Previous Thread
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Lost in the incessant arguing in the other post, but this deserves a separate post.
Right now you can cast 512, and it will always be a room effect spell - there is no channeling option. You can cast and evoke the spell. Evoke is used to force the spell to target those targets that are already under the effects of a previously cast 512.
Unlock Channel For Single Target 512
I suggest channeling 512 at a SINGLE target with sufficient warding failure cause a SINGLE target to become encased in ice.
prep 512
channel <target>
You channel all your energy into a single burst of frost to cover <target>'s entire body.
CS: +XXX - TD: +XXX + CvA: +25 + d100: +74 == +207
Warding failed!
A thick block of ice begins forming, expanding to cover a <target>'s entire body, trapping it in an icy tomb.
Cast Roundtime 3 seconds
Roundtime 3 seconds
If the warding failure is 150 or greater, the target is encased in ice.
If the warding failure is less than 101-149, the target will have the lower half of their body encased in ice.
REMOVE THE CHANNEL REQUIREMENT ON SUBSEQUENT BOLTS TO SHATTER
I believe this should be removed regardless of the method of freezing targets. Being required to channel bolts in order to gain the chance of shattering your target requires significantly more risk than any other pure due to the fact that you are forced into a higher stance (likely offensive) while stuck in hard RT. This is not a challenge other pures face when they are using their "instant kill" tool.
Casting 903 (which converts to 1707), 505 bolt, or 510 should be sufficient to shatter the target.
What does this do?
This would provide wizards with a fairly reliable mechanic to deal massive damage or instantly kill targets with a high level training requirement (therefore not easily accessible to low-level wizards). Sufficiently trained in Water Lore and MjE would provide very reliable ability to kill targets that are successfully frozen.
Assuming 1.5x trained in MjE with 102 ranks in Water Lore:
A single channel of 512 followed by a single cast of (903, 505, or 510) would have a nearly 70% chance to "shatter" a target (which can instantly kill or will deal 50% HP damage) for a total of 6 seconds of RT (only 3 of which is hard RT). This is similar to the success rate and mana cost of casting 717 or 720 with the added benefit of not risking losing treasure, but the added 3 seconds of RT. In addition, the frozen effect would still be in effect for additional attempts to shatter the target should your first cast fail to instantly kill them (the second shatter will deal another 50% HP damage).
Is this too cheap?
I believe the cost comes in the training. Wizards are not terribly fond of training into water lore, and they would need at least 50 ranks of Water Lore to find this somewhat "reliable" (50% chance). In addition, SHATTER still suffers from random bolt placement, which means you can shatter a limb instead of a vital area (removing said limb and dealing 50% of the target's HP). If the mana cost is still too cheap, however, it could be easily adjusted to cost 24 mana to channel the spell (same cost as casting 512 twice) in order to reduce time-to-kill without reducing mana cost.
Time for development?
The entire mechanic is already in place and has been QC'd. The only development that would be required is enabling the spell to be channeled at a single target and removing the channel requirement from the follow-up bolts. That would need some testing, but we're not reinventing anything with this concept. We would be providing high-level wizards a mechanic that would be fairly reliable (as reliable as any other instant-kill spell) that is also fairly low risk.
I would like 512 to remain primarily a mass CS-based disabler. A level 12 spell should not both disable and regularly deal damage. Further, a level 12 spell should not be the solution for the post-cap, single target instant kill solution, particularly when 519 doesn't even do the job. I also disagree with requiring water lore, as that requires a 4th niche lore split for an offensive capability while there is already a heavy emphasis on EL:F, and to a lesser extent, EL:E for offensive abilities.
>>I would like 512 to remain primarily a mass CS-based disabler. A level 12 spell should not both disable and regularly deal damage. Further, a level 12 spell should not be the solution for the post-cap, single target instant kill solution, particularly when 519 doesn't even do the job.
512's current functionally doesn't change at all. This concept would just add the ability to channel (not currently possible) 512 on a single-target and bypass the double-cast requirement providing an effective way to freeze targets in 3 seconds instead of 6 seconds. This cannot instantly kill anything by itself - you need to cast at least one more spell for another 3s of RT and at least 3 more mana. A level 17 spell can kill something instantly for 17 mana (717, 317). That is why it's perfectly fine in the level 12 slot. You will need to be sufficiently over-trained in MjE to meet the warding requirements while also having the necessary lore requirements. This is entirely balanced with other spells of similar potency.
Comparison:
incant 717 - target dies (17 mana, 3s RT)
incant 317 - target dies (17 mana, 3s RT)
incant 720 - target dies (18 mana, 3s RT)
channel 512 - target freezes incant 903 - target dies (15 mana, 6s RT with 3s hard RT)
^^^ Balance. On top of that, you need more training to land the 512+Bolt combination than a Sorcerer or Cleric needs with their instant kill options.
You're advocating for it to cost a wizard 50 mana to kill something instantly (single-target 950)... Most of the other pures do not need to use a 50th circle spell to instantly kill targets. Most of them use a spell lower than level 20.
>>I also disagree with requiring water lore, as that requires a 4th niche lore split for an offensive capability while there is already a heavy emphasis on EL:F, and to a lesser extent, EL:E for offensive abilities.
Water lore is already required by this spell. Like I said, noting is changing for the spell. It's an easy development opportunity that benefits wizards who hunt in a more defensive posture. There are other opportunities we could investigate for 512 and 519 synergy, but this would be a major step in the right direction.
My suggestion for 512 + 519 is to make it so that every cycle of damage from 519 causes a major steam flare when used on a target already frozen by 512. The problem here is that would require a significant development effort. The steam flare exists, but attaching it to every cycle of 519 is a mechanics change.
512's current functionally doesn't change at all. This concept would just add the ability to channel (not currently possible) 512 on a single-target and bypass the double-cast requirement providing an effective way to freeze targets in 3 seconds instead of 6 seconds. This cannot instantly kill anything by itself - you need to cast at least one more spell for another 3s of RT and at least 3 more mana. A level 17 spell can kill something instantly for 17 mana (717, 317). That is why it's perfectly fine in the level 12 slot. You will need to be sufficiently over-trained in MjE to meet the warding requirements while also having the necessary lore requirements. This is entirely balanced with other spells of similar potency.
Comparison:
incant 717 - target dies (17 mana, 3s RT)
incant 317 - target dies (17 mana, 3s RT)
incant 720 - target dies (18 mana, 3s RT)
channel 512 - target freezes incant 903 - target dies (15 mana, 6s RT with 3s hard RT)
^^^ Balance. On top of that, you need more training to land the 512+Bolt combination than a Sorcerer or Cleric needs with their instant kill options.
You're advocating for it to cost a wizard 50 mana to kill something instantly (single-target 950)... Most of the other pures do not need to use a 50th circle spell to instantly kill targets. Most of them use a spell lower than level 20.
>>I also disagree with requiring water lore, as that requires a 4th niche lore split for an offensive capability while there is already a heavy emphasis on EL:F, and to a lesser extent, EL:E for offensive abilities.
Water lore is already required by this spell. Like I said, noting is changing for the spell. It's an easy development opportunity that benefits wizards who hunt in a more defensive posture. There are other opportunities we could investigate for 512 and 519 synergy, but this would be a major step in the right direction.
My suggestion for 512 + 519 is to make it so that every cycle of damage from 519 causes a major steam flare when used on a target already frozen by 512. The problem here is that would require a significant development effort. The steam flare exists, but attaching it to every cycle of 519 is a mechanics change.
>A level 17 spell can kill something instantly for 17 mana (717, 317). That is why it's perfectly fine in the level 12 slot.
This is a logical fallacy.
>channel 512 - target freezes incant 903 - target dies (15 mana, 6s RT with 3s hard RT)
>On top of that, you need more training to land the 512+Bolt combination than a Sorcerer or Cleric needs with their instant kill options.
I'm not willing to use two casts to achieve the same effect that a sorcerer can achieve with 1, or that a cleric or empath can achieve with 1 for subsequent creatures, after the set duration booster has been applied.
>Most of the other pures do not need to use a 50th circle spell to instantly kill targets. Most of them use a spell lower than level 20.
317 does not result in an instant kill without the use of 240. Your proposed mana costs are imbalanced. None of these other pures need to train in an obscure lore that is largely unaligned with offensive lores, particularly with a 4-way lore split, to achieve their instant kill result.
Finally, I recognize that there are people who play war mages within this class. Because a significant amount of power has been allocated to war mages, I recognize that as a class, wizards will have to pay more to achieve the same pure magic result. I am willing to settle for paying a 50 mana, single target cost, with no cooldown so that these other players can play the way they want. I don't think it's too much to ask that pure wizards be allowed to play the same way we want, which is as other pures do, even if it costs more.
This is a logical fallacy.
>channel 512 - target freezes incant 903 - target dies (15 mana, 6s RT with 3s hard RT)
>On top of that, you need more training to land the 512+Bolt combination than a Sorcerer or Cleric needs with their instant kill options.
I'm not willing to use two casts to achieve the same effect that a sorcerer can achieve with 1, or that a cleric or empath can achieve with 1 for subsequent creatures, after the set duration booster has been applied.
>Most of the other pures do not need to use a 50th circle spell to instantly kill targets. Most of them use a spell lower than level 20.
317 does not result in an instant kill without the use of 240. Your proposed mana costs are imbalanced. None of these other pures need to train in an obscure lore that is largely unaligned with offensive lores, particularly with a 4-way lore split, to achieve their instant kill result.
Finally, I recognize that there are people who play war mages within this class. Because a significant amount of power has been allocated to war mages, I recognize that as a class, wizards will have to pay more to achieve the same pure magic result. I am willing to settle for paying a 50 mana, single target cost, with no cooldown so that these other players can play the way they want. I don't think it's too much to ask that pure wizards be allowed to play the same way we want, which is as other pures do, even if it costs more.
>You're advocating for it to cost a wizard 50 mana to kill something instantly (single-target 950)... Most of the other pures do not need to use a 50th circle spell to instantly kill targets. Most of them use a spell lower than level 20.
You'll never fully realize how much it pains me to say this, but...we have Mana Leech.
~ Methais
You'll never fully realize how much it pains me to say this, but...we have Mana Leech.
~ Methais
I'm going to try and break this into parts for discussion:
1. Do you believe that removing the channeling requirement of the bolt in order to SHATTER makes sense? No other pure has to channel from offensive stance to inflict one of their status effects. This requirement seems out of place, and extraordinary considering the risk involved with channeling from offensive stance.
2. In the original post there is a section discussing the cost of the spell. I suggested that since you're getting two casts of the spell in one cast that the spell cost get 24 mana instead of 12 mana? If CHANNELing 512 at a single target costs 24 mana instead of 12 mana for a chance to freeze the target in one cast (instead of 2 casts), would the spell be properly balanced?
3. You dislike water lore, but you also discount how powerful it can be currently as an offensive spell lore. Not everyone has to max out in Fire lore to be have solid offensive skills as a wizard. A Wizard trained in 100 ranks of water lore at level 100 with sufficient MjE ranks can easily kill targets using 512, 512, 903 (+ 903) for a kill speed nearly equal to that of casting 711x3 with sufficient training in Necromancy lore and Sorcerer Spell Ranks (they're very similar training costs, mana costs, and time-to-kill). The difference is that it can take an extra cast of 903 because of random bolt placement. Your first bolt might hit a limb, and in that cast you just did 50% of the target's HP (plus the damage the bolt inflicted). The second cast will kill them for sure. The mana cost is less than 3x 711 (by a trivial amount) whether you cast the bolt once or twice.
Reducing this down to a single cast of 512 instead of requiring two casts will allow Wizard TTK closer to what it takes for a sorcerer to kill a target with 3x 711. Eliminating the Channeling requirement for the bolt spells makes this a much more accessible method of combat since the same sorcerer can stay in guarded stance.
