* Verant: Please Give Wizards Clarity !!!
TuKuuL
Antoine Musso
>
> nt
Why do you want that ? after lvl 25th it s no more
a problem cause there will be most of the time
an enchanter able to cast clarity for you.
I admit before it take a long time but
if you are lucky you will have clarity
most of the time.
clarity is like sow ! just ask people around
you =)
Hashar Voultoiz
Plains Wizard
Mason Barge
>clarity is like sow ! just ask people around
>you =)
>
OK. Give clarity to wizards and sow to mages 8)
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln
Ratbert
--
Ratbert, Magician (Unity's Might) ZONE: news
<Erollisi Marr>
Mason Barge <mason...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000308132049...@ng-dc1.aol.com...
Sergey Dashevskiy
tuk...@icecold.org says...
> nt
>
The sad part is that even if Wizards get a personal only version of
Clarity, they are still gonna be inefficient... Wizards need a much
bigger rehaul in order to become useful
Xizor
lots more hp, normal pets, longer lasting and better buffs, and the ability
to use any equipment they want. That would be nice.
TuKuuL <tuk...@icecold.org> wrote in message
news:dv2dcs8lu2adi5557...@4ax.com...
> nt
Mark Asher
<ball...@bigpond.com.au> wrote:
>And Clerics Teleports :)
I want dual wield for my druid!
Mark Asher
kid_do...@my-deja.com
Yeh but it would be a step in the right direction. I know we won't see
any beneficial overhauling of wizards. They are apparently working as
Verant intended...why they intended them to be a liability I can't
fathom.
Moz
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
prostuck
Give Wizards clarity and give Enchanters just self teleports,
and I'm not being sarcastic, I truly think that could work.
Kendrick A Gold
that originally had it.
TuKuuL
<antoin...@easynet.fr> wrote:
>TuKuuL wrote:
>>
>> nt
>
>Why do you want that ? after lvl 25th it s no more
>a problem cause there will be most of the time
>an enchanter able to cast clarity for you.
>
>I admit before it take a long time but
>if you are lucky you will have clarity
>most of the time.
>
>clarity is like sow ! just ask people around
>you =)
>
>Hashar Voultoiz
>Plains Wizard
True, but Enchanters were complaining because wizards were always
asking for Clarity. Besides, it's hard to find Level 29 and above
Enchanters.
TuKuuL
David
useless, and a wizard has no real way of killing anything
without mana. (I'm ignoring resist issues for the moment)
Even an enchanter does better because their pet, cheesy
as it is can do damage to mobs without burning mana.
Or alternately he can charm a pet, though there is a
very real risk factor inherent in this.
Even with a self-clarity fix, downtime is still going to
be significant, but it will give Wizards a place in groups
that they're getting turned out of now. Because the bottom
line is that if you are doing fairly quick pulling, the
Wizard in your group is just not adding much.
A wizard in full burn mode is a dangerous enemy, and he
can deal a lot of damage
(assuming no resist issues,and
a constant stun/root/snare on the mob..all of which are
not a given, except in emergencies a wizard *really*
needs to carefully manage how quickly he burns..so this
casting time advantage he gets is really irrelevant
unless someone is about to die)
but once he's finished doing it, he's going to
spend the next 10 minutes sitting on the ground doing you
no good at all..which is why you're not inviting him into
your group in the first place.
Just my 2c on a fundamentally flawed class,
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Peter Ball
TuKuuL
<triffid_9...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>The bottom line here is that a wizard without mana is
>useless, and a wizard has no real way of killing anything
>without mana. (I'm ignoring resist issues for the moment)
>
>Even an enchanter does better because their pet, cheesy
>as it is can do damage to mobs without burning mana.
>Or alternately he can charm a pet, though there is a
>very real risk factor inherent in this.
>
>Even with a self-clarity fix, downtime is still going to
>be significant, but it will give Wizards a place in groups
>that they're getting turned out of now. Because the bottom
>line is that if you are doing fairly quick pulling, the
>Wizard in your group is just not adding much.
Exactly. Being able to regenerate mana a bit quicker will make the
Wizard class more attractive to fighting parties. Even at level 16,
you can only get off maybe 4 or 5 spells before you have to sit and
med up for 5 minutes or more. By that time, the party has killed 3
monsters and are pissed at the wiz because he or she just got credit
and didn't help.
When I started a Wizard not too long after EQ came out, the class was
somewhat praised. Now, it's a joke and needs some minor tweaking.
Please enhance the wizard class a bit, Verant.
TuKuuL
hughes
> >a problem cause there will be most of the time
> >an enchanter able to cast clarity for you.
> True, but Enchanters were complaining because wizards were always
> asking for Clarity. Besides, it's hard to find Level 29 and above
> Enchanters.
Nah we dont complain we just say no :) Wizzies, and magicians both tend to
get a real nasty reputation while young. This makes it really hard for them
to get favors from the ones they pissed off later .
Dagoril
Hash: SHA1
Verant, please don't. Keep the classes as unique as possible.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOMeyduleDjfCPC4rEQKPpwCg6ebu0GtzORvQQQ8f3FPVCSGdsrIAn3nC
gxkOf8uMsGK4NNpwiRuKXYtT
=qu1G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Erik Halvorsen
the expansion.
Hedda
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 18:26:30 +0100, Antoine Musso
<antoin...@easynet.fr> wrote:
>TuKuuL wrote:
>>
>> nt
>
>Why do you want that ? after lvl 25th it s no more
>a problem cause there will be most of the time
>an enchanter able to cast clarity for you.
>
Sylath
"prostuck" <pros...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38C6E13B...@home.com...
Jeremy Music
>
>
>Give Wizards clarity and give Enchanters just self teleports,
>and I'm not being sarcastic, I truly think that could work.
Then I want magicians to have self teleports. But then I always wanted
magicians to have self teleports.
When I solo, I would love clarity. When I group, I rarely need clarity.
Ironic.
J
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Wyld Knight - wyld.qx.net 3333
http://wyld.qx.net/~rezo
re...@lords.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shock
One or two small changes isn't going to change the uniqueness.
Besides, equality should override uniqueness and the wizard needs a
bit of updating.
Shock
Halvorsen) wrote:
>Actually Wizzies seem to get a spell called Manaskin at level 52 with
>the expansion.
>
Cool! Level 52? It's only taken 8 months to get to level 16 for
me. I can use that in about 3 years. What a crock.
Shock
wrote:
>prostuck <pros...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Give Wizards clarity and give Enchanters just self teleports,
>>and I'm not being sarcastic, I truly think that could work.
>
>Then I want magicians to have self teleports. But then I always wanted
>magicians to have self teleports.
>
>When I solo, I would love clarity. When I group, I rarely need clarity.
>Ironic.
>
>J
Shit, man. You already have access to a pet.
Shadis
ability to wear plate mail, and dual-wield 2 handed swords, and
make the Firey Avenger be Paladin and Wizard only and give us 10
times our old hitpoints, and give us a built-in mana regeneration
ability on top of clarity, and give us critical hits on our
spells so that ice comet can do 2200 points of damage and cut the
mana useage in half so that we can chain cast ice comet and make
it so the mobs don't aggro on us when we do that and....
DAMN! QUIT WHINING! Just be glad that there IS a spell called
clarity, and that with an enchanter in your group you can cast
more than you would normally be able to. Wizards already have a
very good mana to damage ratio, so that we have the potential to
do more damage for every mana point spent than any other caster
class. The reason Wizards don't have Clarity is because that
would effectively increase our damage done per mana spent. That
would be really unbalancing.
Anyway, if you're a SMART wizard, you're not out there wasting
all your mana on a single mob. If you're smart, you are in a
good group and you're standing in the background popping off the
occasional DD to help take a chunk out of a mob. You're watching
for runners so that the tanks don't have to go chasing mobs
through a dungeon and making trains. You're laying down AE
spells where applicable to help take the load off. You are NOT
trying to take every mob down as quickly as possible.
I think that there's this feeling that people get that everyone
should be contributing an equal ammount to every mob. This makes
Wizards feel useless when they're standing around watching their
group beat on a mob. I used to feel the same way. But how
helpless do you feel after you've burned your mana on a single
mob, and then an even tougher mob comes up and starts wiping out
your group. If only you could nuke it once or twice, they'd
live. If only you could root it so everyone could get away. If
only you had enough mana to evac. Sure, clarity would help some,
but NOT WASTING MANA would help even more. So before you start
trying to change every class around, maybe you should try learn
to play the class the way it is.
If you see not having clarity as a defect in the class, just
remember it was a defect you were 'born' with. You knew you
didn't have clarity when you created your wizard. If you just
can't play without having clarity, then play an enchanter. Or
learn to live with the 'defects' that you're 'born' with just
like a deaf person has to learn to live with being deaf. At
least in the world of EQ, you have a choice.
Sartorii
"Shock" <sh...@laka.org> wrote in message
news:9snfcssugvtml8hlk...@4ax.com...
Nightsky
"Sylath" <syl...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:FPOx4.972$Ac2....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> My mage would like either teleports or clarity too.
>
> "prostuck" <pros...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:38C6E13B...@home.com...
> >
> >
David
classes people pick to be in their groups at high levels.
This, along with my general frustration at not being able to
solo at all (Wizards basically need SoW/Jboots to have a
prayer of doing this) led me to retire mine.
I had no problem being a group class, but if I'm a
lousy group class, then I'm not going to get into a lot of
groups (unless friends are on). What makes a wizard lousy?
downtime+resists. The resist issue has been addressed somewhat,
though a lot of wizards I have talked to say that the
resist improvement for wizards did almost nothing.
Downtime has never been addressed by Verant.
As for Magicians/Enchanters wanting something..just remember
your classes are already considered much more powerful/desireable
at high levels..asking for more is just going to get you
nerfed, especially since both classes have been enhanced
several times since release.
I, like many others joined the ranks of wizardry on the belief
that there was a "payoff", that my relative weakness at low
levels would be compensated for as I advanced in rank. I can
now candidly say that that payoff is a lie...the only payoff
you will see is that of taxidriver to the planes.
Sad, but as things stand..true.
kid_do...@my-deja.com
Shadis <sfelice...@getty.edu.invalid> wrote:
> And when you give Clarity to Wizards, make sure you give us the
> ability to wear plate mail, and dual-wield 2 handed swords, and
> make the Firey Avenger be Paladin and Wizard only and give us 10
> times our old hitpoints, and give us a built-in mana regeneration
> ability on top of clarity, and give us critical hits on our
> spells so that ice comet can do 2200 points of damage and cut the
> mana useage in half so that we can chain cast ice comet and make
> it so the mobs don't aggro on us when we do that and....
This is nothing along the lines of what most wizards are requesting.
But I suspect you know that already...just throwing that shit in at the
front will help invalidate the concerns right? Dumbass.
> DAMN! QUIT WHINING! Just be glad that there IS a spell called
> clarity, and that with an enchanter in your group you can cast
> more than you would normally be able to. Wizards already have a
> very good mana to damage ratio, so that we have the potential to
> do more damage for every mana point spent than any other caster
> class. The reason Wizards don't have Clarity is because that
> would effectively increase our damage done per mana spent. That
> would be really unbalancing.
Absolutely wrong. You are talking out your ass. Pets and DoTs are more
mana efficient (i.e. more damage done per point of mana spent) Get some
facts straight before shooting off your mouth. We get better damage to
mana ratio on DDs but that still falls well short of being efficient in
a group. Personal clarity would allow us to offset this discrepancy to
a minor degree.
> Anyway, if you're a SMART wizard, you're not out there wasting
> all your mana on a single mob. If you're smart, you are in a
> good group and you're standing in the background popping off the
> occasional DD to help take a chunk out of a mob. You're watching
> for runners so that the tanks don't have to go chasing mobs
> through a dungeon and making trains. You're laying down AE
> spells where applicable to help take the load off. You are NOT
> trying to take every mob down as quickly as possible.
>
> I think that there's this feeling that people get that everyone
> should be contributing an equal ammount to every mob. This makes
> Wizards feel useless when they're standing around watching their
> group beat on a mob. I used to feel the same way. But how
> helpless do you feel after you've burned your mana on a single
> mob, and then an even tougher mob comes up and starts wiping out
> your group. If only you could nuke it once or twice, they'd
> live. If only you could root it so everyone could get away. If
> only you had enough mana to evac. Sure, clarity would help some,
> but NOT WASTING MANA would help even more. So before you start
> trying to change every class around, maybe you should try learn
> to play the class the way it is.
Change is not always something to be feared. Verant has demonstrated
they do not fear change.
> If you see not having clarity as a defect in the class, just
> remember it was a defect you were 'born' with. You knew you
> didn't have clarity when you created your wizard. If you just
> can't play without having clarity, then play an enchanter. Or
> learn to live with the 'defects' that you're 'born' with just
> like a deaf person has to learn to live with being deaf. At
> least in the world of EQ, you have a choice.
I'm not sure about everyone else out there but way back when I created
my wizard...my first character...I had no idea what clarity spell was.
It wasn't listed in the "manual" I had only the books say so to go on
regarding the wizard class. Even purchasing the "hint book" which was a
glorified manual didn't give much insight into the workings of the
game. Why would you wish for a certain class (not character and entire
class) to have such a debilitating flaw as to make them undesirable in
groups?
Shadis
kid_do...@my-deja.com wrote:
>This is nothing along the lines of what most wizards are
requesting.
>But I suspect you know that already...just throwing that shit in
at the
>front will help invalidate the concerns right? Dumbass.
>
No, I was merely being sarcastic. I'm just tired of Wizards
getting a bad reputation because a few of our class go out and
whine for things that they know they'll never get, that they've
lived without for a long time, and that they don't really need.
I'm not saying that the Wizard class is perfect, but I don't
think ANY class is perfect. Wizards, however, are far from being
the worst class in the game.
>Absolutely wrong. You are talking out your ass. Pets and DoTs
are more
>mana efficient (i.e. more damage done per point of mana spent)
Get some
>facts straight before shooting off your mouth. We get better
damage to
>mana ratio on DDs but that still falls well short of being
efficient in
>a group. Personal clarity would allow us to offset this
discrepancy to
>a minor degree.
>
Actually, AE's have a great damage to mana ratio potential. Many
people are afraid to use them, however, because either they've
heard that they 'suck' or that they've used them wrong in the
past (or used them right but had a bad experience with them).
>Change is not always something to be feared. Verant has
demonstrated
>they do not fear change.
>
I'm not saying change is bad. Change is good, in fact. But the
changes need to be such that they don't mess up the balance of
the classes, and so that they maintain the uniqueness of the
classes. Giving clarity to Wizards is akin to giving bind to
Warriors. Not exactly the same thing, but they're both skills
that are specific to a particular group of characters and
shouldn't be given to another group of characters.
>I'm not sure about everyone else out there but way back when I
created
>my wizard...my first character...I had no idea what clarity
spell was.
>It wasn't listed in the "manual" I had only the books say so to
go on
>regarding the wizard class. Even purchasing the "hint book"
which was a
>glorified manual didn't give much insight into the workings of
the
>game. Why would you wish for a certain class (not character and
entire
>class) to have such a debilitating flaw as to make them
undesirable in
>groups?
First off, you're right...when I created my Wizard, I had no idea
what clarity was or that it even existed. I created a Wizard
because that's the kind of character I like to play. I like
slinging balls of fire at my foe, or calling down lightning upon
them. That's the kind of character I like, so that's why I
created a Wizard. I had no clue what kind of spells I'd be
getting. So why whine about something I never had, or even knew
existed? I don't think it is a 'debilitating flaw' to not have
something that you were never intended to have. Is it
debilitating that I don't have wings? Birds have wings...why not
me? Well, I could always pay an airline to fly somewhere...but
why do that if I could only have wings? But I don't have wings,
never did, and never will...so I'll pay the airlines. Enchanters
have clarity. Group with an enchanter if you want it. No big
deal.
Shock
<sfelice...@getty.edu.invalid> wrote:
>And when you give Clarity to Wizards, make sure you give us the
>ability to wear plate mail, and dual-wield 2 handed swords, and
>make the Firey Avenger be Paladin and Wizard only and give us 10
>times our old hitpoints, and give us a built-in mana regeneration
>ability on top of clarity, and give us critical hits on our
>spells so that ice comet can do 2200 points of damage and cut the
>mana useage in half so that we can chain cast ice comet and make
>it so the mobs don't aggro on us when we do that and....
Man, are you blowing this out of proportion. We are talking about 1
or 2 minor tweaks. Besides, how readily available is a Level 29 or
above Enchanter. You say switch to an Enchanter, but for one, I've
been playing a wizard for months and two, Enchanters seem to be
treated just as useless as wizards until they are level 29. I've
talked to a few.
>
>DAMN! QUIT WHINING! Just be glad that there IS a spell called
>clarity, and that with an enchanter in your group you can cast
>more than you would normally be able to. Wizards already have a
>very good mana to damage ratio, so that we have the potential to
>do more damage for every mana point spent than any other caster
>class. The reason Wizards don't have Clarity is because that
>would effectively increase our damage done per mana spent. That
>would be really unbalancing.
It doesn't have to be Clarity...maybe some other useful and unique
enhancement to make wizards more appealing and useful overall.
>
>Anyway, if you're a SMART wizard, you're not out there wasting
>all your mana on a single mob. If you're smart, you are in a
>good group and you're standing in the background popping off the
>occasional DD to help take a chunk out of a mob. You're watching
yeah...that's great and all but what about the occassional monster or
two or three that decides to attack you for rooting it or while you're
just standing there? Most people who are already preoccupied are
already fighting and here is the wizard getting beat on by a few other
monsters. A good example is the castle in Crushbone.
>If you see not having clarity as a defect in the class, just
>remember it was a defect you were 'born' with. You knew you
>didn't have clarity when you created your wizard. If you just
>can't play without having clarity, then play an enchanter. Or
>learn to live with the 'defects' that you're 'born' with just
>like a deaf person has to learn to live with being deaf. At
>least in the world of EQ, you have a choice.
Easy for you to say. Besides, Verant has been nerfing and enhancing
classes since EQ has been online. I have yet to see anything done to
the Wizard...either way. A wizard was once hailed as the most
powerful class and able to travel anywhere and now they are hailed as
useless to groups, masters of sitting, and a joke against high level
monsters that resist their magical attacks. I guess a Mythril Quill
is highly useful against a high level MOB...not.
Wizards need something....something that's missing to make them as
equally useful as the other classes. It's not necessarily a clarity
issue, but faster mana regen would help greatly. How about the
ability to purchase a mana potion? If you want a quick mana
recharge, pay for it....but not an exhorbitant amount. Verant can
come up with something instead of ignoring the issue and there IS an
issue or there wouldn't be as many complaints about wizards as there
are.
Shock
Shock
have had some stints where I played for many hours in a day to
accomplish a goal or level. Yes, it's taken all that time to make
Level 16 and I've had many campfests.
