Thanks again for the detailed response, Estild. I'm very appreciative of this continued, productive dialogue.

>Specializing in fire lore for 719 because the fire crit hits first also means all your elemental lore is wasted when that fire crit hits a non-lethal location. Given that 46% of the possible wound locations for heat criticals are non-lethal, all that sorcerer's elemental lore is wasted on 46% of their 719 casts.

Thanks for this clarification. I still believe that there is little sacrifice/opportunity cost required for a sorcerer's choices in Elemental lore because it affects one offensive sorcerer spell used at the post-cap level. Further, 717 is the post-cap offensive spell that I point to when discussing post-cap high probability of guaranteed kills, and there is zero lore requirement there.

>Warding spells are effective due to multiple crit cycles, so the caster has multiple opportunities to hit a lethal location.

This is what I've been saying. A bolt spell is essentially a single bolt/cycle, so that is why repetition is necessary. This repetition, that is not done in a burst within a single spell as warding spells handle things, is what leads to a huge quality of life disparity between wizards and the other pures.

>Sorcerers, or any profession, do not just learn all their skills instantly. They have to prioritize what they want to train and in what order. This is true at pre and post-cap. Sorcerers are spending 2-3 as many training points to get 1/3 of the benefit for each lore sphere.

No one has said that sorcerers or any profession learns all of their skills instantly. Of course, one has to prioritize. That is why the discussion of this disparity is what exists at the post-cap, maximized magical offensive power level, when each pure profession has gained access to all of their magical skills.

>We're not going to change non-hybrid lore setup just because you want to also have that advantage and disadvantage with lores for your specific profession of choice.

I disagree with this design inconsistency. The wizard lore setup is not even consistent with the spiritual lore setup for clerics, which I point to as the ideal lore review done, of which team you were part of. The training cost disparity can be addressed in other ways without resulting in such sub-par choices all around, by combining a lore and a mana control for the same equivalent TP expenditure for equivalent thresholds of results, as the SLR has done very effectively for clerics.

>I agree that it's not ideal, but most things with opportunity cost breakdown at postcap (it's mainly why Semis are so strong postcap).

No one has talked about opportunity cost of training though. We're talking about the post-cap power ceiling, or what is attainable once one is past 2x or 3x cap. More and more characters are reaching those thresholds, so I disagree that it's a good move to try to tell them to move to another game (not you, but other players), or to just re-roll and play another profession. Sure, people can do that, but for sentimental reasons, players are unlikely to ever be as attached to their non-core characters and therefore less invested in continuing to subscribe without breaks, spend heavily in pay events, etc.

It's well-known that at the post-cap level, semis have the most potential and squares are nearly invulnerable tanks. I'm not asking to gain powers similar to a post-cap semi or square though. I just want to gain offensive power on a similar level of lethality that the other post-cap pures enjoy, and that wizards pre-nerf enjoyed.

>You are incorrect if you think only non-active wizards are interested in enchanting not requiring hunting.

Of course, everyone wants something for no effort. I don't believe it is in the game or profession's best interest to continue down that path, however. In today's GemStone, what people mean by 2017 mechanics is the ability to create more than vanilla gear. Look at Duskruin and all the other events. It's literally not worth wasting the time to work on many items because something better can be had elsewhere. I would rather have active hunting effort required, with that additional "barrier to entry" to the enchanting system allowing for more powerful and interesting gear to be created by player wizards, than for that ability to never be present because it's available for no effort to everyone.

>That's not to say I don't favor rewarding active, main characters over bots, because I do

The main part I disagree with in the lore change to Enchant Item is treating active, main character wizards with no water lore the same as a bot.

>I'm not sure why you think requiring hunting to enchant would suddenly allow that. If and when we make the decision to allow for that, it will be separate of any requirement to enchanting itself.

I don't think it will suddenly allow it. I do think, as seems logical, that a higher barrier to entry to achieving something makes it more likely that a more powerful result may become achievable.

>It's used by many, many pre-cap wizards.

