Previous
I like Kraki's idea of duplicate item creating multiple images of the wizard to cast bolts. Couldn't the way demons + balefire work together be adapted for wizards with duplicate item?
Many games have an ability that creates shadows to absorb an attack for the player as well. Invisibility being converted to something like this where each cast will grant you a copy/shadow to absorb a successful hit, spell, or maneuver with more copies/shadows dependent on lore would be awesome.
As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear.
AIM: Kaight (Matt) GS4
ALLENM20
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 11:59 AM CDT
>I don't agree that allowing 4 elemental lores influence a single spell always results in mediocrity for all choices.
I disagree when 925, what I consider a capstone spell for wizards, allowed for only wizards with water lore to access a mana pool. If the expectation is that wizards should have to make hard choices about the direction to take their character, it makes sense that if one who trains primarily for the most powerful offense cannot enjoy utility functions such as time savings or a mana pool, then I equally expect the same wizards who choose to focus on utility/defense to have to make hard choices when it comes to offense. It's unreasonable to allow one subset of wizards to have all the cake while eliminating certain benefits from other wizards.
As a core offensive booster, I would expect 940 to fall in line with the fire/earth split for primary functionality with any air/water lore being true bonuses and not a necessity to achieve 1 cast, 1 kill. 950 is a good example of this. Similarly, those who choose to prioritize their defense get the most benefit out of 550.
I disagree when 925, what I consider a capstone spell for wizards, allowed for only wizards with water lore to access a mana pool. If the expectation is that wizards should have to make hard choices about the direction to take their character, it makes sense that if one who trains primarily for the most powerful offense cannot enjoy utility functions such as time savings or a mana pool, then I equally expect the same wizards who choose to focus on utility/defense to have to make hard choices when it comes to offense. It's unreasonable to allow one subset of wizards to have all the cake while eliminating certain benefits from other wizards.
As a core offensive booster, I would expect 940 to fall in line with the fire/earth split for primary functionality with any air/water lore being true bonuses and not a necessity to achieve 1 cast, 1 kill. 950 is a good example of this. Similarly, those who choose to prioritize their defense get the most benefit out of 550.
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 12:04 PM CDT
>Also, you've specifically used the phrase "have cake and eat it too" as something you think wizards should get. Again, this feels like an intractable double standard
If this were the case, she would be advocating for wizards to be just as lethal with warding spells as we are (supposed to be) with bolts. Which she clearly isn't.
>It's like saying a wizard can technically wear double leathers just as well as a cleric. All they have to do is train more and track down armored fluidity all the time. It's just not the same.
But the capability is still there to do so. You don't think, for example, that if there were a way for wizards to cast 240 with the same effectiveness as a cleric, wizards everywhere would be falling over themselves to do so, even if it required more than just incant 240?
>I think I just need to end this line of discussion by saying I don't understand the premise you're coming from where you seem to only be happy with an improvement if no one else benefits (even to a lesser degree). :/
The ELR nerfs created a gap for wizards that needs to be filled. Other pures don't currently have this gap. What sense would it make to fill in the gap for everyone? It's like installing a new transmission to fix a flat tire when the old transmission, as well as the other 3 tires, work fine.
~ Methais
If this were the case, she would be advocating for wizards to be just as lethal with warding spells as we are (supposed to be) with bolts. Which she clearly isn't.
>It's like saying a wizard can technically wear double leathers just as well as a cleric. All they have to do is train more and track down armored fluidity all the time. It's just not the same.
But the capability is still there to do so. You don't think, for example, that if there were a way for wizards to cast 240 with the same effectiveness as a cleric, wizards everywhere would be falling over themselves to do so, even if it required more than just incant 240?
>I think I just need to end this line of discussion by saying I don't understand the premise you're coming from where you seem to only be happy with an improvement if no one else benefits (even to a lesser degree). :/
The ELR nerfs created a gap for wizards that needs to be filled. Other pures don't currently have this gap. What sense would it make to fill in the gap for everyone? It's like installing a new transmission to fix a flat tire when the old transmission, as well as the other 3 tires, work fine.
~ Methais
DRUMPEL
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 12:24 PM CDT
940 - how I envision it:
Based on the element you wish to align when you cast the spell will determine what other specific aspects will trigger.
EMC will determine the extra AS/DF boost applied to your bolts and total EBP reduction (EBP cannot be trained under 1% - this would be to match CS spells' 1% fumble).
Allow total EL ranks to give us a % change for an extra strike or two over the base amount (which we'll say is 3, based on the snip Estild posted).
I'd like to see the spell kept in line with how 520 was designed in a similar manner such as:
Each lore should be applied specifically by the caster when they cast the spell - like 520. INCANT 520 FIRE for example. You would INCANT 940 FIRE. If you don't choose an element, one will be randomly applied or it will default to your ATTUNE element.
INCANT 940 FIRE
Based on your EL:F ranks, you could have improved crit power for each bolt cast.
INCANT 940 WATER
Based on your EL:W ranks, you could have improved chances to recoup some mana from each bolt cast while under the duration.
INCANT 940 AIR
Based on your EL:A ranks, you could have improved chances to extend the duration of the 940 spell from each bolt cast.
INCANT 940 EARTH
Based on your EL:E ranks, you could have improved damage weight for each bolt cast.
INCANT 940 LIGHTNING
Based on your EL:A/W ranks, you could have an improved chance to gain an extra damage cycle from each bolt cast.
These are just examples above, but you get the idea. Allow the spell's base functionality to not exclude any specific lore trained wizard. Then let their lore ranks be what determines how beneficial the extra outcome will be when they're under the duration of the spell.
-Drumpel
Based on the element you wish to align when you cast the spell will determine what other specific aspects will trigger.
EMC will determine the extra AS/DF boost applied to your bolts and total EBP reduction (EBP cannot be trained under 1% - this would be to match CS spells' 1% fumble).
Allow total EL ranks to give us a % change for an extra strike or two over the base amount (which we'll say is 3, based on the snip Estild posted).
I'd like to see the spell kept in line with how 520 was designed in a similar manner such as:
Each lore should be applied specifically by the caster when they cast the spell - like 520. INCANT 520 FIRE for example. You would INCANT 940 FIRE. If you don't choose an element, one will be randomly applied or it will default to your ATTUNE element.
INCANT 940 FIRE
Based on your EL:F ranks, you could have improved crit power for each bolt cast.
INCANT 940 WATER
Based on your EL:W ranks, you could have improved chances to recoup some mana from each bolt cast while under the duration.
INCANT 940 AIR
Based on your EL:A ranks, you could have improved chances to extend the duration of the 940 spell from each bolt cast.
INCANT 940 EARTH
Based on your EL:E ranks, you could have improved damage weight for each bolt cast.
INCANT 940 LIGHTNING
Based on your EL:A/W ranks, you could have an improved chance to gain an extra damage cycle from each bolt cast.
These are just examples above, but you get the idea. Allow the spell's base functionality to not exclude any specific lore trained wizard. Then let their lore ranks be what determines how beneficial the extra outcome will be when they're under the duration of the spell.
-Drumpel
PEREGRINEFALCON
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 12:26 PM CDT
>> >> >I don't agree that allowing 4 elemental lores influence a single spell always results in mediocrity for all choices.
>> I disagree when 925, what I consider a capstone spell for wizards, allowed for only wizards with water lore to access a mana pool.
