No, I'm fine with the spell being changed to benefit other users. (And none of my characters have, or are likely to, actually cast this even with the changes.)

But... The spell, I mean come on, it Puts Node In (This) Room.

The only way TO benefit from that... is to be IN THE ROOM when the mana pulses.

Whatcha gonna change? Seriously?

.

.

OH! Look at that; the GMs found a way--within their perception of what the various Lores should represent--found a way to give a benefit anyhow.
Not much of one--you have to have enough Lore to hit the second pulse while you're walking around to net out to more than the spell cost--but it's something.

But if you're going to be walking around, why are you casting this spell anyhow?

Typically the only time I remember it coming in handy in the field was if a bunch of us were pretty well all tuckered out for mana, and one did a Minor Sanctuary and the other did a Node. Then we stood there in (relative) safety for a while and soaked up the increased mana.

I'm a fan of having both the shenanigans and non-shenanigans portions included. For what it's worth!

An announcer shouts, "Introducing our new combatant, Duskruin Arena Hero Durakar al'Yari Faendryl the Captain of the Mist Harbor Militia, hailing from Isle of the Four Winds!"

<< We're just getting started up in here! >> ~ Konacon

Doesn't HSN end on August 31?

Its been stated the ELR will continue past HSN. I think it was said during simucon on the video feed?

>Yes, I remember those places, too. But that's really not how people hunt today and the way the spell works more or less ensures it rarely gets used.

I'm trying to envision this spell being used:

1. Socializing and helping someone else out
2. A caster with an OCD need to skin or loot 100 critters before leaving a hunting area, i.e. treasure hunting
3. A caster focusing exclusively on bounties who is uninterested in leaving a hunting area
4. A lower level caster taking the 50/50 risk on the spell solving a mana deficit problem while hunting normally
5. A sorcerer hunting for rots to use with 735 and unwilling to leave an area until she has ~1000 kills

I tend to follow the minimum time, maximum xp philosophy myself, so I don't have much use for 418.

>>In this case, I am pointing out that "the rest of us" - the majority, the vast majority - do not, in fact, stand around waiting for monsters to spawn.

Numbers?

Naw, never mind, we're good - I'm not likely to get my point across. Let me ask you this: Have you even tried using the spell in the Scatter? See use case 2.

Doug

So as not to simply complain without suggesting an alternative. I might have considered a way to tier the benefits of the spell such that it retains its initial purpose (assuming that is desirable and we aren't simply replacing it with a completely different spell), provides additional benefit based upon practical application for general use, and has an additional benefit as a lore tie-in.

For example:

I never really used the spell before because it's so risky and provides no benefit, but I believe it provides an additional partial pulse separate to the normal off-node pulse, correct? So how about this as an alternative:

The spell still creates a node. However, it now grants mana as if the caster were on an actual node.

If you leave the area of the focus, you retain an additional partial pulse based upon a general wizard skill. EMC perhaps? Duration TBD.

Further, if you have water lore you get an additional mana recovery benefit.

Either way, I think the capped 10 mana per pulse is fairly useless considering the level at which one could sufficiently reduce the risk and have sufficient water lore to gain enough pulses to justify the cost of casting the spell. It would make more sense if a flat amount of mana applied at the low end, functioning as a lower limit to a percentage-based mana recovery benefit that scales in relation to the size of your pulse.

~Taverkin

"The first two are implemented, and the third one's being discussed." -- Doug

Well, the third one is already implemented, it's just called "Song of Power/1018", is all.

The "moving, but still with some benefit" is what got added by the Water Lore.

You gesture.
You struggle to gather the flows of essence in this area.
A strong whirlwind whips through the area, stirring up dust and other small pieces of debris, which form a small cloud overhead.
As you struggle to gain control over the flows of essence, you feel a sudden surge of power!
A bolt of pure energy suddenly leaps out from the center of the dust cloud, striking you and knocking you to the ground!

... 3 points of damage!
Light shock to left arm. That stings!
The whirlwind subsides, allowing the dust cloud to settle.

What the deuce?! Success rate = 75/4 + 202 / 2 + 35 = 154%
So why did I go bbbbZZAAaaaaaap?

Is that success formula really an improvement? At level 18, when you get the spell, I would expect your chances to be:

18/4 + 18/2 + 20 = 32% chance of success? That's garbage. No other class has their spells so crippled by such high, and potentially fatal, failure rates.

I was REALLY hoping that would change with the update.

Blarg!



