I expect design consistency to be maintained in Dev's stance on lores with roles from one spell to another. If people were so vocally against non-water lore wizards getting any sort of mana pool, I expect the same restrictions for the ultimate offensive power ceiling. This is what choices mean, or it's one set of wizard who gets to have most of the cake. Now, if that arbitrary and exclusionary 5 ranks of water lore was reduced to 0, I would think differently.

<<Something like this, in my opinion, will help resolve most of the issues I have with the Summation Chart. It still doesn't make sense to me that someone can focus 1 or 2 lores and have such a paltry return in increased power over someone that splits their lores 4 way.

I agree with this. There should be some flashy "capstone" for people who want to dedicate to a specific lore, right now the diminishing returns really push toward spreading out among multiple lores. This fits my personal "try a bit of everything" play style, but I think being an "earth mage" or whatever should be a reasonable choice.

Ok, let's start the process of catching up. . .

>> Even when training for an immolation build pre nerf the wizard gained max CS at 159 Major elemental ranks so this would be a higher threshold even than that build,

Yeah - sorry. I should have put in my usual preface of "just for the sake of example, not real numbers". I honestly don't really care personally if it is 130, 159, 202. . . the concept of 'requiring over-training' is where I was headed.

>>the spell circle split for core offensive spells is one of a wizard's biggest weaknesses (the 3rd or 4th point in my state of the wizards document)

I disagree. 502, 505 (CS), 512, 514 and 519 are all CS based, and today function as 'set-up' spells - which do not fit at all in the one-cast emulsifier model. 505 (AS), 510 and 518 are all AS-based, and are not subject to any over / under training discussion. 525 is its own beast that really has no bearing on the conversation. All other spells are utility spells which have no bearing on the one-cast emulsifier model.

The one, lone call-out might, maybe be 513 because it is also based on ranks known in list. That might place somewhere between 0 and 43 AS at risk. But in the one-cast emulsifier model, we've had multiple exchanges about bolt reliability / damage, etc., etc., which indicate that no amount of AS is going to be that guarantee so significantly sought. If the reliability were designed into the buff spell such that the one-cast emulsifier were a reality, even at a reduced 20 or 30 AS (40 to 60 ranks MjE known) I state simply and firmly that it is a trade off that could be considered reasonable.

>>I'm also unwilling to give up 513's bolt AS and the usage of 517 entirely, which would make it a net wash.

Yes, I read this far. So, the design needs to be a booster to handle AS, and CS, to address all creatures while hunting and allow 'the best of' across all utility and capabilities lines for the wizard. What's the expression? Suffice to say - I disagree. Variety, not ultimate sameness (at some arbitrary exp total). I'll freely admit, however, that over-training lists might not be the best approach, which is why I asked.

>>why would training water lore do anything useful for offense

It might be a definition thing, but I think this is being horse-pasted into something it's not. Water lore affects all kinds of combat capabilities (DF increases in appropriate bolts, DS penalties for appropriate bolts, reduction in maneuver defense, etc.) These aggregate to 'offensive capability'. Perhaps, not enough in our view, true. In addition, it also helps with 'restoration and utility' benefits. It's not that EL:W cannot be used for combat utility, it just has to make sense. And then if EL:W doesn't make sense, then EL:F is the 'offensive' lore.

>>Weren't you talking about one trick pony builds being bad a while back? Because this would be a one trick pony build. Not to mention all the 513 AS we'd lose in the process, we'd no longer be using 502, our only hittable warding spell would be 915. No thanks. This would be one step forward and 2 steps back.

Why yes, yes I was. Yet, I'm open to negotiation and willing to change my mind, as necessary and situations demand. Are you not? I am still a strong proponent for not having a one-trick pony. Let's be perfectly frank, though - if a one-cast emulsifier spell is available and functions for AS / CS / all creatures / 100% (no matter what other stipulations placed on it) - is it not just another Immo-type build challenge? Should I not be willing to consider changing my mind to support Fleur's suggestion in her one area of interest?

