reguarding spells and lvls, im not sure if this has beeen stated but ?When we get a spell like summon pet of fire, will we get later spells in the same series or just be llike a skill we keep traning in and only when we get something new do we get a scroll or trainer.? Personally i see little value in just buying a scroll ever x lvls thats just a plat sink. Know if its some variation on a spelllike say summon volaneo pet which has a combination of fire and earfth attributes that would deserve its own scroll.
In one of the last streams it was announced, that there will be no "down ranking", meaning that you have multiple versions of the same spell of different power. I did not completely understand how that will work ... Will you go to the trainer to upgrade the spell, will it be upgraded using Mastery points, will it just get better as you level? Not idea :D
For a pet, this downranking is pretty useless. You will not use a less powerful pet (at least I do not see any reason). For other spells it might be useful. I kinda liked the possibility to use a lower rank spell in some cases. As a necro in EQ 'I used a lower level fear when there was not enough space for the running mob. The lower level fear had a shorter duration, so they will not run that far, and into some mobs.
For enchantre, there are multiple spells that where useful as lower versions.
I don't believe the devs made clear the details of the principal of removing down-ranking.
Maybe values (durations etc) will reamin static until you get the opportunity to retrain, much like it used to be. Maybe they will scale each level and only 'new' spells will need training.
As for being able to access 'lower level' versions of abilities, personally, people have suggested the ability to adjust the 'power' of the spell in some other way, like right-clicking and picking a percentage or some such.
For me, I cannot remember a single time I used down-ranking in 20 years, but I'd be interested to hear about it from those of you who actually used down-ranking before.
It's what these forums are for ;^)
SugarWood said:I am under the impression that you will have to originally gain the spell from either a trainer or out in the world through either a quest or mob drop but upgrading those spells was through the mastery system I could be wrong but think this has been said
The mastery system is all about adding 'features' *to* the original spell, though, not its power level.
Example: -
If a Fireball ability does 1 to 100 damage when you get it at level 1, what will happen at level 10? Will it change automatically to do 10 to 1000 damage? Or will it scale slowly over the 10 levels, 2 to 200 at level 2, 3 to 300 at level 3, etc? Or will you have to visit a trainer to have it 'upgraded' each level or at just at some points, maybe 5 and 10, or all in one go at level 10?
In EQ you would know you will get a new Fireball II at level 10, could pick it up from the trainer at any time you could afford it, and at level 10 *or after* could read the scroll to learn the new version (and still have access to the old...)
As for what I would *want* to happen in Pantheon, hmm. Really not sure.
Automatic scaling
Sounds simplest. The above spell would have damage of 1 to 100 *per caster level*.
But is that removing the 'fun' of a static spell effect being lovely and powerful when you first get it, then slowly 'getting old' so you look to a new one?
Static with periodic upgrade
The damage is static, but you can return to your trainer and get it upgraded, say, every 5 levels.
Something to look forward to apart from just totally new spells?
Automatic scaling with periodoc training 'barrier'
The damage automatically scales until a certain level, say 5 in the example. Then you have to train to unlock further automatic scaling.
Something to look forward to, or will it just seem like a chore, then, because it's about a removing a barrier, not getting a boost?
Partial scaling and static with periodic upgrade via items
The raw figures like damage are static but aspects (maybe even the damage itself) automatically scale with your spell 'skill' (Conjuration/Evocation/whatever) as it rises. You train to upgrade the basic spell, but can buy the training scroll in advance and carry it with you.
Is this effectively the way EQ did it? (except in Pantheon you would not retain the old ability)
I guess there are implications on the whole progression technically and the vibe of the process in general.
For me, I'm happiest with the last option, though any would do.
And if there's a right-click to choose power level or, effectively, choose from previous versions, then that would make those wanting down-ranking back happy?
disposalist said:For me, I cannot remember a single time I used down-ranking in 20 years, but I'd be interested to hear about it from those of you who actually used down-ranking before.