Shock
>what clarity was or that it even existed. I created a Wizard
>because that's the kind of character I like to play. I like
>slinging balls of fire at my foe, or calling down lightning upon
>them. That's the kind of character I like, so that's why I
>created a Wizard. I had no clue what kind of spells I'd be
>getting. So why whine about something I never had, or even knew
>existed? I don't think it is a 'debilitating flaw' to not have
>something that you were never intended to have. Is it
>debilitating that I don't have wings? Birds have wings...why not
>me? Well, I could always pay an airline to fly somewhere...but
>why do that if I could only have wings? But I don't have wings,
>never did, and never will...so I'll pay the airlines. Enchanters
>have clarity. Group with an enchanter if you want it. No big
>deal.
It's easier to book a flight on an airline than to find a Level 29+
Enchanter.
JackiePrice
few improvements for wizards, clarity is not one of them--it doesn't fit the
class.
Karl King
there is a reason no single class has everything.... because that would
unbalance the game due to the fact that EVERYONE would play that
class...
I choose a druid due to the factr that it gives me a little of
everything...
but i have to give up melee skills for the casting skills....
and even though i get a few of each type of spell its always weaker than
other classes that specialise in those... example.. clerics get their
next healing spells 1 circle b4 druids...
druids get dots but necro dot's are better/more eficient..
we get buffs but shamans/clerics get better ones...
we get DDs but wizzys get better ones..
ect the list goes on...
If you take a step back and look at all the classes you will see that
they are relativley equal :)
Karl King
TuKuuL wrote:
> nt
Dan Bongard
>Man, are you blowing this out of proportion. We are talking about 1
>or 2 minor tweaks. Besides, how readily available is a Level 29 or
>above Enchanter.
You can't swing a dead cat without thwapping one upside the head.
That's assuming you, yourself, are mid-twenties or above. If
you aren't, you really don't need Clarity to get by. Also, don't
forget that Bards are even better than Enchanters at getting
you your mana back -- especially if you can team with more
than one.
> You say switch to an Enchanter, but for one, I've been playing
> a wizard for months and two, Enchanters seem to be treated
> just as useless as wizards until they are level 29. I've
> talked to a few.
People who treat pre-29th Enchanters as "useless" quite honestly
don't have a clue what the hell they are doing. Enchanters
are excellent additions to a party at just about any level. My
advice to you: treat the "enchanters are useless" statement as
a litmus test for separating the idiots from the people worth
grouping with. :)
-- Dan
Erik Halvorsen
<triffid_9...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>Well, the point is that Wizards are generally one of the last
>classes people pick to be in their groups at high levels.
>This, along with my general frustration at not being able to
>solo at all (Wizards basically need SoW/Jboots to have a
>prayer of doing this) led me to retire mine.
>
>I had no problem being a group class, but if I'm a
>lousy group class, then I'm not going to get into a lot of
>groups (unless friends are on). What makes a wizard lousy?
>downtime+resists. The resist issue has been addressed somewhat,
>though a lot of wizards I have talked to say that the
>resist improvement for wizards did almost nothing.
>
>Downtime has never been addressed by Verant.
>
>As for Magicians/Enchanters wanting something..just remember
>your classes are already considered much more powerful/desireable
>at high levels..asking for more is just going to get you
>nerfed, especially since both classes have been enhanced
>several times since release.
>
"enhancements" to enchanters:
- High Level (39+) Pets weakened
- Made Illusion Wolf OD Only
- lost ability to charm NPC/PC pets
- lost ability to refresh levitate
- WTYH effectiveness reduced bigtime
- mana sieve effectiveness reduced (cost was
reduced but it's effect was reduced by
several times as much)
- lost ability to charm / fear in PvP
- Root easier to break
- Dyn's downgraded and never fixed for high level
lengthy stuns. (This has been fixed to the point
of being useless with a pet, or with color series
as stun/bash/our DD's breaks the effect)
- Enchantment of Light and brilliance Removed,
(What were these supposed to do anyway?)
- Item Enchantment implemented to create ONE item.
- Shortened Clarity Duration
- Made Low Level DD Partially Resistable
- Broke Sentinel so it causes mega lag in crowded
areas
- Minor Illusion made see-through to npc (NPC will
attack even though illusioned)
- Troll regen broken for 6 months, is it better
than tree, why have it?.
(Troll regen partially fixed - only giving 1 extra
tick where originally gave an extra 3.)
- Strip/Pillage enchatment made unusable on PvP
Servers (now also aggroing mobs on regular
servers).
- Blanket of Forgetfulness nerfed ( Level 49, no
longer hanging effect)
- Reoccurring amnesia broken (doesn't reoccur)
(been fixed recently to reoccur once, not a
timed duration, and this is a level 49 spell)
- High Level Pets dual wield removed (fixed ..
sorta they now have to be equipped with weapons)
- Feedback made unstackable with Fire Elemental
- Memory Blur Level Capped 35+ mobs/ Memory Blur
Chance with Mes Series Reduced
-Tashan line resistable
-Mesmerize is broken by DOT damage now. (It's a
common enchanter theme to having to
choose between different types of spells - Charm
or pet? Mes or dot? Debuff or damage?
Same with buffs: Augmentation or Celerity, Str or
rampage - they just don't work together)
-Pets lost the advantage of lessened delay when
given weapons. Pets : Just another mana intensive
dot. Bah we already had the worst dots in the
game)
Add to this that several of our lines of spells are either too mana
inefficient (str-agi debuff lines, dot's, dd's, Pets), have no real
value (Illusions, See thru targets eye with some kind of vision, Lull
line, Mana potion line, WTYH DDD, Mem blur after 40, wis debuff, mana
sieve) Or doesn't stack as opposed to others dot lines, where they
have several lines of dot's. (see above)
Although I agree that Wizards do have a hard time especially in early
years, and that the enchanter have an easier task of getting a group.
I do think that the non-twinked/non-powerleveled enchanters average of
70 days played to reach level 50, versus the wizzies 50 days played to
reach 50, seems to say that we are a class that is a little harder to
play than most classes, and albeit powerful in our own regard, we're
no match for a wizzie when it comes to killing mobs, and no use on
dragon runs or in the planes except as clarity machines, and that's
only for those of us with a serious death wish.
I have always loved grouping with wizzies except they never can seem
to find their assist hotkey.
Hedda
Charles
>
>
>Give Wizards clarity and give Enchanters just self teleports,
>and I'm not being sarcastic, I truly think that could work.
If I am not mistaken (and please correct me if I am) without Clarity,
Wizards already regain mana faster than any of the other casting
classes. Giving them Clarity or a Clarity type spell would be about
as unbalancing as giving an enchanter a summoned controlable pet (that
doesn't aggro on you after 2-3 minutes). They would be TOO powerful.
Shadis
<sh...@laka.org> wrote:
>Man, are you blowing this out of proportion. We are talking
about 1
>or 2 minor tweaks. Besides, how readily available is a Level
29 or
I've
>been playing a wizard for months and two, Enchanters seem to be
>treated just as useless as wizards until they are level 29.
I've
>talked to a few.
>
I don't think there are any useless classes in this game if they
are played correctly. The point of the game is to have fun, and
you CAN have fun playing any class, if you like it.
>yeah...that's great and all but what about the occassional
monster or
>two or three that decides to attack you for rooting it or while
you're
>just standing there? Most people who are already preoccupied
are
>already fighting and here is the wizard getting beat on by a few
other
>monsters. A good example is the castle in Crushbone.
>
Sure, people will die. It happens to every class. It happens to
good groups as well as bad. But poorly formed and managed groups
are sure to die a lot more and a lot quicker than a good group
that's well managed and knows what they're doing. No matter what
the makeup of the group.
Well, first of all, there have been many changes to the Wizard
class, and most of them positive. They made Ice Comet easier to
get. They lowered the inherent resistance to Wizard spells past
level 35. They implemented the research quest. I know that none
of these is a huge deal, but I don't think Wizards were ever
hugely underpowered. I'm certanly not opposed to seeing a few
tweaks here and there, and I'd welcome with open arms any
enhancements that Verant would like to give us no matter how big
or small. The main point of my (somewhat overdramatic, I admit)
reply to the original post was that there are too many Wizards
whining about alot of things that don't make sense for a Wizard
to have. It happens in every class, but it seems that Wizards
have gotten a bad rap because of it more than most classes. If
someone wants to suggest something original that will help the
class and not change the balance of the game, great. But it does
us ALL a disservice if it's done in a whining fashion saying "If
I don't have clarity, I'm useless! You suck Verant!".
TuKuuL
>reply to the original post was that there are too many Wizards
>whining about alot of things that don't make sense for a Wizard
>to have. It happens in every class, but it seems that Wizards
>have gotten a bad rap because of it more than most classes. If
>someone wants to suggest something original that will help the
>class and not change the balance of the game, great. But it does
>us ALL a disservice if it's done in a whining fashion saying "If
>I don't have clarity, I'm useless! You suck Verant!".
I agree and I don't believe Verant should be attacked, but sometimes
they push paying users in a corner when they make statements like
"there is nothing wrong with the wizard class and we won't be making
any changes whatsoever". That is not ver open ended and a good
development team should always be open ended to good suggestions.
TuKuuL
Anonymous Browser
news:2=3IOGWdhT4mK8A...@4ax.com...
> If I am not mistaken (and please correct me if I am) without Clarity,
> Wizards already regain mana faster than any of the other casting
> classes. Giving them Clarity or a Clarity type spell would be about
> as unbalancing as giving an enchanter a summoned controlable pet (that
> doesn't aggro on you after 2-3 minutes). They would be TOO powerful.
Well, a level 20 Erudite Enchanter and level 20 Human Wizard, with the same
INT [stripped items off the Erudite] and same Meditate skill [capped for
level], took the same time to regain their mana bar. Therefore, I believe
Sir, you are mistaken.
There has been a suggestion to cap Wizard (only) Meditate at 6 * (Lvl + 1).
I still prefer a Self-only Clarity, to be given at 29 ... but I understand
the argument against it as well.
It seems, more and more, people are starting Necros, Enchanters and Mages
over Wizards, since the aforementioned three can solo more effectively than
a Wizzie. I mean, I'm shocked when I see someone's non-first character as a
Wizard now. Like everyone "knows" how inferior they are to the other caster
classes (or Druid).
Best,
-Hodito, Wiz/45
R'Nife server
David
nerfs applied..the enhancements I was referring to
(off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more)
enchanter "enhancements"
added jewelry enchantment abilitites
added enchanter specific quests (stein of moggok anyone?)
added experience bonus to the class
added clarity
magician "enhancements"
added dual wielding pet
added focus items
added a number of new spells (waterstone,manastone,etc)
added pet abilities (root effect,etc)
But the BOTTOM LINE HERE is this. If you had a choice
of having a wizard in your group, wouldnt you prefer
one of the other caster types at high levels (35+)?
If that choice is a definitive yes, then guess what..wizards
need to get fixed. Wizards cannot solo without Jboots
(which are now virtually unobtainable). Even if they could,
it would be silly. Wizards are *supposed* to be a group
oriented class, just like the other "archetype" classes
Fighters and Clerics. The problem is nobody wants them.
The fundamental reason behind that is that wizards cannot keep
up with groups in high level sitations. If they are to have
equivalent damage output to say a melee class (and I would argue
that they should do more, considering they have no armor,and no
other abilities) they spend the next 3 battles contributing
nothing while they med.
Or (the other agument against having a wizard) you
pull something too tough. Every other class can indirectly
affect the battle if their spells get resisted but the wizard.
The Wizard does have some nice utility in that they can cast
ice/fire/magic based spells, but that only helps if the monster
is in the correct level range...if it's too high, fighters/pets
will wiff more, but they still do damage. clerics can still
heal. classes with damage shields can still use those.
the wizard can er..work on his bind wounds skill and get
ready to cast evac.
Billy Shields
: On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 13:23:04 -0800, David
: <triffid_9...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
:>Well, the point is that Wizards are generally one of the last
:>classes people pick to be in their groups at high levels.
:>This, along with my general frustration at not being able to
:>solo at all (Wizards basically need SoW/Jboots to have a
:>prayer of doing this) led me to retire mine.
:>
:>I had no problem being a group class, but if I'm a
:>lousy group class, then I'm not going to get into a lot of
:>groups (unless friends are on). What makes a wizard lousy?
:>downtime+resists. The resist issue has been addressed somewhat,
:>though a lot of wizards I have talked to say that the
:>resist improvement for wizards did almost nothing.
:>
:>Downtime has never been addressed by Verant.
:>
:>As for Magicians/Enchanters wanting something..just remember
:>your classes are already considered much more powerful/desireable
:>at high levels..asking for more is just going to get you
:>nerfed, especially since both classes have been enhanced
:>several times since release.
:>
: "enhancements" to enchanters:
: - High Level (39+) Pets weakened
Applies to all pet classes. Enchanters are not a pet class though
so arguably it affected them less. Then again necros and magicians
had their pets reduced in level then focus items were added which
eliminated that (didn't eliminate it for shamans though) then the
dagger trick was nerfed then magicians got a big boost.
: - Made Illusion Wolf OD Only
Thats no big deal. Is this that crippling? Isn't there another
illusion you can use? I doubt there isn't.
: - lost ability to charm NPC/PC pets
Kinda makes sense though don't you think?
: - lost ability to refresh levitate
Um, you can refresh levitate now.
: - WTYH effectiveness reduced bigtime
: - mana sieve effectiveness reduced (cost was
: reduced but it's effect was reduced by
: several times as much)
Its not particularly useful anyway considering the size of NPC
mana pool. Or maybe you're referring to the PVP affects to which
my response is: who cares?
: - lost ability to charm / fear in PvP
Who cares? (see above)
: - Root easier to break
Affects all root-using classes. You're probably talking about the
very early changes made to root which were if I remember correctly
entirely reasonable as root used to be godly.
: - Dyn's downgraded and never fixed for high level
: lengthy stuns. (This has been fixed to the point
: of being useless with a pet, or with color series
: as stun/bash/our DD's breaks the effect)
: - Enchantment of Light and brilliance Removed,
: (What were these supposed to do anyway?)
: - Item Enchantment implemented to create ONE item.
How is this bad? One is better than none and its not a nerf. Yet
you complain?
: - Shortened Clarity Duration
Its still a godly spell. And are you sure it wsa reduced? By how
much?
: - Made Low Level DD Partially Resistable
What a crime.
: - Broke Sentinel so it causes mega lag in crowded
: areas
Pretty much all spell effects cause mega lag in crowded areas.
: - Minor Illusion made see-through to npc (NPC will
: attack even though illusioned)
Not that unreasonable for a first level spell don't you think?
Besides this spell is still extremely useful for faction adjustment.
: - Troll regen broken for 6 months, is it better
: than tree, why have it?.
: (Troll regen partially fixed - only giving 1 extra
: tick where originally gave an extra 3.)
: - Strip/Pillage enchatment made unusable on PvP
: Servers (now also aggroing mobs on regular
: servers).
More PvP complaints (who cares?). As for aggroing mobs this isn't
a huge deal. Usually the only spell worth cancelling off an npc is
a damage shield and cancel/nullify magic will do that.
: - Blanket of Forgetfulness nerfed ( Level 49, no
: longer hanging effect)
: - Reoccurring amnesia broken (doesn't reoccur)
: (been fixed recently to reoccur once, not a
: timed duration, and this is a level 49 spell)
: - High Level Pets dual wield removed (fixed ..
: sorta they now have to be equipped with weapons)
Hardly that annoying. You don't even need to carry daggers to do it.
Any weapon will do. Just pick two up. They're lying around everywhere.
: - Feedback made unstackable with Fire Elemental
: - Memory Blur Level Capped 35+ mobs/ Memory Blur
: Chance with Mes Series Reduced
: -Tashan line resistable
Um, the resist rates on Tashan are *miniscule*. I know level 50
enchanters who say "yeah its happened a couple of times". This spell
is *extremely* hard to resist. Its also an extremely cheap cast and
goes against poison resistance.
: -Mesmerize is broken by DOT damage now. (It's a
: common enchanter theme to having to
: choose between different types of spells - Charm
: or pet? Mes or dot? Debuff or damage?
Makes sense though doesn't it? Every other form of damage (excluding
the tashan point of damage) breaks mes. This is an entirely reasonable
fix. Otherwise all you do is DoT a monster with 6-7 DoTs, mes it and
watch it melt (you need to get a necro, shaman and/or druid to get
that many DoTs to stack).
: Same with buffs: Augmentation or Celerity, Str or
: rampage - they just don't work together)
Augmentation is fairly useless anyway (imho). You're better off
using Alacrity+.
: -Pets lost the advantage of lessened delay when
: given weapons. Pets : Just another mana intensive
: dot. Bah we already had the worst dots in the
: game)
This affected necros too and affected them more (since they rely on
their pets more than enchanters do). The enchanter pets are still
a pretty reasonable DoT though.
: Add to this that several of our lines of spells are either too mana
: inefficient (str-agi debuff lines, dot's, dd's, Pets), have no real
The str/agi debuffs are useless, yes.
Your DoTs suck but hey enchanters aren't dealers of damage are they?
Your DDs are about as efficient as mage DDs (ignoring bolts) but they
taunt more. (Good) enchanters only use them when soloing though in
my experience.
How can you call a pet too mana inefficient? Pets are the most
efficient DoTs in the game.
: value (Illusions, See thru targets eye with some kind of vision, Lull
: line, Mana potion line, WTYH DDD, Mem blur after 40, wis debuff, mana
: sieve) Or doesn't stack as opposed to others dot lines, where they
: have several lines of dot's. (see above)
: Although I agree that Wizards do have a hard time especially in early
: years, and that the enchanter have an easier task of getting a group.
: I do think that the non-twinked/non-powerleveled enchanters average of
: 70 days played to reach level 50, versus the wizzies 50 days played to
: reach 50, seems to say that we are a class that is a little harder to
: play than most classes, and albeit powerful in our own regard, we're
: no match for a wizzie when it comes to killing mobs, and no use on
: dragon runs or in the planes except as clarity machines, and that's
: only for those of us with a serious death wish.
: I have always loved grouping with wizzies except they never can seem
: to find their assist hotkey.
Unfortunately (for you) you are an idiot. The real problem here is
that you don't know how to play your enchanter. You've demonstrated
this unequivocably in this and other posts that you've made.
70 days played time to reach level 50? Hello? Any class can reach
level 50 in 40 days if they want to. Many can do it in 20 if they
try (including enchanters).
The sad thing is that some people want enchanters in their group
solely to be clarity machines not thinking or realising they can
do anything else. An even sadder phenomonan is that stupid people
who PLAY enchanters get sucked into this mentality.
Enchanters have no use on dragon runs??? I can't believe you even
said that. have you ever been on a dragon run? If so was it with
less than 60 people (where sheer weight of numbers takes it down
no matter what almost; it requires very little skill and planning)?
Wizards are better at killing monsters? Sheer nonsense.
