMs- please do this. It's really needed and sorely missing from a game that encourages you to invest so much time and money in a specific weapon over a period of years.)
Second question- do you think if the turtling issue was solved (perhaps with tweaks to 912), you'd be more ok with wizards being worse at CS?
<<By the time my empath hits level 33, his bolt AS will be 289 (this is with Heroism, Bravery, COL and use of 513 that is easily accessible through imbedding).
GM question- Is the game currently balanced expecting you to have constant access to beneficial non-native-but-easily-imbeddable spells? I've been away for a while and I know having multiple accounts is much more common now (especially with F2P), but when I was playing before, I considered using an imbed a "treat." I still kinda do- I had a sorcerer imbed 102 in some rods for me, but I save them for when I really want the extra +20 DS. Am I in a minority here?
I haven't run into this yet, but I assume it's coming. (For now I can either just go to defensive and wait for them to swing or just STOMP, but I can imagine that not working when maneuvers become too dangerous to just take a swing and/or defensive bolt DS just becomes too high to overcome even with a knockdown.)
So my question is, does 912 help here? It seems like that's meant to be our built-in "turtle killer." If it doesn't work, why not?
(Feint is another possible option, but CMAN points (if even available) tend to need to go to disarm- at least until an in-game way to get back lost items is implemented. Sidenote to GMs- please do this. It's really needed and sorely missing from a game that encourages you to invest so much time and money in a specific weapon over a period of years.)
Second question- do you think if the turtling issue was solved (perhaps with tweaks to 912), you'd be more ok with wizards being worse at CS?
<<By the time my empath hits level 33, his bolt AS will be 289 (this is with Heroism, Bravery, COL and use of 513 that is easily accessible through imbedding).
GM question- Is the game currently balanced expecting you to have constant access to beneficial non-native-but-easily-imbeddable spells? I've been away for a while and I know having multiple accounts is much more common now (especially with F2P), but when I was playing before, I considered using an imbed a "treat." I still kinda do- I had a sorcerer imbed 102 in some rods for me, but I save them for when I really want the extra +20 DS. Am I in a minority here?
ZHOUY1
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 10:36 AM CDT
> Maybe the wizard will eek past his bolt AS eventually, but bolts will always be the same regardless of what pure uses them.
I don't really want to get into this entire debate but wizard bolts have almost double the damage factor against chain/plate compared to empath bolts.
I don't really want to get into this entire debate but wizard bolts have almost double the damage factor against chain/plate compared to empath bolts.
KITHUS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 11:24 AM CDT
| It's this kind of suggestion that is completely unreasonable because this kind of "massive buff" is achievable by all the other spiritual pures without any such sacrifices or being limited to use with only one type of element at the sacrifice of all other offensive abilities. Earth lore is not the lore with the core "offensive" role. |
When we're talking about aiming bolts I am not comparing with spiritual casters. The closest analogous example is an archer. To aim at ~90 efficiency with a long bow an archer (ranger) needs 2x perception in the open. Now I'd be fine with perception being the aiming skill for bolts as well. However, you need to keep in mind that the DF of an arrow fired from a long bow versus the DFs of a couple bolts:
| AG | Cloth | Leather | Scale | Chain | Plate |
| Long Bow | .400 | .325 | .350 | .300 | .175 |
| Minor Water | 0.455 | 0.345 | 0.283 | 0.242 | 0.173 |
| Hurl Boulder | 0.710 | 0.520 | 0.460 | 0.435 | 0.440 |
So the best ranged DF is approximately on par with minor water, without any lore bonuses. Aiming Hurl Boulder the way you aim a bow would be utterly ridiculous. Actually having run the numbers I feel my previous suggestion, which you felt was unreasonably restrictive, was too lenient. Aiming bolts should require perception at the same rate as aiming ranged attacks, there should be flat elemental lore thresholds for aiming various bolts and the lore bonus to DF should absolutely not apply to aimed bolts. I propose the following lore requirements to aim each bolt:
| Bolt | Lore | Threshold |
| Holy Bolt (306) | Blessing | 50 ranks |
| Hand of Tonis (505) | Air | 50 ranks |
| Hurl Boulder (510) | Earth | 200+ ranks |
| Disintegrate (705) | Necromancy | 100 ranks |
| Balefire (713) | Demonology | 100 ranks |
| Minor Water (903) | Water | 25 ranks |
| Minor Fire (906) | Fire | 100 ranks |
| Empathic Assault (1110) | Transformation | 100 ranks |
| Minor Cold (1709) | Water | 100 ranks |
| Web (118) | Blessing | 100 ranks |
| Minor Shock (901) | Air/Water | 10 ranks each |
| Minor Acid (904) | Earth/Water | 50 ranks each |
| Major Shock (910) | Air/Water | 100 ranks each |
| Minor Steam (1707) | Fire/Water | 50 ranks each |
Even with these requirements I think bolts should have a scaling AIM penalty, with maybe a bonus to AIM minor shock. Being able to put Hurl Boulder directly into an opponent's head should require some serious dedication.
Now you can scream "but spiritualists" if you want but the fact is that AIMed bolts would be at least on par, and likely even better than, ranged. I don't think you will ever convince anyone that ranged is not an amazing form of combat. If you want to be more efficient than that then my ranger wants a ranged buff. I'll be over here not holding my breath.
| Keith/Brinret/Eronderl |
| Keith is correct |
| -Wyrom, APM |
| Keith is correct. |
| -GameMaster Estild |
DRUMPEL
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 11:31 AM CDT
>So my question is, does 912 help here? It seems like that's meant to be our built-in "turtle killer." If it doesn't work, why not?
Not all creatures a susceptible to 410/909/912.
I've come across turtled creatures that, even if knocked down with 909 (EBP with my high level wizard, is reduced by 61% - 50% for prone + 11% for EL:E ranks), they still EBP bolts numerous times.
Like I said, it's not common, but can happen from time to time.
>but when I was playing before, I considered using an imbed a "treat." I still kinda do- I had a sorcerer imbed 102 in some rods for me, but I save them for when I really want the extra +20 DS. Am I in a minority here?
Imbeds are easy to come by, with or without a second account. Lots of people I've come across are willing to take a little time to help imbed spells as long as you provide the blank imbeds and even more so if you can share mana. Some may charge a small fee or just help you for nothing. Getting a heap of rods with 903/904/906 in them only takes time and some people value their in game time differently - you may be charged a fee or they'll do it for free. Getting imbeds of 513 is just as easy.
I suppose I could just as easily pick up pure potions for my wizards to gain an extra +15 AS on their bolts, but I haven't done that for a long time.
>I don't really want to get into this entire debate but wizard bolts have almost double the damage factor against chain/plate compared to empath bolts.
So you're saying that when my empath waves a golden wand, his DF is half what a wizard's DF is if he just casts the spell? That doesn't sound right at all, but I'm guessing you're talking specifically about an actual empath bolt spell they can cast natively.