That's probably because you allowed 515 to work with wands. Which opens up a limitless power discussion. I doubt the same number of pre-cap wizards used it pre-update though, so this is where the power has shifted from the post-cap power ceiling too much to the pre-cap wizard.

>Yep, and I'm fine with that. If they're both killing in about 3 seconds, I don't have an issue with it.

I'm not fine with this from a player quality of life standpoint. This is a completely serious question when I ask if you expect everyone to script hunt to bypass these unnecessary obstacles? It's not just me who has posted about the issue of carpal tunnel or wrist issues from the repetitive grind of combat in this game.

>I've already shown that high CS does not guarantee a kill.

High CS, along with multiple casts, guarantees a kill. I'll re-phrase this to say that 240 lethality happens for nearly all types of creatures, uphunting or otherwise, because of both high CS (excessive warding margin) and multiple casts, which combine to guarantee a high probability of a kill.

To phrase this differently, multiple casts alone do not guarantee a kill, from 240 or 515, if one cannot hit the creature to begin with.

>I expect similar classes of professions (pures, semis, squares) to have a similar level of effectiveness and strength in hunting any given area in the game.
>In the Scatter, I don't.

I'm not talking about the Scatter here. I actually have no complaints about balance in the Scatter, as I believe I've said more than once.

>As noted before, I'm not going to make game impacting changes just because you want to use 1 keystroke instead of 3, especially when other professions kill much slower and with more keystrokes. Feel free to use other points to propose a change, but this one isn't going to convince me.

I disagree with this because the other professions you're comparing wizards to are semis and squares who kill much slower and with more keystrokes, or to the pre-cap. I disagree with the fact that you made game impacting changes that forced wizards into using 3 keystrokes instead of the previous 1 or 2, which is the same thing that every other post-cap pure still enjoys. Please help me understand why you're so opposed to having wizards enjoy the same quality of life as the other pures.

>I expect you to break down each and every one of your arguments to the point that anyone reading it would understand the point, then either agree or disagree with it.

Sure, I can do this, and the forum posts can become even longer than they are. It was unclear to me though that Dev would need that level of explanation, but thank you for pointing out what you're expecting to see. I assumed incorrectly and did not want to post as if Dev was completely ignorant about all facets of a spell by explaining every line of detail, but for clarity, I will be happy to do this in the future.

>In high level hunting, killing with warding spells is usually just dependent on which locaiton was hit. Most well-trained pures will outright kill if they hit a lethal location, without 240.

This isn't true for 317 because of the low lore impact, which you said was a bug. I have little interest in the crit location lottery either, so I use a booster.

>The only scenario where 240's CS boost is potentially making the difference is the Scatter, but even then, it's still mostly due to the multiple casts, not the boost itself.

I don't think this is true. It's also true with respect to uphunting any other creature at the post-cap level, whether it's the above cap creatures on the second floor of Nelemar, grizzled/ancient creatures, creatures with abnormally high bolt DS (sirens), or any other boss creatures.

>As an initial sample, I'd settle for 250 kills against the same creatures that I previously provided sample data against.

Thanks for this information. I'll do what I can when I get a chance.

>Agreed, and that's why you can cast 3 bolts in 3 seconds to overcome that problem.

So this guarantees that a post-cap wizard's quality of life in hunting and post-cap probability of lethality in a single cast is just as low as pre-cap. If this is intended design, I as a post-cap pure wizard don't really have interest in playing another 5 years with this hunting style. I'd rather play a post-cap pure that allows for improved quality of life to be an achievable goal. If there are no goals, I don't see a reason to continue wasting time hunting with a character. Please help me to understand this rationale.

>There is a huge gap in the number of empaths that 3x in PF vs the number of wizards who have 100 ranks of MjE and get heavy crit padding from 520.

Even if empaths don't 3x in PF, they can. Even if they only 2x in PF, they are still far ahead of wizards who can only 1x PF.

>Most casters don't get hit at all in combat.

