Previous
>You all tend to like this spell because it's one of those situations where you get to have your cake and eat it too. Another argument could be made that you're never really forced to make any hard choices when it comes to training for 520, and therefore it doesn't have a real cost associated with it.
I like how spell updates for the other spiritual pures are designed because for most every update, they DO get to have their cake and eat it too. It shouldn't be a rare thing to expect that same sort of parity in treatment when it comes to design consistency. That's the biggest gripe I have about the ELR/wizard development vs. development for spiritual pures that GM Estild has led, of which I'm a huge fan. If wizards got the sort of positive upgrades with no nerfs that clerics and sorcerers have enjoyed for the past several years, it would have been a completely different discussion and tone on these forums.
>It's generally easier for us assess releases and add things than it is for us to assess and remove things. While it may seem like a great thing that something was released the blows your socks off, it could have the unintended consequence of closing off other venues.
As a player, there's nothing more frustrating than this nerf first, fix later mentality. While it may be easier for Dev to assess, generally this takes significant amounts of time. See how we had to wait nearly a year for the 515 cooldown to be removed after the original overly punitive nerf. As a paying customer, it feels beyond painful to pony up $2000 of subscription fees for another 2 years to wait for things to return to an acceptably fun level. From a tedium and daily quality of life hunting standpoint, my wizard is still worse off today after spending exorbitant amounts more on Duskruin fixes to attempt to repair the damage. In nearly every way, it's just less fun and worse off than 2 years ago pre-updates, without a post-cap single target instant kill that 519 used to deliver. This isn't intended to be a slam on Dev time and efforts. It's the fact of the end result for the post-cap pure wizard experience. Now war mages get to have their cake and eat it too, while the four-way split forces extremely disappointing results upon pure wizards at the post-cap level compared to what we used to enjoy.
I don't mean this in any negative or disrespectful way at all, but I sometimes wonder if GMs fail to empathize with the suffering that players feel when forced to "wait and see" if any fix is coming because you don't pay for your accounts. I understand you're volunteers and I appreciate the time that you all put in, but this is a game that we're paying for, not playing for free. It's painful to keep financially supporting the product when it's no longer enjoyable on one's main character. At the same time, after spending the amount of time and money that many of us have on this game, telling people to just throw in the towel and move on if they don't enjoy it any longer isn't really a nice approach either.
I just hope that in any potential updates, consideration and improvements are given to the post-cap pure wizards too, beyond the base level of functionality that we had previously enjoyed before all the nerfs. I have no stomach to look forward to any new updates that involve more nerfs, secret or announced. Believe it or not, I would much rather be enjoying playing the game without spending my days complaining on the forum about the state of XYZ because of unfathomable decisions being made. It's difficult for players to understand the "vision" with no communication from Dev, even though I know you cannot and will not share everything. It's even more difficult when people attempt to adapt to said changes, and then each direction the updates go in seem to flip-flop from one to the next. People have spent a lot of time and money re-doing enhancive sets, etc. and then the announced update requires some arbitrarily high new amount of X lore to use. People change their play styles to enjoy the new offline absorption and relaxed experience system and are then told that to get the new benefits of Enchant Item mana pool infusing, one has to be willing to suffer the same unenjoyable play style as before.
Honestly, figuring out what to do with my wizard most of the time is just a headache, so I just don't. It's why outside of major events, I rarely even log her in for daily hunting any more.
LADYFLEUR
ALLENM20
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 01:51 AM CDT
It seems everyone is fine with spells being available at increased mana costs if you're lacking in lore training. From what I understand this is how 520 was implemented.
Perhaps we could switch all these lore unlocks to spell circle unlocks. For example, once you learn minor water and minor fire you can cast steam bolt for 9 mana which is the mana cost of both.
With lore training, the mana cost of steam bolt is reduced via fire or water lore to 4 mana.
Tonis bolt could be unlocked once you learn call wind maybe.
I think a good addition to all the lores would be reduced %mana costs for all spells based on the wizard's lore training with a further bonus of -1 mana for every spell based on attunement. This would make a very meaningful choice for low levels which are still very mana intensive for pures and not really have an impact on high levels.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
Perhaps we could switch all these lore unlocks to spell circle unlocks. For example, once you learn minor water and minor fire you can cast steam bolt for 9 mana which is the mana cost of both.
With lore training, the mana cost of steam bolt is reduced via fire or water lore to 4 mana.
Tonis bolt could be unlocked once you learn call wind maybe.
I think a good addition to all the lores would be reduced %mana costs for all spells based on the wizard's lore training with a further bonus of -1 mana for every spell based on attunement. This would make a very meaningful choice for low levels which are still very mana intensive for pures and not really have an impact on high levels.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
KRAKII
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 08:02 AM CDT
"because you don't pay for your accounts." -- LadyFleur
They get the base $10 waived (or is it $12 now?). Premium and/or Platinum surcharges, adding in Shattered, attending events... all of that is still on them.
It ain't no bargain.
They get the base $10 waived (or is it $12 now?). Premium and/or Platinum surcharges, adding in Shattered, attending events... all of that is still on them.
It ain't no bargain.
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 08:51 AM CDT
>514 has a base function available to all wizards - rooting the target on a successful cast. This particular function might be (or might not be) fairly called 'insufficient', but the power of rooting your target is often undersold. Wizards can protect themselves from one of their greatest weaknesses - maneuvers - either by killing fast, or rooting. If killing fast reliably is an option, that's probably the solo tactic to run with. And we spend a lot of air time discussing how 'reliable' 'fast' 'killing' power is needed.
512 > 514.
>519 likewise has a base function available to all wizards - disable / RT. For a time, it was a devastating kill spell with a fairly high chance of instant obliteration. That was changed, and because the current version is much less likely to insta-kill, we rightly feel something has been taken away. But - even in those heady days, the base function existed to all wizards - fire lore masters and non-masters alike.
Pre-nerf 519 was complete trash without fire lore. The only base function of the spell was that you could cast it. If you were expecting results too though, you're gonna waste 19 mana every time because it was maybe slightly more useful than Weapon Fire without fire lore.
>Meant to suggest the same with this spell - stunning with CS is the base functionality.
>Sadly, this spell probably should be retired - blending CS with AS was probably not our best design decision, especially if we can't recognize the base functionality side of it at all.
Since we're wasting time splitting hairs and worrying about semantics, I feel compelled to inform you that we're talking about the base functionality of Tonis Bolt, not Hand of Tonis. :P
~ Methais
512 > 514.
>519 likewise has a base function available to all wizards - disable / RT. For a time, it was a devastating kill spell with a fairly high chance of instant obliteration. That was changed, and because the current version is much less likely to insta-kill, we rightly feel something has been taken away. But - even in those heady days, the base function existed to all wizards - fire lore masters and non-masters alike.
Pre-nerf 519 was complete trash without fire lore. The only base function of the spell was that you could cast it. If you were expecting results too though, you're gonna waste 19 mana every time because it was maybe slightly more useful than Weapon Fire without fire lore.
>Meant to suggest the same with this spell - stunning with CS is the base functionality.
>Sadly, this spell probably should be retired - blending CS with AS was probably not our best design decision, especially if we can't recognize the base functionality side of it at all.
Since we're wasting time splitting hairs and worrying about semantics, I feel compelled to inform you that we're talking about the base functionality of Tonis Bolt, not Hand of Tonis. :P
~ Methais
GS4-VIDUUS
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 11:09 AM CDT
>>I don't mean this in any negative or disrespectful way at all, but I sometimes wonder if GMs fail to empathize with the suffering that players feel when forced to "wait and see" if any fix is coming because you don't pay for your accounts.
You are misinformed on this.
>> It's difficult for players to understand the "vision" with no communication from Dev, even though I know you cannot and will not share everything. It's even more difficult when people attempt to adapt to said changes, and then each direction the updates go in seem to flip-flop from one to the next.
In general this whole thread has been an attempt at communication.
It's important to always remember the GS is a living breathing and constantly changing venue. You'd be hard pressed to find an ability that's exactly the same as it was in the 90s. My vision is to make the class interesting and exciting without allowing face-rolling boredom or mind-numbing tedium. I personally aim for somewhere along the lines of Gandalf the Grey, while I'm sure you guys would prefer something more akin to Gandalf the White.
Viduus
You are misinformed on this.
>> It's difficult for players to understand the "vision" with no communication from Dev, even though I know you cannot and will not share everything. It's even more difficult when people attempt to adapt to said changes, and then each direction the updates go in seem to flip-flop from one to the next.
In general this whole thread has been an attempt at communication.
It's important to always remember the GS is a living breathing and constantly changing venue. You'd be hard pressed to find an ability that's exactly the same as it was in the 90s. My vision is to make the class interesting and exciting without allowing face-rolling boredom or mind-numbing tedium. I personally aim for somewhere along the lines of Gandalf the Grey, while I'm sure you guys would prefer something more akin to Gandalf the White.
Viduus
DOUG
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 11:32 AM CDT
>>It seems everyone is fine with spells being available at increased mana costs
I think if this were done, we'd hear howling. Keep in mind, it can cost up to 99 mana for that ability for 520 (one fifth the capped wizard's mana).