This is not a hard choice and not a major factor for the spell. All wizards that know 925 can enchant items and 5 ranks of water lore is not some huge hurdle that requires making any sort of noticeable sacrifice to any of the other lore choices to achieve.
>> If the expectation is that wizards should have to make hard choices about the direction to take their character, it makes sense that if one who trains primarily for the most powerful offense cannot enjoy utility functions such as time savings or a mana pool, then I equally expect the same wizards who choose to focus on utility/defense to have to make hard choices when it comes to offense.
To repeat: Investing Five (5) Lore ranks is not a hard choice. And as someone that has 35 ranks in Water Lore I can tell you that you still aren't missing out on any major benefit with regard to time savings with 925 by not having this.
If you are arguing that I should have to sacrifice 5 of my water ranks to achieve something awesome on the offensive side of the equation then consider it done - just give me something offensively awesome that I need to train those 5 additional ranks for.
Something to consider: On one hand you are saying that you can't possibly part with 5 ranks of offensive lore because it would be too hard of a choice. Then on the other hand you are saying that you expect someone who trains for utility / defense to have to make equally hard choices... aren't you already arguing that they in fact have done this given your reluctance to part with even 5 lore ranks for 925 because it would be so impactful? Clearly by your reasoning they've sacraficed a lot and even more in order to train those defensive / utility lores to the extent they have.
Back to my original point: You can provide great options for all lores with some spells. Not being able to train in all of them doesn't make any of the great options mediocre. It simply means you have to make some choices about which features you want to take advantage of.
Additional Note: I'm still advocating for all elemental lores to add elemental flavor and provide offense/utility/defense but differently depending on the element. The current design direction / implementation with assigning certain elemental lores as offensive vs. utility vs. ... is a terrible direction both mechanically and from an RP flavor standpoint in my opinion.
-- Robert
>> I disagree when 925, what I consider a capstone spell for wizards, allowed for only wizards with water lore to access a mana pool.
This is not a hard choice and not a major factor for the spell. All wizards that know 925 can enchant items and 5 ranks of water lore is not some huge hurdle that requires making any sort of noticeable sacrifice to any of the other lore choices to achieve.
>> If the expectation is that wizards should have to make hard choices about the direction to take their character, it makes sense that if one who trains primarily for the most powerful offense cannot enjoy utility functions such as time savings or a mana pool, then I equally expect the same wizards who choose to focus on utility/defense to have to make hard choices when it comes to offense.
To repeat: Investing Five (5) Lore ranks is not a hard choice. And as someone that has 35 ranks in Water Lore I can tell you that you still aren't missing out on any major benefit with regard to time savings with 925 by not having this.
If you are arguing that I should have to sacrifice 5 of my water ranks to achieve something awesome on the offensive side of the equation then consider it done - just give me something offensively awesome that I need to train those 5 additional ranks for.
Something to consider: On one hand you are saying that you can't possibly part with 5 ranks of offensive lore because it would be too hard of a choice. Then on the other hand you are saying that you expect someone who trains for utility / defense to have to make equally hard choices... aren't you already arguing that they in fact have done this given your reluctance to part with even 5 lore ranks for 925 because it would be so impactful? Clearly by your reasoning they've sacraficed a lot and even more in order to train those defensive / utility lores to the extent they have.
Back to my original point: You can provide great options for all lores with some spells. Not being able to train in all of them doesn't make any of the great options mediocre. It simply means you have to make some choices about which features you want to take advantage of.
Additional Note: I'm still advocating for all elemental lores to add elemental flavor and provide offense/utility/defense but differently depending on the element. The current design direction / implementation with assigning certain elemental lores as offensive vs. utility vs. ... is a terrible direction both mechanically and from an RP flavor standpoint in my opinion.
-- Robert
VEYTHORNE
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 12:34 PM CDT
Spell 940: Changes 1 bolt/ball spell cast into 3 casts of the bolt/ball spell.
For every 50 ranks of EMC, you gain an additional bolt/ball spell cast.
EBP is reduced by total known EL ranks/2.
For every 50 ranks in a specific EL, the direct health damage (not crit) is doubled for spells within that category.
Fresh cap you can expect to have:
5 casts of a bolt/ball spell while active.
EBP reduced by 50%
Damage (for attrition) is based upon a specific lore.
So 100 ranks of EL:F would triple health damage for all fire spells. If you cast 906 and do 50 damage, at 50 ranks in EL:F you do 100 damage, at 100 ranks you do 150 damage, etc, etc.
For every 50 ranks of EMC, you gain an additional bolt/ball spell cast.
EBP is reduced by total known EL ranks/2.
For every 50 ranks in a specific EL, the direct health damage (not crit) is doubled for spells within that category.
Fresh cap you can expect to have:
5 casts of a bolt/ball spell while active.
EBP reduced by 50%
Damage (for attrition) is based upon a specific lore.
So 100 ranks of EL:F would triple health damage for all fire spells. If you cast 906 and do 50 damage, at 50 ranks in EL:F you do 100 damage, at 100 ranks you do 150 damage, etc, etc.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 12:37 PM CDT
>This is not a hard choice and not a major factor for the spell. All wizards that know 925 can enchant items and 5 ranks of water lore is not some huge hurdle that requires making any sort of noticeable sacrifice to any of the other lore choices to achieve.
It is a hard choice if you want to get anything meaningful out of the mana pool benefit without taking all year. All wizards can use any potential 940, just as they can use 550/950/917, at the baseline level. It will just not provide the same level of quality of life as 925 does. 5 ranks is an arbitrary amount set intended to exclude certain wizards who prioritize offense, and it is a noticeable sacrifice.
>Investing Five (5) Lore ranks is not a hard choice.
To repeat, 5 ranks is a hard choice when it prevents certain more beneficial thresholds from being reached with other lores. That is your decision. I disagree with the jack of all trades approach expecting to receive full benefits in all spells.
>And as someone that has 35 ranks in Water Lore I can tell you that you still aren't missing out on any major benefit with regard to time savings with 925 by not having this.
That's because it's set up such that 35 ranks of water lore is considered little. The water lore bonus of Enchant Item is pretty much nearly all or nothing, when it comes to reducing tedium. I similarly expect someone to have to make the same choice when it comes to making their offensive power as efficient as possible.
>If you are arguing that I should have to sacrifice 5 of my water ranks to achieve something awesome on the offensive side of the equation then consider it done - just give me something offensively awesome that I need to train those 5 additional ranks for.
A wizard training for pure offense is better off with more of any lore but water. This is currently the case, and I expect it to continue to be the case.
>Clearly by your reasoning they've sacraficed a lot and even more in order to train those defensive / utility lores to the extent they have.
And they'd still be able to access the baseline benefit of any 940 update. But they made the hard choice to be primarily enchanters and tanks, so they can withstand less efficiency in offensive combat. This is what choices mean.
>I'm still advocating for all elemental lores to add elemental flavor and provide offense/utility/defense but differently depending on the element. The current design direction / implementation with assigning certain elemental lores as offensive vs. utility vs. ... is a terrible direction both mechanically and from an RP flavor standpoint in my opinion.
I still prefer this approach, but I doubt at this point that the entire ELR and wizard updates are going to be re-done. Dev has articulated a clear direction they want for the class, and Estild's recent comments about making hard choices means that hard choices have to continue to maintain design consistency from one update to the next. Until a mana pool is opened up for all wizards who actively play, even with 0 ranks of water lore, there is no reason to allow for the ultimate power ceiling for any 940 spell to be achieved with requiring air/water lore for the core components necessary to achieve 1 cast, 1 kill.