I disagree with this. This is true only when discussing the AS/DS resolution and to a lesser extent, warding spells. Most casters do get hit with maneuver or maneuver attempts in combat. Those saves from hard RT lock make a world of difference over time in hunts. It also prevents a creature from getting a successful cast off of an instantly lethal spell such as 720 or 616.

>So really the only time 319 matters is in the those rare situations where the attack does succeed and it was first attack from that creature

Yes, like all those maneuver or SMR/instantly lethal spell situations above. These kinds of things happen more and more in capped hunting than anywhere pre-cap.

>More so, persistent crit padding applies to all attacks and environmental hazards that cause damage.

That requires you to have been hit to begin with. At which point, as a wizard with soft skin, you are already in much graver danger than a cleric who did not get hit in the first place would be.

>But I don't buy into the idea that wizards are at a significant disadvantage in combat because they're casting 3 spells in 3 seconds vs 1 spell (with multi-casts) in 3 seconds.

A high probability of a creature being dead at second 0 is significantly different from a high probability of a creature being dead BY second 3 (which I still disagree happens with 515 due to bolt probability requiring 6 bolts for an equivalent level of lethal probability). A creature being dead at second 0 means that there is no more risk. A player can have 3 seconds of breathing room to strategize about what to do next.

A creature being dead by second 3 means that there is usually risk throughout if the creature cannot be stunned. Wizards have the least effective mass and single-target disablers in the game due to only having one, significantly weaker CS-based mass disabler vs. the other pures. This is why we need to kill single-targets quickly and effectively at second 0, because if they're not dead, they're dangerous. The only way we have to control single targets or swarms equally as effectively is to just ensure everything dies instantly via 950, but this comes with a cooldown that no other pure has.

Clerics have 316 and empaths have 1120, that allow them to cull single targets much more safely even within a swarm. They have 335 and 1117 that allow for mass killing while things are safely immobilized, while being able to demolish single targets just as quickly.

Because of these things, the risk factor is higher for wizards for both swarms and single targets, and the probability of a lethal kill is also lower due to bolt kill probability.

>I'm certain war tacticians from a few of thousands of years ago beat everyone to that point. :)

I know, I was kidding, but I'm just pointing out this is what I've advocated for all along. Which is why I prefer to have a powerful, single target offense vs. more and more defensive or save me spells. I don't want to get to the point where I constantly need to get saved. Not dying is not what I find fun. I find not being able to achieve a high probability of an instant kill to be much less fun.

>Yes, I did, because all those posts say something like "2-way split!" when in reality, it's an 8-way split. When I point that out, I'm told that's not what they meant.

Well, if someone had said "I don't understand what these wizards keep talking about" 2 years ago, it would have been clarified much sooner. It was obvious to me and most wizard players, from a player perspective, that the discussion was around the potential maximum within a lore sphere and the tradeoffs of the split within a single sphere. I'm glad this has been clarified, as it makes for much more productive discussion and thought on both sides. So thank you for the dialogue.

>If your point is that if you train more, you can cover more skill, yes, I agree.

Yes, wizards want the ability to get more skill for training more. If that's adding in abilities that require both lore and other skills to compensate for only having one sphere, that's fine with me. What I dislike is the split of one sphere among 3 circles, which is what I've been trying to say all along is what results in the sub-par results vs. the tradeoffs that other pures have to make within a single sphere.

Thanks for reading, and thanks for your feedback again. It really is appreciated, and it's encouraging to know that you've actually thought through our concerns.

>I'm sorry you've never experienced design changes in an online game before, but they happen quite frequently. I've played Gemstone for nearly 20 years at this point, and I have played a post-cap character of every profession so I certainly feel like I can participate in the discussion here. It's pretty simple in my eyes. All professions are not made equal. You should not expect to accomplish the same things as every other profession. As Estild pointed out, Wizards are given a lot of resources that other professions do not have and thus should not expect the resources of those other professions. If you aren't having fun with your Wizard, pick another class. Though, from the sound of it, you would likely find something 'wrong' there because it isn't whatever you imagine it should be.