The idea of making a single-target version of 950 doesn't allow you to use the above method because you can't channel the subsequent casts of the bolt spell. Therefore, that requirement (that the bolt must channeled to activate the SHATTER ability) really needs to be addressed / removed. If the devs did decide to give everyone a single-target no CD version of 950, then that makes 512x2, 903, 903, 903 accessible to water/ice mages. It would cost 50 mana, and it would be extremely reliable with proper training.
However, if the bolt channeling requirement remains - then water/ice mages lose out. I think this specific issue should be looked into by the developers because it greatly limits the current functionality of this spell combination (due to the risk of being in offensive stance with hard RT from channeling the bolt spell). If the option of giving a single-target 950 pans out, then the only portion of this suggestion that would be worth considering is that removal of the channeling requirement (albeit they would still not do well in warcamps with the 512 combo).
If the option of single-target 950 is not accepted - this, I believe, gives Wizards a very reliable form of attack for single-target kills that is not attrition based. Casting 5 bolts at once would be nice, but also has less reliability when compared to 512 freeze + 903 shatter due to all the various reasons you've pointed out previously.
1. Do you believe that removing the channeling requirement of the bolt in order to SHATTER makes sense? No other pure has to channel from offensive stance to inflict one of their status effects. This requirement seems out of place, and extraordinary considering the risk involved with channeling from offensive stance.
2. In the original post there is a section discussing the cost of the spell. I suggested that since you're getting two casts of the spell in one cast that the spell cost get 24 mana instead of 12 mana? If CHANNELing 512 at a single target costs 24 mana instead of 12 mana for a chance to freeze the target in one cast (instead of 2 casts), would the spell be properly balanced?
3. You dislike water lore, but you also discount how powerful it can be currently as an offensive spell lore. Not everyone has to max out in Fire lore to be have solid offensive skills as a wizard. A Wizard trained in 100 ranks of water lore at level 100 with sufficient MjE ranks can easily kill targets using 512, 512, 903 (+ 903) for a kill speed nearly equal to that of casting 711x3 with sufficient training in Necromancy lore and Sorcerer Spell Ranks (they're very similar training costs, mana costs, and time-to-kill). The difference is that it can take an extra cast of 903 because of random bolt placement. Your first bolt might hit a limb, and in that cast you just did 50% of the target's HP (plus the damage the bolt inflicted). The second cast will kill them for sure. The mana cost is less than 3x 711 (by a trivial amount) whether you cast the bolt once or twice.
Reducing this down to a single cast of 512 instead of requiring two casts will allow Wizard TTK closer to what it takes for a sorcerer to kill a target with 3x 711. Eliminating the Channeling requirement for the bolt spells makes this a much more accessible method of combat since the same sorcerer can stay in guarded stance.
The idea of making a single-target version of 950 doesn't allow you to use the above method because you can't channel the subsequent casts of the bolt spell. Therefore, that requirement (that the bolt must channeled to activate the SHATTER ability) really needs to be addressed / removed. If the devs did decide to give everyone a single-target no CD version of 950, then that makes 512x2, 903, 903, 903 accessible to water/ice mages. It would cost 50 mana, and it would be extremely reliable with proper training.
However, if the bolt channeling requirement remains - then water/ice mages lose out. I think this specific issue should be looked into by the developers because it greatly limits the current functionality of this spell combination (due to the risk of being in offensive stance with hard RT from channeling the bolt spell). If the option of giving a single-target 950 pans out, then the only portion of this suggestion that would be worth considering is that removal of the channeling requirement (albeit they would still not do well in warcamps with the 512 combo).
If the option of single-target 950 is not accepted - this, I believe, gives Wizards a very reliable form of attack for single-target kills that is not attrition based. Casting 5 bolts at once would be nice, but also has less reliability when compared to 512 freeze + 903 shatter due to all the various reasons you've pointed out previously.
>>You'll never fully realize how much it pains me to say this, but...we have Mana Leech.
Yes yes, and sorcerers have sacrifice while also having the cheapest instant-kill abilities (717 and 720), and the other pures can rely on special society abilities because their primary "attack power" (CS) is not impacted by spirit loss in the same way as wizards with (AS).
Let's also not continue to ignore the section of the original post that indicated this single-target use of the 512 spell could easily be justified at 24 mana cost (2x) because you're afflicting the same status effect of casting the spell twice on a single target.
Yes yes, and sorcerers have sacrifice while also having the cheapest instant-kill abilities (717 and 720), and the other pures can rely on special society abilities because their primary "attack power" (CS) is not impacted by spirit loss in the same way as wizards with (AS).
Let's also not continue to ignore the section of the original post that indicated this single-target use of the 512 spell could easily be justified at 24 mana cost (2x) because you're afflicting the same status effect of casting the spell twice on a single target.
>1. Do you believe that removing the channeling requirement of the bolt in order to SHATTER makes sense? No other pure has to channel from offensive stance to inflict one of their status effects. This requirement seems out of place, and extraordinary considering the risk involved with channeling from offensive stance.
I don't agree that CHANNEL is unreasonable in this particular instance, since the target is supposedly frozen and relatively safe while you CHANNEL at it. 512 is intended primarily as a mass CS-based disabler, and it is acceptably effective at this. This was one of the positive recent updates. The SHATTER effect damage is secondary, in a spell that already does two different things. I think people are asking for too much power (crowd control and offense) in a single spell.
>2. In the original post there is a section discussing the cost of the spell. I suggested that since you're getting two casts of the spell in one cast that the spell cost get 24 mana instead of 12 mana? If CHANNELing 512 at a single target costs 24 mana instead of 12 mana for a chance to freeze the target in one cast (instead of 2 casts), would the spell be properly balanced?
I know people keep bringing this up as if it's new, but I've asked for this since the spell was updated. I'm assuming it's been denied at this point. I do agree that CHANNELing for 3 seconds of hard RT should result in the two-step freeze in one cast for the 24 mana upfront, as other pures don't have to suffer hard RT to use their far more effective mass CS-based disablers, so it doesn't seem overpowered.
>3. You dislike water lore, but you also discount how powerful it can be currently as an offensive spell lore. Not everyone has to max out in Fire lore to be have solid offensive skills as a wizard. A Wizard trained in 100 ranks of water lore at level 100 with sufficient MjE ranks can easily kill targets using 512, 512, 903 (+ 903) for a kill speed nearly equal to that of casting 711x3 with sufficient training in Necromancy lore and Sorcerer Spell Ranks (they're very similar training costs, mana costs, and time-to-kill). The difference is that it can take an extra cast of 903 because of random bolt placement. Your first bolt might hit a limb, and in that cast you just did 50% of the target's HP (plus the damage the bolt inflicted). The second cast will kill them for sure. The mana cost is less than 3x 711 (by a trivial amount) whether you cast the bolt once or twice.
To put it differently, with the current lore setup, a wizard who chooses to train in 100 ranks of water lore is massively crippling themselves offensively with the high EL:F/EL:E requirements for other spells and defensively with the high EL:A requirements for those spells. I disagree with forcing a wizard to have to settle for being so sub-optimal on all other fronts to use one spell, just to become literally a one trick pony. The comparison isn't apples to apples because the sorcerer can get the best of all worlds by even going 100 ranks necromancy, and Sorcerous lore only has a TWO-way split.
I believe that forcing wizards to split a 4th lore for pure offensive purposes to achieve the post-cap, single target instant kill results in being very sub-optimal in all other areas if this is the only option to achieve that result. This isn't a tradeoff that the other pures have to make, so I don't believe wizards should have to settle for it either.
>The idea of making a single-target version of 950 doesn't allow you to use the above method because you can't channel the subsequent casts of the bolt spell.
Channel is part of 950 as the EL:A component.
>If the devs did decide to give everyone a single-target no CD version of 950, then that makes 512x2, 903, 903, 903 accessible to water/ice mages. It would cost 50 mana, and it would be extremely reliable with proper training.
>If the option of giving a single-target 950 pans out, then the only portion of this suggestion that would be worth considering is that removal of the channeling requirement (albeit they would still not do well in warcamps with the 512 combo).
With no CHANNEL requirement for SHATTER for 512, this combo would result in a flat 50 mana cost for even AOE 950. Other individual spell benefits, such as 513 scaling flares, have been deliberately removed from use with 950. I don't believe 512 should be the one exception.
I don't believe that 512 is an acceptable solution for the single-target, no cooldown instant kill as the lore type and lore requirements are too high and niche. As a spell solution, it doesn't satisfactorily address the disparity in offensive/defensive sacrifices or power between wizards and other pures.
I don't agree that CHANNEL is unreasonable in this particular instance, since the target is supposedly frozen and relatively safe while you CHANNEL at it. 512 is intended primarily as a mass CS-based disabler, and it is acceptably effective at this. This was one of the positive recent updates. The SHATTER effect damage is secondary, in a spell that already does two different things. I think people are asking for too much power (crowd control and offense) in a single spell.
>2. In the original post there is a section discussing the cost of the spell. I suggested that since you're getting two casts of the spell in one cast that the spell cost get 24 mana instead of 12 mana? If CHANNELing 512 at a single target costs 24 mana instead of 12 mana for a chance to freeze the target in one cast (instead of 2 casts), would the spell be properly balanced?
I know people keep bringing this up as if it's new, but I've asked for this since the spell was updated. I'm assuming it's been denied at this point. I do agree that CHANNELing for 3 seconds of hard RT should result in the two-step freeze in one cast for the 24 mana upfront, as other pures don't have to suffer hard RT to use their far more effective mass CS-based disablers, so it doesn't seem overpowered.
>3. You dislike water lore, but you also discount how powerful it can be currently as an offensive spell lore. Not everyone has to max out in Fire lore to be have solid offensive skills as a wizard. A Wizard trained in 100 ranks of water lore at level 100 with sufficient MjE ranks can easily kill targets using 512, 512, 903 (+ 903) for a kill speed nearly equal to that of casting 711x3 with sufficient training in Necromancy lore and Sorcerer Spell Ranks (they're very similar training costs, mana costs, and time-to-kill). The difference is that it can take an extra cast of 903 because of random bolt placement. Your first bolt might hit a limb, and in that cast you just did 50% of the target's HP (plus the damage the bolt inflicted). The second cast will kill them for sure. The mana cost is less than 3x 711 (by a trivial amount) whether you cast the bolt once or twice.
To put it differently, with the current lore setup, a wizard who chooses to train in 100 ranks of water lore is massively crippling themselves offensively with the high EL:F/EL:E requirements for other spells and defensively with the high EL:A requirements for those spells. I disagree with forcing a wizard to have to settle for being so sub-optimal on all other fronts to use one spell, just to become literally a one trick pony. The comparison isn't apples to apples because the sorcerer can get the best of all worlds by even going 100 ranks necromancy, and Sorcerous lore only has a TWO-way split.
I believe that forcing wizards to split a 4th lore for pure offensive purposes to achieve the post-cap, single target instant kill results in being very sub-optimal in all other areas if this is the only option to achieve that result. This isn't a tradeoff that the other pures have to make, so I don't believe wizards should have to settle for it either.
>The idea of making a single-target version of 950 doesn't allow you to use the above method because you can't channel the subsequent casts of the bolt spell.
Channel is part of 950 as the EL:A component.
>If the devs did decide to give everyone a single-target no CD version of 950, then that makes 512x2, 903, 903, 903 accessible to water/ice mages. It would cost 50 mana, and it would be extremely reliable with proper training.
>If the option of giving a single-target 950 pans out, then the only portion of this suggestion that would be worth considering is that removal of the channeling requirement (albeit they would still not do well in warcamps with the 512 combo).
