#[Official] Spell Disabler Review

1 messages · Page 6 of 1

pearl creek
#

Less time to react and use my stun break skills. Why even have them now!? /s… might not chance people misreading it today

Neat update, feels like an absolute win.🍻

hazy viper
#

Need that itchy curse duration reduction while we're fixing the bad feels stuff

humble ore
#

Yay, my max ranger survival isn't just for RP anymore

nova violet
#

our long national 1210 nightmare is over

humble ore
#

I'll need the quicker stun times something fierce with my moonbeam failing all the time, so yay?

echo aurora
rotund nest
#

Interdiction is still the worst thing that can happen to a pure in gemstone! Makes itchy curse feel like a buff

acoustic hull
#

it was pretty stupid before channeled dispel. Does it even exist anywhere anymore?

rotund nest
#

You can’t channel dispel it

nova violet
#

I think the visions in the den of rot cast interdiction

rotund nest
#

There are a number of mid level mobs that cast it. Maybe something in plane 1 of the rift too. Can’t recall seeing it post cap, thank goodness

heady bramble
#

Hooray! Now do RT 😄

fringe orchid
#

Not much really goes to 30s RT. Maybe a basilisk stare.

heady bramble
#

RT lock is deifnitely a thing that happens, though, Especially various mobs that use the wolf howl/mammoth trumpet

#

Nothing worse than geting halted on your way to the Pit by some rando wargs applying steady stacks of RT while plinking you to death. Which is an especially slow and embarrassing death because you're a warrior

fringe orchid
#

Unfortunately, that's the updated version of RT lock. Stagger. Which is still basically an RT lock.

It would be nice if you couldn't be staggered for more than a total of 30 seconds within X time frame.
So stagger hits me for 10s, I can only be staggered more/again for a total of 20 more seconds before I cannot be staggered at all for 60-120 seconds?

calm rock
#

Can we get an update on the bard changes that were rolled in and then rolled back out again in December?

royal kite
#

It is simply the next step in the evolution of software development. Embrace the future my friend! (AT&T apparently has already.)

echo aurora
#

What I would like to know, please, is why, if changes were made to 610 on 1/15/2024 to completely change the structure of the spell, it wasn't it announced at the time (like the way such changes to 607 were announced).

drifting marsh
#

I've mostly only encountered RT lock on a death scale during invasions or the endless arena.

heady bramble
#

I wouldn't call it a regular occurence but when it's happened, it's been just a swarm of wargs and mastodons. And yeah, endless for sure. XD Where combat mobility worked against me courtesy of 1-sec grahnk tackles

limpid geode
echo aurora
#

Yeah that's fair. But maybe if I could conclude it was unintentional, then I would be less salty about it.

#

Even this would have gone a long way: #1191064189981163611 message add one additional sentence to option 2, we inadvertently left off notice of this change before, there were a lot of moving parts to the disabler review at the time.

drifting marsh
echo aurora
#

Any timeframe for the impending 611 nerf?

steep mirage
#

611 is getting it?

echo aurora
#

Yes.

#

610 has already been nerfed. It is in this endnote: #gamemaster-endnotes message

humble ore
#

Oh well, unbalance it is I guess! Moonbeam, you were a good time!

dusky hatch
#

611 will still be absolutely dominant

echo aurora
#

A solution in search of a problem.

pine charm
#

I use a mixture anyway

#

110 is a little better if there are two creatures in the room...depending on what you do next and how likely your next action is to kill a prone target vs a 611 target....variable

amber fern
#

does anyone know the SMR difference between single-target and AoE disables? and/or what are convenient spells to test with in the same spell circle? 110 and 135 perhaps?

pine charm
dusky hatch
#

135 isn't SMR

coral spade
#

Bullrush (4/5)
[SMR result: 96 (Open d100: 44, Bonus: 13)]
vs tackle (6/6)
[SMR result: 112 (Open d100: 37, Bonus: 3)]
I know its not spells, but best I can do

humble ore
#

While I am not sure why the plan to give pures and stick-weilding magic users a bit more oomph has overflowed into the ranger world when I thought we had a pretty neat toolkit fairly squared away and it's not like I don't ever die and just dominate all things, but c'est la vie, I'll adapt again like I always do

amber fern
echo aurora
#

I do think it’s telling that it’s been over a month since a blue name has provided any substantive information in this [Official] thread.

calm rock
#

57 days since we were told it would be a day or two on bard changes. Something along the lines of 'we have capacity issues/we went back to the drawing board/something else' would be a common update in the meantime.

night panther
#

¯_(ツ)_/¯

steep mirage
sleek inlet
#
  • I believe Moonbeam (611) was already corrected to 5 mana and 2 seconds of castRT (but not updated to use Spell Power and new SL:SS scaling, and that will be happen soon).
  • Paladin Holy Weapon (1625) infusing should now use the new base mana costs.
  • I don't see any issue with SMR Spell Power varying when cast vs. using a Paladin's Holy Weapon when infused.
  • I believe follow up casts of Charge Item (517) against the orb only costing 1 mana was already corrected.
fringe orchid
#

Status of Bard changes?

pearl creek
#

thank you for the update,

SMR spells infused in paladin weapons - should they reduce the targets defense against the spell via the lore benefit? The benefit doesn't increase the casting strength, it's a TD/DS reduction to help the chance of landing successfully that's not happening for SMR spells

nova violet
#

dinaden, you're talking about the SL:S bonus, right? In addition to increasing the maximum spell level that can be infused, each rank will also apply a penalty of -1 TD / -2 Bolt DS to targets, to a maximum of 25 ranks. This target penalty only applies to infused spells.

pearl creek
#

correct - all we had to test was the D100 and the change from D100 to the result. With 2x spell aim and infusing them in my weapon, the change from D100 to end result was consistently worse infusing. That may or may not be the spell power changing, I have no real way to dig any deeper. so the question was generally around the intent - should that lore benefit help SMR spells? We never had one before.

sleek inlet
#

No, it only affects TD and bolt DS.

pearl creek
#

bummer that the benefit is lost in converting spells to smr, but the confirmation is appreciated

humble moth
#

Well, guess that lore is worthless now. Saves me quite a bit of TP

pearl creek
#

118 is infusing at 10 mana, should it be 5 for the single target version?

echo aurora
#

Thank you for the update.

coral spade
#

Hard to imagine any pally change at this point that isn't a boost.....

echo aurora
#

And yet…

coral spade
#

I know more former paladins returned to warrior at this point than I do actual paladins.

echo aurora
#

I’m going to ask, again, to please reconsider the 610/611/607 decisions.

pearl creek
#

reduced spell cost for infusing 110 and 118 is helpful.

sleek inlet
# pearl creek 118 is infusing at 10 mana, should it be 5 for the single target version?

All spells have a "base" mana cost that is set at the highest mana cost the spell should cost. That's used for things like spell hindrance, Paladin spell infusions, etc. Spells that have dynamic mana costs (which can vary based upon any number of factors, such as single target vs. AoE, target type (spell 302 for living vs. undead, etc) are only set when the spell is cast.

pearl creek
#

1614 has both aoe and single target cost similar to 118, and infuses at the single target cost because we can't cast an aoe spell via bonded weapon. If web is intended to use the AoE cost, it's still less than 18. I noted it because it doesn't align with what we've been told since the pally review / precedent.

sleek inlet
#

The base cost of 1614 is 5 mana, which is what it cost when infused.

#

AoE Web cost 10 mana, which is also what it cost when infused.

humble moth
#

So are infused spells going to be AoE now?

sleek inlet
#

No, they cost the base cost because the spell doesn't know it's being cast one way or another until it is cast. When you infuse, you're not casting it, so it doesn't know the mana cost at the time.

humble moth
#

I mean, no infusion resolution bonus, no advantageous mana cost. Seems like 1625 is getting worse and worse.

echo aurora
#

What’s the reasoning behind adopting “Spell Power”? And, is this something you anticipate players enjoying?

sleek inlet
pearl creek
#

oh, 1614 was changed here too - it previously infused at 7 (single target) vs 14(aoe) . With the review this infusing dynamic changed, but at least consistent and less than before.

sleek inlet
#

Correct. It's always just 5 mana now since that's the new base cost.

echo aurora
sleek inlet
#

Show me a higher SMR result for a character with minimum training.

echo aurora
#

Must be nice for all the new gemstone players…

sleek inlet
#

New or old characters can have minimum training.

coral spade
#

What is minimum training? What are the expected training paths of each particular profession? How do we learn these expectations? Where are they posted?

sleek inlet
#

They're posted here. For a ranger, anything less than 1x spell ranks.

pearl creek
#

May I ask why the aoe cost is considered the base cost, and for my own purposes the infusing cost? Is the infusing cost a byproduct of requiring it for other systems (you mentioned hindrance, but likely others)? While it's better than before, the benefit of infusing these spells vs casting them is getting reduced to action saving with a cost of extra mana and no lore benefit. It's a weird mix of acknowledging the spells got better but sad that what I consider paladins pinnacle ability losing value or purpose in isolated examples (that I plan to use, it's entirely self serving in asking to understand).

echo aurora
#

I appreciate you responding. I’m open to listening. But, I still do not understand this direction.

sleek inlet
limpid geode
forest ledge
echo aurora
#

I don’t understand which goal, decreasing effectiveness for highly trained characters falls under.

image0.jpg
pearl creek
forest ledge
#

Dinaden also points out, is previous it did for 1614.

pearl creek
#

Appreciate the updates and answers. Going to go play with SMR spells a bit more

sleek inlet
#

1614 required an explicit exception and instead of doing that for every spell, we're just reduced their all mana costs and use the new base amount. Spell hindrance works the same way.

forest ledge
#

I am puzzled why the system was built in such a fashion, that it can't figure out that Infused spells should be single target, when they are ONLY single target.

