I'm sure you can take out a big swarm in less than 100 mana, Draf.

Doug

I've said it before, but I don't understand why Haste was nerfed after splitting it in half and moving part of it from a level 6 slot to a level 35 spell slot. As Taverkin said, nothing else was given to compensate for the reduced effectiveness of the defensive benefit of Haste, let alone the hit to BOTH Immolate and Rapid Fire. Instead, Wizards lost a 35th level spell slot and had a drastically reduced floor on their defensive combat RT.

That seems a bit punitive.

>> As Taverkin said, nothing else was given to compensate for the reduced effectiveness of the defensive benefit of Haste,

It does stack for four hours now vs. having a 60 second non-refreshable duration.

-- Robert

Bazzelwyn says, "Maul maul maul maul maul maul maul."
Bazzelwyn says, "The answer is maul."

>> For 35 mana a shot it had better stack; it should also sing "America the Beautiful" while tap dancing with a top hat and cane.

How about "Elanthia the Beautiful" instead? :p

>> I was pretty much perma hasted with the old spell. I had a script that every 45 seconds would "stop 506\rincant 506\r".

So before you were spending 80 mana every 10 minutes during your hunt and now you are spending 35 mana while sitting around in town for somewhere between 20 minutes to nearly 2 hours of haste (mileage will vary by training) yet you seem incredulous at the mana cost? This doesn't seem to be a very compelling argument for change or for the addition of a musical score as you have suggested.

-- Robert

Bazzelwyn says, "Maul maul maul maul maul maul maul."
Bazzelwyn says, "The answer is maul."

>> Yeah, we should probably stick to the fact that the old haste was mechanically superior and didn't take up 2 spell slots, one of them being 35th level.

Agreed. As well as acknowledging all of the changes (the good and the bad) and making logical arguments for why additional changes are needed.

-- Robert

Bazzelwyn says, "Maul maul maul maul maul maul maul."
Bazzelwyn says, "The answer is maul."

>>doesn't seem to be making much of a difference

We don't know that, for all we know the GMs might be trying to get through this festival and then plan to take a look.

Despite my dissatisfaction with a couple of things that have occurred, I'm still fairly sure that:

1) There was a plan;
2) That plan was adjusted;
3) Feedback is still being considered, and;
4) We haven't exactly covered ourselves in glory encouraging real-time conscious-stream thought sharing.

So, we wait.

Doug

> 4) We haven't exactly covered ourselves in glory encouraging real-time conscious-stream thought sharing.

I can only speak for myself, but I can say that I am not avoiding interaction because of any anger/irritation/frustration that might be directed towards me if I were to interact. I am more than willing to receive criticism regardless of how harsh it might be.

I'm not interacting because:
1) The stuff that I'm working on right now isn't ready to share.
2) A lot of the things being discussed right now aren't things that can be easily commented on. Questions like "What are your plans?", "Is this going to change?", and "Don't you agree this is broken?" aren't things I can discuss.

All I can do is assure you that I'm reading everything that is being said.

~ Konacon

>> I am more than willing to receive criticism regardless of how harsh it might be.

You water your lawn too often.

Chad, player of a few

<We don't know that, for all we know the GMs might be trying to get through this festival and then plan to take a look.

Pro Tip: While releasing specifics far in advance isn't recommended, popping in to let us know that you are planning to address an issue in the near future is advised - we call that "communication." In the absence of communication, expect players to assume whatever they like. And good luck with that!

I get that nobody wants to admit when their pet project doesn't receive quite the warm welcome they were hoping for. But the feeling I get from the little communication we have received is that the devs feel the ELR was a success and the complaints are from a vocal minority with a penchant for hyperbole. If that isn't the message you intended to convey, perhaps stopping in and discussing where we're going next would be prudent at this point? I know I can't be the only one left wondering: Is this it?

~Taverkin

>> If that isn't the message you intended to convey, perhaps stopping in and discussing where we're going next would be prudent at this point?

I think one did, Tav. In fact, I deleted a couple of responses because they served no purpose after the lawn-watering debate.

You did see it, right?

>>I don't think trying to stifle conversation is the way to go either

I respect that opinion, and hold it dearly myself.

>>So, we wait.

A statement of fact - unless your opinion is we're not waiting to hear more?

>>Some just appear to be trying to stop others from sharing theirs.

Indeed.

Doug

>While I can certainly understand the tough position you find yourself in, I'm afraid I must remain unreasonable: I'm looking for acknowledgment of the issues we're discussing here and a commitment to addressing them.

This line is unproductive at this point given it's been explicitly stated that these things cannot be discussed under the terms of their NDA, which I respect. Even though I think whoever included such onerous restrictions doesn't understand the impact of poor communication on player morale and customer retention, I don't blame the GMs for it. That blame lies solely with Simu management.

I have changed my opinion based on Methais persuasive counterpoint.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tbxq0IDqD04

You really should water your lawn more with Brawndo.