Tangent - Are you changing your mind that you will use the 502 setup, stepping back from the one-cast perspective? I don't think you are, but I'd rather ask and be sure. Since you brought up 915, how often do you rely on this spell in the terms of well-post cap? I think it needs work for anything after 66 trains (first third of the game), personally. And see above on 513.

>>right now the diminishing returns really push toward spreading out among multiple lores. This fits my personal "try a bit of everything" play style, but I think being an "earth mage" or whatever should be a reasonable choice.

Like this!

>>I could see lore ranks considered in 3 tiers of power. Tier 1 = Normal (a.k.a. jack of all trades), Tier 2 = Dedicated, Tier 3 = Specialist.

So instead of 'diminishing returns', get 'accelerating returns'. Interesting concept, and perhaps useful. I think the fear is it might become a run-away train.

>>as Dev has said they don't want characters to be "specialists"

Reference? I don't recall this, and don't have it logged - but it is an important inclusion to the SoW Discussion and should be linked. I also personally would challenge it (publicly and loudly) because in fact everything I have seen designed gives a nod to a degree of specialization. Not 'ultimate sacrifice for ultimate reward' level. But even wizard write up problem number (? of 4) describing the challenges of the lore splits for elemental lore is itself steeped in this concept of 'average isn't good enough, so get better' specialization discussion. Just not. . . elegantly?

>>and this is supported by diminishing returns for lores for every profession across the board

Actually diminishing returns provides for preventing runaway scenarios when one does specialize. And yes, I think you're right in that 519 reduction specifically felt harsh because it was brought back in line with this concept. Which makes that 'accelerating returns' concept interesting yet risky, too.

Still - I'm not about to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Doug

>>I didn't realize we were negotiating in the first place. Why are we negotiating with each other?

I didn't realize you felt a need to negotiate with me. Why must you?

>>he answer is only when I want to remind myself how garbage it is.

Ah, so. . . That explains much.

>>When it comes to fixing today's problems

There are several distinct differences between problem and design precedent. The noun in the sentence (colloquially called 'the subject') seems to have been dropped / changed. Or, did you do that intentionally?

Doug

>> I disagree with this concept more than just about any idea I've read on here, and it's the very definition of 1 step forward, 5 steps back, that I would be 100% dissatisfied with.

There is this interesting thing I think I see happening. I'm wondering if you, Fleurs, can help clarify.

You were kind enough to bring forward an issue. You were even kind enough to explain several times how that issue impacted you. In the ultimate act of personal time investment, you gathered data to share with the GM team that demonstrated your viewpoint on the issue. And you've summarized conceptually the criteria you feel need to be met in order to resolve this issue to your satisfaction.

Thank you for all of that. Even though I suspect you may think there is - I assure you there's no snark in that summary statement, and none in the gratitude. It is all sincere. And I am not discussing any disagreements about other issues posited by other wizards. I'm focused alone on the one issue you, Fleurs, illuminated and championed. The one that enjoys Methais' unconditional support, the one that I changed my mind to support, the one that other wizards also support, and (only to complete the spectrum) the one other wizards have said doesn't really matter to them.

I have no real personal problem with gaining an appreciation on your perspective of any suggestion. It doesn't even bother me, at all, that I've helped clarify the floor (basement?) of potential actions - there has to be a bottom just as there is a top. Your help in sorting that is also appreciated. And again, there's nothing hidden - that's all sincere.

Here's what I hope you can clarify. In all of the ensuing discussion around that one issue - the one above, and no other - I have not yet seen any suggestion brought forward that I believe enjoys your support as a potential resolution to the issue. There doesn't seem to be any indication of that 'top' to match the 'bottom', from you. It's vitally important that I can point to some proposed solution or combination of solutions that holds your interest, that you have some measure of confidence may provide a basis for meeting the criteria you've laid out. And that's what I need clarified. To date, I'm not comfortable suggesting that I can link to anything of that sort, to marry up to the summary statement of the well-post cap wizard emulsifier spell concept. You deserve no less as the champion of this particular issue. And again, please don't assume there's anything cutting or snarky there. It is all sincere.

