"Many wizards were not happy with the changes that were announced at last year's SimuCon. This year will be different.
GameMaster Estild"
Well, you have me interested. I'd love to forget the past year ever happened. For all that this team has been moving this game in a decidedly positive direction, the ELR was a colossal letdown. The decision to nerf both post-cap builds and add not a single heavy lore specialization benefit into the ELR (after waiting so many years for any sort of elemental lore development!) to replace them was an inexcusable oversight.
Still, you guys did some brilliant work with the sorcery updates. I know you're capable of fixing this. And honestly, given Wyrom's final comments on the subject I wasn't expecting this to be a priority in the coming year.
So, consider me cautiously optimistic and excited to see what you have in store for wizards this year. I'll be watching.
~Taverkin
BLACKKOBOLD2
BLACKKOBOLD2
Re: @Estild
08/22/2016 11:54 AM CDT
Feedback on the recent announcements:
Timestop - I agree that this is a very powerful effect, and worthy of a level 50 emergency defensive spell. However, I strongly disagree with the cooldown, even with the earth lore option. This is far too powerful to allow it to be used multiple times during the course of a hunt, but it should be used more often than once per day. That's a waste of a perfectly good spell, in my opinion.
Suggestion: Set the cooldown to 60 minutes with an earth lore benefit that reduces the cooldown to as little as 30 minutes.
Let us USE the spell, please. Consider hunting habits. It's possible to run up to about 4 bounties per hour. In that most extreme scenario, the spell is only available once every other hunt with maximum earth lore investment. A more casual player might run a bounty or two per hour and would probably see similar uptime on timestop running 1-2 bounties per hour with little or no earth lore investment. The more you hunt, the more you could use this spell, the more you have to invest in earth lore if you want better uptime. Also, it isn't as if a heavy lore investment comes consequence-free in the new environment of lore choices you're beginning to construct with these updates, right?
Core Tap - Another worthy addition! Very potent! This will absolutely appeal to high end wizards with the mana to make it shine! However, I don't like the fact that the cost is not variable downward (<50 mana) and the cooldown is likewise not variable based upon mana expended (used in this case as an approximation of the relative power output of the spell). In other words, I would have preferred the option to use less mana to induce a lower cooldown.
There is little incentive to use less mana than the base cost, as it would tend to produce a less powerful effect with the same drawbacks (2 min cooldown, same mana cost). Some wizards would find 50 mana prohibitive. They could get more utility out of the spell by utilizing lower level spells to reduce the mana cost below 50. Other wizards would undoubtedly like to use the spell more often than the cooldown allows, but it would be overpowered to allow them to do so. However, a variable cooldown would allow them to compromise between power output and cooldown. I expect this would make the spell more versatile and useful to a broader range of players.
I have no specific details of how exactly we could accomplish this. As a starting point, perhaps some way of linking avg. spell level, or accounting for a maximum spell level in the group, or even as a percentage of maximum mana or harness power ranks so that the power allowed at a certain cooldown threshold increases along with your mana pool. There are any number of ways to make this happen, but what do you think? Would that be an improvement that would maintain the power ceiling on this spell while increasing its versatility in the lower cost/power/cooldown range?
Mage Armor - It's great to see the basic change wizards have been asking for years to have for this spell. But adding the elemental effects on top of that really gives it some personality and helps to create the framework by which (I expect) you intend to deliver upon the builds that were conspicuously missing following the ELR. Good job being bold, taking the gloves off, and giving wizards some real meat in their spells! Although, depending upon how this spell interacts I do have some concern that it may be a wee bit overpowered. But after the treatment this class received last year, I'm inclined to take a wait and see approach on that!
Thank you, Estild. It's a promising start. I'm excited to see what else you have in store for wizards this year. And if you'd care to elaborate on your long term plans at all, it would be appreciated. Specifically, I am hoping that these spells are to work as a model moving forward. The lore options are powerful and distinctive - exactly the sort of options we need to force the choices that will be the basis for future builds (I hope!). I am also curious whether you are considering the possibility of unique spell effects to encourage heavy lore specialization - either non-circle spell effects that unlock at a specific lore thresholds, or modification of a circle spell to completely alter its base function to suit the lore theme? The reason I ask is I feel the current climate strongly favors spreading the lores around to avoid diminishing returns and pick up as many benefits as possible.
I could be wrong. I have been out of the loop for a year. But I still have yet to hear of any compelling reason to specialize in lores. I don't feel any of these benefits hit that mark either. So I was hoping for some sort of insight into your thoughts on that moving forward.
~Taverkin
Timestop - I agree that this is a very powerful effect, and worthy of a level 50 emergency defensive spell. However, I strongly disagree with the cooldown, even with the earth lore option. This is far too powerful to allow it to be used multiple times during the course of a hunt, but it should be used more often than once per day. That's a waste of a perfectly good spell, in my opinion.