Billy Shields
: Charles <cwtr...@fuse.net> wrote in message
: news:2=3IOGWdhT4mK8A...@4ax.com...
:> If I am not mistaken (and please correct me if I am) without Clarity,
:> Wizards already regain mana faster than any of the other casting
:> classes. Giving them Clarity or a Clarity type spell would be about
:> as unbalancing as giving an enchanter a summoned controlable pet (that
:> doesn't aggro on you after 2-3 minutes). They would be TOO powerful.
: Well, a level 20 Erudite Enchanter and level 20 Human Wizard, with the same
: INT [stripped items off the Erudite] and same Meditate skill [capped for
: level], took the same time to regain their mana bar. Therefore, I believe
: Sir, you are mistaken.
He is. The mana you regen back is based *solely* on meditate skill.
Stamina, class, etc do not affect it. The only thing that does is
spells like Clarity, Lich, etc.
: There has been a suggestion to cap Wizard (only) Meditate at 6 * (Lvl + 1).
: I still prefer a Self-only Clarity, to be given at 29 ... but I understand
: the argument against it as well.
: It seems, more and more, people are starting Necros, Enchanters and Mages
: over Wizards, since the aforementioned three can solo more effectively than
: a Wizzie. I mean, I'm shocked when I see someone's non-first character as a
: Wizard now. Like everyone "knows" how inferior they are to the other caster
: classes (or Druid).
The problem is that its really only the stupid wizards who are left.
The rest long ago started necros, magicians, enchanters, etc. In
my guild most of the 50 wizards have other characters (most in the
mid to high 40s by now) and they've long abandoned their wizards
as merely being taxis to the planes (which is what they are).
Billy Shields
: Just to clear the air here, as I know all classes have had some
: nerfs applied..the enhancements I was referring to
: (off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more)
: enchanter "enhancements"
: added jewelry enchantment abilitites
: added enchanter specific quests (stein of moggok anyone?)
: added experience bonus to the class
: added clarity
: magician "enhancements"
: added dual wielding pet
: added focus items
: added a number of new spells (waterstone,manastone,etc)
: added pet abilities (root effect,etc)
: But the BOTTOM LINE HERE is this. If you had a choice
: of having a wizard in your group, wouldnt you prefer
: one of the other caster types at high levels (35+)?
No I'd prefer one of the other casting classes at EVERY level.
: If that choice is a definitive yes, then guess what..wizards
: need to get fixed. Wizards cannot solo without Jboots
: (which are now virtually unobtainable). Even if they could,
: it would be silly. Wizards are *supposed* to be a group
: oriented class, just like the other "archetype" classes
: Fighters and Clerics. The problem is nobody wants them.
You are right--nobody does want them. They are broken. Verant
have their heads in their sand and refuse to believe it however.
Mr Foo Bar
news:38cc5e9b$0$19...@motown.iinet.net.au...
Have to agree, if you're above level 20 and still using a pet as an
enchanter - you should have played a mage :-)
>
> : - Made Illusion Wolf OD Only
>
> Thats no big deal. Is this that crippling? Isn't there another
> illusion you can use? I doubt there isn't.
It is "crippling" in exactly the way Verant meant it to be, corpse recovery
from Dragons. And no there isnt another illusion that will substitue.
>
> : - lost ability to charm NPC/PC pets
>
Kinda makes sense though don't you think? Not really, no. Would have made
more sense if NPCs couldnt charm our pets.
>
> : - lost ability to refresh levitate
>
> Um, you can refresh levitate now.
>
> : - WTYH effectiveness reduced bigtime
> : - mana sieve effectiveness reduced (cost was
> : reduced but it's effect was reduced by
> : several times as much)
>
> Its not particularly useful anyway considering the size of NPC
> mana pool. Or maybe you're referring to the PVP affects to which
> my response is: who cares?
>
> : - lost ability to charm / fear in PvP
>
> Who cares? (see above)
I do, because its another sad example of Verant bodging a fix rather than
dealing with the root problem (pc's are treated as nocs when
charmed/feared).
>
> : - Root easier to break
>
> Affects all root-using classes. You're probably talking about the
> very early changes made to root which were if I remember correctly
> entirely reasonable as root used to be godly.
>
> : - Dyn's downgraded and never fixed for high level
> : lengthy stuns. (This has been fixed to the point
> : of being useless with a pet, or with color series
>
> : as stun/bash/our DD's breaks the effect)
> : - Enchantment of Light and brilliance Removed,
> : (What were these supposed to do anyway?)
> : - Item Enchantment implemented to create ONE item.
>
> How is this bad? One is better than none and its not a nerf. Yet
> you complain?
Err because it isnt enough. It's like saying (made up example) "Hey mr necro
what you complaining about, a 1 point per tick dot at level 49 isn't a
nerf, it's better than none".
Anyway, being more realistic, I think his complaint is that Verant havent
done enough to live up to the initial promise re enchanters (go read the
game manual). Instead they've spent their time giving other classes some
rather nice enhancements (and nerfs).
>
> : - Shortened Clarity Duration
>
> Its still a godly spell. And are you sure it wsa reduced? By how
> much?
I havent noticed it being reduced.
>
> : - Made Low Level DD Partially Resistable
>
What a crime.
Well, it depends on how it was done. Enchanter DD's characteristically are
all or nothing. If they changed the low level DD so that sometimes "nothing"
became "something" that seems fine to me.
>
> : - Broke Sentinel so it causes mega lag in crowded
> : areas
>
Pretty much all spell effects cause mega lag in crowded areas.
Do you know Sentinel ? If other spells cause mega lag in crowded areas
Sentinel cases uber-mega-god-like-lag, as well as spamming every player in
the area.
>
> : - Minor Illusion made see-through to npc (NPC will
>
> : attack even though illusioned)
>
> Not that unreasonable for a first level spell don't you think?
> Besides this spell is still extremely useful for faction adjustment.
For a first level spell minor illusion was over powered compared to most
other level 1 spells. But compared to harmony and divine aura it wasn't.
Cant see why it needed nerfing.
<snip>
> : - High Level Pets dual wield removed (fixed ..
> : sorta they now have to be equipped with weapons)
>
> Hardly that annoying. You don't even need to carry daggers to do it.
> Any weapon will do. Just pick two up. They're lying around everywhere.
And if you're above level 20 you have no business using a pet :-)
<snip>
> : -Tashan line resistable
>
> Um, the resist rates on Tashan are *miniscule*. I know level 50
> enchanters who say "yeah its happened a couple of times". This spell
> is *extremely* hard to resist. Its also an extremely cheap cast and
> goes against poison resistance.
Actually I think it always was resistable (could be wrong), its just that
not many mobs have a good poison res.
>
> : -Mesmerize is broken by DOT damage now. (It's a
> : common enchanter theme to having to
> : choose between different types of spells - Charm
>
> : or pet? Mes or dot? Debuff or damage?
>
> Makes sense though doesn't it? Every other form of damage (excluding
> the tashan point of damage) breaks mes. This is an entirely reasonable
> fix. Otherwise all you do is DoT a monster with 6-7 DoTs, mes it and
> watch it melt (you need to get a necro, shaman and/or druid to get
> that many DoTs to stack).
Absolutely, and I don't have a problem with dot damage breaking mezz.
>
> : Same with buffs: Augmentation or Celerity, Str or
> : rampage - they just don't work together)
>
> Augmentation is fairly useless anyway (imho). You're better off
> using Alacrity+.
Heh, read this and thought "has this guy played and enchanter ?".
Augmentation is without doubt an uber-buff. Sure, it doesn't increase speed
as much as alacrity (but what's 5% anyway ?) but it does last a long time
(alacrity lasts for one medium length fight - and you've dumped a fair
amount of mana) - with augmentation I can buff the entire team, med back the
mana, and be full for the fight, knowing I wont have to recast augmentation
for several pulls. Oh and augmentation comes with 20agi which is nice.
As to the spells stacking, well so what ? Firstly enchanter str is a poor
cousin to the shaman and druid versions. Sure it would be nice to be able to
stack augmentation with the quickness line - but that would be too gross for
words. As it is you get to make a trade - more speed versus longer duration.
Personally I always use augmentation.
>
> : -Pets lost the advantage of lessened delay when
> : given weapons. Pets : Just another mana intensive
>
> : dot. Bah we already had the worst dots in the
>
> : game)
>
> This affected necros too and affected them more (since they rely on
> their pets more than enchanters do). The enchanter pets are still
> a pretty reasonable DoT though.
Enchanters don't get DoTs. They get a debuff with a it of dot attached.
Think of it that way and it doesnt look so bad :-)
"Enchanter pets" and "reasonable" in the same sentence LOL! Enchanter pets
are a waste of time, useful at low levels sure, but a liability in any
circustance from then on.
>
> : Add to this that several of our lines of spells are either too mana
> : inefficient (str-agi debuff lines, dot's, dd's, Pets), have no real
>
> The str/agi debuffs are useless, yes.
Stat debuffs (against npcs) are a waste of mana, regardless of how little or
much they cost. DoTs ? Well as I said before, enchanters dont get dots. DD's
?? Well I'm pretty pleased with Anarchy, it casts as fast as the equivalent
Wizzy spell (although the recycle time is much longer and it megataunts -
but hey I'm an enchanter) and does nice damage - 278 for what 150 mana (I
think). The only "problem" with enchanter DD's is because we get them
infrequently is they get "old". But hey, if I wanted to blast I would have
stuck with my wizard.
Pet's mana inefficient ?!? Don't be silly.
>
> Your DoTs suck but hey enchanters aren't dealers of damage are they?
>
> Your DDs are about as efficient as mage DDs (ignoring bolts) but they
> taunt more. (Good) enchanters only use them when soloing though in
> my experience.
Heh I disagree. I use my DD to help finish off mobs (anyone else noticed
mobs seem to do more damage in that last bubble or two of health than they
did the entire fight ?) although I sually forgo this pleasure if whe have a
proper blaster in the group.
>
> : Although I agree that Wizards do have a hard time especially in early
> : years, and that the enchanter have an easier task of getting a group.
> : I do think that the non-twinked/non-powerleveled enchanters average of
> : 70 days played to reach level 50, versus the wizzies 50 days played to
> : reach 50, seems to say that we are a class that is a little harder to
> : play than most classes, and albeit powerful in our own regard, we're
> : no match for a wizzie when it comes to killing mobs, and no use on
> : dragon runs or in the planes except as clarity machines, and that's
> : only for those of us with a serious death wish.
>
> : I have always loved grouping with wizzies except they never can seem
> : to find their assist hotkey.
>
> Unfortunately (for you) you are an idiot. The real problem here is
> that you don't know how to play your enchanter. You've demonstrated
> this unequivocably in this and other posts that you've made.
>
> 70 days played time to reach level 50? Hello? Any class can reach
> level 50 in 40 days if they want to. Many can do it in 20 if they
> try (including enchanters).
>
> The sad thing is that some people want enchanters in their group
> solely to be clarity machines not thinking or realising they can
> do anything else. An even sadder phenomonan is that stupid people
> who PLAY enchanters get sucked into this mentality.
You know, whilst as an enchanter I generally avoid joining a group that
already has an enchanter, I have yet to see an incompetent enchanter above
level 20. They all seem to know what they're doing and when I am in a group
with another enchanter it's generally been with a higher level one, in which
case its been interesting to see the tactics and "tricks" they use. Some I
might "disagree" with - and wouldnt do myself - others work very nicely and
I consider adopting into my own repotoire.
Also there are some groups where you darent be anything other than a clarity
machine. Those are the groups where the wizards insist on casting aoe spells
and the warriors just feel compelled to "save" you from that mob your in the
process of enthralling. But I don't tend to stay in them any longer than it
takes to find another group.
Erik Halvorsen
wrote:
Who decided enchanter was not a pet class? you did?
I'd say take away shaman pet and give them to us.
>: - Made Illusion Wolf OD Only
>
>Thats no big deal. Is this that crippling? Isn't there another
>illusion you can use? I doubt there isn't.
>
It WAS very useful for pulling corpses on dragon raids and planes, now
we have no business there at all.
>: - lost ability to charm NPC/PC pets
>
>Kinda makes sense though don't you think?
>
Nope. How would you like to loose the ability to cast any of your
spells at an NPC/PC pet?
>: - lost ability to refresh levitate
>
>Um, you can refresh levitate now.
>
>: - WTYH effectiveness reduced bigtime
>: - mana sieve effectiveness reduced (cost was
>: reduced but it's effect was reduced by
>: several times as much)
>
>Its not particularly useful anyway considering the size of NPC
>mana pool. Or maybe you're referring to the PVP affects to which
>my response is: who cares?
>
IT used to be effective even against NPC's.
>: - lost ability to charm / fear in PvP
>
>Who cares? (see above)
>
It's relevant to dueling, wether or not you're on PVP, dueling can be
fun.
>: - Root easier to break
>
>Affects all root-using classes. You're probably talking about the
>very early changes made to root which were if I remember correctly
>entirely reasonable as root used to be godly.
>
It affects us, and the person I replied to said we had received
several enhancements..
>: - Dyn's downgraded and never fixed for high level
>: lengthy stuns. (This has been fixed to the point
>: of being useless with a pet, or with color series
>
>: as stun/bash/our DD's breaks the effect)
>: - Enchantment of Light and brilliance Removed,
>: (What were these supposed to do anyway?)
>: - Item Enchantment implemented to create ONE item.
>
>How is this bad? One is better than none and its not a nerf. Yet
>you complain?
>
It's practically worthless.....
>: - Shortened Clarity Duration
>
>Its still a godly spell. And are you sure it wsa reduced? By how
>much?
>
Only cause the game makes us waste so much time sitting down medding
that any improvement in this is *godly*
>: - Made Low Level DD Partially Resistable
>
>What a crime.
>
Yep at that time, it really doesn't come as the greatest of god's
gifts, as our dd's are 1 damage for 1 mana, I could only wish we had
something else to waste our mana on....
>: - Broke Sentinel so it causes mega lag in crowded
>: areas
>
>Pretty much all spell effects cause mega lag in crowded areas.
>
>: - Minor Illusion made see-through to npc (NPC will
>
>: attack even though illusioned)
>
>Not that unreasonable for a first level spell don't you think?
>Besides this spell is still extremely useful for faction adjustment.
>
No comment, you got to be hearing impaired, useful? As useful as the
weenie of our current pope.
>: - Troll regen broken for 6 months, is it better
>: than tree, why have it?.
>: (Troll regen partially fixed - only giving 1 extra
>
>: tick where originally gave an extra 3.)
>: - Strip/Pillage enchatment made unusable on PvP
>: Servers (now also aggroing mobs on regular
>
>: servers).
>
>More PvP complaints (who cares?). As for aggroing mobs this isn't
>a huge deal. Usually the only spell worth cancelling off an npc is
>a damage shield and cancel/nullify magic will do that.
>
But not without aggroing the mob, read the heading again....
>: - Blanket of Forgetfulness nerfed ( Level 49, no
>: longer hanging effect)
>: - Reoccurring amnesia broken (doesn't reoccur)
>: (been fixed recently to reoccur once, not a
>: timed duration, and this is a level 49 spell)
>: - High Level Pets dual wield removed (fixed ..
>: sorta they now have to be equipped with weapons)
>
>Hardly that annoying. You don't even need to carry daggers to do it.
>Any weapon will do. Just pick two up. They're lying around everywhere.
>
Seen a lot of enchanter pets around lately? Their damage output
nowadays is often better without giving them weapons.
>: - Feedback made unstackable with Fire Elemental
>: - Memory Blur Level Capped 35+ mobs/ Memory Blur
>: Chance with Mes Series Reduced
>: -Tashan line resistable
>
>Um, the resist rates on Tashan are *miniscule*. I know level 50
>enchanters who say "yeah its happened a couple of times". This spell
>is *extremely* hard to resist. Its also an extremely cheap cast and
>goes against poison resistance.
>
Well I just wish that I didn't need this spell to get my other spells
to stick or to last as they should, and could use this spell spot for
gate, dd or buff or whatever instead.
>: -Mesmerize is broken by DOT damage now. (It's a
>: common enchanter theme to having to
>: choose between different types of spells - Charm
>
>: or pet? Mes or dot? Debuff or damage?
>
>Makes sense though doesn't it? Every other form of damage (excluding
>the tashan point of damage) breaks mes. This is an entirely reasonable
>fix. Otherwise all you do is DoT a monster with 6-7 DoTs, mes it and
>watch it melt (you need to get a necro, shaman and/or druid to get
>that many DoTs to stack).
>
With our dot's you both couldn't and wouldn't have done it.
>: Same with buffs: Augmentation or Celerity, Str or
>: rampage - they just don't work together)
>
>Augmentation is fairly useless anyway (imho). You're better off
>using Alacrity+.
>
Augmentation lasts a lot longer, gives an Agi buff, stamina
regeneration, and costs less, I always keeps it on myself if only for
the 20 AC it grants me.
>: -Pets lost the advantage of lessened delay when
>: given weapons. Pets : Just another mana intensive
>
>: dot. Bah we already had the worst dots in the
>
>: game)
>
>This affected necros too and affected them more (since they rely on
>their pets more than enchanters do). The enchanter pets are still
>a pretty reasonable DoT though.
>
No it's not, provided it had the ability to survive a fight, it would
have been, but if you have to use rune to keep it alive and Celerity+
to have it deal damage, it's better to cycle 2 dd's in a solo
situation, the only applicable use of our pets is when grouped with a
snarer or Necro so you can reverse kite the mob.
>: Add to this that several of our lines of spells are either too mana
>: inefficient (str-agi debuff lines, dot's, dd's, Pets), have no real
>
>The str/agi debuffs are useless, yes.
>
>Your DoTs suck but hey enchanters aren't dealers of damage are they?
Yes, and no, they should be in a certain cense, they sure as hell
can't outrun the mob, and if our invis breaks, and our color series
is resisted wich really happens alot, we're usually stunned, and
killed in 2 seconds flat if we're alone.
>
>Your DDs are about as efficient as mage DDs (ignoring bolts) but they
>taunt more. (Good) enchanters only use them when soloing though in
>my experience.
>
Mage's got a godlike pet that casts root, our pet stinks. Mage DD not
counting their 810damage bolt for 300mana, does 580-625damage for
250mana. Ours does 508-528 for240mana, Mages generally have
specialization evocation so you can deduct another 10% off the mana
cost, while we usually have to choose alteration..
>How can you call a pet too mana inefficient? Pets are the most
>efficient DoTs in the game.
How many castings an average do you you have to make a blue coning pet
after level 16? I would say about 5 on average, at level 34+ that's 1
k-1,5 k mana, a green one won't last you 2 seconds.
Ok lets say you got a blue one, that maxes his hits at the appropriate
level 32 at 34, 36 at 39 etc...how long is he going to last against a
blue con If you are level 30+, without buffs, with his 3-600hp's? Ok
so you HAVE to buff him, Rune3 thats another 150 mana, and that lasts
how long? ca 200 hp. Celerity/SLTW:185/250 mana, Berserker spirit
another 150 mana for 250hp.