It is a hard choice if you want to get anything meaningful out of the mana pool benefit without taking all year. All wizards can use any potential 940, just as they can use 550/950/917, at the baseline level. It will just not provide the same level of quality of life as 925 does. 5 ranks is an arbitrary amount set intended to exclude certain wizards who prioritize offense, and it is a noticeable sacrifice.
>Investing Five (5) Lore ranks is not a hard choice.
To repeat, 5 ranks is a hard choice when it prevents certain more beneficial thresholds from being reached with other lores. That is your decision. I disagree with the jack of all trades approach expecting to receive full benefits in all spells.
>And as someone that has 35 ranks in Water Lore I can tell you that you still aren't missing out on any major benefit with regard to time savings with 925 by not having this.
That's because it's set up such that 35 ranks of water lore is considered little. The water lore bonus of Enchant Item is pretty much nearly all or nothing, when it comes to reducing tedium. I similarly expect someone to have to make the same choice when it comes to making their offensive power as efficient as possible.
>If you are arguing that I should have to sacrifice 5 of my water ranks to achieve something awesome on the offensive side of the equation then consider it done - just give me something offensively awesome that I need to train those 5 additional ranks for.
A wizard training for pure offense is better off with more of any lore but water. This is currently the case, and I expect it to continue to be the case.
>Clearly by your reasoning they've sacraficed a lot and even more in order to train those defensive / utility lores to the extent they have.
And they'd still be able to access the baseline benefit of any 940 update. But they made the hard choice to be primarily enchanters and tanks, so they can withstand less efficiency in offensive combat. This is what choices mean.
>I'm still advocating for all elemental lores to add elemental flavor and provide offense/utility/defense but differently depending on the element. The current design direction / implementation with assigning certain elemental lores as offensive vs. utility vs. ... is a terrible direction both mechanically and from an RP flavor standpoint in my opinion.
I still prefer this approach, but I doubt at this point that the entire ELR and wizard updates are going to be re-done. Dev has articulated a clear direction they want for the class, and Estild's recent comments about making hard choices means that hard choices have to continue to maintain design consistency from one update to the next. Until a mana pool is opened up for all wizards who actively play, even with 0 ranks of water lore, there is no reason to allow for the ultimate power ceiling for any 940 spell to be achieved with requiring air/water lore for the core components necessary to achieve 1 cast, 1 kill.
CANDIDE
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 12:54 PM CDT
"To repeat: Investing Five (5) Lore ranks is not a hard choice. And as someone that has 35 ranks in Water Lore I can tell you that you still aren't missing out on any major benefit with regard to time savings with 925 by not having this.-peregrinefalcon"
I know a wizard with 11 ranks in water that has never made it anywhere close to the weekly maximum of 10k into the mana pool. I am ok with Water lore doing what it does with 925, but I fail to see why EMC isn't a bonus and the entire process isn't made easier. Right now the thresholds are just too high IMO.
GBB
I know a wizard with 11 ranks in water that has never made it anywhere close to the weekly maximum of 10k into the mana pool. I am ok with Water lore doing what it does with 925, but I fail to see why EMC isn't a bonus and the entire process isn't made easier. Right now the thresholds are just too high IMO.
GBB
PEREGRINEFALCON
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 01:09 PM CDT
>> I know a wizard with 11 ranks in water that has never made it anywhere close to the weekly maximum of 10k into the mana pool. I am ok with Water lore doing what it does with 925, but I fail to see why EMC isn't a bonus and the entire process isn't made easier. Right now the thresholds are just too high IMO
I've haven't used any yet and still haven't achieved 35k. Agree the thresholds are too high if there is meant to be any real benefit from this feature.
-- Robert
I've haven't used any yet and still haven't achieved 35k. Agree the thresholds are too high if there is meant to be any real benefit from this feature.
-- Robert
DOUG
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 01:47 PM CDT
To be equally clear, I do not expect 5 ranks of EL:W to ever eliminate any wizard from seeing benefit from a one-shot emulsifier spell. I am absolutely ok if it performs modestly (say 1%) worse under that condition.
I have no doubt in my mind that any wizard with the ability to cast 240 through some mechanism would do so. At least, for a while. And with 'easy' access to 117, I'll note that even that isn't likely to remain consistent. However, since 240 doesn't fix the bolt problem, and wizards do not have suitable CS spells to benefit from it, the comparison does not move me.
[humor] On tires and transmissions - drag racing pit crews' discussions around gear-shift torque surge and tire longevity are incredibly parallel to the well-post cap wizard high performance power ceiling emulsifier spell solution discussion. Probably not where we want to go, ultimately, though, since a part of that solution includes the concept of a significant number of running spares (transmissions and tires) for varying conditions - leading to the inevitable discussions of inventory, upkeep and tedium. [/humor]
I wonder if absolutism is killing our attempts.
I agree that there's a specific problem that affects a subset of wizards. I think I'm good with the specifications stated to correct that particular problem to the benefit of that same subset.
I don't agree that it is the only problem. And I don't agree that the specifications being used to address one specific problem need to be forced down (or up?) to all problem resolutions.
Doug
I have no doubt in my mind that any wizard with the ability to cast 240 through some mechanism would do so. At least, for a while. And with 'easy' access to 117, I'll note that even that isn't likely to remain consistent. However, since 240 doesn't fix the bolt problem, and wizards do not have suitable CS spells to benefit from it, the comparison does not move me.
[humor] On tires and transmissions - drag racing pit crews' discussions around gear-shift torque surge and tire longevity are incredibly parallel to the well-post cap wizard high performance power ceiling emulsifier spell solution discussion. Probably not where we want to go, ultimately, though, since a part of that solution includes the concept of a significant number of running spares (transmissions and tires) for varying conditions - leading to the inevitable discussions of inventory, upkeep and tedium. [/humor]
I wonder if absolutism is killing our attempts.
I agree that there's a specific problem that affects a subset of wizards. I think I'm good with the specifications stated to correct that particular problem to the benefit of that same subset.
I don't agree that it is the only problem. And I don't agree that the specifications being used to address one specific problem need to be forced down (or up?) to all problem resolutions.
Doug
DOUG
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 02:00 PM CDT
>>DRUMPEL on 940
>>VEYTHORNE on 940
A couple of good suggestions. I'm not sure either of them model out to a reliable emulsifier at the extreme end, as crafted, but I like elements of both proposals. Thanks!
Doug
>>VEYTHORNE on 940
A couple of good suggestions. I'm not sure either of them model out to a reliable emulsifier at the extreme end, as crafted, but I like elements of both proposals. Thanks!
Doug
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 02:16 PM CDT
>To be equally clear, I do not expect 5 ranks of EL:W to ever eliminate any wizard from seeing benefit from a one-shot emulsifier spell.
It wouldn't, as there is baseline functionality available from all spells. What I expect is for any potential 940 solution to not require any air or water lore to achieve the optimized offensive functionality that hits the 3 criteria I'm seeking, instead providing true bonuses if Dev deems it appropriate.
>I don't agree that it is the only problem.
There has been no other identified problem backed by data or reasoning thus far that illustrates an area of disparity, besides the lore split. All systems have pros and cons, especially in pre-cap combat.
>And I don't agree that the specifications being used to address one specific problem need to be forced down (or up?) to all problem resolutions.
I agree with this, and I don't think anyone has been attempting to force such. My specifications are strictly for any solution intended to address the specific problem I identified.