1110 for example - I don't think I'd waste my mana casting it against something in chain/plate. There are better avenues/spells to utilize his mana (1106 and 1115 would be more more beneficial to bypass the armor), plus he can simply wave a wand with 906/910/510 in it if he needs something to have a bit more impact. Granted he may lack the slight DF boost a wizard can gain over a lot of ranks of a specific lore (such as EL:E for the DF increase to 510), but the bolt still hits hard. He's not really at any disadvantage over wizard (aside from needing to rely on the spell to be in a wand).
I also wouldn't want to waste time with 111 - that's a mirrored copy of 907 and it's not all that impressive against chain/plate.
118 (web bolt) might be okay, but more so for the fact that it can help knock down and web the target, not so much for sheer stopping power that 910 or 510 can produce. The DF/AvD of it leads me to believe it's a mirrored copy of Tonis Bolt, which is okay for heavy armored foes, but not ideal. Kind of like 907, it's okay, but not an ideal bolt to use on chain/plate.
My empath can utilize any bolt spell a wizard can (granted he needs to invoke it from a scroll or wave it from a wand), plus he has his own bolts he could cast. An equivalent of 505 (web bolt, 118), 907 (fire spirit, 111) and 906 (1110 is close to 906 in terms of DF/AvD on cloth thru scale and then it turns into a quarterstaff type damage on chain/plate) can be self cast if a lack of wands. But in those cases, I'm positive he'd be in a position to utilize CS spells. I'd like to think I can get him through most/all spans of level making good use of 1106 and 1115 and using bolts from wands to supliment.
-Drumpel
Not all creatures a susceptible to 410/909/912.
I've come across turtled creatures that, even if knocked down with 909 (EBP with my high level wizard, is reduced by 61% - 50% for prone + 11% for EL:E ranks), they still EBP bolts numerous times.
Like I said, it's not common, but can happen from time to time.
>but when I was playing before, I considered using an imbed a "treat." I still kinda do- I had a sorcerer imbed 102 in some rods for me, but I save them for when I really want the extra +20 DS. Am I in a minority here?
Imbeds are easy to come by, with or without a second account. Lots of people I've come across are willing to take a little time to help imbed spells as long as you provide the blank imbeds and even more so if you can share mana. Some may charge a small fee or just help you for nothing. Getting a heap of rods with 903/904/906 in them only takes time and some people value their in game time differently - you may be charged a fee or they'll do it for free. Getting imbeds of 513 is just as easy.
I suppose I could just as easily pick up pure potions for my wizards to gain an extra +15 AS on their bolts, but I haven't done that for a long time.
>I don't really want to get into this entire debate but wizard bolts have almost double the damage factor against chain/plate compared to empath bolts.
So you're saying that when my empath waves a golden wand, his DF is half what a wizard's DF is if he just casts the spell? That doesn't sound right at all, but I'm guessing you're talking specifically about an actual empath bolt spell they can cast natively.
1110 for example - I don't think I'd waste my mana casting it against something in chain/plate. There are better avenues/spells to utilize his mana (1106 and 1115 would be more more beneficial to bypass the armor), plus he can simply wave a wand with 906/910/510 in it if he needs something to have a bit more impact. Granted he may lack the slight DF boost a wizard can gain over a lot of ranks of a specific lore (such as EL:E for the DF increase to 510), but the bolt still hits hard. He's not really at any disadvantage over wizard (aside from needing to rely on the spell to be in a wand).
I also wouldn't want to waste time with 111 - that's a mirrored copy of 907 and it's not all that impressive against chain/plate.
118 (web bolt) might be okay, but more so for the fact that it can help knock down and web the target, not so much for sheer stopping power that 910 or 510 can produce. The DF/AvD of it leads me to believe it's a mirrored copy of Tonis Bolt, which is okay for heavy armored foes, but not ideal. Kind of like 907, it's okay, but not an ideal bolt to use on chain/plate.
My empath can utilize any bolt spell a wizard can (granted he needs to invoke it from a scroll or wave it from a wand), plus he has his own bolts he could cast. An equivalent of 505 (web bolt, 118), 907 (fire spirit, 111) and 906 (1110 is close to 906 in terms of DF/AvD on cloth thru scale and then it turns into a quarterstaff type damage on chain/plate) can be self cast if a lack of wands. But in those cases, I'm positive he'd be in a position to utilize CS spells. I'd like to think I can get him through most/all spans of level making good use of 1106 and 1115 and using bolts from wands to supliment.
-Drumpel
DOUG
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 11:53 AM CDT
>>I understand we have the most powerful room-clearer in the game in 950. Would it be unreasonable for other classes to demand a similarly-powered room clearer? If not, why is that different from the assumption that we should have the same % chance of instantly killing a single target as other classes? Why should that specific ability be singled out? For that matter, why can't other classes have an enchant-like ability? Why do only wizards and sorcerers get to do that? Shouldn't clerics be allowed to perma-bless weapons? etc, etc.
These are troubling questions for me. There are two supporting points that make them troubling for me.
One of those points is that some of us have played in these lands for decades. Yes, there are some who played for years and have left for other entertainment, some who had early experiences and have returned to rekindle some of that excitement, some who drop by and visit on their continuing journey. . . For my point, though - it's the continual player of decades that holds the most interest when discussing these issues.
The second of these points was called out already by CURTIS, but it felt more like an 'in-passing' observation, when to me it stands at the literal heart of one of our challenges. That point is:
>>And it's arguably not super-important in a largely cooperative player-vs-environment game.
One of the core premises that I'd posit is - this was an incredibly accurate perspective of the game in its early years; but the game and its underlying supporting infrastructure have changed along the spectrum to more of a soloist player vs environment game.
Another of the core premises that I'd posit is - the game (for me) has likewise changed from one of struggling to overcome adversity (even by enlisting the aid of others) - in short I'll call this the 'life struggle' - to a footrace to accomplish milestones with the minimum of [insert your favorite pet peeve] - in short I'll call this the 'scorecard of goals'.
Pausing here, the questions posed are troubling because there's no one direct answer in my view. In the 'life struggle' cooperative player environment, the short answer to the first question should be "yes." But in the 'scorecard of goals' soloist player environment, that same short answer would set a cascade of observations about 'fairness', since it isn't the cooperation and struggle that's driving the player's interest.
Let's loop back to that decades-long player, though for just a moment - because there's a nuance there that I think gets left out. The decades-long player has watched all this evolve around him / her. No matter the personal preference in gaming in 'life struggle' or 'scorecard of goals' or anything in-between or beyond either end of that spectrum, there is an ultimate end-point.
At that ultimate end-point, the concept of rules changes fairly significantly. It is almost like the behavior of light / time / space at the event horizon of a black hole. And here, questions about 'fairness' (be they questions of parity or equality - which are not the same) suddenly must align. Why? The entire spectrum becomes invalid. No cooperation will appreciably move the needle, and no further goal can be added to the scorecard.