It's what these forums are for ;^)
Maybe this can't be counted as downranking, but for clerics in EQ, being able to use lower level versions of their healing spells was pretty important. You had minor healing, lesser healing, healing, greater healing, superior healing (leaving out complete healing here :) The upgrades would generally roughly double the healing amount and mana cost. At the levels you gained these spells, they were good for tank healing, but generally overkill for healing weaker party members. Also, you really had to preserve mana, so you would use the most cost efficient spell for the situation. Being forced to having to use the most current spell only would have made healing more stressfull and a lot less efficient.
Sarim - you are right, of course, but that is only because EQ was set up for downranking. Many other MMOs don't use the system but achieve exactly the same results you mention by having a variety of spells. Cure light wounds 5 mana points. Cure moderate wounds 10 mana points and so on.
So whether Pantheon has downranking is entirely irrelevant to me, the question is whether whatever system it does use works. Downranking can be done well ....or not.
If quickbar spots are precious - as they are not in most MMOs - perhaps the key question is how many quickbar boxes are required.
Thus if "cure" takes one box and when you cast it you choose the version, that would be a huge advantage over needing cure light, cure moderate, cure serious on three quickbars.
On the other hand if casting cure light took a fast click and casting "cure" took multiple clicks to select the version that would be a huge disadvantage. In combat faster cures save lives.
But that is all a function of implementation not an *inherent* advantage or disadvantage of downranking. So - as so often in these debates - God or Satan is in the details and agony over 10,000 foot decisions is likely to be premature.
Sarim said:disposalist said:For me, I cannot remember a single time I used down-ranking in 20 years, but I'd be interested to hear about it from those of you who actually used down-ranking before.
It's what these forums are for ;^)
Maybe this can't be counted as downranking, but for clerics in EQ, being able to use lower level versions of their healing spells was pretty important. You had minor healing, lesser healing, healing, greater healing, superior healing (leaving out complete healing here :) The upgrades would generally roughly double the healing amount and mana cost. At the levels you gained these spells, they were good for tank healing, but generally overkill for healing weaker party members. Also, you really had to preserve mana, so you would use the most cost efficient spell for the situation. Being forced to having to use the most current spell only would have made healing more stressfull and a lot less efficient.
Same senerio from a DPS. As a Wizard I would almost always have a Lower level, Faster Casting, more mana Efficant spell loaded as a finisher.
A) Mob starts with 1000 HP, Let the Tank do 250 to hold agro, Hit the Mob for 500HP, for 500mana, Mobs now at 125 to 250.... Use another 500 mana Or use my lvl 5 spell that uses 100 mana?
B) Pulling, I know Hard core groups would never have the Wizard pull, but often in the fun groups we did I would Pull.... bring a Mob back to camp with 500hp of agro on it would be suicide and a real mess, or pull with a low mana, low damage, long range level 1 spell and bring it back to camp with 10hp of agro? (and was very good at it,,, back to camp Drop the mob they were on with a500hp nuke, they pick up the next that only has 10hp of agro, and I'm off for another while they build agro... istead of sitting there waiting for them to build agro) eventually I got the Staff of Temperate Flux, instant clicky low level debuff.. this was even better than a low level spell.
C) Ping Pong we called it in EQ I used to team up with a Mage and a Druid every day... we often couldent find a Tank and Healer so we made do while we looked. Find an Open Zone (Karana's for example) space ourselves in a triangle "Spell Range" apart. Mage put the pet away and we all loaded DD spells equivalant to the Highest DPS of the Lowest caster (this was never the wizard, usually the Druid If I Remember correct. And then a smaller 50-100HP DD.