I'm sorry that you can't level up a character yourself and get them fresh off the market instead.

Moving on...

>Yep, and I'm fine with that. If they're both killing in about 3 seconds, I don't have an issue with it.

Technically the 240 combo is killing in like 0.1 seconds. They just have to twiddle their thumbs for the other 2.9 seconds before they can attack their next target. Wizards spamming rapid fire, not so much. Both will be attacking their second target at about the same time, sure, but the original target is dead at the beginning of the 3 seconds, whereas the 515 wizard's target is dead at the end of the 3 seconds. This is what Doug was referring to in his post yesterday.

So no, only the wizard is taking 3 seconds to kill something. The "parity" in this case is both aren't attacking their second target for 3 seconds, but the 240 target is already dead while the wizard is still standing spamming bolts.

And that's assuming that EBP never happens, which 240 doesn't care about at all. Those "3 second wizard kill times" can and do very often turn into 4, 5, 6+ due to EBP, assuming bolts are being used, which is what dev insists as our primary attack.

>Absolutely, which is why I don't base all of my statements or observations purely off of what is posted on the forums. When someone says "the wizard players wanted X!", they almost are never speaking for the majority and I'm going to call you out on it. I'm not claiming that people who don't post on the forums are in disagreement because they don't post - I gather my facts from a number of sources, including directly from wizard players who do not post.

Except I never stated "the wizard players wanted X!" I may have said "many wizards" or something along those lines, which is different and is based on what I've actually heard from other wizards, both on and off of the forums. There's quite a difference between the two.

>If your point is that if you train more, you can cover more skill, yes, I agree.

I was just pointing out the gaps that are leftover once everything is maxed. I don't consider it relevant, but you wanted to bring up sorcerers having to train in 8 lore types when the topic should have been obvious for the past year or two that the lore argument was in regards to professions' lores. And I really don't think that that point was lost on you all this time like you seem to be implying.

>Yes, I did, because all those posts say something like "2-way split!" when in reality, it's an 8-way split. When I point that out, I'm told that's not what they meant.

I really don't believe that someone in your position couldn't figure this out on his own over the past 2 years. Nobody else seemed to have a problem following along with it being about professions' "main" lores. Or maybe we're just being trolled at this point.

>My quick win statement was when a few of the wizards were going to try to get together to work on a "Players' State of Wizards", which I offered to respond to, but said group could not stop fighting long enough to do that. The quick win statement no longer applies. That's not to say I wouldn't consider any if suggested, but don't dismiss any idea because it's not a quick win.

It also would have been nice if you had let us know up front instead of several weeks later, that you were just referring to quick and easy QoL stuff (like bards being able to wear their sonic shields because recasting 1009 was annoying, which was the example you gave me), as opposed to the combat dev that was being discussed almost nonstop since the nerfs, as that's what it was interpreted as.

515 EVOKE, changes spell to Burst Fire, casts a burst of 3 spells at once, 3 second cast RT, doesn't work while "normal" 515 is active and vice versa.

Tell me what's so terrible and unbalancing about that. Still casting 3 spells to kill, still killing things in 3 seconds, still spending the same mana, and things are still likely to die at the beginning of the 3 seconds (i.e. 240) instead of at the end like we have now.

Best solution in the universe? Probably not. Will it work anyway? I think so.

I'd much rather do that then mash the same macro every second. Which is the very definition of tedium. Even scripting it, it's very vanilla and boring. A burst fire spell, in my opinion, would be much more interesting.


~ Methais

>Since post-cap can be getting some pretty nice endrolls, and it seems like location is more important than potency... if your 100-300 damage endroll splits into 2 50-150 damage bolts, would that be something that fills a gap? It still seems wizardy.

I'm confused about this, do you mean split location or just doubling down on the location lottery?

>but for wizards who can reliably hit for 100+ damage, would this help?