At that particular point, a different perspective has to be brought forward. Here, parity no longer serves (general comment) and the definition of fair becomes more and more sharply defined (another general comment). Each of us players will have a different tolerance to this situation - and we'll each likely have a different approach. Some will leave, others will start new characters, still more will simply shrug and continue; but some will champion a continually refined sense of 'fair'. And since it no longer matters 'life struggle' or 'scorecard of goals', new definitions will have to be created, and applied.
All that said - that final highly detailed end-point does not need to affect the entire game's journey towards continued and increasing enjoyment by the players, wherever that journey should lead. Make no mistake - some of us will ultimately hit that event horizon and continue the championing. But, I believe that the spectrum cannot be 'ignored' (a summary word, not trying to cast a motive here) while working on the event horizon's concepts. Putting a majority of customers at risk in that way, to serve a few, usually isn't a prudent business decision. Both are important, and both need attention.
It gets really interesting as more and more players hit the event horizon, though!
Doug
These are troubling questions for me. There are two supporting points that make them troubling for me.
One of those points is that some of us have played in these lands for decades. Yes, there are some who played for years and have left for other entertainment, some who had early experiences and have returned to rekindle some of that excitement, some who drop by and visit on their continuing journey. . . For my point, though - it's the continual player of decades that holds the most interest when discussing these issues.
The second of these points was called out already by CURTIS, but it felt more like an 'in-passing' observation, when to me it stands at the literal heart of one of our challenges. That point is:
>>And it's arguably not super-important in a largely cooperative player-vs-environment game.
One of the core premises that I'd posit is - this was an incredibly accurate perspective of the game in its early years; but the game and its underlying supporting infrastructure have changed along the spectrum to more of a soloist player vs environment game.
Another of the core premises that I'd posit is - the game (for me) has likewise changed from one of struggling to overcome adversity (even by enlisting the aid of others) - in short I'll call this the 'life struggle' - to a footrace to accomplish milestones with the minimum of [insert your favorite pet peeve] - in short I'll call this the 'scorecard of goals'.
Pausing here, the questions posed are troubling because there's no one direct answer in my view. In the 'life struggle' cooperative player environment, the short answer to the first question should be "yes." But in the 'scorecard of goals' soloist player environment, that same short answer would set a cascade of observations about 'fairness', since it isn't the cooperation and struggle that's driving the player's interest.
Let's loop back to that decades-long player, though for just a moment - because there's a nuance there that I think gets left out. The decades-long player has watched all this evolve around him / her. No matter the personal preference in gaming in 'life struggle' or 'scorecard of goals' or anything in-between or beyond either end of that spectrum, there is an ultimate end-point.
At that ultimate end-point, the concept of rules changes fairly significantly. It is almost like the behavior of light / time / space at the event horizon of a black hole. And here, questions about 'fairness' (be they questions of parity or equality - which are not the same) suddenly must align. Why? The entire spectrum becomes invalid. No cooperation will appreciably move the needle, and no further goal can be added to the scorecard.
At that particular point, a different perspective has to be brought forward. Here, parity no longer serves (general comment) and the definition of fair becomes more and more sharply defined (another general comment). Each of us players will have a different tolerance to this situation - and we'll each likely have a different approach. Some will leave, others will start new characters, still more will simply shrug and continue; but some will champion a continually refined sense of 'fair'. And since it no longer matters 'life struggle' or 'scorecard of goals', new definitions will have to be created, and applied.
All that said - that final highly detailed end-point does not need to affect the entire game's journey towards continued and increasing enjoyment by the players, wherever that journey should lead. Make no mistake - some of us will ultimately hit that event horizon and continue the championing. But, I believe that the spectrum cannot be 'ignored' (a summary word, not trying to cast a motive here) while working on the event horizon's concepts. Putting a majority of customers at risk in that way, to serve a few, usually isn't a prudent business decision. Both are important, and both need attention.
It gets really interesting as more and more players hit the event horizon, though!
Doug
VEYTHORNE
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 12:00 PM CDT
>>Now you can scream "but spiritualists" if you want but the fact is that AIMed bolts would be at least on par, and likely even better than, ranged. I don't think you will ever convince anyone that ranged is not an amazing form of combat. If you want to be more efficient than that then my ranger wants a ranged buff. I'll be over here not holding my breath.
Ranged users aren't limited by mana. If mana were unlimited then I might agree with some points you make, but a limited attack method should be powerful. The lore thresholds you listed are absurd.
I wouldn't be against perception factoring into aiming a bolt, but I'd prefer to see aiming bolts come via a spell, and therefore wizard only. Spiritualists are supposed to be CS casters, so their bolting abilities shouldn't be on par with Wizards.
Ranged users aren't limited by mana. If mana were unlimited then I might agree with some points you make, but a limited attack method should be powerful. The lore thresholds you listed are absurd.
I wouldn't be against perception factoring into aiming a bolt, but I'd prefer to see aiming bolts come via a spell, and therefore wizard only. Spiritualists are supposed to be CS casters, so their bolting abilities shouldn't be on par with Wizards.
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 12:29 PM CDT
>I do love the idea of bolts interacting with other spells, it just needs to be worth the set up. For example, I think that Chromatic Circle was a step in the right direction but the benefit is just too mild. To use that spell as an example, an interesting change would be if we could freely choose which element to cast and the debuff was then changed give an additional damage cycle when followed up with ANY elemental bolt. This would be sort of like giving a target an elemental weakness of your choosing, like with trolls and fire, but with more explosion added in. Normally, this would be concussion damage + impact damage + bolt, but it could also be modified to be concussion damage + impact damage + composite bolt
502 should inflict a temporary elemental weakness on the target to the element used in the cast, except maybe vs same element, i.e. 502 fire won't make a fire elemental weak to fire. But 502 Earth will now make it weak to earth. 502 cold will make it even more vulnerable to water/cold than it normally is.
And we should be able to control which element of course.
~ Methais
502 should inflict a temporary elemental weakness on the target to the element used in the cast, except maybe vs same element, i.e. 502 fire won't make a fire elemental weak to fire. But 502 Earth will now make it weak to earth. 502 cold will make it even more vulnerable to water/cold than it normally is.
And we should be able to control which element of course.
~ Methais
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 12:30 PM CDT
<<Not all creatures a susceptible to 410/909/912.
<<I've come across turtled creatures that, even if knocked down with 909 (EBP with my high level wizard, is reduced by 61% - 50% for prone + 11% for EL:E ranks), they still EBP bolts numerous times.
<<Like I said, it's not common, but can happen from time to time.
I know many creatures can't be knocked prone, but does the stance-up of 912 and/or the EBP penalty of 909 still effect them?
<<I've come across turtled creatures that, even if knocked down with 909 (EBP with my high level wizard, is reduced by 61% - 50% for prone + 11% for EL:E ranks), they still EBP bolts numerous times.
<<Like I said, it's not common, but can happen from time to time.
I know many creatures can't be knocked prone, but does the stance-up of 912 and/or the EBP penalty of 909 still effect them?