#

It's like saying this Box ONLY has bananas, What do I get when I reach inside? "I have no idea"

sleek inlet
#

Because it doesn't call several hundreds of lines of code to execute. If you're ever interested, I encourage you to apply and join staff. Nothing is ever as easy as it seems.

forest ledge
#

I mean sure, but it's way easier to say that, then say someone doesn't know what is going on right?

sleek inlet
pearl creek
forest ledge
#

To be frank, it feels like you rolled the update out, and forgot that Infuse was a thing, but considering the state of Paladin development that is hardly surprising.

echo aurora
#

Hahahahhahahahhaha

sleek inlet
forest ledge
#

A core mechanic of one of your professions is an edge case?

sleek inlet
#

Yes, I just said that.

echo aurora
#

I mean this in the nicest way — I genuinely appreciate you responding to us in this thread — but I do not think this is going well. I’m going to go take a break.

coral spade
#

Is it possible to not take personal offense to players being upset about a delayed rollout of a system that is not hitting player expectations? Asking players to join staff with a casual 'lets see you do it' response is pretty wild in the context of also asking them for a $500+ DR purchases

sleek inlet
#

I take no offense to anything stated. It was missed in the original rollout. It wasn't game breaking and was eventually fixed.

forest ledge
#

Honestly, I appreciate you being straight up about it.

sleek inlet
#

Bugs happen. There's literally several tens of thousands lines of code that run GemStone. Determining mana cost is not as easy as it seems (which all these bugs should demonstrate). We try to standardize much of these systems to avoid such issues.

forest ledge
#

I am going to stand on my rock a little bit, It's been a bad couple of years for Paladin Development/Bugs.

dusky hatch
#

Not that it would help now, but I don't think we ever got clarity on why the test instance wasn't used to help find some of these edge cases before rollout

sleek inlet
#

Because the updates didn't break anything significant and offered more overall improvements. They weren't worth delaying for fixing edge cases.

forest ledge
#

I mean using your Envoys to say Literally the thing you just said, seems like it would have been pretty alright.

echo aurora
sleek inlet
#

Fixed.

forest ledge
#

I will admit I am pretty jaded at this point, Paladins had a known bug that made one of their abilities useless, and it wasn't fixed for months because it wasn't that important to dev, Then the Infusion QOL stuff has been done for nearly a year, and never rolled out. Generally means that silence means it will never get fixed.

limpid geode
#

reading through this y'all are seriously in attack mode and it would be nice to do away with the passive aggressiveness and have a civil and respectful conversation - saying respectful things while making passive aggressive comments and such doesn't count - we can disagree without being rude

#

Estild I'd offer this: while I don't like nerfs and will debate them respectfully...I understand sometimes they're for the greater good/bigger picture.

I would suggest that if/when nerfs will be happening, they are announced and stated clearly as such beforehand. I think it would be better to be frank about it.

pearl creek
# forest ledge I will admit I am pretty jaded at this point, Paladins had a known bug that made...

useless is a big stretch. I am disappointed to see 1625 diminish in benefit over just casting spells, specifically the lore bonus not applying. It costing extra mana doesn't feel great, but that really only applies to 118 now. That the lore benefit didn't apply to a system paladins never had access to before before (or really existed when the benefit was initially created) isn't a reason I understand to justify it no longer helping these spells. The spells got better, 1625 benefit reduced. Mixed feelings about it all around.

At least warriors with spells got the buffs they needed 😆

forest ledge
#

I was refering to 1603 release state

pearl creek
#

gotcha, my mistake then. 1603 has had an odd existance

sleek inlet
#

This is really off topic, but I will ask the Envoys to compile a list of top Paladin bugs (and/or really, one for each profession). All of Development spends time fixing bugs, but such a list will help prioritize some of the noted pain points that can hopefully be fixed (vs. a profession guru, which creates a single point of failure for such issues and why we've really tried to move away from those).

tough flame
forest ledge
#

Is it a bug that when you mana spell it up, randomly chooses an aura, irrespective of the one you previously had up, and it gives you the 60 second Aura cooldown, so you can't switch back?

pearl creek
#

With the updates you've provided, the list of concerns people are raising seem to be intended design and not bugs. Easier task, helping already 🙂

Leafiara: summoning lore reduces TD and DS only for spells cast via bonded weapon infusion. SMR spells receive no benefit, so 110 and 118 are the same as open casting (for less mana in 118's case) and have the 3s internal cd if you miss vs the 2s cast time to re-attempt. Paladins were not casting SMR spells via infusion when the lore benefit was added iirc

tough flame
#

Okay. I don't understand the problem since I'm fairly certain Sanctify doesn't help SMR either. Not everything has to work with everything.

sleek inlet
# pearl creek With the updates you've provided, the list of concerns people are raising seem t...

It varies. Some on that list are certainly bugs and others are not. The base mana cost is a complexity and somewhat difficult to explain without understanding the underlying systems, but it can be noted as by design. There was an initial bug with the infusion mana cost where it wasn't even using the new system, but now is. It's okay to raise concerns when it's unknown and we'll try to clarify.

forest ledge
dusky hatch
#

Was 118 more reliable as an infused CS spell than it is now as SMR?

tough flame
#

I'd be pretty surprised if people were infusing the old CS-based 110 or 118 instead of various 1600s options, but this is GS, so I suppose anything and everything that can be done has been done. Still, can't account for every single scenario!

forest ledge
#

Even if it wasn't that relevant due to the fact your CS stank so bad you couldn't stick them(Which is a fair rebuttle), but the point is if that is by design how would we know?

sleek inlet
dusky hatch
pearl creek
# tough flame Okay. I don't understand the problem since I'm fairly certain Sanctify doesn't h...

sanctify removes the penalty vs undead, which is a benefit in that formula. Undead possess a natural 25% damage resistance to physical attacks, as well as a +25 bonus to defending against PSM skills. Each tier of Sanctify on relevant offensive combat gear negates 20% of these defenses, removing them completely at the fifth tier (T5).

I also accept I am/was an outlier in trying things for infusions and setups. Infusing web on fire flaring weapons etc - but it's a luxury of xp vs viable while leveling

forest ledge
tough flame
dusky hatch
#

Paladin service - SMR boost

echo aurora
#

Then they won’t be able to sell smr boosts next dr…

sleek inlet
#

We already do. Spell rank enhancives. That doesn't affect us changing formulas.

#

But back to being on topic. It's going to be strictly enforced since it's a lot to go through a discussion, which takes away from being able to actually spend time addressing issues. You can and should still use other on topic threads for concerns though.

pearl creek
# tough flame Right, but negating natural undead resistance could be achieved with just a norm...

right, the actual impact of these specific issues is admittedly on the smaller side. The mana is only aoe for web, which is still getting double the infused charges. I can see why "this is still better than before for you" is mostly correct. Ultimately I think i'm just overreacting to a pattern where paladin unique benefits get clipped in the process of improving common, or shared, skills and spells. It's a net benefit for all, including me, but it still stings a little.

Edit: appreciate the input and answers, thank you for walking us through the details behind it

forest ledge
forest ledge
coral spade
#

Yup. That was the basica idea. Rogues train folks in SMR

fierce saddle
#

That was smr defense i thought, not offense

nova violet
#

Let’s sweep discussion of the rogue service to the rogue channel, etc, etc

forest ledge
fierce saddle
#

Anyways there are a bunch of stuff in minor circles that don't work with prime circles, sorcerers had 715 to reduce td for 118 as well which could make it a higher success rate than it is with smr... but ain't nobody was spending 33 mana on that, I'd much rather try 2 casts of 5 mana 118 now.

sleek inlet
#

Curse (715) is WIP still (for mana costs when casting, and duration when affected by it), so expect some changes there too.

fierce saddle
#

Yeah from what I can tell 715 is updated but only when using the cast verb, wheras curse still calls the old versions/cast times and mana. Not a huge deal, I'm glad for the partial change in place there. It's been huge for leveling sorcs and even ascension hunting.

#

One suggestion I have on auto success spells is to up their successive chances on overleveled critters from 10% to 33%, those really are the spells you really want to use the most on a boss creature or grizzled enemy, and I think 3 casts is reasonable enough to guarantee one to land if you are dedicating that amount of time to debuffing a creature.

#

Basically on things like the hinterwilds wyrm, and ascension grizzled creatures, those are the spells you should be using to get more stuff to land, and how they function now just isn't quite good enough in those specific use cases. I honestly wonder if at level 100, they shouldn't just work on anything and the level requirement only exist for leveling.

dusty rivet
#

it's 20% now isn't it? with 10% decrease per level over the guaranteed threshold

coral spade
#

I do think you'll eventually need a phantom level mechanic based on overall Asc exp gained. or just make that a secondary effect of having a charm. each charm =+1 phantom level plus whatever else it does

fierce saddle
#

Like should we really have spells, designed to help us against hard creatures, that don't work against them I guess at max level. Phantom levels honestly make things worse, it'd be better to see ascension exp creatures to give them more stats without increasing their levels so much

coral spade
#

The original intent of the disabler review was because so many of these things were pointless vs ASC critters, particularly in HW. I don't know how far we've gotten to alleviating that. Genuinely don't know

dusky hatch
#

That was part of it. But also that off circle spells were just not usuable at all - even outside of ASC. Optimized primary circle training (especially for the warding pures) rendered the 2/3 level off spell CS garbage

fringe orchid
pearl creek
#

110 and 118 have become very usable for my capped spirit casters not hunting ascension.

fierce saddle
#

I mean except for the wyrm, and grizzled disir/valravns/disciples and invasion creatures, auto success is fine. I'm just saying that if it's fine in 97% why not just make it work on everything at level 100, and not have to worry about this song and dance.

#

Now maybe it's hard to create a lvl 1 to 99 version of the spell vs the lvl 100, that is very valid I think

rotund nest
#

Just to keep it top of mind, there is still an issue with Core Tap such that if you attempt to cast the spell while it is on cooldown, it doesn’t cast but charges you the full 50 mana.

