User talk:Raine Valen/Mass Balance/Elementalist/Skills/Fire Magic

Raine's Proposal
Wait wait... so you want to make fire eles even better by also allowing them utility? That's madness. Vili 06:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * But fire eles aren't good except in HA and PvE due to bad design in those areas. Mind Blast eles being the exception.  Bloody gank wars, it is.  QQ  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  14:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fire Magic is bad in PvE? You best be joking. Unless you mean Hard Mode, but even then, it has its uses... Vili &gt;8&lt; [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 08:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "...fire eles aren't good except in... PvE". [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  10:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Double negatives confuse me. Vili &gt;8&lt; [[Image:User Vili sig.jpg|User talk:Vili]] 10:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * How would mechanics work for % to fail spells like, say, Gale? Because [[Image:Elemental Flame.jpg|25px]][[Image:Gale.jpg|25px]][[Image:Searing Flames.jpg|25px]] would be really gay. --[[Image: User_Ezekial_Riddle_sig.jpg|19px|Talk]] Riddle 14:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Elemental Flame.jpg|25px]][[Image:Deep Freeze.jpg|25px]][[Image:Savannah Heat.jpg|25px]][[Image:Searing Heat.jpg|25px]], tbh. --Cursed Angel [[Image:User Cursed Angel Signature2.jpg|19px|Q.Q]] 14:49, 27 March 2009

(UTC)Wat, you can use every skill the Elementalist has by speccing in the damage attribute? That's madness :/. Dark Morphon  (contribs)  14:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm saying nay. While it is a well-intended change, the combos of utility + damage without sacrificing your elite would just be too problematic. --[[Image: User_Ezekial_Riddle_sig.jpg|19px|Talk]] Riddle 04:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The only place I'd really see it being a major problem is on Mind Blast eles, simply because of the energy issues that come along with regularly casting ele spells without the corresponding Attunement. However, with that said, Mind Blast would instantly make this WTFBBQH4X.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  05:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll change the functionality. [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  08:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, whenever you (whoever "you" may be) decide to do the other attunements, just make a link: "See Fire Attunement (but my, that's a long link!).   Raine   - talk  08:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

145.94.74.23's Proposal
I agree that I like eles having viable counters, but at this point, it just seems... easy. Interrupting an ele is energy denial (we raped eles in TA with Warmonger's Weapon to the point where their Mind Shocks didn't cause KD) on top of the interrupts, stripping an attunement is energy denial on top of the Pain of Disenchantment... While there should be many viable counters to a given thing, it shouldn't have such enormous drawbacks. I guess the issue is a lot like that of Expertise. Attunements are reuuired to play ele, and everything is balanced around that, so anything that gets in the way of that becomes debilitating (and for 45 seconds, too). That's my two cents, for what it's worth.  Raine  - talk  08:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Glyphs can provide unremovable energy gain, as can some elite skills. Halving the stats was my suggestion of lessening the impact without removing the counter all together. I can assure you that attunements are in no way required to succesfully play an elementalist. (P.S. it's not that I don't like your suggestion, but I'd rather not see all the energy management of the elementalist to be too similar, and too 'automatic'. Those are just my 2 cents.) 145.94.74.23 08:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Raine's Proposal
/agree /signed. Boro 13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really aesthetically pleasing. There are better ways to change this, really. Dark Morphon  (contribs)  12:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it. [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  23:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

So you've got one spell that can perma-maintain burning on an entire party? --216.241.108.106 00:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. If you're in HA, it's two parties.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  00:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So all you've done is subbed five ele LOL BIG NUMBERS builds for one ele LOL BIG DAMAGE builds. --216.241.108.106 00:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the difference between "lol instagib" and "slowly pressured out". [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  01:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it balanced. Also, no, Mend Condition doesn't own this. --216.241.108.106 01:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In a 4v4, people should be able to spread out enough so that this only hits one person; if the burning comes off in the first two seconds, it deals no damage (well, except for the 14 damage/second from the burning?). In an 8v8, prot monk.  The only place where the pressure would be particularly outstanding is in HA, because anything with AoE is outstanding in HA.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  01:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Prot monks can't do anything against constant burning besides fruitlessly removing the same condition over and over again, burning energy and cast cycles that are much more valuable than an ele's and accomplishing nothing because the ele is going to cast it again in four seconds anyway. Incendiary Arrows had nearby range, an attack that could be kited, a full dedicated bar, and a longer recharge, and it worked just fine in GvG.  You could remove the damage component altogether and this would still be overpowered. --216.241.108.106 01:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just waiting for your argument, tbh (note response on second indent; I thought the sarcasm was obvious). I've had a different change in mind for a while, but I thought it too intricate, and I really had no inclination to develop it fully, so it'd remained on my "to do eventually" list.
