Maintenance for the week of January 6:
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 6
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
• PC/Mac: No maintenance – January 6
• NA megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 4:00AM EST (9:00 UTC) - 8:00AM EST (13:00 UTC)
• EU megaservers for maintenance – January 8, 9:00 UTC (4:00AM EST) - 13:00 UTC (8:00AM EST)
The "Balance" of Mag Sorcs
-
Lord-Otto✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭I've heard that pleb statement before. Multiple times. It always ended with the same people still regarding sorcs as an OP carry class and demanding nerfs. I'd be pleasantly surprised if this time was different, but my expectations aren't high up...
Regarding range and DKs! Look, it's fairly common for casters in RPGs to operate at range. People choose that class for this purpose often enough. It is not very encouraging to have this fundamental design being scrapped. "Fundamental" being key word here.
Because, wings on the other hand, they weren't a fundamental design. They HELPED the design of a DK approaching a target and then locking it down with roots and snares. But this was exchangeable, and that is exactly what ZOS did. They exchanged tanky wings for mobility wings so you can still approach your target, but are also more maneuverable overall - a trait heavily requested by DK players, me included.
So, it's not really a fair comparison here. But I also don't think ranged combat will be completely impossible. I'm hoping for the ability to kite and poke, but then close in for the killing blow. Would be fairer for the non-sorc, too! But, time will tell...
Shield costs suck, though. No optimism here.1 -
Derra✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Which is still true bc the theoretical advantage of the cost reduction get nullified in practice by having to fight within 15m now.
It’s not about what cc you use.
Of course it is about what CC you use. If you keep using clench for CC, then you dont have to use bolt for CC, and the cost reduction will allow you to use more bolts for mobility instead.
It has nothing to do with range either. You *want* to fight within 15m, since thats where you can CC your opponents. You aren't doing any more bolting than live - less in fact since you no longer have to(want to) constantly stay out of gap closer range."On pts you generally need to streak 1x more which means unless you streak atleast 4x in a row the cost reduction didn’t save you any magica compared to live where you started streaking from further away."
Why would you need to streak 1x more when you want to stay and fight in 15m range, using clench for CC?
Of course if you don't use clench for CC you do need to streak 1x more(to CC), but in that case the cost reduction freed you a slot.
You need to streak 1x more on pts compared to live because you need to be within 15m on pts and on live you need to be within 36.
Because if you want to use streak for escape you don’t want to be within 15m - shocker.
That you imply not using a cc fighting is optional just goes to showcase that you’re just arguing for the sake of it.
Still no idea what you talk about.Edited by Derra on August 5, 2019 11:11AM<Noricum>
I live. I die. I live again.
Derra - DC - Sorc - AvA 50
Derrah - EP - Sorc - AvA 501 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Which is still true bc the theoretical advantage of the cost reduction get nullified in practice by having to fight within 15m now.
It’s not about what cc you use.
Of course it is about what CC you use. If you keep using clench for CC, then you dont have to use bolt for CC, and the cost reduction will allow you to use more bolts for mobility instead.
It has nothing to do with range either. You *want* to fight within 15m, since thats where you can CC your opponents. You aren't doing any more bolting than live - less in fact since you no longer have to(want to) constantly stay out of gap closer range."On pts you generally need to streak 1x more which means unless you streak atleast 4x in a row the cost reduction didn’t save you any magica compared to live where you started streaking from further away."
Why would you need to streak 1x more when you want to stay and fight in 15m range, using clench for CC?
Of course if you don't use clench for CC you do need to streak 1x more(to CC), but in that case the cost reduction freed you a slot.
You need to streak 1x more on pts compared to live because you need to be within 15m on pts and on live you need to be within 36.
If you need to be within 15m of target you need to streak less, not more.
On live you need to streak away to maintain distance everytime target gets close.
On PTS you don't - you *want* to be close so you can CC.0 -
Derra✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Which is still true bc the theoretical advantage of the cost reduction get nullified in practice by having to fight within 15m now.
It’s not about what cc you use.
Of course it is about what CC you use. If you keep using clench for CC, then you dont have to use bolt for CC, and the cost reduction will allow you to use more bolts for mobility instead.
It has nothing to do with range either. You *want* to fight within 15m, since thats where you can CC your opponents. You aren't doing any more bolting than live - less in fact since you no longer have to(want to) constantly stay out of gap closer range."On pts you generally need to streak 1x more which means unless you streak atleast 4x in a row the cost reduction didn’t save you any magica compared to live where you started streaking from further away."
Why would you need to streak 1x more when you want to stay and fight in 15m range, using clench for CC?
Of course if you don't use clench for CC you do need to streak 1x more(to CC), but in that case the cost reduction freed you a slot.
You need to streak 1x more on pts compared to live because you need to be within 15m on pts and on live you need to be within 36.
If you need to be within 15m of target you need to streak less, not more.
On live you need to streak away to maintain distance everytime target gets close.
On PTS you don't - you *want* to be close so you can CC.
Yeah just that in that scenrio you streak once and lower cost increase is entirely irrelevant.
