>>But it's easier to manipulate a viewpoint when you tailor your data to display the way you want it to.

Indeed.

>>I've updated it to include a table of the way people actually train their spells so people can make real comparisons.

Your table is actually meaningless, given the fact you have 1115 making kills before it's even cast what with <1 casts per kill.

Viduus

So Empaths are at the top for CS and Melee. Is that a design choice? Or is it a failure?

Only GMs could answer that. But I'd disagree that empaths are at the top for melee; swinging in one second is much better than 45 more AS for several reasons like more flares, more application of weighting, quicker reactions to new enemies coming in the room, and better stance dancing.

1117 does close the gap between warmages and warpaths a little, but that's only in a swarm--and in a swarm warmages still come out ahead in power, but it'll be with 518 or 950 instead of their weapon.

But the question I have is, what are clerics supposed to be best at?

That is the question and the problem. Regardless of what GMs intend them to be best at, my answer for what we're actually best at is surviving. 319 is the game's most powerful defensive spell and 316, as long as we're in an area where it works (which is almost all of them pre-cap), is the game's most powerful disabler.

I'm sure there are people who find it fun to pretty much never die. For me, though, 319 is an always-active ability and 316 is the one-size-fits-all disabler once a cleric has enough mana for it, so neither of them add any decision-making to combat.

(And it's ironic that of the professions I play, the one that feels to me the least likely to die is the one whose capstone spell is self-resurrection.)

Since I don't have any expectations or desires of getting buffed to be amazing at everything, spell options that would sacrifice defensive power for offensive power are very common suggestions coming from me.

Also, maybe Empaths really should lose Major Spiritual access and be pushed to minor mental. Look at the numbers without the +40 AS from the 200's. It would also open up 240 to have more forced choices through the other spiritual lores.

That was written off over a decade ago: https://gswiki.play.net/Empath/saved_posts#Empath_Design_Direction

Maybe if they'd gone through with it at the time, Minor Mental would be a very different circle than it is and would appeal to empaths more.

But as things are now, there's no way I'd want to see Major Spiritual removed from empaths. It's not a matter of numbers, because they could easily shift the AS from 211/215, TD from 219, and maneuver defense from 215 into Empath Base, but more that the loss of 240 would be a huge problem to empaths mechanically and spells like 203, 213, 220, and 225 are completely ingrained in empath identity.

It's still a fun thought experiment that I've considered many times, though.

What are your thoughts on the following?

[proposals for 304, 306, 307, 309, 320, 335, 340, 315]

Does that fill in the gaps? If not, what would still be missing?

1 - This would probably solve all my problems.

2 - But I wouldn't want to go with it. Counterintuitive, I know, but let me explain.

There's a reason why, even though I've offered dozens of spell suggestions in the past year, I've never taken your approach of re-envisioning Cleric Base in one fell swoop.

I think that over the past couple of years dev GMs have been exceptionally creative, with spells like 1650, 520, the 1625 changes, 917, and probably others I'm forgetting. Not everything they do is a hit, but when they're on a roll, they do incredible things. And that's not true just of spells, but also hunting; I think the Sanctum enemies and Ilvari sprites and pixies are some of the most compelling and interesting creatures in the game.

This is why I like keeping the discussion centered around the problems, because I think dev GMs are more talented at finding interesting solutions. It's like I said earlier that changing 307's 51 bolt AS to 51 generic AS would work for melee but wouldn't be creative--and I'd prefer creative over just changing numbers around.

I do offer spell ideas, but most of the time I wouldn't even want them to be implemented as-is. I just think that illustrations of general concepts can be helpful, and I'm always hoping that maybe some offbeat idea of mine will one day get the wheels turning for someone more creative than me to come up with something truly great.

I've updated it to include a table of the way people actually train their spells so people can make real comparisons.

While I agree that wizards don't train 75/160/68, I also don't get the impression that they train 101/101/101. My impression is that, depending on how much value wizards place on 516 vs. 917/925, they tend to go for either 77/126/100, 77/100/126 (what I'm 36 spell ranks away from), or somewhere between those two--but Minor Elemental is the one sacrificed in any case.

101/101/101 = 528 CS
77/126/100 = 543 CS
77/100/126 = 526 CS
77/113/113 = 536 CS (this is Faulkil's split, if I remember)

So using the normalized CS number as the scale for 519 is only fair game if the wizard has heavily prioritized 917 or enchanting extremely high end items. A more typical wizard would have 543 CS, which is closer to the 556 mark.


