Tested new Icestorm and Critical Mod

[Riggs]

Critical chance is now a mith, ive hit groups of 10 enemies and i could barely hit 1 with a critical (my critical chance is 9), so now im gonna have to think of something else as critical spells are nothing but a waste of Action Points...
I can confirm that this critical chance affects not only firewall but all aoe spells like fireball, chain lightning etc...

I am sure this has been pointed out about 20 times over by now (not going to bother reading thread based on the OP), but I had to just point it out.

9% crit chance on 10 enemies is even odds of - 0.9 crits out of 10. So 'barely 1 out of 10' is about exactly right no?

So my question is - if both math and spelling are quite so hard...maybe spending time on ice storm could be spent better on other areas?

[Legendary_Agent]

I am sure this has been pointed out about 20 times over by now (not going to bother reading thread based on the OP), but I had to just point it out.

9% crit chance on 10 enemies is even odds of - 0.9 crits out of 10. So 'barely 1 out of 10' is about exactly right no?

So my question is - if both math and spelling are quite so hard...maybe spending time on ice storm could be spent better on other areas?

Did i say it was wrong? im not following, are you also trying to tell me im bad at maths and spelling?
Frankly ure offending urself more than ure offending me if that is the case.

[Kralael]

[b] -Snip-

+1 for that bro'

[TechNoFear]

@zealous

My post was pointing out that the OPs maths (on page 2) are incorrect.

Do you think the OPs maths are correct? [that both examples use a 18% crit chance and use valid statistical representations/models of the secenario examined?]

New System:
For two mobs you'd have:
0.18*0.18=0.0324, both crit on first cast, 1 cast to kill both
1-0.0324=0.9676, 2 casts to kill both
0.0324*1+0.9676*2=1.9676 casts on average, as you add more mobs the expected number of casts will approach 2. ~8-10% increase in mana needed.

29.35% of the time you will kill one mob with the first cast, reducing damage taken while killing the mobs by half [0.18 x 0.82 x 2].

So any loss of SP efficency will be offset in reduced healing resources required.

your maths are inaccurate as in cast number 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 there are less than 10 monsters, thx for playing.

In total you have 15 crits out of a total 121 'hits'.

This is 12.4% crits (not 18% as the 'current system' example).

In the first 50 hits there are only 5 crits [50/5 == 10%].

[Cartheron]

(snip)

29.35% of the time you will kill one mob with the first cast, reducing damage taken while killing the mobs by half [0.18 x 0.82 x 2].

So any loss of SP efficency will be offset in reduced healing resources required.

(snip)

What is a difference between kiting 20 melee mobs and 15 melee mobs in damage taken? Usually zero - they cant hit you all at once, so it's meaningless if you will manage to reduce their numbers before killing blow. Reducing amount of required spells used on the other had has quite a big impact on efficiency.

[Legendary_Agent]

@zealous

My post was pointing out that the OPs maths (on page 2) are incorrect.

Do you think the OPs maths are correct? [that both examples use a 18% crit chance and use valid statistical representations/models of the secenario examined?]



29.35% of the time you will kill one mob with the first cast, reducing damage taken while killing the mobs by half [0.18 x 0.82 x 2].

So any loss of SP efficency will be offset in reduced healing resources required.



In total you have 15 crits out of a total 121 'hits'.

This is 12.4% crits (not 18% as the 'current system' example).

In the first 50 hits there are only 5 crits [50/5 == 10%].

that is because it is irrelevant to critical or not when a normal hit will kill them, hence i didnt see the point in putting more criticals in it, also as i said before that your maths are wrong because they are based on damage and not on enemy kills.

Damage is the same in this system or next system for one tick aoe spells, killing however is not.

Your maths are only showing that the current system is more efficient at killing because it kills all monsters faster, so yes it is more than obvious that the efficieny chance is increased in the current system and decreased in the later system.

