New Ice Storm... wow!

[dTarkanan]

That right there seems to underscore the spell balance issue quite clearly. I mean, really, sustained area of effects being more effective on single targets than explicitly focused single target spells? And ones halfway down the spell advancement chain at that... Something mighty wrong there...

I think part of the difficulty compared to PnP is monster AI and lack of friendly fire rather than the spell balance themselves. In pen and paper if an area of effect spell was cast like blade barrier or firewall, it would usually be a barrier or obstacle that monsters would either shy away from or face the consequences. Here, pathing is such that monsters don't take into account the fact that they're running headlong into deadly obstacles, repeatedly, trying to get the person making the deadly obstacles that keep hurting them- whereas if they backed away from the firewall and started attacking the caster from range, the firewall would soon not be a problem. Similarly, in PnP, getting the fighters to 'fight in the firewall' or 'form a wall' would be a quick method to dividing inflammable possessions between you and the cleric.

[Khellendros13]

So the change to Ice Storm is on Lammy now?

If so I look forward to testing it tonight.

[Khellendros13]

I just tested this again on the way to Sins, and it hasn't been changed yet.

Any word on when it will be changed? I am very keen to test out an updated version.

[sirgog]

I think you came closest to what we're trying to go for and keep in mind, Junts:



The best way to put it, perhaps, is that we want Ice Storm to be able to coexist with Wall of Fire, and by this analysis I think that's what will happen. It's not too far off the mark to say that fire immunity is one of the few things keeping certain quests from being totally dominated by Wall of Fire, so we're not going to be adding any extra scaling to Ice Storm for the time being.

We recognize there's still concerns that Ice Storm won't be worth casting, but right now it sounds like it will still find use in many situations. As Junts said, time will tell if there still needs to be further tweaking, and we appreciate everyone's input.

The main issue will be that even with these improvements to Ice Storm (compared to the current live version), it won't get damage-oriented arcane casters even remotely close to the damage over time a melee can put out.

A sorc going 'nova' (optimizing damage per second with no regard for damage per mana) can be effective in Shroud Normal (against a raid boss with 100k then 150k HP), and is worth a raid slot there, regardless of whether or not they have the new Ice Storm. But they still cannot pull their weight in the Horoth/Suulomades fight above Normal; particularly not when facing two 350k HP bosses with evasion as well as trash.

One that does steady damage over time (optimizing damage per mana over damage per second) just doesn't do enough damage per second to warrant considering them in place of a melee. Even though they can maintain Ice Storm on multiple bosses at once (in Judge/Jailer or Horoth/Suulo), they will still have a terrible total damage output.

I assumed when you changed Ice Storm that the goal was to make damage-specced arcanes viable in raids more difficult than Shroud Normal - but the final version of Icestorm will not achieve this on its own, nor will it do much at all outside of Amrath quests and other fire-immune content.

[RoelHeeswijk]

The main issue will be that even with these improvements to Ice Storm (compared to the current live version), it won't get damage-oriented arcane casters even remotely close to the damage over time a melee can put out.

A sorc going 'nova' (optimizing damage per second with no regard for damage per mana) can be effective in Shroud Normal (against a raid boss with 100k then 150k HP), and is worth a raid slot there, regardless of whether or not they have the new Ice Storm. But they still cannot pull their weight in the Horoth/Suulomades fight above Normal; particularly not when facing two 350k HP bosses with evasion as well as trash.

One that does steady damage over time (optimizing damage per mana over damage per second) just doesn't do enough damage per second to warrant considering them in place of a melee. Even though they can maintain Ice Storm on multiple bosses at once (in Judge/Jailer or Horoth/Suulo), they will still have a terrible total damage output.

I assumed when you changed Ice Storm that the goal was to make damage-specced arcanes viable in raids more difficult than Shroud Normal - but the final version of Icestorm will not achieve this on its own, nor will it do much at all outside of Amrath quests and other fire-immune content.

I've hardly ever seen a post I disagree with more.

First of all, I don't really see why a (ranged) caster should be able to keep up with (melee) DPSers on raid bosses in addition to nuke groups, crowd control, buff and self-heal. If you want to bring the number of playable classes down to three that would be the way to go.

But if you really want to give casters a way to do decent damage over time against raid bosses, PLEASE make a serious single target lingering spell like the burning blood / melf's acid arrow kind of thing. Boosting an AoE spell up to figures that compete with DPSers is just wrong.
It is kind of sad that firewall is ALSO the spell of choice even against single targets (like epic bosses) at the moment.

