Having an effective caster destiny for damage was ruining my play, certainly. (Ironic statement)
Flighty proc chances based on fey whim of 7% just dead-ends this destiny for casters. There are few rapid fire spells that would trigger like a repeating xbow would.
Now, I'm not a programmer, but wouldn't 7% proc rate require more calculation than a 50% proc chance? Especially since the Devs recently had a pass that removed a numerous amount of proc-rate checks...
With a 7% chance - the RNG has to roll 1-100 and check for whether it is or isn't a proc. 1-7 is does, 8-100 it does not happen.
A proc rate of 50% is just a 1d2; it either happens or it doesn't. No number range, no major resource drain if a lot of people are running with the same destiny.
Flipping a coin ( 1d2) makes more sense for a fey oriented destiny.
Sure caster was pretty powerful, but now most people have dropped shiradi entirely or spent a few points selectively in it. It's not competitive anymore which means much of the work of the Dev who authored it is wasted.
Then, you'll drop another nerf on another caster destiny because it's too effective. And after all caster types are either locked in one destiny or people ignore them and jump to effective combat system, you'll start undercutting that one. It was ranged, now it's DPS casters, next it will be DC casters and finally melee will be on the chopping block.
I don't like the change. I don't like that it was rammed through without any warning and now we are stuck waiting to see what the "retune" of the destiny will be (because updates can be a month or more in the future).
Devs, this is why I manually renew my VIP instead of leaving it automatic; It's only thirty bucks you lost this go'round but it leaves a bad flavor when you do these heavy handed tactics- you KNOW they won't be popular, but do you have to up the ante and not only rush them through, but do so without any conversation with the client base? You could have opened the discussion, gotten feedback and made adjustments, then TESTED them.
But instead... this.