(And to answer the question of how high end... A 9x -> 10x enchant on a parasite weapon, which has a -250 modifier because it's made of bone, is the level of weapon that a wizard would have to want to enchant before a 77/100/126 split is needed, based on the math here:

https://gswiki.play.net/Research:Enchant_(925)_Formula#Enchant_Formula

The 8x -> 9x is 100% viable with 77/126/100.)

---

https://gswiki.play.net/Leafiara

I think that the best design for spells is to make each circle something that people WANT to max out, but make it impossible to max out all the circles a class has access to.

This is good design, since it makes for options in builds. No more is it 'all in on X or you suck', its 'Well, I could go all in on this circle...OH but then I miss out on the high end stuff from the other circle omg! But if I split it up, I wont be as good in the main circle!'

This forces choices and makes characters of the same class different!

The trick is making each of the circles attractive AND actually equally useful at all stages of the game, though maybe some will be better at certain things than others.

Right now, at least in my training, my cleric is very much a 'One hit wonder'. He uses one spell in his hunting. One spell. For hours. And days. And months :( This is not fun! It is booooring. It is poor design. My wizard has options! My warrior even...HE Has more options in attack types than my cleric. He can berserk, he can set up more with cmans, he can mstrike...he can do a combo of all 3. He gets bored, he can switch to a different weapon type. The different weapon types feel different. THW plays different than Sword and Board...which plays different than TWC. Fixskills can let me change, if I get bored.

As a cleric? 306 if you wanna bolt, and you better be hunting undead. Or 302 vs living (if bane) or undead (if smite).


This is the only choice I have and its not much of a choice, since the choice is dictated by the type of enemy I want to hunt.

I think we can do better than this with the design, don't you guys? :)



Berbels shrilly exclaims, "Ise takings hims tos secretses lairses!"

Berbels grabs you and drags you east.

Only GMs could answer that. But I'd disagree that empaths are at the top for melee; swinging in one second is much better than 45 more AS for several reasons like more flares, more application of weighting, quicker reactions to new enemies coming in the room, and better stance dancing.

1117 does close the gap between warmages and warpaths a little, but that's only in a swarm--and in a swarm warmages still come out ahead in power, but it'll be with 518 or 950 instead of their weapon.

I should have specified. Empaths are on top when it comes to having the biggest number. And as a Wizard, as others have pointed out, I'm entitled to have the biggest number. I do agree though that swinging faster is better. It can be an issue when something has a DS high enough that even if knocked down you can't touch it, but that's usually in situations like Duskruin Arena.

I actually hope one day melee RT in general is reduced so battles feel more lively. The smaller, less damaging weapons should be faster and not have the same RT as the large two-handed weapons. That's a bonus reduction on the effects of 506, but playing a melee class (without 506) is boring to me because it feels slow and clunky.

But as things are now, there's no way I'd want to see Major Spiritual removed from empaths. It's not a matter of numbers, because they could easily shift the AS from 211/215, TD from 219, and maneuver defense from 215 into Empath Base, but more that the loss of 240 would be a huge problem to empaths mechanically and spells like 203, 213, 220, and 225 are completely ingrained in empath identity.

Maybe we could move that conversation to the empath folder?

1 - This would probably solve all my problems.

2 - But I wouldn't want to go with it. Counterintuitive, I know, but let me explain.

There's a reason why, even though I've offered dozens of spell suggestions in the past year, I've never taken your approach of re-envisioning Cleric Base in one fell swoop.

Good to know I'm at least on the right track with one Cleric. I don't expect any suggestions to be implemented as is, I just think it's fun to think about them and make suggestions.

While I agree that wizards don't train 75/160/68, I also don't get the impression that they train 101/101/101. My impression is that, depending on how much value wizards place on 516 vs. 917/925, they tend to go for either 77/126/100, 77/100/126 (what I'm 36 spell ranks away from), or somewhere between those two--but Minor Elemental is the one sacrificed in any case.

Yes, I would agree with this. I'm currently 110/78/110 and trying to figure out what I want to prioritize more to finish spells off. (It will probably be 900's, because 519 = dumpster fire). But as for the numbers bit, it's not about how high the CS is, because elemental TD is higher than spiritual TD. It's about killing potential to me. The comparison numbers were provided by Estild. If they still want to allow spiritualists to have all the things, I feel it's appropriate to point out the double standard and call them on it until they provide some viable CS pathway for Wizards.

