Previous Thread
Previous
Expand All
Collapse All
Ignore Author
Reply
Also the details about result 2 being worse than result 1 are just that, minor details. I don't fail that frequently to begin with and if I do I can certainly work through the 2 times in the next 5 years that I might run into result #2 with an untemper potion.
I'm disappointed that staff really didn't take many of our suggestions into account, and certainly not in a significant way. As near as I can tell a year has gone by and you are still moving forward with the same design idea you shared last year. About the only player suggested change I can see is that you introduced 50 ranks of water lore being allowed to count towards the 100 ranks required to enchant an item with an existing flare. Maybe there is some other subtle nuance that I missed as well.
The removal of item destruction (as a result of player requests or original design, not sure) is a nice benefit but again minor (it's a big deal to someone that just below up their prized project, I get it, so maybe you'll save a few account closures by implementing this). For me, I've probably enchanted more than a thousand items over the past 10 years or so and have blown up maybe 5 items? All of them were some 1x-4x projects in progress that were easily discarded/replaced (except for that stone dagger :p ).
I was really looking forward to something new and exciting for wizards with all the development work taking place and this spell, in particular, had a lot of potential.
The ability to enchant items with existing common flares falls flat for me (regardless of lore requirements). The ability to detect project difficulty is probably the best new feature that's been shared for this spell, and probably should have been in place when the spell was initially coded (but I am glad it is being implemented now at least!)
So thanks for the convenience updates to this spell, I'll look forward to seeing them when they are finally released. But very disappointed you couldn't find an opportunity to deliver something really spectacular (at least based on what has been communicated).
-- Robert
A powerful whirlpool is suddenly overtaken by a windy vortex!
I would prefer to see the ability to Enchant flaring products be as a result of pre-temper potions. Which was pretty much my immediate reaction when the pre-temper potions were first debuted. You have a fire flare, you use drakar elixir; crit-weighted, you use razern alembic; Defender, you use zelnorn ointment. Whatever.
Feel free to then give bonuses to success, on top of the simple capability to do so, to Lores. But everyone should be able to DO it. (Some--those with heavy Lore training--just better than others.)
.
.
'Cripple' == 'Hyperbole'
Feel free to then give bonuses to success, on top of the simple capability to do so, to Lores. But everyone should be able to DO it. (Some--those with heavy Lore training--just better than others.)
.
.
'Cripple' == 'Hyperbole'
>The removal of item destruction (as a result of player requests or original design, not sure) is a nice benefit but again minor
This isn't minor. My 7x fusion shield on the last cast lost to 3% one Thanksgiving says hi. It was one of the most senseless and demoralizing things.
However, it should be a given in today's GemStone spell environment given the complete risk-free, zero loss of use, setup of 735.
Aside from that, I echo everything Robert said:
>I'm disappointed that staff really didn't take many of our suggestions into account, and certainly not in a significant way. As near as I can tell a year has gone by and you are still moving forward with the same design idea you shared last year.
This isn't minor. My 7x fusion shield on the last cast lost to 3% one Thanksgiving says hi. It was one of the most senseless and demoralizing things.
However, it should be a given in today's GemStone spell environment given the complete risk-free, zero loss of use, setup of 735.
Aside from that, I echo everything Robert said:
>I'm disappointed that staff really didn't take many of our suggestions into account, and certainly not in a significant way. As near as I can tell a year has gone by and you are still moving forward with the same design idea you shared last year.
>>The fact remains that the design serves mainly to benefit those who use wizards as utility enchanting bots rather than being practically useful to those who play active hunting wizards.
Interestingly enough, exactly two wizards have mentioned anything at all about enchanting bots in their feedback, and one other wizard mentioned in feedback 'locker / mule'. RAGGLER (that first wizard mentioned above) does seem to somewhat support your view. He mentions that as important as EL:F, EL:E and EL:A have become, most wizards are likely to forego EL:W benefits with this spell. And I hope that wizards do get to make choices. Still, of the wizards posting feedback specifically about the split in lores (including myself), four does not constitute 'most everyone else' - although I appreciate being included. :)
Hunting is now required (? or beneficial?) RAGGLER's feedback was 'hope it's enough to make a substantive difference' (my words). I even went so far as to ask Estild to amplify that point specifically so we could get some sense of how much the change would advance the cause of the hunting wizard over the enchanting bot. Just between you and I, I hope they double the temper times for any non-hunting wizard use, and greatly scale back the time to 1/4 to 1/2 the current temper times for the hunting wizard. That is only a hope, and not necessarily a well-informed one. But I won't be able to assess the overall differentiation between 'bot' and 'hunter' until we know more.
The rest of the feedback is interesting, and points out several opportunities, dashed hopes and forays into comparisons - all as is usual when spell concepts are first released. I'm sure they're being accounted for as Estild and team read through them. I find it all interesting, and as usual I'm nodding at some of the feedback, shaking my head at other points, and hopeful for more information and a chance to 'see' rather than 'hear' about the spell.
I'll simplify all this, though - as one wizard hunting main to another - this spell appears to both limit the impact of enchanting bots, giving hunters the advantage (amount TBD). EL:W and splits are personal choice - and I'll support yours to eek out those extra < 10% chances of less than vultite enchant impacts to hunting wizards. Choice is a good thing. I'll continue my 'diversified' viewpoint myself - and as one wizard hunting main to another - I'm quite happy that I have known and specific goals over the minor increase to a percentage chance of something modestly helping my hunting.
Doug
Interestingly enough, exactly two wizards have mentioned anything at all about enchanting bots in their feedback, and one other wizard mentioned in feedback 'locker / mule'. RAGGLER (that first wizard mentioned above) does seem to somewhat support your view. He mentions that as important as EL:F, EL:E and EL:A have become, most wizards are likely to forego EL:W benefits with this spell. And I hope that wizards do get to make choices. Still, of the wizards posting feedback specifically about the split in lores (including myself), four does not constitute 'most everyone else' - although I appreciate being included. :)
Hunting is now required (? or beneficial?) RAGGLER's feedback was 'hope it's enough to make a substantive difference' (my words). I even went so far as to ask Estild to amplify that point specifically so we could get some sense of how much the change would advance the cause of the hunting wizard over the enchanting bot. Just between you and I, I hope they double the temper times for any non-hunting wizard use, and greatly scale back the time to 1/4 to 1/2 the current temper times for the hunting wizard. That is only a hope, and not necessarily a well-informed one. But I won't be able to assess the overall differentiation between 'bot' and 'hunter' until we know more.
The rest of the feedback is interesting, and points out several opportunities, dashed hopes and forays into comparisons - all as is usual when spell concepts are first released. I'm sure they're being accounted for as Estild and team read through them. I find it all interesting, and as usual I'm nodding at some of the feedback, shaking my head at other points, and hopeful for more information and a chance to 'see' rather than 'hear' about the spell.
