Any ideas from the wizard squad if they're looking into improving 914?

I've done very limited testing with it and while it could be greatly improved upon, here's what I've seen so far. Times I've taken are by stopwatch on my phone, so there is a slight delay between start/stop times, so I've posted the average I found when only casting 914 1 time at each target (multiple casts will build the storm faster, but I did not do multiple casts on any targets).

No EL:A ranks:
Roughly 20.5 seconds from the initial cast to the first damage cycle
Roughly 9 seconds between damage cycles

30 EL:A ranks:
Roughly 19 seconds from the initial cast to the first damage cycle
Roughly 8.2 seconds between damage cycles

That's all I've got without access to the test server.

With all that in mind, the spell is just brutally too slow to be useful against anything, even group hunting...20 seconds or so waiting for the initial damage cycle and the rest of the group will have the target dead by then. Unless you're up against a creature that only swings (no maneuvers or spells), you'd be crazy to stand there for 20ish seconds waiting for the spell's first damage cycle.

I thought maybe it would be kind of fun with my younger wizard to maybe team up 914 and 917, but by the time 914's first damage cycle could start, 917 will have killed the creature or already have completed all 6 crit cycles, all while waiting for 914 to even get off its first one.

The build up duration needs to be greatly reduced or the spell needs to be worked on to shift it more towards how 917 functions and working with SMRv2.

Clearly we (players) have no idea how much time is reduced with EL:A ranks for 914, but just a guess, from 0 ranks to 30 ranks EL:A, it looks like roughly 1.5 seconds are shaved off. I'm thinking roughly 7.5% reduction of time at 30 ranks. So that means the time reduction could be based off a seed 1 since 28 ranks = 7 or maybe 7% and 2 more ranks (for 30 EL:A) would push the reduction to 7.375%.

I'm going with seed 1 summation. So the reduced times should look something like this, if the initial base time between cast and first damage cycle is 20.5 seconds:

Seed 1
Ranks EL:A	1	3	6	10	15	21	28	36	45	55	66	78	91	105	120	136	153	171	190	210	231
Duration reduction %	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
Time for storm to build	20.5	20.09	19.885	19.68	19.475	19.27	19.065	18.86	18.655	18.45	18.245	18.04	17.835	17.63	17.425	17.22	17.015	16.81	16.605	16.4	16.195

I don't know for sure if the duration between damage cycles is also reduced, it does not mention that they are on the gswiki. But it does mention that the storm builds faster based on EL:A ranks, but the exact formula is unknown. All I know is that the damage cycles appeared to trigger slightly faster with 30 ranks EL:A based on timing them.

If the base duration with 0 EL:A ranks is 20 seconds, then someone with 30 EL:A ranks would have roughly a 7.4% duration reduction for the storm to build and possible time reduction between damage cycles.
30 EL:A means about 19 seconds for the storm to build until first damage cycle and about 8.3 seconds between damage cycles. This closely matches what I was seeing, but I can't say for sure that this is accurate with only two data points (0 EL:A & 30 EL:A) to go off of.

Yes, I'm bored at work....

So if the number above are good, that means someone with near maxed EL:A (190 ranks) would have a 19% time reduction for the storm to build and on time between damage cycles.
Initial cast to 1st damage cycle would be roughly 16.6 seconds (if base is 20.5 seconds)
Time between damage cycles would be roughly 7.3 seconds (if base is 9 seconds)

That seems....well, really slow still. Hopefully they can drastically reduce the build up time and duration between cycles for this spell, triple or quadruple the time reduction?

-Drumpel

I would swear that I remember seeing a GM post, at some point, that Sandstorm used the same build-up mechanics that Energy Maelstrom does (well, did)...
...but of course 710 was part of the Summer of Sorcerer Love (a.k.a. HSN 2015), so its mechanics may be different, now.

Well worth having GM clarification for.

Right; that info from the wiki is lifted straight out of the announcement.