This was expecially fun and built a lot of trust, IF the mob dident turn you had to stand right there and Trust your team member to get that mob turned and pull agro before it killed you. if you ran, you then brought the mob out of range of the next caster in line and things really got messy... if I may quote our Druid of 20 years ago "OMG we looked like the Three Stooges out there!!" followed by the Mage with a "Yuk Yuk Yuk"
D) One time Learning a lesson.. Lake of Ill Omen farming cat pelts from lvl5 Sabertooth Cubs. Round up dozens (freaking ALL of them) with the staff... Drop them all with a PBAOE. wasent watching my mana as well as I should, got off 2 PBAOE's and still had a few left... OOM couldent cast another, No Mana to cast the Higher DD I had loaded, not enough mana to Gate, the Mobs had beat me down to Just 1-2% of my health (read slow run speed low) and these two stupid cubs were hitting me for 1hp here and 1hp there... if I tried to sit to load a lower mana spell they would hit me again. If I tried to beat them with my staff they were winning. Having a Low level, even my level 1 spell I wouldent have had a problem... but there I was, a Guild leader of 200+ people, running for my life from lvl 5 Sabertooth Cubs. Having to call in a low level guildie that was fighting in the zone to kill the stupid things before they killed me. took forever to live THAT down. I learned always keep a low level dps loaded
Overall it's all about mana management, you could tell a good DPS caster in a group, the action was nonstop there was no or little "Gotta sit and Med" WoW "fixed" this problem (Bad DPS casters running out of mana) by eliminating the needs for Mana Management just give them a nearly never ending flow of mana. Downranking spells WAS mana management, and I was looking forward to this being back in Pantheon... when they said "old school" and bringing back what mmo's were. I thought learning how to actually play your charrictor was going to be part of it ... this no downranking just cast a 500mana spell on anything all the time soundsmore like a WoW infenante mana button mashing fest!
On the surface thats the impression I get... Let's Test!!! maybe I'm missing something!
Down-ranking / Scaling: I'm torn on this method.
On the one hand, the development might be easier. The player's resource management might be simplified (spellbook). And concerns about getting "new" as you progress can be mitigatd with name and spell effect updates throughout the progression.
On the other hand I kinda like having those old versions of a spell available to me for 'emergent behavior'. I used to have a really level fast-cast spell mem'd when I was a puller in order to quickly tag mobs from range and effectively manage my mana pool. Or using a low level version of a spell that was cheap to cast for its intended purpose but to more conciously manage character resources in prolonged combat.
People are also talking strictly in terms of spells scaling up. What about them scaling down based on circumstances? What if I'm running along and see a player 30 levels below me getting hammered by a mob. Can I cast my current base heal on them and because they are so much lower than I, with a much lower HP pool than my version of the spell is intended to account for, do I get a reduced casting cost? What about buffs? Does my current version of AC buff apply only something appropritae to the targets level and provide me a mitigation to the cast cost? Or do I eat the whole cast cost for my version for a fraction of the benefit its intended to provide? Or can I land my level 50 AC buff with full effect on a level 20?
it's better to remove the downranking for the devs.
it becomes very imbalanced when player with top tier gear start downranking. it makes it much harder to balance raid bosses and pve business.
it helps with the coding. instead of having to account for every variation of the spell, the code is much easier to clean up with just 1 if there is a bug or glitch.
it forces better class designs.
the pros outweigh the cons from this perspective. might have some old schoolers complain, but overall, it can make for a better gaming experience.
they can remove downranking if they properly design the class with adequate abilities. they'll probably do some easy maths with level differentials.
something like:
spell effect reduction to friendly target % = max level minus level of friendly target multiplied by 1.836 if player level difference is greater than 10
Ok, love ya Stellarmind, one of the most ..."interesting" fella's on the site... but not sure I agree or understand a lot of this last post of your's...
stellarmind said:it's better to remove the downranking for the devs.
Based on what? Without multiple spell ranks somehow they are going to have to come up with a formula to adjust any given spell by Level, and modifiers.
stellarmind said:it becomes very imbalanced when player with top tier gear start downranking. it makes it much harder to balance raid bosses and pve business.
How so... Downranking involves loading a lesser spell, not a greater one.
stellarmind said:it helps with the coding. instead of having to account for every variation of the spell, the code is much easier to clean up with just 1 if there is a bug or glitch.
