Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
>In fact the changes have me switching between warmage and pure depending on the situation where before he was straight warmage. Runestaves and bolts served.
Pure wizards got completely decimated so they could support the mutant warmage class and allow them the best of both worlds. Except they're still underpowered paladins and now everyone has haste (quickstrike).
I'd rather have had my actual pure casting abilities preserved instead.
| Pure wizards got completely decimated so they could support the mutant warmage class and allow them the best of both worlds. Except they're still underpowered paladins and now everyone has haste (quickstrike). |
| I'd rather have had my actual pure casting abilities preserved instead. |
| DESTINY14 |
Yeah I am new to wizards so take that for what it is worth. My guy is 54. I'm also a casual player. Not a professional by any means like some of our community.
Having fun. Looking forward not back.
Chad, player of a few
>My guy is 54.
>Having fun. Looking forward not back.
Don't look too far forward, as most of the big wizard issues don't become apparent until cap. For the most part they're fine until then.
~ Methais
Reading the wizard nerfs:
http://i.imgur.com/hNaDm98.gif
>Having fun. Looking forward not back.
Don't look too far forward, as most of the big wizard issues don't become apparent until cap. For the most part they're fine until then.
~ Methais
Reading the wizard nerfs:
http://i.imgur.com/hNaDm98.gif
| >My guy is 54. |
| >Having fun. Looking forward not back. |
| Don't look too far forward, as most of the big wizard issues don't become apparent until cap. For the most part they're fine until then. |
| ~ Methais |
Cap is cap. After that its equipment. I can sympathize with the cap issue and change. But I just rolled with a new char. This is an addicting game. :)
Chad, player of a few
Different people have different expectations. System changes can be frustrating if you've invested time and money in a character, especially if the changes are designed to "fix" something you've used to your benefit, moreso if you built a character persona around it. It doesn't even have to be something of mechanical value: if the game designers chose to remove cookies from the game, some players would be very upset. There are players, for example, who don't expect to be able to solo hunt safely - at cap, or any other level, with any particular profession. Of course they can, in some cases, with optimal training, spells and equipment. That doesn't mean they should expect it. Game rules change over time, and in an online game we don't have the option to "not upgrade." Trying to optimize for today will invariably hurt you more in the future.
Also, consider that a "build" is a concept driven by the players of a game -- not the designers -- to find an optimal training path for X, where X might be the ability to safely solo hunt, have the deadliest spells, or have the best defense. If you want something specific, like an dwarven earth mage who prefers to use boil earth and weaponfire, then you may not be following one of the current builds to the letter. It doesn't mean it's possible to play such a character, but you may see him hunting with a partner more often. Following a build is like playing the game on its easiest difficulty setting. I appreciate the skills and spells that are powerful but don't focus too much on them. They are the most liable to change, and if I try to exploit them I'm just setting myself up for disappointment. Since I've returned I've noticed a fairly large number of min/maxers playing. Min/maxing is a trap.
I also agree that wizards need some more work, but they seem to be evolving. A couple concerns from a few weeks ago were crowd control and protection from maneuvers, and the new 512 spell appears to address some of that. However, if you used a fixskill to drop your MjE CS and raise your MnE CS, you may wish you didn't.
Also, consider that a "build" is a concept driven by the players of a game -- not the designers -- to find an optimal training path for X, where X might be the ability to safely solo hunt, have the deadliest spells, or have the best defense. If you want something specific, like an dwarven earth mage who prefers to use boil earth and weaponfire, then you may not be following one of the current builds to the letter. It doesn't mean it's possible to play such a character, but you may see him hunting with a partner more often. Following a build is like playing the game on its easiest difficulty setting. I appreciate the skills and spells that are powerful but don't focus too much on them. They are the most liable to change, and if I try to exploit them I'm just setting myself up for disappointment. Since I've returned I've noticed a fairly large number of min/maxers playing. Min/maxing is a trap.
I also agree that wizards need some more work, but they seem to be evolving. A couple concerns from a few weeks ago were crowd control and protection from maneuvers, and the new 512 spell appears to address some of that. However, if you used a fixskill to drop your MjE CS and raise your MnE CS, you may wish you didn't.
>Cap is cap. After that its equipment. I can sympathize with the cap issue and change. But I just rolled with a new char. This is an addicting game. :)
Equipment for squares maybe. Gear isn't much of a factor for pures.
~ Methais
Reading the wizard nerfs:
http://i.imgur.com/hNaDm98.gif
Equipment for squares maybe. Gear isn't much of a factor for pures.