[xxHazexx]

o.0

Out of curiosity, can Web beat Epic trash mob saves?

If the DC is high enough yes.

[Geonis]

So, the final decision here is- "We put a bunch of time into tweaking this to be kind of useful.... sometimes..... if the mob is fire immune.... and not insta-kill vulnerable..... or even really threatening in any way" ?

Weak sauce.

[Seliana]

I've hardly ever seen a post I disagree with more.

First of all, I don't really see why a (ranged) caster should be able to keep up with (melee) DPSers on raid bosses in addition to nuke groups, crowd control, buff and self-heal. If you want to bring the number of playable classes down to three that would be the way to go.

But if you really want to give casters a way to do decent damage over time against raid bosses, PLEASE make a serious single target lingering spell like the burning blood / melf's acid arrow kind of thing. Boosting an AoE spell up to figures that compete with DPSers is just wrong.
It is kind of sad that firewall is ALSO the spell of choice even against single targets (like epic bosses) at the moment.

I've hardly ever seen a post I disagree with more now too. Sirgog is right.

In a raid boss situation, your aoe spells are single target, because there's only 1-2 bosses standing there to kill. The trash in every raid is inconsequential to the main boss standing there. If the dev's were putting in 9th level persistent dot spells that gave us raid melee dps I might agree with you but it seems they want our main damage spells to be at level 4 instead so we need to work with what we are given.

Speaking of nuking groups...have you ever watched a barbarian swing an epic sos? It doesn't just hit the one mob he has targeted, It hits everything. Casters don't have crowd control vs that raid boss either. There's nothing casters can do to paralyze or even slow its attack rate anymore. So we don't have crowd control on them either. It's not like melee don't come with their own buffs and self healing as well such as Resist Energy, Bless, Cures, ect...

My point is the difference between a wizard and a melee in a raid is I have to stop attacking after a minute and you don't, so why do I need to do 1/4th your damage for the short time that I do get to attack? How does that justify my raid slot?

I'll say this again since you must have missed it the first time: "Its downright silly that a Sorcerer gets far less HP, Armor choices, Special class features, Feats, Skill Points, Saves, and also has less sustainable raid dps then a Melee."

[Genasi]

To answer a few questions that have come up since I last posted- the current version of Ice Storm we want to test won't have Extend, and other concerns like Cloudkill's usefulness and the limitations of caster level increases on many spells, while valid, are outside the scope of what we're doing right now with Ice Storm. I also can't say for sure when the new changes to Ice Storm will be available, but the next build we put up to Lamannia should have them. Finally, I do also want it to be clear that we're taking all your feedback into account, and changes in the future to this spell (and others) are always possible based on your responses. Thanks everyone.

[bradleyforrest]

To answer a few questions that have come up since I last posted- the current version of Ice Storm we want to test won't have Extend, and other concerns like Cloudkill's usefulness and the limitations of caster level increases on many spells, while valid, are outside the scope of what we're doing right now with Ice Storm. I also can't say for sure when the new changes to Ice Storm will be available, but the next build we put up to Lamannia should have them. Finally, I do also want it to be clear that we're taking all your feedback into account, and changes in the future to this spell (and others) are always possible based on your responses. Thanks everyone.

So, what you're saying is that Ice Storm will fill a very small niche. The fact that it purposely won't have extend feel like a slap in the face.

You're reducing the damage that the spell deals, you're leaving it at a very short duration, and you expect it to be useful? Seriously?

[Jaid314]

I've hardly ever seen a post I disagree with more now too. Sirgog is right.

In a raid boss situation, your aoe spells are single target, because there's only 1-2 bosses standing there to kill. The trash in every raid is inconsequential to the main boss standing there. If the dev's were putting in 9th level persistent dot spells that gave us raid melee dps I might agree with you but it seems they want our main damage spells to be at level 4 instead so we need to work with what we are given.

Speaking of nuking groups...have you ever watched a barbarian swing an epic sos? It doesn't just hit the one mob he has targeted, It hits everything. Casters don't have crowd control vs that raid boss either. There's nothing casters can do to paralyze or even slow its attack rate anymore. So we don't have crowd control on them either. It's not like melee don't come with their own buffs and self healing as well such as Resist Energy, Bless, Cures, ect...