I'll simplify all this, though - as one wizard hunting main to another - this spell appears to both limit the impact of enchanting bots, giving hunters the advantage (amount TBD). EL:W and splits are personal choice - and I'll support yours to eek out those extra < 10% chances of less than vultite enchant impacts to hunting wizards. Choice is a good thing. I'll continue my 'diversified' viewpoint myself - and as one wizard hunting main to another - I'm quite happy that I have known and specific goals over the minor increase to a percentage chance of something modestly helping my hunting.
Doug
It's not a hunting choice. It's forced mediocrity (there, I was forced to say it). Sorcerers do not have to train in a niche 4th lore to get any reduction of time benefit on their core profession utility spell at all. In fact, sorcerers can gain necrotic energy with zero lore whatsoever. I know, my sorcerers do this.
For people who play wizard mains who have no desire to suffer an even more tedious and lower power ceiling than the one we already have to settle for vs. all other pures, adding in ANY water lore is not an option. The only people who are going to not care that hunting is no fun and split 4 ways evenly are the ones who have utility wizard characters as lower priority.
Regardless, a day or two shaved off on months of time is going to make zero difference vs. the instant nature and zero loss of item use that 735 allows.
I don't understand why people are willing to settle for such low aspirations. It boggles my mind when you see the stars that the other professions can reach for in their spell design.
Finally, I've said all along that I actually support diversification. However, the 4-way lore split and the extremely high thresholds to reach a decent level of power, which is still far lower than the other pures enjoy, do not support true diversification over more specialized builds. See all my previous posts and math on how spiritual pures achieve excellent results around 60-70 ranks of spiritual lores, allowing them to enjoy the best of all 3 lores and spell benefits. Same for sorcerers and roughly equal 2-way split of sorcerous lores.
As it is, wizards continue to be underwhelming and not fun, and I'd rather just log in one of my spiritual pures any day than play my wizards. They'll probably be capped at this rate before anything improves with wizards to restore the fun.
For people who play wizard mains who have no desire to suffer an even more tedious and lower power ceiling than the one we already have to settle for vs. all other pures, adding in ANY water lore is not an option. The only people who are going to not care that hunting is no fun and split 4 ways evenly are the ones who have utility wizard characters as lower priority.
Regardless, a day or two shaved off on months of time is going to make zero difference vs. the instant nature and zero loss of item use that 735 allows.
I don't understand why people are willing to settle for such low aspirations. It boggles my mind when you see the stars that the other professions can reach for in their spell design.
Finally, I've said all along that I actually support diversification. However, the 4-way lore split and the extremely high thresholds to reach a decent level of power, which is still far lower than the other pures enjoy, do not support true diversification over more specialized builds. See all my previous posts and math on how spiritual pures achieve excellent results around 60-70 ranks of spiritual lores, allowing them to enjoy the best of all 3 lores and spell benefits. Same for sorcerers and roughly equal 2-way split of sorcerous lores.
As it is, wizards continue to be underwhelming and not fun, and I'd rather just log in one of my spiritual pures any day than play my wizards. They'll probably be capped at this rate before anything improves with wizards to restore the fun.
>>The only people who are going to not care that hunting is no fun and split 4 ways evenly are the ones who have utility wizard characters as lower priority.
See? Now this comment, I can almost totally get behind. I don't mind being that lone exception, the one voice speaking out against all others, taking a principled stand when I feel it right to do so. And that would be the only reason for my not getting 100% totally behind this - no one of us speaks for all wizards, or even a majority of wizards, nor do we decide what all wizards, or even a majority of wizards are feeling.
That point notwithstanding, I think the voice of the 'utility wizard' will not be nearly as strident as those of us who are actively pursuing our wizard main characters, and I agree with your logical reasoning why - it's simply a lower priority.
>>Regardless, a day or two shaved off on months of time is going to make zero difference
And this statement (as quoted), I can totally, without reservation get behind. It doesn't even need to be tied to 735 in the discussion. It stands alone without embellishment of any kind.
As to the rest - you're continuing your agenda to improve lores, which I support even if I don't agree with some of the fundamental underpinnings you're using. However, let's be clear - this is just a sample of your agenda, and to meet the entire terms of your agenda, this needs to be tackled at a lores level, not a 925 enchant level. And the struggle there is simple and straight forward - it's truly a discussion around 'optimize' and 'fun' with a power ceiling discussion thrown in for justification.
I am working hard to get past this point of view I hold in this particular dialog. I have to self-report that I haven't been totally successful, yet. I interpret that you want to be able to 'optimize' beyond what's even currently possible for hunting. I also interpret that along the way, you don't want to be 'sub-optimal' (read that as 'you also want to be optimized') for everything else a wizard can and should be able to do. Simplifying that interpretation - for you, the 'fun' is in the 'hunt', and everything needs to be tied to 'optimizing' that position, without 'sacrificing' any where for anything else a wizard may do. As I read justifications, I interpret those along these main lines.
There's an expression I think you famously use over and over to cover an analogy that may be quite applicable if my interpretation holds. And I need to get past that to get anything else out of this particular 925 exchange. But right now, I'm going to go tackle other challenges with 925 as a spell, and leave the lores discussion alone (at least until timing / impact comes up again).
Doug
See? Now this comment, I can almost totally get behind. I don't mind being that lone exception, the one voice speaking out against all others, taking a principled stand when I feel it right to do so. And that would be the only reason for my not getting 100% totally behind this - no one of us speaks for all wizards, or even a majority of wizards, nor do we decide what all wizards, or even a majority of wizards are feeling.
That point notwithstanding, I think the voice of the 'utility wizard' will not be nearly as strident as those of us who are actively pursuing our wizard main characters, and I agree with your logical reasoning why - it's simply a lower priority.
>>Regardless, a day or two shaved off on months of time is going to make zero difference
And this statement (as quoted), I can totally, without reservation get behind. It doesn't even need to be tied to 735 in the discussion. It stands alone without embellishment of any kind.
As to the rest - you're continuing your agenda to improve lores, which I support even if I don't agree with some of the fundamental underpinnings you're using. However, let's be clear - this is just a sample of your agenda, and to meet the entire terms of your agenda, this needs to be tackled at a lores level, not a 925 enchant level. And the struggle there is simple and straight forward - it's truly a discussion around 'optimize' and 'fun' with a power ceiling discussion thrown in for justification.
I am working hard to get past this point of view I hold in this particular dialog. I have to self-report that I haven't been totally successful, yet. I interpret that you want to be able to 'optimize' beyond what's even currently possible for hunting. I also interpret that along the way, you don't want to be 'sub-optimal' (read that as 'you also want to be optimized') for everything else a wizard can and should be able to do. Simplifying that interpretation - for you, the 'fun' is in the 'hunt', and everything needs to be tied to 'optimizing' that position, without 'sacrificing' any where for anything else a wizard may do. As I read justifications, I interpret those along these main lines.
