New Spells for Next Expansion:

[Savil]

I hated it when Thaumatize would auto target the pet... if I remember right they said they put the nuke part in due to "mages will not use it because of the lose of DPS from casting it over a nuke"...

Savil

[Savil]

I think we need to continue our efforts to get Strike back its 4 nukes. It can not hurt to bring it up in Beta.

As much as I'd love to get strike it's 4 nukes back, it's not going to happen. After the march patch, I tried to get Aristo to give us our 4 nukes back as a raid mob only deal. His response was no and he explained why we aren't ever getting those nukes back.

It's not totally Aristo's decision to remove those nukes. There are other reasons for removing those nukes (not related to mage power). Because of those reasons, we just can't get them back, even if Aristo wants to.

How about an actual reason *why* ?? I can't see *any* reason why the 4 nukes couldn't be added back ..esp if it has nothing to do with mage power. If he explained this to you .. then explain it to us.

Savil

[Voragath]

How about an actual reason *why* ?? I can't see *any* reason why the 4 nukes couldn't be added back ..esp if it has nothing to do with mage power. If he explained this to you .. then explain it to us.

Savil

I'm sorry, it seems you either don't care or have forgotten I'm under NDA. This is not something he has ok'd for me to discuss. I brought it up so people know it's not something that can just be changed. It's stuck as it is...forever; whether we like it or not.

Just because you don't see a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Voragath]

here's an idea... fix the spell lines we have

This is the bulk of my work with Aristo. And there isn't time to add lots of spells. I like the spell lists because someone might come up with a really awesome new idea or a great fix to an older line. I generally use the rule of thumb that Aristo maybe can add one or two new spell lines. It's much easier to tweak older ones than create brand new ones.

For me, I get the additional bonus of learning issues with lines I didn't know some people had and learn new ways people use some spells. People in-game have shared some really interesting and crafty spell techniques in various situations.

[Calebe]

Fickle was great when it came out, but now it is rarely if ever used. This is a spell line that either needs to be removed or have the spell to a lot more damage then it does now to make it viable. My suggestion is that fickle should do the same damage rank 1 2 and 3 of the previous version bolt line. Reasons are simple. Currently using the level 86 bolt is a far better nuke to use then the level 95 fickle spell.

So for an expansion you make the (assuming a level increase), the level 100 fickle ranks 1 2 and 3 do the same damage of the rank 1 2 and 3 of the level 91 bolt that spell should be used a lot more frequently. Also as a DD spell it should cast faster, it will land instantly (no bolt travel time), proc the fickle recourse, and with the mana the same as the 91 bolt be more economical to use 5 levels later.

I would like burnout and iceflame guard combined into one spell (I would add velocity but pets are getting an innate speed run bump), duration the same 2 hours + and make it the same level as burnout (first new level on an increase). Spell combining has happened for others and I always use both on a pet.

Lose some of the excessive damage shields we don't use. No point in a lot of them. Rain spells, unless they get a huge increase in damage drop them, limited use, not used if adds, not used in raids, and not really used in groups or solo. In other words 2 spells made, and not used.

Spell or AA don't care which (prefer AA but as spell section), group call of hero. Convenience spell, and a time saver.

Our pet heal delayed heal needs a huge boost to keep up.

New twin cast spell. Lasts longer, and a slightly faster recast timer.

We use to get shield of the elements to boost resists. As those aren't needed, use the suggestion and make the shield of elements line a rune effect.

Calebe

[Sillaen]

Fickle was great when it came out, but now it is rarely if ever used. This is a spell line that either needs to be removed or have the spell to a lot more damage then it does now to make it viable. My suggestion is that fickle should do the same damage rank 1 2 and 3 of the previous version bolt line. Reasons are simple. Currently using the level 86 bolt is a far better nuke to use then the level 95 fickle spell.

Fickle is still a part of my grouping/soloing spell line up. I drop it on raids, but it's still useful while grouping/soloing.

I would like burnout and iceflame guard combined into one spell (I would add velocity but pets are getting an innate speed run bump), duration the same 2 hours + and make it the same level as burnout (first new level on an increase). Spell combining has happened for others and I always use both on a pet.

I'd rather not. Occasionally we still have to lose all DS. I guess we could just click that buff off if the spell still delivers different buff icons.

[Savil]

How about an actual reason *why* ?? I can't see *any* reason why the 4 nukes couldn't be added back ..esp if it has nothing to do with mage power. If he explained this to you .. then explain it to us.

Savil

I'm sorry, it seems you either don't care or have forgotten I'm under NDA. This is not something he has ok'd for me to discuss. I brought it up so people know it's not something that can just be changed. It's stuck as it is...forever; whether we like it or not.

Just because you don't see a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.

You didn't say it was something covered by an NDA ... I'll change the question to this: is this reason something that is fair? IE do you feel its BS or an actual valid reason they can't change it? That doesn't call for you to break an NDA, just asking if you agree its a good reason or BS.

Savil

[Voragath]

You didn't say it was something covered by an NDA ... I'll change the question to this: is this reason something that is fair? IE do you feel its BS or an actual valid reason they can't change it? That doesn't call for you to break an NDA, just asking if you agree its a good reason or BS.

Savil

LOL, Savil. I give you this one, I didn't say it was NDA. Don't get used to it =P

It's probably something everyone would understand because it benefits more than mages by cutting back on the strikes. (Okay, it kinda balances out without knowing the true reason, but the true reason probably just edges out the drawback)

It's definitely not BS. Koz knew this might happen when it was invented. That makes me think it was discussed way back then. It's something they won't change.

Hope that answered your question.

[Piemastaj]

You technically did not answer the question if you thought it was fair or not. You just gave a general assessment of the situation.

Fickle truly is pointless. It had lost its spot in a raid weave in HoT, it lost its purpose in the group weave in VoA. It would be in our best interest to get the proc on a different spell, but then you need to realize that means it would give us the negative proc aswell. Not to mention I am pretty sure it is a roll from 0 to 100% on our nukes, whereas our AA's give a 45 and 50% base increase and then a 90 to 110% top-end increase. That has to be considered if you were to try and transition the buff/debuff onto an existing nuke.

Personally I think Fickle needs to die. It was only good because we had no other spell that would fit into a weave with our bolt and garg pet. We have numerous spells that will now.

IMHO the only 2 DSes we need to keep are our Surge line and our Circle line which is a long term one. The rest are iffy at best.

Like we told SOE back when they changed Rains around on different timers, they are just pointless. The only real reason to use them now is if your fighting a fire immune mob, and really it would be better to not cast at all on it at that point.

We need to get our Summon Minion/Servant clickies summoned with Aegis of Kildrukaun, otherwise this is not an acceptable means to increase our burst.

[Voragath]

You technically did not answer the question if you thought it was fair or not. You just gave a general assessment of the situation.

Oh. I think it's fair.