It wouldn't, as there is baseline functionality available from all spells. What I expect is for any potential 940 solution to not require any air or water lore to achieve the optimized offensive functionality that hits the 3 criteria I'm seeking, instead providing true bonuses if Dev deems it appropriate.
>I don't agree that it is the only problem.
There has been no other identified problem backed by data or reasoning thus far that illustrates an area of disparity, besides the lore split. All systems have pros and cons, especially in pre-cap combat.
>And I don't agree that the specifications being used to address one specific problem need to be forced down (or up?) to all problem resolutions.
I agree with this, and I don't think anyone has been attempting to force such. My specifications are strictly for any solution intended to address the specific problem I identified.
DOUG
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 02:20 PM CDT
>>I've haven't used any yet and still haven't achieved 35k. Agree the thresholds are too high if there is meant to be any real benefit from this feature.
I know a wizard (kaff) that has 50 ranks of EL:W, is played casually, and has filled up the 35K bucket twice. A couple of interim points - this same wizard probably has hit the 10K ceiling twice in that time, as well. He's still sitting on his second filled bucket because mana potion management is encumbered - [humor] and he's waiting for his chest [/humor].
Doug
I know a wizard (kaff) that has 50 ranks of EL:W, is played casually, and has filled up the 35K bucket twice. A couple of interim points - this same wizard probably has hit the 10K ceiling twice in that time, as well. He's still sitting on his second filled bucket because mana potion management is encumbered - [humor] and he's waiting for his chest [/humor].
Doug
CURTIS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 02:21 PM CDT
<<I wonder if absolutism is killing our attempts.
Yes.
Yes.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 02:23 PM CDT
>I wonder if absolutism is killing our attempts.
While attempts are great and ideas always welcome to see, I fully expect any update that results to be entirely what Dev wants the spell to be, as was the case with all the other updates. 950 resulted entirely out of Dev's creativity, not what any player had ever suggested, which shows that they have the capacity to think outside the box. And I agree with this, as obviously Dev GMs will want to be able to put their own creative stamp on the game. More than one has stated that's why they joined staff, which I also understand.
This is why I don't worry too much about trying to think of the ideas or solutions for them, instead focusing on identifying and providing factual reasoning and data to back the criteria I want to be sure is included to address the actual problem.
While attempts are great and ideas always welcome to see, I fully expect any update that results to be entirely what Dev wants the spell to be, as was the case with all the other updates. 950 resulted entirely out of Dev's creativity, not what any player had ever suggested, which shows that they have the capacity to think outside the box. And I agree with this, as obviously Dev GMs will want to be able to put their own creative stamp on the game. More than one has stated that's why they joined staff, which I also understand.
This is why I don't worry too much about trying to think of the ideas or solutions for them, instead focusing on identifying and providing factual reasoning and data to back the criteria I want to be sure is included to address the actual problem.
CANDIDE
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 02:38 PM CDT
"545 spell combo on 05/27/2016 03:53 PM EDT
Upon casting this spell the Wizard uses starts a series of pre-set spells to be cast one after the other in order 1 second apart.
Initially 3 spells can be cast in succession with this spell. To add a spell to the list of spells to be cast use Chant. To clear spells to be cast use Evoke.
example Chant 504 Chant 512 Chant 512 will cast 504 then 512 and 512 again. Evoking the spells clears the sequence.
Mana used to by the spells can not exceed 45. Elemental Mana Control seed 5 increases this total. If the total of the spells mana is greater than 45 then that much mana is used instead. Elemental Water Lore and Elemental Air Lore combined increases the number of spells that can be cast at a total of 50 100 150 and 200 ranks.
GBB"
"950 resulted entirely out of Dev's creativity, not what any player had ever suggested, which shows that they have the capacity to think outside the box.-Fleurs"
Now they probably didn't take my idea at all (who knows how long they were coding and getting approvals for 950) and this idea and the eventual 950 (which is better by several factors) were completely simultaneous but the spell idea was suggested by someone at least once. I see a lot of 917 in this as well with the staggered hits. :)
GBB
Upon casting this spell the Wizard uses starts a series of pre-set spells to be cast one after the other in order 1 second apart.
Initially 3 spells can be cast in succession with this spell. To add a spell to the list of spells to be cast use Chant. To clear spells to be cast use Evoke.
example Chant 504 Chant 512 Chant 512 will cast 504 then 512 and 512 again. Evoking the spells clears the sequence.
Mana used to by the spells can not exceed 45. Elemental Mana Control seed 5 increases this total. If the total of the spells mana is greater than 45 then that much mana is used instead. Elemental Water Lore and Elemental Air Lore combined increases the number of spells that can be cast at a total of 50 100 150 and 200 ranks.
GBB"
"950 resulted entirely out of Dev's creativity, not what any player had ever suggested, which shows that they have the capacity to think outside the box.-Fleurs"
Now they probably didn't take my idea at all (who knows how long they were coding and getting approvals for 950) and this idea and the eventual 950 (which is better by several factors) were completely simultaneous but the spell idea was suggested by someone at least once. I see a lot of 917 in this as well with the staggered hits. :)
GBB
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 02:47 PM CDT
>Now they probably didn't take my idea at all (who knows how long they were coding and getting approvals for 950) and this idea and the eventual 950 (which is better by several factors) were completely simultaneous but the spell idea was suggested by someone at least once. I see a lot of 917 in this as well with the staggered hits. :)
I missed that, but my point was more that they haven't taken any single player's idea verbatim, instead being able to pick out the parts they like and piece it together into a spell they want to see with the flavor messaging they like. That's why I'm not so concerned about players trying to refine something down to the specifics of X ranks of such and such will result in Y, because that's all going to change depending on what Dev deems appropriate and their far more extensive modeling shows is supported by data. Ideas are great, but it's always going to be changed. I'm more concerned about making sure the pieces that definitely don't work to hit the criteria get addressed, so if anything results from all of this, it isn't yet again another item that doesn't actually address a problem yet used up all of our power.
I missed that, but my point was more that they haven't taken any single player's idea verbatim, instead being able to pick out the parts they like and piece it together into a spell they want to see with the flavor messaging they like. That's why I'm not so concerned about players trying to refine something down to the specifics of X ranks of such and such will result in Y, because that's all going to change depending on what Dev deems appropriate and their far more extensive modeling shows is supported by data. Ideas are great, but it's always going to be changed. I'm more concerned about making sure the pieces that definitely don't work to hit the criteria get addressed, so if anything results from all of this, it isn't yet again another item that doesn't actually address a problem yet used up all of our power.
DOUG
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 02:51 PM CDT
>>917 allows for earth to be supplemented by two different types of damages.
>>940 equivalent would be for element x to be supplemented by 2 different damage types.
As a follow-up CANDIDE to your point, I wanted to ask a clarifying question.
In my view, the SMRv2 framework is what gives this spell its punch. The 'Earth - Cold' or 'Earth - Fire' differentiation I view personally as a way to more effectively use the spell (cold resistant / immune creatures get fire!).
The corresponding EL:X lore simply extends a small bonus. Since there's no 'Earth - Air', for example, there's no need for a lore bonus of EL:A.
If these points seem reasonable - is it possible to shape a spell using SMRv2, still? I'm not sure it is because of the 'broad spectrum of viable target damage' and 'EBP' (or dodge) potential. But I wanted to see if you saw something I didn't.
Doug
>>940 equivalent would be for element x to be supplemented by 2 different damage types.