A combat spell, like Hand of Tonis, without the requisite lore at 4 mana per rank (4*20) or 80 mana to get the bolt variant cast? Yeah, no. That's not going to fly with those players.
And adjusting it upwards or downwards is very likely a bad design decision because this shouldn't become a training path alternative. Doing so means trying to find a way to fit it into the 'general game'. Making it a general design concept means that lore training philosophies are no longer viable in the plan (no reason to train). That would be welcomed by a very few players seeking vindication - but I'll wager a lot of us like having lores in the game.
So. . . fancy way of saying 'not everyone'. Likely shouldn't be anyone.
Doug
I think if this were done, we'd hear howling. Keep in mind, it can cost up to 99 mana for that ability for 520 (one fifth the capped wizard's mana).
A combat spell, like Hand of Tonis, without the requisite lore at 4 mana per rank (4*20) or 80 mana to get the bolt variant cast? Yeah, no. That's not going to fly with those players.
And adjusting it upwards or downwards is very likely a bad design decision because this shouldn't become a training path alternative. Doing so means trying to find a way to fit it into the 'general game'. Making it a general design concept means that lore training philosophies are no longer viable in the plan (no reason to train). That would be welcomed by a very few players seeking vindication - but I'll wager a lot of us like having lores in the game.
So. . . fancy way of saying 'not everyone'. Likely shouldn't be anyone.
Doug
DOUG
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 11:32 AM CDT
Ahhh, and the AFE takes the stage. I was wondering when it would get here, and who would be behind the wheel.
Check this out! Methais agrees with me and another wizard! Damn it, where's my Hurst Pistol Grip . . . /walks towards the calendar muttering.
While we're semantically inclined (we certainly want consistency, do we not?!), which is it? 519 is worthless without lore (absolute), or almost as worthless as (not absolute)? You know, never mind. I don't train fire lores on my wizards (until the recent ELR), and I used the spell. So - worthless to you, perhaps. . .
Continuing semantically - ooo. . . I almost felt that. Consistency is still paramount, though. So far you're 2/3 in the list provided (what you agreed with me on, what you stated then backtracked - both centered on various spells and base functionality). And this should be 3/3, based on that consistency. But AFE lovers everywhere like to think consistency is not relevant.
I'm curious to see what the AFE brings forward the second time.
Doug
Check this out! Methais agrees with me and another wizard! Damn it, where's my Hurst Pistol Grip . . . /walks towards the calendar muttering.
While we're semantically inclined (we certainly want consistency, do we not?!), which is it? 519 is worthless without lore (absolute), or almost as worthless as (not absolute)? You know, never mind. I don't train fire lores on my wizards (until the recent ELR), and I used the spell. So - worthless to you, perhaps. . .
Continuing semantically - ooo. . . I almost felt that. Consistency is still paramount, though. So far you're 2/3 in the list provided (what you agreed with me on, what you stated then backtracked - both centered on various spells and base functionality). And this should be 3/3, based on that consistency. But AFE lovers everywhere like to think consistency is not relevant.
I'm curious to see what the AFE brings forward the second time.
Doug
KANDOR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 11:34 AM CDT
The number of lores is not as important as how they are balanced. If there are 4 elemental lores, and all are equally weighted so that 50 lores of each at cap provides the most bang for the buck, then players will feel like there was no real point to them. It's like spell aiming -- there's no decision, it's just there. It would make no difference if there were 3 lores with 66 ranks in each or 5 lores with 40 ranks in each. When the lores are too balanced, the benefit to game mechanics exceeds the chance that players will deviate for creative choice, or their own purposes. One way to solve this without breaking the balance is by putting threshold powers for 100 and 200 ranks of individual lores, so that a 200/0 specialist or 100/100 is nearly as powerful as the 50/50/50/50 generalist.
The main difference between spirit lores and elemental lores I see is that the blessing and summoning lores apply to the 100 and 200 lists, and less to the profession lists. Their benefits are tempered by the fact that 2 different professions use the 200 list. All 4 elemental lores apply mainly to the 900 and 500 lists, and more of a token thing on the 400 list. The reason spirit lores seem to work better is that another profession shares the 200 list. Most of the clerical benefits are in religion lore, and this is also where more of the offensive benefits to their spells come from (unless they train spell aiming and use web bolt). Empaths mostly benefit from a couple mental lores. However, clerics also get benefits for training in blessing for chrisms, which is sort of akin to what water lore is intended to be for enchanting. Is it fair to say that blessing gives clerics more benefits than water gives for wizards? If that's true, clerics would tend to focus more on religion and blessings, and somewhat less on summoning. Wizards are still evenly-split. This all seems to be an unfortunate side-effect of wizard spell design, and not having another profession to share the 500 list. I don't think moving spells around will fix it, and I'm not sure adding a new profession will, either. Wizards have too many spells, and too many lore effects. Both clerics and empaths have fewer spells that need interaction with lores. I think the sheer number of offensive wizard spells creates the illusion that the lores are the issue, where it's really the spells that are the issue. Interesting that Viduus brought up druids, though, because they are often envisioned in games as elemental specialists. 400s, 500s, and a profession list. Probably easier than savants, anyway.
I also still feel that the elemental lores should not be identified as the 4 elements. Broader categories like enchantment, summoning, and divination (or whatever) would make it much easier to design around and would create parity with the other lores.
The main difference between spirit lores and elemental lores I see is that the blessing and summoning lores apply to the 100 and 200 lists, and less to the profession lists. Their benefits are tempered by the fact that 2 different professions use the 200 list. All 4 elemental lores apply mainly to the 900 and 500 lists, and more of a token thing on the 400 list. The reason spirit lores seem to work better is that another profession shares the 200 list. Most of the clerical benefits are in religion lore, and this is also where more of the offensive benefits to their spells come from (unless they train spell aiming and use web bolt). Empaths mostly benefit from a couple mental lores. However, clerics also get benefits for training in blessing for chrisms, which is sort of akin to what water lore is intended to be for enchanting. Is it fair to say that blessing gives clerics more benefits than water gives for wizards? If that's true, clerics would tend to focus more on religion and blessings, and somewhat less on summoning. Wizards are still evenly-split. This all seems to be an unfortunate side-effect of wizard spell design, and not having another profession to share the 500 list. I don't think moving spells around will fix it, and I'm not sure adding a new profession will, either. Wizards have too many spells, and too many lore effects. Both clerics and empaths have fewer spells that need interaction with lores. I think the sheer number of offensive wizard spells creates the illusion that the lores are the issue, where it's really the spells that are the issue. Interesting that Viduus brought up druids, though, because they are often envisioned in games as elemental specialists. 400s, 500s, and a profession list. Probably easier than savants, anyway.
I also still feel that the elemental lores should not be identified as the 4 elements. Broader categories like enchantment, summoning, and divination (or whatever) would make it much easier to design around and would create parity with the other lores.
DOUG
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 11:39 AM CDT
>>This all seems to be an unfortunate side-effect of wizard spell design, and not having another profession to share the 500 list.
I'm not sure I'm following this point, but it is intriguing. I'll be watching for more dialog on this.
>> Broader categories like enchantment, summoning, and divination (or whatever) would make it much easier to design around and would create parity with the other lores.
This, however - hell yeah. I see a contest being born now. Wizards rebranded! (Arkati alone know we need it. . . ) W00t!
Doug
I'm not sure I'm following this point, but it is intriguing. I'll be watching for more dialog on this.
>> Broader categories like enchantment, summoning, and divination (or whatever) would make it much easier to design around and would create parity with the other lores.
This, however - hell yeah. I see a contest being born now. Wizards rebranded! (Arkati alone know we need it. . . ) W00t!
Doug
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 12:49 PM CDT
>You are misinformed on this.
My mistake then, but the nerf now, fix later approach is still painful from a paying customer standpoint.
>In general this whole thread has been an attempt at communication.
And it's appreciated, however, the time has passed for player input on much more important spells than Charge Item. Still, better late than never.
>You'd be hard pressed to find an ability that's exactly the same as it was in the 90s.
No one's looking to go back to the '90's wizards. What we didn't want to have to suffer through as players was the same pain that sorcerers did post-nerfs. Wizards have been nerfed twice now since GemStone 3 before any minor upgrades, and we still are not at parity as a pure profession with the other pures, especially when it comes to how lore requirements affect the power ceiling. So the things that many post-cap pure wizards enjoyed is no longer possible. There's no info if a post-cap, single target instant kill ability is coming back, which is tedium for daily hunting that every other of my spiritual pures does not have to go through.
>My vision is to make the class interesting and exciting without allowing face-rolling boredom or mind-numbing tedium.
No one thinks that Dev goes through with the time and effort to roll in updates with the purpose of introducing tedium. But with the removal of the double band-aid of 515/519 for attrition-based bolting, we're still stuck on a daily single-target combat level vs. what we had before. No, it wasn't perfect, but it got the job done.
>I personally aim for somewhere along the lines of Gandalf the Grey, while I'm sure you guys would prefer something more akin to Gandalf the White.
But Gandalf the Grey was killed. :( Now that our band-aids have been killed, maybe we can become Gandalf the White!
My mistake then, but the nerf now, fix later approach is still painful from a paying customer standpoint.
>In general this whole thread has been an attempt at communication.
