There is a substantial difference when it comes to implementing lore benefits vs. redesigning entire spells. In some cases, the former can literally be done in a few minutes. Ask GameMaster Ixix how much time he spent on 909's original lore benefit before I had him redesign the spell. Also, doing the former not preclude the latter. There are definitely a number of spells, for all casters, that need to be looked at, but it's a matter of bandwidth.

GameMaster Estild

Yeah, we understand that. It's just a bummer you're making 'bandwidth' room for nerfing our most used spells but not to fix the busted/useless ones. 512 isn't even that busted an idea it just sucks in practice. Increase the values on the room effect and give the warding version a better disable effect (preventing CM attacks would be a pretty good one, since it's frozen in place...) and it would be a pretty good, unique spell in my opinion.

514, 520 and sandstorm, whatever number that is, are so bad that it's questionable that they can be salvaged without a total redo. But looking at our spells and the other lists, ours has WAY more chaff because we haven't had a spell review in over 10 years. Now that our turn has FINALLY come you can't blame us for being disappointed that the only big changes you want to perform are nerfs and a light sprinkling of small ELR buffs. (I don't include 909 in that description, that's the kind of thing I think we were all hoping for more of)

Yeah, we understand that. It's just a bummer you're making 'bandwidth' room for nerfing our most used spells but not to fix the busted/useless ones. 512 isn't even that busted an idea it just sucks in practice. Increase the values on the room effect and give the warding version a better disable effect (preventing CM attacks would be a pretty good one, since it's frozen in place...) and it would be a pretty good, unique spell in my opinion.

514, 520 and sandstorm, whatever number that is, are so bad that it's questionable that they can be salvaged without a total redo. But looking at our spells and the other lists, ours has WAY more chaff because we haven't had a spell review in over 10 years. Now that our turn has FINALLY come you can't blame us for being disappointed that the only big changes you want to perform are nerfs and a light sprinkling of small ELR buffs. (I don't include 909 in that description, that's the kind of thing I think we were all hoping for more of)

As clarified above, please fix the other issues with the class spells before introducing more.

I am not sure using weapon damage types vs bolts is a very useful comparison point. Weapons in general have a significantly lower damage factor and take much longer per attack. Even with huge post cap AS, only the biggest and slowest weapons consistently produce rank 9s against most things. At least that was my experience when I flirted with moving into other non-lance hunting styles. Even with that higher chance to crit, most weapons will still require 5 seconds before the next try. There are some methods to improve that, but they have other mitigating factors as well.

A better comparison might be a average time to kill as it would cover more factors, but even that would ignore the generally harder to kill nature of physical professions.

AIM: GS4Menos

>Like men we'll face the murderous, cowardly pack,
>Pressed to the wall, dying, but fighting back!

I didn't want to get into the DF and RT factors, as those are loaded discussions. While DFs of spells are higher, a typical hunt can only include 50 Casts of 906 at cap (plus a couple more depending on duration you're out there). Whereas a typical swingers hunt is not restricted by the number of attacks that the individual makes. While RT is also a factor, consider that a capped wizard's maximum potential AS before heading the enhancive route is ~500, whereas for a swinger, we're looking more in the ~600+ range. While DS varies style-to-style, there are outliers on both sides, which is why I just defaulted to a rank 9 critical. Both sides of the fence also have disblers, except when wizards use theirs, it usually reduces the total number of attacks that we're allowed due to mana, while the same can be said for Squares and stamina, Semis can typically draw from both pools... (I think Viril and I agree: all Semis are OP)

If we want to do a RT to RT comparison, by these values, Wizards will get a crit kill approximately 10.7 Seconds with Fire, and 11.47 seconds with Lightning, assuming 3 seconds of casting RT.
If we want to compare with an ambushing class, all physical weapons have locations they can aim to guarantee death. Crush can aim for the head/neck, Piercing and Slashing for the eyes. In the hands of an ambusher, if we're assuming 75% accuracy (that's low!) to hitting your mark, and even if we go incredibly conservatively, and assume a base RT of 6, that'd be a crit kill every 8 seconds, on average.

In the hands of a non-ambusher, using piercing/slashing, we're looking at 16.6 Seconds, assuming a 5s RT. That'd be true for Two-handed Paladins, but Bards have 1035. I know it's not a 100% uptime, and potency can vary, so we'll just say -2s off of the base RT, just to set it at less than max potency, which would put them as having a crit kill every 9.9 Seconds.