Obviously, compared to the Sorcerer spell the "any element" wouldn't apply, since this one is Only Air/Earth.

Still: +40% higher spell, still in a pure spellcaster list.

.

Can this one be focused, like Maelstrom can? (I've always been massively underwhelmed with the spell, so I never bothered with even testing it.)

I like the idea of a persistent effect, but I disagree with the "not be used at the same time as Mage Armor".
Pestilence can be, and it's only 2 levels higher; those 2 levels are what (with your suggestion) gives it the cast-at-target benefit.
Wall of Thorns can be.
Ranger Resistance (whatever its proper name is) can be.
Ensorcell can be.

Now, if it were to be even more special with Mage Armor running... (like "You fool, you have suffered the effect of my Elemental Storm! You get soaked with water! ... You fool! You have triggered the effect of my Mage Armor, it blasts you with lightning!") Then I would be TOTALLY down with spells working in combination.
And hey, Wizards already have that! Familiar + Gate, so we have precedent on our side!

I'm not looking for any more reactive defense. I'd rather our power go into offense. However, I'm not much into storms either. They're too slow and endanger an area for an amount of time, which is why most of our storms got moved to the Arcane circle eventually.

>You say reactive defense, I say passive offense. It would be far better than the current spell which goes unused. Having a base 20% chance to do 30-50ish damage (Or whatever 502 damage does), plus a status effect which would make follow-up attacks easier would be a nice addition in my opinion.

Passive offense still takes up offensive power allocation and requires development time. I'd rather have active offense than just another band-aid that doesn't address current problems. 520 was our answer to passive offense similar to 716 depending on the element chosen.

"I stated cannot be used with 420, not 520. 420 is imbed, 520 is mage armor." -- Veythorne

And THIS is why I use spell names or mnemonics, not numbers.
(Thanks for clarifying; yeah, I'm totally down with that, then. :)

>>Not if it significantly improves the weak power allocation the spell currently has.

Where can I see how much power allocation is given to spell 914 in it's current state? What if it has a high power allocation, instead of a low power allocation like you assume, and my suggestion would reduce the power allocation. Would that increase the power allocation for the instant kill that you keep asking for?

You don't know the inner details, so let us have fun throwing ideas around without squashing them like a bug.

>>Just as people like I am equally able to comment on or vote on what I would like to see our offensive power used towards.

I would ask that you not derail threads with your power requests, just as you ask others not to derail threads with comments. You demand respect from everyone, show a little respect yourself. If you have a suggestion for spell 914, which is being discussed in this thread, feel free to offer it. Saying, I don't want that, because all I want is in instant kill, is not a suggestion or relevant to the current topic.

>> I have the right to comment on the ideas being given especially when they aren't things I would want to see implemented and then told it's what everyone wanted.

Is the suggestion I made not something you would want?
If not, what would you want in its place?

I generally don't want passive offense or persistent buffs (like 425) because they'll just be balanced away in terms of creature buffs. I think that's too powerful an ask for the slot, especially given we do have 520 and 535. I also don't like pushdowns, however, because they only work for a single creature, generally require a success roll, and force you to stand there while casting it before the attack in the room with the creature. Not to derail this, but just explaining why I dislike suggestions for passive offense and pushdowns in general.

I would prefer for offensive slots for it to be an active offensive spell. I think we can get more power out of it that way, since it's something you consciously need to cast on a creature/room without it being automatic.

>>I generally don't want passive offense or persistent buffs (like 425) because they'll just be balanced away in terms of creature buffs. I think that's too powerful an ask for the slot, especially given we do have 520 and 535. I also don't like pushdowns, however, because they only work for a single creature, generally require a success roll, and force you to stand there while casting it before the attack in the room with the creature. Not to derail this, but just explaining why I dislike suggestions for passive offense and pushdowns in general.