As a follow-up CANDIDE to your point, I wanted to ask a clarifying question.
In my view, the SMRv2 framework is what gives this spell its punch. The 'Earth - Cold' or 'Earth - Fire' differentiation I view personally as a way to more effectively use the spell (cold resistant / immune creatures get fire!).
The corresponding EL:X lore simply extends a small bonus. Since there's no 'Earth - Air', for example, there's no need for a lore bonus of EL:A.
If these points seem reasonable - is it possible to shape a spell using SMRv2, still? I'm not sure it is because of the 'broad spectrum of viable target damage' and 'EBP' (or dodge) potential. But I wanted to see if you saw something I didn't.
Doug
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 02:58 PM CDT
>If these points seem reasonable - is it possible to shape a spell using SMRv2, still?
Not for me, because I'm looking for a booster, not a single offensive spell. Also, I'm not looking for any more SMR spells for the 940 solution, as maneuver spells are highly dependent on relative level. We have one tool to check that box, but I'm looking for something that is more reliable. SMRv2 doesn't fit that bill in my view because maneuvers can be defended from in many other ways such that the same level of reliability isn't going to be achievable.
Not for me, because I'm looking for a booster, not a single offensive spell. Also, I'm not looking for any more SMR spells for the 940 solution, as maneuver spells are highly dependent on relative level. We have one tool to check that box, but I'm looking for something that is more reliable. SMRv2 doesn't fit that bill in my view because maneuvers can be defended from in many other ways such that the same level of reliability isn't going to be achievable.
KRAKII
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 03:03 PM CDT
Sorcerers' Balefire arose entirely as the result of player suggestions/requests, though the mechanics of the various skill tie-ins are Dev.
.
"What I expect is for any potential 940 solution to not require any air or water lore to achieve the optimized offensive functionality that hits the 3 criteria I'm seeking, instead providing true bonuses if Dev deems it appropriate." -- #5152
You mean, "not require lore to achieve the baseline functionality of the spell," right?
Bonuses--faster recovery, lessened mana costs, more damage, more bolts, greater attack strength, whatever--can still be generated by Lore(s) or Mana Control to increase those from there, in exactly the same manner 240 does.
.
"What I expect is for any potential 940 solution to not require any air or water lore to achieve the optimized offensive functionality that hits the 3 criteria I'm seeking, instead providing true bonuses if Dev deems it appropriate." -- #5152
You mean, "not require lore to achieve the baseline functionality of the spell," right?
Bonuses--faster recovery, lessened mana costs, more damage, more bolts, greater attack strength, whatever--can still be generated by Lore(s) or Mana Control to increase those from there, in exactly the same manner 240 does.
KRAKII
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 03:04 PM CDT
"'EBP' (or dodge)" -- Doug
Dodge is the 'E' part of that acronym, you know....
Dodge is the 'E' part of that acronym, you know....
DRUMPEL
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 03:09 PM CDT
| "'EBP' (or dodge)" -- Doug |
| Dodge is the 'E' part of that acronym, you know.... |
.....Hmmmm
Dodge, duck, dip, dive and....dodge.
-Drumpel
DOUG
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 03:15 PM CDT
Heh. In fact, I do - but, I've yet to see the BP side of EBP on 917 - so I chose to clarify.
Reminds me of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cuihrjLNAo
Doug
Reminds me of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cuihrjLNAo
Doug
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 03:17 PM CDT
>You mean, "not require lore to achieve the baseline functionality of the spell," right?
No, I mean what I said. I am fine with requiring fire or earth lore in some combination to hit the 3 criteria I'm seeking. This includes more damage, more bolts, more attack strength, which are necessary to hit the 3 points. There shouldn't be any "recovery" since there should be no cooldown as a core point #3, which none of the spiritual pures faces.
240 with no lore whatsoever similarly would be a boost, but less reliable of one. 240 also only has one lore type, so if you don't have the right lore, you basically have no lore. With a 4-way split within a sphere, I'm fine with allowing 2 lores (fire/earth) to be used interchangeably. Spells are much more powerful if they mostly rely on one or two lores to unlock optimized levels of power, instead of again being a jack of all trades but master of none.
No, I mean what I said. I am fine with requiring fire or earth lore in some combination to hit the 3 criteria I'm seeking. This includes more damage, more bolts, more attack strength, which are necessary to hit the 3 points. There shouldn't be any "recovery" since there should be no cooldown as a core point #3, which none of the spiritual pures faces.
240 with no lore whatsoever similarly would be a boost, but less reliable of one. 240 also only has one lore type, so if you don't have the right lore, you basically have no lore. With a 4-way split within a sphere, I'm fine with allowing 2 lores (fire/earth) to be used interchangeably. Spells are much more powerful if they mostly rely on one or two lores to unlock optimized levels of power, instead of again being a jack of all trades but master of none.
CANDIDE
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 03:17 PM CDT
"917 allows for earth to be supplemented by two different types of damages.
>>940 equivalent would be for element x to be supplemented by 2 different damage types.-gbb"
"As a follow-up CANDIDE to your point, I wanted to ask a clarifying question.
In my view, the SMRv2 framework is what gives this spell its punch. The 'Earth - Cold' or 'Earth - Fire' differentiation I view personally as a way to more effectively use the spell (cold resistant / immune creatures get fire!).
The corresponding EL:X lore simply extends a small bonus. Since there's no 'Earth - Air', for example, there's no need for a lore bonus of EL:A.
If these points seem reasonable - is it possible to shape a spell using SMRv2, still? I'm not sure it is because of the 'broad spectrum of viable target damage' and 'EBP' (or dodge) potential. But I wanted to see if you saw something I didn't.
Doug"
I actually missed the origin of the 940 idea. I just wanted to clarify how I thought lores have been done recently and which I liked better. Drumpel's ideas also fit into my preferred method of a 520 lore for the eventual 940 spell. Should we have another smr spell? I felt long ago that it would be neat to have wizard with a low end, a medium, and a high end smr spell. For a booster spell though I do not see why it should be limited to bolts. Just like I do not understand why 502 doesn't help subsequent CS and smr spells. If we are going to have combos and boosts then these things should all work together.
gbb
>>940 equivalent would be for element x to be supplemented by 2 different damage types.-gbb"
"As a follow-up CANDIDE to your point, I wanted to ask a clarifying question.
In my view, the SMRv2 framework is what gives this spell its punch. The 'Earth - Cold' or 'Earth - Fire' differentiation I view personally as a way to more effectively use the spell (cold resistant / immune creatures get fire!).
The corresponding EL:X lore simply extends a small bonus. Since there's no 'Earth - Air', for example, there's no need for a lore bonus of EL:A.
If these points seem reasonable - is it possible to shape a spell using SMRv2, still? I'm not sure it is because of the 'broad spectrum of viable target damage' and 'EBP' (or dodge) potential. But I wanted to see if you saw something I didn't.
Doug"
I actually missed the origin of the 940 idea. I just wanted to clarify how I thought lores have been done recently and which I liked better. Drumpel's ideas also fit into my preferred method of a 520 lore for the eventual 940 spell. Should we have another smr spell? I felt long ago that it would be neat to have wizard with a low end, a medium, and a high end smr spell. For a booster spell though I do not see why it should be limited to bolts. Just like I do not understand why 502 doesn't help subsequent CS and smr spells. If we are going to have combos and boosts then these things should all work together.
gbb
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 03:26 PM CDT
>For a booster spell though I do not see why it should be limited to bolts.