Ok so you got a faster pet with 1k hp that hits for 46+ hp now at
level 49+, and how much mana have you used to buff him? Don't forget
you still have to use berserker spirit on him alot while fighting to
keep him alive. during this time he will maybe do 1k damage to the
mob, that's 2 castings of our 44 level dd. He will steal some of our
xp, and you cant tell him to stay on the mob he is at if some other
mob joins the fun and starts pounding at you, you can't use mez
anymore...
If you are going to solo, do it without this pet, Use our rotten dd's
instead, load 2 of them, cycle them, and play like a wizzie. (or
rather Wuzzie)
>
>: value (Illusions, See thru targets eye with some kind of vision, Lull
>: line, Mana potion line, WTYH DDD, Mem blur after 40, wis debuff, mana
>: sieve) Or doesn't stack as opposed to others dot lines, where they
>: have several lines of dot's. (see above)
>
>
>: Although I agree that Wizards do have a hard time especially in early
>: years, and that the enchanter have an easier task of getting a group.
>: I do think that the non-twinked/non-powerleveled enchanters average of
>: 70 days played to reach level 50, versus the wizzies 50 days played to
>: reach 50, seems to say that we are a class that is a little harder to
>: play than most classes, and albeit powerful in our own regard, we're
>: no match for a wizzie when it comes to killing mobs, and no use on
>: dragon runs or in the planes except as clarity machines, and that's
>: only for those of us with a serious death wish.
>
>: I have always loved grouping with wizzies except they never can seem
>: to find their assist hotkey.
>
>Unfortunately (for you) you are an idiot. The real problem here is
>that you don't know how to play your enchanter. You've demonstrated
>this unequivocably in this and other posts that you've made.
>
What classes did you say you play?
Shaman and druid was it?
>70 days played time to reach level 50? Hello? Any class can reach
>level 50 in 40 days if they want to. Many can do it in 20 if they
>try (including enchanters).
>
What would you know about that?
Enchanters dies more than any other class, and besides you want to
raise 5k pp to master jewelcraft. That's alot of runs doing the Stein
quest... The class haven't got SOW, TELE or any of the other
timesaving spells inherent, you have to go to Erudin and High hold
keep to get some of your spells. And you are completely unable to Solo
between 20 and 34.
>The sad thing is that some people want enchanters in their group
>solely to be clarity machines not thinking or realising they can
>do anything else. An even sadder phenomonan is that stupid people
>who PLAY enchanters get sucked into this mentality.
>
Do you actually have a valid opinion of your own, any knowledge of the
enchanter class, like maybe have played it yourself? Or are you some
kinda bluecopy of Alisdair?
>Enchanters have no use on dragon runs??? I can't believe you even
>said that. have you ever been on a dragon run? If so was it with
>less than 60 people (where sheer weight of numbers takes it down
>no matter what almost; it requires very little skill and planning)?
>Wizards are better at killing monsters? Sheer nonsense.
>
Wizards are actually able to damage the dragon, something we're not.
Mr Foo Bar
Enchanters can solo - complete bollocks. At low levels, sure they can, but
so can everyone else. But at higher levels - never. I havent solo'd my
enchanter since level 20.
I've occassionally toyed with the idea of solo-ing the two druids in EC
(beguile one) but decided it wasnt worth it, one failed beguile (or if it
didnt last long enough) and I'd be toast.
>
> The problem is that its really only the stupid wizards who are left.
> The rest long ago started necros, magicians, enchanters, etc. In
> my guild most of the 50 wizards have other characters (most in the
> mid to high 40s by now) and they've long abandoned their wizards
> as merely being taxis to the planes (which is what they are).
>
Yeah there are stupid wizards around, like the one in lower guk I grouped
with recently - we were overrun by a train of about 10 froggys including a
Nok (we probably couldnt take the Nok if he was alone). Severall of us were
screaming "EVAC US NOW" whilst I tried to mezz and stun as much as I could
to give the Wizzy time to cast. Guess what he did ? Carried on blasting. I
died first, followed by the rest of the party and - I am glad to say - the
dumb wizzy. (But that's not as good as the tale of the Wizzy who gated away
rather than evaccing - guess how popular he was :-)
But regardless, there are morons playing every class, and some, like me, who
are part time morons (and take silly risks trying out new tactics at less
than optimal times ;-). And there are some damn good wizzies to. To continue
the evac theme, in lower guk again, with another wizzy. We got overrun and I
was just beginning to panic (something I try to avoid as panic=death
especially if its the party's enchanter panicing) when I saw "Loading,
please wait..." - the wizzie had spotted the (serious) overpull way before I
had and begun casting evac and got us all out alive.
Mr Foo Bar
>You are right--nobody does want them. They are broken. Verant
> have their heads in their sand and refuse to believe it however.
>
I disagree. I play an enchanter - because that's the kind of character I
prefer (dont care about damage or being able to solo, and find just
fighting - warrior - bring). When I get the chance to choose my party's
composition I always include a Wizard. It's noticable how much quicker a
fight is over with one of them blasting.
I think that's the problem with people's perception of wizards. They're
*not* a "group" class in the same way a cleric or an enchanter (for
example) are - clerics and enchanters are support classes. Wizards are a
class that gets supported (by the cleric and enchanter, for example). An
Enchanter is no good by themselves because whilst they can stop anything in
its tracks - they can't actually kill it. Wizards are no good by themselves
because they can't create the space to do the damage to actually kill
anything.
The problem is people seem to be comparing "enchanter/cleric" style
"group-friendly" and expecting wizards to be group-friendly in a similar
way. They're not and (I hope) never will be
NBarnes
> Enchanters can solo - complete bollocks. At low levels, sure they
> can, but so can everyone else. But at higher levels - never. I
> havent solo'd my enchanter since level 20.
>
> I've occassionally toyed with the idea of solo-ing the two druids
> in EC (beguile one) but decided it wasnt worth it, one failed
> beguile (or if it didnt last long enough) and I'd be toast.
Bollocks back at you. Enchanters can't solo past 20th? Stuff
and nonsense. Enchanters solo _fine_ past 20th. You have pets,
reasonably efficient nukes, DoTs, the ability to make bad situations
go away (stun, mez, Gate), and Clarity. What more do you want?
Enchanters do _fine_ solo. It's a little rough until 29th, then
you just take off on the basis of low downtime. The only people
that can keep up are the necros. Enchanters are better at getting
XP solo than magicians, even, because of their ability to control
situations and reduce their downtime.
NBarnes - Dina Demeteran, 49th circle druid, Sol Ro
NBarnes
> Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote...
This simply isn't true. There is _nothing_ a wizard can do that
a rogue or a monk can't do better. It's proveable. If your wizard
does more damage than your best tank, then the mob pulls onto him
and the wizard tends to die. So wizards _can't_ do more damage than
a good tank. So why not _have_ a good tank and let them, well, tank
as well as apply beatdown?
No, you're just wrong; wizards are badly broken. I'll keep saying
it, wizards need more damaging nukes that do less taunt than their
damage, so they can _use_ those nukes without getting mobs in their
face. That way, wizards can really be the Masters of Damage, doing
more in both the short and long terms than any other class, while
paying the price of their low hitpoints and AC, as well as being
limited in how much they can do before they need to be bodyguarded
while the med.
Jeremy Music
>: - High Level (39+) Pets weakened
>
>Applies to all pet classes. Enchanters are not a pet class though
>so arguably it affected them less. Then again necros and magicians
>had their pets reduced in level then focus items were added which
>eliminated that (didn't eliminate it for shamans though) then the
>dagger trick was nerfed then magicians got a big boost.
Focus items don't affect the level of the pet.
J
(Who has the focus items and uses them for the extra _HP_ the pet gets)
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Wyld Knight - wyld.qx.net 3333
http://wyld.qx.net/~rezo
re...@lords.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Quantum
<nba...@earthlink.net> writes
Got to agree here - a guildmate (now lvl 50 but was 49 at the time
enchanter) and I (lvl 50 druid) went to kill Seafuries. This was some
time back when the spawn time in lower Guk was badly messed up ie 70+
mins per spot and sol b was more packed that a very packed thing. We
killed a few easily enough then my friend decided that he wanted to try
to solo one.
Pet with speed buff,rune and something else (dont know what it was)
soloed the seafury after he slowed/debuffed and dotted it. He was firing
a few spells off during the battle, stuns and such and was quite low on
mana at the end but was never in danger of dying.
He could just of easily have charmed one and had it kill another (he has
Jboots in case it goes wrong but with sow potions anyone can do it). If
it ever went really bad - gate to another island where you have bound,
camp then come back to break the aggro.
He (and I for that matter) much prefer to play in dungeons, in groups,
but that doesnt mean that he *can't* solo.
--
Daggeniel Windancer - lvl 50 druid
Grumbles Whenitrains - lvl 30 warrior
Growing old is mandatory;
growing up is optional.
Billy Shields
: Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
Or a necro. :-)
:>
:> : - lost ability to charm NPC/PC pets
:>
: Kinda makes sense though don't you think? Not really, no. Would have made
: more sense if NPCs couldnt charm our pets.
That would make sense yes but we all know monsters cheat.
:>
:> Its not particularly useful anyway considering the size of NPC
:> mana pool. Or maybe you're referring to the PVP affects to which
:> my response is: who cares?
:>
:> : - lost ability to charm / fear in PvP
:>
:> Who cares? (see above)
: I do, because its another sad example of Verant bodging a fix rather than
: dealing with the root problem (pc's are treated as nocs when
: charmed/feared).
Everquest isn't a PvP game. It was tacked on and not of interest to
the vast majority of players. Just look at the number of people on
the PvP servers vs the others as proof of that. As such my response
to any PvP nerfs is: carefactor zero.
:> : - Item Enchantment implemented to create ONE item.
:>
:> How is this bad? One is better than none and its not a nerf. Yet
:> you complain?
: Err because it isnt enough. It's like saying (made up example) "Hey mr necro
: what you complaining about, a 1 point per tick dot at level 49 isn't a
: nerf, it's better than none".
Its not even close. A DoT is a combat ability. Item enchantment
is completely non-combat related.
: Anyway, being more realistic, I think his complaint is that Verant havent
: done enough to live up to the initial promise re enchanters (go read the
: game manual). Instead they've spent their time giving other classes some
: rather nice enhancements (and nerfs).
Enchanters already have a stranglehold over most of the useful trade
skills anyway. How much more of a monopoly do they need?
:> : - High Level Pets dual wield removed (fixed ..
:> : sorta they now have to be equipped with weapons)
:>
:> Hardly that annoying. You don't even need to carry daggers to do it.
:> Any weapon will do. Just pick two up. They're lying around everywhere.
: And if you're above level 20 you have no business using a pet :-)
That I don't agree with. Enchanters have excellent fear spells.
Reverse kiting is an entirely valid soloing tactic (just as it is
for necros).
Besides there reaches a point where you may as well have a pet
because theres nothing you can charm anyway.
:>
:> : Same with buffs: Augmentation or Celerity, Str or
:> : rampage - they just don't work together)
:>
:> Augmentation is fairly useless anyway (imho). You're better off
:> using Alacrity+.
: Heh, read this and thought "has this guy played and enchanter ?".
: Augmentation is without doubt an uber-buff. Sure, it doesn't increase speed
: as much as alacrity (but what's 5% anyway ?) but it does last a long time
: (alacrity lasts for one medium length fight - and you've dumped a fair
: amount of mana) - with augmentation I can buff the entire team, med back the
Why would you buff the entire team with augmentation? I had a level
50 enchanter do this in a party in Lower Guk the other day (I'm a
druid). In fact I got a total of 8 or so buffs when all I needed
was chloroplast and clarity.
Also the stamina is sometimes useful but I find its more useful just
to have someone memorise extinguish fatigue and cast it on those
odd occasions you need it (which isn't very often unless you're
in Kedge).
: mana, and be full for the fight, knowing I wont have to recast augmentation
: for several pulls. Oh and augmentation comes with 20agi which is nice.
The agility is meaningless (assuming each person has 75+ agility which
they certainly should).
Augmentation might be iffy when compared to Alacrity but not to
Celerity. As melee damage goes up (which it does right up to 50)
the quickness line becomes so much more worthwhile than augmentation
its unbelievable.
: As to the spells stacking, well so what ? Firstly enchanter str is a poor
: cousin to the shaman and druid versions. Sure it would be nice to be able to
: stack augmentation with the quickness line - but that would be too gross for
: words. As it is you get to make a trade - more speed versus longer duration.
: Personally I always use augmentation.
Lets say a level 45 tank has 2 ykeshas. Lets also assume that
unhasted their average damage is about 20/second (including procs).
This imaginary tank spends 80% of his time fighting. A level
45 enchanter can cast augmentation or celerity. If I recall
correctly augmentation is about a 15% haste and celerity is
about 30%. So with Celerity you do an extra 3 damage/second when
fighting.
Now Augmentation at this level (according to eq.stratics.com)
lasts 270 ticks and Celerity lasts 145 ticks. The mana costs are
90 and 185 respectively. To keep celerity going as long as
augmentation you would need (proportionally) about 345 mana.
Over 270 ticks * 80% * 6 seconds (1296 seconds of fighting) thats
an extra 3880 points of damage for an extra 255 mana.
How exactly is that inefficient?
And that doesn't even take into account the mana saved from
reducing the need for healing, etc.
I stand by my original statement and extend it further: there is
absolutely NO reason to use augmentation beyond level 39 when
enchanters get celerity. With alacrity its a little more blurred
though.
:>
:> : -Pets lost the advantage of lessened delay when
:> : given weapons. Pets : Just another mana intensive
:>
:> : dot. Bah we already had the worst dots in the
:>
:> : game)
:>
:> This affected necros too and affected them more (since they rely on
:> their pets more than enchanters do). The enchanter pets are still
:> a pretty reasonable DoT though.
: Enchanters don't get DoTs. They get a debuff with a it of dot attached.
: Think of it that way and it doesnt look so bad :-)
: "Enchanter pets" and "reasonable" in the same sentence LOL! Enchanter pets
: are a waste of time, useful at low levels sure, but a liability in any
: circustance from then on.
They do almost as much damgag as necro pets last I checked. If you're
ignoring that you're robbing yourself of useful tactics and potentially
a lot of damage done.
:>
:> : Add to this that several of our lines of spells are either too mana
:> : inefficient (str-agi debuff lines, dot's, dd's, Pets), have no real
:>
:> The str/agi debuffs are useless, yes.
: Stat debuffs (against npcs) are a waste of mana, regardless of how little or
: much they cost. DoTs ? Well as I said before, enchanters dont get dots. DD's
: ?? Well I'm pretty pleased with Anarchy, it casts as fast as the equivalent
: Wizzy spell (although the recycle time is much longer and it megataunts -
: but hey I'm an enchanter) and does nice damage - 278 for what 150 mana (I
: think). The only "problem" with enchanter DD's is because we get them
: infrequently is they get "old". But hey, if I wanted to blast I would have
: stuck with my wizard.
Druids suffer the same problem. From level 9 on you get your DDs
every 10 levels. Ever tried nuking something at level 18 with a
37 DD? Doesn't work so great let me tell you.
Likewise at level 48 I have a 302 DD. Utterly useless. No point
in even memorising it. The only use for DDs it to finish battles
quickly is very unusual circumstances. This DD doesn't even cut
the mustard for that.
: Pet's mana inefficient ?!? Don't be silly.
:>
:> Your DoTs suck but hey enchanters aren't dealers of damage are they?
:>
:> Your DDs are about as efficient as mage DDs (ignoring bolts) but they
:> taunt more. (Good) enchanters only use them when soloing though in
:> my experience.
: Heh I disagree. I use my DD to help finish off mobs (anyone else noticed
: mobs seem to do more damage in that last bubble or two of health than they
: did the entire fight ?) although I sually forgo this pleasure if whe have a
: proper blaster in the group.
The problem isn't that your DDs are bad. The problem is that you
only have 8 mem slots to put spells in. Wasting one with a DD
means something else gets bumped. That something else is probably
far more useful.
I don't like enchanters memming DDs at higher level because they've
reduces themselves to 7 open slots.
:>
:> : Although I agree that Wizards do have a hard time especially in early
:> : years, and that the enchanter have an easier task of getting a group.
:> : I do think that the non-twinked/non-powerleveled enchanters average of
:> : 70 days played to reach level 50, versus the wizzies 50 days played to
:> : reach 50, seems to say that we are a class that is a little harder to
:> : play than most classes, and albeit powerful in our own regard, we're
:> : no match for a wizzie when it comes to killing mobs, and no use on
:> : dragon runs or in the planes except as clarity machines, and that's
:> : only for those of us with a serious death wish.
:>
:> : I have always loved grouping with wizzies except they never can seem
:> : to find their assist hotkey.
:>
:> Unfortunately (for you) you are an idiot. The real problem here is
:> that you don't know how to play your enchanter. You've demonstrated
:> this unequivocably in this and other posts that you've made.
:>
:> 70 days played time to reach level 50? Hello? Any class can reach
:> level 50 in 40 days if they want to. Many can do it in 20 if they
:> try (including enchanters).
:>
:> The sad thing is that some people want enchanters in their group
:> solely to be clarity machines not thinking or realising they can
:> do anything else. An even sadder phenomonan is that stupid people
:> who PLAY enchanters get sucked into this mentality.
: You know, whilst as an enchanter I generally avoid joining a group that
: already has an enchanter, I have yet to see an incompetent enchanter above
: level 20. They all seem to know what they're doing and when I am in a group
Not in my experience. Shamans are about the worst (in that VERY few
of them know what they're doing) but enchanters can be bad as well.
The interesting part of it is that enchanters have so many good
abilities that its hard to be truly bad. At worst you're just a
mana battery for everyone else and people are willing to put up
with that.
You do get enchanters that needlessly buff (which is the enchanter
equivalanet of a mana dumping wizard) and that annoys me.
: with another enchanter it's generally been with a higher level one, in which
: case its been interesting to see the tactics and "tricks" they use. Some I
: might "disagree" with - and wouldnt do myself - others work very nicely and
: I consider adopting into my own repotoire.
: Also there are some groups where you darent be anything other than a clarity
: machine. Those are the groups where the wizards insist on casting aoe spells
: and the warriors just feel compelled to "save" you from that mob your in the
: process of enthralling. But I don't tend to stay in them any longer than it
: takes to find another group.
Heh good move. Some of the telltale signs of a bad gorup:
1. They think enchanters are only good for clarity.
2. They haven't mastered the tactic of /assist to only fight one
thing at once.
3. They ask for stat buffs.
4. Think they need to fill their party with wizards and clerics.
Bad enchanters:
1. Only think they're good for clarity.
2. Don't know how to mes/enthrall
3. Needlessly buff
4. Don't cast haste spells on tanks without being prompted
Bad shamans:
1. Dump mana into useless buffs.
2. Don't memorise (let alone cast) Togor
3. Don't know how to control their pet or don't bother using it at
all (its free damage).