How so again?
Spell X hit's for 200 to 300 dmg Spell Y hiy's for 300 to 400 dmg. (RNG to deside where it lands in the range or if it's a crit)
Sounds to me a lot easier to code than "200-300 unless he's a level 6-8 then it's 400-500 unless he's a level 9-10 then it's ......etc etc...
stellarmind said:it forces better class designs.
How so?
stellarmind said:the pros outweigh the cons from this perspective. might have some old schoolers complain, but overall, it can make for a better gaming experience.
Nope, don't see it
stellarmind said:they can remove downranking if they properly design the class with adequate abilities. they'll probably do some easy maths with level differentials.
something like:
spell effect reduction to friendly target % = max level minus level of friendly target multiplied by 1.836 if player level difference is greater than 10
Keep in mind I have seen some refer to downranking as the simple text -1 -2 -3 on the lend of the spell name..
Fireball-Rank-1, Fireball-Rank-2, Fireball-Rank-3, Fireball-Rank-4 if THATS what your thinking then I understand your where your comming from, thats just lazy design. But your comment here "if they properly design the class with adequate abilities" leads me to belive you saying they don't have downranking if they have "Adequate Abilitys" as in the number of?
So Shock of fire, Fire Bolt, Flame Shock, and Inferno Shock would be "Adequate Abilitys" but not downranking?
Your claiming all this but I don't see where your comming from on most of it.
Zorkon said:Ok, love ya Stellarmind, one of the most ..."interesting" fella's on the site... but not sure I agree or understand a lot of this last post of your's...
stellarmind said:it's better to remove the downranking for the devs.
1. Based on what? Without multiple spell ranks somehow they are going to have to come up with a formula to adjust any given spell by Level, and modifiers.
stellarmind said:it becomes very imbalanced when player with top tier gear start downranking. it makes it much harder to balance raid bosses and pve business.
2. How so... Downranking involves loading a lesser spell, not a greater one.
stellarmind said:it helps with the coding. instead of having to account for every variation of the spell, the code is much easier to clean up with just 1 if there is a bug or glitch.
3. How so again?
Spell X hit's for 200 to 300 dmg Spell Y hiy's for 300 to 400 dmg. (RNG to deside where it lands in the range or if it's a crit)
Sounds to me a lot easier to code than "200-300 unless he's a level 6-8 then it's 400-500 unless he's a level 9-10 then it's ......etc etc...
stellarmind said:it forces better class designs.
4. How so?
stellarmind said:the pros outweigh the cons from this perspective. might have some old schoolers complain, but overall, it can make for a better gaming experience.
5. Nope, don't see it
stellarmind said:they can remove downranking if they properly design the class with adequate abilities. they'll probably do some easy maths with level differentials.
something like:
spell effect reduction to friendly target % = max level minus level of friendly target multiplied by 1.836 if player level difference is greater than 10
Keep in mind I have seen some refer to downranking as the simple text -1 -2 -3 on the lend of the spell name..
Fireball-Rank-1, Fireball-Rank-2, Fireball-Rank-3, Fireball-Rank-4 if THATS what your thinking then I understand your where your comming from, thats just lazy design. But your comment here "if they properly design the class with adequate abilities" leads me to belive you saying they don't have downranking if they have "Adequate Abilitys" as in the number of?
So Shock of fire, Fire Bolt, Flame Shock, and Inferno Shock would be "Adequate Abilitys" but not downranking?
Your claiming all this but I don't see where your comming from on most of it.
kk let me try to sort this out a point by point
i'll start with saying that i would be okay with a downranking system if las didn't exist.