Suggestion: Set the cooldown to 60 minutes with an earth lore benefit that reduces the cooldown to as little as 30 minutes.
Let us USE the spell, please. Consider hunting habits. It's possible to run up to about 4 bounties per hour. In that most extreme scenario, the spell is only available once every other hunt with maximum earth lore investment. A more casual player might run a bounty or two per hour and would probably see similar uptime on timestop running 1-2 bounties per hour with little or no earth lore investment. The more you hunt, the more you could use this spell, the more you have to invest in earth lore if you want better uptime. Also, it isn't as if a heavy lore investment comes consequence-free in the new environment of lore choices you're beginning to construct with these updates, right?
Core Tap - Another worthy addition! Very potent! This will absolutely appeal to high end wizards with the mana to make it shine! However, I don't like the fact that the cost is not variable downward (<50 mana) and the cooldown is likewise not variable based upon mana expended (used in this case as an approximation of the relative power output of the spell). In other words, I would have preferred the option to use less mana to induce a lower cooldown.
There is little incentive to use less mana than the base cost, as it would tend to produce a less powerful effect with the same drawbacks (2 min cooldown, same mana cost). Some wizards would find 50 mana prohibitive. They could get more utility out of the spell by utilizing lower level spells to reduce the mana cost below 50. Other wizards would undoubtedly like to use the spell more often than the cooldown allows, but it would be overpowered to allow them to do so. However, a variable cooldown would allow them to compromise between power output and cooldown. I expect this would make the spell more versatile and useful to a broader range of players.
I have no specific details of how exactly we could accomplish this. As a starting point, perhaps some way of linking avg. spell level, or accounting for a maximum spell level in the group, or even as a percentage of maximum mana or harness power ranks so that the power allowed at a certain cooldown threshold increases along with your mana pool. There are any number of ways to make this happen, but what do you think? Would that be an improvement that would maintain the power ceiling on this spell while increasing its versatility in the lower cost/power/cooldown range?
Mage Armor - It's great to see the basic change wizards have been asking for years to have for this spell. But adding the elemental effects on top of that really gives it some personality and helps to create the framework by which (I expect) you intend to deliver upon the builds that were conspicuously missing following the ELR. Good job being bold, taking the gloves off, and giving wizards some real meat in their spells! Although, depending upon how this spell interacts I do have some concern that it may be a wee bit overpowered. But after the treatment this class received last year, I'm inclined to take a wait and see approach on that!
Thank you, Estild. It's a promising start. I'm excited to see what else you have in store for wizards this year. And if you'd care to elaborate on your long term plans at all, it would be appreciated. Specifically, I am hoping that these spells are to work as a model moving forward. The lore options are powerful and distinctive - exactly the sort of options we need to force the choices that will be the basis for future builds (I hope!). I am also curious whether you are considering the possibility of unique spell effects to encourage heavy lore specialization - either non-circle spell effects that unlock at a specific lore thresholds, or modification of a circle spell to completely alter its base function to suit the lore theme? The reason I ask is I feel the current climate strongly favors spreading the lores around to avoid diminishing returns and pick up as many benefits as possible.
I could be wrong. I have been out of the loop for a year. But I still have yet to hear of any compelling reason to specialize in lores. I don't feel any of these benefits hit that mark either. So I was hoping for some sort of insight into your thoughts on that moving forward.
~Taverkin
BLACKKOBOLD2
Re: @Estild
09/18/2016 01:16 PM CDT
So, anything else coming up? As a reminder, the nerfs removed two admittedly OP and one-dimensional builds and replaced them with nothing. The recent additions are appreciated, but they aren't an answer to the issues created by the ELR. What are you doing to address the lack of incentives for heavy lore specialization? When can we expect to see the beginnings of proper builds for each lore? Or is it your intention to make all wizards generalist bolt-spammers?
Losing faith...
~Taverkin
Losing faith...
~Taverkin
KHARIZ555
ROBERTSM8
Re: @Estild
09/18/2016 02:02 PM CDT
Because he closed his account and can only post in the F2P discussion I imagine.
KHARIZ555
BLACKKOBOLD2
Re: @Estild
09/18/2016 06:34 PM CDT
That's correct. But as the PM went as far as to state that the timing of the creation of the F2P folder and subsequent removal of general posting privileges was intended to silence my criticism of the ELR on the forums, I'm not expecting a response. Still, I know the people I'm talking to are listening. The issues I had with the ELR remain unresolved. And now, over a year later, other wizards who remain paying customers are starting to ask the same questions. If you won't answer me here, then answer them. They're talking about it right now.