The cost reduction on the stack increase comes into relevance when you need to get away entirely.
In that case you need to streak 1x more to get away from combat comparing pts to live.
To actually benefit from the cost increase then you need to streak more than 4x
So yeah.
You have no idea what you talk about 😅Edited by Derra on August 5, 2019 11:52AM<Noricum>
I live. I die. I live again.
Derra - DC - Sorc - AvA 50
Derrah - EP - Sorc - AvA 500 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Which is still true bc the theoretical advantage of the cost reduction get nullified in practice by having to fight within 15m now.
It’s not about what cc you use.
Of course it is about what CC you use. If you keep using clench for CC, then you dont have to use bolt for CC, and the cost reduction will allow you to use more bolts for mobility instead.
It has nothing to do with range either. You *want* to fight within 15m, since thats where you can CC your opponents. You aren't doing any more bolting than live - less in fact since you no longer have to(want to) constantly stay out of gap closer range."On pts you generally need to streak 1x more which means unless you streak atleast 4x in a row the cost reduction didn’t save you any magica compared to live where you started streaking from further away."
Why would you need to streak 1x more when you want to stay and fight in 15m range, using clench for CC?
Of course if you don't use clench for CC you do need to streak 1x more(to CC), but in that case the cost reduction freed you a slot.
You need to streak 1x more on pts compared to live because you need to be within 15m on pts and on live you need to be within 36.
If you need to be within 15m of target you need to streak less, not more.
On live you need to streak away to maintain distance everytime target gets close.
On PTS you don't - you *want* to be close so you can CC.
Yeah just that in that scenrio you streak once and lower cost increase is entirely irrelevant.
So first you say the cost decrease "does precisely nothing" because you need to streak more, now you say the cost decrease is irrelevant because you only need to streak once.You have no idea what you talk about 😅
Right.
0 -
Derra✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭
Which is still true bc the theoretical advantage of the cost reduction get nullified in practice by having to fight within 15m now.
It’s not about what cc you use.
Of course it is about what CC you use. If you keep using clench for CC, then you dont have to use bolt for CC, and the cost reduction will allow you to use more bolts for mobility instead.
It has nothing to do with range either. You *want* to fight within 15m, since thats where you can CC your opponents. You aren't doing any more bolting than live - less in fact since you no longer have to(want to) constantly stay out of gap closer range."On pts you generally need to streak 1x more which means unless you streak atleast 4x in a row the cost reduction didn’t save you any magica compared to live where you started streaking from further away."
Why would you need to streak 1x more when you want to stay and fight in 15m range, using clench for CC?
Of course if you don't use clench for CC you do need to streak 1x more(to CC), but in that case the cost reduction freed you a slot.
You need to streak 1x more on pts compared to live because you need to be within 15m on pts and on live you need to be within 36.
If you need to be within 15m of target you need to streak less, not more.
On live you need to streak away to maintain distance everytime target gets close.
On PTS you don't - you *want* to be close so you can CC.
Yeah just that in that scenrio you streak once and lower cost increase is entirely irrelevant.
So first you say the cost decrease "does precisely nothing" because you need to streak more, now you say the cost decrease is irrelevant because you only need to streak once.You have no idea what you talk about 😅
Right.
You need to streak once in the situation you discribed staying out of gapcloser range. There it is irrelevant.
You need to streak more when trying to disengage from a fight on pts than you do on live. There the cost decrease matters but doesn’t help due to more casts required.
Not really that hard to understand.
But i guess for that you’d have to know what you talk about - which you don’t 🤷♂️<Noricum>
I live. I die. I live again.
Derra - DC - Sorc - AvA 50
Derrah - EP - Sorc - AvA 500 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭the cost decrease matters but doesn’t help
If it matters, it helps.
By the way, nice moving of goalpost. Not too long ago, your position was "you have to streak more because you have to use it for CC, and the cost decrease doesn't cover that".
Today, your position is that using streak for CC is irrelevant because you only use it once and the stacking cost does not come into play unless you try to disengage from fights.
Right.Edited by Sharee on August 5, 2019 12:31PM1 -
Derra✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭the cost decrease matters but doesn’t help
If it matters, it helps.
By the way, nice moving of goalpost. Not too long ago, your position was "you have to streak more because you have to use it for CC, and the cost decrease doesn't cover that".
Today, your position is that using streak for CC is irrelevant because you only use it once and the stacking cost does not come into play unless you try to disengage from fights.
Right.
Matters as in comes into effect.
Goalpost wasn’t moved- entirely different use scenarios being discussed (or rather the use case was dumbed down bc you don’t understand it)
No not using streak for cc once. Using it once as you described to stay out of gapcloser range.
In every scenario where the streak cost increase (and the reduction of it) comes into play - you have to streak more often on pts than you do have to on live (assuming no gameplay mistakes this means exclusively running away).