With no CHANNEL requirement for SHATTER for 512, this combo would result in a flat 50 mana cost for even AOE 950. Other individual spell benefits, such as 513 scaling flares, have been deliberately removed from use with 950. I don't believe 512 should be the one exception.
I don't believe that 512 is an acceptable solution for the single-target, no cooldown instant kill as the lore type and lore requirements are too high and niche. As a spell solution, it doesn't satisfactorily address the disparity in offensive/defensive sacrifices or power between wizards and other pures.
"2. In the original post there is a section discussing the cost of the spell. I suggested that since you're getting two casts of the spell in one cast that the spell cost get 24 mana instead of 12 mana? If CHANNELing 512 at a single target costs 24 mana instead of 12 mana for a chance to freeze the target in one cast (instead of 2 casts), would the spell be properly balanced?-ashraam"
Multiple requests for channeling at 24 double the cost to remove the double cast requirement have been done on these boards and unfortunately the no answer for those requests leads me to think that this is not in our future. Maybe if we can get it into the official request for answer that Doug will eventually put out there will be an answer. Shame because it would solve what I feel is the biggest problem with this spell. The second is the requirements needed for shatter which made this spell no fun for me in the test case. As is right now it is great to stop MA attacks from things that are not affected by 410, 909, 912.
GBB
Multiple requests for channeling at 24 double the cost to remove the double cast requirement have been done on these boards and unfortunately the no answer for those requests leads me to think that this is not in our future. Maybe if we can get it into the official request for answer that Doug will eventually put out there will be an answer. Shame because it would solve what I feel is the biggest problem with this spell. The second is the requirements needed for shatter which made this spell no fun for me in the test case. As is right now it is great to stop MA attacks from things that are not affected by 410, 909, 912.
GBB
>>I don't agree that CHANNEL is unreasonable in this particular instance, since the target is supposedly frozen and relatively safe while you CHANNEL at it. 512 is intended primarily as a mass CS-based disabler, and it is acceptably effective at this. This was one of the positive recent updates. The SHATTER effect damage is secondary, in a spell that already does two different things. I think people are asking for too much power (crowd control and offense) in a single spell.
I just want to make sure we're talking about a single-target 512 here. The basic spell is AoE with cast / evoke. The suggestion is that 512 would be single target when used with channel (only).
Channeling a bolt as a follow-up to 512 is very dangerous. The assumption made in your reply is that you've successfully disabled the entire room. That's not always possible / true. The second assumption is that - even if you did disable an entire room - that doesn't stop things from walking in and messing you up right after you channel. The cost of that risk PLUS the all the lore training required for this setup seem out of whack. There isn't any reason for it other than to put the wizard at risk more than any other pure.
>>Channel is part of 950 as the EL:A component.
Even with 100 ranks of EL:A you only have a 67% chance of any of the 5 spells being channeled. I would not call that "reliable".
>>With no CHANNEL requirement for SHATTER for 512, this combo would result in a flat 50 mana cost for even AOE 950. Other individual spell benefits, such as 513 scaling flares, have been deliberately removed from use with 950. I don't believe 512 should be the one exception.
I'd be curious if a wizard with 100 EL:A and 100 EL:W was able to test this on the test server. It would be surprising if the benefits of 512, 512, 903, 903, 903 when trained for water lore with the current 950 were removed from the equation. I don't see this as too powerful with the CD in place, nor does it seem too powerful as a single-target spell.
I think that's the biggest reason why there's been no momentum on the ST 950 concept - it would require a lot of development and testing to find a way to handle the AoE spells (like putting 950 912 512 518 908 908). Do they somehow restrict the first three spells to only hit a single target? Do they code it so that you can't use AoE spells with a single-target version of 950? What makes ST 950 - single-target? We might get more traction asking for a multi-bolt spell like 525 be a single-target version of 518, but at the same time casting 5 bolts simultaneously still has that feeling of attrition and is subject to so many more variables than CS based spells (EBP, Armor, high HP, crit immunities etc).
>>I don't believe that 512 is an acceptable solution for the single-target, no cooldown instant kill as the lore type and lore requirements are too high and niche. As a spell solution, it doesn't satisfactorily address the disparity in offensive/defensive sacrifices or power between wizards and other pures.
It might be a sacrifice worth making (EL:E or EL:A) if the returns are reliability and kill speed. Earth and Air lores are incredibly defensive. Combining Fire and Water lore would become the most offensive configuration. There are also other benefits on the horizon (hinted) to water lores that may make this lore more attractive. Though, I personally believe they could combine Water and Air into a single lore at this point, but that would be another major overhaul.
I just want to make sure we're talking about a single-target 512 here. The basic spell is AoE with cast / evoke. The suggestion is that 512 would be single target when used with channel (only).
Channeling a bolt as a follow-up to 512 is very dangerous. The assumption made in your reply is that you've successfully disabled the entire room. That's not always possible / true. The second assumption is that - even if you did disable an entire room - that doesn't stop things from walking in and messing you up right after you channel. The cost of that risk PLUS the all the lore training required for this setup seem out of whack. There isn't any reason for it other than to put the wizard at risk more than any other pure.
>>Channel is part of 950 as the EL:A component.
Even with 100 ranks of EL:A you only have a 67% chance of any of the 5 spells being channeled. I would not call that "reliable".
>>With no CHANNEL requirement for SHATTER for 512, this combo would result in a flat 50 mana cost for even AOE 950. Other individual spell benefits, such as 513 scaling flares, have been deliberately removed from use with 950. I don't believe 512 should be the one exception.
I'd be curious if a wizard with 100 EL:A and 100 EL:W was able to test this on the test server. It would be surprising if the benefits of 512, 512, 903, 903, 903 when trained for water lore with the current 950 were removed from the equation. I don't see this as too powerful with the CD in place, nor does it seem too powerful as a single-target spell.
I think that's the biggest reason why there's been no momentum on the ST 950 concept - it would require a lot of development and testing to find a way to handle the AoE spells (like putting 950 912 512 518 908 908). Do they somehow restrict the first three spells to only hit a single target? Do they code it so that you can't use AoE spells with a single-target version of 950? What makes ST 950 - single-target? We might get more traction asking for a multi-bolt spell like 525 be a single-target version of 518, but at the same time casting 5 bolts simultaneously still has that feeling of attrition and is subject to so many more variables than CS based spells (EBP, Armor, high HP, crit immunities etc).
>>I don't believe that 512 is an acceptable solution for the single-target, no cooldown instant kill as the lore type and lore requirements are too high and niche. As a spell solution, it doesn't satisfactorily address the disparity in offensive/defensive sacrifices or power between wizards and other pures.
It might be a sacrifice worth making (EL:E or EL:A) if the returns are reliability and kill speed. Earth and Air lores are incredibly defensive. Combining Fire and Water lore would become the most offensive configuration. There are also other benefits on the horizon (hinted) to water lores that may make this lore more attractive. Though, I personally believe they could combine Water and Air into a single lore at this point, but that would be another major overhaul.
>I don't agree that CHANNEL is unreasonable in this particular instance, since the target is supposedly frozen and relatively safe while you CHANNEL at it. 512 is intended primarily as a mass CS-based disabler, and it is acceptably effective at this. This was one of the positive recent updates. The SHATTER effect damage is secondary, in a spell that already does two different things. I think people are asking for too much power (crowd control and offense) in a single spell.
Sorry, but regardless what CHANNEL is used for (attempt to shatter in this case), I'm still firm on my stance that CHANNEL should never be required, for any reason, for a wizard to use and to be forced being stuck in hard RT in offensive.
No other squishy class is required to CHANNEL in offensive to make use of one of their spells to be fully functional to my knowledge. All CHANNEL does is gives phantom points to the warding margin. The more offensive you are and if you have one or two open hands adds to the end bonus...but you're not required in any way to do so. You do it if you want to, not because you need it to make your special spell ability to work.
CHANNEL needs to not be a function of any wizard spell nor crutch to give bolting a chance to hit harder/better.
-Drumpel
Sorry, but regardless what CHANNEL is used for (attempt to shatter in this case), I'm still firm on my stance that CHANNEL should never be required, for any reason, for a wizard to use and to be forced being stuck in hard RT in offensive.
No other squishy class is required to CHANNEL in offensive to make use of one of their spells to be fully functional to my knowledge. All CHANNEL does is gives phantom points to the warding margin. The more offensive you are and if you have one or two open hands adds to the end bonus...but you're not required in any way to do so. You do it if you want to, not because you need it to make your special spell ability to work.
CHANNEL needs to not be a function of any wizard spell nor crutch to give bolting a chance to hit harder/better.
-Drumpel
>I think that's the biggest reason why there's been no momentum on the ST 950 concept - it would require a lot of development and testing to find a way to handle the AoE spells (like putting 950 912 512 518 908 908). Do they somehow restrict the first three spells to only hit a single target? Do they code it so that you can't use AoE spells with a single-target version of 950? What makes ST 950 - single-target? We might get more traction asking for a multi-bolt spell like 525 be a single-target version of 518, but at the same time casting 5 bolts simultaneously still has that feeling of attrition and is subject to so many more variables than CS based spells (EBP, Armor, high HP, crit immunities etc).
This doesn't make any sense. The AOE spells within 950 exist and cost the same no matter what. You're paying the full mana cost regardless. If we thought 5 bolts would solve the problem, that's one thing, but as bolts have issues, that's why we were given 950 to begin with so that we could mix the offensive spells to achieve a more desirable and effective result. This is really no different than slinging 6 spells to achieve the same thing that any other pure can achieve for 1 spell, once the booster is in effect, or achieving the same effect as if you were using 515 except for the massive quality of life difference that is worth the extra mana cost.
On a single target level, it costs a minimum of 35% more mana than the other pures's instant kill combos to compensate for the fact that wizards as a class have war mage options. I really don't think we are asking for the moon here. The spell is already built.
>Earth and Air lores are incredibly defensive. Combining Fire and Water lore would become the most offensive configuration.
This isn't supported by where the new updates have been going though. 917 is heavily EL:E dependent, also. So they've already classified EL:F as the primary offensive lore, with EL:E having a much smaller role. I understand where you're coming from, but I still think that too much is being asked of a single spell to be both extremely effective as a CS-based mass disabler and a core offensive spell.
This doesn't make any sense. The AOE spells within 950 exist and cost the same no matter what. You're paying the full mana cost regardless. If we thought 5 bolts would solve the problem, that's one thing, but as bolts have issues, that's why we were given 950 to begin with so that we could mix the offensive spells to achieve a more desirable and effective result. This is really no different than slinging 6 spells to achieve the same thing that any other pure can achieve for 1 spell, once the booster is in effect, or achieving the same effect as if you were using 515 except for the massive quality of life difference that is worth the extra mana cost.
On a single target level, it costs a minimum of 35% more mana than the other pures's instant kill combos to compensate for the fact that wizards as a class have war mage options. I really don't think we are asking for the moon here. The spell is already built.
>Earth and Air lores are incredibly defensive. Combining Fire and Water lore would become the most offensive configuration.
This isn't supported by where the new updates have been going though. 917 is heavily EL:E dependent, also. So they've already classified EL:F as the primary offensive lore, with EL:E having a much smaller role. I understand where you're coming from, but I still think that too much is being asked of a single spell to be both extremely effective as a CS-based mass disabler and a core offensive spell.
<You'll never fully realize how much it pains me to say this, but...we have Mana Leech.