My point is the difference between a wizard and a melee in a raid is I have to stop attacking after a minute and you don't, so why do I need to do 1/4th your damage for the short time that I do get to attack? How does that justify my raid slot?

I'll say this again since you must have missed it the first time: "Its downright silly that a Sorcerer gets far less HP, Armor choices, Special class features, Feats, Skill Points, Saves, and also has less sustainable raid dps then a Melee."

so far as i can tell, the devs answer to this seems to be prestige enhancements so far. pale masters get necrotic damage, archmages get force damage. presumably wild mage will get random damage types, at a guess. sorcerers will probably get something similar with their elemental savant lines. not sure what acolyte of the skin might get, but it'll be interesting to see it.

[Primalhowl]

The fact that it purposely won't have extend feel like a slap in the face.

Really? A slap in the face? Hyperbole much? Either that or I can only assume you have a) never been slapped in the face or b) need to get out more often because it's been a really long time since you were slapped in the face.

Is Ice Storm the uber-monsterslayer-DPSmachine-therecanbeonlyone superspell now? No. Is it better than it was? Resoundingly yes. Would it be nice to be able to extend it? Yes. Does it affect my game play at all if I can't? No. I just cast it again.

They've said they are testing it out and do not *currently* plan on allowing extend. They have also said that in the future they are going to do a general pass over spells that have...to be polite... issues. This is not going to be the last change to spells...

[Khellendros13]

Regardless of mechanics, 3/4 current damage will be serviceable. Under half will be...hmmm...yea...not so much.

[Legendary_Agent]

so what exact damage are they trying to put on the "proper" version of ice storm?

cause if its the same damage as its written on it (2-12 cold 3-18) it is VERY useless for high level casters as firewall gives 2-12+20(20 represents your level).

[Jaid314]

so what exact damage are they trying to put on the "proper" version of ice storm?

cause if its the same damage as its written on it (2-12 cold 3-18) it is VERY useless for high level casters as firewall gives 2-12+20(20 represents your level).

once again, it is *not* useless because it deals bludgeoning damage, which means it bypasses all DR and all elemental resistances. it will work on crateos, it will work on shroud portals, it will work on golems, it will work on anything. 3d6 sounds weak to you? funny, my sorcerer crits his scorching rays with each ray (4d6 base) dishing out around 300 damage. 75% of that means 225 damage. per tick. with the other portion of the ice storm dealing about 150 on a crit. on a regular hit, my scorching ray deals about 90 damage. 75% of that is about 65-70, 50% of that is about 45... and again, this is per crit. and the simple fact that some portion of that is unresistible unless you have a mantle of invulnerability makes it *very* worthwhile. sure, it's not dishing out indescribably large amounts of damage. but it's going to have plenty of places where it's more worthwhile than wall of fire, simply because wall of fire will deal zero damage and this will at least do something. in fact, simply *because* it deals such nice damage for it's level, i expect people will be leaving wall of fire until *after* they've learned ice storm.

[sirgog]

To answer a few questions that have come up since I last posted- the current version of Ice Storm we want to test won't have Extend, and other concerns like Cloudkill's usefulness and the limitations of caster level increases on many spells, while valid, are outside the scope of what we're doing right now with Ice Storm. I also can't say for sure when the new changes to Ice Storm will be available, but the next build we put up to Lamannia should have them. Finally, I do also want it to be clear that we're taking all your feedback into account, and changes in the future to this spell (and others) are always possible based on your responses. Thanks everyone.

I guess my question is then: Was the changed Ice Storm intended to be a tool for arcanes to be able to contribute serious damage in boss fights, or a tool for arcanes to be able to contribute damage to fire-immune trash mobs?

Before this Ice Storm change, I'd give Arcanes a D for the former and a B- for the latter. After this change, D+ and B+ respectively. It shores up a moderate strength rather than improving their glaring weakness.

[Junts]

I guess my question is then: Was the changed Ice Storm intended to be a tool for arcanes to be able to contribute serious damage in boss fights, or a tool for arcanes to be able to contribute damage to fire-immune trash mobs?

Before this Ice Storm change, I'd give Arcanes a D for the former and a B- for the latter. After this change, D+ and B+ respectively. It shores up a moderate strength rather than improving their glaring weakness.

I understand your point and in fact I agree with everyone re: extend, and I'd pointo ut that if its not going to have extend, Ice Storm can have better damage scaling because it will be so much worse on DPM, and DPM is often far more important than DPS (any fight over 40 seconds you don't want to cast anything but your best damage:mana converter).