>>I would prefer for offensive slots for it to be an active offensive spell. I think we can get more power out of it that way, since it's something you consciously need to cast on a creature/room without it being automatic

I appreciate these points, because they add to the discussion more than an I don't want/like that.

On the first point, creature re-balancing: We haven't (yet) seen that take place with the spell 716. If they were to implement the suggestion I made, I don't see any indication that creatures would need to be re-balanced, as it fits into their RNG mold. With the numbers posted, it would take nearly 2x in a single lore to be 100%, and even at 100%, it's not going to do a lot of damage. I think spell 502 is capped in damage, and I would expect this spell to have a cap as well. I picture a minor flare, and the status effect could be short duration to prevent any kind of re-balance. It should be long enough to be useful, without being overpowering.

I think it would pair nicely with 520 and 535, as they provide a defensive perk. We would now have a lottery-style offensive perk to go with them. One of the options (earth) would provide a push-down in a sense, but it would be a random bonus that you would have to react to, to take benefit of. It would compliment and assist you during battle, instead of forcing you to stand there while casting it.

I would like to know what you want for this spell slot. What type of spell? Something like 519? Another bolt or ball spell? I'm guessing not another stun/bind based upon your comments above. So what type of spell do you see fitting in here, and how would you use it in your current build? I'm guessing you use a combination of 519 and bolt spells, so what in this slot would you want that you would add to your routine?

For me, I would appreciate a simple prep/cast spell, that offers combat utility. It does have the lottery-style bonus, but the numbers aren't so low that I would never see it. Although at cap, it's probably not going to be a huge addition because you go for the 1 hit/1 kill, I could see it being very useful as you make your way to cap. If it did some minor damage to an Ithzir fading in, maybe binding it, or forcing it into RT, I would benefit from that.

>You say reactive defense, I say passive offense.

You say passive offense, I say RNG based slot machine. Which is one of the things most people seemed to hate about the ELR - the abundance of RNG slot machine based "buffs".

~ Methais

>Just for reference - pra'eda are certainly interesting beasts. I wanted to test a couple of old memories before posting a brief follow-up here. For reference, I believe pra'eda are considered to wear AsG 18 (plate!) despite the beast's description and treasure. AvD of 32 with a longbow, and 450 plus end results with 80 damage suggests the .175 damage factor. It's possible that's not accurate (highly resistant hide, etc.) but just based on numbers, that's how it looks.

They sure are interesting and I avoided them with my main wizard years back when he could learn from them simply because bolts don't do much to them unless you're hurling 910 or 510 at them and at 10 mana pop, especially when you only have maybe 100-120 mana, it's not a viable way to hunt. Relying on wands against them, not a solid method either. Ball spells (907/908) don't give you much damage even if they flare. 906 (gold wands) are about the best bolt you can wave at them from treasure found wands and it could still take a lot of waves to kill a pra'eda.

>Even more interesting, I experienced this little tidbit. It suggests that the Sandstorm (914) spell has a component in it that is level-based / Wizard Circle training-based for the damage. I'm going to guess it's level based (and if so, desperately in need of update.) The arrow stunned it (didn't want it to run away!), then these two hits were the result of the single cast of the spell.

Yes, very much so level based. My older wizard just crushes the pra'eda with a single cast of 914. Whereas my level 31 wizard (just over a pra'eda at level 29), those are the logs I posted in my previous replies.

>I'd say that 914 needs a bit of work beyond just the (critical, in my view) review of time spent idle waiting on the storm suggestion. As a general question to the GM team (or Mark's replacement) - each result getting a rank 9, and one result having a 45 HP and the other a 70 HP raw result, yet both scoring 215 HP damage - well, it just feels odd. Is there something unusual about this spell that would cause that, or is it just my luck?

I think it has to do with the level difference. It must add phantom damage of some sort based on your level, compared to the target.