So, instant-crit kill speed class order is:
One-Handed aiming Bards, Warrior/Rogue/Ranger/One Handed aiming Paladins, Bard, Wizards, non-aiming Paladin, lolMonks

~Whirlin

>>Not to be provocative, but within the context the quoted sentence originated from, I am not sure how.

The post you originally quoted was Observer saying that players probably rather sacrifice 525 to preserve the power of 506/515 as they care about those more. Given this was in near-direct response to Estild pitching the idea of moving the spells around to preserve their power, I can't see how your statement is contextually relevant at all?

>>Let's take haste for example. The main issues players have with the change is the loss of up-time. GMs have specifically stated this:

>>Quote 1: There is no scenario in which it is acceptable or needed for wizards to have 100% uptime for -1, -2, or -3 seconds of castRT for their bolt spells.
>>Quote 2: Yes, if a suggestion is just going to be 100% uptime with any reduction in castRT, it's not going to happen. If you want to make other suggestions outside of that or come up with a list of restrictions to control the former if it was implemented that way, then it would be something worth considering. Just because I disagree with one specific concept does in no way mean nothing else is possible.

>>So, for players offering suggestions which violate the underlying or intended development direction of the GMs, doesn't my statement stand?

Your two quotes are a reference to rapid fire uptime, not haste. Specifically the quotes are in reference to a proposal of switching 515 to a stackable duration spell that could be worn indefinitely without any real cost - on node mana isn't a proper cost offset to increasing your attack by double, triple, or potentially hitting infinity. The quotes aren't even about preserving the status quo of existing rapidfire, but potentially making it into a more powerful spell than even the current version based on the scenario you're reviewing.

What you've stated is that it's pointless to offer input, because the changes are set in stone and no amount of discussion will change them. What you've cited as proof is a suggestion being considered and rejected because it has a feature that isn't desired - perm CT reduction.

I would offer, using your own cites, the fact that the idea was evaluated and critiqued as proof that the discussions have been relevant.

So no, in my opinion, I don't believe your statement stands.

Viduus

Whirlin

There have been some discussions about the overall chance of crit death from bolt spells that I'd like to address on a per-Critical table perspective.

Doug posted a link over to https://gswiki.play.net/mediawiki/index.php/Unaimed_Body_Location_Assignment_%28saved_post%29 on another thread... thank you again for that.

Fortunately, for my own sanity, in the same thread I went into a quick breakdown of the criticals with death outcomes... ... and then I apparently deleted it. I'm only doing fire/lightning, as they're the most common, yay rework!... But now I'm going back before posting this and doing other tables as well, because the first sets of results were so interesting.

Your numbers are not accounting for nerve damage from electric attacks. Specifically, every electric crit has a 20% chance to hit the nerves and is fatal starting at rank 5.

GameMaster Estild

The post you originally quoted was Observer saying that players probably rather sacrifice 525 to preserve the power of 506/515 as they care about those more. Given this was in near-direct response to Estild pitching the idea of moving the spells around to preserve their power, I can't see how your statement is contextually relevant at all?

Viduus

I was pointing out that based on the idea that 100% up-time was not feasible for the spells in question (506/515), having them moved to spots currently preoccupied by less useful or broken spells doesn't address the issue they were facing which again was the idea that they want the spells to remain basically the same. All moving them to other spots would do is result in them basically being reduced (the original GMs initiative) and we would lose or miss out on the opportunity to get said replaced spells fixed or made relevant.

What you've stated is that it's pointless to offer input, because the changes are set in stone and no amount of discussion will change them. What you've cited as proof is a suggestion being considered and rejected because it has a feature that isn't desired - perm CT reduction.

I am corrected (reading comprehension > me) that those comments were in reference to 515, but the point would still remain just switch out the spell referenced. The GMs are basically stating that if the expectation is to keep what makes the spell appealing the same, it will not happen. This was illustrated by the fact that Estild was open to compromise (which is the point you bring up) on non-impactful specific aspects of 515, but on the underlying, thus the initiating issue, there was no compromise (which is the crux of the debate). Its an example of conflict management and population manipulation (don't mean this to sound nefarious in intent). An issue is presented knowing it will not be embraced but offer the idea that with active participation and discussion may result in net positive changes when in reality what will transpire is the underlying reduction in ability will still transpire but non-impactful feedback from the user will be implemented.