Two bolts (or even 3 by Methais's proposal) unfortunately wouldn't result in an equivalent high probability of a guaranteed kill as the spiritual pures can achieve with warding, due to the fact that even CHANNELed bolt probability is such that you need 6 bolts to reach the same level of probability. Without CHANNELing, this number is even higher.

I'm still working on gathering the data to prove the problem.

Estild has said that a potential solution would not work with 515 though, so that's off the table.

>without increasing wizards power on enemies that can't be crit

240 doesn't have any such limitation.

Methais

Technically the 240 combo is killing in like 0.1 seconds. They just have to twiddle their thumbs for the other 2.9 seconds before they can attack their next target. Wizards spamming rapid fire, not so much. Both will be attacking their second target at about the same time, sure, but the original target is dead at the beginning of the 3 seconds, whereas the 515 wizard's target is dead at the end of the 3 seconds. This is what Doug was referring to in his post yesterday.

So no, only the wizard is taking 3 seconds to kill something. The "parity" in this case is both aren't attacking their second target for 3 seconds, but the 240 target is already dead while the wizard is still standing spamming bolts.

I'm aware of what's being said and it all boils down to one creature killed in 3 seconds. I'm fine with that.

Methais

And that's assuming that EBP never happens, which 240 doesn't care about at all. Those "3 second wizard kill times" can and do very often turn into 4, 5, 6+ due to EBP, assuming bolts are being used, which is what dev insists as our primary attack.

It's entirely possible, but not entirely realistic. With your permission, I could post your Confluence hunting logs to help illustrate how effective 515 and bolting can be.

Methais

Except I never stated "the wizard players wanted X!" I may have said "many wizards" or something along those lines, which is different and is based on what I've actually heard from other wizards, both on and off of the forums. There's quite a difference between the two.

I never said you said "the wizard players wanted X!". You were responding to my comment which was in response to another player's comment, who did specifically state "wizard players were seeking out..." Not "most" or "some".

Methais

I really don't believe that someone in your position couldn't figure this out on his own over the past 2 years. Nobody else seemed to have a problem following along with it being about professions' "main" lores. Or maybe we're just being trolled at this point.

Here we go again. "Nobody else seemed to have a problem following along..." You want to know how many people reached out to me to comment on the fact they were glad I finally pointed out the discrepancy in claiming wizards only had 4 lores to train in while sorcerers had 8, empaths 5, etc? If you're going to guess it's more than "no one", you're correct.

ARCHSENEX

I'm curious on an idea here, and it's just spitballing, but what about some helper spell that allows bolt spells to "fork" and turn into two equal bolts with the same combined damage. Since post-cap can be getting some pretty nice endrolls, and it seems like location is more important than potency... if your 100-300 damage endroll splits into 2 50-150 damage bolts, would that be something that fills a gap? It still seems wizardy.

Just a random spitball, I'm just trying to throw out suggestions to maybe move the discussion forward a bit more. I know there's no goal for "single-target 950" since that would be multiple FULL POWER spells, but for wizards who can reliably hit for 100+ damage, would this help? I'm not capped, I honestly don't know.

That's the very idea I considered before I finally decided just to allow removing the complete cooldown removal on 515 with enough training.

GameMaster Estild

>> That's the very idea I considered before I finally decided just to allow removing the complete cooldown on 515 with enough training.


Yay not being totally off base. Ive always thematically liked the idea of a barrage or other cluster spell. Or possibly even a hybrid bolt thats two types (eyes the 525 slot but has no concrete ideas). Basically a way to give every bolt extra crits.


anyway, just ideas. i hunt in a group so instant killing isnt really the playstyle im familiar with, and to my knowledge nobody is complaining about wizard aoe potential.

That's the very idea I considered before I finally decided just to allow removing the complete cooldown on 515 with enough training.

GameMaster Estild

Curiosity (though I think I already know the answer to all this), why hasn't 515 been made self-cast only and had the CD penalty removed?