There's an expression I think you famously use over and over to cover an analogy that may be quite applicable if my interpretation holds. And I need to get past that to get anything else out of this particular 925 exchange. But right now, I'm going to go tackle other challenges with 925 as a spell, and leave the lores discussion alone (at least until timing / impact comes up again).
Doug
This dialogue and exchange wasn't intended for you, it's feedback to the GMs (just like every other wizard's feedback on here). Trying to discredit it isn't going to change my opinion nor is it productive to the discussion.
I'm done engaging in repetitive clarifications on semantics. At the end of the day, Raggler said it best "and for what". Every time a missed opportunity occurs when clear development time has been poured into a spell update, my hope just dies a little more.
I'm done engaging in repetitive clarifications on semantics. At the end of the day, Raggler said it best "and for what". Every time a missed opportunity occurs when clear development time has been poured into a spell update, my hope just dies a little more.
>>This dialogue and exchange wasn't intended for you, it's feedback to the GMs (just like every other wizard's feedback on here).
Yes, just exactly like this particular wizard's feedback on here. I can't tell you how happy I am personally to see you acknowledge that very point. I do so appreciate having you as a sounding board though, against which to make the feedback very clear. Thank you.
>>Trying to discredit it isn't going to change my opinion nor is it productive to the discussion.
Ahh, but now we're turning to insults. Sad. If you believe I've discredited your view in any fashion, we've already agreed to what you should do.
>>At the end of the day, Raggler said it best "and for what".
Perhaps, jury's still out - maybe some time on the test server will clarify (agenda alert!!) I kind of appreciated Robert's breakdown, too - but that's really for the GMs. Oh, and maybe Robert.
Doug
Yes, just exactly like this particular wizard's feedback on here. I can't tell you how happy I am personally to see you acknowledge that very point. I do so appreciate having you as a sounding board though, against which to make the feedback very clear. Thank you.
>>Trying to discredit it isn't going to change my opinion nor is it productive to the discussion.
Ahh, but now we're turning to insults. Sad. If you believe I've discredited your view in any fashion, we've already agreed to what you should do.
>>At the end of the day, Raggler said it best "and for what".
Perhaps, jury's still out - maybe some time on the test server will clarify (agenda alert!!) I kind of appreciated Robert's breakdown, too - but that's really for the GMs. Oh, and maybe Robert.
Doug
>Yes, just exactly like this particular wizard's feedback on here.
Absolutely, you're entitled to your opinion. Where you go wrong is quoting every line from my posts alone and saying that my opinion is wrong with zero logical reasoning. It may not be your opinion, but I'm entitled to my view. Simply stating that my view is "wrong" is not constructive with zero logical reasoning.
Your comment on lore tradeoffs is completely off. It is far more than 15 AS. A point that Raggler has also mentioned in discussing lore choices for hunting wizards. I have no need to further repeat what I and everyone else has said, but what I said still stands. I understand wizards who have non-magical combat options may care less about sub-optimal performance of their combat/defensive spells, but I will not settle for it when no other real pure has to.
Absolutely, you're entitled to your opinion. Where you go wrong is quoting every line from my posts alone and saying that my opinion is wrong with zero logical reasoning. It may not be your opinion, but I'm entitled to my view. Simply stating that my view is "wrong" is not constructive with zero logical reasoning.
Your comment on lore tradeoffs is completely off. It is far more than 15 AS. A point that Raggler has also mentioned in discussing lore choices for hunting wizards. I have no need to further repeat what I and everyone else has said, but what I said still stands. I understand wizards who have non-magical combat options may care less about sub-optimal performance of their combat/defensive spells, but I will not settle for it when no other real pure has to.
>> Perhaps, jury's still out - maybe some time on the test server will clarify (agenda alert!!) I kind of appreciated Robert's breakdown, too - but that's really for the GMs. Oh, and maybe Robert. -- Doug
Doug,
You, and anyone else on the forums, are always welcome to challenge, seek clarification , agree with, disagree with, or otherwise respond to anything I post on these public forums. :-)
I will continue to reserve the right to do the same.
If I wanted to send a private message to the GMs there are other methods of communication available.
-- Robert
A powerful whirlpool is suddenly overtaken by a windy vortex!
Doug,
You, and anyone else on the forums, are always welcome to challenge, seek clarification , agree with, disagree with, or otherwise respond to anything I post on these public forums. :-)
I will continue to reserve the right to do the same.
If I wanted to send a private message to the GMs there are other methods of communication available.
-- Robert
A powerful whirlpool is suddenly overtaken by a windy vortex!
>If I wanted to send a private message to the GMs there are other methods of communication available.
No, there aren't. I prefer to post where the entire Development team can read feedback, without having to bombard individual GM e-mail accounts.
It's odd though when targeted disagreement is only made towards my posts when the rest of the posters on the thread are basically saying the same thing. Particularly when there is zero logical reasoning offered as to why my view is wrong. Perhaps because if one had to actually look up factual data about profession abilities, the data would not support it.
I prefer not to repeat myself ad nauseum, as it's tedious and tiresome for everyone, including me, but this appears to be a trend of wizard threads where certain posters try to bury my points under off-topic lecturing about semantics and posting styles that are irrelevant to the actual points being discussed.
At the end of the day, I don't even care about this update, nor do I care to continue picking it apart. It's just as underwhelming as when it was first proposed, and it was a missed opportunity to actually bring 925 to 2016 levels of spell effectiveness.
Back to EG! That is actually very well done this year.
No, there aren't. I prefer to post where the entire Development team can read feedback, without having to bombard individual GM e-mail accounts.
It's odd though when targeted disagreement is only made towards my posts when the rest of the posters on the thread are basically saying the same thing. Particularly when there is zero logical reasoning offered as to why my view is wrong. Perhaps because if one had to actually look up factual data about profession abilities, the data would not support it.
I prefer not to repeat myself ad nauseum, as it's tedious and tiresome for everyone, including me, but this appears to be a trend of wizard threads where certain posters try to bury my points under off-topic lecturing about semantics and posting styles that are irrelevant to the actual points being discussed.
At the end of the day, I don't even care about this update, nor do I care to continue picking it apart. It's just as underwhelming as when it was first proposed, and it was a missed opportunity to actually bring 925 to 2016 levels of spell effectiveness.
Back to EG! That is actually very well done this year.
>As to the rest - you're continuing your agenda to improve lores
>However, let's be clear - this is just a sample of your agenda
Let's be clear this is not my agenda at all, but continued whitewashing and deliberate misinterpretation of my actual words.
Stating factual disparities between professions is not an agenda. It's a fact. I really don't care what Dev does with this information, but I will point out obvious disparities between professions that affect balance. This is why someone will never speak for me or convey my thoughts accurately.