1. the spell rank functions like a transmission(car). for each spell, there is an extra wheel. for each rank there is a gear. while it offers the player a huge amount of fine tuning, the skill gap at manage resources becomes too difficult for some players. it would be extremely frustrating for players that could handle that type of play to be gated by only las8. then the devs would have to figure out what is a managable number for players of this skill? it's not possible to put a number on that because i've seen players that struggle to use 12 slots and i know few that use 48 slots. a variable solution would require something like a CVT(modifiers) for each spell. this cuts tremendous amount of weight and keeps power to gear ratio efficient. it's much easier to tweak a CVT than to tweak gear ratios(it's really a nightmare). i think this also would cover the 3 point?
2. the engine of a car(player gear) could literally trivalize the difficulty of a offroad course. if the course development team(the devs) of the world cup designed a race track(raid boss) to test the limits of race car drivers at 200hp and someone was allowed to enter the race with 2000hp, gravity grip tires and unlimited fuel... it wouldn't be much of a challenge at all.
4. in relation to coding: kind of streamlines how many moving parts the class has. umm. a more efficient design? this basically removes actually having to brake vs having and abs or VTEC vs having to tweak each fuel injector and compression ratio. it's much easier to tweak the software rather than to adjust the hardware. not sure if that makes sense.
5. like alot of things car drivers don't think about nowadays, is quite a relaxing to drive. we have a much better driving experience now. i'm not a fan of self driving cars, but when i see people on the phones while driving.. i'm very thankful for assisted technology. while it's tough to distingush good driver from potato drivers from the outside... well only the passengers of the car knows based on how many times it prompts XD
so by good design:
fire bolt = sustain damage, moderate cast time, moderate mana cost, no cooldown
shock of fire = burst damage, instant cast, low mana cost, long cooldown
flame shock = good damage, instant cast, high mana cost, short cooldown
inferno shock = high damage, instant cast, very high mana cost, moderate cooldown
i'll add three spells in for flavour:
inferno fireball = high damage, long cast, moderate mana cost, no cooldown
hellfire asteroid = insane damage, instant cast, your entire hp pool(negate half the damage if you kill) with half your mana pool, moderate cooldown
flames of aradune = insane damage, very long cast, your entire mana pool(but if u kill recover half the mana), very long cooldown(but if u kill recover half the cooldown)
the thing with downranking is, i can't change the profile of the spell and do interesting things like this. choosing different abilities is more interesting and fun than to manage 1 type spell. well that's a bit of a subjective statement XD
I often see dmg spells or healing spells as examples for downranking. While these are useful, when fighting weaker mobs or healing low hp friends to manage mana, in EQ many people were using lower level spells to utilize the shorter duration or cast time (and of course lesser mana cost), or just the fact that you could use the same spell multiple times and somehow bypass their cooldowns (in expense of multiple spellslots used).
Here are some examples:
- Many necromancers where never using lvl49 spell "Cascading Darkness" as snare. Instead they where using lvl29 spell "Dooming Darknes". It was cheaper, was much faster to be cast and the dmg dealt was not that important. There were other spells for that.
-- Cascading Darkness: 300 Mana, Snare by 60%, 7 Seconds cast time
-- Dooming Darkness: 120 Mana, Snare by 49%, 4 Seconds cast time
-Enchanters were using the lowest level mezmerise to recharm their pet. It was fast, cheap, and had a very short duration ... which was important, since the recharmed pet should not stand there for a minute doing nothing until charm and mez break at the same time ;)
- Enchanters had that PBAOE Stun spells, that had a fast cast time and a reasonable recast time. If you are using 3 (i think) spells of that line, you could permastun multiple mobs. The difficulty was the timing, so you could not just cast one spell after the other, but you had to cast the following spell so that it lands right before the stun ends. Not always easy, and a resist can be fatal.
I think there are more examples, but these are the ones that i thought were the most useful, other than lower level heals or dmg spells that are used to reduce overhead or mana cost. The third option will not be possible at all after removal of downranking, since you cannot add multiple spells of the same line to your spellbar. The other versions can be handled by some good design I guess.
Edit: Somehow the forum messed up my bullet points ... So i removed them and added ghetto formatting.
A couple things here with regards to downranking, there were multiple reasons based on your class as to why you down ranked.