Something was changed during the spell disabler review which caused this glitch - it wasn’t happening prior to that.

fierce saddle
#

But if you are capped, I think it can be expected you may wish to fight anything that exists in the game at that point, be it bosses or invasions, and mechanically we probably shouldn't limit people's kits at that point.

forest ledge
#

I think there is merit to that a bit Vaemyr of "We made this spell much better at lower levels, but there is no way to make it work ascension, even with ascension" kind of stinks.

fierce saddle
#

I mean it's better in ascension too, except for like a handful of things. So why should they be an exception, we probably should just fix it to work at that point regardless.

echo aurora
thin pagoda
#

Do we know what the minimum training is considered?

pine charm
night panther
#

Reading back all that and not seeing the word “Bard” once is pretty rough. Just going to assume those changes got scuttled by decades of bard spellsong spaghetti code and we aren’t going to see them shy of a profession review. Will be happy if that ends up being the wrong assumption

pine charm
#

There's a lot of liberty taken with the English language here. If you assume designing for the low end is better than the high and if you assume mana cost trumps effectiveness and if your balance is more focused on level 2 undertrained characters than capped/near capped appropriately trained characters THEN it's arguably better.....but throwing out a statement that something is absolutely better with all those qualifiers is...bold

echo aurora
echo aurora
fringe steppe
limpid geode
fringe steppe
#

Doesn't it go to the debuff window? (I can't remember)

limpid geode
#

650 and the aspect assumed go to the active spells list but there's nothing anywhere about the cooldown. You just have to cast the spell or try to assume an aspect, spend the mana, and see what the error message says. At least assuming an aspect while on cooldown doesn't cost mana...but casting 650 does.

calm rock
#

I guess if envoys are still trying to collect profession feedback:...for bards, it's the same as from New Year's Eve: songspells were costing double. I'm unable to provide additional information.

sleek inlet
limpid geode
sleek inlet
#

That doesn't drain mana from what I can tell.

limpid geode
# sleek inlet That doesn't drain mana from what I can tell. 
Your extra illumination of the natural fades with a final wisp of inspiration.
You concentrate your focus upon the Aspect of the Yierka.  A gruff, yet contenting inspiration courses through your senses, putting you at one with the offerings and spirits of nature.
Assume Roundtime 3 Seconds.
(Forcing stance down to guarded)
>reso
Health: 175/175     Mana: 400/425     Stamina: 100/118     Spirit: 6/6
Nature's Grace: 36,669/50,000 (Weekly)     29,229/200,000 (Total)
Suffused Nature's Grace: 0
>stop 650
With a moment's concentration, you terminate the Assume Aspect spell.
The green and gold energy fades from around you, bringing your awareness of nature to its original state.
>650
You carefully weave the Assume Aspect spell into the air, trails of indigo and silver mist following the somatic components.  Twisting and twining, the skeins of energy leech power from you and, as you unleash the spell, you feel droplets of moisture dripping from your fingertips...
Your spell is ready.
You gesture.
You feel that you will not be able to fully concentrate upon the Aspect of the Yierka again for at least a few more minutes.
Cast Roundtime 3 Seconds.
>reso
Health: 175/175     Mana: 350/425     Stamina: 100/118     Spirit: 6/6
Nature's Grace: 36,669/50,000 (Weekly)     29,229/200,000 (Total)
Suffused Nature's Grace: 0```
sleek inlet
#

It cost 50 mana because you recast 650. It doesn't know what aspect you're going to try to utilize when you cast it.

#

mana
Remaining Mana Points: 192

assume wolf
You feel that you will not be able to fully concentrate upon the Aspect of the Wolf again for at least a few more minutes.

mana
Remaining Mana Points: 192

limpid geode
#

Sure but why should it cost 50 mana just to tell me I have to wait a few more minutes? While I'd like to see it not cost mana in that case...if we at least had a cooldown timer for it we could often avoid this.

sleek inlet
#

It can't not cost mana because it doesn't know that you're going to try to do an aspect that is on cooldown when you cast 650. You could be trying to do one that is not on cooldown, in which case, it's valid.

limpid geode
#

for me it's set to always use yierka so in some sense it does know that I'm trying to cast it as yierka

sleek inlet
#

We don't train spells to look for patterns on characters though. I agree with spells not costing mana when on cooldown, but that's not really the same situation here.

limpid geode
#

the ASSUME STORE setting is part of the spell and lets your set a default so I'd think it would know...from my end it would seem possible that when the spell results in that message You feel that you will not be able to fully concentrate upon the it could be free or refund the 50 mana. But even if all of that is too complicated, just having a cooldown timer for it woud alleviate most of the problem for me. Thanks for looking into it either way!

night panther
#

Estild, I know we exchanged some messages about Slowed and its affect on Haste spells a few weeks ago. The issue isn't that Slowed stops Haste effects from working. That part makes sense! The problem is that even once the Slowed effect is gone (either by waiting it out, or Dispelling the spell that caused it), the Haste spell you have up continues to not work at all until you stop/re-cast it. This is the case for 1035 and 535, and I would presume 506 but have not tested it. Just wanted to flag since you're reading today.

sleek inlet
echo aurora
#

That would be a nice QOL improvement.

sleek inlet
#

spell active
You currently have the following active effects:
Spells:
No spells found.
Cooldowns:
Aspect of the Wolf ...................... 00:01:17
Aspect of the Bear ...................... 00:03:57
Buffs:
Assume Aspect ........................... 00:07:09
Aspect of the Bear ...................... 00:01:57
Debuffs:
No debuffs found.

assume wolf
You feel that you will not be able to fully concentrate upon the Aspect of the Wolf again for at least another minute.

echo aurora
#

Yeah, that’s pretty incredible.

open juniper
#

So after reading everything that has transpired since last night, I'm left with a few questions. And while they aren't particularly spell disabler based, they are most definitely 1625 founded and deep dark concerns are now spawning in the paladin folders about what has recently been stated:

  1. If infusion is a fringe case for spell disabling, aren't we also saying that disablers for paladins as a whole are now all fringe cases - since 1625 spell delivery is a core balancing factor of the paladin class?
  2. If we aren't receiving the full benefits promised from 1625, doesn't that also mean that the removal of 1612 Champion's MIght was now a direct nerf to the class in all ways - when we were trying at the time to boost paladins? (If so, this trend of taking paladin advents and giving them out to everyone as a passive nerf to the class as a whole should be obvious).
  3. Pushing the entire class back to the end of the SoE timeline when the class has been waiting since 2018 for some attention might cause quite a bit of feedback. Where do we stand on getting them a new guru timewise, as it's turning very ominous for the class as a whole.
solid cosmos
oblique coral
#

oh Whirlin, the AS goes against the DS not the TD, silly Whirlin 🧌

sleek inlet
#

We gather bug reports from various sources. BUG should always be used. Envoys help escalate player reported issues from Discord.

tidal stream
#

Maybe instead of messing with the spell cost thing since it is very complicated, 1625 could just be made to hold double the mana when web is infused?

#

It would have to be about 99% of the instances when this comes up for a paladin, not many people are using SK scrolls for other random setup spells very often.

open juniper
#

More spaghetti code (adding a checks line for a fring case) is probably not the right move, Menos. At least from what I've learned of software engineering. I think I might have to go back to being active in the paladin folders since people seem to be so beaten down waiting on fixes that when a break like this comes around they don't even bother to raise an eyebrow. It's depressing for the class as a whole.

tidal stream
#

Maybe or maybe not. 1625 code might be younger or cleaner or easier to change without breaking another system. It's only castable by about 1% of the population after all. 😄

open juniper
#

Wow. It's sad how that's probably true

steep mirage
#

It's fixable. If I can fix COBOL and code originally written on punchcards for FORTRAN then translated into raw C - you can fix 1625. It's not a matter of if it's possible, it's a matter of wanting to have it done and putting in the work. Sadly, Paladin as a whole has been shunted to the backburner since it was released and this is just another in a long line of very demoralizing issues surrounding the class as a whole

open juniper
#

Paladin Strike! We will not be providing our community service to anyone until our demands are met!!!

faint cargo
#

Let me know how that works out for you.

open juniper
#

I can guarantee you we haven't had a scab yet

coral spade
open juniper
#

Iknowrite?

echo girder
#

Where are the extra TPs coming from for rangers to be 1x in ranger ranks? Thats an extra 10 MTP per level, compared to the previous training expectation.

steep mirage
#

I did it before the ranger changes. I just didnt hide. So not optimal

open juniper
#

Same question was posed about paladins when the training costs changed. They said "We only expect you to be 0.75x".

oblique coral
open juniper
#

But somehow we still have to be 2x in lores. Heh.

echo girder
#

Its fundamentally impossible to train MnS and a weapon on top of 1x ranger pre-cap.

open juniper
#

This is true. It would require you to train 2x in spells. That's a ridiculous expectation. But that's not the expectation.

echo girder
#

The expectation is 0.3 MnS not 1x.

steep mirage
#

1.33x spells is the most you can do if you play a very barebones open archer

open juniper
#

Many rangers go to 103, then go up the 6s at about a 3/4ths per level rate until cap. You don't actually need 107 with your ranger pre-cap because you can get blues from others if you REALLY need it. Same for alkars.

nova violet
#

I think I’m confused where the 1x ranger base is coming from. The entire point of the changes to disabler SMR is to increase the effectiveness of the disablers when you are not fully trained in the spell circle. The people who were talking about bonus going down are fully trained or even overtrained.

echo girder
#

Estild said it was the minimum expected training.

nova violet
#

#1191064189981163611 message

#

This is the post I think people are referring to, and it doesn’t say that, right

#

It specifically says rangers are expected to train ranger base but not be 1x

echo aurora
nova violet
#

?

nova violet
steep mirage
echo aurora
nova violet
#

Okay so we’re all on the same page right

echo girder
#

It specifically says minimum training is 1x, and thats essentially impossible pre-cap.

nova violet
#

Minimum ranger base training is not 1x

#

I’m going out of my mind

#

It 100% does not say minimum training is 1x

#

It says less than 1x

faint cargo
#

It's saying 1x is minimum expected. It's a discord response, so not wordsmithed, but that's what that say.

nova violet
#

????

echo aurora
#

That was my sense too.

faint cargo
#

I don't see any other reading of that tbh. Anything less than 1x falls under the minimum that was asked. (Edit for below, some of us have to slow mode.)

nova violet
#

We are in agreement that the actual words written there say

#

“Less than 1x”

#

Right

#

This is not a bit

#

I am 100% baffled at your reading of this

#

It seems unsupportable

echo aurora
#

I hear you suggesting were disagreeing over the term “minimum training”

night panther
#

he said 1x spell ranks, not 1x ranger base

nova violet
#

Do you hear me saying

#

That the words say

#

“Less than 1x”

steep mirage
#

1x is generally referring to total spell training not specific circle ranks.