I think the water lore change is all right. This spell will just have to remain in the only cast once-in-a-blue-moon-when-the-planets-align-perfectly category in which 1/4 of my other wizard spells reside . I even hunt in an area where this might be of use, but it's hard to reach and I'll likely decay there if I die, so no freaking way am I casting this coinflip there.

I get it that a bunch of you people have high level characters, but having spells that aren't useful until you're 60+ is pretty lame. Carrying around useless spells for years is a bummer.

> Konacon, is there a minimum failure rate that can not be trained away still? If so can you tell us what it is?

There is a 5% base chance of failure no matter what. Sorry I didn't mention this early or reply right away.

~ Konacon

<There is a 5% base chance of failure no matter what. Sorry I didn't mention this early or reply right away.

::sigh::

Back to not using this spell. "A" for effort, guys. But I just don't agree with your design decisions at all.

~Taverkin

I'd just like to note that this success formula pushes the effective required level even higher.

Level 78 wizard:
75/4 + 78/2 + 20 = 77%

Level 80 sorcerer:
60/4 + 40/2 + 11 = 46%

Level 100 rogue:
35/4 + 25/2 + 15 = 36%

My most common use for this spell is to improve mana regen in rooms that really should be nodes but aren't (magical workshop in the Icemule sorcerer guild comes to mind). In the hunting use case, you're basically going out of your way to make the spell "useful". If you're low level and having mana problems, you can't use the spell anyway. If you're higher level and having mana problems, you shouldn't be turning to 418 as your solution.

I understand that it wasn't necessarily intentional that my rogue could have a very high success rate and that you don't want the spell to result in roving mana nodes for everyone. But for a spell of pretty marginal utility with an injury chance on failure, I think it went from bad to worse.

The water lore thing is interesting but it's moot in view of the success rate.

<I fail to see what is gained by giving this spell a %5 base chance of failure.


It always had this chance of failure. That hasn't changed. Unfortunately, it should have.

It is an old spell and as such could have been forgiven for falling along the "hardcore" end of the spectrum with regard to risks/benefits. GS has its roots in tabletop RPGs, which as I understand it tend to be a much more hardcore format. The consequences and inconveniences are greater because the focus of the game is completely different from an MMORPG.

I think of these pen-and-paper RPGs as much more RP-focused. As actors on a stage would become bored playing the same character day in and day out, playing out short-term (relatively!) scenarios is more appealing. If your character dies, he dies. If he loses levels, he loses levels. It's not necessarily critical in that format that a spell be used regularly, that one character complete the arena as quickly as another, and many of the other considerations we have in a computer-based RPG.

To treat them both as if they were the same format is a mistake. Evolving away from that, where appropriate, is a constant struggle. There are probably hundreds of examples we could find of changes made to reflect this format rather than the system GS was originally based upon. For instance, getting rid of "The Demonic" because, unlike losing a character in a short-term roleplaying scenario, nobody considers it fun to invest years into a character only to lose everything irrevocably.

That's why I question the wisdom of evaluating archaic spells like 418 and failing to update them to reflect the reality of today. We've come so far from the original design at this point, spells like this are a glaring example of the past. If we're being honest, 418 doesn't get used often because it's a risky spell to cast and provides relatively little practical benefit. The risk vs. reward balance on this spell is simply way off-kilter and as a result it doesn't get used.

Some will say that it's fine as is. But again I ask the question: Why do we insist on having so many spells that are so very limited in scope? And to further limit them by matching a relatively high level of risk to a low level benefit? What is the point? Shouldn't the ELR be more about finding ways to turn underutilized spells into useful spells that players enjoy using?

~Taverkin

At the very least, it would be nice if you failed due to the 5% failure rate, it would not result in any potential injury to the caster. Simply make the spell fail and need to be recast. Again, not much seeing the benefit of such a built in failure, especially given the fairly high training requirements for the spell, but if all it cost me was 18 mana for failing to cast a spell I had maximized training for, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

<Even the Enchant spell - which is game defining - has only a 3% failure chance.

And I expect if that spell had been designed today rather than evolved as a holdover from a bygone age, the severe penalties in terms of time and potential destruction of the item would not exist. See Ensorcel. Another example of the difference in expectations between tabletop and computer game formats?

~Taverkin

So the plants want brawndo now? I get it, we give them electrolytes!

-Retser-
Icemule Guru
Halfling Guru

Brawndo's got electrolytes. It's what plants need!

~Taverkin

KRAKII

I would be fine with 3%, the same chance of failure that Enchanting has.

Okay. The base failure chance of 418 has been changed to 3%.

~ Konacon

> "The base failure rate of 418 has been changed to 6%." -- GM Konacon

I... I don't think this is what I said. Is it?

~ Konacon