The main fault in ur calculations is that you are trying to calculate both systems using the monster formula which is irrelevant in the current system as it is not based on monster chance but the spell chance for critical to be applied, unlike the new system.

[zealous]

My post was pointing out that the OPs maths (on page 2) are incorrect.

Using flawed math =)
My post was pointing out:

where I have made an error in the math.

Do you think the OPs maths are correct? [that both examples use a 18% crit chance and use valid statistical representations/models of the secenario examined?]

If his maths is correct or not is irrelevant, I'm perfectly capable of producing correct numbers myself.
What is relevant is that the point he is trying to make is correct;
the time/mana needed to kill multiple mobs solely through AOE spells is substantially increased with the change.

[Cartheron]

If his maths is correct or not is irrelevant, I'm perfectly capable of producing correct numbers myself.
What is relevant is that the point he is trying to make is correct;
the time/mana needed to kill multiple mobs solely through AOE spells is substantially increased with the change.

Exactly. I will use numbers provided by Kernel earlier. Lets assume we have a dungeon with 100 mobs to kill. You need 5 non crit casts to kill a group. We will kill mobs in groups of 20 - it's both doable and convenient

Now, Kernel proved that with new system to kill group of 20 mobs we need 5 casts, while in the old system 4,2 cast. So to kill 100 mobs in the new system we need 25 casts, in the old one 21 cast. 1 cast = about 85sp, 25 casts = 2125sp, 21 casts = 1785sp, 340 sp difference.

Funny thing is that amount of crits in both systems is exactly the same (about 18%), but in new system you need 4 casts more, which basicaly means that additional damage from crits is wasted - if you plan on aoe nuking, you don't have to even bother to equip lore item, because there is no advantage of doing so, not even mentioning about taking crit line enchantments.

You may like aoe nuking or disregard it, it doesn't matter, because you cannot prove that it is an improvement to this game style. It's a nerf, and not necessary one.

[gurgar78]

While the point stands that AoE nuking is less efficient with the change to crit mechanics for the soloing arcane, will it signficantly impact gameplay?

If your concern is over SP efficiency, it seems to me that firewall and the new, even nerfed, icestorm will be substantially more efficient at killing groups of mobs, regardless of resistances. These are the spells that received a slight buff from the new crit system, with the exception of crit fishing.

Additionally, in the event of a grouped arcane, any damage thrown would be for the purpose of softening up mobs so that they take less time for the other group members to dispatch, in which case is seems like individually assigned crits would be a benefit because, as with the case of persistent spells in the new system, all of your AoE nukes will get a slight boost as opposed to one in five receiving a massive boost.

So it seems to me that this change would only negatively impact a very small subsection of players: the soloing arcane who uses AoE nukes rather than persistent AoE damage effects. This is probably not much cause for alarm to the gaming community as a whole.

[Cartheron]

So it seems to me that this change would only negatively impact a very small subsection of players: the soloing arcane who uses AoE nukes rather than persistent AoE damage effects. This is probably not much cause for alarm to the gaming community as a whole.

Sure, it doesn't affect majority of players, so why bother, this small group will suck it. Great. It's the same I can tell about twf nerf - I play arcane, I dont care about you meleers, suck it up. Or about ToD nerf - I dont have dark monk, suck it up. Great aproach I must say.

BTW I agree that Ice Storm, even nerfed, will give back nice part of what this change has taken away and I'm not going to despair or ragequit because of that - it's just not fun that those nice crits where taken away, taking away diversity of arcane builds - noone with even half of brain will take crit enchantments for acid/lighting now, which is sad, because even earlier there were not many reasons why you would like to go fully acid/light specced

[gurgar78]

Sure, it doesn't affect majority of players, so why bother, this small group will suck it. Great. It's the same I can tell about twf nerf - I play arcane, I dont care about you meleers, suck it up. Or about ToD nerf - I dont have dark monk, suck it up. Great aproach I must say.