And it's appreciated, however, the time has passed for player input on much more important spells than Charge Item. Still, better late than never.
>You'd be hard pressed to find an ability that's exactly the same as it was in the 90s.
No one's looking to go back to the '90's wizards. What we didn't want to have to suffer through as players was the same pain that sorcerers did post-nerfs. Wizards have been nerfed twice now since GemStone 3 before any minor upgrades, and we still are not at parity as a pure profession with the other pures, especially when it comes to how lore requirements affect the power ceiling. So the things that many post-cap pure wizards enjoyed is no longer possible. There's no info if a post-cap, single target instant kill ability is coming back, which is tedium for daily hunting that every other of my spiritual pures does not have to go through.
>My vision is to make the class interesting and exciting without allowing face-rolling boredom or mind-numbing tedium.
No one thinks that Dev goes through with the time and effort to roll in updates with the purpose of introducing tedium. But with the removal of the double band-aid of 515/519 for attrition-based bolting, we're still stuck on a daily single-target combat level vs. what we had before. No, it wasn't perfect, but it got the job done.
>I personally aim for somewhere along the lines of Gandalf the Grey, while I'm sure you guys would prefer something more akin to Gandalf the White.
But Gandalf the Grey was killed. :( Now that our band-aids have been killed, maybe we can become Gandalf the White!
GS4-VIDUUS
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 01:21 PM CDT
And it's appreciated, however, the time has passed for player input on much more important spells than Charge Item. Still, better late than never.
It's pretty rare that we slam the doors on an aspect of the game and stop listening to feedback. I would argue it's never too late to make a good argument for change.
Though, one thing I've tried to convey in the past. Strong arguments to open discussion lead with evidence and conclude with personal insight.
As an example. Say I want to add Implosion to the rogue cman list. I have to make a compelling argument for it.
If I open with, rogues suck they need to be able to kill everything in the room for 10 stamina because they should be awesome at killing things and when asked for proof I say "I play sorcs and Implosion kills stuff and I think rogues should be awesome at killing things, so they should have Implosion!" I don't get very far.
If I open with... I've run this statistical analysis of average kill time per class and rogues take 20 seconds per kill vs. 8 seconds for all other classes, and therefore I think they they need Implosion to speed it up.
The second pitch is still off (rogues shouldn't be patched with pure spells), but at least we have a basis for discussion and a hard to dispute problem that should be addressed. I may not get my rogue Implosion spell, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities that something that solves the problem in a similar manner could arise from the conversation.
I'm not saying you have to run statistical analysis of every idea suggested, but it really helps to frame the discussion when subjective thought can be easily separated from empirical evidence.
I hope all that made sense.
Viduus
It's pretty rare that we slam the doors on an aspect of the game and stop listening to feedback. I would argue it's never too late to make a good argument for change.
Though, one thing I've tried to convey in the past. Strong arguments to open discussion lead with evidence and conclude with personal insight.
As an example. Say I want to add Implosion to the rogue cman list. I have to make a compelling argument for it.
If I open with, rogues suck they need to be able to kill everything in the room for 10 stamina because they should be awesome at killing things and when asked for proof I say "I play sorcs and Implosion kills stuff and I think rogues should be awesome at killing things, so they should have Implosion!" I don't get very far.
If I open with... I've run this statistical analysis of average kill time per class and rogues take 20 seconds per kill vs. 8 seconds for all other classes, and therefore I think they they need Implosion to speed it up.
The second pitch is still off (rogues shouldn't be patched with pure spells), but at least we have a basis for discussion and a hard to dispute problem that should be addressed. I may not get my rogue Implosion spell, but it's not out of the realm of possibilities that something that solves the problem in a similar manner could arise from the conversation.
I'm not saying you have to run statistical analysis of every idea suggested, but it really helps to frame the discussion when subjective thought can be easily separated from empirical evidence.
I hope all that made sense.
Viduus
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 01:38 PM CDT
>I'm not saying you have to run statistical analysis of every idea suggested, but it really helps to frame the discussion when subjective thought can be easily separated from empirical evidence.
Yes, this does make sense, and many different numbers have been run. They've been lost now, but one thing I'll note is that average kill time per class is only one aspect of what I consider tedium.
When I talk about quality of life in offensive combat, in particular with respect to the post-cap, single target instant kill ability I keep hoping wizards will be able to have again one day like everyone else, I'm talking about macro keys hit per kill and casts per kill. The higher those latter 2 numbers are, the more painful it is for the non-script hunting player. I'm not kidding when I say Duskruin may induce carpal tunnel one day.
Now, one can say you can just script everything and watch the game be played for you, while having all of these other options for flavor, but that's the opposite of what I as an active, non-scripting hunter consider fun and enjoyable. That's really my main and only outstanding concern that I even care to discuss about the wizard profession.
950 was an excellent addition, but if you read my state of the wizards document, I mention that most people in their daily hunting focus on killing single targets at a time, whether it's in warcamps, creatures spawning sequentially instead of all at once, or wanting to hunt in sane scenarios in which one doesn't blindly wander into a giant swarm that necessitates mass demolition to ensure survival (the Scatter). That's why I asked all along for a single target 950 with no mass/area attack spells enabled. That would provide the solution I'm looking for with sufficient post-cap experience, similar to what 519 used to deliver, and what 240 and 717 still deliver for the other spiritual pures.
I hope one day beyond pure power, someone can try going out for extended hunts on multiple pures (not war mages) and see how your hands feel after going through the higher casts per kill/macro hits for a wizard vs. any other pure. I'm not kidding when I say I no longer really loot hunt with my wizard because again, without scripting it, that would be a sure way to get on the fast track to carpal tunnel.
Yes, this does make sense, and many different numbers have been run. They've been lost now, but one thing I'll note is that average kill time per class is only one aspect of what I consider tedium.
When I talk about quality of life in offensive combat, in particular with respect to the post-cap, single target instant kill ability I keep hoping wizards will be able to have again one day like everyone else, I'm talking about macro keys hit per kill and casts per kill. The higher those latter 2 numbers are, the more painful it is for the non-script hunting player. I'm not kidding when I say Duskruin may induce carpal tunnel one day.
Now, one can say you can just script everything and watch the game be played for you, while having all of these other options for flavor, but that's the opposite of what I as an active, non-scripting hunter consider fun and enjoyable. That's really my main and only outstanding concern that I even care to discuss about the wizard profession.
950 was an excellent addition, but if you read my state of the wizards document, I mention that most people in their daily hunting focus on killing single targets at a time, whether it's in warcamps, creatures spawning sequentially instead of all at once, or wanting to hunt in sane scenarios in which one doesn't blindly wander into a giant swarm that necessitates mass demolition to ensure survival (the Scatter). That's why I asked all along for a single target 950 with no mass/area attack spells enabled. That would provide the solution I'm looking for with sufficient post-cap experience, similar to what 519 used to deliver, and what 240 and 717 still deliver for the other spiritual pures.
I hope one day beyond pure power, someone can try going out for extended hunts on multiple pures (not war mages) and see how your hands feel after going through the higher casts per kill/macro hits for a wizard vs. any other pure. I'm not kidding when I say I no longer really loot hunt with my wizard because again, without scripting it, that would be a sure way to get on the fast track to carpal tunnel.
CANDIDE
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 02:07 PM CDT
"I personally aim for somewhere along the lines of Gandalf the Grey, while I'm sure you guys would prefer something more akin to Gandalf the White.-GM Viduus"
Taking this and running with it to maybe add something to ruminate on.
I always allowed that Gandalf the Grey was a chosen different path. He was a wanderer, a speaker, and counselor for all races and nations, and in that his "power" was greater than anything a white wizard could do. Now when it came to a knock down drag out wizard fight then he would lose against the White but not all life is about that is it.
What I would like wizard implementation to shoot for isn't all Gandalf the White, but I do want the possibility of getting there. Even Gandalf realized that there was a time to be(a need even for) a White wizard.
Gemstone shouldn't limit us, allow us through training or whatever to make multiple things be a white wizard if we so should choose. Allow us also to be grey wizard if we want that as well and have the grey wizard have advantages white wizards wouldn't but let it be our choice.
GBB
Taking this and running with it to maybe add something to ruminate on.
I always allowed that Gandalf the Grey was a chosen different path. He was a wanderer, a speaker, and counselor for all races and nations, and in that his "power" was greater than anything a white wizard could do. Now when it came to a knock down drag out wizard fight then he would lose against the White but not all life is about that is it.
What I would like wizard implementation to shoot for isn't all Gandalf the White, but I do want the possibility of getting there. Even Gandalf realized that there was a time to be(a need even for) a White wizard.
Gemstone shouldn't limit us, allow us through training or whatever to make multiple things be a white wizard if we so should choose. Allow us also to be grey wizard if we want that as well and have the grey wizard have advantages white wizards wouldn't but let it be our choice.
GBB
KANDOR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 03:30 PM CDT
I'd point out that Gandalf was a vanilla wizard, though. His professed powers were pyrotechnics and clairvoyance. The most unusual things about him, compared to other wizards, is that he wielded a sword and, later on, rode a fast horse. Besides this, he is the wizard archetype. Many games use him as a concept character. He's a great starting point, but most characters here won't be much like him. For one thing, we have no horses.