And sorcerer's have sacrifice... Mana leech just sounds like a crutch at this point, my 92 wizard hasn't used the spell in something like 20 levels, hasn't needed to either. "Well we made this spell cost a bazillion mana, but you have mana leech so its ok." I would rather get rid of the spell than have to double the mana cost for everything to basically negate its effect. It only adds an extra step that shouldn't have to be there.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
And sorcerer's have sacrifice... Mana leech just sounds like a crutch at this point, my 92 wizard hasn't used the spell in something like 20 levels, hasn't needed to either. "Well we made this spell cost a bazillion mana, but you have mana leech so its ok." I would rather get rid of the spell than have to double the mana cost for everything to basically negate its effect. It only adds an extra step that shouldn't have to be there.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
"I just want to make sure we're talking about a single-target 512 here. The basic spell is AoE with cast / evoke. The suggestion is that 512 would be single target when used with channel (only).-Ashraam"
What are we solving for this? Single target kill ratio on par with 711? Why not have it be channeled for the ability to have shatter open for the area and those effected by 512 at 1 cast?
Some movement towards instant deep freeze + subsequent shatter ability is great but I would like it included in the area effect.
504+512+410+912+909 should equal 316+210, 1120+210, 703+709+410+717 in that these spells should cover a majority of creatures in their ability to allow the pures to turn the tide of an engagement in their favor. Right now the gaps for what creatures aren't included and what Pure has the least viable mass disabler spells is empath and wizard, and as a wizard you have to constantly be picking between which one is for which creature sometimes in the same area depending on your lore and spells known/CS.
gbb
What are we solving for this? Single target kill ratio on par with 711? Why not have it be channeled for the ability to have shatter open for the area and those effected by 512 at 1 cast?
Some movement towards instant deep freeze + subsequent shatter ability is great but I would like it included in the area effect.
504+512+410+912+909 should equal 316+210, 1120+210, 703+709+410+717 in that these spells should cover a majority of creatures in their ability to allow the pures to turn the tide of an engagement in their favor. Right now the gaps for what creatures aren't included and what Pure has the least viable mass disabler spells is empath and wizard, and as a wizard you have to constantly be picking between which one is for which creature sometimes in the same area depending on your lore and spells known/CS.
gbb
>> The AOE spells within 950 exist and cost the same no matter what.
But it has a 1 min CD. The ask is for a "single-target 950 with no cooldown". If the devs are going to deliver on that ask, they have to find a way to restrict 950 to single-target. Otherwise the power exists to do something like 912 518 518 518 518 - that doesn't look very "single-target". This is why there would have to be some kind of restriction on the "single-target" 950. They'd either have to figure out a way to limit the spells in use to be single-target only, or restrict the casting options to just single-target spells.
Both of those requirements are a significant development effort. That was my point initially. Just because you're spending 50+ mana doesn't mean it's "balanced". No one can cast that many spells for that much mana in 3 seconds without a cooldown.
Back on the topic of 512. I see your point about the lore requirements, and I really sympathize. I would highly suggest that 512 SHATTER effects be revisited and require Lore for the specific bolt being used to inflict shatter.
903 - Water Lore
505 - Air Lore
510 - Earth Lore
If the bolt specified was tied to the base lore of the bolt itself, then the concept becomes incredibly plausible. You can 512 to freeze a single target (using channel), and follow up with the bolt of your elemental choosing.
So to summarize, based on the productive conversation regarding 512, it would be like this:
1. Allow 512 to be used single-target to freeze a target with a single cast (24 mana cost) - NOT AOE (that's why it's balanced).
2. Allow the SHATTER chance to be determined by the lore tied to the bolt in use (903 = water, 505 = air, 510 = earth) to reduce lore dependency.
3. Consider allowing bolts to be cast instead of channeled due to the excessive risk associated with offensive stance channeling (since no other pure suffers from this detriment).
Development Effort:
- Use the existing mechanics to make it so 512 cast or channeled at a specified target will treat the target as already under the effects of 512, and make an attempt to FREEZE said target.
- Revisit the equation to determine SHATTER based on lores when specific bolts are used.
- Revisit the conditional requiring the bolt to be channeled to activate the SHATTER equation.
That'd be a couple of weeks of development, maybe a couple of weeks of testing. No specific lore dependency. Highly reliable damage output. Much less risky than being stuck channeling in offensive stance. You're looking at the ability to kill a target in 6-9s vs the current attrition based combat with sufficient MjE and bolt AS. It still relies on bolting (wizard primary offense) to deal the damage. It would be 75% lore agnostic, and it is even possible to achieve 100% chance to shatter with dedicated lore training.
Does it solve all the problems of the wizard? No, nothing ever will (IMO), but it definitely solves the attrition kill issue, and becomes reliable in the 70s (where mages start to drop off) due to Lore training.
But it has a 1 min CD. The ask is for a "single-target 950 with no cooldown". If the devs are going to deliver on that ask, they have to find a way to restrict 950 to single-target. Otherwise the power exists to do something like 912 518 518 518 518 - that doesn't look very "single-target". This is why there would have to be some kind of restriction on the "single-target" 950. They'd either have to figure out a way to limit the spells in use to be single-target only, or restrict the casting options to just single-target spells.
Both of those requirements are a significant development effort. That was my point initially. Just because you're spending 50+ mana doesn't mean it's "balanced". No one can cast that many spells for that much mana in 3 seconds without a cooldown.
Back on the topic of 512. I see your point about the lore requirements, and I really sympathize. I would highly suggest that 512 SHATTER effects be revisited and require Lore for the specific bolt being used to inflict shatter.
903 - Water Lore
505 - Air Lore
510 - Earth Lore
If the bolt specified was tied to the base lore of the bolt itself, then the concept becomes incredibly plausible. You can 512 to freeze a single target (using channel), and follow up with the bolt of your elemental choosing.
So to summarize, based on the productive conversation regarding 512, it would be like this:
1. Allow 512 to be used single-target to freeze a target with a single cast (24 mana cost) - NOT AOE (that's why it's balanced).
2. Allow the SHATTER chance to be determined by the lore tied to the bolt in use (903 = water, 505 = air, 510 = earth) to reduce lore dependency.
3. Consider allowing bolts to be cast instead of channeled due to the excessive risk associated with offensive stance channeling (since no other pure suffers from this detriment).
Development Effort:
- Use the existing mechanics to make it so 512 cast or channeled at a specified target will treat the target as already under the effects of 512, and make an attempt to FREEZE said target.
- Revisit the equation to determine SHATTER based on lores when specific bolts are used.
- Revisit the conditional requiring the bolt to be channeled to activate the SHATTER equation.
That'd be a couple of weeks of development, maybe a couple of weeks of testing. No specific lore dependency. Highly reliable damage output. Much less risky than being stuck channeling in offensive stance. You're looking at the ability to kill a target in 6-9s vs the current attrition based combat with sufficient MjE and bolt AS. It still relies on bolting (wizard primary offense) to deal the damage. It would be 75% lore agnostic, and it is even possible to achieve 100% chance to shatter with dedicated lore training.
Does it solve all the problems of the wizard? No, nothing ever will (IMO), but it definitely solves the attrition kill issue, and becomes reliable in the 70s (where mages start to drop off) due to Lore training.
>>What are we solving for this? Single target kill ratio on par with 711? Why not have it be channeled for the ability to have shatter open for the area and those effected by 512 at 1 cast?
That's been suggested a lot. Open-channel AOE 512 for 24 mana is apparently too powerful. The biggest problem Wizards are looking to solve during this current conversation has been single target kill strength (which you already know, of course). Wizards are pretty damn good at AoE killing (albeit it requires more thought or planning), but bolt-based single-target combat has proven ineffective - specifically in the higher levels. This idea is was a method to support the Wizard effort to improve single-target kills, and eliminate the attrition based bolting.
I believe the only way to allow 512 to freeze a target with a single cast / channel would be if it was restricted to single-target.
That's been suggested a lot. Open-channel AOE 512 for 24 mana is apparently too powerful. The biggest problem Wizards are looking to solve during this current conversation has been single target kill strength (which you already know, of course). Wizards are pretty damn good at AoE killing (albeit it requires more thought or planning), but bolt-based single-target combat has proven ineffective - specifically in the higher levels. This idea is was a method to support the Wizard effort to improve single-target kills, and eliminate the attrition based bolting.
I believe the only way to allow 512 to freeze a target with a single cast / channel would be if it was restricted to single-target.
>But it has a 1 min CD. The ask is for a "single-target 950 with no cooldown". If the devs are going to deliver on that ask, they have to find a way to restrict 950 to single-target. Otherwise the power exists to do something like 912 518 518 518 518 - that doesn't look very "single-target". This is why there would have to be some kind of restriction on the "single-target" 950. They'd either have to figure out a way to limit the spells in use to be single-target only, or restrict the casting options to just single-target spells.
I'm fine with restricting it so only actual single target spells (no AOE disablers) can be used with single target, no cooldown 950. So bolts or single target CS spells such as 502/519. That delivers what people asked for in 515, which is too low level, achieves a known result, and has a sufficiently high mana cost. If one wants to set up or disable, they would need to do that beforehand or use AOE 950 on cooldown. Single target 950 should have no cooldown as 50 mana per kill is sufficiently high, yet addresses the quality of life aspect if one chooses to pay the price.
>I would highly suggest that 512 SHATTER effects be revisited and require Lore for the specific bolt being used to inflict shatter.
Many people have suggested this before, and I like it in theory. However, the fact remains that all bolts aren't equal due to DFs and crit tables. Nor are most wizards' lores necessarily aligned with the primary bolt they use, due to the way lores have been assigned roles to fill. Some combinations break this entirely, such as any fire spell completely melting the ice. This negates the effect of using a mass CS-based disabler, but EL:F is still the heavily favored offensive lore.
Under this suggestion, one may only have at most 50% chance to shatter with their primary method of bolting for a cost of 12 + 12 + 10 mana, which will take 9 seconds (or 3 seconds with 515 up for a total 49 mana cost). This isn't a sufficiently reliable result for the time and mana cost compared to what 240/317, 240/1115, or 717 deliver. The main consideration in paying a high mana cost for a single target, no cooldown instant kill is quality of life. If it takes 4 spells to achieve the same result that other pures can achieve with 1 (at most 2, though one is a setup and can be used for a duration), it misses the target entirely and we're back to just being better off using 515.
>Allow 512 to be used single-target to freeze a target with a single cast (24 mana cost) - NOT AOE (that's why it's balanced).
Under no circumstances would I spend 24 mana to freeze a SINGLE target, versus just using more offensive spells to try to kill it outright. No post-cap pure, in general, does this. The only purpose of freezing a SINGLE creature is to babysit someone younger in hunting. That's pretty much the only place clerics and empaths use 214, and that only costs 14 mana. I see no demonstrated need for wizards to have a single-target CS-based disabler.
I'd rather have more offensive power than more types of disablers we don't need and that don't address the problem, which is killing.
Finally, I still believe that asking for 512 to function as both a highly effective CS-based mass disabler AND a highly effective offensive killing spell is too much power to ask for within one spell slot, particularly one that is level 12, regardless of lore requirement. There's no precedent for a spell that does both CS-based mass disabling AND kills on the level you're wanting to achieve with no channel requirement. I understand the position on channeling, but I believe it was put there as a tradeoff to the offensive power that's provided on some level. It was never intended to be a primary form of attack.
At the end of the day, 512 delivers on its ask of being an effective mass CS-based disabler for wizards, and I'm happy with where it is now.
I'm fine with restricting it so only actual single target spells (no AOE disablers) can be used with single target, no cooldown 950. So bolts or single target CS spells such as 502/519. That delivers what people asked for in 515, which is too low level, achieves a known result, and has a sufficiently high mana cost. If one wants to set up or disable, they would need to do that beforehand or use AOE 950 on cooldown. Single target 950 should have no cooldown as 50 mana per kill is sufficiently high, yet addresses the quality of life aspect if one chooses to pay the price.
>I would highly suggest that 512 SHATTER effects be revisited and require Lore for the specific bolt being used to inflict shatter.