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 12:34 PM CDT
The ELR and updates have done nothing but focus on the "spectrum". As Raggler stated, post-cap pure wizards need love too. We've constantly seen our power ceiling shift to the pre-cap and those who don't play wizards as their mains, with the way the enchant updates and the post-cap, single target instant kill issue have been handled.
I don't expect wizards to be spiritual casters, which is why I was fine if Dev wanted wizards to primarily bolt and not use warding spells. I do expect parity in achievable offensive power ceiling and daily quality of life in single target hunting for all pure professions, as I expect parity for other professions within other classes (semis or squares), as that is a core play style preference that cannot be changed at this point. It's the very reason many players chose a pure class vs. a square class. It's something post-cap pure wizards enjoyed pre-nerfs and every post-cap spiritual pure still enjoys today.
I continue to highlight the direction of development for the cleric class as ideal among the pures, because they are one class who is intended to help others, but they are never treated as bots. Every action is taken to prevent them from being treated as such, from preventing the use of chrisms by non-clerics, to requiring the cleric to be present for group spells to remain active, to adjusting balance for 319 with the native profession foremost in mind. It's mutually beneficial for the profession in question and every other profession, because creatures are not nerfed/balanced to account for the persistent use of group buffs. It's a bonus, not a base requirement for combat. They enjoy the highest single target power ceiling among all pure classes and the best, reliable mass and single target CS-based disablers in the game, while only being slightly behind in mass attack ability.
I played a wizard since GSIII and have been through multiple rounds of nothing but nerfs by now because I wanted a powerful offensive character on a magical level. I never played one because I wanted to have it sit at a table all day and be a spell bot, which is what things have become, because daily single target hunting is so tedious vs. going out with my other pures.
>Now you can scream "but spiritualists" if you want but the fact is that AIMed bolts would be at least on par, and likely even better than, ranged. I don't think you will ever convince anyone that ranged is not an amazing form of combat. If you want to be more efficient than that then my ranger wants a ranged buff.
Here's the issue, of trying to continue to compare bolting, and wizards, to melee or semi/square abilities. Wizards are pures. Bolting is not ranged. Bolting costs mana. Rangers have 616 and 635, some of the best single and mass attack spells in the game that are unavoidable by nearly all creatures if they're not puncture immune. If you want a ranged buff, you'd be better off going to advocate for it in the ranger folder instead of arbitrarily trying to limit wizards, backed by only design inconsistency.
>I'd prefer to see aiming bolts come via a spell, and therefore wizard only. Spiritualists are supposed to be CS casters, so their bolting abilities shouldn't be on par with Wizards.
Absolutely this.
I don't expect wizards to be spiritual casters, which is why I was fine if Dev wanted wizards to primarily bolt and not use warding spells. I do expect parity in achievable offensive power ceiling and daily quality of life in single target hunting for all pure professions, as I expect parity for other professions within other classes (semis or squares), as that is a core play style preference that cannot be changed at this point. It's the very reason many players chose a pure class vs. a square class. It's something post-cap pure wizards enjoyed pre-nerfs and every post-cap spiritual pure still enjoys today.
I continue to highlight the direction of development for the cleric class as ideal among the pures, because they are one class who is intended to help others, but they are never treated as bots. Every action is taken to prevent them from being treated as such, from preventing the use of chrisms by non-clerics, to requiring the cleric to be present for group spells to remain active, to adjusting balance for 319 with the native profession foremost in mind. It's mutually beneficial for the profession in question and every other profession, because creatures are not nerfed/balanced to account for the persistent use of group buffs. It's a bonus, not a base requirement for combat. They enjoy the highest single target power ceiling among all pure classes and the best, reliable mass and single target CS-based disablers in the game, while only being slightly behind in mass attack ability.
I played a wizard since GSIII and have been through multiple rounds of nothing but nerfs by now because I wanted a powerful offensive character on a magical level. I never played one because I wanted to have it sit at a table all day and be a spell bot, which is what things have become, because daily single target hunting is so tedious vs. going out with my other pures.
>Now you can scream "but spiritualists" if you want but the fact is that AIMed bolts would be at least on par, and likely even better than, ranged. I don't think you will ever convince anyone that ranged is not an amazing form of combat. If you want to be more efficient than that then my ranger wants a ranged buff.
Here's the issue, of trying to continue to compare bolting, and wizards, to melee or semi/square abilities. Wizards are pures. Bolting is not ranged. Bolting costs mana. Rangers have 616 and 635, some of the best single and mass attack spells in the game that are unavoidable by nearly all creatures if they're not puncture immune. If you want a ranged buff, you'd be better off going to advocate for it in the ranger folder instead of arbitrarily trying to limit wizards, backed by only design inconsistency.
>I'd prefer to see aiming bolts come via a spell, and therefore wizard only. Spiritualists are supposed to be CS casters, so their bolting abilities shouldn't be on par with Wizards.
Absolutely this.
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 12:41 PM CDT
>Estild (or anyone with actual data)- Has there been any measurable exodus of players from wizards to other pures in light of changes of the last couple years? (I strongly believe in "follow the data", and that would be a good point to consider.)
For the most part, when someone quits, they sell their character. So the character still persists in game even though the player does not, making it impossible for this question to have an accurate answer.
Except Taverkin. He peaced out without selling.
~ Methais
For the most part, when someone quits, they sell their character. So the character still persists in game even though the player does not, making it impossible for this question to have an accurate answer.
Except Taverkin. He peaced out without selling.
~ Methais
DRUMPEL
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 12:44 PM CDT
>I know many creatures can't be knocked prone, but does the stance-up of 912 and/or the EBP penalty of 909 still effect them?
I know if the creature can't go down from 909, there is no reduction to EBP. If a prone creature is down and you use 909, you'll get some message about the creauter "bouncing" on the ground. If you don't see that messaging, then 909 is useless.
I'd venture to guess the same can be said for 912 against creatures that don't fall from it being cast or are immune to it. I'd say they're stance isn't reduced at all.
-Drumpel
I know if the creature can't go down from 909, there is no reduction to EBP. If a prone creature is down and you use 909, you'll get some message about the creauter "bouncing" on the ground. If you don't see that messaging, then 909 is useless.
I'd venture to guess the same can be said for 912 against creatures that don't fall from it being cast or are immune to it. I'd say they're stance isn't reduced at all.
-Drumpel
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 01:01 PM CDT
<<For the most part, when someone quits, they sell their character. So the character still persists in game even though the player does not, making it impossible for this question to have an accurate answer.
Sure, but they may be to loot their corpse or (especially with wizards) to become a "pocket" character. But the point is still valid. A better question might be:
Has there been any measurable change in active (hunting) wizards to other pures in light of changes of the last couple years? (Particularly at post-cap, which is where the discussion seems to be.)
Sure, but they may be to loot their corpse or (especially with wizards) to become a "pocket" character. But the point is still valid. A better question might be:
Has there been any measurable change in active (hunting) wizards to other pures in light of changes of the last couple years? (Particularly at post-cap, which is where the discussion seems to be.)