~Taverkin
~Taverkin
GORTOG
Re: @Estild
09/18/2016 09:26 PM CDT
Holy Hot Potatoes Batman! This wizard nerf thing must've been one SERIOUS nerf if people a year later are still clinging on. I don't know,I only play squares. But if I can make a suggestion, you may want to LNET to get the word out or voice your complaints. Or posting on the PC, although I don't believe neither Wyrom or Estild goes to the PC. Or maybe they do?
MAYLAN
Re: @Estild
09/18/2016 09:36 PM CDT
<I don't believe neither Wyrom or Estild goes to the PC. Or maybe they do?
Actually Wyrom just joined the PC in an effort to streamline communication. :)
~Land Pirate Maylan~
Actually Wyrom just joined the PC in an effort to streamline communication. :)
~Land Pirate Maylan~
DAID
Re: @Estild
09/19/2016 04:59 AM CDT
>That's correct. But as the PM went as far as to state that the timing of the creation of the F2P folder and subsequent removal of general posting privileges was intended to silence my criticism of the ELR on the forums
...that's not very close to what was actually said...
http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/F2P%20Discussions/F2P%20General%20Discussion/thread/1789530
But your paraphrasing and fairly false accusation against staff probably speaks for itself for anyone who was wondering if what happened was reasonably justified or not, regardless of the specific reasoning.
Though mostly they made their decisions based on F2P for the intended market of F2P (which wasn't released as an outlet for disgruntled players who wanted their voices heard loud and clear yet didn't feel like paying).
...that's not very close to what was actually said...
http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/F2P%20Discussions/F2P%20General%20Discussion/thread/1789530
But your paraphrasing and fairly false accusation against staff probably speaks for itself for anyone who was wondering if what happened was reasonably justified or not, regardless of the specific reasoning.
Though mostly they made their decisions based on F2P for the intended market of F2P (which wasn't released as an outlet for disgruntled players who wanted their voices heard loud and clear yet didn't feel like paying).
BLACKKOBOLD2
Re: @Estild
09/19/2016 10:11 AM CDT
"Holy Hot Potatoes Batman! This wizard nerf thing must've been one SERIOUS nerf if people a year later are still clinging on. I don't know,I only play squares. But if I can make a suggestion, you may want to LNET to get the word out or voice your complaints. Or posting on the PC, although I don't believe neither Wyrom or Estild goes to the PC. Or maybe they do?"
It wasn't serious across the board. We covered this a year ago during the discussion following the announcement of the ELR and associated nerfs. But just to catch you up...
Lore skills were a new addition from the GS3-GSIV conversion. Unfortunately, they were never fully developed at the time and lore skills were added piecemeal over the years. Elemental lores, which are primarily relevant to wizards, were barely developed at all until the ELR. The result of this was that wizards saw very little incentive to train elemental lores with one notable exception: the immolate build, which relied on heavy fire lore training.
This oversight is at the core of the issue, as only very high level wizards were able to meet the training and mana requirements for an immolate build. When they nerfed immolate, they failed to introduce any incentives for heavy lore training in any element. Obviously, if you were lower level you weren't an immolate wizard and you lost nothing. However, if you were an immolate wizard your playstyle was removed. Worse, not a single heavy lore incentive or unique skill with a high rank threshold was added in the ELR. We received a lot of seed-based benefits that feature heavy diminishing returns instead.
Understand that I'm not advocating for a return to rapid shock/immolate builds. I understand and agree with the decision to nerf them and the underlying reasoning as it was explained to us. My reason for leaving was the execution of this plan (why remove immo/rapid shock if all you had were a smattering of low level lore benefits that could never create a distinctive playstyle on their own?). If they had a plan to address this, it has clearly failed. The result is that over a year after the initial ELR announcement, playstyles based on lore choices have not emerged to replace those that were lost.
Given that wizards waited over a decade for this result (not that this is the fault of the current dev team, of course), those of us most impacted by the changes were understandably disappointed by the results. This is why Estild promised us this year would be different. And that's why I'm here asking for more details, because as much as I like the new spell additions they don't address the reason I am still not playing my favorite game. I appreciate the acknowledgment from the staff that this IS an issue, but I need to see some actual results before I'm willing to return to GS.
~Taverkin
It wasn't serious across the board. We covered this a year ago during the discussion following the announcement of the ELR and associated nerfs. But just to catch you up...
Lore skills were a new addition from the GS3-GSIV conversion. Unfortunately, they were never fully developed at the time and lore skills were added piecemeal over the years. Elemental lores, which are primarily relevant to wizards, were barely developed at all until the ELR. The result of this was that wizards saw very little incentive to train elemental lores with one notable exception: the immolate build, which relied on heavy fire lore training.