 * After reviewing the proposition listed on the page, I thought, "No, that won't do at all." So I looked for a new starting point, and in this case, decided that the skill's name would be a good point from which to initiate a rework, since the name is sacred in skill changes.
 * "Searing Flames". Well, the "Flames" part wasn't very difficult to work with at all.  But "Sear"... there was definitely something in that word.  A sear is a surface burn, applied through a short but intense burst of heat.  What is also noteworthy is that a the searing process has a tendency to make objects more resistant to heat by creating a scorched outer shell.
 * However, that was only one of the definitions for "sear". To sear can also mean to dry through fire, applying consistent, deep burns over an extended period.  This is, in fact, quite contrary to the other definition.  Where one quickly creates superficial damage, the other slowly destroys irreparably.
 * Accordingly, "Searing Flames" could go in one of two directions. The decision really came down to which would be a more interesting concept to work with.  Now, if you'll read the second definition again, you'll find that there's something quite like that already: Savannah Heat.  Its damage slowly intensifies until the point where the pressure is party-breaking.  So, for Searing Flames, I've decided to work with the former definition.
 * So how should a skill reflect that? Well, firstly, that sort of burn is applied quickly, in a high burst of intensity.  So we won't be looking at something that casts slowly, or any sort of low-energy spell.  We'll want something that hits quick and hard.  Then, that sort of burn has the property of tempering the object to damage through heat, so that it becomes less effective as is goes: think Mending Touch: it grows less effective with each subsequent use (as conditions are removed, there becomes little to remove for the healing bonus).
 * With this in mind, I'll aim to make a stronger, more-viable suggestion. [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  02:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't limit yourself because of the name, game balance should come before game fluff. --216.241.108.106 02:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So this is just a horribly bad version of Rodgort's Invocation? Who in his right mind would ever use this? It can't even spike with a team of it. Ɲ oɕʈɋɽɕɧ  02:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's kind of the point. It's more of "Pick people off" than "lol fire pressure".  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  03:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Air Magic... Ɲ oɕʈɋɽɕɧ  11:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Every high-damage air spell has a debilitating drawback, because the line was never meant for high, quick damages.
 * Unrelatedly, +3 glad points running 156 air ele in RA. ^^ [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  14:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

145's Proposals
I think you are giving these skills too large AoE. Nearby range is pretty powerful. In the area is even more so. I think you should nerf these to adjacent and nearby range. Other than that, pretty nice ideas. Dark Morphon 12:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The range increase was added for a reason. If it wasn't there, a simple Glyph of Immolation would make Phoenix more powerful than it's elite version. Imho, fire really should be the large AoE attribute, so I'd rather lower damage or remove burning than decrase it's range. That's just me though. 145.94.74.23 08:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the Area range is just too much. If you want to have a skill that outshines Phoenix, just decrease the cost, recharge or cast time. Fire Magic already has too much AoE. That is tbh the reason it's so overpowered, coupled with the damage they do of course. So adding skills with even more range is just insane. I think that, if you truly want to have a buffed up phoenix, you should just make it a lower cost skill. Also, please make sure this is not usable by more than one elementalist because if it has in the area range it is likely to hit the whole opposing party. Dark Morphon 09:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd vote for larger ranges, less damage then. Fire is supposed to be the AoE pressure attribute, turning it into Air or Water Magic simply won't do. 145.94.74.23 11:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Fire Magic is usually fine as long as it isn't used by a few people. It doesn't take skill to play, but at least it's pretty balanced then. I like Morphon think giving Fire too large AoE is bad because it kinda promotes abuse with more than one character. Xhata 15:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then again, compared to stuff like Deep Freeze and Dragon's Stomp, AoE is rather small. In the area is smaller than it sounds, to be honest. 