nova violet
#

Can we get agreement on physical reality to the degree that discord is physical reality

fierce saddle
#

"less than 1x spell ranks" were definitely the words that were posted into my discord

faint cargo
#

Yeah, I don't see any way you don't see that as 1x spell ranks being the minimum from those words, sorry, I don't know how else to explain it.

nova violet
#

“What is the minimum training”

#

“Less than 1x”

#

That sounds to me that the minimum is less than 1x

echo aurora
#

What i understand you to be saying is that Estlid’s language was poor. And it should probably read something like, “minimum training is exactly as it has always been… , but, if you’re less than 1x in ranger ranks, you won’t notice a difference, or it may even be better.”

nova violet
#

I think what I’m saying is

echo girder
#

It sounded to me that anything less than 1x was less than the minimum.

fierce saddle
#

I'm sorry, I'm with Tikba here, like there's no need to try and apply hidden meaning to these things. The words answer the question "What is minimum training" and "Less than 1x" so minimum training is <1x spell ranks

nova violet
#

That this conversation is infuriatingly baffling to me

#

I understand that many people have taken away an interpretation of those words not closely linked to what the words are

#

That is why I sought clarifying discussion

echo girder
#

A minimum is not less than a specified number.

fierce saddle
#

the minimum in this case is the ranks = to aquire the spell

nova violet
#

I would be okay with “what the hell does that mean” for sure

#

It’s the “it definitely means the opposite of that” which I find difficult

echo aurora
#

Q: What is minimum training? A: anything less than 1x. Q: what is non-minimum training? A: 1x and above.

nova violet
#

We are helped in our deciphering by our understanding of the actual change itself, which has the functional impact of improving the effectiveness of SMR disablers for characters less than 1x trained in the circle

oblique coral
#

So should weed mages be adjusting themselves down to 0.67x ranger spells or something?

nova violet
#

Probably not because they also want to use their CS spells

oblique coral
#

I just 616 x99 (it has worked..... used to work?)

sleek inlet
#

You don't need to adjust anything with your training. If you trained heavily in spells and lores before, you still benefit by having higher Spell Power. If you trained less than 1x in spells, you likely received a boost. Spike Thorn (616) was not affected.

echo girder
#

1x to me is heavy spell training.

oblique coral
#

so how does spikethorn work for weed mages who hunt ascension? (I do not yet hunt there)

sleek inlet
#

That's a better question for #rangers. It's not directly affected by the Spell Disabler Review.

echo girder
#

I trained heavily and am not getting a benefit.

rugged raft
#

You can definitely 1x total spell training while leveling as a ranger. 1x circle plus additional MnS is less doable until cap.

sleek inlet
#

For Spike Thorn? You're getting the exact same benefit as you always have.

echo aurora
#

This is a genuine question, not an argumentative question. If the goal was to standardize, why not adjust 616?

vital umbra
#

616 is not a disabler.

echo girder
#

I'm 1x trained in ranger ranks, which is heavy ranger spell training, and there's no benefit for it in the ranger disablers.

echo aurora
#

Got it. Outside the scope of the review.

sleek inlet
echo aurora
#

Estild, my comment is that the idea of Spell Power, which I think was mentioned by Auchand a few days after the release for the first time, incorporates training that is not standard. Why and how did spell power come to include spell aiming?

echo girder
#

My impression is that my chance to hit has gone down slightly.
My understanding from this conversation is that it does not boost spell power until it goes over 1x.

sleek inlet
#

If you were exactly at 1x, your chances were about the same. Less than 1x, they increased. Above 1x, they decreased (in many cases, from near impossible to miss, to almost near impossible to miss now - lots of great examples of this in #rangers).

echo girder
#

So does going from 0.7x which is my understanding of normal training, to 1.0x, which is what I have trained and regard as heavy training, provide any extra spell power to ranger disablers?

echo aurora
#

Also, we’ve been talking in rangers about the mention that a single target bonus will be applied to 611. Will that be +15?

sleek inlet
echo girder
#

Am I correct in this for ranger circle disablers and ranger ranks:
1 - The gradient with training is shallower than it used to be but it still exists, at all training levels.
2- 1x training is set be the same chance of success as previously, but may be slightly different for particular individuals who are 1x trained due to ranger ranks not being the only factor.

nova violet
#

The change to the lore bonus is probably the relevant aspect there yeah

echo girder
#

Spell aiming?

sleek inlet
#

That is a new factor, but it is a small bonus and the base formula was designed with it strictly as a bonus (meaning it’s completely optional, but a potential path for advanced training).

echo girder
#

So 1x ranger ranks is what I'd call the calibration point between new and old formula for ranger ranks, 0x is the calibration point for SA, and I'm not sure where the calibration point is for lore, but my impression is that its also 0x. 1x is only minimal in the sense that the difference between old and new formulae is closest to zero. Its the same sort of confusion as arises in runestaff training from calling 8 magic ranks minimum when its actually the calibration point for two different formula for DS.

amber fern
wanton canyon
#

Is there a tldr pin for today?

nova violet
brittle bane
#

experience post cap should give this automatically.. ie: every 5 million post cap experience = 1 level

tough flame
#

Some people would be so high level their SMR stuff would annihilate even Ascension creatures on contact. 😄

fierce saddle
#

A better design is limiting levels of creatures and basically giving them ascension exp, that could increase their skills. The level thing is not a race players want, it would be much much better to kinda standardize the level of ascension creatures around 105-110, and if needed to be made stronger use a separate system, not just bumping level.

#

Which I think we have seen in both ME and the hive, those areas do not have the lvl 115+ creatures that disir/valravns/disciples can be.

pearl creek
#

I don't think creatures ever had skill caps, wasn't it mentioned one had like 4x perception when lots of hiding questions were getting thrown around

echo aurora
#

So, instead of continuing to increase level, where things like smr would have diminishing returns, the increased difficulty from certain creatures would come from increased skill levels or stats?

fierce saddle
#

I mean essentially if you wanna buff smr on a creature, they could give the feature more dodge or combat maneuvers or physical fitness, ds they could give dodge or agility, or shield depending on what they use, same with as and so on. Td they can give them the appropriate Stat bonuses.

echo aurora
#

Are you aware of any design goals to continue to increase mob levels higher than we’ve seen in HW?

coral spade
#

boss monsters are 120 currently
Sybil. Packmother. Wyrm. I assume Shardmind too...but I only killed that once.

nova violet
#

hive and moonsedge both came after HW and have equal or lower creature levels

fierce saddle
#

I think 120 is fine for boss monsters, normal ascension should cap at 110 base as the highest imo.

It just makes all the level v level stuff much easier to understand and balance that way.

Obviously hinterwilds came first so I think there's some obvious growing pains there

oblique coral
#

I think if we had some standard rule about X ascension critter experience gives you Y effective levels it would be fine. REWARD the players who hunt ascension. Not the dudes who bigshot OTF 24/7....

fierce saddle
#

Giving effective levels is just too slippery a slope, better to balance within the current confines of the systems then create an arms race of well now players are 110 I need 115 mobs, but then these players are 115 makes those trivial, and so on.

#

And again I actually think that's happening with future ascension grounds baed on the last two released, it's just not something that's been stated

echo aurora
#

I hadn’t really thought about it. I assumed that super ascension areas would be next.

limpid geode
#

lol imagine dev reading this - they just designed a new system based on post-cap levels and we're like: actually, that's not good - cancel that - instead go redesign all >100 critters and combat systems and then redo this one thing based on the new game you just created.

tough flame
#

I've thought about the idea of creatures getting Ascension skills before too, but I'm not necessarily sure it solves anything unless they could go beyond the player cap of Ascension skills. If they can't, then players can just match them eventually.

fierce saddle
oblique coral
#

So if should be that a dude who is right at cap can ascension hunt but its super hard, more experience players 3x-5x cap can obviously do better in ascension then maybe super ascenion 120+ can only be realistically done by players who are super ascended "effective level" of ~110..... so its like a shifting windows of expecations. a fresh cap player in super ascension 120 would just get immediately massacred by the level gap.

echo aurora
#

It’s a really interesting question, that with only 13m exp, I probably don’t need to think about for another 3-5 years.

tough flame
coral spade
#

I think at some point folks who are way on the upper end have to accept that they are going to outlevel, outpace and trivialize any and all content

fierce saddle
echo aurora
#

Super ascension is just pvp. Just Yakushi Xanlin brawl in the wild.

coral spade
#

I accidently killed someone in the HW shrine before. Does that count? Am I now Most Dangerous Game hunter?

fierce saddle
#

The fact that milestone is still locked is so silly to me, but I think they are gonna use it as the quest requirement for charmstones at this point.

coral spade
#

I'm not honestly sure why it even matters to people. By the time you are looking to get it, 50k for one ASC point is pretty trivial stuff

echo aurora
#

So you can get 10/10 milestones - It’s not in monsterbold. And that hurts.

dusty rivet
#

gemstone definitely doesn't attract the type of personality who would obsess over 100%ing an achievement list. nope. not here.

oblique coral
#

Super ascension could be like a land of all 120 critters that truly need be disabled tons before you even get a chance to start damaging them, have very high health but loot pinatas.... like right now some players CAN solo the Wyrm, imagine a hunting ground where multiple wyrms and other wyrm-level beasts just roam and you have to take EACH one super serious.

coral spade
tough flame
#

The one thing that gets us to not obsess about completionism is when it's entirely impossible like collectibles. 🤣

dusty rivet
#

you haven't gotten 10,000 ultra-rare collectibles yet?

echo aurora
oblique coral
#

I would have to check. I do remember they might have updated it. Maybe a land of old wyrms with new wyrm being the apex predator then.