As mentioned Wizard/Druids (dps casters) would use a faster lower mana cost spell as a finisher or if they were low on mana. Healers would down rank for faster spells as well as having them on different cool downs. Enchanters would down rank their Mez based on the level of the mob to conserve mana.
A couple solutions while maintaining having to "buy/obtain" all your spell scrolls.
Mobs can have a higher resist to low level spells. This would eliminate casters down ranking on spells on enemies that are higher level than the spell was intended. The same "type" of spell could also share recast timers, this would prevent alternating between a high level and low level spell to offset a cool down. You could also just make new spells replace the spell slot in your spell book with the older spell, which would help with organization.
All that being said I don't have an issue with down ranking.
In EQ, spells allways gained mana efficiency with higher ranks. Your "upgraded long cooldown nuke" (because it was rarely of the same element in succession), was stronger but also costing less mana per damage than the previous, same goes for healings, etc...
Deranking there was a way you use the right spell for the right situation, not to save mana unless it was to avoid "overhealing" or "overdamage" (or overaggro for high level nukes), in this regard it seem not overpowered or abused to ask the possibility to use a spell that would cost you way less mana to kill low level mobs instead of pumping 20% of your mana bar in a spell that does 10x the ennemy hp, same goes for healing, obviously you don't want to use complete healing (for instance) on a DPS or your 300+ heal on a lvl 10 player you help levelling (mentoring is not the solution here, mentoring is good for equal share and playing with friends, but a healer should be able to provide a security net to a low level friend and allow him for faster levelling even without mentoring, which is a good but artifical solution for level disparity)
What messed deranking was spell scaling. In wow they added stats like + healing or + spell damage and because every line of spell had a static scaling out of it, which made lower level spells way more mana efficient once it was stacked.
Now what solution could be used to have both stat scaling AND deranking without making high level spells undesirable ?
Spells growing up naturally in both cost and effects is a nerf somehow because it means you are able to cast less spells with every levelup if your gear does not keep up constantly.
Spell scaling beeing reduced for lower spell is either making scaling innefficient at lower level (because lower scaling + lower stat make spell and level scaling and x² formula and powerhouse the growing power of characters), or as a nerf if it applies once you get a new spell because your previous rank will then scale lower, and if you do not rank your next spell level you're basically stuck in having a better mana efficiency contrary to another healer who would not upgrade his spell at all (can be tricked to keep high efficiency healers).
I don't really see an elegant solution here tbh, static scaling from stats is something than can allways be abused at some point, unless everything scales out of % (example : every point of wisdom gives +1% to healing output) which makes the experience far worse for lower level / lower gear (A low level player might be able to finally stack +3% healing on his 50 healing spell, which makes it +51.5 instead, while a high level will stack +10% healing on his 500 healing spell, which makes it 550, the difference is tremendous).
stellarmind said:so by good design:
- fire bolt = sustain damage, moderate cast time, moderate mana cost, no cooldown
- shock of fire = burst damage, instant cast, low mana cost, long cooldown
- flame shock = good damage, instant cast, high mana cost, short cooldown
- inferno shock = high damage, instant cast, very high mana cost, moderate cooldown
- i'll add three spells in for flavour:
- inferno fireball = high damage, long cast, moderate mana cost, no cooldown
- hellfire asteroid = insane damage, instant cast, your entire hp pool(negate half the damage if you kill) with half your mana pool, moderate cooldown
- flames of aradune = insane damage, very long cast, your entire mana pool(but if u kill recover half the mana), very long cooldown(but if u kill recover half the cooldown)
the thing with downranking is, i can't change the profile of the spell and do interesting things like this. choosing different abilities is more interesting and fun than to manage 1 type spell. well that's a bit of a subjective statement XD
I did a little foramating. above is your list of spells. I like em, Now I have to admit in case you werent already aware The spell names I got came directly from the Alla Wizard Spell List. So let me update those values, it actually IS releveant in the conversation. And this may totally be the breakdown in communication. The first 4 spells are all Evocation, Fire Based, Single Target spells
So is this what your refering too as "Adiquate Abilitys" vs downranking? it's not fireball 1, 2, 3 so one could call it differant abilitys, but they are all single target evocation fire.