Bad druids:
1. Don't cast damage shields on tanks unprompted.
2. Don't cast chloroplast unprompted (on tanks and anyone with a
manastone).
Bad tanks:
1. Don't know how to /assist.
2. Don't rescue casters/healers being attacked unprompted.
3. Wait til a monster has switched attackers before they start taunting.
And the list goes on. :-)
Billy Shields
: On 13 Mar 2000 03:20:59 GMT, Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au>
: wrote:
You don't have a castable controllable pet do you? Thus you are
not a pet class.
: I'd say take away shaman pet and give them to us.
Thats because you're a clueless fuckwit who doesn't know how to
play an enchanter.
:>: - lost ability to charm / fear in PvP
:>
:>Who cares? (see above)
:>
: It's relevant to dueling, wether or not you're on PVP, dueling can be
: fun.
So it only affects the irrelevant fun parts of the game by your own
admission. Thus I reiterate my original comment: who cares?
:>: - Dyn's downgraded and never fixed for high level
:>: lengthy stuns. (This has been fixed to the point
:>: of being useless with a pet, or with color series
:>
:>: as stun/bash/our DD's breaks the effect)
:>: - Enchantment of Light and brilliance Removed,
:>: (What were these supposed to do anyway?)
:>: - Item Enchantment implemented to create ONE item.
:>
:>How is this bad? One is better than none and its not a nerf. Yet
:>you complain?
:>
: It's practically worthless.....
But its NOT a nerf. Its simply a small unfinished fairly useless
addition. Who cares?
:>: - Shortened Clarity Duration
:>
:>Its still a godly spell. And are you sure it wsa reduced? By how
:>much?
:>
: Only cause the game makes us waste so much time sitting down medding
: that any improvement in this is *godly*
:>: - Made Low Level DD Partially Resistable
:>
:>What a crime.
:>
: Yep at that time, it really doesn't come as the greatest of god's
: gifts, as our dd's are 1 damage for 1 mana, I could only wish we had
: something else to waste our mana on....
You are completely clueless about enchanters. Its becoming more and
more obvious.
:>: - Broke Sentinel so it causes mega lag in crowded
:>: areas
:>
:>Pretty much all spell effects cause mega lag in crowded areas.
:>
:>: - Minor Illusion made see-through to npc (NPC will
:>
:>: attack even though illusioned)
:>
:>Not that unreasonable for a first level spell don't you think?
:>Besides this spell is still extremely useful for faction adjustment.
:>
: No comment, you got to be hearing impaired, useful? As useful as the
: weenie of our current pope.
I know low level enchanters who routinely use this spell to do quests
they wouldn't otherwise be able to do (even with alliance and the
other illusions at their disposal).
:>Hardly that annoying. You don't even need to carry daggers to do it.
:>Any weapon will do. Just pick two up. They're lying around everywhere.
:>
: Seen a lot of enchanter pets around lately? Their damage output
: nowadays is often better without giving them weapons.
Nonsense.
:>: - Feedback made unstackable with Fire Elemental
:>: - Memory Blur Level Capped 35+ mobs/ Memory Blur
:>: Chance with Mes Series Reduced
:>: -Tashan line resistable
:>
:>Um, the resist rates on Tashan are *miniscule*. I know level 50
:>enchanters who say "yeah its happened a couple of times". This spell
:>is *extremely* hard to resist. Its also an extremely cheap cast and
:>goes against poison resistance.
:>
: Well I just wish that I didn't need this spell to get my other spells
: to stick or to last as they should, and could use this spell spot for
: gate, dd or buff or whatever instead.
No enchanter with a clue has the slots available for gate. I would
argue they don't have enough free for DD either (in a group that is).
You're not putting your own hide ahead of being effective in your
party are you?
If any enchanter in my group had gate and DD memmed they'd get boosted
so fast their head would spin.
:>: Same with buffs: Augmentation or Celerity, Str or
:>: rampage - they just don't work together)
:>
:>Augmentation is fairly useless anyway (imho). You're better off
:>using Alacrity+.
:>
: Augmentation lasts a lot longer, gives an Agi buff, stamina
: regeneration, and costs less, I always keeps it on myself if only for
: the 20 AC it grants me.
Nothing wrong with using it as an AC buff. I have a problem with
using it as a haste buff (once you get celerity anyway).
:>: -Pets lost the advantage of lessened delay when
:>: given weapons. Pets : Just another mana intensive
:>
:>: dot. Bah we already had the worst dots in the
:>
:>: game)
:>
:>This affected necros too and affected them more (since they rely on
:>their pets more than enchanters do). The enchanter pets are still
:>a pretty reasonable DoT though.
:>
: No it's not, provided it had the ability to survive a fight, it would
: have been, but if you have to use rune to keep it alive and Celerity+
: to have it deal damage, it's better to cycle 2 dd's in a solo
: situation, the only applicable use of our pets is when grouped with a
: snarer or Necro so you can reverse kite the mob.
Um, enchanters have fear spells. You don't NEED a necro to reverse
kite.
:>
:>Your DDs are about as efficient as mage DDs (ignoring bolts) but they
:>taunt more. (Good) enchanters only use them when soloing though in
:>my experience.
:>
: Mage's got a godlike pet that casts root, our pet stinks. Mage DD not
The point was about DDs was it not?
: counting their 810damage bolt for 300mana, does 580-625damage for
That bolt is incredibly hard to use in any tight combat situation.
Thats why it whould be ignored.
: 250mana. Ours does 508-528 for240mana, Mages generally have
: specialization evocation so you can deduct another 10% off the mana
: cost, while we usually have to choose alteration..
If you want to be a nuker, be a wizard/mage. If you're trying to
play your enchanter is one they're you are utterly clueless.
:>How can you call a pet too mana inefficient? Pets are the most
:>efficient DoTs in the game.
: How many castings an average do you you have to make a blue coning pet
: after level 16? I would say about 5 on average, at level 34+ that's 1
: k-1,5 k mana, a green one won't last you 2 seconds.
It depends what you're trying to do. If you're reverse kiting with
it then its defenses and hit points are irrelevant. Thats what its
useful for. Well that and large combat situations where its not
likely to get hit for long or at all.
:
: Ok lets say you got a blue one, that maxes his hits at the appropriate
: level 32 at 34, 36 at 39 etc...how long is he going to last against a
: blue con If you are level 30+, without buffs, with his 3-600hp's? Ok
: so you HAVE to buff him, Rune3 thats another 150 mana, and that lasts
: how long? ca 200 hp. Celerity/SLTW:185/250 mana, Berserker spirit
: another 150 mana for 250hp.
If you want to be a pet class you should've chosen necro or mage.
Don't try and imitate what those classes do and then complain that
you suck because you can't. You're not a necro or mage. You're an
enchanter.
: Ok so you got a faster pet with 1k hp that hits for 46+ hp now at
: level 49+, and how much mana have you used to buff him? Don't forget
: you still have to use berserker spirit on him alot while fighting to
: keep him alive. during this time he will maybe do 1k damage to the
: mob, that's 2 castings of our 44 level dd. He will steal some of our
: xp, and you cant tell him to stay on the mob he is at if some other
: mob joins the fun and starts pounding at you, you can't use mez
: anymore...
: If you are going to solo, do it without this pet, Use our rotten dd's
: instead, load 2 of them, cycle them, and play like a wizzie. (or
: rather Wuzzie)
You're not a wizard (thank your lucky stars). Idiot.
:>
:>: value (Illusions, See thru targets eye with some kind of vision, Lull
:>: line, Mana potion line, WTYH DDD, Mem blur after 40, wis debuff, mana
:>: sieve) Or doesn't stack as opposed to others dot lines, where they
:>: have several lines of dot's. (see above)
:>
:>
:>: Although I agree that Wizards do have a hard time especially in early
:>: years, and that the enchanter have an easier task of getting a group.
:>: I do think that the non-twinked/non-powerleveled enchanters average of
:>: 70 days played to reach level 50, versus the wizzies 50 days played to
:>: reach 50, seems to say that we are a class that is a little harder to
:>: play than most classes, and albeit powerful in our own regard, we're
:>: no match for a wizzie when it comes to killing mobs, and no use on
:>: dragon runs or in the planes except as clarity machines, and that's
:>: only for those of us with a serious death wish.
:>
:>: I have always loved grouping with wizzies except they never can seem
:>: to find their assist hotkey.
:>
:>Unfortunately (for you) you are an idiot. The real problem here is
:>that you don't know how to play your enchanter. You've demonstrated
:>this unequivocably in this and other posts that you've made.
:>
: What classes did you say you play?
: Shaman and druid was it?
Druid, ranger, shaman, enchanter, necro and magician.
:>70 days played time to reach level 50? Hello? Any class can reach
:>level 50 in 40 days if they want to. Many can do it in 20 if they
:>try (including enchanters).
:>
: What would you know about that?
: Enchanters dies more than any other class, and besides you want to
Nonsense. In my experience its still the tanks that die the most.
: raise 5k pp to master jewelcraft. That's alot of runs doing the Stein
Who said you have to master JC? Noone is forcing you to. Thats
entirely your choice.
: quest... The class haven't got SOW, TELE or any of the other
: timesaving spells inherent, you have to go to Erudin and High hold
: keep to get some of your spells. And you are completely unable to Solo
: between 20 and 34.
I'll be sure to tell the enchanters I know that they imagined soloing
at those levels and it didn't really happen.
You aren't the best soloer for sure. If you wanted to be then you'd
be a necro or mage.
You sound very much to me like someone who wants to play a wizard
with clarity.
:>The sad thing is that some people want enchanters in their group
:>solely to be clarity machines not thinking or realising they can
:>do anything else. An even sadder phenomonan is that stupid people
:>who PLAY enchanters get sucked into this mentality.
:>
: Do you actually have a valid opinion of your own, any knowledge of the
: enchanter class, like maybe have played it yourself? Or are you some
: kinda bluecopy of Alisdair?
Sadly I seem to know a hell of a lot more about playing an enchanter
than you do.
:>Enchanters have no use on dragon runs??? I can't believe you even
:>said that. have you ever been on a dragon run? If so was it with
:>less than 60 people (where sheer weight of numbers takes it down
:>no matter what almost; it requires very little skill and planning)?
:>Wizards are better at killing monsters? Sheer nonsense.
:>
: Wizards are actually able to damage the dragon, something we're not.
Go play a wizard. You and the wizard class deserve each other.
NBarnes
> Bad druids:
>
> 1. Don't cast damage shields on tanks unprompted.
> 2. Don't cast chloroplast unprompted (on tanks and anyone with a
> manastone).
I've counted the damage done by damage shields. I'll cast them if
promted, to keep people happy, but there are a lot of groups out there
where they're not really mana efficent. I try to judge, but if you run
into me and write me off because I'm not damage shielding, it's not
because I'm not thinking about it, I just judged that it wouldn't be
efficent this time around.
I'm a big fan of chloro, though.
Philip Brown
tank does all taunting and gets the DS. healers only have to worry
about the one tank as well. The other tanks taunt only to remove mob
from caster or if things go horribly wrong and main tank is in trouble
(should not be the case if he has a dedicated healer and with a DS he
should keep hate levels high enough with constant taunting to keep mob
on him).
NBarnes wrote:
>
> Billy Shields wrote:
>
> > Bad druids:
> >
> > 1. Don't cast damage shields on tanks unprompted.
> > 2. Don't cast chloroplast unprompted (on tanks and anyone with a
> > manastone).
>
Billy Shields
: Billy Shields wrote:
:> Bad druids:
:>
:> 1. Don't cast damage shields on tanks unprompted.
:> 2. Don't cast chloroplast unprompted (on tanks and anyone with a
:> manastone).
: I've counted the damage done by damage shields. I'll cast them if
: promted, to keep people happy, but there are a lot of groups out there
: where they're not really mana efficent. I try to judge, but if you run
: into me and write me off because I'm not damage shielding, it's not
: because I'm not thinking about it, I just judged that it wouldn't be
: efficent this time around.
: I'm a big fan of chloro, though.
Personally I think theres more to damage shields than mana efficiency
though.
Just say you have 4 monsters attacking your tank. Your tanks are
hitting one to drop it as fast as possible. In this scenario the
other three have taken no damage and have no "hate" associated
with anyone so casting any buffs on the tanks (or heals) or
damaging the monsters will probably draw them onto you. This can
be disastrous.
Now if you apply a damage shield then often they'll have taken a
reasonable amount of damage so you can actually throw a greater
heal or two without getting yourself killed.
That to me is the true power of damage shields.
Erik Halvorsen
wrote:
>
>Thats because you're a clueless fuckwit who doesn't know how to
>play an enchanter.
>
>
>You are completely clueless about enchanters. Its becoming more and
>more obvious.
>
>Nonsense.
>
>
>If any enchanter in my group had gate and DD memmed they'd get boosted
>so fast their head would spin.
>
Like I would have to group with you.
>Um, enchanters have fear spells. You don't NEED a necro to reverse
>kite.
>
Like fear is something you wan't to use without snare ar slow effect.
If it works well you have to run across the whole zone to get your
xp, if it doesn't it'll last exactly 2 seconds, and you have wasted
some mana. Big deal why mem it?
>If you want to be a nuker, be a wizard/mage. If you're trying to
>play your enchanter is one they're you are utterly clueless.
>
Oh good argument, yes sure >:-)
>:>How can you call a pet too mana inefficient? Pets are the most
>:>efficient DoTs in the game.
>
>: How many castings an average do you you have to make a blue coning pet
>: after level 16? I would say about 5 on average, at level 34+ that's 1
>: k-1,5 k mana, a green one won't last you 2 seconds.
>
>It depends what you're trying to do. If you're reverse kiting with
>it then its defenses and hit points are irrelevant. Thats what its
>useful for. Well that and large combat situations where its not
>likely to get hit for long or at all.
LOL!
>:
>: Ok lets say you got a blue one, that maxes his hits at the appropriate
>: level 32 at 34, 36 at 39 etc...how long is he going to last against a
>: blue con If you are level 30+, without buffs, with his 3-600hp's? Ok
>: so you HAVE to buff him, Rune3 thats another 150 mana, and that lasts
>: how long? ca 200 hp. Celerity/SLTW:185/250 mana, Berserker spirit
>: another 150 mana for 250hp.
>
>If you want to be a pet class you should've chosen necro or mage.
>Don't try and imitate what those classes do and then complain that
>you suck because you can't. You're not a necro or mage. You're an
>enchanter.
>
>: Ok so you got a faster pet with 1k hp that hits for 46+ hp now at
>: level 49+, and how much mana have you used to buff him? Don't forget
>: you still have to use berserker spirit on him alot while fighting to
>: keep him alive. during this time he will maybe do 1k damage to the
>: mob, that's 2 castings of our 44 level dd. He will steal some of our
>: xp, and you cant tell him to stay on the mob he is at if some other
>: mob joins the fun and starts pounding at you, you can't use mez
>: anymore...
>
>: If you are going to solo, do it without this pet, Use our rotten dd's
>: instead, load 2 of them, cycle them, and play like a wizzie. (or
>: rather Wuzzie)
>
>You're not a wizard (thank your lucky stars). Idiot.
Idiot? What happened to clueless? What's the reason for this sudden
change of status? Give me back my clueless status, Right now!
>:>
>:>: value (Illusions, See thru targets eye with some kind of vision, Lull
>:>: line, Mana potion line, WTYH DDD, Mem blur after 40, wis debuff, mana
>:>: sieve) Or doesn't stack as opposed to others dot lines, where they
>:>: have several lines of dot's. (see above)
>:>
>:>
>:>: Although I agree that Wizards do have a hard time especially in early
>:>: years, and that the enchanter have an easier task of getting a group.
>:>: I do think that the non-twinked/non-powerleveled enchanters average of
>:>: 70 days played to reach level 50, versus the wizzies 50 days played to
>:>: reach 50, seems to say that we are a class that is a little harder to
>:>: play than most classes, and albeit powerful in our own regard, we're
>:>: no match for a wizzie when it comes to killing mobs, and no use on
>:>: dragon runs or in the planes except as clarity machines, and that's
>:>: only for those of us with a serious death wish.
>:>
>:>: I have always loved grouping with wizzies except they never can seem
>:>: to find their assist hotkey.
>:>
>:>Unfortunately (for you) you are an idiot. The real problem here is
>:>that you don't know how to play your enchanter. You've demonstrated
>:>this unequivocably in this and other posts that you've made.
>:>
>: What classes did you say you play?
>: Shaman and druid was it?
>
>Druid, ranger, shaman, enchanter, necro and magician.
>
Druid, Shaman, Mage, Necro, Chanter... I think I see a trend here, hey
aint you that (breastsuckling) C00L D00D 969 Dat DoEsNt SuX?
>:>70 days played time to reach level 50? Hello? Any class can reach
>:>level 50 in 40 days if they want to. Many can do it in 20 if they
>:>try (including enchanters).
>:>
>: What would you know about that?
>
>: Enchanters dies more than any other class, and besides you want to
>
>Nonsense. In my experience its still the tanks that die the most.
>
That's cause you have no personal experience with an enchanter.
Either that or still doing your Stein runs.
>: raise 5k pp to master jewelcraft. That's alot of runs doing the Stein
>
>Who said you have to master JC? Noone is forcing you to. Thats
>entirely your choice.
>
How many level 34+ Chanters doesn't master Jewelcraft?
>: quest... The class haven't got SOW, TELE or any of the other
>: timesaving spells inherent, you have to go to Erudin and High hold
>: keep to get some of your spells. And you are completely unable to Solo
>: between 20 and 34.
>
>I'll be sure to tell the enchanters I know that they imagined soloing
>at those levels and it didn't really happen.
>
>You aren't the best soloer for sure. If you wanted to be then you'd
>be a necro or mage.
>
>You sound very much to me like someone who wants to play a wizard
>with clarity.
>
I don't sound to you like someone who wants to play anything else than
what I play, I only tell you an enchanter ain't so Hot till 44.
Can't wait for you to get some levels on your chanter and tell me how
well you soloed in Oasis fear kiting speccies with your animation in
your 30's, or using charm, actually gaining xp there over time,
without the island being pre broken, and a cleric around to heal and
rez..
>:>The sad thing is that some people want enchanters in their group
>:>solely to be clarity machines not thinking or realising they can
>:>do anything else. An even sadder phenomonan is that stupid people
>:>who PLAY enchanters get sucked into this mentality.
>:>
>: Do you actually have a valid opinion of your own, any knowledge of the
>: enchanter class, like maybe have played it yourself? Or are you some
>: kinda bluecopy of Alisdair?
>
>Sadly I seem to know a hell of a lot more about playing an enchanter
>than you do.
>
Like you do? When?... oh when you called me an idiot, sorry forgot
about that.