#

packmother is kind of a joke

fierce saddle
dusty rivet
#

look i've found 6 ultra-rare collectibles. i'm well on my way.

echo aurora
#

Collectibles, the true character disabler…

tough flame
#

Heh, me too. And it's only taken 5 years and two months! At this rate, I'll have 10,000 in another ~8,536.68375 years!

dusty rivet
#

it's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a whisper of divine essence
or whatever the ultra-rare is i don't even know

vital umbra
#

IT'S LIKE RAYEYAYYYYYYN

oblique coral
#

I feel like I hardly see collectibles drop anymore. I dont hunt anything that is mini-boss critter though

vital umbra
tough flame
#

If boon packs had been added to every hunting ground in the game, then maybe we could talk about collectibles.

nova violet
#

Okay guys this is maybe a little off topic

brittle bane
#

but i still think regular post cap experience should count for something when it comes to spell power and things like sheer fear (different subject but similar topic). Doesn't make 100% sense to me that my 11m wizard can have a stronger 917 than my 60m wizard just by going 127 wizard ranks instead of 101... and they get equally feared by undead...

#

Harness Power should be another skill that contributes to spell power... I'd say it should be harness power over spell aim all day... especially since its a skill that anyone that uses magic benefits from equally... you wouldn't just train harness power for spellpower and have absolutely 0 other benefit.... like a bard or paladin trying to improve their spell power by training spell aim... womp womp...

fringe orchid
fringe orchid
#

Also, disablers, spell disablers, disabler spells, yada yada ...

brittle bane
#

Dang, nobody thinks harness power is a more appropriate skill to use for scaling spell power than spell aiming?

steep mirage
#

If you're going to make Harness Power the default skill to scale spell power, it would be easier to just give default power scaling per class. It only makes sense if you are choosing a skill based solely on what would be the least restrictive based on normal training

brittle bane
#

i think it compares well to using dodging as a skill for defense SMR (squares can triple train, semis 2x, and pures only 1x).. defensive SMR has many more factors though.. I wouldn't be opposed to spell power SMR having many more factors besides spell ranks and spell aiming..

steep mirage
#

Dodging is one of several skills and is subject to heavy diminishing returns as a collective group for SMR defense purposes.

I don't disagree with you that several more factors could be used, but I would guess they are just trying to avoid runestaff training 2.0

echo aurora
#

I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge how much better this is. An ethereal triton psionicist points a clawed finger toward you! A crackling whip of energy lashes out at you! CS: +463 - TD: +371 + CvA: +5 + d81: +59 == +156 Warding failed! ... 23 points of damage! Eye struck as you land face first, swelling it shut. You are stunned for 5 rounds! The residual psychic energy from the attack surrounds you. Thank you.

pine charm
echo aurora
#

So true.

night panther
#

Hey how about those bard disabler updates

mellow dirge
#

are we disabling bards? about time

dusty rivet
humble moth
#

I made one too. Don't need that other one

night panther
#

Hey how about those bard disabler updates

echo girder
#

Is being on fire from 519 supposed to be limited in duration like other disablers?
Rolling still wasn't putting it out over 30s after it hit me (and my survival should knock maximum duration down to 23s).

steep mirage
#

The disabler version probably got forgotten

zinc trout
royal kite
sharp linden
#

So a question: Since interference is auto success now, what's it's duration based on? The standard duration is based around a roll, which interference doesn't seem to have anymore.

limpid geode
dusty rivet
#

like they said that has the MIN and MAX duration with the actual amount given by an endroll. it doesn't say what autosuccess spells do.

;e t = Time.now;Spell[212].force_incant;matchwait /distract/;echo Time.now - t
<some time later>
[exec1: 60.793236529]```
so it looks like it is the max at least for 212. I got a minute for both a super low level target and a capped target slightly higher than me, a couple of times each.
sharp linden
#

So it's a hidden roll?, since the spell is no longer a warding or a maneuver as outlined in the link

dusty rivet
#

i think it's just set to max, i don't know. if someone is super serial brave they can go 212 a disir and wait around for a minute

sharp linden
#

I don't get why every one keeps linking to something talking about diffrent mechanics than the question at hand

dusty rivet
#

but at the very least even up until normal capped hunting areas it seems like it's just 60 seconds unless i was just super awesome a few times.

sharp linden
#

That's a pretty nice buff. Wonder if it's actually intended

dusty rivet
#

the duration before was crazy.
10 + (MjS spell ranks / 5) + (warding failure * 3) sec capped at 120 second
so....2 minutes every time basically lol. obviously it's substantially more usable now but duration wise it was a nerf for anyone that was using it.

sharp linden
#

Personally I'm not able to get close to a warding failure of level of 300+
If I was, I would just lead with my attack spell and kill them outright
at least not on similar level creatures
inverted my math

#

A reliable 60 seconds is, in my opinion, better than an unreliable 2 minutes. especially when all of the fights i've been in don't last more than 30 seconds unless my luck is brutally low. So i'm all for the change

echo aurora
# 
  CS: +423 - TD: +370 + CvA: +14 + d100: +88 - +20 == +135
  Warding failed!
For a brief, terrible moment, your mind is opened to an unspeakable valence of being!  You are stunned!``` This mindjolt had me at like 35s -- so mindjolt does not appear to be capped at 30s duration.
vital umbra
#

Mind jolt is different in some way. When I was doing 1040 testing a year ago or so, there were lots of times I could shake stuns of whatever duration but not mind jolt of equal duration. At least I think I'm remembering that right.

calm rock
#

Cross-posting a bard spell disabler review (SDR) update for awareness as there hasn't been any updates in here. It appears to not be a dead effort.

I've mentioned the staff resource issue in a few channels now, but once we're fully stacked again, we'll be picking off all the projects that have been announced or announcing they are dead.  I don't see the SDR or profession reviews being dead.  Savants have died a few times, but maybe one day.```
<[#1190341191074594846 message](/guild/226045346399256576/thread/1190341191074594846/p/1218685595992326205/#msg-1220468990493855906)>
coral spade
#

Does this actually reference bards?

calm rock
coral spade
#

I share and understand your concern over generalized silence on outstanding issues

oblique coral
#

The GS staff cannot confirm nor deny the existence of Bards in the game. That is all.

sharp linden
#

Bards? Arn't those the npcs making music in the inns?

keen cape
#

Did someone say beards?

echo aurora
#

Just popping in to express my displeasure with 611.

acoustic bough
#

All this talk over the years about things needing nerfed, yet they're not nerfed, but you come for rangers whom are middle of the pack!

humble ore
#

Well they're not nerfed bc people complain harder than rangers! 😆

echo aurora
#

I’m complaining over in #rangers enough for the whole class.

humble moth
#

/sigh... Now I gotta go check #rangers

vital umbra
#

More like ragers am I right?

hazy viper
#

I thought this was a buff for lowbie rangers and a scaling down for capped rangers?

echo aurora
acoustic bough
#

Next thing you know they're gonna be saying giantkin and halflings have the same amount of blood!

echo aurora
#

Standardization is super important.

night panther
#

Hey how about those bard disabler updates

coral spade
#

Being standardized. Hold for the next available agent please

echo aurora
#

It’s the inevitable terminus, when the goal is to make everything balanced, instead of the goal being fun, unique, dynamic classes.

limpid geode
#

I think that's kind of hyperbolic. Rangers are still a fun and dynamic class. 611 is still a very strong spell.

echo aurora
#

It’s hyperbolic to suggest that standardization as the endpoint, robs classes of dynamic variation?

limpid geode
#

It's hyperbolic to suggest that standardization is the endpoint based on the balance changes to 611.

coral spade
#

I dont know which point is more accurate because no purpose to standardization has been articulated from staff. Maybe it can lead to something excellent. But we are in the dark

echo aurora
#

It was literally used as the justification — by staff’s envoys, at least.

limpid geode
#

except you're twisting it to mean something it doesn't - Nisugi's comment about giants and halflings having the same health pool. Your comment about no longer aiming for classes to be fun/unique/dynamic.

echo aurora
#

My conclusion is that standardization and balance as an end goal is a bad justification for changes. My evidence is the 607/610/611 changes. I don’t think that’s twisting anything.

limpid geode
#

I mean you're mad about a nerf - and I feel you - I have a capped ranger too and I've seen many nerfs to many of my characters over the years and it's not fun. However, 611 is probably better than it was last year despite the nerf...I mean it's certainly better for rangers who aren't post cap - but even still if you traded some endroll for 2 second cast and 5 mana cost I think we came out ahead.

echo aurora
#

I’m not mad about a nerf. It’s actually a significant boon for my character. So, no, that is incorrect. I am mad about a poorly thought out design mechanism, that hurts the dynamic gameplay of the class.

#

I’m mad that instead of thoughtfully designing a disabler review to make the game more fun and dynamic and engaging, we got this.

#

It’s not a nerf that I’m upset with. I can live with nerfs. I am disappointed with the process, communication, implementation, and apparent design goals.

I’m disappointed that they moved the goalposts after implementing.

#

And, I’m upset that the post facto justification of standardization is supposed to make me feel okay about it.

coral spade
#

It does feel like we’ve moved very very far away from “caster disablers dont do anything to HW critters, help”

limpid geode
#

I don't see how the design mechanism is poorly thought out - I think you're taking snippets of info and making broad generalizations about it.
I don't see what dynamic gameplay got hurt outside of maybe the 410 situation.
What I see is a bunch of awesome changes mixed in with some balancing of spells that were well outside of standard range and OP...and yes those are nerfs and we don't like nerfs but sometimes they happen when devs see the bigger picture and try to brings things in line.

#

We are so spoiled with communication btw. We get more communication here than any other game I've played in my life and yet we seem to feel like we're entitled to hearing everything Wyrom hears about every situation. Not to say some improvements aren't possible...but we've got it damn good imo

coral spade
echo aurora
#

We are spoiled with a game that has a 30 year long lifespan.

coral spade
#

I honestly know more about the next 6 mos dev cycle of games i dont even play than i do about gemstone. Some parts of the game are well communicated, some are not. This is a boutique product with very boutique price tag. A closer connection to the game’s future is a reasonable ask.

echo aurora
# coral spade It does feel like we’ve moved very very far away from “caster disablers dont do ...

When they have to change the review objectives after the fact to justify their changes, because they have no other reason, that’s evidence to me that they significantly missed the mark.

At the end of the day, the disabler review did nothing for the ranger class to make it better, except cap stun and cast durations.

It doesn’t feel like it’s done anything to help my wizard be more viable. Those are my experiences.