I think the closest I've seen are these two: 'I don't want to make any suggestions - because I have full faith in the GM team.', and; maybe, the 940 multi-bolt scenario with some pretty strong provisos. The challenge is that throughout the discussions that have occurred you've disagreed with about everything of relevance that I can find tied to those two, hence my hesitation and lack of confidence. I might be discounting something like 'return 519 to its former glory' that I overlooked, though. And I might be discounting other things. Given that I'm human, I have to account for that.

So, would you be so kind as to repeat (if it is repetition) your support for any proposed solution or combination of solutions offered to date, those that interest you that you think could work?

I would be very appreciative.

Doug

Let me clarify by saying that the maximized Wizard spell rank concept is one I strongly disagree with also because I am looking for an option that makes bolting better at the post-cap level. What is proposed is worse than a net zero and means that this booster or high level solution would no longer be an option, but a necessity for every single type of combat just to try to maintain the status quo with the bolt AS loss, while giving up every other spell associated with being a wizard. That is unacceptable to me. It's more than just one step forward, 2 steps back. It's like 5 steps back.

I'm not boxing Dev into a specific implementation, and to date I haven't seen a player proposal that I feel hits the mark 100%. I wouldn't expect it to either, because obviously Dev would have to run the math and make sure it does hit the 3 criteria. I've identified specific implementations that would absolutely not result in the 3 criteria being met, which is my feedback on the areas that need to be addressed. I critiqued specific parts of proposed ideas that wouldn't hit the mark in hopes that those can be revised by Dev if that sort of approach is taken. I mentioned elements of proposed ideas that I really like, such as the concept of a duplicate wizard for flavor messaging.

Ultimately, I have respect for both the Dev team's creativity and their desire to contribute to the actual implementation, so I respect whatever vision they decide is best as long as it hits the 3 criteria with no hard CHANNEL required to hit the level of effectiveness I'm seeking.

I am seeking either a limited duration spell booster or a high level spell that hits the 3 criteria I listed. Key elements include simultaneous multi-cast, powered up attrition (pure damage), addressing EBP, at least factoring in the scaling AS that 513 currently provides for sequential bolts on a single target (which was already factored into the data presented), and requiring at most a combination of fire and earth lore to hit the level of reliability I'm seeking, with any additional lores providing true bonuses. While you might say this sounds like a lot to ask, keep in mind that all this and more are exactly the issues that post-cap warding spells or spell combos currently address all in one spell/combo, and the other spiritual pures also have extremely reliable CS-based single target and mass disablers to guarantee immobilization of foes that one would not fight without being able to rely on 1 cast, 1 kill in the first place.

>I think the closest I've seen are these two: 'I don't want to make any suggestions - because I have full faith in the GM team.', and; maybe, the 940 multi-bolt scenario with some pretty strong provisos.

This is pretty accurate. I said I would be happy with a solution that hits the 3 criteria, which were very specifically worded to account for uphunting, attrition to counter against crit-resistant creatures, quality of life/risk factor for death at second 0, etc., and I absolutely mean this.

>The challenge is that throughout the discussions that have occurred you've disagreed with about everything of relevance that I can find tied to those two, hence my hesitation and lack of confidence.

I disagreed with specific player suggestions that X ranks of this will result in Y and explained why in each case. Those are levels of refinements that I expect to come from Dev, and while I've provided feedback on the approaches that would or wouldn't work, I leave the exact number crunching and data modeling up to them. While there is no single player proposed solution thus far that I agree with 100%, I do appreciate many elements of them, including the DF increase that you suggested yourself.

>I might be discounting something like 'return 519 to its former glory' that I overlooked, though.