To be perfectly clear, I actually have zero agenda whatsoever except to hope that wizards will regain parity in offense, defense, and utility with the other pures and be compared to pures and not semis or squares, as that is antithesis to Estild's definition of what a wizard is. As it is to my own definition when I chose to play a wizard. I want wizards to be fun to play again, until then, I will seek fun elsewhere.
>However, let's be clear - this is just a sample of your agenda
Let's be clear this is not my agenda at all, but continued whitewashing and deliberate misinterpretation of my actual words.
Stating factual disparities between professions is not an agenda. It's a fact. I really don't care what Dev does with this information, but I will point out obvious disparities between professions that affect balance. This is why someone will never speak for me or convey my thoughts accurately.
To be perfectly clear, I actually have zero agenda whatsoever except to hope that wizards will regain parity in offense, defense, and utility with the other pures and be compared to pures and not semis or squares, as that is antithesis to Estild's definition of what a wizard is. As it is to my own definition when I chose to play a wizard. I want wizards to be fun to play again, until then, I will seek fun elsewhere.
The water lore piece should change to this:
As a wizard reflects upon their experience (i.e. is online and gaining experience), they are able to store trace amounts of mana from each pulse, which they then infuse into their tempering potions to make them more effective. There is a weekly and maximum cap, which a wizard can SENSE. Training in Elemental Lore, Water decreases the amount of experience it takes to achieve the weekly maximum cap.
As a wizard reflects upon their experience (i.e. is online and gaining experience), they are able to store trace amounts of mana from each pulse, which they then infuse into their tempering potions to make them more effective. There is a weekly and maximum cap, which a wizard can SENSE. Training in Elemental Lore, Water decreases the amount of experience it takes to achieve the weekly maximum cap.
<The water lore piece should change to this:
<As a wizard reflects upon their experience (i.e. is online and gaining experience), they are able to store trace amounts of mana from each pulse, which they then infuse into their tempering potions to make them more effective. There is a weekly and maximum cap, which a wizard can SENSE. Training in Elemental Lore, Water decreases the amount of experience it takes to achieve the weekly maximum cap.
This +1
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
<As a wizard reflects upon their experience (i.e. is online and gaining experience), they are able to store trace amounts of mana from each pulse, which they then infuse into their tempering potions to make them more effective. There is a weekly and maximum cap, which a wizard can SENSE. Training in Elemental Lore, Water decreases the amount of experience it takes to achieve the weekly maximum cap.
This +1
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
>* Trainining in Elemental Lore, Water decreases the amount of time it takes to temper items. As a wizard reflects upon their experience (i.e. is online and gaining experience), they are able to store trace amounts of mana from each pulse, which they then infuse into their tempering potions to make them more effective. There is a weekly and maximum cap, which a wizard can SENSE.
Well this works out great for me as my wizards are water wizards, however they rarely enchant but I do hunt. If I infuse tempering potions and make them more effective can another a wizard make use of them?
Also I've noticed that common mana flares (flares up to +2) are not listed on the flare list, doesn't elemental water cover those?
On a side note I was under the impression that the 925 change was going to allow wizards to add common flares to weapons, is this still not the case? I think 411 is brilliant with the lore changes and I was expecting something similar with 925.
Well this works out great for me as my wizards are water wizards, however they rarely enchant but I do hunt. If I infuse tempering potions and make them more effective can another a wizard make use of them?
Also I've noticed that common mana flares (flares up to +2) are not listed on the flare list, doesn't elemental water cover those?
On a side note I was under the impression that the 925 change was going to allow wizards to add common flares to weapons, is this still not the case? I think 411 is brilliant with the lore changes and I was expecting something similar with 925.
>* Trainining in Elemental Lore, Water decreases the amount of time it takes to temper items. As a wizard reflects upon their experience (i.e. is online and gaining experience), they are able to store trace amounts of mana from each pulse, which they then infuse into their tempering potions to make them more effective. There is a weekly and maximum cap, which a wizard can SENSE.
This is so ridiculous for this to have a lore requirement. At the very least, this should be a base feature with water lore reducing the amount of exp required to hit the cap.
Why do wizards have to train in any lore at all for this when it's a core feature of 735?
Have we not beaten the "lores should enhance what's already there and not be required to use a feature at all" horse to death enough? Apparently not, becuase Simu still doesn't seem to get it, and continues to "fix" wizards by keeping them inferior to other pures. We already get blown out of the water offensively, and we continue to get wrecked in the utility department (517 vs. 714, 925 vs. 735, etc.). I don't even care all that much about enchant, but the principle of it all can't be overlooked, and it's getting really annoying to continually get the shaft compared to the other pure professions. Even without lore being required, depending on the numbers and exp r equirements, it's still inferior to 735's equivalent, since you get your "credit" from the kill itself with 735, not exp pulses that you get every minute.
The exp thing should not only be a core feature of the spell, but it should also be a requirement for your actual enchants, at least for major projects. Otherwise, this does nothing at all to get rid of enchant bots, which in turn increases overall temper times for major projects.
Please stop dropping the ball on what should be no brainer game design decisions. It's really getting old, and I know you guys can do better.
~ Methais
This is so ridiculous for this to have a lore requirement. At the very least, this should be a base feature with water lore reducing the amount of exp required to hit the cap.
Why do wizards have to train in any lore at all for this when it's a core feature of 735?
Have we not beaten the "lores should enhance what's already there and not be required to use a feature at all" horse to death enough? Apparently not, becuase Simu still doesn't seem to get it, and continues to "fix" wizards by keeping them inferior to other pures. We already get blown out of the water offensively, and we continue to get wrecked in the utility department (517 vs. 714, 925 vs. 735, etc.). I don't even care all that much about enchant, but the principle of it all can't be overlooked, and it's getting really annoying to continually get the shaft compared to the other pure professions. Even without lore being required, depending on the numbers and exp r equirements, it's still inferior to 735's equivalent, since you get your "credit" from the kill itself with 735, not exp pulses that you get every minute.
The exp thing should not only be a core feature of the spell, but it should also be a requirement for your actual enchants, at least for major projects. Otherwise, this does nothing at all to get rid of enchant bots, which in turn increases overall temper times for major projects.
Please stop dropping the ball on what should be no brainer game design decisions. It's really getting old, and I know you guys can do better.
~ Methais
As one of the rarer folk that invests in Water Lore I disagree. The benefits of the utility lore are already lacking, as many have pointed out. I'm not here to discuss the differentiation of our lores, nor of wizards in general. I simply wanted to chime in and say that I'd much rather be able to achieve a larger maximum cap that is gained from training in water lore than to reach said cap faster. Further, as has already been mentioned but I wanted to echo the sentiment, if the achieveable reduction is along the lines of a max 30% in temper time then it will be attractive, but if it is simply a day or few... well the lore's utility will still be sorely lacking.