I want a booster spell that addresses the core problem with bolts at the post-cap level for pure wizards who choose to be masters of bolts. Dev has indicated that wizards are meant to be primarily bolters, and I'm fine with that. I simply ask that post-cap pure wizards have the same level of tools to achieve parity with the result that post-cap spiritual pures can achieve in their proficiency with warding spells.
I am against SMR spells because they similarly have many weaknesses vs. warding spells. Further, boosters can only enhance AS and CS. There is nothing that is going to "power up" 917 beyond what a wizard can natively achieve. 240 works to boost all types of offensive abilities for a cleric or empath, whether it's something crit-based, pure attrition based, or bolting, in addition to boosting immobilization abilities to guaranteed reliability.
Before wizards potentially get any more SMR spells, I would first like something that actually addresses the core issue I've identified, which is the one and only issue I have with wizards at this point that I care about.
I want a booster spell that addresses the core problem with bolts at the post-cap level for pure wizards who choose to be masters of bolts. Dev has indicated that wizards are meant to be primarily bolters, and I'm fine with that. I simply ask that post-cap pure wizards have the same level of tools to achieve parity with the result that post-cap spiritual pures can achieve in their proficiency with warding spells.
I am against SMR spells because they similarly have many weaknesses vs. warding spells. Further, boosters can only enhance AS and CS. There is nothing that is going to "power up" 917 beyond what a wizard can natively achieve. 240 works to boost all types of offensive abilities for a cleric or empath, whether it's something crit-based, pure attrition based, or bolting, in addition to boosting immobilization abilities to guaranteed reliability.
Before wizards potentially get any more SMR spells, I would first like something that actually addresses the core issue I've identified, which is the one and only issue I have with wizards at this point that I care about.
KRAKII
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 03:42 PM CDT
Sorry, by "recovery" I was thinking more in the manner of "less castRT" (from flinging the attack) rather than "cooldown" (from putting the booster into effect).
My bad for the lack of clarity.
My bad for the lack of clarity.
DOUG
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 04:18 PM CDT
>>There is nothing that is going to "power up" 917 beyond what a wizard can natively achieve.
I think (not completely sure, though) that I agree with this point. For now.
It does open up all kinds of possibilities to consider for future use cases though! That is - if we're not absolutists in our approach.
>>Before wizards potentially get any more SMR spells, I would first like something that actually addresses the core issue I've identified, which is the one and only issue I have with wizards at this point that I care about.
You know, I'm absolutely ok with this. And I support it. There's nothing wrong with you requesting that prioritization. It's the other issues that (inferring from above, only) you don't care about that I'm also interested in hearing that seem to be running into challenges.
Doug
I think (not completely sure, though) that I agree with this point. For now.
It does open up all kinds of possibilities to consider for future use cases though! That is - if we're not absolutists in our approach.
>>Before wizards potentially get any more SMR spells, I would first like something that actually addresses the core issue I've identified, which is the one and only issue I have with wizards at this point that I care about.
You know, I'm absolutely ok with this. And I support it. There's nothing wrong with you requesting that prioritization. It's the other issues that (inferring from above, only) you don't care about that I'm also interested in hearing that seem to be running into challenges.
Doug
KITHUS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 06:23 PM CDT
| What I expect is for any potential 940 solution to not require any air or water lore to achieve the optimized offensive functionality that hits the 3 criteria I'm seeking, instead providing true bonuses if Dev deems it appropriate. |
So it's okay if they require Fire and/or Earth lore? This major problem you've repeatedly pointed out with wizards should only be fixed for Fire and/or Earth wizards while the rest can just deal? That is more than a little self serving. Are we just trying to punish water mages because they have access to the mana pool perk for 925?
Why not make the increased number of strikes a factor of the elemental lore(s) that match the bolts element?
| Keith/Brinret/Eronderl |
| Keith is correct |
| -Wyrom, APM |
| Keith is correct. |
| -GameMaster Estild |
KANDOR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 07:03 PM CDT
I'd prefer to see 940 unaffected by lores than have another mediocrity/cake discussion. It's a lot simpler.
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 07:06 PM CDT
>So it's okay if they require Fire and/or Earth lore? This major problem you've repeatedly pointed out with wizards should only be fixed for Fire and/or Earth wizards while the rest can just deal? That is more than a little self serving. Are we just trying to punish water mages because they have access to the mana pool perk for 925?
It's not self-serving. It's a matter of choices. Those who train in air or water prioritize defense and utility, by requirement of Dev's allocation of lores for roles. Since those who prioritize offense are expected to sacrifice much of what those who prioritize reducing tedium in defensive issues and enchanting enjoy, I expect the same design consistency to apply to treatment of offensive power ceilings.
This isn't to say that I expect 940 to be absolutely useless for those who train in air and water. I expect it to baseline do something, just like 240 does with no lore and 950 does for those with just air and water lore. What I don't expect is for the ultimate 1.0 cast/kill power ceiling I'm seeking, with the 3 criteria, to be reached on the same reliable basis with mostly air and water lore and no fire and earth lore. You've said that this isn't something that you care about, so that's your choice.
925 was the precedent for a core capstone spell that provides a benefit to only one type of wizard. I'm not against having bonus benefits for those with air or water, but the key elements required to hit the 3 criteria cannot be tied to either air or water in order to maintain design consistency of forcing choices among lore types for specific roles that a wizard has to prioritize to achieve.
>Why not make the increased number of strikes a factor of the elemental lore(s) that match the bolts element?
This approach exacerbates the lore distribution problem that wizards currently have. Dev wants us to choose our lores based on roles. Those roles don't necessarily align with the bolt of choice for a particular foe or a bolt to which most foes aren't immune. I would want an approach that works equally with all types of bolts, without boxing a wizard into mostly fire, or it doesn't reach parity with the restrictions that spiritual pures face in post-cap combat.
It's not self-serving. It's a matter of choices. Those who train in air or water prioritize defense and utility, by requirement of Dev's allocation of lores for roles. Since those who prioritize offense are expected to sacrifice much of what those who prioritize reducing tedium in defensive issues and enchanting enjoy, I expect the same design consistency to apply to treatment of offensive power ceilings.
This isn't to say that I expect 940 to be absolutely useless for those who train in air and water. I expect it to baseline do something, just like 240 does with no lore and 950 does for those with just air and water lore. What I don't expect is for the ultimate 1.0 cast/kill power ceiling I'm seeking, with the 3 criteria, to be reached on the same reliable basis with mostly air and water lore and no fire and earth lore. You've said that this isn't something that you care about, so that's your choice.
925 was the precedent for a core capstone spell that provides a benefit to only one type of wizard. I'm not against having bonus benefits for those with air or water, but the key elements required to hit the 3 criteria cannot be tied to either air or water in order to maintain design consistency of forcing choices among lore types for specific roles that a wizard has to prioritize to achieve.
>Why not make the increased number of strikes a factor of the elemental lore(s) that match the bolts element?
This approach exacerbates the lore distribution problem that wizards currently have. Dev wants us to choose our lores based on roles. Those roles don't necessarily align with the bolt of choice for a particular foe or a bolt to which most foes aren't immune. I would want an approach that works equally with all types of bolts, without boxing a wizard into mostly fire, or it doesn't reach parity with the restrictions that spiritual pures face in post-cap combat.