I posted the math on that 5 days ago in this thread and it would be a very small sacrifice to cleric/empath CS. If 235 and 250 were introduced and added good reasons to go to 100 Major Spiritual ranks, the way that Major Elemental has plenty of good reasons to go to 100 ranks even for a warmage who never uses CS spells (DS, AS, crit padding, enchanting, RT reduction), then I wouldn't think twice about it.

This is good information and very helpful. Thanks for providing that. Assuming the numbers are correct, and I have no reason to see why they wouldn't be. It's not really a sacrifice.... 9 CS for potential gains in other ways.

I guess my remaining questions are:

Is there diversity in Cleric training or is it pretty much everyone trains the same way?
What changes would need to be made so there is more training diversity?
What kind of forced limitations are acceptable to reinforce those differences in training?

I think that the best design for spells is to make each circle something that people WANT to max out, but make it impossible to max out all the circles a class has access to.

This is good design, since it makes for options in builds. No more is it 'all in on X or you suck', its 'Well, I could go all in on this circle...OH but then I miss out on the high end stuff from the other circle omg! But if I split it up, I wont be as good in the main circle!'

This forces choices and makes characters of the same class different!

I agree with all of this. I was mistaken in my initial posts about what clerics could do. Sorry if that ruffled some feathers and made some of you feel like you need to put me in my place. But I came around to get a clearer picture of Cleric lyfe. I basically viewed clerics as godly once capped, but super boring to get there, which is probably why I've only ever made it to about level 15 as a cleric before stopping. I support making changes to make things more "fun", they should just be changes that are unique to the cleric theme. Plasma, alignment (but equally strong), limitations that bring choices.

I'm more than aware of the data from the research I provided to players regarding 317, 1115, and 519. I don't see any issue there, except for 317's lore benefit, which is practically useless (and on my list to address). As the numbers show, 519 is comparable. It's not as powerful as the old version (either is the current 719 vs. the old version), but it's perfectly viable. They both may be "trash" compared to their former versions, but they are not trash compared to other high level warding spells. The data clearly shows that.

Any mention of 240 is completely met with a comparison to 515. They are both exceptionally strong. 240 may "kill one one cast", but 515 kills in 3 seconds which is the same amount of time as 240. If a wizard kills in less than 3 casts, it's a net gain over 240 since the latter is at least always 3 seconds (yes, crit kills do happen even at cap).

Wizards will always be the best bolters, in both variety of bolt attacks (including by element, type, and AoE) and highest bolt AS. But that doesn't mean other Pures can't and won't get additional bolts on the future. They could gain several more without threatening wizard's dominance in that area.

Most importantly, we've all beat this dead horse, several times over. Sure, it's worth discussing every so often or as new arguments are made, but that's not happening here. Stop trying to tear each other down. There's plenty of room for enhancements to every profession.

Lastly, I want to note that you don't have to respond to each other. Sure, it's great to discuss and evaluate proposals, but at the end of the day, your trying to convince me, not others. You don't need a consensus to sell us on an idea.

GameMaster Estild

The harassing posts in this thread needs to stop now. Please remember to be constructive and courteous to other customers when replying to threads.


~Aulis
Platinum Co-Guru
Forums Manager
QC'er

LEAFIARA

Is there any viable way to make a "Player State of Clerics" that would be helpful to GMs but also doesn't require asking cleric players to post on the forums?

You can use any method (forum, wiki, email, Google Docs, survey, etc) to collaborate that you want. It's ideally, a group of players getting together to express their opinions on the current state of their profession. The means in which you communicate to do that doesn't matter.

GameMaster Estild

>> Is there any viable way to make a "Player State of Clerics" that would be helpful to GMs but also doesn't require asking cleric players to post on the forums?

I know these forums can be cumbersome, Leafiara, but I cross my fingers and hope that such endeavors are, as much as possible, posted here. My Cleric is only level 26 and I barely play it so I don't have any real "skin in the game," but I sure do enjoy reading what long-time Cleric players think about the class, and am glad that I am not entirely forced to check this forum, a wiki, maybe a another forum, discord, and my aunts hallway closet to try and keep up with the conversation.

Avaia, player of

Regarding CS spells for wizards: I would like to add that my (admittedly capped) warmage has a massive CS and does ridiculous damage with 415. OK, she's a bit of a mutant, with more MnE spells than MjE or wizard, but it's certainly doable. In fact, I suspect most wizards could generate a decent CS with 415, even without going overboard on the MnE circle. Let's have some folks try it and see what results they get.

And her core tap simply vaporizes entire rooms.

I only mentioned it here because someone else commented in this thread on the lack of CS based spells for wizards. But I can probably get an illustration for the wizard folder.