Trade? 05/10/2017 11:58 AM CDT


I'll trade my cleric's 240 for your 425 and 513. Sound fair?
Reply
Re: Trade? 05/10/2017 11:59 AM CDT

>>Put differently... some players wanting a tool is not a reason to grant it.


Fixed!
Reply
Re: Trade? 05/10/2017 12:02 PM CDT
Wrong, when there's evidence to prove the need. Which is what Dev has asked for all along.
Reply
Re: Trade? 05/10/2017 12:03 PM CDT


The Dev said there's been no evidence proving that it's needed?
Reply
Re: Trade? 05/10/2017 12:03 PM CDT
My cleric wouldn't trade. 240 runs circles around 425 and 513. Persistent boosters are balanced for in creature DS/TD to cancel them out.
Reply
Re: Trade? 05/10/2017 12:04 PM CDT
Not wasting my time on this. You're not the one I'm presenting data to.
Reply
Re: Trade? 05/10/2017 12:05 PM CDT


I thought we were making invalid arguments for fun, my bad.

Wizards are fine and, if anything, need a nerf. I think the biggest factor with a successful class is L2P.
Reply
Re: Trade? 05/10/2017 12:07 PM CDT
... my thrown returner Empath will trade 240 for 425. /hides
Reply
Re: Trade? 05/10/2017 12:09 PM CDT


>>... my thrown returner Empath will trade 240 for 425. /hides

Get outta my major spirit spell circle, sir.
Reply
Re: Trade? 05/10/2017 12:13 PM CDT


http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Wizards/Wizard%20Spells/view/4004

http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Wizards/Wizard%20Spells/view/3910

Just saying, I mean, you can choose to ignore the facts. (Fact being that he said it.)

I suppose the word evidence could be misconstrued, but I think at this point, it should be understood as "sufficient evidence to prove the case,' which has yet been presented, at least according to the Dev in question.
Reply
Re: Trade? 05/10/2017 12:22 PM CDT



>>http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Wizards/Wizard%20Spells/view/4004

>>http://forums.play.net/forums/GemStone%20IV/Wizards/Wizard%20Spells/view/3910

>>Just saying, I mean, you can choose to ignore the facts. (Fact being that he said it.)

>>I suppose the word evidence could be misconstrued, but I think at this point, it should be understood as "sufficient evidence to prove the case,' which has yet been presented, at least according to the Dev in question.

You've presented facts that make my argument invalid, rather than accepting these facts I will claim you're attacking me and my views. Admin, please remove the post I've quoted because it is harassment.

Thanks.
Reply
Re: Trade? 05/10/2017 12:25 PM CDT
To try and get things back on track, Estild has expressed willingness to discuss the Elemental Overload design that was teased. I think the more mechanically inclined should bite into it a bit and see if it meets the shortcomings that have been expressed. No matter what, I think we're well past the point of trying to convince anybody who has a strong opinion about whether said shortcomings exist or not to go to the other side.

It's not a commitment to having it done, or done immediately, but if it makes the game more enjoyable for some people, then it's a good thing. Nobody can (reasonably) argue that adding a new spell will make things worse for anybody (unless it comes with a corresponding second change). If a lateral shift in power makes some members of the profession happy, that's better than where we started. I also just think the spell is freakin' neat even aside from this discussion, and if it was teased without this debate, I would still want to know more because I think it's neat.

I'd really like to focus on that rather than any discussions about outside spells and 1:1 comparisons of spells. What % of single target attacks can a Cleric or Empath get instant death, and with the 940 Proposal, what would a Wizard be able to get?

Since I have no post-cap data... can a post-cap wizard share about how much damage they reliably expect from their primary combat spells?
Reply
Re: Trade? 05/10/2017 08:14 PM CDT
<240 runs circles around 425 and 513.

Plus you can just get the base benefits of 513 from a scroll.

I'd take that trade any day of the week.

http://i.imgur.com/lsWPzG9.gif
Reply