DRUMPEL
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 07:10 PM CDT
>So it's okay if they require Fire and/or Earth lore? This major problem you've repeatedly pointed out with wizards should only be fixed for Fire and/or Earth wizards while the rest can just deal? That is more than a little self serving. Are we just trying to punish water mages because they have access to the mana pool perk for 925?
I think LADYFLEUR means that since 240 only boosts from one spiritual lore when there are only 3 total in that group to train in, it would make sense to allow 2 elemental lores to provide a similar benefit that 940 may provide.
240, at a base with zero lore gives a 60% chance to double strike. So those that train in any other lore that's not SL:Summoning to further boost the second strike % chance, they're not SOL. They just lag behind a little.
You could certainly design 940 to have some kind of similar function for those that don't train in EL:F and/or EL:E. Have a solid base so those that may only focus on air or water aren't left out in the cold.
-Drumpel
I think LADYFLEUR means that since 240 only boosts from one spiritual lore when there are only 3 total in that group to train in, it would make sense to allow 2 elemental lores to provide a similar benefit that 940 may provide.
240, at a base with zero lore gives a 60% chance to double strike. So those that train in any other lore that's not SL:Summoning to further boost the second strike % chance, they're not SOL. They just lag behind a little.
You could certainly design 940 to have some kind of similar function for those that don't train in EL:F and/or EL:E. Have a solid base so those that may only focus on air or water aren't left out in the cold.
-Drumpel
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 07:12 PM CDT
>You could certainly design 940 to have some kind of similar function for those that don't train in EL:F and/or EL:E. Have a solid base so those that may only focus on air or water aren't left out in the cold.
Yes, this is what I mean.
Yes, this is what I mean.
DOUG
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 07:49 PM CDT
I know it has somewhat fallen out of vogue for our spell circles presently, so I want to ask our collective community opinion on something.
We're asking a spell to do an awful lot and we see justifications for limiting how that spell can reliably interact. All good here so far. But we might need a 'third yardstick' against which to measure.
For this one spell, and this one purpose, it might be worth considering bringing back in full force the 'powerhouse' overtraining spell circle build. That way, duration / mana can be covered, one of the three criteria for success could be met by a lore or two, and one of the three criteria could be assigned to spell circle training.
The justification would be that overloaded spell circle training is a core part of the CS increase build concept, and so might should have a play here, as well.
A wizard trained in 167 ranks Wizard would have sacrificed some other facets for sheer power, and should be able to best almost 2:1 a 101 ranks Wizard. Well. . . maybe 1.5:1. All other things equal. :)
Doug
We're asking a spell to do an awful lot and we see justifications for limiting how that spell can reliably interact. All good here so far. But we might need a 'third yardstick' against which to measure.
For this one spell, and this one purpose, it might be worth considering bringing back in full force the 'powerhouse' overtraining spell circle build. That way, duration / mana can be covered, one of the three criteria for success could be met by a lore or two, and one of the three criteria could be assigned to spell circle training.
The justification would be that overloaded spell circle training is a core part of the CS increase build concept, and so might should have a play here, as well.
A wizard trained in 167 ranks Wizard would have sacrificed some other facets for sheer power, and should be able to best almost 2:1 a 101 ranks Wizard. Well. . . maybe 1.5:1. All other things equal. :)
Doug
KRAKII
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 08:13 PM CDT
Doug, if you view it as "number of spells over this one", the 101 is at 61 (101-40) where the 167(-40) is at 127, so yeah, your 2:1 make sense.
And I'd be okay with assigning power along that slope....
And I'd be okay with assigning power along that slope....
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/01/2017 09:56 PM CDT
>The justification would be that overloaded spell circle training is a core part of the CS increase build concept, and so might should have a play here, as well.
I completely disagree with a spell circle approach, because the spell circle split for core offensive spells is one of a wizard's biggest weaknesses (the 3rd or 4th point in my state of the wizards document). Our offensive spells are all over the place, and not every bolt is even in the wizard circle. There are few wizards who are going to train in 167 ranks of Wizard spells, unlike the other professions, because it would completely eliminate usage of 519, cause significant AS loss from 513, and eliminate usage of 517 entirely. Meanwhile, sorcerers get everything in one circle. Clerics get all of their core spells in one circle, as pure spiritualists and with one sphere. There are other ways to compensate that don't constantly force the elimination of most of a profession's core abilities.
I would be completely dissatisfied with such an approach that would completely box a wizard into using only one type of offensive ability and completely eliminating CS even as an option. When I point to 240, it works to power up ALL of a cleric's AS and CS-based offensive abilities, whether it's bolting or warding with crit and attrition based spells, and single target, CS-based immobilization options. I'm tired of constantly being asked to settle for such a significantly lower power ceiling than any other pure has to suffer. This would not result in the parity of single target offensive power I'm looking for across the board. I'm also unwilling to give up 513's bolt AS and the usage of 517 entirely, which would make it a net wash.
I completely disagree with a spell circle approach, because the spell circle split for core offensive spells is one of a wizard's biggest weaknesses (the 3rd or 4th point in my state of the wizards document). Our offensive spells are all over the place, and not every bolt is even in the wizard circle. There are few wizards who are going to train in 167 ranks of Wizard spells, unlike the other professions, because it would completely eliminate usage of 519, cause significant AS loss from 513, and eliminate usage of 517 entirely. Meanwhile, sorcerers get everything in one circle. Clerics get all of their core spells in one circle, as pure spiritualists and with one sphere. There are other ways to compensate that don't constantly force the elimination of most of a profession's core abilities.
I would be completely dissatisfied with such an approach that would completely box a wizard into using only one type of offensive ability and completely eliminating CS even as an option. When I point to 240, it works to power up ALL of a cleric's AS and CS-based offensive abilities, whether it's bolting or warding with crit and attrition based spells, and single target, CS-based immobilization options. I'm tired of constantly being asked to settle for such a significantly lower power ceiling than any other pure has to suffer. This would not result in the parity of single target offensive power I'm looking for across the board. I'm also unwilling to give up 513's bolt AS and the usage of 517 entirely, which would make it a net wash.
KITHUS
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/02/2017 06:40 AM CDT
| Those who train in air or water prioritize defense and utility, by requirement of Dev's allocation of lores for roles. Since those who prioritize offense are expected to sacrifice much of what those who prioritize reducing tedium in defensive issues and enchanting enjoy, I expect the same design consistency to apply to treatment of offensive power ceilings. |
Honestly if this were going to be the case I would expect to see a major boost to how water lore affects enchanting (and other utility spells) because right now it's still the least desirable lore. That said do remember that in comparing to 917 there is an ice version of that spell that benefits water lore. You are correct, in that I am less concerned about the 1.0 kill efficiency issues you are focused on. However, I believe if you give that functionality entirely to fire and/or earth trained wizards you will heavily unbalance the elemental lores in their favor. Not that they aren't already unbalanced against water.
| Keith/Brinret/Eronderl |
| Keith is correct |
| -Wyrom, APM |
| Keith is correct. |
| -GameMaster Estild |
TRIPLEGAME226
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/02/2017 08:57 AM CDT
>So it's okay if they require Fire and/or Earth lore? This major problem you've repeatedly pointed out with wizards should only be fixed for Fire and/or Earth wizards while the rest can just deal? That is more than a little self serving. Are we just trying to punish water mages because they have access to the mana pool perk for 925?
I mean...it lines up with the whole lores = roles thing that dev forced on us. Under that model, why would training water lore do anything useful for offense? I'm not a fan of the lores = roles thing at all, but it's what we're stuck with.