I've seen you mention that 515 & 240 are comparable for hunting (I don't recall the post I saw it in, but it was something along those lines). I don't understand how you can claim 515 and 240 would be comparable since 515 has a cooldown tied to it. Sure, you can train it off with 200 ranks EMC, but how many wizards have 200 ranks EMC by level 100 to be able to use 515 100% of the time without any CD or mana penalty?

-Drumpel

Tease!!

Tell me you're teasing!

/mutter

Doug

Any chance this could be added and not compatible with rapid-fire as an option?

>I'm not against pursuing if it would help end these woeful discussions, but it's doubtful that it's going to raise the "power ceiling" for wizards.

As a pure elementalist, why can wizards not enjoy the same higher power ceiling that clerics do?

>It's not suddenly going to create 2 new lore spheres for wizards to train in

Clerics also only have one sphere, yet somehow their lore review was done appropriately such that mana control is a much bigger factor in combination with lore to provide additional levels of power.

Clerics can also 3x SMC. :( I'm also open to the idea, as a "master of magical lore" to having a boost require training in a secondary sphere in which a wizard can only 1x. It can be any of the other spheres to provide the actual additional lore ranks required. I want the higher power ceiling, no matter how you achieve the equivalent TP training cost.

>>I'm not against pursuing if it would help

I think it has value to me, personally. Not for the Elf's hunting / play-style. Rather, it has been a bit of time since we've been able to discuss any potential improvements to the profession without hitting the power ceiling discourse. Power ceiling = the new Rome (as in all roads lead to. . . nothing beyond that intended!)

I think the biggest risk is 'too much is likely not enough'. I really appreciate you holding forth here, Estild.

Doug

I think it's an amazing concept Estild but is it needed? I'll be honest I didn't realize you'd relented and allowed EMC to completely train off the cooldown on 515. If a post cap wizard can easily have 100% up-time on Rapid Fire, regardless of lore training, why are we even discussing how amazeballs 240 is? I mean I guess something like you proposed for 940 would allow those three casts in three seconds to be front loaded rather than split up to one a second but I'm not sure that's worth a spell slot. Now if those bolts also ignored EBP that might be something to discuss.

Keith/Brinret/Eronderl

Keith is correct

-Wyrom, APM

Keith is correct.

-GameMaster Estild

if it at addresses a complaint of the community while being resonable (which presumably it is or it wouldnt have already been in consideration) then I say go for it. its not like anything is taken away, it provides options more than anything else.

it also provides a backbone for tweakage, such as lore based extra damage cycles (a standard pattern) and other considerations. And at least its a starting point to further discussion.

>>I mean I guess something like you proposed for 940 would allow those three casts in three seconds to be front loaded rather than split up to one a second but I'm not sure that's worth a spell slot.

Feels like a complete waste for the second highest spell slot.

It is needed for me as a post-cap pure wizard. If we can take several spell slots to address the war mage issues (902, 506), we can certainly take at least a slot to address the post-cap pure wizard's single target lethality probability issue.

So just to make sure I understand this correctly can we please clarify? You're saying that the difference between casting 910 once a second for 3 seconds with 515 and using a booster like the proposed spell to cast 910 once and have it go off 3 times is worth the 940 slot to you? If so which aspect is making the key difference? Is it potential mana savings? The front loaded damage for 3 seconds of cast RT? The need to only press one macro?

Maybe I'm missing what you think 940, as presented by Estild, would do. It looked to me like when you cast a bolt it strikes 3 times. Would that base effect make the difference for you?

Keith/Brinret/Eronderl

Keith is correct

-Wyrom, APM

Keith is correct.

-GameMaster Estild

>So what are the critical elements that you feel it needs to be correct?

I would expect similar results that a 240 combo would deliver in the one cast one kill probability department.

I would expect lores to play an enhancement role, but hopefully not be required for the spell to be effective at all, and hopefully with reasonable lore thresholds.

I don't know how using the 520 model for lores would have to be adjusted for offensive spells, but they nailed lore implementation with 520 so I would hope that trend would continue.