Many people have suggested this before, and I like it in theory. However, the fact remains that all bolts aren't equal due to DFs and crit tables. Nor are most wizards' lores necessarily aligned with the primary bolt they use, due to the way lores have been assigned roles to fill. Some combinations break this entirely, such as any fire spell completely melting the ice. This negates the effect of using a mass CS-based disabler, but EL:F is still the heavily favored offensive lore.
Under this suggestion, one may only have at most 50% chance to shatter with their primary method of bolting for a cost of 12 + 12 + 10 mana, which will take 9 seconds (or 3 seconds with 515 up for a total 49 mana cost). This isn't a sufficiently reliable result for the time and mana cost compared to what 240/317, 240/1115, or 717 deliver. The main consideration in paying a high mana cost for a single target, no cooldown instant kill is quality of life. If it takes 4 spells to achieve the same result that other pures can achieve with 1 (at most 2, though one is a setup and can be used for a duration), it misses the target entirely and we're back to just being better off using 515.
>Allow 512 to be used single-target to freeze a target with a single cast (24 mana cost) - NOT AOE (that's why it's balanced).
Under no circumstances would I spend 24 mana to freeze a SINGLE target, versus just using more offensive spells to try to kill it outright. No post-cap pure, in general, does this. The only purpose of freezing a SINGLE creature is to babysit someone younger in hunting. That's pretty much the only place clerics and empaths use 214, and that only costs 14 mana. I see no demonstrated need for wizards to have a single-target CS-based disabler.
I'd rather have more offensive power than more types of disablers we don't need and that don't address the problem, which is killing.
Finally, I still believe that asking for 512 to function as both a highly effective CS-based mass disabler AND a highly effective offensive killing spell is too much power to ask for within one spell slot, particularly one that is level 12, regardless of lore requirement. There's no precedent for a spell that does both CS-based mass disabling AND kills on the level you're wanting to achieve with no channel requirement. I understand the position on channeling, but I believe it was put there as a tradeoff to the offensive power that's provided on some level. It was never intended to be a primary form of attack.
At the end of the day, 512 delivers on its ask of being an effective mass CS-based disabler for wizards, and I'm happy with where it is now.
>>Under no circumstances would I spend 24 mana to freeze a SINGLE target, versus just using more offensive spells to try to kill it outright. No post-cap pure, in general, does this. The only purpose of freezing a SINGLE creature is to babysit someone younger in hunting. That's pretty much the only place clerics and empaths use 214, and that only costs 14 mana. I see no demonstrated need for wizards to have a single-target CS-based disabler.
But would you spend 34 mana to kill a target in 6 seconds (two casts)? That's the point. Casting 214 doesn't setup a target to be instantly killed with a follow-up spell. Casting 118 doesn't setup a target to be instantly killed with a follow-up spell.
>>Under this suggestion, one may only have at most 50% chance to shatter with their primary method of bolting for a cost of 12 + 12 + 10 mana, which will take 9 seconds (or 3 seconds with 515 up for a total 49 mana cost). This isn't a sufficiently reliable result for the time and mana cost compared to what 240/317, 240/1115, or 717 deliver.
This is a single piece of the suggestion. It would definitely be a quality-of-life improvement to reduce the water lore dependency on the SHATTER component of 512. Regardless of any other change, that single change would definitely improve the life of wizards without imbalancing any "power equations".
Another really important side note everyone seems to ignore regarding 717 and 720. They remove loot from the game. If you rely on these spells in high-end areas you will miss out on a great deal of coin for the sake of expediency. I'm not a fan of either spell when hunting outside of Duskruin because I like treasure...
But would you spend 34 mana to kill a target in 6 seconds (two casts)? That's the point. Casting 214 doesn't setup a target to be instantly killed with a follow-up spell. Casting 118 doesn't setup a target to be instantly killed with a follow-up spell.
>>Under this suggestion, one may only have at most 50% chance to shatter with their primary method of bolting for a cost of 12 + 12 + 10 mana, which will take 9 seconds (or 3 seconds with 515 up for a total 49 mana cost). This isn't a sufficiently reliable result for the time and mana cost compared to what 240/317, 240/1115, or 717 deliver.
This is a single piece of the suggestion. It would definitely be a quality-of-life improvement to reduce the water lore dependency on the SHATTER component of 512. Regardless of any other change, that single change would definitely improve the life of wizards without imbalancing any "power equations".
Another really important side note everyone seems to ignore regarding 717 and 720. They remove loot from the game. If you rely on these spells in high-end areas you will miss out on a great deal of coin for the sake of expediency. I'm not a fan of either spell when hunting outside of Duskruin because I like treasure...
>But would you spend 34 mana to kill a target in 6 seconds (two casts)? That's the point. Casting 214 doesn't setup a target to be instantly killed with a follow-up spell. Casting 118 doesn't setup a target to be instantly killed with a follow-up spell.
This is becoming talking in circles because 512 is intended to be a mass CS-based disabler, with the damage as a secondary effect. That's why I don't believe the other lore options were offered. Clearly, water mages who choose to be such sacrifice a lot to do so. However, no other spell offers both effective mass CS-based disabling and an effective kill, as you pointed out yourself. And it wouldn't even be an instant kill, since SHATTER only removes half of the target's HP, so you still need a third cast.
>This is a single piece of the suggestion. It would definitely be a quality-of-life improvement to reduce the water lore dependency on the SHATTER component of 512. Regardless of any other change, that single change would definitely improve the life of wizards without imbalancing any "power equations".
Unfortunately, making 512 more desirable to those who don't train in water lore would definitely imbalance the "power equation". A wizard clearly isn't intended to be able to use a single spell for both purposes without great sacrifice elsewhere.
>Another really important side note everyone seems to ignore regarding 717 and 720. They remove loot from the game. If you rely on these spells in high-end areas you will miss out on a great deal of coin for the sake of expediency. I'm not a fan of either spell when hunting outside of Duskruin because I like treasure...
Wizard utility is far below sorcerer utility. We have a massive utility/offensive power imbalance as it is. I don't believe that we're going to get changes that will bring wizards to the level of utility that sorcerers enjoy (714, 735, 740, 725 with combat benefits), unfortunately because there are a lot of wizard enchanting bots already. Therefore, we shouldn't have to settle for such a low offensive power ceiling. The loss of loot doesn't always occur with 717. Warcamps are also a place where there's zero tradeoff.
This is becoming talking in circles because 512 is intended to be a mass CS-based disabler, with the damage as a secondary effect. That's why I don't believe the other lore options were offered. Clearly, water mages who choose to be such sacrifice a lot to do so. However, no other spell offers both effective mass CS-based disabling and an effective kill, as you pointed out yourself. And it wouldn't even be an instant kill, since SHATTER only removes half of the target's HP, so you still need a third cast.
>This is a single piece of the suggestion. It would definitely be a quality-of-life improvement to reduce the water lore dependency on the SHATTER component of 512. Regardless of any other change, that single change would definitely improve the life of wizards without imbalancing any "power equations".
Unfortunately, making 512 more desirable to those who don't train in water lore would definitely imbalance the "power equation". A wizard clearly isn't intended to be able to use a single spell for both purposes without great sacrifice elsewhere.
>Another really important side note everyone seems to ignore regarding 717 and 720. They remove loot from the game. If you rely on these spells in high-end areas you will miss out on a great deal of coin for the sake of expediency. I'm not a fan of either spell when hunting outside of Duskruin because I like treasure...
Wizard utility is far below sorcerer utility. We have a massive utility/offensive power imbalance as it is. I don't believe that we're going to get changes that will bring wizards to the level of utility that sorcerers enjoy (714, 735, 740, 725 with combat benefits), unfortunately because there are a lot of wizard enchanting bots already. Therefore, we shouldn't have to settle for such a low offensive power ceiling. The loss of loot doesn't always occur with 717. Warcamps are also a place where there's zero tradeoff.
>> And it wouldn't even be an instant kill, since SHATTER only removes half of the target's HP, so you still need a third cast.
If you SHATTER the target's head/neck/chest/back with a bolt spell, does that not instantly kill them? I realize that it will remove limbs if you randomly hit a limb, but was lead to believe that shattering a non-limb was instant death because it was destroying a vital area of the target.
If you SHATTER the target's head/neck/chest/back with a bolt spell, does that not instantly kill them? I realize that it will remove limbs if you randomly hit a limb, but was lead to believe that shattering a non-limb was instant death because it was destroying a vital area of the target.
>If you SHATTER the target's head/neck/chest/back with a bolt spell, does that not instantly kill them? I realize that it will remove limbs if you randomly hit a limb, but was lead to believe that shattering a non-limb was instant death because it was destroying a vital area of the target.
It's possible, but now we're getting into procs on procs, which is the problem with many of our spells, including 519. 519 suffers from the same problem of 1) requiring the creature to not be fire immune, 2) being able to ward the creature without a CS booster that 240 provides, 3) having a much lower concussion cycle of damage and heavier reliance on crits than 1115 or 317, which results in 4) having to hope that the creature can crit, that the location of the crit is a body part the creature possesses, and that a favorable crit randomization roll results.
Here, we're hoping the creature 1) can be frozen, 2) you can ward it without a CS booster, 3) you get the SHATTER proc based on lore, and 4) you hope the bolt lands on an area that will result in the kill.
This, to me, delivers nowhere close to the reliable and effective result on a near-guaranteed basis with a single cast that provides quality of life, that the other pures enjoy.
A STNCD 950, even if usable only with actual single target spells, would deliver this because 950 includes the important component of 240, which is the boosted AS/CS cast and the simultaneous strike(s) that deliver the overall result.
It's possible, but now we're getting into procs on procs, which is the problem with many of our spells, including 519. 519 suffers from the same problem of 1) requiring the creature to not be fire immune, 2) being able to ward the creature without a CS booster that 240 provides, 3) having a much lower concussion cycle of damage and heavier reliance on crits than 1115 or 317, which results in 4) having to hope that the creature can crit, that the location of the crit is a body part the creature possesses, and that a favorable crit randomization roll results.
Here, we're hoping the creature 1) can be frozen, 2) you can ward it without a CS booster, 3) you get the SHATTER proc based on lore, and 4) you hope the bolt lands on an area that will result in the kill.
This, to me, delivers nowhere close to the reliable and effective result on a near-guaranteed basis with a single cast that provides quality of life, that the other pures enjoy.
A STNCD 950, even if usable only with actual single target spells, would deliver this because 950 includes the important component of 240, which is the boosted AS/CS cast and the simultaneous strike(s) that deliver the overall result.
>>Here, we're hoping the creature 1) can be frozen, 2) you can ward it without a CS booster, 3) you get the SHATTER proc based on lore, and 4) you hope the bolt lands on an area that will result in the kill.
>>This, to me, delivers nowhere close to the reliable and effective result on a near-guaranteed basis with a single cast that provides quality of life, that the other pures enjoy.
There's an extremely significant difference. If your first shot doesn't instantly kill the target, your second shot will finish off guaranteed because both hits will deal 50% of the target's HP. That's reliability. 519 doesn't have the same reliability. It would be great if it did, but you're either going to one-shot kill with SHATTER or at the worst, two-shot kill. This to me is FAAAAR superior to casting 5+ bolts at a single target to bring it down.
720, 717 definitely don't have that level of reliability either. Only 711 is "reliable". Trust me, after spending countless hours in DR mastering the arena with a sorcerer, I can say with certainty that 717 and 720 are not reliably able to 1-shot kill target on a consistent basis. They are capable of killing it, but the success rate when highly trained and wearing tons of enhancives was only around 65%. If you cast 717 and fail to sufficiently ward the target, you're now stuck with a stunned target that cannot flee. Therefore you will now have to get a higher than 199 endroll on your next cast to kill it instantly with 717, or switch to something else more reliable (like 711). Not to mention that all golems and undead are immune to 717. 720 suffers from a bunch of immunities as well (including being very weak against armored foes), and becomes less reliable the higher the level of the target is compared to yourself.