Well, if we were looking at this one side of the change in a vacuum, it might be a terrible approach to take, however when you consider that the same change will have largely beneficial results for a much larger player population, then I think at that point, yeah, you do tell them to suck it up.

It's a positive change for most players and a negative change for a very small subset of players who were, in truth, already playing in a pretty inefficient manner. Admittedly, they were playing in this manner due to necessity (Fire immune bad guys), but they've given an answer (Ice Storm) in the same patch in which they made the change.

[Legendary_Agent]

Well, if we were looking at this one side of the change in a vacuum, it might be a terrible approach to take, however when you consider that the same change will have largely beneficial results for a much larger player population, then I think at that point, yeah, you do tell them to suck it up.

It's a positive change for most players and a negative change for a very small subset of players who were, in truth, already playing in a pretty inefficient manner. Admittedly, they were playing in this manner due to necessity (Fire immune bad guys), but they've given an answer (Ice Storm) in the same patch in which they made the change.

ice storm is the answear? lmao! and no offense but u dont know anything about sorcs considering that reply.
Besides the majority of players with wizards or sorc already agreed icestorm is still an useless spell.

[gurgar78]

ice storm is the answear? lmao! and no offense but u dont know anything about sorcs considering that reply.
Besides the majority of players with wizards or sorc already agreed icestorm is still an useless spell.

You're right, I'm not as knowledgeable about sorcs. I do have a capped wizard. You have access to the same spells for the same costs doing the same damage, so conclusions regarding the efficiency of spells can easily translate from one class to the other.

Regarding Ice Storm, people are upset by the nerfage. It's not useless, it's just not going to be as uber as people hoped. That it was introduced bugged and doing considerably more damage raised expectations beyond what they would have been otherwise, making the nerfing of the damage a harder pill to swallow.

I'm pretty confident that it will still see a lot of gameplay use in any situation where firewall would have been good, but factors prevent its use.

[Legendary_Agent]

You're right, I'm not as knowledgeable about sorcs. I do have a capped wizard. You have access to the same spells for the same costs doing the same damage, so conclusions regarding the efficiency of spells can easily translate from one class to the other.

Regarding Ice Storm, people are upset by the nerfage. It's not useless, it's just not going to be as uber as people hoped. That it was introduced bugged and doing considerably more damage raised expectations beyond what they would have been otherwise, making the nerfing of the damage a harder pill to swallow.

I'm pretty confident that it will still see a lot of gameplay use in any situation where firewall would have been good, but factors prevent its use.

yep, theres a reason why i said sorc, wizard play style has almost nothing to do with sorc play style, wizards can focus alot more than sorc in buffs, debuffs and death spells while sorcs are made for dealing damage, the capstone of a sorc is also made for damage, the casting speed and recharge time and more mana are also better used for more damage, also you will see no one with a sorc having such a useless spell into their list at level 4 as all level 4 slots are already full with proper spells.

It also cant be used with firewall in the same fight as it will estinguish firewall, making it more useless on fights, there are far more foes with ice immunity than with fire immunitie and the ones like orthons and devils which are immune to fire also has a significat ice resist making them only suffer the bludgeoning part and possibly 0-10 ice damage with maximize on a sorc.

Damage of an ice storm is 5-30 (2d6+3d6)
Damage of a Firewall is 22-32 (2d6+20), firewall deals even more damage vs undeads regardless if they are vulnerable to ice or not.

A fair share of caster players are sorc ingame, just because u have a wizard and u think these instant tick aoe spells are no use to u, that doesnt mean that these spells are only used by a small number of ppl ingame especially when theres fair ammount of sorcs.

PS: And no, you do not deal the same damage as a sorcerer.

[gurgar78]

yep, theres a reason why i said sorc, wizard play style has almost nothing to do with sorc play style, wizards can focus alot more than sorc in buffs, debuffs and death spells while sorcs are made for dealing damage, the capstone of a sorc is also made for damage, the casting speed and recharge time and more mana are also better used for more damage, also you will see no one with a sorc having such a useless spell into their list at level 4 as all level 4 slots are already full with proper spells.