DOUG
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 01:30 PM CDT
>> 912 against creatures that don't fall from it being cast
I may be wholly inaccurate here - but I always thought it operated on NPC like it does on PC. I'm fairly sure that Call Wind (912) can change stance without knocking something over. But - I can't prove it simply because when I use the spell on any wizard, it's an opener, and if they aren't on the ground I either cast it again (because I said 'Down', dammit!) or I move and then cast it again if followed.
Maybe one of these days, I'll do some testing . . . but don't wait on this one - it's not really that important to me personally.
Doug
I may be wholly inaccurate here - but I always thought it operated on NPC like it does on PC. I'm fairly sure that Call Wind (912) can change stance without knocking something over. But - I can't prove it simply because when I use the spell on any wizard, it's an opener, and if they aren't on the ground I either cast it again (because I said 'Down', dammit!) or I move and then cast it again if followed.
Maybe one of these days, I'll do some testing . . . but don't wait on this one - it's not really that important to me personally.
Doug
KRAKII
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 01:34 PM CDT
"One of the core premises that I'd posit is - this was an incredibly accurate perspective of the game in its early years; but the game and its underlying supporting infrastructure have changed along the spectrum to more of a soloist player vs environment game." -- Doug
This may very well be strongly in the forefront of many current players' mindset, written guides/in-game suggestions, and so forth.
The question is, "Are the GMs designing creatures/areas/effects ALSO in this mindset?"
.
Obviously some things, like Duskruin, are entirely 100% solo-based.
But I suspect that if you were to poll the GMs, you would still get a "tabletop adventuring group" design ethic back as the response.
.
GMs reading: if you were to post such information (straw poll such as I suggest, as well as any sort of design guidelines that you actually have and are supposed to follow) I suspect that there would be a great deal of interest....
This may very well be strongly in the forefront of many current players' mindset, written guides/in-game suggestions, and so forth.
The question is, "Are the GMs designing creatures/areas/effects ALSO in this mindset?"
.
Obviously some things, like Duskruin, are entirely 100% solo-based.
But I suspect that if you were to poll the GMs, you would still get a "tabletop adventuring group" design ethic back as the response.
.
GMs reading: if you were to post such information (straw poll such as I suggest, as well as any sort of design guidelines that you actually have and are supposed to follow) I suspect that there would be a great deal of interest....
DRUMPEL
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 01:39 PM CDT
>I may be wholly inaccurate here - but I always thought it operated on NPC like it does on PC. I'm fairly sure that Call Wind (912) can change stance without knocking something over.
It most certainly can. To what extent it does without knocking a target over, that would require some testing that I'm not bored enough to do.
But those creatures that never get knocked down by the spell, I'd venture to guess they're stance isn't affected either. I figure if the creature is immune to the knockdown, it'll be immune to the secondary aspects of the spell as well.
If a creature never goes down for 909, no part of 909 will affect the creature. I'd say the same applies to Call Wind, but that's harder to justify with an absolute answer simply because player characters are not immune to 912 so it would be harder to test. Plus there is no specific messaging about stance being adjusted when the spell is cast.
-Drumpel
It most certainly can. To what extent it does without knocking a target over, that would require some testing that I'm not bored enough to do.
But those creatures that never get knocked down by the spell, I'd venture to guess they're stance isn't affected either. I figure if the creature is immune to the knockdown, it'll be immune to the secondary aspects of the spell as well.
If a creature never goes down for 909, no part of 909 will affect the creature. I'd say the same applies to Call Wind, but that's harder to justify with an absolute answer simply because player characters are not immune to 912 so it would be harder to test. Plus there is no specific messaging about stance being adjusted when the spell is cast.
-Drumpel
KRAKII
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 01:39 PM CDT
"Ranged users aren't limited by mana. If mana were unlimited then I might agree with some points you make, but a limited attack method should be powerful." -- Veythorne
Ranged users are limited by ammunition, though, and THEIRS carries an extra penalty (encumbrance) that spellcasters' mana does not. Mana once used also regenerates integrally to the spellcaster... as opposed to ammunition may get lost to the environment.
.
"The lore thresholds you listed are absurd." -- ibid
Consider that even for a single-trainer, before level 50 (where some of those thresholds were kicking in... and some were at a mere 25 ranks) there is little NEED to aim for the fine targets (neck, eyes) because the gross ones (legs for knockdown/easier hit & left arm/hand if facing a shield-bearer, chest/abdomen for kill) are easy enough to peg. And the damage from the bolts will be high-ish anyhow.
Ranged users are limited by ammunition, though, and THEIRS carries an extra penalty (encumbrance) that spellcasters' mana does not. Mana once used also regenerates integrally to the spellcaster... as opposed to ammunition may get lost to the environment.
.
"The lore thresholds you listed are absurd." -- ibid
Consider that even for a single-trainer, before level 50 (where some of those thresholds were kicking in... and some were at a mere 25 ranks) there is little NEED to aim for the fine targets (neck, eyes) because the gross ones (legs for knockdown/easier hit & left arm/hand if facing a shield-bearer, chest/abdomen for kill) are easy enough to peg. And the damage from the bolts will be high-ish anyhow.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 01:47 PM CDT
>Ranged users are limited by ammunition, though, and THEIRS carries an extra penalty (encumbrance) that spellcasters' mana does not. Mana once used also regenerates integrally to the spellcaster... as opposed to ammunition may get lost to the environment.
The fact is the ranged system is balanced differently than either bolts or melee weapons. It has no place used in comparison with a magical skill.
>Consider that even for a single-trainer, before level 50 (where some of those thresholds were kicking in... and some were at a mere 25 ranks) there is little NEED to aim for the fine targets (neck, eyes) because the gross ones (legs for knockdown/easier hit & left arm/hand if facing a shield-bearer, chest/abdomen for kill) are easy enough to peg. And the damage from the bolts will be high-ish anyhow.
The lore thresholds are absurd and have no place in a lore system designed around roles. Roles currently dictate how many wizards allocate their lore training, depending on preference for a type, and they don't align at all with the bolts that one might use against specific foes. This proposed design would leave the spiritual pures having their cake and eating it too, with access to AIMed bolts with no sacrifice required because of their lore choices within a single sphere. It would leave post-cap pure wizards with the same problem currently faced because the bolts that most creatures aren't immune to are inaccessible under current lore expectations for a heavily offensively weighted lore split.
A post-cap pure wizard prioritizing offense is already sacrificing most of the utility and defensive lores to achieve better offense, so I expect any potential solution to address bolts via a spell, not a system-wide change that primarily benefits the spiritual pures, and I expect any lores required to align with the fire/earth split for offense as currently dictated by roles.
The fact is the ranged system is balanced differently than either bolts or melee weapons. It has no place used in comparison with a magical skill.