I see the ability to FREEZE something with 1 cast (single target, IMO, for balance) and bolt it one-two times much more reliable than any of our current options. Even if we can manage to get a single-target no CD 950 to allow "single-target only" spells, you're still not going to reliably kill something for 50 mana. Give me a 50 mana setup using single-target only spells that would be as reliable as a 512 option with a 950?
>>This, to me, delivers nowhere close to the reliable and effective result on a near-guaranteed basis with a single cast that provides quality of life, that the other pures enjoy.
There's an extremely significant difference. If your first shot doesn't instantly kill the target, your second shot will finish off guaranteed because both hits will deal 50% of the target's HP. That's reliability. 519 doesn't have the same reliability. It would be great if it did, but you're either going to one-shot kill with SHATTER or at the worst, two-shot kill. This to me is FAAAAR superior to casting 5+ bolts at a single target to bring it down.
720, 717 definitely don't have that level of reliability either. Only 711 is "reliable". Trust me, after spending countless hours in DR mastering the arena with a sorcerer, I can say with certainty that 717 and 720 are not reliably able to 1-shot kill target on a consistent basis. They are capable of killing it, but the success rate when highly trained and wearing tons of enhancives was only around 65%. If you cast 717 and fail to sufficiently ward the target, you're now stuck with a stunned target that cannot flee. Therefore you will now have to get a higher than 199 endroll on your next cast to kill it instantly with 717, or switch to something else more reliable (like 711). Not to mention that all golems and undead are immune to 717. 720 suffers from a bunch of immunities as well (including being very weak against armored foes), and becomes less reliable the higher the level of the target is compared to yourself.
I see the ability to FREEZE something with 1 cast (single target, IMO, for balance) and bolt it one-two times much more reliable than any of our current options. Even if we can manage to get a single-target no CD 950 to allow "single-target only" spells, you're still not going to reliably kill something for 50 mana. Give me a 50 mana setup using single-target only spells that would be as reliable as a 512 option with a 950?
>Even if we can manage to get a single-target no CD 950 to allow "single-target only" spells, you're still not going to reliably kill something for 50 mana.
This is not true from my experience. It works, and I would be satisfied with it.
It's far more reliable than 512, which is a non-starter because of the high lore requirements and the lore required, and it is very unlikely to be changed to allow all types of lores due to the fact that would be imbalanced to allow a mass CS-based disabler and highly effective offensive spell within one spell without making the massive offensive sacrifices elsewhere. 240 is a capstone level ability for clerics and empaths, and as such, it makes sense that it would be tied in with 950 or another high level spell for wizards.
This is not true from my experience. It works, and I would be satisfied with it.
It's far more reliable than 512, which is a non-starter because of the high lore requirements and the lore required, and it is very unlikely to be changed to allow all types of lores due to the fact that would be imbalanced to allow a mass CS-based disabler and highly effective offensive spell within one spell without making the massive offensive sacrifices elsewhere. 240 is a capstone level ability for clerics and empaths, and as such, it makes sense that it would be tied in with 950 or another high level spell for wizards.
>Trust me, after spending countless hours in DR mastering the arena with a sorcerer, I can say with certainty that 717 and 720 are not reliably able to 1-shot kill target on a consistent basis.
As Estild says, things are not balanced around Duskruin. Duskruin creatures are extra tough. This does not apply elsewhere. The bolt tedium and unreliability issues for wizards at the post-cap level, however, do apply to day to day hunting elsewhere and quality of life.
As Estild says, things are not balanced around Duskruin. Duskruin creatures are extra tough. This does not apply elsewhere. The bolt tedium and unreliability issues for wizards at the post-cap level, however, do apply to day to day hunting elsewhere and quality of life.
>>As Estild says, things are not balanced around Duskruin. Duskruin creatures are extra tough. This does not apply elsewhere. The bolt tedium and unreliability issues for wizards at the post-cap level, however, do apply to day to day hunting elsewhere and quality of life.
This is waaaaaay beside the point. Balance around Duskruin has nothing to do with what I stated. How about the countless hours spent attempting to clear Warcamps against like-level targets. There - a great example of how unreliable those spells can be. If your target is heavily armored, undead, crit resistant / immune, golems, and many other variables which exist in the game in many capped hunting areas 717 and 720 become sketchy at best. Especially if the target out-levels you at all. And if you do succeed you're most likely to destroy any items (which practically negates the value of this type of killing in regular day-to-day hunting).
The bolt tedium is the entire point of giving a reliable way to setup 512 so you can kill a target with 1-2 bolts. Sounds cheap, sounds fair, sounds balanced.
Still hoping you can give me a more reliable example of single target spells you'd combine with 950 to insta-kill something with one attack. I'm not finding a reliable combination of spells that accomplish this feat for 50 mana, but maybe I'm just not seeing the grand picture.
This is waaaaaay beside the point. Balance around Duskruin has nothing to do with what I stated. How about the countless hours spent attempting to clear Warcamps against like-level targets. There - a great example of how unreliable those spells can be. If your target is heavily armored, undead, crit resistant / immune, golems, and many other variables which exist in the game in many capped hunting areas 717 and 720 become sketchy at best. Especially if the target out-levels you at all. And if you do succeed you're most likely to destroy any items (which practically negates the value of this type of killing in regular day-to-day hunting).
The bolt tedium is the entire point of giving a reliable way to setup 512 so you can kill a target with 1-2 bolts. Sounds cheap, sounds fair, sounds balanced.
Still hoping you can give me a more reliable example of single target spells you'd combine with 950 to insta-kill something with one attack. I'm not finding a reliable combination of spells that accomplish this feat for 50 mana, but maybe I'm just not seeing the grand picture.
>>Maybe if we can get it into the official request for answer that Doug will eventually put out there will be an answer.
We have a few folks working to this end, and I believe we would be putting the information out for community review / commentary. So, if I should somehow overlook it in my board grabs, there'll be ways to keep me honest!
Whether or not it draws a specific response, I don't know. I guess that might depend on the window dressing. ;)
Doug
We have a few folks working to this end, and I believe we would be putting the information out for community review / commentary. So, if I should somehow overlook it in my board grabs, there'll be ways to keep me honest!
Whether or not it draws a specific response, I don't know. I guess that might depend on the window dressing. ;)
Doug
I'll preface this by saying this wouldn't fix the current problem of a single target killer, but I thought it was a neat idea so I am sharing it. I would also prefer this to Core Tap, but that is merely my opinion.
For the first time yesterday I saw what 635 (nature's fury) does. Holy crap, that spell looks absolutely god like. At 151 lore ranks you can get 100% chance for three damage cycles and 51% for a fourth AND it hits the entire room (with no lore requirement). Maybe I am missing something about the spell that is a huge drawback but damn I would take that spell all day over Core Tap.
As a side note I've never understood why DC is a sorcerer spell and not a wizard one, it does almost purely elemental damage (something wizards are supposed to be great at). Yet we have no spells that can do more than one element at a time. How does that work?
So with these 2 spells in mind, I have a suggestion for spell 935. It could work two ways as a bolt when cast above stance guarded and a CS when cast from guarded or defensive. I also haven't worked out how lore could effect this spell.
Elemental Missiles:
Hit with the four elements at once, this would be a DC without the target being required to have mana or getting any mana back. It also would hit the entire ungrouped room.
CS version:
You gesture at a triton combatant.
CS: +555 - TD: +364 + CvA: +20 + d100: +77 == +288
Warding failed!
Four brightly colored beams reach out toward the triton combatant!
Warding failed!
... and hits for 65 points of damage!
A triton combatant is suddenly engulfed in flames of pure elements!
... 50 points of damage!
Burst of flames to right leg blackens kneecap.
The triton combatant is stunned!
... 65 points of damage!
What was once the emaciated hierophant's right leg shatters with your well placed strike!
A triton combatant falls to the ground grasping her mangled right leg!
... 55 points of damage!
Nasty shock to the neck. Gonna be stiff for awhile.
... 45 points of damage!
Strong blow to abdomen!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Bolt Version (the initial bolt would always be your attuned element, random if unattuned, or you can set what element you want the initial bolt to be):
Would also hit all targets in the room.
Your hands glow with power as you invoke the phrase for Elemental Missiles...
Your spell is ready.
You gesture at a hill troll.
You hurl a stream of fire at a triton combatant!
AS: +550 vs DS: +432 with AvD: +33 + d100 roll: +25 = +177
... and hit for 36 points of damage!
Left hand fried to a crisp. Think barbecue sauce.
The hill troll is stunned!
The bolt changes elements and redirects back towards the hill troll!
... 65 points of damage!
What was once the hill troll's right leg shatters with your well placed strike!
The bolt changes elements and redirects back towards the hill troll!
... 55 points of damage!
Nasty shock to the neck. Gonna be stiff for awhile.
The bolt changes elements and redirects back towards the hill troll!
... 45 points of damage!
Strong blow to abdomen!
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
For the first time yesterday I saw what 635 (nature's fury) does. Holy crap, that spell looks absolutely god like. At 151 lore ranks you can get 100% chance for three damage cycles and 51% for a fourth AND it hits the entire room (with no lore requirement). Maybe I am missing something about the spell that is a huge drawback but damn I would take that spell all day over Core Tap.
As a side note I've never understood why DC is a sorcerer spell and not a wizard one, it does almost purely elemental damage (something wizards are supposed to be great at). Yet we have no spells that can do more than one element at a time. How does that work?
So with these 2 spells in mind, I have a suggestion for spell 935. It could work two ways as a bolt when cast above stance guarded and a CS when cast from guarded or defensive. I also haven't worked out how lore could effect this spell.
Elemental Missiles:
Hit with the four elements at once, this would be a DC without the target being required to have mana or getting any mana back. It also would hit the entire ungrouped room.
CS version:
You gesture at a triton combatant.
CS: +555 - TD: +364 + CvA: +20 + d100: +77 == +288
Warding failed!
Four brightly colored beams reach out toward the triton combatant!
Warding failed!
... and hits for 65 points of damage!
A triton combatant is suddenly engulfed in flames of pure elements!
... 50 points of damage!
Burst of flames to right leg blackens kneecap.
The triton combatant is stunned!
... 65 points of damage!
What was once the emaciated hierophant's right leg shatters with your well placed strike!
A triton combatant falls to the ground grasping her mangled right leg!
... 55 points of damage!
Nasty shock to the neck. Gonna be stiff for awhile.
... 45 points of damage!
Strong blow to abdomen!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
Bolt Version (the initial bolt would always be your attuned element, random if unattuned, or you can set what element you want the initial bolt to be):
Would also hit all targets in the room.
Your hands glow with power as you invoke the phrase for Elemental Missiles...
Your spell is ready.
You gesture at a hill troll.
You hurl a stream of fire at a triton combatant!
AS: +550 vs DS: +432 with AvD: +33 + d100 roll: +25 = +177
... and hit for 36 points of damage!
Left hand fried to a crisp. Think barbecue sauce.
The hill troll is stunned!
The bolt changes elements and redirects back towards the hill troll!
... 65 points of damage!
What was once the hill troll's right leg shatters with your well placed strike!
The bolt changes elements and redirects back towards the hill troll!
... 55 points of damage!
Nasty shock to the neck. Gonna be stiff for awhile.
The bolt changes elements and redirects back towards the hill troll!
... 45 points of damage!
Strong blow to abdomen!
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
>The bolt tedium is the entire point of giving a reliable way to setup 512 so you can kill a target with 1-2 bolts. Sounds cheap, sounds fair, sounds balanced.
It doesn't achieve the level of effect I'm looking for that 240/317, 240/1115 deliver. Wizards are way below sorcerers in utility on every level, so they should be above sorcerers offensively.