On a side note, Estild I greatly appreciate that whatever reduction in time we see will require experience to be gained. I'm wholeheartedly in favor of increasing the spell's effectiveness, and appreciate that those of us that are active, hunting wizards will hopefully see a larger and more beneficial boost to the spell's efficacy.
- Whill
p.s. I wonder if the "Water Lore Wizard" can infuse the temper potion with their mana during hunting and then sell/trade/give it to a differently trained wizard to see those benefits. Hrm.
On a side note, Estild I greatly appreciate that whatever reduction in time we see will require experience to be gained. I'm wholeheartedly in favor of increasing the spell's effectiveness, and appreciate that those of us that are active, hunting wizards will hopefully see a larger and more beneficial boost to the spell's efficacy.
- Whill
p.s. I wonder if the "Water Lore Wizard" can infuse the temper potion with their mana during hunting and then sell/trade/give it to a differently trained wizard to see those benefits. Hrm.
| As a wizard reflects upon their experience (i.e. is online and gaining experience), they are able to store trace amounts of mana from each pulse, which they then infuse into their tempering potions to make them more effective. There is a weekly and maximum cap, which a wizard can SENSE. Training in Elemental Lore, Water decreases the amount of experience it takes to achieve the weekly maximum cap. |
In addition training in water lore allows wizards to make use of their stored mana to reduce the lore requirements to enchant flaring materials. Each rank in Elemental Lore, Water will allow the wizard to reduce the required elemental lore for the enchant by 1 rank, up to a maximum of 50 ranks. This means a wizard trained 50 in each of the four elemental lores will be able to enchant all elemental flaring weapons using their stored mana.
I'm sorry but I don't think every wizard needs to be able to enchant every flare type. I like that it's an ability reserved for those dedicated to it. If you're a dedicated fire mage with 100+ fire lore then you'll be able to enchant fire flaring weapons without a single point of water lore. Ditto air mages or earth mages. If you want to enchant all elemental flare types then train in all elemental lores. It's a trade off, a choice we have to make, one with an opportunity cost. That's a good thing.
Keith/Brinret/Shiun
Keith is correct
Wyrom, APM
http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Help%20for%20Players/Policy%20Discussions/view/246
<As a wizard reflects upon their experience (i.e. is online and gaining experience), they are able to store trace amounts of mana from each pulse, which they then infuse into their tempering potions to make them more effective. There is a weekly and maximum cap, which a wizard can SENSE. Training in Elemental Lore, Water decreases the amount of experience it takes to achieve the weekly maximum cap.
Another +1 from me. Water lore is under represented, don't compensate that by forcing us to use it.
Or since water lore can substitute for other lores, why not other lores substituting for water lore? To me, that answers a lot of the diversification issues with the 4 lores. Let other lores count as 1/2 for EVERY lore requirement. Possibly excluding the opposite lore? So a effect that requires earth lore would receive .5 benefit from water or fire lores, but no benefit from air lore.
Anyway, I don't play my wizard much anymore, it's not safe enough to be fun. He is currently a buff/enchant bot. I might dust him off once or twice a week to lower temper times, if the benefit is enough, but only if the benefit > frustration.
735 - works by you building up energy and then you make your cast.
925 (from what I think) takes the idea of how 735 functions, but there's an extra step before you can actually cast 925. Here's how 925 looks like it's going to play out:
Get temper potion
Build up mana to infuse into potion (this will take time to do, much like how building up energy for 735 does - as to how much time, we don't know yet)
Infuse mana into potion
Pour potion on item to temper it and now you also wait for the temper time to happen (we're not aware of how long tempers will take nor do we know if each enchanting level will take multiple steps or not)
make your 925 cast
735 appears to be faster in the whole process (unless all temper & infusing mana times for 925 are short and equal the time it takes to do similar steps with 735). You earn energy and once you have enough for whatever step you're working on, you make a cast.
925 looks like it'll still take longer for enchanting. You have to build up mana to infuse and then you also will have a temper time to wait out before you can cast. I'm guessing that they'll have water lore built in to allow you to cut down the times so things go faster - so you're forced to dump ranks in to water lore for a utility spell or you suffer longer periods.
I envision 925 enchantments levels to function like 735 does.
1 pour and 1 cast for each level - but you have to infuse more mana for higher level casts.
735 - can earn 10k a week, max:
T1 cast needs 10K energy, can take a week to build up
T2 cast needs 15k energy, can take up to two weeks to build up
T3 cast needs 20K energy, can take up to two weeks to build up
and so on. You will take at minimum 9 weeks to take an item from T0 to T5.
925 - I think will play out like so:
T1 (0x to 1x) cast requires X amount of mana infused in potion - can take a week to build up. Then you pour your potion on the item and now you have to wait B amount of time before you can cast
T2 (1x to 2x) cast requires X+Y amount of mana infused in potion - can take 1-2 weeks to build up. Then you pour your potion, wait out the B+C amount of time before you can cast
T3 (2x to 3x) cast requires X+Y2 amount of mana infused in potion - can take 2-3 weeks to build up. Then pour your potion, wait out the B+C2 amount of time before you can cast.
and so on. EL:W can reduce Y and C times.
I'd venture to guess that taking a 0x item to 7x (unless they've increased the enchantment level we can do) will take upwards of 12 weeks without any EL:W. Enchanting will take longer than Ensorcell because enchanting can to go 7x (7 casts) while Ensorcell only goes to T5 (5 casts).
Not to mention you may need to get your hands on "special" temper potions for flaring items - which could add to your overall time trying to enchant as you track the potion down or make it yourself. Getting a special temper potion means one of the following things will have to be done to obtain it:
1) You need to make it yourself if they tie it to Alchemy (I hope they don't) . If you haven't learned Alchemy, you have to put a lot of time into this, but you're certainly not required to do so and can just find someone that's learned Alchemy (see #2 or #3)
2) You have to track someone down to make one for you if you don't do Alchemy and provide them with the necessary ingredients (which will take time to track down or cost money to buy ingredients from playershops/NPCs)
3) You have to buy one from someone that's got them for sale (could cost you thousands of silvers for one if they're a rarity item)
4) You have to buy one from a merchant (I hope they don't do this) . I don't like having to rely on skills/abilities as being only useful from items that merchants peddle.
5) You can simply buy one from the wizard guild shop (Please let this be the case) . If they have flaring temper potions available at the guild shop and also available to Alchemy for people to make, I'm okay with that. I'd much rather throw my silvers at a NPC, instead of having to pay a player to be able to use a function of the updated 925 spell. Do not hinder people that haven't spent time with Alchemy because they want to keep their sanity at being able to fully use their spell.
This is all just conjecture on my part and I could be way off....but from the info provided, this seems like a plausible outcome to how enchanting will go.