IF as a wizard we end up with something like this variaty of single target fire evocation spells and I can Upgrade one of those... then great.
But I understand it as we will have one single target fire evocation spell and that is what we will upgrade.
Edit:
This whole past was a mess. Came back and cleaned it up, added a spell I had missed and added the actual point of it. Not sure what happened.
Just about all the examples I'm seeing as a *need* for down-ranking are just as much examples of bad ability/class design. If an earlier spell is more mana efficient or a later spell's effect isn't impressive enough to justify the extra casting time, then the spell was designed badly. If a new spell is supposed to be a 'different' option, then it should be different enough to be a true new spell choice, not accidentally be a badly upgraded one.
I don't know for sure, but from what devs have said in the past, I think it's very possible scaling of abilities is being (has been) developed for other purposes (stopping power leveling, enabling mentoring) and they realised it can be applied to clean up ability design and completely avoid down-ranking. Or maybe it was always the plan, but only recently proved to be viable.
As for wanting spells that do less because sometimes you don't need that big bang?... *shrug* Really? If, to top up someone's health, you only need a 10hp heal, and your lowest heal is 100hp, you probably don't need to heal them at all - 10hp must be nothing. If, to kill that rat, you only need a 10hp fireball, not your 100hp fireball, do you need to kill that rat at all? Or maybe just hit it with your staff? How often does this come up, really, to need to have 100 spells hanging around in Codex (and on hotbars?) just-in-case?
I hope they can easily add a facility to cast scaled down versions of abilities if that is really needed, but is it, really?
disposalist said:Just about all the examples I'm seeing as a *need* for down-ranking are just as much examples of bad ability/class design. If an earlier spell is more mana efficient or a later spell's effect isn't impressive enough to justify the extra casting time, then the spell was designed badly. If a new spell is supposed to be a 'different' option, then it should be different enough to be a true new spell choice, not accidentally be a badly upgraded one.
I do not agree in this case (which is fine ;) ). There are times, when you just dont need the impressive spell. Also, there are times when cast time is more important than anything else (but i agree, that Cascading Darkness was designed badly).
For Enchanters in EQ, multiple mesmerize spells had its purpose: The low lvl mez to regain control of a broken charm (here you dont want the impressiveness), and in groups the longer duration of the higher level mez.
Please correct me if I just did not get your point. That happens ;)
Zorkon said:
- shock of fire = Target=Single, Level=4, Range =300, Cast Time=2.0 Dmg=35-65
- fire bolt = Target=Single, Level=5, Range =300, Cast Time=2.0 Dmg=35-65
- inferno shock = Same as mars landing.
Target=Single, Level=5, Range =300, Cast Time=2.0 Dmg=35-65
okay after looking at the spell list, the profile of each of the spell is the same.
it increases damage for increase mana with no changes to range, cast time, amount of targets it hits, etc.
what i mean by good design is if it was something like this:
flame shock= single target, level restriction to obtain spell, range 300, cast time 3 secs, damage flat rate(modifier strength) + 5% current hp(modifier int), low mana cost
inferno shock= single target, level restriction to obtain spell, range 100, cast time 1.5 secs, damage flat rate(modifier consitution) + 5% missing hp(modifier wisdom), high mana cost
this creates an interesting choice. for very short fights, it's might only be worth slotting flame shock. for long fights with a boss having fat hp pool, it's might be worth picking up both. for fights with enrage low hp boss, the inferno shock might be a better choice, drop the flame shock and pick up a spell that helps regen mana.
i even might want to consider gear swapping to push the modifiers.
because the las system reduces the amount of execution, it puts a burden on choices.
do i want to eat an orange, banana, apple, grapes, pear or peach?