>:>Enchanters have no use on dragon runs??? I can't believe you even
>:>said that. have you ever been on a dragon run? If so was it with
>:>less than 60 people (where sheer weight of numbers takes it down
>:>no matter what almost; it requires very little skill and planning)?
>:>Wizards are better at killing monsters? Sheer nonsense.
>:>
>: Wizards are actually able to damage the dragon, something we're not.
>
>Go play a wizard. You and the wizard class deserve each other.
Ok will do. Thanks for the tip. :>
Erik Halvorsen
29. That he can solo at 49 50, why should that surprise? But he can't
solo Seafury's well (any longer) with the recent pet nerf.
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 18:31:27 +0000, Quantum
<Qua...@ultimate1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <38CCEF88...@earthlink.net>, NBarnes
><nba...@earthlink.net> writes
>>Mr Foo Bar wrote:
>>
>>> Enchanters can solo - complete bollocks. At low levels, sure they
>>> can, but so can everyone else. But at higher levels - never. I
>>> havent solo'd my enchanter since level 20.
>>>
>>> I've occassionally toyed with the idea of solo-ing the two druids
>>> in EC (beguile one) but decided it wasnt worth it, one failed
>>> beguile (or if it didnt last long enough) and I'd be toast.
>>
>> Bollocks back at you. Enchanters can't solo past 20th? Stuff
>>and nonsense. Enchanters solo _fine_ past 20th. You have pets,
>>reasonably efficient nukes, DoTs, the ability to make bad situations
>>go away (stun, mez, Gate), and Clarity. What more do you want?
>>Enchanters do _fine_ solo. It's a little rough until 29th, then
>>you just take off on the basis of low downtime. The only people
>>that can keep up are the necros. Enchanters are better at getting
>>XP solo than magicians, even, because of their ability to control
>>situations and reduce their downtime.
>>
>> NBarnes - Dina Demeteran, 49th circle druid, Sol Ro
>
Mr Foo Bar
The reason tanks can keeps mobs on them despite being hit for more damage by
a wizzie is because they have taunt.
And I guarantee no tank in the game can do as much damage as any wizard dd
at the same level in the same time frame.
Wizards aren't broken - its the players that mis-play them that's the
problem.
If you don't like wizards play something else ! Don't expect Verant to come
along and wipe your arse for you, nor expect them to turn the Wizard into
the class you'd prefer to play (whether enchanter, mage, necro, druid or
whatever).
NBarnes <nba...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38CCF0E0...@earthlink.net...
Mr Foo Bar
Go play one to a reasonable level, say minimum 30, then you can have an
opinion that counts.
NBarnes <nba...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:38CCEF88...@earthlink.net...
> Mr Foo Bar wrote:
>
> > Enchanters can solo - complete bollocks. At low levels, sure they
> > can, but so can everyone else. But at higher levels - never. I
> > havent solo'd my enchanter since level 20.
> >
> > I've occassionally toyed with the idea of solo-ing the two druids
> > in EC (beguile one) but decided it wasnt worth it, one failed
> > beguile (or if it didnt last long enough) and I'd be toast.
>
> Bollocks back at you. Enchanters can't solo past 20th? Stuff
> and nonsense. Enchanters solo _fine_ past 20th. You have pets,
> reasonably efficient nukes, DoTs, the ability to make bad situations
> go away (stun, mez, Gate), and Clarity. What more do you want?
> Enchanters do _fine_ solo. It's a little rough until 29th, then
> you just take off on the basis of low downtime. The only people
> that can keep up are the necros. Enchanters are better at getting
> XP solo than magicians, even, because of their ability to control
> situations and reduce their downtime.
>
Mr Foo Bar
<snip>
>
> : Kinda makes sense though don't you think? Not really, no. Would have
made
> : more sense if NPCs couldnt charm our pets.
>
> That would make sense yes but we all know monsters cheat.
So do players - zone, snare, camping etc etc
> :> : - Item Enchantment implemented to create ONE
item.
> :>
> :> How is this bad? One is better than none and its not a nerf. Yet
> :> you complain?
>
> : Err because it isnt enough. It's like saying (made up example) "Hey mr
necro
> : what you complaining about, a 1 point per tick dot at level 49 isn't a
> : nerf, it's better than none".
>
> Its not even close. A DoT is a combat ability. Item enchantment
> is completely non-combat related.
So ?
>
> : Anyway, being more realistic, I think his complaint is that Verant
havent
> : done enough to live up to the initial promise re enchanters (go read the
> : game manual). Instead they've spent their time giving other classes some
> : rather nice enhancements (and nerfs).
>
> Enchanters already have a stranglehold over most of the useful trade
> skills anyway. How much more of a monopoly do they need?
We want it all ! Didn't you know enchanter in all Norrathian languages means
"trade monopoly" ;-)
>
> :> : - High Level Pets dual wield removed (fixed ..
> :> : sorta they now have to be equipped with
weapons)
> :>
> :> Hardly that annoying. You don't even need to carry daggers to do it.
> :> Any weapon will do. Just pick two up. They're lying around
everywhere.
>
> : And if you're above level 20 you have no business using a pet :-)
>
> That I don't agree with. Enchanters have excellent fear spells.
> Reverse kiting is an entirely valid soloing tactic (just as it is
> for necros).
Err, yes, except that before your pet ill doing anything it you have to be
hit and second, enchanter pets hits for sod all damage.
>
> Besides there reaches a point where you may as well have a pet
> because theres nothing you can charm anyway.
Haven't fought anything I cant charm so far (level 35). That I tried anyway
;-)
Well except once when I accidently cast charm on the dark elf merchant in
sro instead of benevolence ;-)
>
> :>
> :> : Same with buffs: Augmentation or Celerity, Str
or
> :> : rampage - they just don't work together)
> :>
> :> Augmentation is fairly useless anyway (imho). You're better off
> :> using Alacrity+.
>
> : Heh, read this and thought "has this guy played and enchanter ?".
> : Augmentation is without doubt an uber-buff. Sure, it doesn't increase
speed
> : as much as alacrity (but what's 5% anyway ?) but it does last a long
time
> : (alacrity lasts for one medium length fight - and you've dumped a fair
> : amount of mana) - with augmentation I can buff the entire team, med back
the
>
> Why would you buff the entire team with augmentation? I had a level
> 50 enchanter do this in a party in Lower Guk the other day (I'm a
> druid). In fact I got a total of 8 or so buffs when all I needed
> was chloroplast and clarity.
Nope, unless they were all tanks, but I definately wouldn't buff the whole
team with alacrity - probably wouldnt have the mana ;-)
>
> Also the stamina is sometimes useful but I find its more useful just
> to have someone memorise extinguish fatigue and cast it on those
> odd occasions you need it (which isn't very often unless you're
> in Kedge).
Haven't memmed my equivalent in a long time. (Probably the last time I was
in Kedge ;)
>
> : mana, and be full for the fight, knowing I wont have to recast
augmentation
> : for several pulls. Oh and augmentation comes with 20agi which is nice.
>
> The agility is meaningless (assuming each person has 75+ agility which
> they certainly should).
Sure, that's why I made its selling point its duration not the agi buff-
that's just (watery) gravy.
>
> Augmentation might be iffy when compared to Alacrity but not to
> Celerity. As melee damage goes up (which it does right up to 50)
> the quickness line becomes so much more worthwhile than augmentation
> its unbelievable.
Yes.
>
> : As to the spells stacking, well so what ? Firstly enchanter str is a
poor
> : cousin to the shaman and druid versions. Sure it would be nice to be
able to
> : stack augmentation with the quickness line - but that would be too gross
for
> : words. As it is you get to make a trade - more speed versus longer
duration.
> : Personally I always use augmentation.
>
> Lets say a level 45 tank has 2 ykeshas. Lets also assume that
> unhasted their average damage is about 20/second (including procs).
> This imaginary tank spends 80% of his time fighting. A level
> 45 enchanter can cast augmentation or celerity. If I recall
> correctly augmentation is about a 15% haste and celerity is
> about 30%. So with Celerity you do an extra 3 damage/second when
> fighting.
>
> Now Augmentation at this level (according to eq.stratics.com)
> lasts 270 ticks and Celerity lasts 145 ticks. The mana costs are
> 90 and 185 respectively. To keep celerity going as long as
> augmentation you would need (proportionally) about 345 mana.
> Over 270 ticks * 80% * 6 seconds (1296 seconds of fighting) thats
> an extra 3880 points of damage for an extra 255 mana.
>
> How exactly is that inefficient?
What you failed to take into account is that using augmentation the
enchanter can be doing other things during the fight (stun, mezz rune etc)
where as with celerity they'll be mostly casting celerity the whole fight
(if their mana holds up).
>
> And that doesn't even take into account the mana saved from
> reducing the need for healing, etc.
>
> I stand by my original statement and extend it further: there is
> absolutely NO reason to use augmentation beyond level 39 when
> enchanters get celerity. With alacrity its a little more blurred
> though.
Nope, still disagree. Your scenario means the enchanter becomes a celerity
battery, which is even more boring than being a clarity battery. Enchanters
are to useful during a fight to waste them in that way.
Celerity for the main damage dealing meleer and augmentation for the rest.
>
> : "Enchanter pets" and "reasonable" in the same sentence LOL! Enchanter
pets
> : are a waste of time, useful at low levels sure, but a liability in any
> : circustance from then on.
>
> They do almost as much damgag as necro pets last I checked. If you're
> ignoring that you're robbing yourself of useful tactics and potentially
> a lot of damage done.
A necro pet will cream an enchanter pet every single time. Not even close.
And as to the potential ? You mean the potential of having all your mezzed
mobs woken up ? Or do you mean having a pet instead of charming a MOB (which
we all know level for level is far more powerful than any pc).
>
> :>
> :> : Add to this that several of our lines of spells are either too mana
> :> : inefficient (str-agi debuff lines, dot's, dd's, Pets), have no real
> :>
> :> The str/agi debuffs are useless, yes.
>
> : Stat debuffs (against npcs) are a waste of mana, regardless of how
little or
> : much they cost. DoTs ? Well as I said before, enchanters dont get dots.
DD's
> : ?? Well I'm pretty pleased with Anarchy, it casts as fast as the
equivalent
> : Wizzy spell (although the recycle time is much longer and it
megataunts -
> : but hey I'm an enchanter) and does nice damage - 278 for what 150 mana
(I
> : think). The only "problem" with enchanter DD's is because we get them
> : infrequently is they get "old". But hey, if I wanted to blast I would
have
> : stuck with my wizard.
>
> Druids suffer the same problem. From level 9 on you get your DDs
> every 10 levels. Ever tried nuking something at level 18 with a
> 37 DD? Doesn't work so great let me tell you.
*snicker*
>
> Likewise at level 48 I have a 302 DD. Utterly useless. No point
> in even memorising it. The only use for DDs it to finish battles
> quickly is very unusual circumstances. This DD doesn't even cut
> the mustard for that.
Yep, I know the feeling - but when you do, finally, get your next DD, that's
always nice.
>
> : Pet's mana inefficient ?!? Don't be silly.
>
> :>
> :> Your DoTs suck but hey enchanters aren't dealers of damage are they?
> :>
> :> Your DDs are about as efficient as mage DDs (ignoring bolts) but they
> :> taunt more. (Good) enchanters only use them when soloing though in
> :> my experience.
>
> : Heh I disagree. I use my DD to help finish off mobs (anyone else noticed
> : mobs seem to do more damage in that last bubble or two of health than
they
> : did the entire fight ?) although I sually forgo this pleasure if whe
have a
> : proper blaster in the group.
>
> The problem isn't that your DDs are bad. The problem is that you
> only have 8 mem slots to put spells in. Wasting one with a DD
> means something else gets bumped. That something else is probably
> far more useful.
Actually I generally have one "spare" slot I use to indulge myself - whether
its a DD or my damage shield (which took me forever to research so I'll be
damned if I wont use it). If I'm not indulging myself Rune goes in that
slot. The others are taken up with colour shift/spray, mezz, entrance,
tashan, gate and languid pace.
That's a fair point, which could be countered by saying because there are so
many things they can go, being a good enchanter is much harder.
> You do get enchanters that needlessly buff (which is the enchanter
> equivalanet of a mana dumping wizard) and that annoys me.
Hmm. Yesss. But define needlessly buff ?
>
> : with another enchanter it's generally been with a higher level one, in
which
> : case its been interesting to see the tactics and "tricks" they use. Some
I
> : might "disagree" with - and wouldnt do myself - others work very nicely
and
> : I consider adopting into my own repotoire.
>
> : Also there are some groups where you darent be anything other than a
clarity
> : machine. Those are the groups where the wizards insist on casting aoe
spells
> : and the warriors just feel compelled to "save" you from that mob your in
the
> : process of enthralling. But I don't tend to stay in them any longer
than it
> : takes to find another group.
>
> Heh good move. Some of the telltale signs of a bad gorup:
>
> 1. They think enchanters are only good for clarity.
havent come across that one.
> 2. They haven't mastered the tactic of /assist to only fight one
> thing at once.
Aggh ! Yes indeed. And why is it wizards are always the worst offenders ?
> 3. They ask for stat buffs.
Heh I don't offer stat buffs :-)
> 4. Think they need to fill their party with wizards and clerics.
Filling with any class probably isnt a good idea.
>
> Bad enchanters:
>
> 1. Only think they're good for clarity.
> 2. Don't know how to mes/enthrall
Oh come on, you're joking right ? How can you play an enchanter without
knowing that ?
> Bad tanks:
>
> 1. Don't know how to /assist.
> 2. Don't rescue casters/healers being attacked unprompted.
> 3. Wait til a monster has switched attackers before they start taunting.
You forgot 4. Taunts single mobs off enchanters.
Mason Barge
>
>> Bad druids:
>>
>> 1. Don't cast damage shields on tanks unprompted.
>> 2. Don't cast chloroplast unprompted (on tanks and anyone with a
>> manastone).
>
> I've counted the damage done by damage shields. I'll cast them if
>promted, to keep people happy, but there are a lot of groups out there
>where they're not really mana efficent. I try to judge, but if you run
>into me and write me off because I'm not damage shielding, it's not
>because I'm not thinking about it, I just judged that it wouldn't be
>efficent this time around.
> I'm a big fan of chloro, though.
Dina, you should be giving lessons. I grouped with two warrios and a cleric
last night. The cleric was the kind of player who thinks he knows how to play
a mage better than the mage. Demanded that I get a fire pet. Then screamed at
me to arm him, while the tanks were pulling after I told them I wasn't ready.
Both tanks kept demanding "DS!"
So it was an easy camp, where I had been soloing. So I got the fire pet -- I
researched the spell but had never used one except to camp green skins for
loot. So I wasted mana fireshielding two tanks.
Doh! I finally refused to play second-rate any longer and got the air pet I
wanted in the first place. And eventually, I went back to soloing.
I love to group and I get along with people (believe it or not) and soloing
sucks. But you know what? I never die solo. And I get the intrinsic
satisfaction of playing my position to maximum efficiency and not having to
listen to "expert" clerics/warriors/whatever telling me what to do.
Yeah, damage shields are awesome where you have non-caster mobs with one
taunting warrior who takes all the hits, or multiple non-caster mobs.
Oh well. Rant over. I love both warriors and clerics in my group. But let me
play my position, okay?
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln
Mark Bradshaw
>You really have no idea what you are talking about do you ?
Beautiful. This coming from the man that thinks that Enchanters can't
solo past 20.
>
>The reason tanks can keeps mobs on them despite being hit for more damage by
>a wizzie is because they have taunt.
>
>And I guarantee no tank in the game can do as much damage as any wizard dd
>at the same level in the same time frame.
Sure, if you're talking about time frames of about 10 seconds or less.
But you don't play EQ in 10 second sessions. It's an hour by hour
grind. Damage per hour, the well equpped warrior.. hell, the
well-equpied *anything* is going to outdamage any similar-level
wizard. Sure, we can put impessive numbers on the screen for about 20
seconds, but after that we're sitting down medding for five minutes.
Meanwhile, the group's warrior is doing damage almost non stop.
Of course, you're just looking at those impressive DD stats on Casters
Realm, and not actually looking into the class at any great degree.
>
>
>If you don't like wizards play something else ! Don't expect Verant to come
>along and wipe your arse for you, nor expect them to turn the Wizard into
>the class you'd prefer to play (whether enchanter, mage, necro, druid or
>whatever).
No, you dim witted dunderhead, we do not want to play enchanters,
necros, or mages. If we did, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD HAVE ROLLED UP.
What we want is for our chosen class to have *some* usefulness to the
group that isn't tread upon by other classes.
Screw it. Remove Evacs from druids and DDs from Enchanters. After
all, if you people wanted your class to play that way, you should have
rolled up wizards, right?
Richard
>You really have no idea what you are talking about do you ?
>
>The reason tanks can keeps mobs on them despite being hit for more damage by
>a wizzie is because they have taunt.
>
>And I guarantee no tank in the game can do as much damage as any wizard dd
>at the same level in the same time frame.
>
>Wizards aren't broken - its the players that mis-play them that's the
>problem.
>
>If you don't like wizards play something else ! Don't expect Verant to come
>along and wipe your arse for you, nor expect them to turn the Wizard into
>the class you'd prefer to play (whether enchanter, mage, necro, druid or
>whatever).
Ok, this is for all the "wizard experts" :
Please explain how a wizard is supposed to defend himself/herself in
this situation. Let's say you are a Level 16 wiz. You are in a group
of 5 or 6 let's say in some dungeon like Befallen and you're killing
skeletons and ghouls. The wizard is being conservative and giving one
blast per monster. All of a sudden, a group of 3-4 monsters attacks
at once and everyone is focusing on killing the closest creature.
Again, the wizard attacks one time to conserve mana but is getting
very low after monster #2 (red or yellow)....maybe half at this time
and will need to med soon. By the time monster 3 or 4 is dead, the
wizard is OOM and really SOL if attacked. Meanwhile, the cleric is
healing themselves and the other casters have pets fighting for them.
After all this is over, the wiz is hanging by a thread with both
health and mana....or is the only one dead. All this by standing
back and casting very conservatively.
Most people would agree that situation sucks and would probably solve
the situation by saying something dumb like "don't play a wizard
then". That is not an option when you've been playing a wizard a
long time and that is your only character. Besides, all characters
are supposed to be equally playable. I guarantee you that the wizard
is not. They need some refinement in one way or another, but Verant
is too closed minded to even consider some ideas that are being thrown
out.
Richard
Geoff Jones
Richard wrote in message ...
>
>Ok, this is for all the "wizard experts" :
>
>Please explain how a wizard is supposed to defend himself/herself in
>this situation. Let's say you are a Level 16 wiz. You are in a group
>of 5 or 6 let's say in some dungeon like Befallen and you're killing
>skeletons and ghouls. The wizard is being conservative and giving one
>blast per monster. All of a sudden, a group of 3-4 monsters attacks
>at once and everyone is focusing on killing the closest creature.