As an aside, I don't use 515 (so I am not educated to debate the intricacies of the spell itself) much but I do constantly have 506 up as a defensive buff for experiencing and a cool down will negatively impact my play-style and to some extent, randomly (we all have bad days where it seems like every mob gets lucky), my enjoyment. Unless 506 alteration can happen without a cool down which based off my (subjective, I know) interpretation of what has been stated by the GMs will not happen, it is pointless for me or anyone for that matter with the same underlying ideology to debate the spell any longer and better focus on other spells which can allow integration of the less mechanistically effective 506. As an example, converting 520 to something like iron skin would do such a thing because now the basic defensive benefit I get from haste is partially mitigated by 520. And this would be a large step in the right direction to assist warmages.

Whirlin

Gotta ask for Clarification.

20% chance overall of doing Nerve damage for any lightning?

And when the Nerve damage occurs, the criticals are fatal from Rank 5 onwards?

Is that Ab/Back/Chest/Head/Neck/Eyes T5+ only that has the fatal result?

KRAKII

It sounded like "Ab/Back/Chest/Head/Neck/Eyes" aren't relevant at all--although hits on them, as well as Legs/Arms/Hands, will trigger the 20% check for bonus crit--because "Nerve" is the area being hurt.

Nervous crits T5 and upward is what he said.

Actually, ignore my previous comment. It only applies to non-AS/DS electric crits.

GameMaster Estild

Aww... I was just gonna tell Donny that he's out of his...
(•_•)
( •_•)>⌐■-■
(⌐■_■)
Element.


I was thinking that it may be isolated to weapon flares only (I'm looking at you Ithzir)... Can we get that added to 910? Even at 20% on torso/head body parts, it only raises total overall crit death chance to 31.93%, which is less of a gap than Cold crticals and a physical weapon.

... Wait wait wait... do Sorcerers get that in 719... do we get that on 915? I feel like we just uncovered something that I must dig deeper into. And also calling shenanigans if Sorcerers get it!


~Whirlin

Also it would make lightning attunement much more valuable for 415 if it applied to that spell.

ERYKK2

I have yet to see player feedback incorporated into any design or release.

I'm going to list out, without taking a look at my e-mails or any outside informational sources, what I can come up with that has changed AFTER release during HSN based on player input.

- 405 fixes.
- 416 got a secondary update.
- 418
- Estild came out and said that review was -RIGHT NOW- being spoken about with regards to all the spells that have been spoken about.
- 730 fixes and changes.
- 725
- 709 had a lot of work put into it after the fact.

I'm sure that on top of this list I'm missing some things. If you don't care about the later changes/fixes/updates that were made, that's fine, but it doesn't mean that they didn't happen.

~ Konacon

>>I feel like there are a few people here who if they saw a nickle on the sidewalk would get upset it wasn't a dollar and stomp off.

I think it's more like they know that nickel (ie, huge nerfs to 506 and 515, a couple of interesting ideas--950, 518 w/o the PvP danger aspect, what COULD be an interesting change to 925--and ridiculous costs on Lores for minimal return on seeds) MIGHT change into a dollar (ie, interesting ideas implemented with player input that BENEFIT Wizards), but until then it's a pretty dinged-up nickel, and no one wants to wait a few years for it to change into a dollar.

>I feel like there are a few people here who if they saw a nickle on the sidewalk would get upset it wasn't a dollar and stomp off.

I think a better analogy would be you lost your wallet which had 100 dollars in it but you found a nickel on your way home and everyone is wondering why you aren't excited about the nickel.

>>I think a better analogy would be you lost your wallet which had 100 dollars in it but you found a nickel on your way home and everyone is wondering why you aren't excited about the nickel.

Okay, you said it better.

A few updates:

Haste (506): we're still iterating over a new design for the spell. We'll release more details in the near future.

Rapid Fire (515): we're mostly happy with the new proposal, but as I suggested earlier, if wizards are interested, we could look at putting the spell in the 540 slot with a 30 second duration, reducing castRT to 1 second, but it would not have a cooldown. If we did this, Temporal Reversion would move to 520 slot (with a small adjustment), and Stone Skin would move to 515 slot.

Cone of Elements (518): there will be a CAST and EVOKE version. EVOKE is the new alternate way to cast certain spells, which is similar to CHANNEL, except it doesn't cause roundtime. It will serve no role outside of making a spell function slightly different than the CAST version. When the spell is CAST, it is player friendly and will affect (2 + 1 per 75 Elemental Mana Control skill) targets. When it is EVOKEd, it is group friendly only and will affect (5 + 1 per 50 Elemental Mana Control skill) targets.