145.94.74.23 14:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a lot larger. Nearby range is 2.25 times as big as adjacent range and in the area range is 4 times as big as adjacent range. Deep Freeze indeed has a very large range but it comes with a price. It has a high cost and relatively high recharge. Dragon's Stomp causes exhaustion and is expensive as well. Your skills, however, are not costy at all. Xhata 14:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * 4x small isn't automatically large. But whatever, compared to Unsteady Ground then. The reason for the large AoE is that fire is supposed to be the AoE damage attribute. And like I said earlier, why not lower the damage instead of the range? Give fire something that does a little to a lot of foes, instead of a lot to a few foes. 145.94.74.23 15:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because that is boring. You will just end up spamming your Fire Magic spells because they hit everyone anyway. Who cares about positioning? Your skills hit your foes anyway. That what you want? Xhata 15:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Boring is a matter of opinion. It isn't less than nuking in general. 145.94.74.23 19:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so making every skill a spam-on-recharge skill is fine. Seriously, if that's what you want to change skills in, then what edge would GW have over stuff like WoW? Changing things to stuff like that would make GW into Retarded Zoo-Monkey Wars. Man, I'm glad they didn't put a retarded PvE'er in charge of balance. It would be even worse than it is now. Xhata 17:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that skill balance is too complicated for you Xhata. 145.94.74.23 14:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Use arguments for that 145. I know he's playing Devil's advocate at times and I know he put up some failures, but saying skill balance is too hard for him? That's really a bit too much, especially because it comes from you. Dark Morphon 15:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be a no brainer. He skips straight to the insults. But if you want arguments, then fine. All I hear is to nerf Fire's damage AND it's spammability AND it's range. What does it have left to make it worth using over the other 3 elements? You don't balance a game by making everything the same, you balance it by making everything equally viable. A good balancer will find a way to balance Fire's unique functions, not change things he doesn't like personally. Fire's things are pressure, burning and AoE (and lack of supportive effects). Seeing as most people cry about the damage, it makes sense to focus on Fire's other aspects to compensate. Seeing how AoE burning isn't desired and turning it into Water Magic shouldn't be considered either, the range is all that is left. Apart from that, in the area isn't that large in practice. It may be a problem on some PvP maps, but that's mostly a map issue and not a skill issue. Play a nuker in PvE, and you'll see that you're lucky if you hit more than 2 or 3 targets with a single Fireball. Bottom line: the Fire elementalist is a caster damage dealer . It's not supposed to be turned into another variation of a support ele. 145.94.74.23 19:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I would have no problems with Elementalist damage dealers if they wouldn't be mindless. Unfortunately, they are. Now, is there any way we can resolve that? Dark Morphon 15:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  18:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice ideas, brings some drawbacks to casters. I'll be looking for more options. Dark Morphon 11:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Attunements
Are not underpowered in any way. The long recharge encourages smart use of cover enchantments, which one of them is so convieniently found in energy storage already. Attunements reduce elementalist spells that have effects worth 5 energy to cost 3 energy, 10 to 6, etc etc. For such a powerful effect, they should definitely be much more riskier and easier to counter than most other skills.Pika Fan 10:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What if a good enchantment removal set rangers' expertise to zero for thirty seconds? Yes, it's a powerful effect, and eles are balanced around that effect.  Again, eles have the same four pips as every other caster, but their skills cost significantly more on average.  True, you can cover enchantments.  Having to use two skills of your eight just to be able to function properly isn't ideal, though, imo.  Furthermore, Counter != Balanced.  The ability to cover enchantments doesn't justify the ability to completely shut down most eles by interrupting or removing one.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  18:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving such an fallacious argument. You claim attunements are underpowered, yet you say counters to an alleged underpowered skill does not make it less underpowered. Doesn't make sense, no?
 * Having 2 skills to manage energy is actually more ideal than you would expect. Just because you aren't happy about not being able to spam mindlessly all the skills on your bar because some clever guy knows you are too terrible to manage energy without attunements and strips it off doesn't qualify a skill as underpowered.