KRAKII
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 03:31 PM CDT
And Cirdan handed him the Ring of Fire...
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 03:35 PM CDT
>While we're semantically inclined (we certainly want consistency, do we not?!), which is it? 519 is worthless without lore (absolute), or almost as worthless as (not absolute)? You know, never mind. I don't train fire lores on my wizards (until the recent ELR), and I used the spell. So - worthless to you, perhaps. . .
-sigh-
In my humble wizardly opinion, pre-nerf 519 was garbage and as close to useless without LITERALLY being 100% useless without fire lore. Unless the target had like 15 HP left and you wanted to spend 19 mana to finish it off. Which would mean the person playing the wizard should stop being terrible at being a wizard.
Post-nerf Immolate is apparently stronger as a base spell (I've never used it post nerf without lore), but lore doesn't help it nearly as much as it used to. The end result is still meh, just not complete garbage like pre-nerf 0 lore Immolate. I think Immolate still has issues, but I'm not going to bang my head on that wall all over again for nothing.
I'm not sure how else to word it without you going all semantics about it, because it's not like you don't understand the points that are being made.
But I'll try anyway just in case:
Pre-nerf immolate = trash without fire lore, godly (but still not OP I don't care what anyone tries to say, as it wasn't the instant death machine it got painted as) with heavy fire lore.
Post-nerf Immolate = meh without lore, a little less meh with lore, still better than pre-nerf 0 lore immolate, but reduced to a shell of its former fire lore heavy self regardless.
Not every single word (like "worthless" or "useless") needs to be taken literally down to its very core. You seem like a smart guy so I'm sure you already know this, so why even bother with trivial stuff like that in the first place?
>Continuing semantically - ooo. . . I almost felt that. Consistency is still paramount, though. So far you're 2/3 in the list provided (what you agreed with me on, what you stated then backtracked - both centered on various spells and base functionality). And this should be 3/3, based on that consistency. But AFE lovers everywhere like to think consistency is not relevant.
Not sure if that was meant for me or not, but if so, what did I backtrack on?
>I also still feel that the elemental lores should not be identified as the 4 elements. Broader categories like enchantment, summoning, and divination (or whatever) would make it much easier to design around and would create parity with the other lores.
This would have by far been the best solution. Which seems to be what they're trying to emulate, but I think the whole fire/water/earth/air thing would need to be completely disregarded for it to really work. "Hey guys even though it says Water Lore in the mangler just call it Enchantment Lore because that's how we're designing things." It might not make IC sense for fire lore to increase minor water DF, but neither does knowing how to cast fire and water but only being able to learn steam by learning fire. But anyway, trying to juggle both "roles" and "elements" just adds unnecessary complications. X combat spell is water and is enhanced by water lore because water. Meanwhile, Y combat spell is also water but is enhanced by fire lore because fire = combat. I think picking one or the other and sticking with that design across the board is what needs to be done as opposed to a mixture of both like what we currently have.
And of course, ATTUNE granting phantom lore ranks would fix the whole 4-way split issue wizards face that nobody else does. Estild won't tell us if he thinks that's a good idea or not though. :(
~ Methais
-sigh-
In my humble wizardly opinion, pre-nerf 519 was garbage and as close to useless without LITERALLY being 100% useless without fire lore. Unless the target had like 15 HP left and you wanted to spend 19 mana to finish it off. Which would mean the person playing the wizard should stop being terrible at being a wizard.
Post-nerf Immolate is apparently stronger as a base spell (I've never used it post nerf without lore), but lore doesn't help it nearly as much as it used to. The end result is still meh, just not complete garbage like pre-nerf 0 lore Immolate. I think Immolate still has issues, but I'm not going to bang my head on that wall all over again for nothing.
I'm not sure how else to word it without you going all semantics about it, because it's not like you don't understand the points that are being made.
But I'll try anyway just in case:
Pre-nerf immolate = trash without fire lore, godly (but still not OP I don't care what anyone tries to say, as it wasn't the instant death machine it got painted as) with heavy fire lore.
Post-nerf Immolate = meh without lore, a little less meh with lore, still better than pre-nerf 0 lore immolate, but reduced to a shell of its former fire lore heavy self regardless.
Not every single word (like "worthless" or "useless") needs to be taken literally down to its very core. You seem like a smart guy so I'm sure you already know this, so why even bother with trivial stuff like that in the first place?
>Continuing semantically - ooo. . . I almost felt that. Consistency is still paramount, though. So far you're 2/3 in the list provided (what you agreed with me on, what you stated then backtracked - both centered on various spells and base functionality). And this should be 3/3, based on that consistency. But AFE lovers everywhere like to think consistency is not relevant.
Not sure if that was meant for me or not, but if so, what did I backtrack on?
>I also still feel that the elemental lores should not be identified as the 4 elements. Broader categories like enchantment, summoning, and divination (or whatever) would make it much easier to design around and would create parity with the other lores.
This would have by far been the best solution. Which seems to be what they're trying to emulate, but I think the whole fire/water/earth/air thing would need to be completely disregarded for it to really work. "Hey guys even though it says Water Lore in the mangler just call it Enchantment Lore because that's how we're designing things." It might not make IC sense for fire lore to increase minor water DF, but neither does knowing how to cast fire and water but only being able to learn steam by learning fire. But anyway, trying to juggle both "roles" and "elements" just adds unnecessary complications. X combat spell is water and is enhanced by water lore because water. Meanwhile, Y combat spell is also water but is enhanced by fire lore because fire = combat. I think picking one or the other and sticking with that design across the board is what needs to be done as opposed to a mixture of both like what we currently have.
And of course, ATTUNE granting phantom lore ranks would fix the whole 4-way split issue wizards face that nobody else does. Estild won't tell us if he thinks that's a good idea or not though. :(
~ Methais
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 03:41 PM CDT
>If I open with, rogues suck they need to be able to kill everything in the room for 10 stamina because they should be awesome at killing things and when asked for proof I say "I play sorcs and Implosion kills stuff and I think rogues should be awesome at killing things, so they should have Implosion!" I don't get very far.
>If I open with... I've run this statistical analysis of average kill time per class and rogues take 20 seconds per kill vs. 8 seconds for all other classes, and therefore I think they they need Implosion to speed it up.
We did this with Immolate and it really did us no good, and a pretty high amount of evidence was provided.
~ Methais
>If I open with... I've run this statistical analysis of average kill time per class and rogues take 20 seconds per kill vs. 8 seconds for all other classes, and therefore I think they they need Implosion to speed it up.
We did this with Immolate and it really did us no good, and a pretty high amount of evidence was provided.
~ Methais
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 03:42 PM CDT
I'm pretty sure Gandalf was for the most part a war mage. Seems like he used his sword a lot more than he used his spells.
~ Methais
~ Methais
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 03:46 PM CDT
>We did this with Immolate and it really did us no good, and a pretty high amount of evidence was provided.
I'm not going to say it did NO good, but I think the point was missed entirely about the problem we were trying to point out. After the release of 950, I attempted to point this out (see above), but while GMs gave us 950 and thought that would solve everything, what I as a post-cap pure actually wanted was 950 on a single-target basis. The single macro kill. The same thing every other profession, from warriors, to rogues, to rangers/bards, to the other spiritual pures, can achieve with aimed melee and ranged combat, mstrikes, etc.
The only problem was our "solution", in being a mass demolition spell, did not actually address the single target problem because of the existence of the cooldown. This is where pure skills get conflated with square skills, because mana is the limiting factor for pure combat. There should never be cooldowns on offensive magic. After a year, someone recognized that the 515 nerf with the cooldown was overkill, so maybe one day someone can recognize our point about quality of life in single target hunting too. If it's not a single target 950 with no area effect spells and no cooldown, then maybe a focused 525 that delivers a burst of killing power with sufficient post-cap training to deliver a solution equivalent to what I've still been seeking.
I'm not going to say it did NO good, but I think the point was missed entirely about the problem we were trying to point out. After the release of 950, I attempted to point this out (see above), but while GMs gave us 950 and thought that would solve everything, what I as a post-cap pure actually wanted was 950 on a single-target basis. The single macro kill. The same thing every other profession, from warriors, to rogues, to rangers/bards, to the other spiritual pures, can achieve with aimed melee and ranged combat, mstrikes, etc.
The only problem was our "solution", in being a mass demolition spell, did not actually address the single target problem because of the existence of the cooldown. This is where pure skills get conflated with square skills, because mana is the limiting factor for pure combat. There should never be cooldowns on offensive magic. After a year, someone recognized that the 515 nerf with the cooldown was overkill, so maybe one day someone can recognize our point about quality of life in single target hunting too. If it's not a single target 950 with no area effect spells and no cooldown, then maybe a focused 525 that delivers a burst of killing power with sufficient post-cap training to deliver a solution equivalent to what I've still been seeking.
GS4-VIDUUS
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 03:52 PM CDT
We did this with Immolate and it really did us no good, and a pretty high amount of evidence was provided.
~ Methais
It did actually. The conclusions drawn were just wrong, which was probably a result of the sample sizes. Despite common belief, 519 can hold it's own against 317 and 1115, even without 150 fire lore ranks, and the numbers do support this with an appropriate sample size.