-Drumpel
925 (from what I think) takes the idea of how 735 functions, but there's an extra step before you can actually cast 925. Here's how 925 looks like it's going to play out:
Get temper potion
Build up mana to infuse into potion (this will take time to do, much like how building up energy for 735 does - as to how much time, we don't know yet)
Infuse mana into potion
Pour potion on item to temper it and now you also wait for the temper time to happen (we're not aware of how long tempers will take nor do we know if each enchanting level will take multiple steps or not)
make your 925 cast
735 appears to be faster in the whole process (unless all temper & infusing mana times for 925 are short and equal the time it takes to do similar steps with 735). You earn energy and once you have enough for whatever step you're working on, you make a cast.
925 looks like it'll still take longer for enchanting. You have to build up mana to infuse and then you also will have a temper time to wait out before you can cast. I'm guessing that they'll have water lore built in to allow you to cut down the times so things go faster - so you're forced to dump ranks in to water lore for a utility spell or you suffer longer periods.
I envision 925 enchantments levels to function like 735 does.
1 pour and 1 cast for each level - but you have to infuse more mana for higher level casts.
735 - can earn 10k a week, max:
T1 cast needs 10K energy, can take a week to build up
T2 cast needs 15k energy, can take up to two weeks to build up
T3 cast needs 20K energy, can take up to two weeks to build up
and so on. You will take at minimum 9 weeks to take an item from T0 to T5.
925 - I think will play out like so:
T1 (0x to 1x) cast requires X amount of mana infused in potion - can take a week to build up. Then you pour your potion on the item and now you have to wait B amount of time before you can cast
T2 (1x to 2x) cast requires X+Y amount of mana infused in potion - can take 1-2 weeks to build up. Then you pour your potion, wait out the B+C amount of time before you can cast
T3 (2x to 3x) cast requires X+Y2 amount of mana infused in potion - can take 2-3 weeks to build up. Then pour your potion, wait out the B+C2 amount of time before you can cast.
and so on. EL:W can reduce Y and C times.
I'd venture to guess that taking a 0x item to 7x (unless they've increased the enchantment level we can do) will take upwards of 12 weeks without any EL:W. Enchanting will take longer than Ensorcell because enchanting can to go 7x (7 casts) while Ensorcell only goes to T5 (5 casts).
Not to mention you may need to get your hands on "special" temper potions for flaring items - which could add to your overall time trying to enchant as you track the potion down or make it yourself. Getting a special temper potion means one of the following things will have to be done to obtain it:
1) You need to make it yourself if they tie it to Alchemy (I hope they don't) . If you haven't learned Alchemy, you have to put a lot of time into this, but you're certainly not required to do so and can just find someone that's learned Alchemy (see #2 or #3)
2) You have to track someone down to make one for you if you don't do Alchemy and provide them with the necessary ingredients (which will take time to track down or cost money to buy ingredients from playershops/NPCs)
3) You have to buy one from someone that's got them for sale (could cost you thousands of silvers for one if they're a rarity item)
4) You have to buy one from a merchant (I hope they don't do this) . I don't like having to rely on skills/abilities as being only useful from items that merchants peddle.
5) You can simply buy one from the wizard guild shop (Please let this be the case) . If they have flaring temper potions available at the guild shop and also available to Alchemy for people to make, I'm okay with that. I'd much rather throw my silvers at a NPC, instead of having to pay a player to be able to use a function of the updated 925 spell. Do not hinder people that haven't spent time with Alchemy because they want to keep their sanity at being able to fully use their spell.
This is all just conjecture on my part and I could be way off....but from the info provided, this seems like a plausible outcome to how enchanting will go.
-Drumpel
>it takes 10 weeks, it has always taken 10 weeks.
Just going off what the wiki says:
"To permanently ensorcell an item from Tier 0 to Tier 5 requires 100,000 energy units, barring any failed casts, and takes a minimum of 9+ weeks to gain that amount."
I don't do 735 so I can only go by what it posted about it. If the info is wrong, it should be adjusted to say 10 weeks minimum, not 9+. But, as I said, I don't use 735 so I don't wouldn't know exactly how long, thus I have no intention to changing the info on the wiki since I have no experience with the spell.
-Drumpel
Just going off what the wiki says:
"To permanently ensorcell an item from Tier 0 to Tier 5 requires 100,000 energy units, barring any failed casts, and takes a minimum of 9+ weeks to gain that amount."
I don't do 735 so I can only go by what it posted about it. If the info is wrong, it should be adjusted to say 10 weeks minimum, not 9+. But, as I said, I don't use 735 so I don't wouldn't know exactly how long, thus I have no intention to changing the info on the wiki since I have no experience with the spell.
-Drumpel
Not bad, Drumpel.
I would also speculate that under this model, the concept of 'one active major project' kind of dies, too. Since the power build-up becomes the active limiter, there doesn't seem to be a need to track specific projects that way - they're all limited (unless 0x to 1x is 'free', etc.)
I would wish for something like this, under your supposition.
Some preliminary reasons (justifications?) for the above points:
1) Characters can buy a 4x weapon in hours instead of days and at very reasonable pricing compared to enchanting
2) Even if the 'expected' minimum time for enchant tier were stretched to 3 weeks, reasonably reduces enchant times
3) Tier 4 and 5 have additional limiters in potion availability, enchant difficulty (which can be modified to suit), and restrictions to enchant (weighting / padding, etc.)
4) Tier 5 could also be used as the point where the wizard has built enough energy to EVOKE the spell at any appropriate item to add a common flare level - tied specifically to EL:X specialization (rather than diversification).
That last point I think would go a long way to creating wizard choice - do you want to be able to enchant all items including flaring items? Or do you want to be able to enchant some items with flares and be able to put a flare on an item? Example (probably needs tailoring!):
Or something similar - I'm shooting for a suggested threshold of 110 + in a lore (even if one accounts for EL:W also counting) before the EVOKE attempt could be used. It's a bit raw and not fully formed, but the goal is to reward EL:X specializations.
Finally, a note that I feel is important - direct correlation power comparisons between 925 and 735 are challenged because 25th level profession spell shouldn't be quite as powerful as 35th level profession spell. It's an important distinction that I'm fairly sure still guides spell development.
Doug
I would also speculate that under this model, the concept of 'one active major project' kind of dies, too. Since the power build-up becomes the active limiter, there doesn't seem to be a need to track specific projects that way - they're all limited (unless 0x to 1x is 'free', etc.)