>Consider that even for a single-trainer, before level 50 (where some of those thresholds were kicking in... and some were at a mere 25 ranks) there is little NEED to aim for the fine targets (neck, eyes) because the gross ones (legs for knockdown/easier hit & left arm/hand if facing a shield-bearer, chest/abdomen for kill) are easy enough to peg. And the damage from the bolts will be high-ish anyhow.
The lore thresholds are absurd and have no place in a lore system designed around roles. Roles currently dictate how many wizards allocate their lore training, depending on preference for a type, and they don't align at all with the bolts that one might use against specific foes. This proposed design would leave the spiritual pures having their cake and eating it too, with access to AIMed bolts with no sacrifice required because of their lore choices within a single sphere. It would leave post-cap pure wizards with the same problem currently faced because the bolts that most creatures aren't immune to are inaccessible under current lore expectations for a heavily offensively weighted lore split.
A post-cap pure wizard prioritizing offense is already sacrificing most of the utility and defensive lores to achieve better offense, so I expect any potential solution to address bolts via a spell, not a system-wide change that primarily benefits the spiritual pures, and I expect any lores required to align with the fire/earth split for offense as currently dictated by roles.
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 01:48 PM CDT
What about tying aiming bolts to the Ambush skill? It would side step the issue of having to pick which bolts can be aimed through your 200-limited lores. You obviously wouldn't need the same amount of ranks as a ranger for the same effect, but it could be handled similar to Multi-Opponent Combat, where even 1 or 2 ranks has a big effect on ball spells. (Although more than 1 or 2 Ambush ranks in this case.)
This would also give post-cap pure wizards another "power ceiling goal" they've been asking for.
This would also give post-cap pure wizards another "power ceiling goal" they've been asking for.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 01:55 PM CDT
I disagree with a system-wide change that increases the bolting ceiling for the spiritual pures, as wizards have been deliberately deterred from using warding spells as effectively with the nerfs to 519, 415, etc. If it's persistently available, creatures will also be balanced to compensate, so it would be a net wash. This is why I ask for a spell solution that is either high mana cost or a limited duration booster.
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:01 PM CDT
<<I disagree with a system-wide change that increases the bolting ceiling for the spiritual pures, as wizards have been deliberately deterred from using warding spells as effectively with the nerfs to 519, 415, etc. If it's persistently available, creatures will also be balanced to compensate, so it would be a net wash. This is why I ask for a spell solution that is either high mana cost or a limited duration booster.
You claim that post-cap spiritual pures can already reliably kill any single target on-sight, right? So maybe this would be another way for them to do it- but probably less effectively than what you've already said they have. So why would any creature adjustment occur? This would just give wizards the option you say spiritualists already have.
Also, I don't how spiritual bolters would be able to use this as effectively. Yes, they have access to 510, but not in a straight-forward, always-available way. And even then, they don't have 515 so they need 3 seconds to cast to our 1 (at post-cap levels). Also, post cap bolt AS for wizards should be noticeably higher after 425 and 513 is maxed out, right?
You claim that post-cap spiritual pures can already reliably kill any single target on-sight, right? So maybe this would be another way for them to do it- but probably less effectively than what you've already said they have. So why would any creature adjustment occur? This would just give wizards the option you say spiritualists already have.
Also, I don't how spiritual bolters would be able to use this as effectively. Yes, they have access to 510, but not in a straight-forward, always-available way. And even then, they don't have 515 so they need 3 seconds to cast to our 1 (at post-cap levels). Also, post cap bolt AS for wizards should be noticeably higher after 425 and 513 is maxed out, right?
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:05 PM CDT
Also, note that wizards have cheapest TP cost to train Ambush among pures (Assuming converting PTP to MTP): https://gswiki.play.net/Ambush (Although Clerics are close.) This isn't a huge deal post-cap, but it's something. And it would matter pre-cap if some wizard wanted to go that route.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:18 PM CDT
>You claim that post-cap spiritual pures can already reliably kill any single target on-sight, right?
Post-cap spiritual pures can reliably kill single targets with enhancives and/or boosters, not as a baseline ability.
>So maybe this would be another way for them to do it- but probably less effectively than what you've already said they have.
I disagree with giving spiritual pures more options to reliably kill on a single target basis with bolts, when wizards have been explicitly prevented from doing the same with warding spells by design intent by Dev. And I agree with this approach, as giving everyone every ability is the definition of profession homogenization. What I want is for wizards to be able to achieve what spiritual pures can achieve on a single target basis in a different way, without giving this new ability to every profession and furthering the post-cap pure imbalance.
>So why would any creature adjustment occur?
Creature adjustments always occur with system-wide changes. That's a given. If PCs can AIM bolts with no spell/booster as a native ability, I fully expect creatures to be able to do the same. This would be devastating for semis and squares on a defensive basis.
>Also, I don't how spiritual bolters would be able to use this as effectively.
The proposed table includes spiritual bolt and ball spells. Wizard wands of all types are available in a nearly always available way, giving spiritual pures limitless access to bolting power, while wizards will never be able to take advantage of the superior warding spells that the spiritual pures have due to CS being based on specific spell circle ranks.
>Also, post cap bolt AS for wizards should be noticeably higher after 425 and 513 is maxed out, right?
Creatures are balanced around players having average AS for their level. Therefore, with the native spell boosters that the spiritual pures have, they can easily reach the range that is expected for successful bolt hunting as a wizard.
Post-cap spiritual pures can reliably kill single targets with enhancives and/or boosters, not as a baseline ability.
>So maybe this would be another way for them to do it- but probably less effectively than what you've already said they have.
I disagree with giving spiritual pures more options to reliably kill on a single target basis with bolts, when wizards have been explicitly prevented from doing the same with warding spells by design intent by Dev. And I agree with this approach, as giving everyone every ability is the definition of profession homogenization. What I want is for wizards to be able to achieve what spiritual pures can achieve on a single target basis in a different way, without giving this new ability to every profession and furthering the post-cap pure imbalance.
>So why would any creature adjustment occur?
Creature adjustments always occur with system-wide changes. That's a given. If PCs can AIM bolts with no spell/booster as a native ability, I fully expect creatures to be able to do the same. This would be devastating for semis and squares on a defensive basis.
>Also, I don't how spiritual bolters would be able to use this as effectively.
The proposed table includes spiritual bolt and ball spells. Wizard wands of all types are available in a nearly always available way, giving spiritual pures limitless access to bolting power, while wizards will never be able to take advantage of the superior warding spells that the spiritual pures have due to CS being based on specific spell circle ranks.
>Also, post cap bolt AS for wizards should be noticeably higher after 425 and 513 is maxed out, right?
Creatures are balanced around players having average AS for their level. Therefore, with the native spell boosters that the spiritual pures have, they can easily reach the range that is expected for successful bolt hunting as a wizard.