No, it's not pre-2016 Immo, but few things would compare to that.
Viduus
~ Methais
It did actually. The conclusions drawn were just wrong, which was probably a result of the sample sizes. Despite common belief, 519 can hold it's own against 317 and 1115, even without 150 fire lore ranks, and the numbers do support this with an appropriate sample size.
No, it's not pre-2016 Immo, but few things would compare to that.
Viduus
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 03:58 PM CDT
>The conclusions drawn were just wrong, which was probably a result of the sample sizes. Despite common belief, 519 can hold it's own against 317 and 1115, even without 150 fire lore ranks, and the numbers do support this with an appropriate sample size.
No, it doesn't, when 317 and 1115 are used in combination with 240. The sample size doesn't matter in the conclusions drawn, which were that 317 provides a much higher concussion damage cycle before the initial plasma cycle, and both of those work to mitigate the requirement for favorable crit location and then favorable crit randomization rolls. Wizards are constantly subjected to the double lightning strike lottery RNG, which is underwhelming in daily use.
>No, it's not pre-2016 Immo, but few things would compare to that.
240+317 and 240+1115 exceed even pre-2016 519. That's what I'm looking for, even if I have to pay the mana cost of a booster (not a pushdown) and/or a 50 mana cost for a single target 950 type solution.
No, it doesn't, when 317 and 1115 are used in combination with 240. The sample size doesn't matter in the conclusions drawn, which were that 317 provides a much higher concussion damage cycle before the initial plasma cycle, and both of those work to mitigate the requirement for favorable crit location and then favorable crit randomization rolls. Wizards are constantly subjected to the double lightning strike lottery RNG, which is underwhelming in daily use.
>No, it's not pre-2016 Immo, but few things would compare to that.
240+317 and 240+1115 exceed even pre-2016 519. That's what I'm looking for, even if I have to pay the mana cost of a booster (not a pushdown) and/or a 50 mana cost for a single target 950 type solution.
GS4-VIDUUS
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 04:20 PM CDT
240+317 and 240+1115 exceed even pre-2016 519. That's what I'm looking for, even if I have to pay the mana cost of a booster (not a pushdown) and/or a 50 mana cost for a single target 950 type solution.
Personal Opinion
I think this is a slippery slope that could quickly devolve to territory I can't dive into, so I'll simply say this.
Playing devil's advocate...
I understand the point you are trying to make, it may have merit, but I don't completely agree with the argument as I'm not sure the evidence supports the statement. A counter argument could be made that 515+519x3 is just as deadly as 240+317 or 240+1115 - as they both take the same total time and would come close to the 950 request in mana (though I realize there was a mana reduction bundled there in previous conversations).
I would say, if you're convinced you're right, then by far the easiest way to prove that point is to run the numbers in comparison.
End Personal Opinion
Viduus
Personal Opinion
I think this is a slippery slope that could quickly devolve to territory I can't dive into, so I'll simply say this.
Playing devil's advocate...
I understand the point you are trying to make, it may have merit, but I don't completely agree with the argument as I'm not sure the evidence supports the statement. A counter argument could be made that 515+519x3 is just as deadly as 240+317 or 240+1115 - as they both take the same total time and would come close to the 950 request in mana (though I realize there was a mana reduction bundled there in previous conversations).
I would say, if you're convinced you're right, then by far the easiest way to prove that point is to run the numbers in comparison.
End Personal Opinion
Viduus
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 04:24 PM CDT
>A counter argument could be made that 515+519x3 is just as deadly as 240+317 or 240+1115 - as they both take the same total time and would come close to the 950 request in mana (though I realize there was a mana reduction bundled there in previous conversations).
And to this point, I would have to refer you to my quality of life argument where lethality and time to kill is not equivalent to casts per kill. In your scenario above, I would have to hit 4 keys to achieve 1 kill, while 2 would do it for an empath or cleric. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that everyone is running a script or using Lich in order to play this game. Probably no one cares because they just script it anyway and don't notice the added tedium.
The numbers have been run and posted, in that same 519/317/1119 discussion thread. GM Estild even acknowledge that 240+1115 or 240+317 is essentially 1.0 casts per kill at a sufficiently post-cap and enhanced level.
I'll have to wait til after Duskruin to attempt to dig some of these out. I do appreciate the conversation, personal opinion or not, which is the reason I'm taking time out to respond right now. I haven't even had time to respond to GM Contemplar's thread yet. :( It's funny that the very few times a year that a NIR is willing to have an open conversation in the wizard folder like this, it's always been during Duskruin, from the initial proposed nerfs to now. :)
And to this point, I would have to refer you to my quality of life argument where lethality and time to kill is not equivalent to casts per kill. In your scenario above, I would have to hit 4 keys to achieve 1 kill, while 2 would do it for an empath or cleric. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that everyone is running a script or using Lich in order to play this game. Probably no one cares because they just script it anyway and don't notice the added tedium.
The numbers have been run and posted, in that same 519/317/1119 discussion thread. GM Estild even acknowledge that 240+1115 or 240+317 is essentially 1.0 casts per kill at a sufficiently post-cap and enhanced level.
I'll have to wait til after Duskruin to attempt to dig some of these out. I do appreciate the conversation, personal opinion or not, which is the reason I'm taking time out to respond right now. I haven't even had time to respond to GM Contemplar's thread yet. :( It's funny that the very few times a year that a NIR is willing to have an open conversation in the wizard folder like this, it's always been during Duskruin, from the initial proposed nerfs to now. :)
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 04:41 PM CDT
>A counter argument could be made that 515+519x3 is just as deadly as 240+317 or 240+1115 - as they both take the same total time and would come close to the 950 request in mana (though I realize there was a mana reduction bundled there in previous conversations).
To add to this, I'll also have to point out that by saying that 515+519x3 is as deadly as 240+317 or 240+1115, I'll also have to point out that in addition to time/quality of life/mana, this is not true due to the higher concussion damage from 317 vs. complete reliance on the 519 crit cycles. 240 works not just because of the reduced time and mana reduction (free mana), but primarily because of the double cast with the massive CS boost. 950 is the only wizard equivalent that really mimics this AS/CS booster effect, but I'll also point out that due to the heavy reliance on the crit cycle vs. concussion damage, even boosted CS does not result in a sufficiently guaranteed higher initial damage such that it guarantees a kill with a 950 519 519 519 (even x6) combo. I've actually tested this on the test server.
In contrast, 240+317 DOES achieve the 1.0 casts per kill result. This is also because spiritual TDs for creatures across the board are lower, so that much more significant increase in CS that 240 provides vs. the lower increase that 950 provides is magnified even further as a percentage of excessive warding margin.
So what I want is a 950 equivalent or a focused 525 or anything that delivers a burst of 5-6 spells on a single target that solve the attrition-based damage and EBP problems that bolting has vs. what 240 does for 317 and 1115 since we've been told that 519 won't be changed to provide less reliance on crit cycles vs. guaranteed concussion damage. I want the option for a single or two macro kill for a booster + kill spell combo that results in the same quality of life in daily hunting that the other pures enjoy. Just because we have tools does not mean someone has to use it if they prefer to hunt otherwise and have flavor, but without tools, the power ceiling is much lower for wizards than the other pures.
To add to this, I'll also have to point out that by saying that 515+519x3 is as deadly as 240+317 or 240+1115, I'll also have to point out that in addition to time/quality of life/mana, this is not true due to the higher concussion damage from 317 vs. complete reliance on the 519 crit cycles. 240 works not just because of the reduced time and mana reduction (free mana), but primarily because of the double cast with the massive CS boost. 950 is the only wizard equivalent that really mimics this AS/CS booster effect, but I'll also point out that due to the heavy reliance on the crit cycle vs. concussion damage, even boosted CS does not result in a sufficiently guaranteed higher initial damage such that it guarantees a kill with a 950 519 519 519 (even x6) combo. I've actually tested this on the test server.
In contrast, 240+317 DOES achieve the 1.0 casts per kill result. This is also because spiritual TDs for creatures across the board are lower, so that much more significant increase in CS that 240 provides vs. the lower increase that 950 provides is magnified even further as a percentage of excessive warding margin.
So what I want is a 950 equivalent or a focused 525 or anything that delivers a burst of 5-6 spells on a single target that solve the attrition-based damage and EBP problems that bolting has vs. what 240 does for 317 and 1115 since we've been told that 519 won't be changed to provide less reliance on crit cycles vs. guaranteed concussion damage. I want the option for a single or two macro kill for a booster + kill spell combo that results in the same quality of life in daily hunting that the other pures enjoy. Just because we have tools does not mean someone has to use it if they prefer to hunt otherwise and have flavor, but without tools, the power ceiling is much lower for wizards than the other pures.
DOUG
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 06:30 PM CDT
Pulling a few responses together to save the index database a bit of work. ;)
>>I hope one day beyond pure power, someone can try going out for extended hunts on multiple pures (not war mages)
I'm so happy we are excepting war mages from this comparison, since war mages generally require at least two (and some times several) more inputs to kill the single creature than a pure wizard might. Given the frequent reference to physical deterioration, I can understand why there's zero appeal there.
>>Allow us also to be grey wizard if we want that as well and have the grey wizard have advantages white wizards wouldn't but let it be our choice.