I hear some other classes have 1 or 2 other things in their toolkit.

limpid geode
coral spade
limpid geode
acoustic hull
#

Many studios are very communicative with their dev process especially when the title is in the alpha/beta stages

echo aurora
#

Again, 610/611 didn’t get less effective (for me). This is not me complaining about a nerf. Again, it actually got more effective for me.

limpid geode
#

At the end of the day, the disabler review did nothing for the ranger class to make it better, except cap stun and cast durations.
??

echo aurora
#

It did meet goal (4). In my opinion (1) was a huge miss; (2) I don’t even understand what this really was trying to address; (3) I do not think this was achieved.

#

When (1) is the most important stated goal — to make magic have options available to set up creatures and disable creatures, the review missed this mark.

Assuming this goal stems from the fact that pure gameplay, and to some degree semi game play, is not dynamic at cap for most classes, and characters hunting ascension areas don’t have great options for disabling and engaging in hunting mechanics, the disabler review objectively failed.

limpid geode
#

almost every disabler got better - more options now exist - especially more feasible options - so #1 is a failure why? just b/c disablers still aren't awesome and consistent in the hardest zone in the game meant to be very challenging?
#2 was so disablers could be more effective at providing experience in groups...I think they changed that to be unequivocally better.
#3 you want them to standardize or not? are you complaining about standardization or about them not meeting their goal of standardization?

echo aurora
#

I’ll just speak from experience. My wizard changed from 410 to 912, but no substantive improvement in gameplay. For my ranger,, 110 got a second target, but is not impactful enough for me to utilize, the changes to 118 continue to make it non useful for me, whatsoever. You already know my feelings on 607/610/611.

limpid geode
#

I think sometimes we have to ask ourselves "are things really as bad as I'm making them out to be or am I just pessimistic and looking to vent". I feel like most of this conversation is a game of semantics.

echo aurora
#

I asked that question and the answer is, no, this is not game ending, and yes, I am looking to vent.

fierce saddle
#

How is reducing mana costs and cast time not large buffs to ranger disablers? To any of the disablers.

echo aurora
#

Because except for pure build rangers, at cap and beyond, mana constraints aren’t an issue. And because arcane reflex already deals with rt reduction in a thoughtful, engaging way.

pearl creek
#

some got much more effective, some spells got less effective, most saw reductions in mana cost. Personally I would have wanted to see more skills or stats involved to scale at the top end, vs bringing the ceiling down and suggesting we cast multiple times.

fierce saddle
echo aurora
#

I did not.

image0.jpg
#

Which changes do you feel were improvements that met goal (1)?

fierce saddle
#

Umm it made every spell there a better option than before.

echo aurora
coral spade
#

I dont know of any caster who couldnt hunt HW before now being able to. I do know of characters, even non casters, who are now better at HW even more than they already were, even with lower xp totals. Something definitely didn’t land

fierce saddle
#

So that's just false ptolemy, hw got much better for sorcerers with 715 and 413 changes, the barrier to entry for them also dropped significantly with those

#

Ditto with interference changes for clerics and empaths, but I would say that wasn't as big a change for them in hw specifically.

pine charm
#

....maybe we could see some hard numbers

#

This is how it was, this is how it is, this is where we want it....

echo aurora
#

I love that this was a goal — it’s the best part of being a ranger, and I assume what every other class aspires to have (except warriors, because combat flows naturally for them). I’m suggesting this objective was not met.

fierce saddle
#

I say it did, as that goal specifically called out long disabled times of enemy moves which were significantly improved in several ways.

The lower cast times on disabler spells also significantly improved weaving them in for killing things, as you are sacrificing less time to use them

coral spade
#

Clerics, rangers and warriors out perform wizards in HW for example, even at considerably less xp

fierce saddle
#

"bolting" wizards, archer, 917, and 519 do very good. And disabler review was never stated to fix bolting, I wish it did, but that was never a goal

echo aurora
coral spade
echo aurora
#

My personal hope was never to have anyone “do very good” in and of itself — it was hoping for diverse, varied, engaging systems.

acoustic hull
#

everything is fine until you get past the villages

fierce saddle
coral spade
fierce saddle
#

Bolting, has an issue in hinterwilds, this is a known thing. That doesn't support nor harm any arguments here. It wasn't addressed with disablers, nor was it a stated goal of disablers.

coral spade
#

A just capped cleric can handle HW content much better than a just capped wizard. My warrior is currently immune to a level 114 critters ewave. It cannot hit me. Its fair to say there was a massive pivot 48 hours after rollout and we are seeing it now trickle out

echo aurora
fierce saddle
#

yes, clerics and warriors are classes that have had a full class review, wizard has not, oh I wonder where that difference is

coral spade
#

The goal, for players, was always to do content at the asc level. It was what started this whole discussion over two years ago now.

rough swift
#

I think it's possibly presumptuous to suggest you know 'the goal for players'. At best you know the goal of some players. For my part, I had one desire for this update, and I got what I wanted. As far as I'm concerned, it's a success. Everybody has different expectations. 🤷‍♀️

coral spade
#

You wanted nerfs?

fierce saddle
#

Just spent a while going back through discussions from two years ago, and the stated things that they would try to do, were minimum level of effectiveness,

#893166883568775268 message

Reducing mana and cast times (no specific link here because it's spread out everywhere, you can see them talk about it in that divergence thread)

And reducing/capping things like enemy effects, like stuns
#959820113991860284 message

coral spade
#

So why are we making changes that arent fun? Whats the end goal?

rough swift
# coral spade You wanted nerfs?

Yes. In particular, I wanted a nerf to 410 and 435, such that they are still dangerous, but I have any ability to resist them. I now have some ability to avoid those spells. I am happy.

coral spade
#

I am honestly surprised a rogue would struggle to avoid ewave but im glad it worked in your favor

fierce saddle
#

and I really do understand nerfs are not fun, sorcerers have had more nerfs than any other class (outside of the fiasco that was divergence) over the past several years all in the name of "fixes" from 711, 709, 711 again, 410, and I understand each one of them, they didn't make me happy, but I understand how the design fit those changes.

coral spade
#

I think someone explaining the end goal of standardization would go a long way. Right now, no idea where its going or why the game benefits

rough swift
# coral spade So why are we making changes that arent fun? Whats the end goal?

The problem with this argument is that you're the one defining fun. Fun is wholly subjective. Apparently some people find 'fun' to be running around in god-mode, killing everything instantly with no chance of being touched. Is that the kind of fun we should have in mind when making changes? Some people also find playing hardcore fun. One death and it's all over. Is that the kind of fun we should orient ourselves towards?

There are several things that I want buffed, and several things that I want nerfed. All buff and no nerf isn't an especially healthy way of approaching it, in my personal opinion.

coral spade
rough swift
echo aurora
coral spade
fierce saddle
coral spade
#

Ok. For what future purpose. Once we have this standardized, we will be able to do….what?

rough swift
echo aurora
#

I’m not sure there has to be a tension between “code standardization” and developing systems that are dynamic, variable, and engaging. I think that’s a false binary.

That’s beyond my pay grade.

But Naijin standardized PSM3, and its dynamic, unique, and engaging,

fierce saddle
#

it's right there, to make coding in the future easier, I understand you are not a developer, you have no clue what looking at a 5 year old code base is, much less 30 years of code like gemstone is, anything new you create should always be standardized as much as possible to create less bugs, easier teaching of people trying to learn the code base, faster projects

echo aurora
#

I’m not sure why slapping a poorly designed spell power label on existing spells, shoving those square pegs into round holes, will result in better future development.

fierce saddle
#

so, why is it poorly designed? The spell aim scaling? Would you feel different if it was mana control scaling? (I think it should be mana control no spell aim cause mana controls are generally something all pures/semis need for their services IMO)

coral spade
echo aurora
pine charm
#

Ugh mana control.....it would make more sense than spell aim

coral spade
#

I never said ‘change is bad. Nerf is bad.’ I said…why? If the answer is a worthwhile thing, im in. Right now, its just unknown.

fierce saddle
#

mana control makes a lot of sense, it's still a headache, but we all kinda want it eventually to up our service skills, so at least it falls into a training path where noone is training something totally useless

echo aurora
#

But when you have to invent a mechanic to plug a hole with, that was created by not being deliberate… to address what was apparently a goal from the beginning…

pine charm
#

When people realize this standardization means paladins and bards will need spell aim......

fierce saddle
#

but the concept of spell power for smr spells isn't a bad one, they just picked a skill that is... very very questionable as one of the ways to scale it

echo aurora
#

So, what would I still like to see? I would like to see PSM3 for spells.

#

If they told me this was all done with that as the objective, and here’s the roadmap. Fire. But, this is the end game, right here. They are calling it all fixed and moving on.

fierce saddle
#

that's the spell lore system, which is so far away it's with there with savants and further ascension 😦

coral spade
#

A roadmap would be great

echo aurora
#

And, I will tell you, I would not bat an eye if they undid every change they made to 100s and 600s. I’d feel like the ranger class would be better off.

fierce saddle
#

yeah that shouldn't happen, but again I'd all for making spell power make more sense so that as it is standardized across things, it isn't just an exp tax on certain people for no reason

acoustic hull
#

spell aiming skill should help aim spells, right?

echo aurora
#

Here is my attempt at using 118 in an ascension area. Moving forward, a bloated kiramon broodtender gets too close to the rippling, sticky web! [SMR result: 36 (Open d100: 30)] The web turns away harmlessly from a bloated kiramon broodtender. Sensory tendrils whipping, a bloated kiramon broodtender skitters northwest with surprising speed.

fierce saddle
#

I mean, if they wanna make spell aim increase CS... cause it "aims" spells, then I think people would train it haha

echo aurora
acoustic hull
#

well it's not called bolt aiming! I would love more buffs to spell aiming not just more pigeonholing into bolts

limpid geode
#

spell aim helps implosion, condemn, etheral censer and probably more - not just bolts

echo aurora
#

Sorry — don’t listen to me, I’m a ranger, who knows nothing about spell aiming. But, I’m being forced to learn.

oblique coral
#

so is the reduction of 611 mana by 50% and cast time by 33% worth the reduction in effectiveness from 125% to 100%? I would say so...

echo aurora
oblique coral
#

Estilid not giving out FREE LUNCHs out here folks! you gotta pay the price for greatness! trade effectiveness for ease-of-use!

dusky hatch
# 
[SMR result: 171 (Open d100: 81, Bonus: 25)]
[SMR result: 114 (Open d100: -8, Bonus: 25)]
[SMR result: 107 (Open d100: -8, Bonus: 25)]
[SMR result: 126 (Open d100: 65)]
[SMR result: 181 (Open d100: 121)]
[SMR result: 111 (Open d100: 55)]```
I think AoE web just suffers from not having the single target bonus. The above are a smattering of results from the HW pits, some with 650 spider and some without (last is a disir). Also lol @ two identical negative open rolls in a row.