It also cant be used with firewall in the same fight as it will estinguish firewall, making it more useless on fights, there are far more foes with ice immunity than with fire immunitie and the ones like orthons and devils which are immune to fire also has a significat ice resist making them only suffer the bludgeoning part and possibly 0-10 ice damage with maximize on a sorc.

Damage of an ice storm is 5-30 (2d6+3d6)
Damage of a Firewall is 22-32 (2d6+20), firewall deals even more damage vs undeads regardless if they are vulnerable to ice or not.

A fair share of caster players are sorc ingame, just because u have a wizard and u think these instant tick aoe spells are no use to u, doesnt mean that these spells are only used by a small number of ppl ingame.

PS: And no, you do not deal the same damage as a sorcerer.

Capstone aside, there is no difference in the damage dealt per spell between a wizard and a sorcerer. For 19 levels, wizards and sorcerers deal the same damage per spell. Since the capstone is a percentage increase to all spell damage, it does not favor one form of spell damage versus another or one type of spell versus another. It does not change the comparative efficiency between spells. Any spell which is more efficient for a wizard to use will also be more efficient for a sorcerer to use.

You're making some assumptions here that simply aren't true. I load instant damage AoE spells. I use them when appropriate. Digging through my memory, I believe I currently have Acid Blast, Cone of Cold, Cyclonic Blast and Chain Lightning on my bar. I occasionally swap in DBF, but it's not often because for anything in which I would use DBF, I could probably use Wall of Fire to greater effect.

I agree with you that this has reduced the effectiveness of AoE nuke spamming. But realistically, this only affects a small portion of gameplay - specifically it only hurts the solo arcane using AoE instant damage spells to try to kill a group of mobs en masse. If the arcane is in a group, this becomes a non-issue. If the arcane is using persistent AoE spells, it becomes a non-issue.

At worst, it makes it a little harder for sorcs (and wizards, presumably) to solo. Since both of these classes, along with favored souls, are the most solo capable classes currently, I don't think this is a problem.

On the other hand, the change to spell critical calculations is helpful in the other instances of spell damage application to groups of mobs - arcanes contributing to a group and arcanes that are using persistent AoEs. Not only is this two situations versus one, but these situations occur far more frequently than a soloing arcane using nukes.

In short, the change is far more positive than it is negative, so in the words of one of the previous posters: "suck it up"

[kernal42]

yep, theres a reason why i said sorc, wizard play style has almost nothing to do with sorc play style, wizards can focus alot more than sorc in buffs, debuffs and death spells while sorcs are made for dealing damage, the capstone of a sorc is also made for damage, the casting speed and recharge time and more mana are also better used for more damage, also you will see no one with a sorc having such a useless spell into their list at level 4 as all level 4 slots are already full with proper spells.

It also cant be used with firewall in the same fight as it will estinguish firewall, making it more useless on fights, there are far more foes with ice immunity than with fire immunitie and the ones like orthons and devils which are immune to fire also has a significat ice resist making them only suffer the bludgeoning part and possibly 0-10 ice damage with maximize on a sorc.

Damage of an ice storm is 5-30 (2d6+3d6)
Damage of a Firewall is 22-32 (2d6+20), firewall deals even more damage vs undeads regardless if they are vulnerable to ice or not.

A fair share of caster players are sorc ingame, just because u have a wizard and u think these instant tick aoe spells are no use to u, that doesnt mean that these spells are only used by a small number of ppl ingame especially when theres fair ammount of sorcs.

PS: And no, you do not deal the same damage as a sorcerer.