On the other hand, I don't think they want to make arcanes regular, reliable sources of raid dps that compete with melee and others, for a lot of the reasons listed: when arcanes could do that, it was a big part of what mdae them disproportionately dominant on DDO (see gianthold/orchard, even desert times). There are so many advantages to being an arcane (better elemental protection, better defenses than most characters due to stoneskin displacement, less damage taken and more mobility permitted, generally better selfhealing, etc). There has to be something in the game they don't excel at that keeps their numbers proportionate and forces them to work with others. It's killing bosses.

[Legendary_Agent]

once again, it is *not* useless because it deals bludgeoning damage, which means it bypasses all DR and all elemental resistances. it will work on crateos, it will work on shroud portals, it will work on golems, it will work on anything. 3d6 sounds weak to you? funny, my sorcerer crits his scorching rays with each ray (4d6 base) dishing out around 300 damage. 75% of that means 225 damage. per tick. with the other portion of the ice storm dealing about 150 on a crit. on a regular hit, my scorching ray deals about 90 damage. 75% of that is about 65-70, 50% of that is about 45... and again, this is per crit. and the simple fact that some portion of that is unresistible unless you have a mantle of invulnerability makes it *very* worthwhile. sure, it's not dishing out indescribably large amounts of damage. but it's going to have plenty of places where it's more worthwhile than wall of fire, simply because wall of fire will deal zero damage and this will at least do something. in fact, simply *because* it deals such nice damage for it's level, i expect people will be leaving wall of fire until *after* they've learned ice storm.

rly? it bypasses all dr? *cough..zombies* cough cough* mummies* so yep, pretty useless spell unless ofc 18dmg means anything to a real player at end games.
And please dont try **** with me ok? ive got a sorc too with all fire enhacements on +50% staff and 20% capstone the dmg it deals max is 50 per each if u maximize ure rly rly lucky if u reach 90 on each, which u wont unless u spam it all the time and thats a bad idea for sorc since that spell casts slower than a wizard.
also critical chance here means nothing since u cant improve critical chance or multiplier of bludgeoning damage.

PS i would love to see any construct suffering full dmg from this spell since they dont from bludgeoning melee and yes that includes portals.

[Jaid314]

rly? it bypasses all dr? *cough..zombies* cough cough* mummies* so yep, pretty useless spell unless ofc 18dmg means anything to a real player at end games.
And please dont try **** with me ok? ive got a sorc too with all fire enhacements on +50% staff and 20% capstone the dmg it deals max is 50 per each if u maximize ure rly rly lucky if u reach 90 on each, which u wont unless u spam it all the time and thats a bad idea for sorc since that spell casts slower than a wizard.
also critical chance here means nothing since u cant improve critical chance or multiplier of bludgeoning damage.

PS i would love to see any construct suffering full dmg from this spell since they dont from bludgeoning melee and yes that includes portals.

perhaps you should try to get informed better before you open your mouth.

it's spell damage. it bypasses all dr. it doesn't matter that it's bludgeoning, any more than it matters that blade barrier is considered slashing.

and i'm sorry to say, but if you're dishing out 50 with your scorching rays, you're doing something wrong. i have a level 15 sorcerer right now (he was 20, but then i TR'd) who deals better damage than your capped sorcerer. with empower, maximise, the full enhancement line, and no capstone, i am dealing more damage with my scorching ray than you. i can only presume you're using crappy gear, because i have nothing fancier than a superior inferno V clicky and a greater lore item (it's arcane lore, but it's no better than greater fire lore for these purposes) on when i throw my scorching rays, and that's nothing you couldn't get easily from the AH. you're not getting those numbers? well then, you're doing something wrong, because i get them very consistently.

[RoelHeeswijk]

Well, he was just responding to you informing him of that it does "bludgeoning" damage, which if true would have been a problem. But imo, it doens't. Spell descriptions can be wrong.


Anyway, good job on reducing the damage to a reasonable level (though for consistency purpose, fix extend. but I'm sure you will).

My arguments may lead to discussions that are out of scope, sorry about that.
I felt I had to elaborate a bit to counter reasoning like "you need to boost damage because otherwise this lvl4 spell won't be the single best spell on lvl20" and "you need to boost this AoE spell because otherwise wizards can't keep up with melee DPS against a single target"
Because their argument is valid, but I think the premises that the spell should accomplish that is wrong.