Anyway, the spell disabler review buffs massively outweigh the handful of nerfs from my perspective. 212/217 alone smashed the gap that spirit warders face in ASC access. 912 is now absurdly good - knockdown, stagger, stancing, disengage AND a chance at perpetual room control with vortex? 110 found a place in the world.

Then there's the RT reduction, which is one of the most impactful changes anyone can make (see: SK506/SK515). Mana costs can be trivialized eventually, but for every leveling character up through early cap can benefit from this substantially.

My personal goals for this change were all met. It opened up the toolkit for many of my characters to utilize previously dead spell slots. It made all of the spells I *did* use previously even better (except 410, but that's okay). Is 118 better than 611? No, but it has a place still. 110 is similar. I don't need them to be the best at what they do for them to be usable. 
...
echo aurora
#

It’s not easier. It’s lazy. Developing arcane reflexes was a thoughtful and engaging way to reduce spell RT.

echo aurora
dusky hatch
#

I sometimes wonder if bigshot mindset plays a bigger role in some of these though processes. This isn't intended to be a judgement or critique of BS users, but I feel like the relatively limited capacity to which you can craft a routine programmatically in BS influences perception. Meaning, if it's too hard to construct the logical paths within the capacity of that toolkit, then it becomes effectively useless.

Compare that to actual decision making by a player and the whole landscape changes, because it's much easier to adapt. While I still automate my hunting routines, I have customization options well beyond BS' capacity so I can throw in variety much more easily. Heck, I can even throw a randomizer to utilize a given spell/maneuver just because! Toss a bolt in sometimes.

Also, as a closing note - continually calling devs lazy/thoughtless/intentionally malicious/etc is a surefire path to destroying the game and has no place in constructive criticism.

echo aurora
#

I don’t bigshot HW, ME, or the Hive. I only bigshot places where it’s easy enough to not warrant dynamic game play (eg Atoll).

#

Calling the game design lazy is fair criticism. I’m not implying anything about any specific developer’s work ethic, commitment to the game, or value as a human being.

oblique coral
#

It's not that it is fair or not... it is that even if you win the argument you probably the lose the war when everyone leaves. Which we have seen many times in GS dev history.

echo aurora
#

Fair enough.

dusky hatch
#

It moves nothing forward to do so. It just widens the rift between "us" and "them."

oblique coral
limpid geode
#

It's not that I'm calling you lazy...it's just that your work is lazy...lol

coral spade
#

I dont think its productive to say its lazy. I assume everyone is working with good intent. Even when i disagree on the delivery

echo aurora
#

I apologize for stating or implying that any specific person is lazy.

nova violet
echo aurora
#

Fires already out Tikba.

nova violet
#

That’s what I thought yesterday!

echo aurora
#

There’s always tomorrow.

nova violet
echo aurora
#

I agree. They should not undo it. I said that too Tikba.

nova violet
#

you should just not MAKE the bad posts in the first place rather than making multiple contradictory posts! that is poor communication!

echo aurora
#

I’m not on staff or an envoy. I get the luxury of not being consistent. I can be right multiple ways.

nova violet
#

man

echo aurora
#

I can both say, the design was bad, I would not blink an eye if it reverted, and also say it would not be good for the game to revert it.

nova violet
#

I am impressed with your effectiveness at pursuing your goal of getting all the envoys to quit

acoustic hull
#

Ratchet the post timer up!

tough flame
#

Being brutally and yet detachedly honest, I actually don't care enough whether the spell disabler review did or didn't meet any given stated goal to even think through what I believe about each of those goals.

I just hope they finish making the bard ones work (mechanically, not referring to effectiveness), call it a day, and then move on to more important things. And by "more important things" I actually don't just mean the things I'd most want to see them work on, but almost literally anything else since it's extremely clear after catching up on the morning discussion that we're not getting anywhere in here.

oblique coral
#

Leff is going to get a judge to assign him as special comptroller for all ranger-related Simu decisions. Ranger dev decisions have been placed in conservatorship by lawful judgement!

nova violet
#

didn't we never lower this post timer

#

oh no somebody did lower it

acoustic hull
echo aurora
echo aurora
coral spade
#

I'm assuming thats why we had the delay, then the silence. I assumed they looked at it and said...do we really want to fix all this only to replace it all in a year?

tough flame
coral spade
#

Take some of the existing spells and start implementing whatever plan they have for bards

Or just put it off entirely, get the rest of the stuff done, then go right into bards as a profession review.

acoustic hull
#

Bardvergence

tough flame
#

I'd consider that a possibility. I wouldn't go as far as assuming it after how the last attempt at the bard review went.

coral spade
#

I'd be inclined to agree...but we right to live on this release with no feedback at all. I'm assuming thats the new development model

tough flame
#

If I were them, I'd definitely want to do the bard review with no advance notice this time.
But I'm not them and I honestly don't know whether that would be uglier or less ugly than the advance notice way. 🤣

coral spade
#

Yeah, thats definitely one of those 'i'm glad I'm not a bard' moments for me.

humble ore
#

I was excited for the first bard review, was excited for the second bard review, will be excited for a future review. You know a class is boring when you're just spec-ing your bard to have ANY INTERESTING CMAN just to add some flavor that isn't "cast your spells and type kill"

#

Ranger me all "and then I do this and layer that on and add a pinch of that, and then that dude enters the room so I toss this other things, and then we throw out the AoE that mucks with them all, and this and that, and so on," Bard be all "kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill, kill." It's certainly efficient, but only fun if you're reading a book while it's bigshot-ing

#

So by all means, ninja a soft bard review thru this!

fringe orchid
calm rock
#

Naamit's TWC whip bard build is FUN. It was an expensive and difficult road to get here, but I have so many tools and my fingertips to play with right now - rarely bigshot it. I love playing a bard the way it was intended, when it comes to variety. Here's some descriptions:

Background: 1014, 1018 or 1035, adds 1025 if crowded.

in HW, 1002 is great on shield maidens. berserkers are a good source for 1013, then 1002.

In Moonsedge more recently:
grotesque I always open with swiftkick. Only hit them with 1030 for crowd control. Usually the rest is melee- pulverize to soften, pummel, attack as needed.
ghast: 1008, 1005, pulverize, pummel, attack, kick
knight: 1002, 1005, kick or dizzy if needed, pulverize, pummel, attack
banshee: 1015, 1016, kick 1008, 1030, pulverize, pummel, attack
dreadsteed: 1015, 1016, dizzy, 1005 if I am feeling lazy?, pulverize, pummel, kick
magic is boring: 1008 and 1015 to open for 1030
1030 for crowd control is also effective

humble ore
#

👍

whole pumice
echo aurora
#

He is risen.

oblique coral
#

The dead never die...

humble moth
limpid geode
humble moth
#

Only because I heard it's hip to be square

solid cosmos
fringe orchid
# humble moth I'm semis, he was squares

So we blame you for the Ranger nerfs, the Bard spell disablers being 4 months late, for the Bard review to not be done and for Paladins to still be without a service !!?11/

humble moth
#

I documented all those things

fringe orchid
brittle bane
# fierce saddle Bolting, has an issue in hinterwilds, this is a known thing. That doesn't suppo...

Goal #1 of disablers Improve spell disablers so that magic has options available to set up and disable creatures This should've fixed bolting... My wizard's 912 got better and his 410 got worse... his 912 now is still worse than 410 was before the changes... so I don't disable critters better or more effectively than before... It was my expectation but.. oh well.. I think it was Mesty's that said there is more coming in the form of lore benefits to help improve spell power. I'm also crossing my fingers that exp can one day provide some kind of phantom level/spell power benefit for level based systems.. It should count for something to be a 60m wizard vs a 10m wizard.. If not, then at least make harness power an important spell power skill so that 3x harness power means something... it's one of the main ways that i high exp pure stands out over fresher capped pures..

oblique coral
#

I agree that hopefully the raw power of 912/909 will have more scaling options but 3x HP having 200 mana more than another fresh cap wizard is a pretty nice advantage.

brittle bane
limpid geode
# 

A shifting, prismatic aura coalesces around a huge steam elemental, then vanishes in a brilliant flash!

The silvery luminescence fades from around a huge steam elemental.
A huge steam elemental appears somehow different.
A huge steam elemental glances around, looking a bit less confident.
A huge steam elemental is no longer protected by the shimmering field of energy.
The bright luminescence fades from around a huge steam elemental.
You feel the unnatural surge of necrotic power wane away.
Cast Roundtime 1 Second.```
10 mana, 1 second - pretty darn good imo
brittle bane
# limpid geode ```You gesture at a huge steam elemental. A shifting, prismatic aura coalesces ...

What's the huge steam elemental bolt DS before that? I don't hunt confluence but I'm not sure you even need to dispel it to hit it.. It would come in handy vs HW critters that you can't hit.. but a lot of HW critters don't carry a lot of spells so it makes it kinda worthless no? need to prone them and stance them.. and that's where my wizard's 410 and 912 are less effective than they used to be... 🤷

limpid geode
#

as with most disablers I think it is dependent on the scenario but the mana cost is very reasonable (was my point), especially for wizards who can cast it in 1 second

acoustic hull
#

I think it’s always going to be 10 mana in there specifically because it’s the best case scenario of always stripping elemental spells right? I haven’t played around with 530 much since the changes

silk junco
#

@tired scarab

tired scarab
hazy viper
#

Any chance of 135 getting updated? Would love to use this and have it be viable. It still being CS in the minor spiritual circle makes it basically non viable

dusky hatch
# 

The radiant burst of light engulfs a shining winged disir!