This makes the reduction of the cost increase have no positive impact on magica drain/min - thus my statement (this is under the assumption not using it as cc - if you do it gets even worse in that regard unless you deliberately push for more than 4 stacks regularly)
Edit: except for using cage as cc
But I guess we’ll see more out of context quotes to create strawmans out of what I said because you’re angry and desperate trying to win an argument about something you have no first hand experience in 👍Edited by Derra on August 5, 2019 1:09PM<Noricum>
I live. I die. I live again.
Derra - DC - Sorc - AvA 50
Derrah - EP - Sorc - AvA 502 -
Kova✭✭✭✭✭Can't wait to see what the nerfsorc threads will be like next patch.
Feels like trying to kick water uphill.EP Sorc: Aydinn
AD Stamplar: Verdant`Knight
DC Stamblade: Apple`Punch
EP Stam Sorc: Kós
AD DragonKnight: Transmigrant
EP NIghtblade: Aydinn2 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭the cost decrease matters but doesn’t help
If it matters, it helps.
By the way, nice moving of goalpost. Not too long ago, your position was "you have to streak more because you have to use it for CC, and the cost decrease doesn't cover that".
Today, your position is that using streak for CC is irrelevant because you only use it once and the stacking cost does not come into play unless you try to disengage from fights.
Right.
Matters as in comes into effect.
Goalpost wasn’t moved
Oh really.
Compare the bolded statements. Both made by you.
"In every scenario where the streak cost increase (and the reduction of it) comes into play - you have to streak more often on pts than you do have to on live (assuming no gameplay mistakes this means exclusively running away)."
"The cost adjustment to streak does precisely nothing - because the ability on pts now fills two roles instead of one. One is being a melee stun - this directly counteracts the mobility and evasive part of streak.
If you´re using it in both regards you have to streak way more often than the cost increase makes up for."
One, you claim the cost decrease does not cover using streak for CC. The other, you claim CC reduction does come into play exclusively only if you are running away.
You are twisting the argument this or that way depending on which suits your agenda better at the moment.0 -
Derra✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭the cost decrease matters but doesn’t help
If it matters, it helps.
By the way, nice moving of goalpost. Not too long ago, your position was "you have to streak more because you have to use it for CC, and the cost decrease doesn't cover that".
Today, your position is that using streak for CC is irrelevant because you only use it once and the stacking cost does not come into play unless you try to disengage from fights.
Right.
Matters as in comes into effect.
Goalpost wasn’t moved
Oh really.
Compare the bolded statements. Both made by you.
"In every scenario where the streak cost increase (and the reduction of it) comes into play - you have to streak more often on pts than you do have to on live (assuming no gameplay mistakes this means exclusively running away)."
"The cost adjustment to streak does precisely nothing - because the ability on pts now fills two roles instead of one. One is being a melee stun - this directly counteracts the mobility and evasive part of streak.
If you´re using it in both regards you have to streak way more often than the cost increase makes up for."
One, you claim the cost decrease does not cover using streak for CC. The other, you claim CC reduction does come into play exclusively only if you are running away.
You are twisting the argument this or that way depending on which suits your agenda better at the moment.
If you use it as cc it gets worse.
I’m deliberately ignoring the cc functionality to dumb down the argument so you can understand it better.
So yeah a goalpost is moved in favor of your argument not mine because I made my argument weaker by only focusing on the range and not the functionality aspect.
Also what Agenda? The agenda that people who have no idea wtf they talk about shouldn’t you know - talk so much?
Edited by Derra on August 5, 2019 1:20PM<Noricum>
I live. I die. I live again.
Derra - DC - Sorc - AvA 50
Derrah - EP - Sorc - AvA 501 -
Sharee✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭✭✭✭the cost decrease matters but doesn’t help
If it matters, it helps.
By the way, nice moving of goalpost. Not too long ago, your position was "you have to streak more because you have to use it for CC, and the cost decrease doesn't cover that".
Today, your position is that using streak for CC is irrelevant because you only use it once and the stacking cost does not come into play unless you try to disengage from fights.
Right.
Matters as in comes into effect.
Goalpost wasn’t moved
Oh really.
Compare the bolded statements. Both made by you.
"In every scenario where the streak cost increase (and the reduction of it) comes into play - you have to streak more often on pts than you do have to on live (assuming no gameplay mistakes this means exclusively running away)."
"The cost adjustment to streak does precisely nothing - because the ability on pts now fills two roles instead of one. One is being a melee stun - this directly counteracts the mobility and evasive part of streak.
If you´re using it in both regards you have to streak way more often than the cost increase makes up for."
One, you claim the cost decrease does not cover using streak for CC. The other, you claim CC reduction does come into play exclusively only if you are running away.
You are twisting the argument this or that way depending on which suits your agenda better at the moment.
If you use it as cc it gets worse.
I’m deliberately ignoring the cc functionality to dumb down the argument so you can understand it better.
Nice try. But you clearly stated that streak cost reduction *only* comes into play when running away. By your own words, using bolt as CC has no effect here, whether you are ignoring it or not.
It makes sense, really, since you do not need to CC more often than every 7 seconds, and you dont want to leave the 15m fighting area, so why spam bolts, right. It is flee-only issue.0