>Still hoping you can give me a more reliable example of single target spells you'd combine with 950 to insta-kill something with one attack. I'm not finding a reliable combination of spells that accomplish this feat for 50 mana, but maybe I'm just not seeing the grand picture.
The grand picture is it's a post-cap ability (202 ranks lore).
It doesn't achieve the level of effect I'm looking for that 240/317, 240/1115 deliver. Wizards are way below sorcerers in utility on every level, so they should be above sorcerers offensively.
>Still hoping you can give me a more reliable example of single target spells you'd combine with 950 to insta-kill something with one attack. I'm not finding a reliable combination of spells that accomplish this feat for 50 mana, but maybe I'm just not seeing the grand picture.
The grand picture is it's a post-cap ability (202 ranks lore).
>So with these 2 spells in mind, I have a suggestion for spell 935. It could work two ways as a bolt when cast above stance guarded and a CS when cast from guarded or defensive. I also haven't worked out how lore could effect this spell.
Looks cool, but I'm not looking to cash in our chips on any more AOE offensive spells. Wizards now have plenty, and 950 is far more effective and player friendly.
635 is amazing, but it requires a lot more careful use if one is at all considerate in hunting. It basically nearly instantly kills any passersby, which is an unfortunate side effect. Semi's spells are balanced for differently because they generally have more spell hindrance casting in heavier armor and only 1-2 core offensive spells.
Looks cool, but I'm not looking to cash in our chips on any more AOE offensive spells. Wizards now have plenty, and 950 is far more effective and player friendly.
635 is amazing, but it requires a lot more careful use if one is at all considerate in hunting. It basically nearly instantly kills any passersby, which is an unfortunate side effect. Semi's spells are balanced for differently because they generally have more spell hindrance casting in heavier armor and only 1-2 core offensive spells.
I've been thinking about how lore might affect this spell. Perhaps a chance for double hits on each damage cycle w/ 100% chance at say 150 or 200 ranks. I believe that would more than fulfill your single target killer request. It's just an idea at the moment and would obviously need to be fleshed out more.
Since we are pures you could also make it player friendly since we are more adept at controlling magic.
Since they wear heavier armor and have fewer spells they get better spells? That doesn't sound right..
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
Since we are pures you could also make it player friendly since we are more adept at controlling magic.
Since they wear heavier armor and have fewer spells they get better spells? That doesn't sound right..
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
>>It doesn't achieve the level of effect I'm looking for that 240/317, 240/1115 deliver. Wizards are way below sorcerers in utility on every level, so they should be above sorcerers offensively.
I don't believe that 240/317 and 240/1115 are consistently always 1-shot kills. It's similar to how you're not always going to kill targets with a single cast of 717 or 720. You can stack the odds, but at the same time the raw damage doesn't always get the job done. Especially with high HP targets that are resistant to crit death.
At the same time, Wizards are definitely already allocated way more power than sorcerers toward offense because of their multiple effective combat styles (warmage with a variety of weapon options and pure). I would definitely argue that once the 520 changes are in place, Wizards will also be much stronger defensively (520, 535, 550 and to a much smaller extent 540). No matter how envious you might be of 716 (which has only a maximum of 55% chance to flare with 240 ranks of necro lore), they have a lot of combat power allocation to wizards when compared to sorcerers. Hopefully the 925 changes will start to close the gap on wizard utility (giving them 517, 918, and 925 as useful utility).
>>The grand picture is it's a post-cap ability (202 ranks lore).
First off - there's that narrow vision again. Bolt attrition starts before cap, and expecting a wizard to have 2x lores by cap to enjoy reliable hunting with their character is an absurd expectation. I definitely hope the devs do not implement some whacky need for wizards to be trained out the arse in order to achieve reliable kill time. So you really are making a case for a very small fraction of wizards, and the 512 suggestion here would definitely benefit a much larger number of players.
Sorcerers, Empaths and Clerics do not have to post-cap with 2x in lores to make their combat systems reliable and their TTK reasonable.
Secondly, I am curious what combination of single-target spells with 202 lores and 950 you envision will more reliably kill a target than the combination have 202 lores with a single cast of 512 (to FREEZE) followed by 1-2 casts of a bolt (to SHATTER)?
It really is important that we consider easily achievable alternatives. The more and more I look at the options with single-target spells and 950, the less I'm convinced it will produce reliable results for reasonable cost. Can you kill something with 5 single-target spells in a single cast? Sure! It's bound to happen pretty regularly. Will it be reliable? I'm not so sure about that... I'd be less concerned about spending 6 seconds to cast spells if it wasn't going to cost 100+ mana (depending on spell choice).
To further demonstrate the viability of 512 post-cap:
Making your assumptions (post-cap Wizard with 202 ranks in lore), they could easily achieve a 95% chance to SHATTER targets after FREEZing them with 512. Wizards would actually see realizable training gains by doubling their lore training. If you could cast 512 single-target to FREEZE them with one cast - and follow that up with a bolt spell to SHATTER (95% chance) - that is actually MORE reliable than 717 or 720, 317/240 and 1115/240. You're spending 6s to deal guaranteed 50% HP damage with a high chance to shattering a vital area, and can automatically destroy the target with your next cast if you didn't shatter the vitals. Not to mention the number of enemies immune to 512 is significantly smaller than the number of enemies immune to 717, 720 and even 1115.
Please give me an example of a 950 combination that would accomplish the same thing using single-target spells.
I don't believe that 240/317 and 240/1115 are consistently always 1-shot kills. It's similar to how you're not always going to kill targets with a single cast of 717 or 720. You can stack the odds, but at the same time the raw damage doesn't always get the job done. Especially with high HP targets that are resistant to crit death.
At the same time, Wizards are definitely already allocated way more power than sorcerers toward offense because of their multiple effective combat styles (warmage with a variety of weapon options and pure). I would definitely argue that once the 520 changes are in place, Wizards will also be much stronger defensively (520, 535, 550 and to a much smaller extent 540). No matter how envious you might be of 716 (which has only a maximum of 55% chance to flare with 240 ranks of necro lore), they have a lot of combat power allocation to wizards when compared to sorcerers. Hopefully the 925 changes will start to close the gap on wizard utility (giving them 517, 918, and 925 as useful utility).
>>The grand picture is it's a post-cap ability (202 ranks lore).
First off - there's that narrow vision again. Bolt attrition starts before cap, and expecting a wizard to have 2x lores by cap to enjoy reliable hunting with their character is an absurd expectation. I definitely hope the devs do not implement some whacky need for wizards to be trained out the arse in order to achieve reliable kill time. So you really are making a case for a very small fraction of wizards, and the 512 suggestion here would definitely benefit a much larger number of players.
Sorcerers, Empaths and Clerics do not have to post-cap with 2x in lores to make their combat systems reliable and their TTK reasonable.
Secondly, I am curious what combination of single-target spells with 202 lores and 950 you envision will more reliably kill a target than the combination have 202 lores with a single cast of 512 (to FREEZE) followed by 1-2 casts of a bolt (to SHATTER)?
It really is important that we consider easily achievable alternatives. The more and more I look at the options with single-target spells and 950, the less I'm convinced it will produce reliable results for reasonable cost. Can you kill something with 5 single-target spells in a single cast? Sure! It's bound to happen pretty regularly. Will it be reliable? I'm not so sure about that... I'd be less concerned about spending 6 seconds to cast spells if it wasn't going to cost 100+ mana (depending on spell choice).
To further demonstrate the viability of 512 post-cap:
Making your assumptions (post-cap Wizard with 202 ranks in lore), they could easily achieve a 95% chance to SHATTER targets after FREEZing them with 512. Wizards would actually see realizable training gains by doubling their lore training. If you could cast 512 single-target to FREEZE them with one cast - and follow that up with a bolt spell to SHATTER (95% chance) - that is actually MORE reliable than 717 or 720, 317/240 and 1115/240. You're spending 6s to deal guaranteed 50% HP damage with a high chance to shattering a vital area, and can automatically destroy the target with your next cast if you didn't shatter the vitals. Not to mention the number of enemies immune to 512 is significantly smaller than the number of enemies immune to 717, 720 and even 1115.
Please give me an example of a 950 combination that would accomplish the same thing using single-target spells.
Bolt attrition doesn't seem to be happening before cap, at 92 I've been going thru OTF like its going out of style. With bolts its a piece of cake. Haste alone makes that place so much more manageable from 90-100.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
This looks pretty similar to how I envisioned my Meteor Swarm suggestion from the other day.
One thing I really like about your version is how it does things like turn a triton combatant into a hill troll after the spell is cast.
If we can't burn down like leveled stuff in one shot, just turn them into a level 11. Kinda like turning a monster into a cockroach and then squashing it.
Now if we could EVOKE it to do the opposite, we could turn everywhere into a capped hunting ground!
~ Methais
One thing I really like about your version is how it does things like turn a triton combatant into a hill troll after the spell is cast.
If we can't burn down like leveled stuff in one shot, just turn them into a level 11. Kinda like turning a monster into a cockroach and then squashing it.
Now if we could EVOKE it to do the opposite, we could turn everywhere into a capped hunting ground!
~ Methais
>But it has a 1 min CD. The ask is for a "single-target 950 with no cooldown". If the devs are going to deliver on that ask, they have to find a way to restrict 950 to single-target. Otherwise the power exists to do something like 912 518 518 518 518 - that doesn't look very "single-target". This is why there would have to be some kind of restriction on the "single-target" 950. They'd either have to figure out a way to limit the spells in use to be single-target only, or restrict the casting options to just single-target spells.
Make it so that any aoe or at least aoe damage spell triggers the cooldown. If the aoe version is already on cooldown, the spell doesn't cast and you get the "you can't cast this yet" cooldown messaging as if you were trying to cast the aoe version again.
>I see no demonstrated need for wizards to have a single-target CS-based disabler.
Shatter arguments aside, we already have this with 501.
>Give me a 50 mana setup using single-target only spells that would be as reliable as a 512 option with a 950?
Incant 950 501 519 906 906 906 906
If you want it to be bolts only, then just replace 519 with another 906 or 910/510. Pretty much any combo should work.
>I don't believe that 240/317 and 240/1115 are consistently always 1-shot kills. It's similar to how you're not always going to kill targets with a single cast of 717 or 720.
You must not have first hand experience with it then. My 8m cleric who's not even close to max spells or lores using 240/317 demolishes my 30m wizard in killing power, and very rarely has to cast a something a second time because it's almost always dead after the first. Just the concussion damage alone from both casts would often be enough to bleed the target out. 317's concussion damage makes Immolate's look like complete trash on similar end rolls.
>If you could cast 512 single-target to FREEZE them with one cast - and follow that up with a bolt spell to SHATTER (95% chance) - that is actually MORE reliable than 717 or 720, 317/240 and 1115/240. You're spending 6s to deal guaranteed 50% HP damage with a high chance to shattering a vital area, and can automatically destroy the target with your next cast if you didn't shatter the vitals.
I don't know how you can get more reliable than INCANT 317 and then the target dies while having to recast 240 every 30 seconds. Could you enlighten me on this?
~ Methais
Make it so that any aoe or at least aoe damage spell triggers the cooldown. If the aoe version is already on cooldown, the spell doesn't cast and you get the "you can't cast this yet" cooldown messaging as if you were trying to cast the aoe version again.
>I see no demonstrated need for wizards to have a single-target CS-based disabler.
Shatter arguments aside, we already have this with 501.
>Give me a 50 mana setup using single-target only spells that would be as reliable as a 512 option with a 950?
Incant 950 501 519 906 906 906 906
If you want it to be bolts only, then just replace 519 with another 906 or 910/510. Pretty much any combo should work.
>I don't believe that 240/317 and 240/1115 are consistently always 1-shot kills. It's similar to how you're not always going to kill targets with a single cast of 717 or 720.