We do have that now, though? While the 'white wizard' variant may not quite be up to snuff (the core of Fleur's position being the lack of reliable instant kill), we probably have a pretty diverse group of wizards about - some even following the broader / more diverse 'grey wizard' path.
>>is that he wielded a sword
Quick trivia! How many creatures is Gandalf known to slay with Glamdring? Bonus points for 'alone' and 'with magic'.
>>you going all semantics about it
You keep using this term. I do not think it means what you think it means. Try . . . harder?
>>You seem like a smart guy
Probably not - it's why I keep asking questions and trying to sort through things. It would appear, though, that asking questions and trying to get consistent responses is leading to labels and humor that is too easily misunderstood as snark. I'm at least smart enough to see evasion of the question being asked - so, done! I now and forever have you pegged as someone who does not accept the concept of base functionality.
"Your training is complete."
So I'll use different means to persuade, should I need to in the future. ;)
>> I want the option for a single or two macro kill for a booster + kill spell combo that results in the same quality of life in daily hunting that the other pures enjoy.
In keeping with that asking questions thing - the concept of 'quality of life in daily hunting' is getting terribly muddled. It consists of mana, time, round time, damage, player discomfort, crit, macro, script (avoidance), and probably a few things I hope I can be forgiven for not recalling directly. Can we simplify this a bit?
I'll start a new thread with a few ideas about handling this problem.
Doug
>>I hope one day beyond pure power, someone can try going out for extended hunts on multiple pures (not war mages)
I'm so happy we are excepting war mages from this comparison, since war mages generally require at least two (and some times several) more inputs to kill the single creature than a pure wizard might. Given the frequent reference to physical deterioration, I can understand why there's zero appeal there.
>>Allow us also to be grey wizard if we want that as well and have the grey wizard have advantages white wizards wouldn't but let it be our choice.
We do have that now, though? While the 'white wizard' variant may not quite be up to snuff (the core of Fleur's position being the lack of reliable instant kill), we probably have a pretty diverse group of wizards about - some even following the broader / more diverse 'grey wizard' path.
>>is that he wielded a sword
Quick trivia! How many creatures is Gandalf known to slay with Glamdring? Bonus points for 'alone' and 'with magic'.
>>you going all semantics about it
You keep using this term. I do not think it means what you think it means. Try . . . harder?
>>You seem like a smart guy
Probably not - it's why I keep asking questions and trying to sort through things. It would appear, though, that asking questions and trying to get consistent responses is leading to labels and humor that is too easily misunderstood as snark. I'm at least smart enough to see evasion of the question being asked - so, done! I now and forever have you pegged as someone who does not accept the concept of base functionality.
"Your training is complete."
So I'll use different means to persuade, should I need to in the future. ;)
>> I want the option for a single or two macro kill for a booster + kill spell combo that results in the same quality of life in daily hunting that the other pures enjoy.
In keeping with that asking questions thing - the concept of 'quality of life in daily hunting' is getting terribly muddled. It consists of mana, time, round time, damage, player discomfort, crit, macro, script (avoidance), and probably a few things I hope I can be forgiven for not recalling directly. Can we simplify this a bit?
I'll start a new thread with a few ideas about handling this problem.
Doug
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 06:46 PM CDT
>It consists of mana, time, round time, damage, player discomfort, crit, macro, script (avoidance)
It's not at all muddled, but hopefully Viduus understands. My only concern about the post-cap, single target instant kill is casts per kill (= macros per kill, no scripting needed, and player comfort all in one), assuming that the time per kill parity holds true. To this end, I don't care if I have to pay extra mana vs. the other pures (single target 950), it's a new spell instead of an evoked 950 (focused 525), or some other solution that addresses the issues with attrition-based bolting and EBP such that the same time per kill and casts per kill result is delivered.
Viduus argued that 515+519x3 delivers the same result as 240+317 and 240+1115 when considering time per kill only (even ignoring mana considerations), but it actually does not due to the way the spells are set up to prioritize concussion damage vs. crit cycles. No one said anything about round time in any of the above.
It's not at all muddled, but hopefully Viduus understands. My only concern about the post-cap, single target instant kill is casts per kill (= macros per kill, no scripting needed, and player comfort all in one), assuming that the time per kill parity holds true. To this end, I don't care if I have to pay extra mana vs. the other pures (single target 950), it's a new spell instead of an evoked 950 (focused 525), or some other solution that addresses the issues with attrition-based bolting and EBP such that the same time per kill and casts per kill result is delivered.
Viduus argued that 515+519x3 delivers the same result as 240+317 and 240+1115 when considering time per kill only (even ignoring mana considerations), but it actually does not due to the way the spells are set up to prioritize concussion damage vs. crit cycles. No one said anything about round time in any of the above.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 06:58 PM CDT
To give another example of work this Dev team has done for other spiritual professions that is excellent and I thoroughly enjoy and approve of, let's take for example Viduus's work on group spells. This was a positive benefit for all, yet at the same time protects the professions for whom they were designed because the caster is required to be present in the group for the benefits to be retained. When I talk about giving everything wizards have away for free, look no further than 515, which is still inexplicably other-cast despite not being imbeddable even after all the nerfs, and there's no restriction on the wizard needing to be present as part of the group.
ALLENM20
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 08:59 PM CDT
I can understand if wizards are taking twice as long to kill mobs or even if their average hunt is a few minutes higher compared to other pures.
But what I keep reading is that wizards have to hit more keys per kill?
What?
I feel for ya if you have physical limitations that affect your ability to enjoy the game but I don't feel the deva need to give wizards a single macro kill spell when other tools have been provided, scripts. Scripts are supported by simultaneously as in game tool to alleviate the tedium of all the typing for stuff.
Need to get 10 herbs to turn in for a bounty? Script. If you're typing out everything single command without utilizing scripts I can only shake my head.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
But what I keep reading is that wizards have to hit more keys per kill?
What?
I feel for ya if you have physical limitations that affect your ability to enjoy the game but I don't feel the deva need to give wizards a single macro kill spell when other tools have been provided, scripts. Scripts are supported by simultaneously as in game tool to alleviate the tedium of all the typing for stuff.
Need to get 10 herbs to turn in for a bounty? Script. If you're typing out everything single command without utilizing scripts I can only shake my head.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 09:10 PM CDT
>I feel for ya if you have physical limitations that affect your ability to enjoy the game but I don't feel the deva need to give wizards a single macro kill spell when other tools have been provided, scripts. Scripts are supported by simultaneously as in game tool to alleviate the tedium of all the typing for stuff.
I don't have physical limitations, but I don't want to go down the road of having them because of this game either. I'm not the only one who brings this point up either. Someone else recently posted about it on the PC.
Every other post-cap profession enjoys a single macro/kill ability, from spiritual pures to warriors, rogues, rangers, bards, etc. I'm looking for parity in the quality of life of daily offensive combat among professions, particularly in comparison to what wizards used to enjoy before the nerfs, just like everyone else.
I don't have physical limitations, but I don't want to go down the road of having them because of this game either. I'm not the only one who brings this point up either. Someone else recently posted about it on the PC.
Every other post-cap profession enjoys a single macro/kill ability, from spiritual pures to warriors, rogues, rangers, bards, etc. I'm looking for parity in the quality of life of daily offensive combat among professions, particularly in comparison to what wizards used to enjoy before the nerfs, just like everyone else.
DOUG
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 09:14 PM CDT
>>when considering time per kill . . . No one said anything about round time in any of the above.
It's entirely possible I oversimplified. "time per kill" I took to mean round time. The only other way I could understand it would be the antithesis to damage over time (or dead as a single action.)
Is that what you meant?
Doug
It's entirely possible I oversimplified. "time per kill" I took to mean round time. The only other way I could understand it would be the antithesis to damage over time (or dead as a single action.)
Is that what you meant?
Doug
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 09:17 PM CDT
>It's entirely possible I oversimplified. "time per kill" I took to mean round time. The only other way I could understand it would be the antithesis to damage over time (or dead as a single action.)
In this instance when talking about the various pures, I mean Cast Time, as I think Viduus did as well. He's saying that due to 515, more casts of other spells will result in the equivalent lethality as a single cast of a cleric or empath spell under 240.
In this instance when talking about the various pures, I mean Cast Time, as I think Viduus did as well. He's saying that due to 515, more casts of other spells will result in the equivalent lethality as a single cast of a cleric or empath spell under 240.
ALLENM20
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 09:17 PM CDT
Like a lot of folks on here I've played a lot of games. Take fighting games for example.
Some characters are easy to play and the special moves fairly easy to execute.
Others are seriously complex and you almost need a third hand or extra fingers.
Also, when talking about mmos in general, that kind of button pressing disparity exists in just about every game. I think it's almost a feature as some folks get bored with characters or classes that don't require a lot of interaction and some folks love to be mashing buttons and be engaged.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
Some characters are easy to play and the special moves fairly easy to execute.
Others are seriously complex and you almost need a third hand or extra fingers.
Also, when talking about mmos in general, that kind of button pressing disparity exists in just about every game. I think it's almost a feature as some folks get bored with characters or classes that don't require a lot of interaction and some folks love to be mashing buttons and be engaged.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 09:22 PM CDT
>Others are seriously complex and you almost need a third hand or extra fingers.