I would wish for something like this, under your supposition.
| Tier | Enchant Level |
| 1 | < = 4x |
| 2 | 5x or 6x |
| 3 | 7x or 8x |
| 4 | 9x |
| 5 | 10x |
Some preliminary reasons (justifications?) for the above points:
1) Characters can buy a 4x weapon in hours instead of days and at very reasonable pricing compared to enchanting
2) Even if the 'expected' minimum time for enchant tier were stretched to 3 weeks, reasonably reduces enchant times
3) Tier 4 and 5 have additional limiters in potion availability, enchant difficulty (which can be modified to suit), and restrictions to enchant (weighting / padding, etc.)
4) Tier 5 could also be used as the point where the wizard has built enough energy to EVOKE the spell at any appropriate item to add a common flare level - tied specifically to EL:X specialization (rather than diversification).
That last point I think would go a long way to creating wizard choice - do you want to be able to enchant all items including flaring items? Or do you want to be able to enchant some items with flares and be able to put a flare on an item? Example (probably needs tailoring!):
| EL:W | EL:F | EL:E | EL:A | Ability |
| 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | Can enchant flare items, but cannot EVOKE flare |
| 50 | 100 | 0 | 50 | Can enchant Air / Fire flares, can EVOKE Fire flare |
| 0 | 90 | 110 | 0 | Can enchant Earth flares, can EVOKE Earth flare |
Or something similar - I'm shooting for a suggested threshold of 110 + in a lore (even if one accounts for EL:W also counting) before the EVOKE attempt could be used. It's a bit raw and not fully formed, but the goal is to reward EL:X specializations.
Finally, a note that I feel is important - direct correlation power comparisons between 925 and 735 are challenged because 25th level profession spell shouldn't be quite as powerful as 35th level profession spell. It's an important distinction that I'm fairly sure still guides spell development.
Doug
>direct correlation power comparisons between 925 and 735 are challenged because 25th level profession spell shouldn't be quite as powerful as 35th level profession spell. It's an important distinction that I'm fairly sure still guides spell development.
No, it doesn't. Power allocation is considered across the board regardless of actual spell slot, especially with respect to core profession utility spells that grant a permanent bonus. I'm fairly sure that 735 was put in a level 35 spot not because of its ability but because 725 was taken. A wizard shouldn't have to settle for so much less.
No, it doesn't. Power allocation is considered across the board regardless of actual spell slot, especially with respect to core profession utility spells that grant a permanent bonus. I'm fairly sure that 735 was put in a level 35 spot not because of its ability but because 725 was taken. A wizard shouldn't have to settle for so much less.
>Enchanting will take longer than Ensorcell because enchanting can to go 7x (7 casts) while Ensorcell only goes to T5 (5 casts).
This logic doesn't make any sense either. You can readily get 4x items off the shelf. You cannot get T2 ensorcelled items off the shelf.
If we look at Duskruin pricing alone, TD bonuses are far more expensive and valuable than enchanting bonuses. This is a fact made obvious by the recent discussions about the power of warding spells and excessive warding margins that often result in instant kills, while AS/DS resolutions of any kind are far less effective. So not only is our 925 ability sold by every merchant at every event but it's largely insignificant in today's playing environment. To have to have it continue to be so underpowered vs. 735 is not only less than spectacular, but flat out underwhelming.
This logic doesn't make any sense either. You can readily get 4x items off the shelf. You cannot get T2 ensorcelled items off the shelf.
If we look at Duskruin pricing alone, TD bonuses are far more expensive and valuable than enchanting bonuses. This is a fact made obvious by the recent discussions about the power of warding spells and excessive warding margins that often result in instant kills, while AS/DS resolutions of any kind are far less effective. So not only is our 925 ability sold by every merchant at every event but it's largely insignificant in today's playing environment. To have to have it continue to be so underpowered vs. 735 is not only less than spectacular, but flat out underwhelming.
>If we look at Duskruin pricing alone, TD bonuses are far more expensive and valuable than enchanting bonuses. This is a fact made obvious by the recent discussions about the power of warding spells and excessive warding margins that often result in instant kills, while AS/DS resolutions of any kind are far less effective. So not only is our 925 ability sold by every merchant at every event but it's largely insignificant in today's playing environment. To have to have it continue to be so underpowered vs. 735 is not only less than spectacular, but flat out underwhelming.
Trying to compare them on the same level isn't possible simply due to the above facts about them. Yes, getting a boost to your TD is much more beneficial to almost every character over having an extra few points of DS/AS - I do agree with you on this.
Unless enchanting does something else that's super spectacular, they'll never be worth the same in terms of cost - that's just the flat out honesty of the facts. Expecting enchanting to be the on the same beneficial level as ensorcelling is a pipe dream based on how the spells are currently designed and how AS/DS/TD is used in the game.
Expecting to be able to take an item from under 4x enchantment and immediately take it 4x or higher in a very short period, I just don't think it's going to happen. It will take some amount of time to run an item from 0x-4x. I can see it taking a similar amount of time taking an item from 4x-7x, as it does for taking 735 from To to T5.
But, it's just speculation until they release all the details to us.
-Drumpel
Trying to compare them on the same level isn't possible simply due to the above facts about them. Yes, getting a boost to your TD is much more beneficial to almost every character over having an extra few points of DS/AS - I do agree with you on this.
Unless enchanting does something else that's super spectacular, they'll never be worth the same in terms of cost - that's just the flat out honesty of the facts. Expecting enchanting to be the on the same beneficial level as ensorcelling is a pipe dream based on how the spells are currently designed and how AS/DS/TD is used in the game.
Expecting to be able to take an item from under 4x enchantment and immediately take it 4x or higher in a very short period, I just don't think it's going to happen. It will take some amount of time to run an item from 0x-4x. I can see it taking a similar amount of time taking an item from 4x-7x, as it does for taking 735 from To to T5.
But, it's just speculation until they release all the details to us.
-Drumpel
>Finally, a note that I feel is important - direct correlation power comparisons between 925 and 735 are challenged because 25th level profession spell shouldn't be quite as powerful as 35th level profession spell. It's an important distinction that I'm fairly sure still guides spell development.
So what you're saying is Immolate should be moved to 510?
~ Methais
So what you're saying is Immolate should be moved to 510?
~ Methais
>>So what you're saying is Immolate should be moved to 510?
Heh. No, because a Major spell list (again, presuming this is still in force) shouldn't be quite as powerful as a Profession list - AND - the hunt is still on for increasing 519's current efficacy. I haven't given up on that, but we know that'll take some work.
However, moving it from 500 to 900 answers a part of the question. I'd almost suggest - based on a number of other suggestions I'm seeing - that 916 and 519 could be swapped, and then the 'new' 916 be further tweaked, providing we can win the case. Even sets up for a (invisible?) warding roll to detect the invisible wizard, which might actually allow the spell some significant utility (agenda alert!!)
That does create a potential challenge for 916 versus 917, though - and I have no really quick answer to that one.
Doug
Heh. No, because a Major spell list (again, presuming this is still in force) shouldn't be quite as powerful as a Profession list - AND - the hunt is still on for increasing 519's current efficacy. I haven't given up on that, but we know that'll take some work.