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:32 PM CDT
<<Wizard wands of all types are available in a nearly always available way
It seems people are agreed that 510 is the preferred cap hunting bolt. Although it's makable by alchemy, I searched the player shops and found a total of 2 available across the entire game. That does not seem "available in a nearly always available way." Yes, they could downgrade to 906, but that's well... a downgrade. And I don't understand how having to find and manage gold wands (even if relatively accessible) can ever be as easy as "inc 906"
Also, you didn't acknowledge my point about 515 giving us a 1s cost time on our bolts to their 3s.
<<Creatures are balanced around players having average AS for their level. Therefore, with the native spell boosters that the spiritual pures have, they can easily reach the range that is expected for successful bolt hunting as a wizard.
Can you explain to me how a spiritual pure can get the same bolt AS as a wizard with maxed-out 425 and 513? (Maybe they can and I'm missing something?) Also note that you only have so many enhansive slots. While it makes a lot of sense for wizards to put points into dex, that likely makes less sense for spiritualists- or it at least comes at a sacrifice to wisdom or whatever.
It seems people are agreed that 510 is the preferred cap hunting bolt. Although it's makable by alchemy, I searched the player shops and found a total of 2 available across the entire game. That does not seem "available in a nearly always available way." Yes, they could downgrade to 906, but that's well... a downgrade. And I don't understand how having to find and manage gold wands (even if relatively accessible) can ever be as easy as "inc 906"
Also, you didn't acknowledge my point about 515 giving us a 1s cost time on our bolts to their 3s.
<<Creatures are balanced around players having average AS for their level. Therefore, with the native spell boosters that the spiritual pures have, they can easily reach the range that is expected for successful bolt hunting as a wizard.
Can you explain to me how a spiritual pure can get the same bolt AS as a wizard with maxed-out 425 and 513? (Maybe they can and I'm missing something?) Also note that you only have so many enhansive slots. While it makes a lot of sense for wizards to put points into dex, that likely makes less sense for spiritualists- or it at least comes at a sacrifice to wisdom or whatever.
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:35 PM CDT
To your other point of creature-rebalancing, I don't think this would magically cause all critter bolt-casters to start reliably aiming at players' eyes unless they were specifically adjusted to do that. Is there some GM policy making you think this would happen?
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:38 PM CDT
>It seems people are agreed that 510 is the preferred cap hunting bolt.
People aren't agreed on this. Wizards use all kinds of bolts depending on the foe. 510 is mana intensive.
>Although it's makable by alchemy, I searched the player shops and found a total of 2 available across the entire game. That does not seem "available in a nearly always available way." Yes, they could downgrade to 906, but that's well... a downgrade. And I don't understand how having to find and manage gold wands (even if relatively accessible) can ever be as easy as "inc 906"
This discussion is around what's achievable, not what is easiest. Superior wizard bolts are accessible. It isn't ever achievable for wizards to use warding spells on any kind of equivalent basis as what allowing spiritual pures to AIM bolts would do.
>Also, you didn't acknowledge my point about 515 giving us a 1s cost time on our bolts to their 3s.
Estild's question was what would make CHANNELed bolts tolerable. The AIMed bolt suggestion was in response to that. 515 doesn't apply at all here. But 515 can be other-cast, unlike 240.
>Can you explain to me how a spiritual pure can get the same bolt AS as a wizard with maxed-out 425 and 513?
My cleric has superior enhanced bolt AS to my wizard with maxed out 425 and 513 (which by the way is only 480 on a baseline level or 490 if you're a halfling). Spiritual pures have access to natively available spell boosters that are unavailable to wizards to compensate for 425 (215 with native lores, Curse of the Star, 307 with full spell rank benefits), and 513 is imbeddable. Again, it's a matter of what is achievable. There is no way for a wizard to boost their CS or to access superior CS spells that a spiritual pure can use to achieve the same level of reliability with CS spells with no cooldown.
People aren't agreed on this. Wizards use all kinds of bolts depending on the foe. 510 is mana intensive.
>Although it's makable by alchemy, I searched the player shops and found a total of 2 available across the entire game. That does not seem "available in a nearly always available way." Yes, they could downgrade to 906, but that's well... a downgrade. And I don't understand how having to find and manage gold wands (even if relatively accessible) can ever be as easy as "inc 906"
This discussion is around what's achievable, not what is easiest. Superior wizard bolts are accessible. It isn't ever achievable for wizards to use warding spells on any kind of equivalent basis as what allowing spiritual pures to AIM bolts would do.
>Also, you didn't acknowledge my point about 515 giving us a 1s cost time on our bolts to their 3s.
Estild's question was what would make CHANNELed bolts tolerable. The AIMed bolt suggestion was in response to that. 515 doesn't apply at all here. But 515 can be other-cast, unlike 240.
>Can you explain to me how a spiritual pure can get the same bolt AS as a wizard with maxed-out 425 and 513?
My cleric has superior enhanced bolt AS to my wizard with maxed out 425 and 513 (which by the way is only 480 on a baseline level or 490 if you're a halfling). Spiritual pures have access to natively available spell boosters that are unavailable to wizards to compensate for 425 (215 with native lores, Curse of the Star, 307 with full spell rank benefits), and 513 is imbeddable. Again, it's a matter of what is achievable. There is no way for a wizard to boost their CS or to access superior CS spells that a spiritual pure can use to achieve the same level of reliability with CS spells with no cooldown.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:40 PM CDT
>Is there some GM policy making you think this would happen?
It's basic design precedent and supported by the creature nerfs (buffs) that occurred during the ELR and the lottery style procs.
It's basic design precedent and supported by the creature nerfs (buffs) that occurred during the ELR and the lottery style procs.
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:43 PM CDT
So it feels like you're applying a double standard here. When you're talking about wizards, anything outside of a simple on-demand kill is described as unacceptable "tedium," but when it comes to other classes you want to talk about what's "technically achievable" to make comparisons, which is a very different (and I'd argue unfair / hard-to-quantify) standard.
KRAKII
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:44 PM CDT
The spiritual casters you have using wizard wands would also need to fork over 0p/20m [1] apiece to do it.
And note that this was a pure threshold breakpoint, not "you can maybe do it a little bit" benefit where every Lore rank counts. You can, or you cannot; there is no try.
I just don't see anyone coughing up the points solely to use wands; for the GOOD spells, they get precisely no benefit out of it until they're actually AT cap anyhow (all of those "100 ranks required" listings). Even aimed, shockbolt just ain't that good a spell.
Doing it with Lore ranks you may be getting anyhow (and that the designers believe you have anyhow), with mana you generate without recourse to a wand? Absolutely.
.
Compared to the Wizards being able, potentially, to aim their 1-mana ShockBolt at 8th level if willing to pay 0p/6m [2] (== 18m to double, == still LESS than the spiritual folks are, for trying to aim their Wizard wands).
.
I agree with you that no trinket exists currently that would give the Wizards access to Web (either 'raise' for open-cast or 'wave at' for the bolt) or Balefire in the same manner that Clerics & Empaths & Sorcerers can use Wizards' bolts, but that just means that there's an opportunity for more different kinds of wands in the treasure system. And wizards have easier access to Duplicate copies of their wands, than they do to WizWands.