And that's fine, as long as the choice is there. The choice is there to simplify and make post-cap combat more effective for every other profession if one is sufficiently experienced, trained, and enhanced. That's all I'm asking for, the tools that everyone else enjoys.
>Also, when talking about mmos in general, that kind of button pressing disparity exists in just about every game. I think it's almost a feature as some folks get bored with characters or classes that don't require a lot of interaction and some folks love to be mashing buttons and be engaged.
The disparity here exists among pre-cap and post-cap, but among post-cap professions, I don't appreciate most of all the fact that post-cap pure wizard quality of life was nerfed significantly vs. every other post-cap profession except monks. It's not what many post-cap pure wizards enjoyed about the profession or game before, and I disagree with the notion of forcing players down into one single path of acceptable play style. I also disagree that it's reasonable to expect people to script everything to compensate. When tedium is introduced such that people feel the need to script or automate it away, it's too grindy and doesn't add to the enjoyment of daily playing.
And that's fine, as long as the choice is there. The choice is there to simplify and make post-cap combat more effective for every other profession if one is sufficiently experienced, trained, and enhanced. That's all I'm asking for, the tools that everyone else enjoys.
>Also, when talking about mmos in general, that kind of button pressing disparity exists in just about every game. I think it's almost a feature as some folks get bored with characters or classes that don't require a lot of interaction and some folks love to be mashing buttons and be engaged.
The disparity here exists among pre-cap and post-cap, but among post-cap professions, I don't appreciate most of all the fact that post-cap pure wizard quality of life was nerfed significantly vs. every other post-cap profession except monks. It's not what many post-cap pure wizards enjoyed about the profession or game before, and I disagree with the notion of forcing players down into one single path of acceptable play style. I also disagree that it's reasonable to expect people to script everything to compensate. When tedium is introduced such that people feel the need to script or automate it away, it's too grindy and doesn't add to the enjoyment of daily playing.
ALLENM20
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 09:43 PM CDT
| The disparity here exists among pre-cap and post-cap, but among post-cap professions, I don't appreciate most of all the fact that post-cap pure wizard quality of life was nerfed significantly vs. every other post-cap profession except monks. It's not what many post-cap pure wizards enjoyed about the profession or game before, and I disagree with the notion of forcing players down into one single path of acceptable play style. |
I really don't understand this post-cap/pre-cap stuff. I mean if you can get to level 100 just dandy, how is it harder after you've earned another 50 levels of experience and improved your skills even further?
The core of what I've been able to gather is that before all this ELR business wizards could walk into a room and cast immolate and kill something in one shot most of the time. Now they can't? You talk of single paths of acceptable play style, but it seems you're most upset that "your" play style was disrupted.
| I also disagree that it's reasonable to expect people to script everything to compensate. When tedium is introduced such that people feel the need to script or automate it away, it's too grindy and doesn't add to the enjoyment of daily playing. |
Whether it is seen as tedium is purely subjective and opinion based and may change as a person gets older of course. When I was in my teens I did not have the patience to enjoy this game, I mostly liked making new characters and fiddling with numbers and stats.
Now that I'm in my 30s I greatly enjoy the role play aspect of the game and just interacting with folks and seeing how things develop. Hunting can be fun, but if I could sit around and gain experience from roleplaying and interacting with folks I'd prefer to do that.
If I've heard you correctly, you don't like to script as a personal choice. No problem, I can respect that. A way to reduce the tedium you are referencing has been provided in the form of macros and scripts though. I don't think its fair to ask the devs to make a change because you personally choose not to use the tools provided that are commonly accept by the general population of Gemstone. I definitely feel confident in saying that the majority of players utilize scripts to alleviate what they might see as tedium in keystrokes and generally make their gaming sessions more enjoyable.
I also gather that you're very passionate about Gemstone and want to see it continue to be successful. I think the disconnect though, is that while you liked things a certain way and see some changes as a negative; the devs probably have access to information such as new subscriptions, recurring subscriptions, number of active playing wizards, etc. I can only assume that their privileged information demonstrates that the changes they are making are mostly positive.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas
04/26/2017 09:50 PM CDT
>I really don't understand this post-cap/pre-cap stuff. I mean if you can get to level 100 just dandy, how is it harder after you've earned another 50 levels of experience and improved your skills even further?
The whole point of progressing post-cap is to become more efficient and skilled such that one can cut down on the tedium, improve survivability, etc. This is the same thing every other profession enjoys. If at an offensive level, one can achieve everything pre-cap that will be their ultimate power ceiling, then it's just time to call it a day on the profession.
>Whether it is seen as tedium is purely subjective and opinion based and may change as a person gets older of course. When I was in my teens I did not have the patience to enjoy this game, I mostly liked making new characters and fiddling with numbers and stats.
Of course it's subjective. I'm offering my opinion.
>If I've heard you correctly, you don't like to script as a personal choice. No problem, I can respect that. A way to reduce the tedium you are referencing has been provided in the form of macros and scripts though. I don't think its fair to ask the devs to make a change because you personally choose not to use the tools provided that are commonly accept by the general population of Gemstone. I definitely feel confident in saying that the majority of players utilize scripts to alleviate what they might see as tedium in keystrokes and generally make their gaming sessions more enjoyable.
I use macros, I don't use combat scripts. They shouldn't be required either for combat instead of utility tasks, as they aren't for any other post-cap profession. I disagree because most of the general population uses Lich and combat scripts, it's reasonable to design around the expectation that everyone does or finds it fun. That's not a "tool" then, it's a necessity and completely changes what people enjoyed about the game.
>I also gather that you're very passionate about Gemstone and want to see it continue to be successful. I think the disconnect though, is that while you liked things a certain way and see some changes as a negative; the devs probably have access to information such as new subscriptions, recurring subscriptions, number of active playing wizards, etc. I can only assume that their privileged information demonstrates that the changes they are making are mostly positive.
Many post-cap wizards sold out and so their characters are still floating around the lands as someone's pocket bot, but I disagree that's a positive change for the game. Numbers can only tell you so much. The numbers may say that everyone is scripting through all the combat now on post-cap wizards and just ignore the tedium, while I am here to offer my perspective that my other spiritual pures do not have to do the same thing. I gather that you may not agree with my opinion, but it doesn't invalidate my opinion (backed up by numbers previously posted) that post-cap, single-target combat for a pure wizard is more tedious than for any other pure.
The whole point of progressing post-cap is to become more efficient and skilled such that one can cut down on the tedium, improve survivability, etc. This is the same thing every other profession enjoys. If at an offensive level, one can achieve everything pre-cap that will be their ultimate power ceiling, then it's just time to call it a day on the profession.
>Whether it is seen as tedium is purely subjective and opinion based and may change as a person gets older of course. When I was in my teens I did not have the patience to enjoy this game, I mostly liked making new characters and fiddling with numbers and stats.
Of course it's subjective. I'm offering my opinion.
>If I've heard you correctly, you don't like to script as a personal choice. No problem, I can respect that. A way to reduce the tedium you are referencing has been provided in the form of macros and scripts though. I don't think its fair to ask the devs to make a change because you personally choose not to use the tools provided that are commonly accept by the general population of Gemstone. I definitely feel confident in saying that the majority of players utilize scripts to alleviate what they might see as tedium in keystrokes and generally make their gaming sessions more enjoyable.
I use macros, I don't use combat scripts. They shouldn't be required either for combat instead of utility tasks, as they aren't for any other post-cap profession. I disagree because most of the general population uses Lich and combat scripts, it's reasonable to design around the expectation that everyone does or finds it fun. That's not a "tool" then, it's a necessity and completely changes what people enjoyed about the game.
>I also gather that you're very passionate about Gemstone and want to see it continue to be successful. I think the disconnect though, is that while you liked things a certain way and see some changes as a negative; the devs probably have access to information such as new subscriptions, recurring subscriptions, number of active playing wizards, etc. I can only assume that their privileged information demonstrates that the changes they are making are mostly positive.
Many post-cap wizards sold out and so their characters are still floating around the lands as someone's pocket bot, but I disagree that's a positive change for the game. Numbers can only tell you so much. The numbers may say that everyone is scripting through all the combat now on post-cap wizards and just ignore the tedium, while I am here to offer my perspective that my other spiritual pures do not have to do the same thing. I gather that you may not agree with my opinion, but it doesn't invalidate my opinion (backed up by numbers previously posted) that post-cap, single-target combat for a pure wizard is more tedious than for any other pure.
CANDIDE
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas 519 tangent
04/27/2017 01:01 AM CDT
"It did actually. The conclusions drawn were just wrong, which was probably a result of the sample sizes. Despite common belief, 519 can hold it's own against 317 and 1115, even without 150 fire lore ranks, and the numbers do support this with an appropriate sample size.gs4-viduus"
I think this is where I am running into a slight disagreement with this and that is because of the how I look at 519. What the GMs expected of 519 and what we/I the player(s) expected from 519 might very well be different. We were shown a huge sample size in an excel sheet (GM created and thus far easier to get than me slogging through hunting logs) after we showed what our smaller sample sizes showed to us as 519 being inadequate.