I think 940 should be fine on its own without lores. Let lore make it better in different ways of course, but it should work fine on its own, like 520. 240 still works decently without lore. It just works much better with lore.
>A wizard trained in 167 ranks Wizard would have sacrificed some other facets for sheer power, and should be able to best almost 2:1 a 101 ranks Wizard. Well. . . maybe 1.5:1. All other things equal. :)
Weren't you talking about one trick pony builds being bad a while back? Because this would be a one trick pony build. Not to mention all the 513 AS we'd lose in the process, we'd no longer be using 502, our only hittable warding spell would be 915. No thanks. This would be one step forward and 2 steps back.
>Honestly if this were going to be the case I would expect to see a major boost to how water lore affects enchanting (and other utility spells) because right now it's still the least desirable lore.
Water lore buffs for enchanting would be great. I think either the bonuses should be doubled or the current lore requirements cut in half.
>That said do remember that in comparing to 917 there is an ice version of that spell that benefits water lore.
Which is another reason why I think lore = roles is poor design, as it's littered with contradictions like this. But it's what we're stuck with, unfortunately.
I would have thought that water lore would have gotten some sort of 512 buff by now to not require a double stack for a shatter, which shatter is extremely weak considering the requirements for it.
~ Methais
I mean...it lines up with the whole lores = roles thing that dev forced on us. Under that model, why would training water lore do anything useful for offense? I'm not a fan of the lores = roles thing at all, but it's what we're stuck with.
I think 940 should be fine on its own without lores. Let lore make it better in different ways of course, but it should work fine on its own, like 520. 240 still works decently without lore. It just works much better with lore.
>A wizard trained in 167 ranks Wizard would have sacrificed some other facets for sheer power, and should be able to best almost 2:1 a 101 ranks Wizard. Well. . . maybe 1.5:1. All other things equal. :)
Weren't you talking about one trick pony builds being bad a while back? Because this would be a one trick pony build. Not to mention all the 513 AS we'd lose in the process, we'd no longer be using 502, our only hittable warding spell would be 915. No thanks. This would be one step forward and 2 steps back.
>Honestly if this were going to be the case I would expect to see a major boost to how water lore affects enchanting (and other utility spells) because right now it's still the least desirable lore.
Water lore buffs for enchanting would be great. I think either the bonuses should be doubled or the current lore requirements cut in half.
>That said do remember that in comparing to 917 there is an ice version of that spell that benefits water lore.
Which is another reason why I think lore = roles is poor design, as it's littered with contradictions like this. But it's what we're stuck with, unfortunately.
I would have thought that water lore would have gotten some sort of 512 buff by now to not require a double stack for a shatter, which shatter is extremely weak considering the requirements for it.
~ Methais
LADYFLEUR
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/02/2017 09:09 AM CDT
>You are correct, in that I am less concerned about the 1.0 kill efficiency issues you are focused on. However, I believe if you give that functionality entirely to fire and/or earth trained wizards you will heavily unbalance the elemental lores in their favor. Not that they aren't already unbalanced against water.
I don't think it would be unbalanced. You yourself said that you enjoy the way you play and have no problems, which is great. It's about making choices to prioritize what is fun for you, and this is unfortunately what we're stuck with given the way Dev is stuck on lores = roles. I already said that I don't expect it to be useless for those who don't have fire or earth lore, and it obviously wouldn't be, just like 950 and 550 aren't for those without optimal lores for those spells. I just don't expect you to get the same use out of it that someone who is optimally trained for offense should get.
Or to put it differently, do you think it's fair that one subset of wizards should get to optimize their moneymaking lore and their efficient loot hunting lore too?
I expect water lore wizards to still be able to hunt with 940. It would just be more tedious than if you had fire/earth lore. Just like Estild keeps saying wizards can still enchant without water lore. It's just 6 months more tedious.
I don't think it would be unbalanced. You yourself said that you enjoy the way you play and have no problems, which is great. It's about making choices to prioritize what is fun for you, and this is unfortunately what we're stuck with given the way Dev is stuck on lores = roles. I already said that I don't expect it to be useless for those who don't have fire or earth lore, and it obviously wouldn't be, just like 950 and 550 aren't for those without optimal lores for those spells. I just don't expect you to get the same use out of it that someone who is optimally trained for offense should get.
Or to put it differently, do you think it's fair that one subset of wizards should get to optimize their moneymaking lore and their efficient loot hunting lore too?
I expect water lore wizards to still be able to hunt with 940. It would just be more tedious than if you had fire/earth lore. Just like Estild keeps saying wizards can still enchant without water lore. It's just 6 months more tedious.
CANDIDE
Re: Current Summary State of Wizards Scorecard - Discussion
06/02/2017 09:45 AM CDT
"A wizard trained in 167 ranks Wizard would have sacrificed some other facets for sheer power, and should be able to best almost 2:1 a 101 ranks Wizard. Well. . . maybe 1.5:1. All other things equal. :)"
As many others have already pointed out how this build would be hard to pull off I would like to add my own perspective. Even when training for an immolation build pre nerf the wizard gained max CS at 159 Major elemental ranks so this would be a higher threshold even than that build, but that build still had 516 any build with 167 wizard ranks would have 75 minor elemental ranks and 61 major elemental ranks (os 167 wizard, 35 MnE, 101 Major E) That's a loss of 20 AS/CS/DS/TD from 425/430. Who knows what it would do to 410/435. So you would be left with a wizard with an awesome 940/917 and nothing else. Your bolt would be worse/your defense would be worse. You would have 516 to gain mana at 497 CS (at +25 Aura bonus). So if you went all enhancive aura bonus 100 percent up time and only hunted with heavy quartz orbs you would get to 527 CS. That is what I have right now and I can only use 516 on select creatures. I mean sure go for it after all any build is possible. This to me is one of those "hey you want to beat your head against the wall be my guest." type of things.
"I would have thought that water lore would have gotten some sort of 512 buff by now to not require a double stack for a shatter, which shatter is extremely weak considering the requirements for it.-Nethais"
I would like all combos (steam from water or ice + fire/acid+fire etc) to work like shatter does. Instead of a weak flare that never kills anything it should be a 10%-50% damage boost.
GBB
As many others have already pointed out how this build would be hard to pull off I would like to add my own perspective. Even when training for an immolation build pre nerf the wizard gained max CS at 159 Major elemental ranks so this would be a higher threshold even than that build, but that build still had 516 any build with 167 wizard ranks would have 75 minor elemental ranks and 61 major elemental ranks (os 167 wizard, 35 MnE, 101 Major E) That's a loss of 20 AS/CS/DS/TD from 425/430. Who knows what it would do to 410/435. So you would be left with a wizard with an awesome 940/917 and nothing else. Your bolt would be worse/your defense would be worse. You would have 516 to gain mana at 497 CS (at +25 Aura bonus). So if you went all enhancive aura bonus 100 percent up time and only hunted with heavy quartz orbs you would get to 527 CS. That is what I have right now and I can only use 516 on select creatures. I mean sure go for it after all any build is possible. This to me is one of those "hey you want to beat your head against the wall be my guest." type of things.
"I would have thought that water lore would have gotten some sort of 512 buff by now to not require a double stack for a shatter, which shatter is extremely weak considering the requirements for it.-Nethais"
I would like all combos (steam from water or ice + fire/acid+fire etc) to work like shatter does. Instead of a weak flare that never kills anything it should be a 10%-50% damage boost.
GBB