or how many orange slices would i like to eat that would make the most use of my vitamin c absorption at this moment?
i think the purpose of las should be to create compelling abilities allowing the player to execute their choices vs executing management.
i find it fun to choose different fruits to eat rather than eating the same fruit but in different portions, buuuuuut like i said, it's all subjective.
or to bring it back to the car analogy, being able to choose several destinations is better than having only 1 destination and trying to reduce the amount of fuel used to get there.
and to throw this in there again. i'm okay with downranking if we didn't have las.
i also wanted to add that this is also the reason why i'm very welcoming to 'states'. it allows a degree of execution via coordination, awareness and communication. i could imagine how amazing a duo shaman and wizard would do ( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉)
disposalist said:at some exreme tanking situations you have to maintain 100% hp or you wreck it because you can diein a instantAs for wanting spells that do less because sometimes you don't need that big bang?... *shrug* Really? If, to top up someone's health, you only need a 10hp heal, and your lowest heal is 100hp, you probably don't need to heal them at all - 10hp must be nothing. If, to kill that rat, you only need a 10hp fireball, not your 100hp fireball, do you need to kill that rat at all? Or maybe just hit it with your staff? How often does this come up, really, to need to have 100 spells hanging around in Codex (and on hotbars?) just-in-case?
I hope they can easily add a facility to cast scaled down versions of abilities if that is really needed, but is it, really?
disposalist said:Just about all the examples I'm seeing as a *need* for down-ranking are just as much examples of bad ability/class design. If an earlier spell is more mana efficient or a later spell's effect isn't impressive enough to justify the extra casting time, then the spell was designed badly. If a new spell is supposed to be a 'different' option, then it should be different enough to be a true new spell choice, not accidentally be a badly upgraded one.
I don't know for sure, but from what devs have said in the past, I think it's very possible scaling of abilities is being (has been) developed for other purposes (stopping power leveling, enabling mentoring) and they realised it can be applied to clean up ability design and completely avoid down-ranking. Or maybe it was always the plan, but only recently proved to be viable.
You aren't paying attention.
Hmmm, I'm finding myself going back and forth regarding this mastery system and the removal of down ranking. First I hated it, now I love the idea of mastering all of the spells/skills/abilities over time (a true 'main'), however, not having low level spells to use for things like pulling mobs (low agro / low man cost), and also to do things such as raise a certain skill, say divination, by casting low level spells to avoid downtime through excessive mana cost removes quite a lot of the tactical choices that EQ allowed the player to make.
Also, am I correct in stating that, once you gain a spell, such as a Wizard's main fire nuke, that spell simply scales up in damage / mana consumption as you level up? With no further upgrades to the spell line, that suggests you gain the spell once and never look forward to getting a better version, except when you increase the level through the mastery system. I'm not a fan of that approach, it has to be said. But, then again, upgrading via the mastery system is similar to gaining a new version, so that kind of negates that argument.
In addition, I noticed that, some spells go from being single target to group, if that spell remains group cast, not single target, forever, that's going to be a pain in the arse! It sounds great on paper, but you're far more likely to use a single target spell / ability than one that affects an entire group, or becomes AoE, such as a nuke. It would be awesome to be able to switch the spell / ability on the fly. For example, you can toggle a heal between single target and group if you've upgraded it, rather than the upgraded state always being static. Toggleing between level 1, 2 or 3 for any spell / ability, as and when you wanted / needed to would be great.
Maybe I'm overthinking things, it might be that, single target spells are always single target (except buffs), they just improve in other ways, such as adding debuff components. That makes more sense, so, I've probably just answered my own query there!
Shift+click for 50% mana / effectiveness is great, I'd love to see ctrl+click for 25% and maybe even alt+click for 10%.
Being able to toggle spell variants between level 1, 2 or 3 and having the ability to refine the mana / effectiveness by means of shift / ctrl / alt clicking would make for a very tactical game and makes that LAS nowhere near as restricting as some people think it is (I do like the LAS, just for the record).