That was I say that was a JOKE, son. </Foghorn Leghorn>

(I was playing off your quote of me saying, "3 percent" and you then saying "okay, 3 percent" to me saying something--relevant to a thread in another topic about documentable changes due to player feedback and interaction--with my personal count now being SIX [with emphasis], to you then saying, "okay, 6 percent.")

It's a lot less funny when it has to be explained. :(

> I'm not sure if you're serious or not.

Quite serious. No shenanigans here.

~ Konacon

>> I'm not sure if you're serious or not. Can you update the saved post page if you are? I tacked the 5% into the first post. I can't keep up with this anymore.

Maybe you should consider waiting for 24 hours or something after the spell is released/announced. It might be easier/create less work for you.

Also, I hadn't noticed any updates on 415 so I went ahead and posted an update for that last night.

-- Robert

"All wizards are beginners; some of us have just been beginning longer!"

>Maybe you should consider waiting for 24 hours or something after the spell is released/announced. It might be easier/create less work for you.

actually no, then I have to go back to the thread and search and the forums are terrible for that.

> DAMNIT- WHY DIDN'T WE ASK FOR ZERO?

Right?! That'll teach ya!

~ Konacon

>> > DAMNIT- WHY DIDN'T WE ASK FOR ZERO?

>> Right?! That'll teach ya!

>> ~ Konacon

Can I have a fire breathing warhorse?

-- Robert

"All wizards are beginners; some of us have just been beginning longer!"

Thanks for adjusting the failure rate.

<<<I'm asking that when we review these spells we ask the question: If this spell is indeed underutilized, what can we do to address that? I suppose you could say not every spell is going to be useful to every person, but it seems like a cop out. There are very good reasons why this spell is not particularly useful, and while I am not asking that the lore tie-in necessarily address those issues all on its own, I am asking that we change the base functionality of useless spells to make them useful. "Useless" being rather subjective, I can see why you don't understand. But certainly you can see how the spell could be more useful? Why it fails to be as useful as it could be?>>>

I think it's perfectly functional as it is, and the new water lore element gives it even greater utility. While I understand your feeling that it's "not particularly useful," I simply disagree. I think it's rather powerful, even more so now. A few ranks of water lore won't make it especially appealing. But a character heavily invested in water lore would see a fairly substantial mana gain over several pulses. Furthermore, the elemental lore review wasn't really meant to redesign spells, but to add lore functionality. To this end, this update seems quite thoughtful.

I don't think it's a cop-out to say not every spell will be useful to every person. People have different styles of play, and that's a good thing. I always like to existing spells and find creative ways of making them useful, rather than expecting the GMs to change the spells to suit my style of playing.

~ GtG

<<<Perhaps you're only addressing Taverkin with "you" in this instance. You're certainly not referring to me and likely not referring to any character level 60ish and below. Unless you have an atypically high training in EMC, or a very near-capped wizard with typical training, it's very likely that your character's failure rate has increased. Frankly, it's unlikely that many (any?) characters have seen a decrease in failure rate.>>>

Now that I will agree concerns me. But I haven't actually gotten far enough through all this to investigate, so...I'm reserving comments until I see the net effect. Not that I don't believe you, I just haven't put this to the test yet. If your failure rates are accurate, then that's truly alarming. We'll see....

~ GtG

As a brief reminder to the GM team - a straight forward request for the prior 418 success formula was posted shortly after launch. I'm interested in seeing it myself.

And I'd hate to have that request get lost in the clutter - especially now that it seems a bit more urgent.

Doug

>Is .5x training in EMC typical?

For sorcerers, yes. A typical split is .5x for spiritual and elemental lore. 1xing both is likely somewhat common, but that's fairly expensive. I doubt most other pures 2x mana controls.

<I don't think it's a cop-out to say not every spell will be useful to every person. People have different styles of play, and that's a good thing. I always like to existing spells and find <creative ways of making them useful, rather than expecting the GMs to change the spells to suit my style of playing.

Well, the thing is it isn't really about MY style of playing. It's more about the average user. Obviously, my evidence is anecdotal, but I feel very confident in saying that the vast majority of players do not find regular use for this spell. I don't think it's a mystery why that is: it can kill you, it drains significant amounts of mana in addition to injury/death upon failure, and provides a rather small amount of additional mana over time.

Consider that the base cost of the spell is 18 mana. In order for the 10% boost to your pulse to restore that amount you already need to be somewhere around level 50 (depending upon EMC, harness power, and starting mana stat). So you cast, then you wait.

Next, consider the success rate. EMC/2 + MnE/4 + aura stat. For most wizards at level 50, this will mean <75% success rate. And remember, a failure drains a bunch of mana and causes injury and possibly death. To say nothing of the way basing it off this equation rather than the previous level-based success roll now renders this spell far less useful to anyone who doesn't train heavily in EMC and MnE.