 * If your bar entirely hinges on one particular skill to make it usable, please, rethink your build.
 * WoH monks bring patient spirit on their bar partly because of the fact that they can fall back on a secondary heal to keep the party alive in case WoH, the monk healing powerhouse, gets diverted, dshotted, sig hummed etc. Applying the argument Having to use two skills of your eight just to be able to function properly isn't ideal, though, imo. means that you think WoH is underpowered. Please rethink your logic, or suggest a buff to WoH to compensate.Pika Fan 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting words in my mouth?
 * I suppose you've caught yourself up looking for something to nitpick at and missed what I was trying to convey. So, humor me while I explain this again.
 * First, let's do some math. One pip of energy regeneration is one energy every three seconds.  Four pips is four energy every three seconds, and so five energy every 43⁄4 seconds, 10 energy every 91⁄2 seconds, or 15 energy every 141⁄4 seconds.
 * This is a typical water ele bar; correct me if I'm wrong here. Without attunement, the limitations on that bar due to energy mean that that ele would be able to, say, cast a Freezing Gust every 91⁄2 seconds.  That's all, with energy regeneration alone accounted for.  No shatterstone on spikes, no blinds, no wardings.  Glowing Ice provides +3 energy per cycle assuming respectable energy storage investment; congrats, it gives you a Shatterstone once every 45 seconds.  It's not a matter of "that bar is most certainly terrible and should be rethought", it's a matter of "just about every water magic skill was made with the intention of being used with Water Attunement, and balanced accordingly".  I'm sure you can argue that being able to cast often is, in a way, spamming mindlessly, but if you believe that spamming mindlessly makes effective water eles, then I beseech you, play the bar.
 * This is a typical Bsurge bar. Energy regeneration limits this ele to, say, a Blinding Surge every 91⁄2 seconds.  That's enough to keep a melee (or potentially several) blind for most of the time, assuming no condition removal.  That's actually not bad.  Unfortunately, with the constraints of energy regeneration, that leaves nothing for putting Resilients up, adding Cracked Armor on spikes, or landing key knock-downs.  Shock Arrow is the same deal as glowing ice; congrats, you get one more bsurge every half minute.  Aura of restoration is even more grace on that; between those 5 casts in that half minute, you've managed to rack up enough energy to use Shell Shock once!  That's not being functional, that's being gimped.
 * I'll just save us the trouble here and say "lol Rodgort's".
 * Eles don't work without attunements any more than rangers work without expertise. Sure, their skills are usable without them.  But effective?  Worth taking?  If an ele's bar hinges on one skill to make it effective, then it's likely due to an inherent flaw.  Go run a HB bar without HB; it'll suck.  Does this mean that HB heal bars are bad bars?
 * Finally, monks don't take WoH and patient so that the rest of their skills work well. Eles take Attunements so that the rest of their skills work well.  I hope you can understand that difference.  I'm sure you've more questions, so feel free to ask; I'll be glad to respond.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  10:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO passive energy management is always a problem. It either means you have less than 8 skill slots or you have to invest in an attribute that you don't want to. Some passive energy management is unremovable (passive effects are a problem). Energy management should never be passive and/or skill-less. Solution: Change all passive e-management attributes so that they increase the power of skills that manage your energy.72.71.214.92 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eles don't work without attunements any more than rangers work without expertise. Sure, their skills are usable without them.  But effective?  Worth taking?  If an ele's bar hinges on one skill to make it effective, then it's likely due to an inherent flaw.  Go run a HB bar without HB; it'll suck.  Does this mean that HB heal bars are bad bars?
 * Finally, monks don't take WoH and patient so that the rest of their skills work well. Eles take Attunements so that the rest of their skills work well.  I hope you can understand that difference.  I'm sure you've more questions, so feel free to ask; I'll be glad to respond.  [[Image:User_Raine_R.gif|19px]]  Raine   - talk  10:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO passive energy management is always a problem. It either means you have less than 8 skill slots or you have to invest in an attribute that you don't want to. Some passive energy management is unremovable (passive effects are a problem). Energy management should never be passive and/or skill-less. Solution: Change all passive e-management attributes so that they increase the power of skills that manage your energy.72.71.214.92 16:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)