>Again, the wizard attacks one time to conserve mana but is getting
>very low after monster #2 (red or yellow)....maybe half at this time
>and will need to med soon. By the time monster 3 or 4 is dead, the
>wizard is OOM and really SOL if attacked. Meanwhile, the cleric is
>healing themselves and the other casters have pets fighting for them.
>After all this is over, the wiz is hanging by a thread with both
>health and mana....or is the only one dead. All this by standing
>back and casting very conservatively.
>
>Most people would agree that situation sucks and would probably solve
>the situation by saying something dumb like "don't play a wizard
>then". That is not an option when you've been playing a wizard a
>long time and that is your only character. Besides, all characters
>are supposed to be equally playable. I guarantee you that the wizard
>is not. They need some refinement in one way or another, but Verant
>is too closed minded to even consider some ideas that are being thrown
>out.
If the cleric is only healing himself, that's a problem.
Also, all characters ar not supposed to be equally playable. Remember when
you first create you character, and it tells you "this race/class
combination is low/moderate/high difficulty" or something like that? Choose
accordingly.
Jeremy Music
>
>Ok, this is for all the "wizard experts" :
>
>Please explain how a wizard is supposed to defend himself/herself in
>this situation. Let's say you are a Level 16 wiz. You are in a group
>of 5 or 6 let's say in some dungeon like Befallen and you're killing
>skeletons and ghouls. The wizard is being conservative and giving one
>blast per monster. All of a sudden, a group of 3-4 monsters attacks
>at once and everyone is focusing on killing the closest creature.
>Again, the wizard attacks one time to conserve mana but is getting
>very low after monster #2 (red or yellow)....maybe half at this time
>and will need to med soon. By the time monster 3 or 4 is dead, the
>wizard is OOM and really SOL if attacked.
The wizard is being played poorly. Next example please.
>Meanwhile, the cleric is
>healing themselves and the other casters have pets fighting for them.
>After all this is over, the wiz is hanging by a thread with both
>health and mana....or is the only one dead. All this by standing
>back and casting very conservatively.
>
And not _at all_ doing what he should have done.
>Most people would agree that situation sucks and would probably solve
>the situation by saying something dumb like "don't play a wizard
>then". That is not an option when you've been playing a wizard a
>long time and that is your only character. Besides, all characters
>are supposed to be equally playable. I guarantee you that the wizard
>is not. They need some refinement in one way or another, but Verant
>is too closed minded to even consider some ideas that are being thrown
>out.
Allow me to tell you, as a non-wizard, what I would like the wizard to do in
such a situation. First, check and make sure he has an evac memmed if he is
high enough level, if not just skip that step. Next, sit down. Then, after
that, stay sitting down. Don't stand up until A) a tank's life is below
quarter, B) a caster's life starts dropping (situational), C) he is 100%
full mana and can stand up, assist the main tank, and drop _one_ blast on
the current target and sit back down, or D) in his "professional" judgment,
he has enough mana to _end_ a mob without endangering his own or his
parties' lives.
A wizard should not be softening up each individual mob when a group pulls
multiples. He should be monitoring the fight and deciding which mob is low
enough to finish off with one blast, freeing up the tanks to move on to the
next mob. When in an "emergency" situation, there is no need to play
conservatively, just a need to play intelligently.
I have been in basically this same situation as a magician. Don't feel the
need to "burn down" on every mob. Let the tanks do their job. Let the
healers do their job.
I see far too many wizards who think they are a "supported" class. They
aren't. They are support providers. It seems that most wizards don't like
being relegated to support status and want to be the "hero" (tough, should
have played a tank). Of course these same people would be highly annoyed at
_requiring_ so much support like tanks do, but there are always trade-offs
between classes.
J
(Teleports + evacs + root >= pet + damage shield)
Sam Posten III
>multiples. He should be monitoring the fight and deciding which mob is low
>enough to finish off with one blast, freeing up the tanks to move on to the
>next mob. When in an "emergency" situation, there is no need to play
>conservatively, just a need to play intelligently.
If we're talking about a lvl 16 Wizard the wiz should be spanking as
hard as they can with a Runed totem staff on the same mob the main
tank is. Once the mob is to 1/4 health, DD light out, look for next
target. If you are twinked then Observer staff is your wood of
choice. I'd take the extra melee damage output over the extra mana
you can get from a stein of Moggok in this situation any day.
At this level the Wizards damage output from 2hb is NOT trivial,
assuming they haven't listened to everyone how bad they are at
swinging and to just shut up and sit down in the rear. They are
contributing significant damage, but never enough to aggro the mob off
the main tank.
>I have been in basically this same situation as a magician. Don't feel the
>need to "burn down" on every mob. Let the tanks do their job. Let the
>healers do their job.
And do your job too, there is a reason you can still swing for 20
damage a pop at this level with a RTS/OS, use it.
>I see far too many wizards who think they are a "supported" class. They
>aren't. They are support providers. It seems that most wizards don't like
>being relegated to support status and want to be the "hero" (tough, should
>have played a tank).
Again, talking about lvl 16 this is the biggest pile of crap I've read
here in a while.
Sam
Sam Posten III
>all, if you people wanted your class to play that way, you should have
>rolled up wizards, right?
Yeah, and remove the DDs from Necros and MAges too!!!! Heck, if they
are so inefficient, they wont miss em anyway!
;)
Sam
Dan Bongard
>Please explain how a wizard is supposed to defend himself/herself in
>this situation. Let's say you are a Level 16 wiz. You are in a group
>of 5 or 6 let's say in some dungeon like Befallen and you're killing
>skeletons and ghouls. The wizard is being conservative and giving one
>blast per monster. All of a sudden, a group of 3-4 monsters attacks
>at once and everyone is focusing on killing the closest creature.
>Again, the wizard attacks one time to conserve mana but is getting
>very low after monster #2 (red or yellow)....maybe half at this time
>and will need to med soon. By the time monster 3 or 4 is dead, the
>wizard is OOM and really SOL if attacked. Meanwhile, the cleric is
>healing themselves and the other casters have pets fighting for them.
>After all this is over, the wiz is hanging by a thread with both
>health and mana....or is the only one dead. All this by standing
>back and casting very conservatively.
At level 16 you have 500-550 mana. This translates to either
8 or 9 Shock of Lightnings or 6 Flame Shocks plus one Shock
of Lightning. In neither case is the wizard "getting low on
mana" after two zaps, and in either case the wizard has a
total damage output of.
A few "correct" ways to handle this:
Method #1: Root the 2-3 monsters the party is not meleeing (if
the party isn't concentrating its attacks at this level, you're
doing it wrong). Even if one of the roots fails, you
recover well enough at this level to re-root and back away
from combat. The party pulls back a few feet, out of melee
range of the other attackers. Repeat as necessary (probably
only once more).
Method #2: Hang back for a little bit while the tanks put the
smack down on one of the monsters. Wait until monster #1 is
at around 40% health. Throw a Shock of Lightning followed
by a Shock of Flame in rapid succession; this should instantly
kill the monster. Wash, rinse, repeat; you can do this 4
times before running out of mana.
> Most people would agree that situation sucks and would
> probably solve the situation by saying something dumb
> like "don't play a wizard then".
Fighting 4 blues at a time with a decent-sized party
doesn't "suck" at all; it isn't an optimal way to fight,
certainly, but there's no call to panic. Now, if it was
4 yellows or reds, the only smart move is for everybody
to haul ass to the zone.
> That is not an option when you've been playing a wizard a
> long time and that is your only character.
Why is it "not an option"? Make a second character. What's
your big rush to get to 50th anyway? :)
> Besides, all characters are supposed to be equally playable.
Well, no, actually, they aren't.
-- Dan
Dan Bongard
>At this level the Wizards damage output from 2hb is NOT trivial,
>assuming they haven't listened to everyone how bad they are at
>swinging and to just shut up and sit down in the rear. They are
>contributing significant damage, but never enough to aggro the mob off
>the main tank.
A wizard's max RTS damage output at this level is 30/tick. That's
assuming he always hits, and hits for max damage every time; a
more realistic figure is around 5-10 points per tick. Since a
16th level wizard recovers around 5 mana per tick normally, it
is probably a better idea for the wizard to meditate; the mana
he gets back will probably be more effective.
-- Dan
Morgan
>
> Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> news:38cd9b5d$0$19...@motown.iinet.net.au...
>
> <snip>
>
> > :>
> > :> How is this bad? One is better than none and its not a nerf. Yet
> > :> you complain?
> >
> > : Err because it isnt enough. It's like saying (made up example) "Hey mr necro
> > : what you complaining about, a 1 point per tick dot at level 49 isn't a
> > : nerf, it's better than none".
> >
> > Its not even close. A DoT is a combat ability. Item enchantment
> > is completely non-combat related.
>
> So ?
That is a silly complaint. That's like Rogues complaining that their
lockpicking skill is useless. Having a skill that does very little or
nothing is no worse than not having the skill at all. Besides, you
still have all of magical jewelry if you want to make magic things.
> > : Anyway, being more realistic, I think his complaint is that Verant havent
> > : done enough to live up to the initial promise re enchanters (go read the
> > : game manual). Instead they've spent their time giving other classes some
> > : rather nice enhancements (and nerfs).
> >
> > Enchanters already have a stranglehold over most of the useful trade
> > skills anyway. How much more of a monopoly do they need?
>
> We want it all ! Didn't you know enchanter in all Norrathian languages means
> "trade monopoly" ;-)
I think that's why the plan got halted. One item appeared and every
non-Enchanter in Norrath roared that they were going to be squeezed
out of their trades by Enchanters who could always undersell them.
So Verant switched tracks, and now you have silver tipped arrows,
the Raincaller Bow, and the Armor of Ro.
I would really like to be able to make a few more fun items, maybe
a couple of weapons that could hit magic creatures or amulets that
have spell effects while worn (like infravision, water breathing, or
levitation). These things should all require some loot components
and some expensive components so that we don't just hand them out
like candy.
> > :> :Same with buffs: Augmentation or Celerity, Str or
> > :> :rampage - they just don't work together)
> > :>
> > :> Augmentation is fairly useless anyway (imho). You're better off
> > :> using Alacrity+.
> >
> > : Heh, read this and thought "has this guy played and enchanter ?".
> > : Augmentation is without doubt an uber-buff. Sure, it doesn't increase speed
> > : as much as alacrity (but what's 5% anyway ?) but it does last a long time
> > : (alacrity lasts for one medium length fight - and you've dumped a fair
> > : amount of mana) - with augmentation I can buff the entire team, med back the
> >
> > Why would you buff the entire team with augmentation? I had a level
> > 50 enchanter do this in a party in Lower Guk the other day (I'm a
> > druid). In fact I got a total of 8 or so buffs when all I needed
> > was chloroplast and clarity.
>
> Nope, unless they were all tanks, but I definately wouldn't buff the whole
> team with alacrity - probably wouldnt have the mana ;-)
> > Augmentation might be iffy when compared to Alacrity but not to
> > Celerity. As melee damage goes up (which it does right up to 50)
> > the quickness line becomes so much more worthwhile than augmentation
> > its unbelievable.
>
> Yes.
I used Augmentation from when I got it at 29 until last night when I got
Celerity at 39. (That's about six months real time.) My tanks would never
tell me when Alacrity wore off, so I gave up and just kept Augmentation on
them all the time. They tell me when Celerity wears off. Actually they
emote withdrawal symptoms and it's not hard to guess what they're out of. ;)
> > : mana, and be full for the fight, knowing I wont have to recast augmentation
> > : for several pulls. Oh and augmentation comes with 20agi which is nice.
> >
> > The agility is meaningless (assuming each person has 75+ agility which
> > they certainly should).
>
> Sure, that's why I made its selling point its duration not the agi buff-
> that's just (watery) gravy.
The duration of Quickness/Alacrity/Celerity is 3*Level + 12 ticks.
When you first get Quickness at level 16, it lasts six minutes, which
is usually one good fight or two short ones. At level 24 when you
get Alacrity, the duration is 8.4 minutes and at level 39 when you get
Celerity, the duration is 12.9 minutes. At that point the spell is
starting to last long enough to extend through several pulls or one
good big fight.
I cast Augmentation on myself for the agility when jewelcrafting. ;)
> > : As to the spells stacking, well so what ? Firstly enchanter str is a poor
> > : cousin to the shaman and druid versions. Sure it would be nice to be able to
> > : stack augmentation with the quickness line - but that would be too gross for
> > : words. As it is you get to make a trade - more speed versus longer duration.
> > : Personally I always use augmentation.
> >
> > Lets say a level 45 tank has 2 ykeshas. Lets also assume that
> > unhasted their average damage is about 20/second (including procs).
> > This imaginary tank spends 80% of his time fighting. A level
> > 45 enchanter can cast augmentation or celerity. If I recall
> > correctly augmentation is about a 15% haste and celerity is
> > about 30%. So with Celerity you do an extra 3 damage/second when
> > fighting.
> >
> > Now Augmentation at this level (according to eq.stratics.com)
> > lasts 270 ticks and Celerity lasts 145 ticks. The mana costs are
> > 90 and 185 respectively. To keep celerity going as long as
> > augmentation you would need (proportionally) about 345 mana.
> > Over 270 ticks * 80% * 6 seconds (1296 seconds of fighting) thats
> > an extra 3880 points of damage for an extra 255 mana.
> >
> > How exactly is that inefficient?
>
> What you failed to take into account is that using augmentation the
> enchanter can be doing other things during the fight (stun, mezz rune etc)
> where as with celerity they'll be mostly casting celerity the whole fight
> (if their mana holds up).
Right, compare it with other uses for the mana.
If you have a mob that is dealing out 50 damage a round and you can
keep it entranced for 72 seconds, you're saving the group 1200 damage
for 85 mana.
If you can keep four such mobs mesmerized with Mesmerization for 24
seconds, you're saving the group 1600 damage for 70 mana.
If you can charm such a mob (and get some duration out of your charm),
you're saving the group a couple thousand damage and dealing out a
couple thousand damage for 195 mana.
If you can drop a Rune on your healer and keep them from dying when
they get mobbed, you save your group a lot of damage and heartache.
It really depends on what you are fighting and the composition of your
group. If the fight started and you were OOM from casting Celerity,
I think your groupmates would be really annoyed at your bad planning.
> > And that doesn't even take into account the mana saved from
> > reducing the need for healing, etc.
> >
> > I stand by my original statement and extend it further: there is
> > absolutely NO reason to use augmentation beyond level 39 when
> > enchanters get celerity. With alacrity its a little more blurred
> > though.
>
> Nope, still disagree. Your scenario means the enchanter becomes a celerity
> battery, which is even more boring than being a clarity battery. Enchanters
> are to useful during a fight to waste them in that way.
>
> Celerity for the main damage dealing meleer and augmentation for the rest.
My group has two tanks. They both get Celerity. ;)
> > :> Your DoTs suck but hey enchanters aren't dealers of damage are they?
> > :>
> > :> Your DDs are about as efficient as mage DDs (ignoring bolts) but they
> > :> taunt more. (Good) enchanters only use them when soloing though in
> > :> my experience.
> >
> > : Heh I disagree. I use my DD to help finish off mobs (anyone else noticed
> > : mobs seem to do more damage in that last bubble or two of health than they
> > : did the entire fight ?) although I sually forgo this pleasure if we have a
> > : proper blaster in the group.
> >
> > The problem isn't that your DDs are bad. The problem is that you
> > only have 8 mem slots to put spells in. Wasting one with a DD
> > means something else gets bumped. That something else is probably
> > far more useful.
>
> Actually I generally have one "spare" slot I use to indulge myself - whether
> its a DD or my damage shield (which took me forever to research so I'll be
> damned if I wont use it). If I'm not indulging myself Rune goes in that
> slot. The others are taken up with colour shift/spray, mezz, entrance,
> tashan, gate and languid pace.
No Charm? I don't usually memorize it either. It can turn an easy
fight into a dicey one or a hard fight into an impossible one when
your pet goes wild. I think Charm is a great soloing tool, but a bit
too exciting when you are trying to keep a dozen nasty things sleeping.
It is fun to use every once in a while though. ;)
> > I don't like enchanters memming DDs at higher level because they've
> > reduces themselves to 7 open slots.
I generally try to have one slot that I don't depend on so that I can
cast buffs.
> > : with another enchanter it's generally been with a higher level one, in which
> > : case its been interesting to see the tactics and "tricks" they use. Some I
> > : might "disagree" with - and wouldnt do myself - others work very nicely and
> > : I consider adopting into my own repotoire.
> >
> > : Also there are some groups where you darent be anything other than a clarity
> > : machine. Those are the groups where the wizards insist on casting aoe spells
> > : and the warriors just feel compelled to "save" you from that mob your in the
> > : process of enthralling. But I don't tend to stay in them any longer than it
> > : takes to find another group.
> >
> > Heh good move. Some of the telltale signs of a bad gorup:
> >
> > 1. They think enchanters are only good for clarity.
>
> havent come across that one.
I have heard a level 28 Enchanter ridiculed in OOC when she was
looking for a group because she was still "useless".
> > 2. They haven't mastered the tactic of /assist to only fight one
> > thing at once.
>
> Aggh ! Yes indeed. And why is it wizards are always the worst offenders ?
Necromancers are worse. My group has a hard and fast rule of
"No Necromancers ... except for Tarlak".
> > Bad enchanters:
> >
> > 1. Only think they're good for clarity.
> > 2. Don't know how to mes/enthrall
>
> Oh come on, you're joking right ? How can you play an enchanter without
> knowing that ?
Making things go boom has its own appeal. I have met the occasional
Enchanter who just doesn't mez/enthrall. I've even known one whose
modus operandi was: Nuke, then run in circles screaming "Heal Me!".
It's easier to find a group if you
/ooc Enchanter (level XX) looking for a group - I do crowd control
than if you
/ooc Enchanter (level XX) looking for a group - Get your crack!
> > Bad tanks:
> >
> > 1. Don't know how to /assist.
> > 2. Don't rescue casters/healers being attacked unprompted.
> > 3. Wait til a monster has switched attackers before they start taunting.
>
> You forgot 4. Taunts single mobs off enchanters.
No, Taunting off of Enchanters is good. Hitting mobs that are fighting
Enchanters is bad. My favorite tactic is the Cleric who heals me to
make the mob on me switch to him so that I can Entrance it. He's a
clever boy. ;)
--
Morgan
Xymarra, High Elf Enchanter on E'Ci
(crossposting all posts to rec.games.computer.everquest)
Morgan
>
> Please explain how a wizard is supposed to defend himself/herself in
> this situation. Let's say you are a Level 16 wiz. You are in a group
> of 5 or 6 let's say in some dungeon like Befallen and you're killing
> skeletons and ghouls. The wizard is being conservative and giving one
> blast per monster. All of a sudden, a group of 3-4 monsters attacks
> at once and everyone is focusing on killing the closest creature.