At the high end, where success rate is not an issue, mana is likewise less of an issue. Waiting around for an extra 45 mana per 2 minutes isn't all that helpful when my average kill costs about that much mana to begin with!

Finally, consider that the spell provides no benefit on node. So where do you use this spell? It's a bad bet in hunting for the reasons described above in addition to the fact that you now limit yourself to standing in one room or having to try and return to that room to catch the pulse. The only regular use I can think of at this point is the warcamp situation, where the area is very small and gen rate is very high, and there is a benefit to remaining at the entrance to begin with.

It would be so easy to make changes to this spell that broaden its appeal. Again, you're welcome to disagree that it's necessary, but in that sense what is "necessary"? Is it necessary that monks be enjoyable? Or is it enough that a player exists who enjoys the class? How do we determine what is necessary from a game design standpoint? I would argue the defining characteristic of successful design is player utilization. Do players find the design rewarding/enjoyable enough that they typically participate/utilize the ability or system in question? If that doesn't matter to you, I don't think we can see eye to eye on any discussion of game design.

~Taverkin

>>Why can't we have these spells updated to fit with the current design philosophies? I don't see ensorcelling taking 8 months of locker time and risking item ruination. Enchanting should be more like that.

Alright you ruffians! This is the Minor Elemental topic, not the traditional topic of whining and moaning. I swear, Tav, if the current wizard posting style tends any more towards whining sorczards of the 2K's, I'm personally going to blame you! The Elf might have to play 'punt the halfer' like he used to with that giantman warrior ages past.

Dignity, gentle people of the wizened wizardly profession, dignity.

And don't compare Ensorcell to Enchant, without comparing the striking differences and weaknesses, too.

I'll appreciate what improvements Enchant might get - but comparing a spell that creates a permanent and long term always available effect at 25 mana to one that creates a lesser permanent and long term sometimes might fire effect at 35 mana is just. . . well, it just isnt!

So, dignity, calm, wizardly reserve.

Sheesh!

Doug

>Now I'm really curious, along with Doug, what the previous success rate was? There's no way it could have been this bad.

Level was probably the most important factor. When I capped my rogue I had 18 MnE, around 100 mana for 410, and no other magical skills to speak of. I tested out 418 and cast it a good 30 times without any failures.

I know I've had 1 failure recently but I don't think I've had another in the past few years regularly using it around 1/week.

<I now find myself siding with Taverkin and others (which is a pretty significant statement!!). I'll never use this spell with such lousy failure rates and high chance of injury. My lowest <failure rate is 20%. It's just not worth it.

But...every spell isn't useful to every player.

KIDDING! I'm kidding! Don't kill me!

~Taverkin

<<<KIDDING! I'm kidding! Don't kill me!>>>

RUN.

~ GtG

>>there is the permanent CvA change on staves and armor/shields.

Equivalent of (ultimately) 10 TD for the masses. And very nice of the sorcerer to share with those masses, too.

Good point that it's always on, though - I sit corrected, whiskey poised. . .

Doug

I'm not trying to get ensorcell nerfed, but it's worth noting how design philosophy has changed over the years. Acting like the mana difference matters *at all* is a specious argument at best. Who the hell is having their ensorcelling limited by their manapool not being able to generate the 35 mana?

The value of enchant vs ensorcell is completely dependent on if you value TD or DS more, I wouldn't say one is clearly superior over the other.

But that is neither here nor there, it was strictly an example of the change in the times. Ensorcell would never have been designed this way back when enchanting was being coded, and enchanting would never be made now the way it is currently coded.

That's what makes this so disappointing. This was a golden opportunity to make the spell usable and instead they made it worse. I find this extremely disheartening as I was hoping to see changes to 930 and 925 to move them into the current decade in terms of risk vs reward. I now feel I will be drastically disappointed.

I'm wondering if the Minor Elemental circle isn't "allowed" to be given as strong of lore-based benefits as Major Elemental and Wizard spells. That's at least what we're all hoping for, right? That the improvements to Wizard specific spells will have a much greater impact than those being made to the Minor Elemental circle.

<That's the value on the consumer end. On the provider side, you have to kill 1000 critters a week to ensorcell while enchanting can be done without actually playing the character.

I don't think pocket wizards are really a benefit to the game, personally. More a side-effect of the design. But then again, forcing players who don't want to play those characters to subject themselves to an endless grind isn't exactly a thrilling prospect, either. Although I would point out that you don't need to kill 1000 monsters per week. That's the maximum. If, for instance, you wanted to drag it out for, say, a comparable enchantment - how about T1-T5 vs. 4x-7x? - then you would only need 450 kills per week. Does that seem more reasonable?

I may be biased. I actually play my wizard, so I would definitely prefer a hunting-based system like ensorcel to enchanting. I really hate enchanting. I always forget to check my tempers and end up taking longer than necessary. It's just a boring system with far too much time inbetween. And the failures are about as fun as drilling a hole through your head.

~Taverkin