However, moving it from 500 to 900 answers a part of the question. I'd almost suggest - based on a number of other suggestions I'm seeing - that 916 and 519 could be swapped, and then the 'new' 916 be further tweaked, providing we can win the case. Even sets up for a (invisible?) warding roll to detect the invisible wizard, which might actually allow the spell some significant utility (agenda alert!!)
That does create a potential challenge for 916 versus 917, though - and I have no really quick answer to that one.
Doug
For what it's worth, the very first Enchant is already better than T2 Ensorcell at its worst, and as good as T4 at its best.
Non-magic robes/AsG0 are +25 CvA, while magical robes are only +20 CvA. [5 points of faux TD]
Non-magic plate/AsG20 are -13 CvA, while magical plate will be -21 CvA. [8 points of faux TD]
.
Sure, I realize that nearly no-one even looks at the 'non-magic' column, but the fact is, that first cast of Enchant is worth something on the magical protection, too.
Non-magic robes/AsG0 are +25 CvA, while magical robes are only +20 CvA. [5 points of faux TD]
Non-magic plate/AsG20 are -13 CvA, while magical plate will be -21 CvA. [8 points of faux TD]
.
Sure, I realize that nearly no-one even looks at the 'non-magic' column, but the fact is, that first cast of Enchant is worth something on the magical protection, too.
>For what it's worth, the very first Enchant is already better than T2 Ensorcell at its worst, and as good as T4 at its best.
>Non-magic robes/AsG0 are +25 CvA, while magical robes are only +20 CvA. [5 points of faux TD]
>Non-magic plate/AsG20 are -13 CvA, while magical plate will be -21 CvA. [8 points of faux TD]
>.
>Sure, I realize that nearly no-one even looks at the 'non-magic' column, but the fact is, that first cast of Enchant is worth something on the magical protection, too.
Who enchants 0x gear?
Who enchants anything under 4x when you can level from 0-10 faster than you can enchant anything from 0x-4x?
Who uses anything under 4x that's over level 10?
Why am I even responding to this post?
~ Methais
>Non-magic robes/AsG0 are +25 CvA, while magical robes are only +20 CvA. [5 points of faux TD]
>Non-magic plate/AsG20 are -13 CvA, while magical plate will be -21 CvA. [8 points of faux TD]
>.
>Sure, I realize that nearly no-one even looks at the 'non-magic' column, but the fact is, that first cast of Enchant is worth something on the magical protection, too.
Who enchants 0x gear?
Who enchants anything under 4x when you can level from 0-10 faster than you can enchant anything from 0x-4x?
Who uses anything under 4x that's over level 10?
Why am I even responding to this post?
~ Methais
Of course they don't wear it at 0x: they get it Enchanted as soon as possible.
But I have certainly bought mundane armor (which happened to look pretty) and then puttered around with it.
The fact that the second bonus comes along with the fact of being magical--material effect or from casting spells--does not mean that it doesn't exist.
But I have certainly bought mundane armor (which happened to look pretty) and then puttered around with it.
The fact that the second bonus comes along with the fact of being magical--material effect or from casting spells--does not mean that it doesn't exist.
>Of course they don't wear it at 0x: they get it Enchanted as soon as possible.
>But I have certainly bought mundane armor (which happened to look pretty) and then puttered around with it.
>The fact that the second bonus comes along with the fact of being magical--material effect or from casting spells--does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Like Fleurs said...
>this has nothing to do with the spell Enchant Item rather than the inherent nature of armor.
~ Methais
>But I have certainly bought mundane armor (which happened to look pretty) and then puttered around with it.
>The fact that the second bonus comes along with the fact of being magical--material effect or from casting spells--does not mean that it doesn't exist.
Like Fleurs said...
>this has nothing to do with the spell Enchant Item rather than the inherent nature of armor.
~ Methais
<Unless enchanting does something else that's super spectacular, they'll never be worth the same in terms of cost - that's just the flat out honesty of the facts. Expecting enchanting to be the on the same beneficial level as ensorcelling is a pipe dream based on how the spells are currently designed and how AS/DS/TD is used in the game.
Enchanting takes longer, is more restrictive, and provides less of a bonus. You can't enchant to the max enchant without HUGE and expensive restrictions. Imagine if T4 & T5 ensorcells required a special potion that cost 50m and was sold maybe once a year. Enchant is not a good spell design in the current game environment. The restricted access to 8-10x enchant potions needs to be lifted. The ability to enchant EVERYTHING needs to be implemented. Just like with ensorcell you can put whatever prohibitive penalties to higher end gear (like a claid and trying to ensorcell).
I would rather wait for a real improvement than to just get a band-aid fix and probably never have it looked at again.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
Enchanting takes longer, is more restrictive, and provides less of a bonus. You can't enchant to the max enchant without HUGE and expensive restrictions. Imagine if T4 & T5 ensorcells required a special potion that cost 50m and was sold maybe once a year. Enchant is not a good spell design in the current game environment. The restricted access to 8-10x enchant potions needs to be lifted. The ability to enchant EVERYTHING needs to be implemented. Just like with ensorcell you can put whatever prohibitive penalties to higher end gear (like a claid and trying to ensorcell).
I would rather wait for a real improvement than to just get a band-aid fix and probably never have it looked at again.
http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
>Enchanting takes longer, is more restrictive, and provides less of a bonus. You can't enchant to the max enchant without HUGE and expensive restrictions. Imagine if T4 & T5 ensorcells required a special potion that cost 50m and was sold maybe once a year. Enchant is not a good spell design in the current game environment. The restricted access to 8-10x enchant potions needs to be lifted. The ability to enchant EVERYTHING needs to be implemented. Just like with ensorcell you can put whatever prohibitive penalties to higher end gear (like a claid and trying to ensorcell).
>I would rather wait for a real improvement than to just get a band-aid fix and probably never have it looked at again.
+1. This "new" enchant seems, much like the overall state of wizards, mediocre at best.
~ Methais
>I would rather wait for a real improvement than to just get a band-aid fix and probably never have it looked at again.
+1. This "new" enchant seems, much like the overall state of wizards, mediocre at best.
~ Methais
>>NOBODY wears 0x armor of any kind.
This may be correct, hard to say. But somebody should be wearing these two (and making projects of them):
>>http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?87588-DM-Honey-Badger-Armors-Ful-Plate-and-Brig
I do like the concept of being able to take a stab with wizard Enchant at improving these and like armors, though! I support the idea.
Doug
This may be correct, hard to say. But somebody should be wearing these two (and making projects of them):
>>http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?87588-DM-Honey-Badger-Armors-Ful-Plate-and-Brig
I do like the concept of being able to take a stab with wizard Enchant at improving these and like armors, though! I support the idea.
Doug