Firewall certainly does more damage than ice storm, but that doesn't make ice storm useless:
Amrath mobs have fire immunity & only cold resist.
Elite Dreaming Dark mobs have very high resist of both fire and cold; the bludgeoning portion is still very significant.
Just the bludgeoning part is much better damage/sp than any one-shot spell.
You can use ice storm and firewall at the same time, it just requires careful placement (like firewall & web).
(For damage estimates, see my earlier post, which unfortunately forgets about AP damage lines and sorc capstone).

Cheers,
Kernal

[kernal42]

<snip>. Any spell which is more efficient for a wizard to use will also be more efficient for a sorcerer to use.

That's only true against infinite hp mobs. For example, against a 10 hp kobold, the wizard's and the sorc's dbf are both equally efficient. This is more significant for spells like firewall (and, soon, ice storm) whose durations tend to outlive the targets. In that case, wizards and sorcs have the same damage/sp ratio.

In short, the change is far more positive than it is negative, so in the words of one of the previous posters: "suck it up"

Honestly, while I prefer the "crit by tick/mob" mechanic, I'm beginning to agree that it's a bad change because it strengthens strong techniques and weakens weak ones.

One-shot AoEs, an sp-inefficient technique, are weakened.
DoT AoEs, extremely sp-efficient, are strenghthened.
Firewall levels 7-19, where it's hugely powerful, gets even stronger.
Firewall at epic is slightly nerfed (no crit fishing) and slightly buffed (non-crits are better).

I like the change, but I think its effects are backwards; Turbine should be buffing weak strategies and nerfing strong ones; this modification does the opposite.

Cheers,
Kernal

[Legendary_Agent]

Capstone aside, there is no difference in the damage dealt per spell between a wizard and a sorcerer. For 19 levels, wizards and sorcerers deal the same damage per spell. Since the capstone is a percentage increase to all spell damage, it does not favor one form of spell damage versus another or one type of spell versus another. It does not change the comparative efficiency between spells. Any spell which is more efficient for a wizard to use will also be more efficient for a sorcerer to use.

You're making some assumptions here that simply aren't true. I load instant damage AoE spells. I use them when appropriate. Digging through my memory, I believe I currently have Acid Blast, Cone of Cold, Cyclonic Blast and Chain Lightning on my bar. I occasionally swap in DBF, but it's not often because for anything in which I would use DBF, I could probably use Wall of Fire to greater effect.

I agree with you that this has reduced the effectiveness of AoE nuke spamming. But realistically, this only affects a small portion of gameplay - specifically it only hurts the solo arcane using AoE instant damage spells to try to kill a group of mobs en masse. If the arcane is in a group, this becomes a non-issue. If the arcane is using persistent AoE spells, it becomes a non-issue.

At worst, it makes it a little harder for sorcs (and wizards, presumably) to solo. Since both of these classes, along with favored souls, are the most solo capable classes currently, I don't think this is a problem.

On the other hand, the change to spell critical calculations is helpful in the other instances of spell damage application to groups of mobs - arcanes contributing to a group and arcanes that are using persistent AoEs. Not only is this two situations versus one, but these situations occur far more frequently than a soloing arcane using nukes.

In short, the change is far more positive than it is negative, so in the words of one of the previous posters: "suck it up"

capstone side? arcane damagers are only for soloers? lol cmon dude u can be better than that...

[gurgar78]

capstone side? arcane damagers are only for soloers? lol cmon dude u can be better than that...

I honestly have no idea how you could have read my post and gleaned this as a summary.

[Legendary_Agent]

Firewall certainly does more damage than ice storm, but that doesn't make ice storm useless:
Amrath mobs have fire immunity & only cold resist.
Elite Dreaming Dark mobs have very high resist of both fire and cold; the bludgeoning portion is still very significant.
Just the bludgeoning part is much better damage/sp than any one-shot spell.
You can use ice storm and firewall at the same time, it just requires careful placement (like firewall & web).
(For damage estimates, see my earlier post, which unfortunately forgets about AP damage lines and sorc capstone).

Cheers,
Kernal

ice storm barelly outlives a pack of devils and orthons in vale SOLO.