|
Post by azpride on Mar 8, 2014 15:46:21 GMT
Why I got to get called lazy for preferring sorcerers to wizards? You may not be lazy as a player, but I prefer to actually think about what monsters I will see during the next several encounters and preparing my spellbook accordingly. Knowing the runs, knowing the mobs, and knowing my toon. I find this much more satisfying than simply resting and going out and slinging whatever spell seems to be best at the time. Az
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pin on Mar 8, 2014 16:31:53 GMT
In case you havent noticed- all toons are not created equal, and thanks for that. Why are some of you so intent on messing up what is balanced almost perfectly now? A wizard with splash rogue is SUPPOSED to be weaker... thats the whole point. You can't have your cake and eat it too dangit. If you want the power and rogue capabilities... get a 2nd acct., make a sorc on 1 and your rogue on the other.
A pure wizard imho is weaker but at the same time more rounded due to the fact it has more spells to choose from. As it should be. A sorc is more powerful but has limited spells to choose from. Its called a balance.... get it?
One other thing i might point out for the dev teams sake- all this piddly stuff is fine to discuss, thats what this forum is for. But at the same time think about the dev teams time you are using for this when they could be putting more of their valuable time into the new Limbo area. . . which we all have been waiting for for a while now. The more you want change (which in most cases is good) the more delays (i believe) you are putting on stuff that is way more important imho.
|
|
|
Post by chirality on Mar 8, 2014 20:03:00 GMT
I don't get such reaction tbh.
It's really no more of negative impact on devtime to discuss this than anything else, and look at quite number of other things that get done while waiting Limbo; seems wise to avoid getting into judging value/importance of non-Limbo dev work for things like class balancing. It's part of the game and part of why these forums exist eh?
You say it's perfectly balanced but this is plainly not the case; earlier you referenced other nerf/buff suggestions like karsus, RG as similar in being waste of dev time or overthinking things that are better left alone. But that's always been the case of how the game's evolved.
It's not perfectly balanced at all, and I think you might be missing some point when I read the comment about rogue splash being weaker as it should be: this is just the opposite of what we're saying. The rogue splash IS the one that gets the cake and eats it too; part of the whole impetus behind wiz buff threads is to give pure wiz a carrot to clearly indicate a difficult build decision when choosing pure vs splash (cuz atm even lacking CL ego it's a very small cost to go rog1 in exchange for very big benefit; pure wiz is only a pitiful attempt at being a real full horsepower mage like sorc. Bit of an exaggeration, yes, but it's still tier 1/1st class vs. not).
It seems like you're saying "stop whining about wiz not being as good as sorc, if you want to play the better class, play a sorc" but this is kind of ridiculous to me. Might as well just increase the bonus slots to 66% and make it real simple once and for all which class is for the min/maxer and which class is for the "non serious" player. tbh I do very well understand and identify with points like az made about attraction of wizards; problem is it's just a bit lofty and offtarget to claim that wizards can be better than sorcs if only the wizard player is good enough.
I get that wizard shouldn't be the same as sorc or attempt to be a copycat (some seem to indicate wizard needs no buff since it's just trying to make a sorc twin), but this is not all the product of overactive imagination and bored partychat. There really could be some improvement made to satisfy better balance both between wiz and sorc as well as within wizard types themselves. No one ever said it was huge priority or should be considered immediately for implementation; it's just a recurring "class rant" that seems to gain more momentum each time it crops back up, and it's actually pretty legit, so honestly I'm surprised at some of the backlash I'm seeing here.
|
|
|
Post by Paradoom on Mar 8, 2014 20:23:17 GMT
Yes wizards are good, and I enjoy mine. They are not broken and are powerful and demand more of you as a player, by planning ahead.
The only thing that I really don't like is that sorcs got what actually is a wizards domain: channeling several spells into one and settle the score with one big blow. But here sorcs got that power (in a mild form) and that tipped the balance over in favor of sorcs. This however is hardly changeable, because if a wizard channels, it´s spells get exponentially stronger and don't end with a mere +3sp/dc (if you wanted to implemented the way it is in pnp). Hence I made some suggestions to even the score another way.