This oversight is at the core of the issue, as only very high level wizards were able to meet the training and mana requirements for an immolate build. When they nerfed immolate, they failed to introduce any incentives for heavy lore training in any element. Obviously, if you were lower level you weren't an immolate wizard and you lost nothing. However, if you were an immolate wizard your playstyle was removed. Worse, not a single heavy lore incentive or unique skill with a high rank threshold was added in the ELR. We received a lot of seed-based benefits that feature heavy diminishing returns instead.
Understand that I'm not advocating for a return to rapid shock/immolate builds. I understand and agree with the decision to nerf them and the underlying reasoning as it was explained to us. My reason for leaving was the execution of this plan (why remove immo/rapid shock if all you had were a smattering of low level lore benefits that could never create a distinctive playstyle on their own?). If they had a plan to address this, it has clearly failed. The result is that over a year after the initial ELR announcement, playstyles based on lore choices have not emerged to replace those that were lost.
Given that wizards waited over a decade for this result (not that this is the fault of the current dev team, of course), those of us most impacted by the changes were understandably disappointed by the results. This is why Estild promised us this year would be different. And that's why I'm here asking for more details, because as much as I like the new spell additions they don't address the reason I am still not playing my favorite game. I appreciate the acknowledgment from the staff that this IS an issue, but I need to see some actual results before I'm willing to return to GS.
~Taverkin
GS4-ESTILD
Re: @Estild
09/19/2016 11:45 AM CDT
| Taverkin |
| This is why Estild promised us this year would be different. |
No idea if you just misread my original statement or are intentionally taking it out of context.
| GameMaster Estild |
| Many wizards were not happy with the changes that were announced at last year's SimuCon. This year will be different. |
In context of the post, "this year" references SimuCon 2016, where the news and details of Mage Armor (520), Time Stop (550), and Core Tap (950) were released. Based upon the general consensus of said spells, I was correct. But even if I wasn't, this comes nowhere close to being a "promise" and does not extend to anything other than the news announced at SimuCon.
GameMaster Estild
BLACKKOBOLD2
Re: @Estild
09/20/2016 05:47 PM CDT
Why do I waste my time?
Thank you for clarifying that you didn't actually use the word "promise", Estild. That was helpful. I guess I'll just check in again in a few more months and see if you have anything together.
~Taverkin
Thank you for clarifying that you didn't actually use the word "promise", Estild. That was helpful. I guess I'll just check in again in a few more months and see if you have anything together.
~Taverkin
BLACKKOBOLD2
Re: @Estild
10/01/2016 04:44 PM CDT
Disclaimer: Replying to threads I can't participate in as a F2P member.
Regarding the player perspective on the state of wizardry:
"I don't want to read hundreds of posts for this (i.e. a summary letter with the combined thoughts of said posts is what I'm after), but at least use an appropriate thread to organize your thoughts. :)
GameMaster Estild"
Thank you for asking, Estild.
"There isn't a single profession in the game that has a road map, and probably never will be as no profession is in such need for a complete rework that would require a road map. The general consensus among even wizard posters is that wizards are generally fine from levels 1 - 99. -Estild"
But we do need a road map. We need a roadmap for lores. I want lore-based builds and your current design lacks the coherence to support them. I believe that was part of what Rtune was trying to tell you as well. Doug and Methais have voiced similar concerns. We seem to keep asking where this is going and when a fire mage will feel like a fire mage again, and you keep telling us you don't need a plan. It seems a bit of a disconnect to me.
@Rtune, I hope that if you leave you'll always keep the door open to returning. As disappointed as I am by the ELR and Simutronics' continued tone-deafness on post-cap issues, I look forward to returning some day when these issues are satisfactorily addressed. As Kerl said, this place would be lesser without you.
~Taverkin
Regarding the player perspective on the state of wizardry:
"I don't want to read hundreds of posts for this (i.e. a summary letter with the combined thoughts of said posts is what I'm after), but at least use an appropriate thread to organize your thoughts. :)
GameMaster Estild"
Thank you for asking, Estild.
"There isn't a single profession in the game that has a road map, and probably never will be as no profession is in such need for a complete rework that would require a road map. The general consensus among even wizard posters is that wizards are generally fine from levels 1 - 99. -Estild"
But we do need a road map. We need a roadmap for lores. I want lore-based builds and your current design lacks the coherence to support them. I believe that was part of what Rtune was trying to tell you as well. Doug and Methais have voiced similar concerns. We seem to keep asking where this is going and when a fire mage will feel like a fire mage again, and you keep telling us you don't need a plan. It seems a bit of a disconnect to me.
@Rtune, I hope that if you leave you'll always keep the door open to returning. As disappointed as I am by the ELR and Simutronics' continued tone-deafness on post-cap issues, I look forward to returning some day when these issues are satisfactorily addressed. As Kerl said, this place would be lesser without you.
~Taverkin