You hear the soft tinkle of rolling dice, followed by the sound of coins dropping!
  CS: +463 - TD: +463 + CvA: +25 + d100: +83 == +108
  Warding failed!
  The bright light sears the disir for 10 damage!
   ... 5 points of damage!
   Light burns to the winged disir's head.
   ... 5 points of damage!
   Flash burns to eye momentarily blind the winged disir.
   The winged disir is stunned!
You blinded a shining winged disir!```
idk what you mean, totally usable 😆
hazy viper
#

How long did that blind last?

dusky hatch
#

No idea, she died shortly thereafter.

#

I hardly ever mess with it because I have 609.

Random idea, what if 135 instead summoned an entity into the room that did periodic pulses of the effect? Maybe as an SMR.

fathom maple
#

Of embarrassment from getting hit with 135?

hazy viper
#

I think 135 still needs to be updated as it is primarily a disabler that is tough to land due to being a CS spell outside of the primary profession circles

tough flame
#

Just gotta max Transcend Destiny and Ascension Wisdom and then it'll be usable!

pseudo fractal
#

you'll be ready in time for the next disabler review

tough flame
#

Alternatively, gotta talk them into releasing this: https://gswiki.play.net/Ascension_Skill_System/saved_posts
Diverse Caster Increases Casting Strength for secondary and tertiary spell circles only.

(but what I really want from that list is Hybrid Offense, Voln Avenger, Improvisational Fighter, and Armored Caster 🥺 )

rotund nest
#

A few more elite skills released would soak up a lot more of those ATPs floating around. Transcend Destiny definitely did some major work on that front

fierce saddle
#

I think 135 is fine as it is, pretty sure I can hit more things with it's warding version than I would be able to hit with 410 smr roll

#

if they wanna make it a bit better give it a bit of TD pushdown like old web had

hazy viper
#

What's your spell split that you think you can land it better currently?

night panther
#

I was playing my bard earlier and marveling at how bad 410 is now

hazy viper
# 
Bands of spectral mist ripple and surge beneath a shining winged disir!
[SMR result: 113 (Open d100: 57)]
   ... 5 points of damage!
   Chest hit causes the winged disir to spin around like a halfling after a fresh tart.
Roundtime: 5 sec.

Your spell falters, then steadies as the magic finds another path.
Cloudy wisps swirl about a shining winged disir.
[SMR result: 116 (Open d100: 61)]
The wisps solidify into thick strands of webbing that tighten about her body!
A shining winged disir becomes ensnared in thick strands of webbing!
Roundtime: 5 sec.

The radiant burst of light engulfs a shining winged disir!
  CS: +490 - TD: +472 + CvA: +25 + d100: +70 == +113
  Warding failed!
  The bright light sears the disir for 10 damage!
   ... 5 points of damage!
   Searing strike to back causes the winged disir to grunt in pain.
   ... 5 points of damage!
   Flash burns to eye momentarily blind the winged disir.
   The winged disir is stunned!
You blinded a shining winged disir!
Roundtime: 5 sec.```
I'm 100/100/100 so while I can land disablers with 50% success rate my profession circle suffers as a result.  I've got zero transcendence.  SMR would be a heck of a lot more effective with transcendance.
faint cargo
#

I thought 50% was kinda the goal though?

hazy viper
#

Yeah, I'm 50% with a 100/100/100 split as an empath which is obviously no other pures are going to do because it neuters your main combat spell circle. That's my point.

faint cargo
#

Fair, is it 1:1 would a normal spell split make it 25%? And is it a disabler issue, or a lack of empath circle disablers issue?

fathom maple
#

Man - as a primarily non-spell using disabler guy...50% chance my disables worked would make me PIIIIIIIISSSSSSSEEEED

acoustic bough
#

Against something that's more than 10 levels above you?

fathom maple
#

Um. Yes? But good point. I wasn't actually speaking to that scenario ( I was just saying it generally). But I still think it should apply to even ascension hunting. Why bother with disablers if you can just attack again probably with a much higher chance than 50% of hitting them?

acoustic bough
#

Well, you get better and it's not 50%

fierce saddle
#

I agree that 135 doesn't hit well against the high-end of TD's but a bit of pushdown and it would

hazy viper
#

If 135 is primarily a disabler the logic of the whole review is that it would function better as SMR just like 110 and 118, especially once you acquire some ranks of transcend.

acoustic bough
#

Making everything SMR because it's a "disabler" is a bad idea imo.
Variety is the spice of life.

fierce saddle
#

no reason you can't have CS disablers

hazy viper
#

Dev can speak better on it but I highly doubt 135 is being used much by anyone. Seems like a good candidate

fathom maple
#

I like now that 212/217/413 are useable (granted maybe not so much in Ascension areas) so that I can make use of my CS disablers on my cleric/bard

pseudo fractal
#

I mean the damage on 135 is pretty lame as a cleric I'd always use 316 instead

fierce saddle
#

135 isn't for damage, it's to make stuff unable to smr

hazy viper
#

The blind effect and spell disruption is the point of 135

# 
Cloudy wisps swirl about a war griffin.
[SMR result: 110 (Open d100: 11)]
The wisps solidify into thick strands of webbing that tighten about its body!
A war griffin tumbles to the ground!
A war griffin becomes ensnared in thick strands of webbing!
Roundtime: 5 sec.```
I can't really miss on equal level stuff
fierce saddle
#

I can't miss on equal level stuff either, also can't miss 135 on equal level stuff, I could land 118 on basically everything too before the smr conversions, just cost way too much mana for what it did, which was the biggest change it got

hazy viper
#

We kind of went down this arguement track when this stuff was first rolled out, if you're optimized and max trained already at cap the spell disabler review didnt do much to improve your success but if you weren't maxed yet and still leveling or a non standard build you saw improvement

acoustic bough
#

And if you were a Ranger you got nerfed cause we're just too damn good.

fathom maple
#

I don't know how you were nerfed - but rangers are just too darn good

tough flame
#

611 lost about 25 of the endroll it used to have, basically.

On the bright side, you can get 20 of that back via max Transcend Destiny.

fathom maple
tough flame
#

Transcend Destiny trandest 5/10 Passive Elite Other
Halfway there rank-wise and 37.5% of the way there points-wise! One day my ranger will be legitimate again!

dusty rivet
#

This came up in the gemstone / wyrm topics and figured I'd just post it here so it doesn't maybe get lost:

for auto-success spells on over-leveled (asc) things after you eventually land one of them on the target you apparently reset your stacking chance to succeed and have to start again.

I would suggest that if the target is already afflicted by the debuff, and it's in your level range you could theoretically hit, that the spell just auto succeed. That way on a boss fight like the wyrm you don't have to potentially cast a debuff 5 times to refresh it once a minute. As long as you diligently reapply within the duration it could just be one and done, and then you're punished if you get CC'ed or lose track and forget to recast and have to start over after it falls still.

Your magic strains to overcome a shining winged disir and nearly prevails before it unravels.

You gesture at a shining winged disir.
A shining winged disir blinks and appears distracted.

You gesture at a shining winged disir.
Your magic strains to overcome a shining winged disir and nearly prevails before it unravels.

You gesture at a shining winged disir.
Your magic strains to overcome a shining winged disir and nearly prevails before it unravels.

You gesture at a shining winged disir.
A shining winged disir blinks and appears distracted.```

Example here i failed to hit the disir, then hit it. Then immediately when recasting failed again twice more before landing again. This is all just spamming 412 on a disir on a level 100 character with no trascend on the test realm.
limpid geode
#

100% love this suggestion ^^ and I think it's an important mechanical change for the wyrm fight lest we spend most of the fight just trying to keep debuffs up

night panther
#

Sincerely curious: are there still plans to update bard spellsongs in line with the disabler review? Because this was eleven months ago

fathom maple
#

Not fair to bards to completely abandon them. I mean even 706 got updated very recently and that spell is slated to be removed entirely!

acoustic bough
#

Bards have a whale problem. People like their free (cost of a sub) 1s attacks, and they don't wanna lose it! Unfortunate really.

echo aurora
fathom maple
faint cargo
night panther
#

I have limited plausible deniability, but I was not trying to start any of this discourse

fathom maple
acoustic bough
#

They don't sell them, so not enough?

fathom maple
#

Oh. Hmm. I thought there were a couple out there

night panther
#

There is at least one on Prime and one on Plat, I think. The Prime one went out at the EG Whale of Fortune thing a few years ago

acoustic bough
#

It has gone out in the past in some form. It is not for sell. And I would think if it did go back on sale that would signal bard review is dead dead

fathom maple
#

Unless that SK 1035 is attuned to the character it means one is potentially for sale! My original point stands.

acoustic bough
#

Oh you sweet summer child.

tough flame
nova violet
#

zissu said they probably won't keep old 706 around for creatures because it basically is a lame spell. it is kind of weapon fire-esque in that it's probably never the best thing for the player to cast but very annoying to have cast on you. basically the only time I see 706 used is for GMA to beat up people who were stealing in the east tower.

tough flame
#

Huh. In that case I agree with Oamir that it’s a strange update to make (though I disagree with the framing of it being unfair to bards since many players are waiting for something dev-wise to some degree just given the reality of limited resources, which would make every update unfair to someone (e.g. we could claim that updating bard spellsongs would be unfair to empaths because they’re still waiting for a service, but releasing Bloodstone Jewelry would be unfair to bards because they’re still waiting for spellsong updates, having created a metric under which it’s impossible for dev to be a universal positive)).

nova violet
#

nothing is unfair to bards

fierce saddle
tough flame
#

Ah, okay.

Then yeah, it's even sillier to describe it as unfair to other people waiting for other things.

fierce saddle
#

yeah, it's just not even close to the same thing, this was like "oh hmm let me fix that real quick" even if it only affects a few people for a month or so until new 706 gets rolled out, it's just a non-issue with the low amount of work

Not that it wouldn't be nice to see the bard spell updates for disablers, but they had a ton of issues that resolved around the spellsong system.

fathom maple
nova violet
#

the truth may lie somewhere between these two extremes

fathom maple
tough flame
#

Bandits are OP.

nova violet
#

I don't even think they are OP, you could probably do just as well in OTF or nelemar it would just be more annoying!

tough flame
#

Also, I was in two merchant lines when I said that, so downtime.