Kind of like how 915 works. If I were bored and wanted some quick, easy favor for Voln, I can walk through Bonespear and cast 915 on the dybbuk. The crits that hit them are amazing - 60-75 damage and it removes limbs or outright kills them. If I were to walk around minotaurs (even though I've got a good 5-7 levels over the magus and warriors), the crits are low to mid ranged and rarely hit over 50 damage. 915 is still level based, which makes it kind of worthless for using against like level targets (not to mention a few other issues with the spell).

>Just for grins, it also appears that the hit points on these bad boys are 450-plus. Since neither of the spell's two rank 9 criticals resulted in a fatal result (love that Unbalance crit table!), 215+215+81 (for this encounter) puts them in that 450 to 500 range easily.

Yes, they do have a lot of health. Which is why a single cast of 914 from my younger wizard usually doesn't kill them. I've even had a couple of double casts of 914 on the same pra'eda not kill them. However, 917, usually around 2/3 of the pra'dea I cast it on with my level 31 wizard (who only has 21 ranks of Wiz spells), the first cast will kill it within the 6 crit cycles. Those that don't die, I just take the last 100-150 health off them with wands.

To achieve similar crits on pra'dea using 914 as you see with 917 on decent endrolls, you need to cast 914 3 times (42 mana), plus wait a good 20ish seconds for the storm to even harm the target with the first damage cycle. I did notice 914 does stay with the creature if you move rooms and still harm it (had to run from a shan cleric while playing on the lake), I came back the pra'eda that took a decent beating.

-Drumpel

>> Damn! I was going to say how much I liked that suggestion. . .but now, can I?

I was due for a new tag line anyway...

-- Robert

You gesture at Dionket.
You hurl a small surge of electricity at Dionket!
AS: +450 vs DS: +96 with AvD: +30 + d100 roll: +85 = +469
... and hit for 86 points of damage!
Horrid jolt of electricity shatters ribs in a sickening flash of light!
Dionket is stunned!

<< PING! >>
You avert your eyes as Dionket begins to radiate a blinding crimson red!
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.

I'd like to see 914 turn more into a 917 type-ish spell. Not as hard hitting since it's a lower level spell, but something viable one could use in a lot of situations.

I'd like see 914 adjusted to SMRv2 to have a similar function of usefulness while also acting like a CC spell for single targets....perhaps allow the spell to be cast against multiple targets at the same time. Right now you can only have one sandstorm going. It would be nice if you could have two or three going on multiple creatures. I'd also like to see it be a contributing factor to how a spell can utilize all lore types for different damage types. Perhaps with enough EMC you can control 1 extra storm every 50 ranks of EMC.

Fire = firestorm
Air = tornado
Water = icestorm
Earth = sandstorm
Lightning = lightningstorm

Your damage will be based more so towards the type of storm you summon (INCANT 914 FIRE - for example) and the lores you know.
EL:A - improve unbalance crits on the initial cast and can boost the RT the target gets
EL:F - improves fire damage and how well your fire crits hit
EL:W - improves ice damage....
EL:E - improves earth damage and so on, and so on with all lores

When you cast a target, it should start with an initial whirlwind that forces RT (like slow does when used on a target) - something like 2-5 seconds based on SMRv2 roll.
Each follow up cycle will trigger every 2 seconds (over 10 seconds) with damage cycles based on the storm type you summon and your EL training in the same element.

I'd like to see ATTUNE play some type of roll as well.

Maybe....say you're attuned to Fire and have at least 50 ranks EL:F. You cast a firestorm (INCANT 914 FIRE) at a target, your damage cycles turn into greater elemental fire flares.
If you're attuned to Earth, 50 ranks EL:E and a sandstorm, your damage cycles turn into greater elemental earth flares.
So on for the other lores and ATTUNEd elements.

Maybe if you have enough EMC you could cast a 2nd storm at one target with a different element and mix storms....
You cast Fire on the first storm and Water for the second storm, you now have a STEAM storm!

-Drumpel