Does it have to be done in the current state of things? I agree, it does not. But this might change in the future. For now I actually enjoy seeing some ideas popping out here and there.
|
|
|
Post by azpride on Mar 8, 2014 20:45:32 GMT
Its funny you mention channeling being part of a wizard's repertoire, doomy. For sorcs , using 3 slots for one spell is really not an issue due to the 50% slots bonus.
You will see a sorc than can channel 3 for an entire run due to having 100+ level 9 slots, for casting the same number of spells as the wizard in the party, but gaining the +3 dc/sp.
The synergy built into sorcs is perfect, they were made to be overpowered, probably because they are naturally very weak. Sorcs needed the buffs to keep up with wizards, not the other way around. To me, this fact proves that wizards are the better class. Give sorcs some more buffs and see if they can keep up.
Az
|
|
|
Post by Paradoom on Mar 8, 2014 21:05:08 GMT
Its funny you mention channeling being part of a wizard's repertoire, doomy. For sorcs , using 3 slots for one spell is really not an issue due to the 50% slots bonus. You will see a sorc than can channel 3 for an entire run due to having 100+ level 9 slots, for casting the same number of spells as the wizard in the party, but gaining the +3 dc/sp. Az I know the way it is implemented, that is not what I was talking about. I think the Karsus effects come closest to what I think about, when talking about a wizard channeling spells originally.
|
|
|
Post by azpride on Mar 8, 2014 21:11:34 GMT
Its funny you mention channeling being part of a wizard's repertoire, doomy. For sorcs , using 3 slots for one spell is really not an issue due to the 50% slots bonus. You will see a sorc than can channel 3 for an entire run due to having 100+ level 9 slots, for casting the same number of spells as the wizard in the party, but gaining the +3 dc/sp. Az I know the way it is implemented, that is not what I was talking about. I think the Karsus effects come closest to what I think about, when talking about a wizard channeling spells originally. Right, just thought it was funny that you mentioned that sorcs have what a wizard should, according to pnp type lore.
|
|
|
Post by Mister Pin on Mar 9, 2014 15:10:55 GMT
I wish i knew how to use the quote bit- that's how puter illiterate i am. Maybe i am not being straight-forward enough. What i meant to say is this; If you all keep up trying to implement things that should not be (oh how i want to insert a word here) messed with -please leave it alone.
Its not the negative impact to discuss i am talking about- it is the negative impact on having the dev team to DEAL with stupid B.S. as this, that is the point. As long as this thing gets discussed and more people say"hey, i like that stupid idea! Lets get Funky to do it!" And then . . . 6 months. . .
And to Chirality: play what you want to play. If you want to mess the game up keep this thread going - did you not read the earlier posts? My wizzes have no probs to do what they do- maybe you should look at what you are not doing/using, right?
If you all don't get what i have said here or before- then i am beating a dead horse with a stick....
Pin
|
|
|
Post by kaezar on Mar 9, 2014 20:47:56 GMT
Okay, here is my take
Sorcerer's strength is POWER
Wizard's strength is KNOWLEDGE
On that aspect, I got absololutely no beef with sorcerers having their channeling and extra spells. On a balance perspective, if Funky throws even a handful of new important spells on limbo, they will again become more attractive.
I do think there is some need for a carrot for pure wizard like there is for sorcerers. +1 free channeling *rocks*.
If... IF ... after limbo is on for some time, people still think wizards are too weak, I think any upgrade it got should be skill/knowledge-related. I suggested a long time ago to make Legend and Lore (Arcane 6) work like Know Vulnerabilities for wizards.
Things like that, meaning the wizard knows how to cast the spells with more finesse, while the sorcerer has the edge on power.