You must not have first hand experience with it then. My 8m cleric who's not even close to max spells or lores using 240/317 demolishes my 30m wizard in killing power, and very rarely has to cast a something a second time because it's almost always dead after the first. Just the concussion damage alone from both casts would often be enough to bleed the target out. 317's concussion damage makes Immolate's look like complete trash on similar end rolls.
>If you could cast 512 single-target to FREEZE them with one cast - and follow that up with a bolt spell to SHATTER (95% chance) - that is actually MORE reliable than 717 or 720, 317/240 and 1115/240. You're spending 6s to deal guaranteed 50% HP damage with a high chance to shattering a vital area, and can automatically destroy the target with your next cast if you didn't shatter the vitals.
I don't know how you can get more reliable than INCANT 317 and then the target dies while having to recast 240 every 30 seconds. Could you enlighten me on this?
~ Methais
>>Incant 950 501 519 906 906 906 906
In this example, would the expectation be that the target is still asleep after 519 lands? My understanding is that 501 happens, 519 wakes them up (damage variety), and then they're now awake but prone and 4x 906 still has to get through EBP of the target? I'm only asking for clarification. If this combination did work reliably, that would be nice!
>>If you want it to be bolts only, then just replace 519 with another 906 or 910/510. Pretty much any combo should work.
I would definitely not want a single-target 950 to be restricted to just bolts. That would be a shame as bolts have been proven unreliable in many situations.
>>My 8m cleric who's not even close to max spells or lores using 240/317 demolishes my 30m wizard in killing power, and very rarely has to cast a something a second time because it's almost always dead after the first.
This seems like an extreme example of a spell that is maybe over-tuned, but at the same time, can your 8m cleric compete with a wizard if they wanted to wield any weapon? I think this is the balance problem wizards face because we embrace the option being a Warmage.
The 240/1115 might be a more equal comparison as Empaths can be pretty good with weapons (at least closer to proficient than a Cleric). Do you believe 1115 to be as reliable (especially with the elemental and construct limitations) as 317? What's your experience in that regard?
In this example, would the expectation be that the target is still asleep after 519 lands? My understanding is that 501 happens, 519 wakes them up (damage variety), and then they're now awake but prone and 4x 906 still has to get through EBP of the target? I'm only asking for clarification. If this combination did work reliably, that would be nice!
>>If you want it to be bolts only, then just replace 519 with another 906 or 910/510. Pretty much any combo should work.
I would definitely not want a single-target 950 to be restricted to just bolts. That would be a shame as bolts have been proven unreliable in many situations.
>>My 8m cleric who's not even close to max spells or lores using 240/317 demolishes my 30m wizard in killing power, and very rarely has to cast a something a second time because it's almost always dead after the first.
This seems like an extreme example of a spell that is maybe over-tuned, but at the same time, can your 8m cleric compete with a wizard if they wanted to wield any weapon? I think this is the balance problem wizards face because we embrace the option being a Warmage.
The 240/1115 might be a more equal comparison as Empaths can be pretty good with weapons (at least closer to proficient than a Cleric). Do you believe 1115 to be as reliable (especially with the elemental and construct limitations) as 317? What's your experience in that regard?
>Do you believe 1115 to be as reliable (especially with the elemental and construct limitations) as 317?
Empaths are so special they don't even need 240 to get the 1-shot kill, but regardless, the 1-shot kill is not meant to be reliable before cap. It's not MY narrow vision, it's the entitlement of some people who are wanting to have all their power before they max out their skills. I've made my logical points in this argument, will not be spelling out cookie cutter recipes, and the fact is every actual post-cap cleric, empath, and wizard knows this is the fact. Not to mention, GMs have the data to back this up.
The part where someone wants to reliably guarantee a 1-shot kill before even being capped is where there's logical fallacy with the rest of the reasoning.
Empaths are so special they don't even need 240 to get the 1-shot kill, but regardless, the 1-shot kill is not meant to be reliable before cap. It's not MY narrow vision, it's the entitlement of some people who are wanting to have all their power before they max out their skills. I've made my logical points in this argument, will not be spelling out cookie cutter recipes, and the fact is every actual post-cap cleric, empath, and wizard knows this is the fact. Not to mention, GMs have the data to back this up.
The part where someone wants to reliably guarantee a 1-shot kill before even being capped is where there's logical fallacy with the rest of the reasoning.
>>The part where someone wants to reliably guarantee a 1-shot kill before even being capped is where there's logical fallacy with the rest of the reasoning.
I don't see anyone suggesting this. This specific suggestion only gives a moderate chance for someone before cap to 2-shot a target. There's very real very noticeable gains as you increase your lore training. If you fully dedicate to a single lore and cap it out a 202 ranks, you'll have an incredibly powerful combination of spells. At the same time, it doesn't ignore the uncapped players. It gives them a nice method of reducing TTK once they're able to reach certain lore training thresholds.
I don't see anyone suggesting this. This specific suggestion only gives a moderate chance for someone before cap to 2-shot a target. There's very real very noticeable gains as you increase your lore training. If you fully dedicate to a single lore and cap it out a 202 ranks, you'll have an incredibly powerful combination of spells. At the same time, it doesn't ignore the uncapped players. It gives them a nice method of reducing TTK once they're able to reach certain lore training thresholds.
>This specific suggestion only gives a moderate chance for someone before cap to 2-shot a target.
>At the same time, it doesn't ignore the uncapped players.
And this is where all the reasoning falls flat because there is no pre-cap disparity between warding and bolting that requires this kind of fix. Uncapped players are not being ignored. They are already on a relatively equal playing field. Pre-cap spiritual pures do not enjoy this kind of offensive ability, so the request is asking to be OP as a pre-cap wizard vs. other pre-cap pures.
>It gives them a nice method of reducing TTK once they're able to reach certain lore training thresholds.
Pre-cap TTK is MUCH lower for a bolting wizard than a warding spiritual pure, as someone who has played them all. This is why I don't disagree with giving spiritual pures their comparable and unique bolt AS boosters.
This is a long term game though and eventually everyone becomes capped, so at the post-capped level, all pures should be able to achieve the same level of offensive power ceiling on a magical basis.
By Estild's definition of wizards, we're already completely upside down as a profession because wizards are supposed to be the weakest with weapons, yet war mage wizards are the strongest with weapons of the pures. Now, I don't begrudge the war mages their option as they make a lot of sacrifices to maintain that play style, but neither should it be an expectation that pure wizards should shell out a bunch of money/silvers for the high barrier to entry to creating a viable war mage and pick up a weapon to fill the offensive gap post-cap. That was never what my definition of a wizard was, and neither is it Estild's according to what he posted.
It's not at all OP to ask for a single target 950 with no cooldown even if it can only be used with single target spells, since war mages generally tend to train in EL:A and EL:E, which matter a lot less in contributing to 950's power ceiling. It is not acceptable however, as a pure wizard, to not be able to have the option to spend more mana than the other pures to achieve the same result in a single instant cast.
>At the same time, it doesn't ignore the uncapped players.
And this is where all the reasoning falls flat because there is no pre-cap disparity between warding and bolting that requires this kind of fix. Uncapped players are not being ignored. They are already on a relatively equal playing field. Pre-cap spiritual pures do not enjoy this kind of offensive ability, so the request is asking to be OP as a pre-cap wizard vs. other pre-cap pures.
>It gives them a nice method of reducing TTK once they're able to reach certain lore training thresholds.
Pre-cap TTK is MUCH lower for a bolting wizard than a warding spiritual pure, as someone who has played them all. This is why I don't disagree with giving spiritual pures their comparable and unique bolt AS boosters.
This is a long term game though and eventually everyone becomes capped, so at the post-capped level, all pures should be able to achieve the same level of offensive power ceiling on a magical basis.
By Estild's definition of wizards, we're already completely upside down as a profession because wizards are supposed to be the weakest with weapons, yet war mage wizards are the strongest with weapons of the pures. Now, I don't begrudge the war mages their option as they make a lot of sacrifices to maintain that play style, but neither should it be an expectation that pure wizards should shell out a bunch of money/silvers for the high barrier to entry to creating a viable war mage and pick up a weapon to fill the offensive gap post-cap. That was never what my definition of a wizard was, and neither is it Estild's according to what he posted.
It's not at all OP to ask for a single target 950 with no cooldown even if it can only be used with single target spells, since war mages generally tend to train in EL:A and EL:E, which matter a lot less in contributing to 950's power ceiling. It is not acceptable however, as a pure wizard, to not be able to have the option to spend more mana than the other pures to achieve the same result in a single instant cast.
>In this example, would the expectation be that the target is still asleep after 519 lands? My understanding is that 501 happens, 519 wakes them up (damage variety), and then they're now awake but prone and 4x 906 still has to get through EBP of the target? I'm only asking for clarification. If this combination did work reliably, that would be nice!
501 is to put them in offensive and prone to deal with their DS since we're talking about single target disablers being involved. It doesn't matter if they stay asleep through the rest or not because they'll likely die via attrition if there's no lucky crit. It's not the most interesting solution, as I think attrition deaths are really boring, but it's effective. Go mess around with it on the current version but with just one target in the room it's effectively a single target spell when there's nothing else in the room to hit.
>This seems like an extreme example of a spell that is maybe over-tuned, but at the same time, can your 8m cleric compete with a wizard if they wanted to wield any weapon? I think this is the balance problem wizards face because we embrace the option being a Warmage.
Not an extreme example at all. It's a pretty regular occurrence. I doubt my cleric could compete with a war mage if he were wielding a weapon. There's also zero reason to care. A pure cleric running 240/317 will demolish a war mage's killing power without breaking a sweat.
>The 240/1115 might be a more equal comparison as Empaths can be pretty good with weapons (at least closer to proficient than a Cleric). Do you believe 1115 to be as reliable (especially with the elemental and construct limitations) as 317? What's your experience in that regard?
Everything I said in the previous paragraph applies to 240/1115 too. I've played a capped empath that isn't super post cap and doesn't have max lore for 240/1115 either (I think their CS is maxed but I'm not sure) and it's the same thing, where they rarely have to cast at something twice to kill it. Using Bone Shatter with 240 as similar results, though not quite the nearly guaranteed one shot kill as with 1115, but still probably more reliable than anything we currently have.
~ Methais
501 is to put them in offensive and prone to deal with their DS since we're talking about single target disablers being involved. It doesn't matter if they stay asleep through the rest or not because they'll likely die via attrition if there's no lucky crit. It's not the most interesting solution, as I think attrition deaths are really boring, but it's effective. Go mess around with it on the current version but with just one target in the room it's effectively a single target spell when there's nothing else in the room to hit.
>This seems like an extreme example of a spell that is maybe over-tuned, but at the same time, can your 8m cleric compete with a wizard if they wanted to wield any weapon? I think this is the balance problem wizards face because we embrace the option being a Warmage.
Not an extreme example at all. It's a pretty regular occurrence. I doubt my cleric could compete with a war mage if he were wielding a weapon. There's also zero reason to care. A pure cleric running 240/317 will demolish a war mage's killing power without breaking a sweat.
>The 240/1115 might be a more equal comparison as Empaths can be pretty good with weapons (at least closer to proficient than a Cleric). Do you believe 1115 to be as reliable (especially with the elemental and construct limitations) as 317? What's your experience in that regard?
Everything I said in the previous paragraph applies to 240/1115 too. I've played a capped empath that isn't super post cap and doesn't have max lore for 240/1115 either (I think their CS is maxed but I'm not sure) and it's the same thing, where they rarely have to cast at something twice to kill it. Using Bone Shatter with 240 as similar results, though not quite the nearly guaranteed one shot kill as with 1115, but still probably more reliable than anything we currently have.
~ Methais