~ Methais
Reading the wizard nerfs:
http://i.imgur.com/hNaDm98.gif
Most post-cap characters are min-maxers, or why would you bother continuing to waste time and money gaining more skills and equipment for your character to continue to just be as mediocre as fresh cap? It makes no sense.
Remove long-term goals, and you've greatly reduced the game's life span.
Remove long-term goals, and you've greatly reduced the game's life span.
Builds are player driven. And in most games, they consist of many spells that form the basis of a playstyle. They also force choices that create distinction between builds.
You can say many things about the ELR,but if it truly provides us with builds then why aren't the players coming up with these distinctive playstyles? Where are the builds and what is the point of game design that forces no meaningful choices?
You can say many things about the ELR,but if it truly provides us with builds then why aren't the players coming up with these distinctive playstyles? Where are the builds and what is the point of game design that forces no meaningful choices?
>Where are the builds and what is the point of game design that forces no meaningful choices?
Okay, this is a good point. I think wizards are getting boxed into training all lores more or less evenly, and here's why:
Lores, as implemented, have diminishing returns as you train them. They use a summation seed, or the effects taper off, or both. For most professions, this is not a problem: you pick a threshold to work up to, then work on another one. However, wizards identify with their chosen element: via attunement, lores or both. There are facets of the game design, including spells, lore effects, attunement, even skill titles, that appear to encourage specialization. When GS4 was released, suddenly we had air mages, fire mages, earth mages, and.. I think I knew a water mage once. After this, for many years, most lores just increased the effects of spells that used them, so an earth mage would be great with 510, and a fire mage would be great with 906, 908, and 519. Having specialists was great, but all lores weren't equal, so one or two of the specialists were a rarity.
Since the ELR and recent changes, the generalist has too much of an advantage over the specialist. Wizards identify with their lores, and specialists are embraced by the game, but to pick one lore and be great with it means you give up some really cool stuff. It makes a lot more sense now to hit a couple 20 or 30 (or maybe a 50) rank thresholds along the way. It's a design dilemma. If you have 4 elements, each with a good build and unique effects that kick in after 20 or 30 ranks with diminishing returns, then specialists are history.
As far as possible solutions, there are at least 3:
1. A few months ago when we started to see ELR effects, I suggested replacing air, earth, fire, and water lore with a group of 3 or 4 replacement lores that aren't the 4 elements. This would allow wizards to train in lores to meet training thresholds before diminishing returns kick in while continuing to identify as a specialist. (I understand players are free to roleplay as they wish, but I'm trying to work from a design standpoint.) This is consistent with how lores work with the other professions.
2. Or, put some special 100-rank or 200-rank effects on the lores that are as good as or better than the stuff you get earlier.
3. Or, another option is to let other lores count as 1/2 or 1/3 as many (or whatever) toward other lore training. That'll make critters nastier, though.
Okay, this is a good point. I think wizards are getting boxed into training all lores more or less evenly, and here's why:
Lores, as implemented, have diminishing returns as you train them. They use a summation seed, or the effects taper off, or both. For most professions, this is not a problem: you pick a threshold to work up to, then work on another one. However, wizards identify with their chosen element: via attunement, lores or both. There are facets of the game design, including spells, lore effects, attunement, even skill titles, that appear to encourage specialization. When GS4 was released, suddenly we had air mages, fire mages, earth mages, and.. I think I knew a water mage once. After this, for many years, most lores just increased the effects of spells that used them, so an earth mage would be great with 510, and a fire mage would be great with 906, 908, and 519. Having specialists was great, but all lores weren't equal, so one or two of the specialists were a rarity.
Since the ELR and recent changes, the generalist has too much of an advantage over the specialist. Wizards identify with their lores, and specialists are embraced by the game, but to pick one lore and be great with it means you give up some really cool stuff. It makes a lot more sense now to hit a couple 20 or 30 (or maybe a 50) rank thresholds along the way. It's a design dilemma. If you have 4 elements, each with a good build and unique effects that kick in after 20 or 30 ranks with diminishing returns, then specialists are history.
As far as possible solutions, there are at least 3:
1. A few months ago when we started to see ELR effects, I suggested replacing air, earth, fire, and water lore with a group of 3 or 4 replacement lores that aren't the 4 elements. This would allow wizards to train in lores to meet training thresholds before diminishing returns kick in while continuing to identify as a specialist. (I understand players are free to roleplay as they wish, but I'm trying to work from a design standpoint.) This is consistent with how lores work with the other professions.
2. Or, put some special 100-rank or 200-rank effects on the lores that are as good as or better than the stuff you get earlier.
3. Or, another option is to let other lores count as 1/2 or 1/3 as many (or whatever) toward other lore training. That'll make critters nastier, though.