Take care Kaezar
|
|
|
Post by tank on Mar 9, 2014 21:18:55 GMT
I wish i knew how to use the quote bit- that's how puter illiterate i am. Maybe i am not being straight-forward enough. What i meant to say is this; If you all keep up trying to implement things that should not be (oh how i want to insert a word here) messed with -please leave it alone. Its not the negative impact to discuss i am talking about- it is the negative impact on having the dev team to DEAL with stupid B.S. as this, that is the point. As long as this thing gets discussed and more people say"hey, i like that stupid idea! Lets get Funky to do it!" And then . . . 6 months. . . And to Chirality: play what you want to play. If you want to mess the game up keep this thread going - did you not read the earlier posts? My wizzes have no probs to do what they do- maybe you should look at what you are not doing/using, right? If you all don't get what i have said here or before- then i am beating a dead horse with a stick.... Pin I think that most of the suggestions here are based off opinions in end game areas, you can play a GI and still do well in LL areas
|
|
|
Post by simpetar on Mar 10, 2014 11:55:58 GMT
Okay, here is my take Sorcerer's strength is POWER Wizard's strength is KNOWLEDGE On that aspect, I got absololutely no beef with sorcerers having their channeling and extra spells. On a balance perspective, if Funky throws even a handful of new important spells on limbo, they will again become more attractive. This is essentially what most wiz vs. sorc discussions boil down to. Whenever a new package of spells and monster types is released, sorcs in theory should be hit hard, because they cannot learn it all. In order to prevent this sorcs got their bonus spells, heck, even Extra Spell Known feats. If this were the case, we should now logically be ranting about how sorcs suck and wizards rock. But that is not what is happening. Here is why I think why: every new spell package includes spells that kill mobs effectively and fast, but there are also spells universal enough to kill just about everything, after some spamming. While wizards can have an answer to any and all situations with precisely tailored arsenal, sorcs do have an answer too in raw strength. In other words, there are too many enemies that can be killed by sheer damage or basic instakills, all of which sorcs can comfortably learn. Sorcs just adapt their books to new situations and fill it with the same universally killing spells as wizards do. TL;DR There is VERY little difference between what spells sorcs and wizards ACTUALLY USE. The only difference is channeling and number of slots, where sorcs win. @pure vs. splash wizard: Pure classes should have a carrot over splashed ones period. The situation with loot mages is even worse: all it takes is 1 level of rogue to perform all usual rogue tasks. If you can have two fully operating roles in one character, I cannnot imagine why anybody would make a build with only one of them. So in addition to this issue (giving carrot to pure wiz), there is another one: how to approach splashing 1 level of rogue and still retaining all searching/picking/disarming functionality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 11:59:42 GMT
You lose 1 spell pen if you splash one rogue level (or DC depending on egos you use), which is already quite a hit. What really makes the situation worse in my opinion is the fact that the 1 rogue level allows for one more epic/legendary feat which wizards have quite a limited supply of.
Btw, I think it's important to point out that a pure wizard can already search fine if it maxes it cross class.
|
|
|
Post by simpetar on Mar 10, 2014 12:07:20 GMT
What really makes the situation worse in my opinion is the fact that the 1 rogue level allows for one more epic/legendary feat which wizards have quite a limited supply of. Pure wizard gets 4 bonus pre epic feats and 6 bonus feats in 6 epic levels. Splashed wizard gets just as many. Not sure what you mean. If you are referring to the necessity of taking Skill Focus: Open Lock, it can be easily covered by an uncommon augmenter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2014 12:08:00 GMT
What really makes the situation worse in my opinion is the fact that the 1 rogue level allows for one more epic/legendary feat which wizards have quite a limited supply of. Pure wizard gets 4 bonus pre epic feats and 6 bonus feats in 6 epic levels. Splashed wizard gets just as many. Not sure what you mean. If you are referring to the necessity of taking Skill Focus: Open Lock, it can be easily covered by an uncommon augmenter. That is incorrect. Taking rogue at level 20 means that you get 7 bonus feats in epic levels.
|
|
|
Post by simpetar on Mar 10, 2014 12:15:14 GMT
Pure wizard gets 4 bonus pre epic feats and 6 bonus feats in 6 epic levels. Splashed wizard gets just as many. Not sure what you mean. If you are referring to the necessity of taking Skill Focus: Open Lock, it can be easily covered by an uncommon augmenter. That is incorrect. Taking rogue at level 20 means that you get 7 bonus feats in epic levels. Oh, right, my apologies, did not think of this trick.
|
|