-- Robert

Bazzelwyn says, "Maul maul maul maul maul maul maul."
Bazzelwyn says, "The answer is maul."

<I understand your point, but unfortunately I can't help you out with what you're looking for right now.

I know. Like I said, I must remain unreasonable. It's not a position I enjoy taking. Frankly, I'd rather be playing GS. But I'm just too disappointed in the current state of the only class I play to justify paying or playing.

I'll hang out for a bit longer and keep an eye on the forums in case something changes. And in the mean time, back to guild wars and other games. If I do come back, it'll be with some fresh game design perspectives. Based on the ELR, I think you guys could use some.

~Taverkin

After using the new 515 now for nearly a month, I wanted to suggest a change that would bring this spell to a place of compromise. I believe the general consensus among the player base is that the cooldown should be removed because the addition of a 1 second RT was enough to lower the power of the spell. We're also seeing that 515 has a tendency to become unreliable when it falls at the wrong time in combat, essentially leaving a wizard in a tight spot, especially against powerful capped foes. Even at 3x harness and 2x EMC, I'm finding it very unattractive to activate 515 during the cooldown. The added mana penality is definitely effective in making you not want to do it.

I agree that removing the air lore benefit of occasionally casting a spell at zero RT was the right thing to do. It only encouraged mindless keyboard spamming. However, the new air lore benefit of occasionally channeling a spell is unfortunately even worse in my opinion. Currently, I'm not even seeing real hard evidence that channeling bolts is something I'm ever going to want to do. Maybe it's just decades of never being in hard RT that I need to let go of, but I'm also not seeing the results of channeling that I think most of us would want to see. The true downfall of channeling though, is that is basically has zero effect against non critable foes. Too many critters are immune to being crit killed for channeling to ever be a staple in capped hunting. I have to admit that it hurts hunting the confluence and seeing rapidfire's zero second channel flaring, and knowing that it isn't helping me at all.

What I would suggest to balance some of the concerns of 515 is removing the channel perk and adding something like this.

Training in Elemental Lore, Air has a seed 5 summation chance of renewing rapidfire for (seed 10 summation/2(rounded down))seconds on every cast of a spell.

Example a wizard with 35 air lore ranks has a 05% chance of renewing rapidfire for 1 second
Example a wizard with 108 air lore ranks has a 10% chance of renewing rapidfire for 4 seconds
Example a wizard with 202 air lore ranks has a 16% chance of renewing rapidfire for 6 seconds

Lets use the example of a wizard with 108 air lore ranks. Lets say they are standing in the middle of a large swarm where targets were not an issue. If they cast 60 spells in the 60 seconds of rapidfire, which honestly isn't happening, but lets just say they did, they would see, on average over time, rapidfire flaring 6 times, adding a total of 24 seconds to the length of the spell. In that additional 24 seconds, rapidfire will flare another 2 times, adding 8 seconds, and then possibly once more again, adding 4 seconds, for a total of 36 seconds to rapidfire's length on average. You would only see the addition of 36 seconds if you were standing in that huge swarm, casting a spell once a second on the second. This would be hugely beneficial in keeping rapidfire from falling during a swarm, when you really don't want the spell to fall. However, the second the swarm is finished, by the time you pick up your treasure and head out to find more critters, your added time to rapidfire will expire and you'll be on cooldown, just like normal. Effective when surrounded with targets and at your most vulnerable, less so when facing a critter at a time and moving around a hunting ground.


Isle Snack Muncher

Personally I dislike the 1 sec per cast and would gladly trade an even harsher cooldown for that, but still find RF useful as is now.

Saying that the changes were the biggest blunder in GS history is a bit of a stretch though, I can think of many major blunders way back in the day. Leaving things the way they were wasn't good game design. Common using RF and 901, or just Immolate Immolate Immolate, that's boring stuff there.


At least the RF cooldown penalty makes using harder bolts more likely 910 at a cost of 5 extra a lot more appealing than 901 at 5 extra. Same holds true for the other bolts.

According to the GMs the nerfs were directed from above, not by the Dev team.

There's a few people whom are dissatisfied with the changes, but there are many more whom are pleased with many of the other benefits that came our way. 502 I use almost every critter, cone of elements fantastic! and etc...

I doubt if the original idea was for people to build in such a way that they are using 1 single spell as their attack, and now we have taken a few more steps towards using more spells. Currently using 502, 505, 904, 518 All on a regular basis each hunt....
Just an elf about town...

Just remove the cooldown (on 515) for natural wizards. It exists for 506 so why not for a higher level greater expense spell. Leave the cooldowns for sharing at the existing rates.

"what other ideas would you suggest?"

What is the design goal for having air lore ranks affect rapid fire? Is air lore considered not balanced with the other lores, without a benefit to rapid fire?

>If some air lore benefit is needed, I personally thought the best suggestion was to provide a cooldown time reduction. Simple, sensible benefit from air lore (a utility lore, so here the utility is more rapid fire instead of "better" rapid fire)

EMC already does this.

~ Methais