I never advocated to return 519 to its former glory or said anything about increasing its power since February 2016 when Dev said that was fruitless. Since then, I've moved onto trying to get a bolt solution to reach parity, as Dev said that wizards should primarily bolt, and I'm fine with that. I just expect the same level of tools to help us do that at a post-cap level. I never claimed to be a Dev GM or aspired to be a Dev GM. I am here to identify the problem, which I've done and quantified, and I leave the actual solutions up to them.

>and will now read LadyFleurs' posts more as a critique of an idea

This is what they are intended to be.

Because many posts were extremely critical.

Thank you for the time invested in that response, Fleurs. This post is essential for linking to the summary issue statement, and your thoughtful reply is appreciated.

Doug

For the record, I like the 940 example Estild posted and don't feel it needs anything added to it. There will continue to be other issues with bolts, but this would seem to solve the post-cap, reliable kill, single target, etc. issue.

<<For the record, I like the 940 example Estild posted and don't feel it needs anything added to it. There will continue to be other issues with bolts, but this would seem to solve the post-cap, reliable kill, single target, etc. issue.

I just read through those post this morning, and I like his idea a lot too. I think what Estild proposed should be a wizard ability, though I’m not sure I’d want it for 940. But something is better than nothing.

Has there been any discussion recently about revamping or improving 525? If not, I’ve got one that incorporate Estild’s idea. Why not move the current 525 ability to work with channel, and have other the main ability be a 3-shot front-loaded meteorite bolt?

525 Design goals: Powerful single-target front-loaded 3-shot bolt spell that is effective vs turtled and heavily spelled targets. The old meteor shower ability would remain intact. Includes an evokable SMR version that works similar to 917, but with the SMR cycles happening instantly, but using only half of the attack frames. The spell we be equally powerful no matter which lore you decided to train in (assuming you cast the spell with the element you trained for).

525 channel: The current meteor shower ability is cast through the channel verb.

525 cast: The cast version will cast a bolt spell hurling a barrage of meteorites at its target using of FIRE, EARTH, AIR, or WATER damage. If no element is chosen, the barrage of bolts will consist of 3 random elemental meteorites. The spell would be a single AS/DS bolt spell resolution with 3 critical frames. This bolt is very hard to EBP and has the chance to ignore some spiritual spells or partially ignore stance benefits on turtled enemies.

525 evoke: When evoked, a barrage of powerful meteorites of the specified element descends from the sky and slams into the enemy causing massive damage based on the type of meteorite. There would also be 3 damage frames with this version and the possibility for an instant kill.
A barrage of Fire meteorites - inflict 3 instant cycles of fire SMR damage if not outright killing its target with an immolation effect.
A barrage of Icy meteorites- inflict 3 instant cycles of ice SMR damage if not outright killing its target with a shatter effect.
A barrage of molten meteorites – inflict 3 instant cycles of Earth SMR damage if not outright killing its target with a crushing or disintegration effect.
A slipstream of collapsing meteorites (the gravity around the meteorite would collapse upon itself creating a miniature black hole that explodes into a super nova?) – inflicts 3 instant cycles of Air SMR damage if not outright killing its target with a vaporizing effect.

Tie in lores in some way, as all this is as presented is most assuredly too much for one spell.

>Let’s pretend for a moment wizards gets a 1 cast/1 kill soft RT spell. Now is it time for clerics, empaths, and sorcerers to start complaining that they need a rapid fire spell because all of a sudden they can only kill 2 creatures in 3 seconds, whereas wizard with rapid fire and their new 1 hit spell can now kill 4 creatures in 3 seconds, and still be the masters of controlling swarms and managing RT?

Estild already said whatever the "fix" is won't work with Rapid Fire. You should try to catch up on these threads, because chances are most of not all your questions are already answered in a previous post.

>Has there been any discussion recently about revamping or improving 525?

Yes, they just posted the other day about it. You should try to catch up on these threads, because chances are most if not all your questions are already answered in a previous post.


~ Methais