Immolate (519): there's going to be a CAST and EVOKE version. The CAST version will be as described before: the base damage is boosted, the instant kill chance is reduced (13% at 192 EL:F ranks), has a chance to deal one additional fire critical ((EL:F ranks / 1.5)% chance), and does not cause any roundtime to the target. The EVOKE version will not be able to instant kill the target, does not benefit from the extra EL:F crit, does not have the enhanced base damage, but it will disable the target similar to the existing version. This should give wizards the choice of how to use the spell (either as a lethal warding attack or as a non-lethal disabling spell).

Enchant Item (925): wizards will be able to enchant elementally flaring equipment that matches their attunement without any lore requirements (but still with a high penalty if they choose not to mitigate it). To enchant other elements will require 100 lore ranks. However, the same Elemental Lore, Water bonus that actively played wizards will be able to use to reduce their temper times can instead be applied to work as phantom lore ranks for enchanting other elements, up to +50. So if a wizard gained the maximum amount of points for a week and only had 50 EL:F ranks, the water lore points could be spent to allow then to enchant a fire flaring weapon. The points would take the place of the missing 50 lore ranks. Ultimately, if you're an active water mage, you can have reduced timer times or be able to enchant more elementally flaring equipment with less lore ranks.

GameMaster Estild

>Rapid Fire (515): we're mostly happy with the new proposal, but as I suggested earlier, if wizards are interested, we could look at putting the spell in the 540 slot with a 30 second duration, reducing castRT to 1 second, but it would not have a cooldown. If we did this, Temporal Reversion would move to 520 slot (with a small adjustment), and Stone Skin would move to 515 slot.

Why is the 1 second castRT absolutely necessary? A spell in the level 40 slot is supposed to be power. No cast roundtime is powerful.

Let's compromise. How about it alternates, first spell cast no roundtime, next spell cast has a 1 second roundtime, then it keeps alternating like that. Basically a .5 second roundtime.

Other than this snag I personally would prefer Rapid Fire moved to the 540 slot with no cooldown.

Thank you for considering our suggestions. Awesome just to have feedback. I think when the players don't hear any feedback they imagine all the GMs laughing manically at our concerns while mashing away at their keyboards so they can push the nerfs out as soon as possible.

That's...that's not true...right?

Not bad; I have never been happy with the failure rate for temporal reversion; level 20 spell slot is more appropriate.

Even at 15th level slot, stone skin is woefully underpowered, but it's heading in the right direction. Make it 502 and we're talking.

>Rapid Fire (515): we're mostly happy with the new proposal, but as I suggested earlier, if wizards are interested, we could look at putting the spell in the 540 slot with a 30 second duration, reducing castRT to 1 second, but it would not have a cooldown. If we did this, Temporal Reversion would move to 520 slot (with a small adjustment), and Stone Skin would move to 515 slot.

So basically you've continued to pay no attention to how 515 is in no way comparable to the power of 240 and is not a 40th level spell, still requiring mana per cast and with no AS/CS boost. A 20th level spot being self-cast and non-stackable would be appropriate but not anything more unless its power is boosted significantly in comparison to 240.

>Immolate (519): there's going to be a CAST and EVOKE version. The CAST version will be as described before: the base damage is boosted, the instant kill chance is reduced (13% at 192 EL:F ranks), has a chance to deal one additional fire critical ((EL:F ranks / 1.5)% chance), and does not cause any roundtime to the target. The EVOKE version will not be able to instant kill the target, does not benefit from the extra EL:F crit, does not have the enhanced base damage, but it will disable the target similar to the existing version. This should give wizards the choice of how to use the spell (either as a lethal warding attack or as a non-lethal disabling spell).

And again you've continued to pay no attention to how 519 costs more mana than 1115 or 317 and is in no way comparable to the effect of either without a 240-style booster.

I wonder why the Piranhas that were ravenously devouring every single release, meanwhile complaining about their poor little pet spells (Unrelated to the topic of the released ELR improvement the thread is on) , aren't quickly show that they are satiated by commenting about all this POSITIVE improvements?

I would imagine it being 2:30 am CST in the morning might have a small influence.

>Cone of Elements (518): there will be a CAST and EVOKE version. EVOKE is the new alternate way to cast certain spells, which is similar to CHANNEL, except it doesn't cause roundtime. It will serve no role outside of making a spell function slightly different than the CAST version. When the spell is CAST, it is player friendly and will affect (2 + 1 per 75 Elemental Mana Control skill) targets. When it is EVOKEd, it is group friendly only and will affect (5 + 1 per 50 Elemental Mana Control skill) targets.

how is mana control skill taken into account when it comes to casting from scrolls or using magical items?