~ Methais

Well, I'll start by saying that it should be safe to assume that even Estild thinks that it makes some benefitial difference, or it wouldn't have been considered before the final 515 plan.

In short, what you're doing is trading total damage (3x full strength bolts in 3 seconds) for front-loading the crits (3 immediate crits, in 3 seconds). As Estild said, one of the reasons warding spells are so killy is because they do damage multiple times, and thus have a greater chance of getting an instant death crit immediately. If there's 2 crits, you double the chance (or more, if the crits are guaranteed in different locations). 3 Crits triples, and so forth.

So what you're doing is voluntarily sacrificing overall damage in exchange for increased kill potential. Now this only works if you're already doing more damage than you need to for max crits, but my understanding is that we're talking about wizards that can already do so, and even the comparisons to other pures we're assuming they too can get respectable endrolls.


Also, because each crit may get bonus damage, you are possibly increasig total damage of 1 cast (but it will in almost all circumstances be less HP than 3 casts with 515). In essence, it means that if you're fighting an uncrittable enemy, you'd go with 515, but crittable enemies you'd switch to 940 (meanwhile, other pures do still have to contend with enemies that can't be evil eyed, etc. (I don't know spirituals enough to give an example.)).

To meet the stated goal of having a second option, that is viable, the hope is that it meets it. Now a lot of people may be perfectly satisfied with the current option, but some aren't, hence the discussion. But as far as "costing" wizards the slot.. unless there were plans to put something in the slot in the next 5 years... it's not really a high cost. We also still have some other slots, like possibly something in 525, as well as a reasonable space at 935, etc. I just have a difficult time seeing the slot itself as valuable enough to protect without at least something planned for it, especially since we can have space for other spells (it's not moving heaven for estild to find space if something was truly in the works)

So, for the specifics:

Do you feel that the fact that lore already reflects on the spell you're casting in the first place makes lore count enough for this? Remember, it's chopping up a bolt, so your DF enhancements from lore still apply.

Also remember that, unless Estild says otherwise, if the spell plays with 425's critical weighting, it should make your next cast after 425 weighting triggers very lethal.

I would think it merits discussion that EMC ranks should either increase the number of splits (2/3/4).

Another point of discussion is if the crits are guaranteed to be in different locations. If you are guaranteed 3 different crits, that really changes the math around over the potential.



Also note that, even if this fails to instant kill, it should drastically increase the chance for the target hitting the dirt (since legs are almost sure to have been hit). And one thing to keep in mind, unlike warding spells, the target's status matters, so while them turtling will make the spell less awesome, them being on the ground means that the crits should all be very very massive.

I'm not going to go into specifics, as I'm focused on gathering the data Estild requested. In any case, there is little point in going into specifics for me as long as the 3 criteria I listed are met. I have faith in Dev's ability to think outside the box to get a solution implemented, as they did with 950, except they weren't clear before that what was wanted was a single-target solution.

I'm a little unclear - would a sorcerer "generally" focus his training on a couple lores, or split them evenly among 3 or 4 lores? Even if he split them evenly among 4 lores, the cost to do so wouldn't equal the cost for the wizard to do this, because the wizard would be splitting inside of one "sphere" (elemental) while the sorcerer might be training sorcerer and spirit/elemental lores. Does it matter? The guides on the wiki seem to indicate focusing on the sorcerer lores.

Also, I mentioned earlier that clerics use only religion lore to boost their direct damage spells in the 300 list. Both clerics and sorcerers have the option of training summoning to improve all (2-3?) of their bolt spells, but this is sort of an all-or-none decision. It seems like with clerics and empaths, one or two lores are reserved for utility or some kind of ability that factors into raising and healing, respectively.

Which lores, exactly, improve which professions' abilities to cause instant death? I mean this in a rhetorical way; I don't need a link to the wiki, but for the sake of discussion, these lores seem to be the ones that help improve the reliable kill effect. Some of the lores seem inferior to the others on this subject.