And note that this was a pure threshold breakpoint, not "you can maybe do it a little bit" benefit where every Lore rank counts. You can, or you cannot; there is no try.
I just don't see anyone coughing up the points solely to use wands; for the GOOD spells, they get precisely no benefit out of it until they're actually AT cap anyhow (all of those "100 ranks required" listings). Even aimed, shockbolt just ain't that good a spell.
Doing it with Lore ranks you may be getting anyhow (and that the designers believe you have anyhow), with mana you generate without recourse to a wand? Absolutely.
.
Compared to the Wizards being able, potentially, to aim their 1-mana ShockBolt at 8th level if willing to pay 0p/6m [2] (== 18m to double, == still LESS than the spiritual folks are, for trying to aim their Wizard wands).
.
I agree with you that no trinket exists currently that would give the Wizards access to Web (either 'raise' for open-cast or 'wave at' for the bolt) or Balefire in the same manner that Clerics & Empaths & Sorcerers can use Wizards' bolts, but that just means that there's an opportunity for more different kinds of wands in the treasure system. And wizards have easier access to Duplicate copies of their wands, than they do to WizWands.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:47 PM CDT
>So it feels like you're applying a double standard here. When you're talking about wizards, anything outside of a simple on-demand kill is described as "tedium," but when it comes to other classes you want to talk about what's "technically achievable" to make comparisons, which is a very different (and I'd argue unfair / hard-to-quantify) standard.
No, you're wanting spiritual pures to have their cake and eat it too in the name of equality for the bolting system. I'm looking for parity of post-cap, single target kill reliability, not equality.
Spiritual pures can achieve a reliable, post-cap single target kill in one cast with enhancives and/or boosters for warding spells. There is no reason to extend that ability to their prowess with bolts, as spiritual pures are meant to be CS casters, according to Dev.
Wizards cannot achieve a reliable, post-cap single target kill in one cast with either bolts or warding spells without a cooldown. I am not seeking for wizards to gain this ability with warding spells. I only want a solution that addresses the one area of disparity, with post-cap bolts for wizards vs. post-cap warding spells for spiritual pures. Anything else would be literal profession homogenization and not what I'm looking for. It is not technically achievable for wizards to achieve a 1.0 cast/kill with any type of CS spell without an arbitrary cooldown.
No, you're wanting spiritual pures to have their cake and eat it too in the name of equality for the bolting system. I'm looking for parity of post-cap, single target kill reliability, not equality.
Spiritual pures can achieve a reliable, post-cap single target kill in one cast with enhancives and/or boosters for warding spells. There is no reason to extend that ability to their prowess with bolts, as spiritual pures are meant to be CS casters, according to Dev.
Wizards cannot achieve a reliable, post-cap single target kill in one cast with either bolts or warding spells without a cooldown. I am not seeking for wizards to gain this ability with warding spells. I only want a solution that addresses the one area of disparity, with post-cap bolts for wizards vs. post-cap warding spells for spiritual pures. Anything else would be literal profession homogenization and not what I'm looking for. It is not technically achievable for wizards to achieve a 1.0 cast/kill with any type of CS spell without an arbitrary cooldown.
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:47 PM CDT
I wasn't intending to tie my Ambush suggestion to CHANNELing. (Although that's a possibility, it wasn't what I was thinking.)
As for whether creatres would automatically get and use this ability, were it implemented. I guess that's a question only a GM could answer, but that seems like a very odd deveopment choice I doubt they'd make. (Also you could apply that to any change you propose- then all the monsters will do it!)
As for whether creatres would automatically get and use this ability, were it implemented. I guess that's a question only a GM could answer, but that seems like a very odd deveopment choice I doubt they'd make. (Also you could apply that to any change you propose- then all the monsters will do it!)
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:51 PM CDT
>I agree with you that no trinket exists currently that would give the Wizards access to Web (either 'raise' for open-cast or 'wave at' for the bolt) or Balefire in the same manner that Clerics & Empaths & Sorcerers can use Wizards' bolts, but that just means that there's an opportunity for more different kinds of wands in the treasure system. And wizards have easier access to Duplicate copies of their wands, than they do to WizWands.
The point was never about wizards getting access to Web or Balefire. It's about the imbalance that would occur were spiritual pures given access to more powerful abilities with spells available via wizard wands as a native ability, vs. a spell booster for wizards only, while wizards will never have access to the same level of lethality that spiritual pures enjoy with their best offensive warding spells. I'm never getting 240+1115, etc. as a wizard no matter what I do. And that's fine. I don't expect to be able to achieve that sort of boost with superior warding spells as a wizard. I only ask that my bolts be able to be boosted to the same level of reliability and without that additional reliability being granted to the spiritual pures, furthering this post-cap imbalance.
The point was never about wizards getting access to Web or Balefire. It's about the imbalance that would occur were spiritual pures given access to more powerful abilities with spells available via wizard wands as a native ability, vs. a spell booster for wizards only, while wizards will never have access to the same level of lethality that spiritual pures enjoy with their best offensive warding spells. I'm never getting 240+1115, etc. as a wizard no matter what I do. And that's fine. I don't expect to be able to achieve that sort of boost with superior warding spells as a wizard. I only ask that my bolts be able to be boosted to the same level of reliability and without that additional reliability being granted to the spiritual pures, furthering this post-cap imbalance.
BLSLOVE
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
05/31/2017 02:52 PM CDT
Not considering 240, Clerics bolt AS boosters, completely maxed with 250 ranks in blessings lore equals +116 AS. Bolting Clerics typically train in a mixture of summoning and religion. Adding in 20 from a 513 item and it is 136.
Wizards with 425 and 513 maxed are at +114. This is before fire lore training and subsequent bolt casts against same target which would be another +25, but since you will only consider single cast reliability we will not add that in. With a much more common pure potion adding +15 AS, that's +129.
Blue crystals and 117 are everywhere. It's a wash and won't be added.
A difference of 7. Likely won't make much difference. Consider, this is what is achievable with a single cast and I've yet to meet a cleric with 250 ranks in Blessings.
I am completely on board with a 30 second buff spell that provides reliable channeled bolt aiming from defensive or guarded stance at full AS, with zero cooldown, self cast only, and unobtainable through outside means for 40 mana.
Wizards with 425 and 513 maxed are at +114. This is before fire lore training and subsequent bolt casts against same target which would be another +25, but since you will only consider single cast reliability we will not add that in. With a much more common pure potion adding +15 AS, that's +129.
Blue crystals and 117 are everywhere. It's a wash and won't be added.
A difference of 7. Likely won't make much difference. Consider, this is what is achievable with a single cast and I've yet to meet a cleric with 250 ranks in Blessings.
I am completely on board with a 30 second buff spell that provides reliable channeled bolt aiming from defensive or guarded stance at full AS, with zero cooldown, self cast only, and unobtainable through outside means for 40 mana.