From what I remember from that excel sheet...and I have no idea how to find it but it had 519 as better against 1 or 2 creatures and worse against all other creatures from the sample sheet which was all capped creature vs 1115 and 317. That to me wasn't 519 holding its own. I felt that it needs to be as good at the very least when comparing it to 317 and 1115. 713 isn't worse just because it is a sorcerer bolt it just costs more than splashing wizard bolts. Even though a quick glance at the numbers says hey it is better than wizard splashing bolts. That is what I wanted for 519. I wanted something that was as good or better than 317/1115. Something that cost more but was worth using when appropriate. Not almost always worse than one or the other 317/1115 versus the creatures I would be hunting for the majority of my time in gemstone (capped hunting.)
If indeed 519 isn't supposed to be on par with 317/1115 and is supposed to be almost always never first of the three then ok. For me 917 has made up the slack admirably and the GMs provided me with an alternative.
GBB
I think this is where I am running into a slight disagreement with this and that is because of the how I look at 519. What the GMs expected of 519 and what we/I the player(s) expected from 519 might very well be different. We were shown a huge sample size in an excel sheet (GM created and thus far easier to get than me slogging through hunting logs) after we showed what our smaller sample sizes showed to us as 519 being inadequate.
From what I remember from that excel sheet...and I have no idea how to find it but it had 519 as better against 1 or 2 creatures and worse against all other creatures from the sample sheet which was all capped creature vs 1115 and 317. That to me wasn't 519 holding its own. I felt that it needs to be as good at the very least when comparing it to 317 and 1115. 713 isn't worse just because it is a sorcerer bolt it just costs more than splashing wizard bolts. Even though a quick glance at the numbers says hey it is better than wizard splashing bolts. That is what I wanted for 519. I wanted something that was as good or better than 317/1115. Something that cost more but was worth using when appropriate. Not almost always worse than one or the other 317/1115 versus the creatures I would be hunting for the majority of my time in gemstone (capped hunting.)
If indeed 519 isn't supposed to be on par with 317/1115 and is supposed to be almost always never first of the three then ok. For me 917 has made up the slack admirably and the GMs provided me with an alternative.
GBB
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas 519 tangent
04/27/2017 01:18 AM CDT
>If indeed 519 isn't supposed to be on par with 317/1115 and is supposed to be almost always never first of the three then ok.
I agree with this and also of the assessment that the spreadsheet provided by GM Estild back then showed that they were not on par.
>For me 917 has made up the slack admirably and the GMs provided me with an alternative.
917 is indeed a good alternative, however, being DoT and entirely reliant on crits, it doesn't provide the same effect of either cast/kill or time/kill parity as 240+317 or 240+1115.
I agree with this and also of the assessment that the spreadsheet provided by GM Estild back then showed that they were not on par.
>For me 917 has made up the slack admirably and the GMs provided me with an alternative.
917 is indeed a good alternative, however, being DoT and entirely reliant on crits, it doesn't provide the same effect of either cast/kill or time/kill parity as 240+317 or 240+1115.
DOUG
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas 519 tangent
04/27/2017 08:22 AM CDT
>>For me 917 has made up the slack admirably and the GMs provided me with an alternative.
I wonder if our thinking on this should just flip over. We revisit 519 continuously, but clearly the profession circle should have this type of power (and it's comparable to the spirit spells), not the major spell circle. So 519 isn't what we should focus our target on, and the 'punishment' for 519's current situation should possibly just stop.
917 works out exceptionally well in its place. The only thing preventing it from being the total win replacement I personally would characterize as - it isn't quite as effective broad-spectrum as the spiritual spells seem to be.
What's that mean? That means that against lighter armor foes at like level it seems to be cruising in at an appropriately high kill ratio. But as the AsG increases, the spell performance decreases. It's still pretty cool, but if one were likely to just compare contrast at the dead > not dead level as we see so often, then it would suffer badly.
We should probably have a 917 / heavy armors thread going - and set 519 aside to its now clarified purpose. Or, some other profession spell. And even then - we should probably (longer / healthier lives) be prepared to embrace diversity and celebrate differences rather than asking for absolute parity and everything being done in a single macro. . .
Kill buttons for everyone! Except me.
Doug
I wonder if our thinking on this should just flip over. We revisit 519 continuously, but clearly the profession circle should have this type of power (and it's comparable to the spirit spells), not the major spell circle. So 519 isn't what we should focus our target on, and the 'punishment' for 519's current situation should possibly just stop.
917 works out exceptionally well in its place. The only thing preventing it from being the total win replacement I personally would characterize as - it isn't quite as effective broad-spectrum as the spiritual spells seem to be.
What's that mean? That means that against lighter armor foes at like level it seems to be cruising in at an appropriately high kill ratio. But as the AsG increases, the spell performance decreases. It's still pretty cool, but if one were likely to just compare contrast at the dead > not dead level as we see so often, then it would suffer badly.
We should probably have a 917 / heavy armors thread going - and set 519 aside to its now clarified purpose. Or, some other profession spell. And even then - we should probably (longer / healthier lives) be prepared to embrace diversity and celebrate differences rather than asking for absolute parity and everything being done in a single macro. . .
Kill buttons for everyone! Except me.
Doug
LADYFLEUR
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas 519 tangent
04/27/2017 08:32 AM CDT
>the 'punishment' for 519's current situation should possibly just stop.
>We should probably have a 917 / heavy armors thread going - and set 519 aside to its now clarified purpose.
It would be great if you would stop deciding for people when a conversation should stop. 519 is still being discussed because for argument's sake, GM Viduus brought it up just above in his comment about 515+519x3. Clearly the expectation is that Dev thinks it's on par and sufficient to address the issue, so we're discussing why it isn't.
>The only thing preventing it from being the total win replacement I personally would characterize as - it isn't quite as effective broad-spectrum as the spiritual spells seem to be.
The armor is only one part of it. It's also DoT and entirely crit based, which, with no further power boost, renders it ineffective as the replacement I'm seeking for time per kill and cast per kill parity for most creatures.
>Kill buttons for everyone! Except me.
And that's perfectly fine. Tools are necessary so that one can choose to play as one desires. Without them though, that choice is gone. More real choice for everyone!
>We should probably have a 917 / heavy armors thread going - and set 519 aside to its now clarified purpose.
It would be great if you would stop deciding for people when a conversation should stop. 519 is still being discussed because for argument's sake, GM Viduus brought it up just above in his comment about 515+519x3. Clearly the expectation is that Dev thinks it's on par and sufficient to address the issue, so we're discussing why it isn't.
>The only thing preventing it from being the total win replacement I personally would characterize as - it isn't quite as effective broad-spectrum as the spiritual spells seem to be.
The armor is only one part of it. It's also DoT and entirely crit based, which, with no further power boost, renders it ineffective as the replacement I'm seeking for time per kill and cast per kill parity for most creatures.
>Kill buttons for everyone! Except me.
And that's perfectly fine. Tools are necessary so that one can choose to play as one desires. Without them though, that choice is gone. More real choice for everyone!
KRAKII
Re: Charge Item (517) Improvement Ideas 519 tangent
04/27/2017 09:38 AM CDT
"From what I remember from that excel sheet...and I have no idea how to find it but it had 519 as better against 1 or 2 creatures and worse against all other creatures from the sample sheet which was all capped creature vs 1115 and 317." -- Some Bard
I think I recall the same comparison, and I too don't recall where it was located. My interpretation of it said/what the GMs were using it to demonstrate, was that 519 was comparable to those other spells, each standing on their own merits. (And probably even a little juicier than 1115, being +25% higher spell.)
But.
As Fleurs points out, it falls behind when the Spirit casters are using 240 (though note that it means they're blowing through 40 extra mana every minute/yet getting free casts out of it, but on the gripping hand wizards can RapidFire and ManaLeech, so...), and it falls behind when the Spirit casters have Lore helping those two spells.
"But Lore helps 519, too!" Yeah, but not in the same way it used to. (And again, Fleurs' argument: in a more diluted manner than on the Spirit side.)
Now there's an "either/or" selection, and I suspect most wizards are looking in the "either" column and might not have tried the "or" enough. (i.e. They're routing solely to try for the crit-kill [which is now far less reliable] and possibly giving too little credence to "Fine, just melt all the HPs off, now with Extra Spicy.")
I think I recall the same comparison, and I too don't recall where it was located. My interpretation of it said/what the GMs were using it to demonstrate, was that 519 was comparable to those other spells, each standing on their own merits. (And probably even a little juicier than 1115, being +25% higher spell.)
But.
As Fleurs points out, it falls behind when the Spirit casters are using 240 (though note that it means they're blowing through 40 extra mana every minute/yet getting free casts out of it, but on the gripping hand wizards can RapidFire and ManaLeech, so...), and it falls behind when the Spirit casters have Lore helping those two spells.
"But Lore helps 519, too!" Yeah, but not in the same way it used to. (And again, Fleurs' argument: in a more diluted manner than on the Spirit side.)
Now there's an "either/or" selection, and I suspect most wizards are looking in the "either" column and might not have tried the "or" enough. (i.e. They're routing solely to try for the crit-kill [which is now far less reliable] and possibly giving too little credence to "Fine, just melt all the HPs off, now with Extra Spicy.")