> Again, the wizard attacks one time to conserve mana but is getting
> very low after monster #2 (red or yellow)....maybe half at this time
> and will need to med soon. By the time monster 3 or 4 is dead, the
> wizard is OOM and really SOL if attacked. Meanwhile, the cleric is
> healing themselves and the other casters have pets fighting for them.
> After all this is over, the wiz is hanging by a thread with both
> health and mana....or is the only one dead. All this by standing
> back and casting very conservatively.
>
> the situation by saying something dumb like "don't play a wizard
> then".
The situation sucks because the wizard and the rest of the group
are all playing like idiots. Don't play a wizard if you're going
to play it stupidly.
Clerics need to heal casters.
Casters need to play in such a way that they do not need heals.
At level 16, your weapon is still useful. At around level 20
you'll start living with your butt pasted to the floor. You can
still have a little fun until then. ;) Swing your staff at the
current target until you get an opportunity to nuke.
There is no need to nuke a monster if the tanks are taking it
down. If you are not at full mana, just meditate and save mana
for emergencies.
--
Morgan
Morgan
> news:38CCEF88...@earthlink.net...
> > Mr Foo Bar wrote:
> >
> > > Enchanters can solo - complete bollocks. At low levels, sure they
> > > can, but so can everyone else. But at higher levels - never. I
> > > havent solo'd my enchanter since level 20.
> > >
> > > I've occassionally toyed with the idea of solo-ing the two druids
> > > in EC (beguile one) but decided it wasnt worth it, one failed
> > > beguile (or if it didnt last long enough) and I'd be toast.
> >
> > Bollocks back at you. Enchanters can't solo past 20th? Stuff
> > and nonsense. Enchanters solo _fine_ past 20th. You have pets,
> > reasonably efficient nukes, DoTs, the ability to make bad situations
> > go away (stun, mez, Gate), and Clarity. What more do you want?
> > Enchanters do _fine_ solo. It's a little rough until 29th, then
> > you just take off on the basis of low downtime. The only people
> > that can keep up are the necros. Enchanters are better at getting
> > XP solo than magicians, even, because of their ability to control
> > situations and reduce their downtime.
Mr Foo Bar wrote:
>
> You don't play an enchanter do you ?
>
> Go play one to a reasonable level, say minimum 30, then you can have
> an opinion that counts.
There is nothing wrong with deriving an opinion from the experiences
of others. ;) However, I do think he is basing this opinion on a few
instances where an Enchanter was wildly lucky with their resists and
charm durations.
Enchanters get one weak line of DoTs and one slow line of DDs. There
is no way an Enchanter is going to solo with spells. The pets work
quite well into the 20's, but by about level 30 they are getting to
be pretty pathetic. Remember, Enchanters don't get Spirit of Wolf,
can't wear any armor, and have to get in range to be hit before their
pets will help. This is a bad combination.
Charm is a reasonable solo tactic, but the odds of it going well are
pretty slim. You have to find two monsters of an appropriate level
next to each other for it to work at all and the duration is very
unpredictable. It's easy to run out of mana repeatedly charming.
If something unexpected pops up, the Enchanter can probably control
it but would be better off just Gating out most of the time because
controlling eats up too much mana.
Magicians are better at getting XP solo than Enchanters. They can
actually dish out damage with nice strong reliable pets. The
situations in which a Magician can solo are inherently more
controllable and are more common.
--
Morgan
Xymarra, High Elf Enchanter on E'Ci
(crossposting all posts to rec.games.computer.everquest)
Dilbert
"Jeremy Music" <re...@darkstar.qx.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8ct0c...@darkstar.qx.net...
> >this situation. Let's say you are a Level 16 wiz. You are in a group
> >of 5 or 6 let's say in some dungeon like Befallen and you're killing
> >skeletons and ghouls. The wizard is being conservative and giving one
> >blast per monster. All of a sudden, a group of 3-4 monsters attacks
> >at once and everyone is focusing on killing the closest creature.
> >Again, the wizard attacks one time to conserve mana but is getting
> >very low after monster #2 (red or yellow)....maybe half at this time
> >and will need to med soon. By the time monster 3 or 4 is dead, the
> >wizard is OOM and really SOL if attacked.
>
>
> >healing themselves and the other casters have pets fighting for them.
> >After all this is over, the wiz is hanging by a thread with both
> >health and mana....or is the only one dead. All this by standing
> >back and casting very conservatively.
> >
>
>
>
> >the situation by saying something dumb like "don't play a wizard
> >long time and that is your only character. Besides, all characters
> >are supposed to be equally playable. I guarantee you that the wizard
> >is not. They need some refinement in one way or another, but Verant
> >is too closed minded to even consider some ideas that are being thrown
> >out.
>
> Allow me to tell you, as a non-wizard, what I would like the wizard to do
in
> such a situation. First, check and make sure he has an evac memmed if he
is
> high enough level, if not just skip that step. Next, sit down. Then,
after
> that, stay sitting down. Don't stand up until A) a tank's life is below
> quarter, B) a caster's life starts dropping (situational), C) he is 100%
> full mana and can stand up, assist the main tank, and drop _one_ blast on
> the current target and sit back down, or D) in his "professional"
judgment,
> he has enough mana to _end_ a mob without endangering his own or his
> parties' lives.
>
you if you are in the agro range.
If you wait until the tank is under 1/4 life and still has several Mobs on
him, either he is gonna die or the healer isn't doing there job.
> A wizard should not be softening up each individual mob when a group pulls
> multiples. He should be monitoring the fight and deciding which mob is
low
> enough to finish off with one blast, freeing up the tanks to move on to
the
> next mob. When in an "emergency" situation, there is no need to play
> conservatively, just a need to play intelligently.
>
> I have been in basically this same situation as a magician. Don't feel
the
> need to "burn down" on every mob. Let the tanks do their job. Let the
> healers do their job.
>
> I see far too many wizards who think they are a "supported" class. They
> aren't. They are support providers. It seems that most wizards don't
like
> being relegated to support status and want to be the "hero" (tough, should
danstrad
Jeremy Music wrote in message ...
>Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>: - High Level (39+) Pets weakened
>>
>>Applies to all pet classes. Enchanters are not a pet class though
>>so arguably it affected them less. Then again necros and magicians
>>had their pets reduced in level then focus items were added which
>>eliminated that (didn't eliminate it for shamans though) then the
>>dagger trick was nerfed then magicians got a big boost.
>
>
The Sol Ro ones might not, but I think the Elemental Staves and the
Encyclopedia Necrotheurgia do.
I'd have no problem with Shamans getting a focus object that dropped from
the Tribunal ;).
>J
>(Who has the focus items and uses them for the extra _HP_ the pet gets)
Billy Shields
: Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
: news:38cd9b5d$0$19...@motown.iinet.net.au...
: <snip>
:>
:> : Kinda makes sense though don't you think? Not really, no. Would have
: made
:> : more sense if NPCs couldnt charm our pets.
:>
:> That would make sense yes but we all know monsters cheat.
: So do players - zone, snare, camping etc etc
:> :> : - Item Enchantment implemented to create ONE
: item.
:> :>
:> :> How is this bad? One is better than none and its not a nerf. Yet
:> :> you complain?
:>
:> : Err because it isnt enough. It's like saying (made up example) "Hey mr
: necro
:> : what you complaining about, a 1 point per tick dot at level 49 isn't a
:> : nerf, it's better than none".
:>
:> Its not even close. A DoT is a combat ability. Item enchantment
:> is completely non-combat related.
: So ?
Its what I call "fruit". I can't even remember why the term fruit
is used. Its lost in the mists of time and was no doubt some RPG
oddity from years back. Anyway, "fruit" are those peripheral
abilities that might be nice, speccy or cute but don't really matter
a whole lot.
Item enchantment is an example of fruit.
In my experience its not worth complaining about fruit. The danger
with fruit is that others will consider it a useful ability.
DoTs are not fruit (except for the druid Immolate line).
So lets keep in perspective that we can't judge "fruity" abilities
against non-fruity abilities.
:>
:> :> : - High Level Pets dual wield removed (fixed ..
:> :> : sorta they now have to be equipped with
: weapons)
:> :>
:> :> Hardly that annoying. You don't even need to carry daggers to do it.
:> :> Any weapon will do. Just pick two up. They're lying around
: everywhere.
:>
:> : And if you're above level 20 you have no business using a pet :-)
:>
:> That I don't agree with. Enchanters have excellent fear spells.
:> Reverse kiting is an entirely valid soloing tactic (just as it is
:> for necros).
: Err, yes, except that before your pet ill doing anything it you have to be
: hit and second, enchanter pets hits for sod all damage.
Enchanter pets hit for pretty reasonable damage. On top of that
you have a plethora of haste spells at your disposal to increase
that. They certainly do more damage than shaman pets.
I find that it reaches a point where monsters will almost randomly
just hit anyone at times. Plus enchanters stuns can be resisted
and draw monsters onto the enchanter. At these times you get hit.
When you are messing then generally you don't want a pet but
there are times thats not the case.
Enchanter pets aren't useful 100% of the time. Its probably not
even 30% of the time. Its wrong to say its 0% of the time
though.
:>
:> Besides there reaches a point where you may as well have a pet
:> because theres nothing you can charm anyway.
: Haven't fought anything I cant charm so far (level 35). That I tried anyway
: ;-)
Wait til the planes.
: Well except once when I accidently cast charm on the dark elf merchant in
: sro instead of benevolence ;-)
Heh woops.
:>
:> :>
:> :> : Same with buffs: Augmentation or Celerity, Str
: or
:> :> : rampage - they just don't work together)
:> :>
:> :> Augmentation is fairly useless anyway (imho). You're better off
:> :> using Alacrity+.
:>
:> : Heh, read this and thought "has this guy played and enchanter ?".
:> : Augmentation is without doubt an uber-buff. Sure, it doesn't increase
: speed
:> : as much as alacrity (but what's 5% anyway ?) but it does last a long
: time
:> : (alacrity lasts for one medium length fight - and you've dumped a fair
:> : amount of mana) - with augmentation I can buff the entire team, med back
: the
:>
:> Why would you buff the entire team with augmentation? I had a level
:> 50 enchanter do this in a party in Lower Guk the other day (I'm a
:> druid). In fact I got a total of 8 or so buffs when all I needed
:> was chloroplast and clarity.
: Nope, unless they were all tanks, but I definately wouldn't buff the whole
: team with alacrity - probably wouldnt have the mana ;-)
In this case it wasn't alacrity, it was augmentation. This enchanter
also cast things on me (a druid) like rune, insight and a few other
things. Oh I did forget to mention one useful spell that she cast:
group resist magic. This is a good one to have up, particularly in
Lower Guk where you can get rooted.
:>
:> : mana, and be full for the fight, knowing I wont have to recast
: augmentation
:> : for several pulls. Oh and augmentation comes with 20agi which is nice.
:>
:> The agility is meaningless (assuming each person has 75+ agility which
:> they certainly should).
: Sure, that's why I made its selling point its duration not the agi buff-
: that's just (watery) gravy.
I think people get suckered in by the cheap cost and long duration
though. Its got a cheap cost and long duration because its not
particularly useful.
:>
:> : As to the spells stacking, well so what ? Firstly enchanter str is a
Thats really not that big an issue. An extra 255 mana over 270
ticks (27 minutes) is not a big deal. The duration on chloroplast
is level*3 + 10 ticks. It costs 200 mana. At level 45 over 270
ticks thats (proportinally) 372 mana. I can keep that up on a
party of six and still do other things like cast damage shields,
DoTs and the odd heal. And thats without clarity.
:>
:> And that doesn't even take into account the mana saved from
:> reducing the need for healing, etc.
:>
:> I stand by my original statement and extend it further: there is
:> absolutely NO reason to use augmentation beyond level 39 when
:> enchanters get celerity. With alacrity its a little more blurred
:> though.
: Nope, still disagree. Your scenario means the enchanter becomes a celerity
: battery, which is even more boring than being a clarity battery. Enchanters
: are to useful during a fight to waste them in that way.
So your argument is one of boredom? I can't argue with that. My
argument is one of efficiency. More damage = faster monster death
= less healing required = less mana used by other party members.
Your contention is also that you become a celerity stick. I
disagree. If I can keep chloroplast up on 6 party members without
clarity and still do other stuff then you can keep celerity up on
the tanks (which probably won't number more than 3-4 per group).
: Celerity for the main damage dealing meleer and augmentation for the rest.
Well if you have tanks that do bugger all damage then yes theres no
use for celerity but then again what are you doing with tanks that
can't do damage? You haven't filled your party with paladins have
you?
:>
:> : "Enchanter pets" and "reasonable" in the same sentence LOL! Enchanter
: pets
:> : are a waste of time, useful at low levels sure, but a liability in any
:> : circustance from then on.
:>
:> They do almost as much damgag as necro pets last I checked. If you're
:> ignoring that you're robbing yourself of useful tactics and potentially
:> a lot of damage done.
: A necro pet will cream an enchanter pet every single time. Not even close.
Like thats a measure of anything.
: And as to the potential ? You mean the potential of having all your mezzed
: mobs woken up ? Or do you mean having a pet instead of charming a MOB (which
: we all know level for level is far more powerful than any pc).
I'll agree its not a tactic to use every time or even the majority
time. As I stated above its not right to say you NEVER use it
however.
:>
:> Likewise at level 48 I have a 302 DD. Utterly useless. No point
:> in even memorising it. The only use for DDs it to finish battles
:> quickly is very unusual circumstances. This DD doesn't even cut
:> the mustard for that.
: Yep, I know the feeling - but when you do, finally, get your next DD, that's
: always nice.
Half a bubble to go. :-)
:>
:> I don't like enchanters memming DDs at higher level because they've
1. Stat buffs (eg Inisght)
2. Haste buffs on non-tanks
3. Rune on non-tanks
4. Various combat buffs (Haze, etc) on non-tanks
:>
:> : with another enchanter it's generally been with a higher level one, in
: which
:> : case its been interesting to see the tactics and "tricks" they use. Some
: I
:> : might "disagree" with - and wouldnt do myself - others work very nicely
: and
:> : I consider adopting into my own repotoire.
:>
:> : Also there are some groups where you darent be anything other than a
: clarity
:> : machine. Those are the groups where the wizards insist on casting aoe
: spells
:> : and the warriors just feel compelled to "save" you from that mob your in
: the
:> : process of enthralling. But I don't tend to stay in them any longer
: than it
:> : takes to find another group.
:>
:> Heh good move. Some of the telltale signs of a bad gorup:
:>
:> 1. They think enchanters are only good for clarity.
: havent come across that one.
You're lucky.
:> 2. They haven't mastered the tactic of /assist to only fight one
:> thing at once.
: Aggh ! Yes indeed. And why is it wizards are always the worst offenders ?
Wizards are clueless by definition. If they had a clue they wouldn't
be playing wizards.
:> 3. They ask for stat buffs.
: Heh I don't offer stat buffs :-)
My druid can remember being refused arties because they already had
a druid and they wanted a shaman for stat buffs.
:> 4. Think they need to fill their party with wizards and clerics.
: Filling with any class probably isnt a good idea.
Filling a party with tanks is rarely a bad idea (unless theres nothing
to kill or unless they're paladins or SKs).
:>
:> Bad enchanters:
:>
:> 1. Only think they're good for clarity.
:> 2. Don't know how to mes/enthrall
: Oh come on, you're joking right ? How can you play an enchanter without
: knowing that ?
It boggles the mind doesn't it? I'm afraid however that its true.
I have come across this breed of clueless enchanter.
:> Bad tanks:
:>
:> 1. Don't know how to /assist.
:> 2. Don't rescue casters/healers being attacked unprompted.
:> 3. Wait til a monster has switched attackers before they start taunting.
: You forgot 4. Taunts single mobs off enchanters.
That falls into number 2.
NBarnes
> Mr Foo Bar wrote:
> > NBarnes <nba...@earthlink.net> wrote...
> > > Bollocks back at you. Enchanters can't solo past 20th? Stuff
> > > and nonsense. Enchanters solo _fine_ past 20th. You have pets,
> > > reasonably efficient nukes, DoTs, the ability to make bad
> > > situations go away (stun, mez, Gate), and Clarity. What more
> > > do you want? Enchanters do _fine_ solo. It's a little rough
> > > until 29th, then you just take off on the basis of low downtime.
> > > The only people that can keep up are the necros. Enchanters
> > > are better at getting> XP solo than magicians, even, because
> > > of their ability to control situations and reduce their
> > > downtime.
> > You don't play an enchanter do you ?
> >
> > Go play one to a reasonable level, say minimum 30, then you can have
> > an opinion that counts.
> There is nothing wrong with deriving an opinion from the experiences
> of others. ;) However, I do think he is basing this opinion on a few
> instances where an Enchanter was wildly lucky with their resists and
> charm durations.
I was actually deriving my opinion from a combination of an
examination of the enchanter's spell list and the experiences of
the enchanters in my guild, which includes multiple lvl 50 enchanters.
I stand by my stated opinion; enchanters solo fine and if you're
having trouble, it's because you don't know how to not have trouble,
not that enchanters are weak. I've grouped with a lot of enchanters
and heard about my friends soloing with them. Enchanters solo fine.
Joel Weaver
wrote:
>Ok, this is for all the "wizard experts" :
>
>Please explain how a wizard is supposed to defend himself/herself in
>this situation. Let's say you are a Level 16 wiz. You are in a group
>of 5 or 6 let's say in some dungeon like Befallen and you're killing
>skeletons and ghouls. The wizard is being conservative and giving one
>blast per monster. All of a sudden, a group of 3-4 monsters attacks
>at once and everyone is focusing on killing the closest creature.
>Again, the wizard attacks one time to conserve mana but is getting
>very low after monster #2 (red or yellow)....maybe half at this time
>and will need to med soon. By the time monster 3 or 4 is dead, the
>wizard is OOM and really SOL if attacked. Meanwhile, the cleric is
>healing themselves and the other casters have pets fighting for them.
>After all this is over, the wiz is hanging by a thread with both
>health and mana....or is the only one dead. All this by standing
>back and casting very conservatively.
First off, if you're hanging by a thread health-wise then you did
something wrong. You need to develop a better sense of how much
damage you can incur without pulling the mob onto you. If you do find
yourself low on health; well, that would be a good time to work on
your Bind Wounds skill.
I've spent very little time in Befallen so I can't comment on that
specific dungeon. If your group pulls 3 or 4 reasonably tough mobs,
you'll want to nuke the first one or 2 down rather quickly, especially
if nobody in your group has any crowd control capabilities. It's one
of the situations in which a wizard can be useful in a group,
dispatching the most significant threats as fast as possible. At
least, it is when you're level 16.
>Most people would agree that situation sucks and would probably solve
>the situation by saying something dumb like "don't play a wizard
>then". That is not an option when you've been playing a wizard a
>long time and that is your only character.
Of course it's an option. A sensible option, in fact. If you've been
playing your wizard for a long time and you're only at level 16, and
you're already suffering from burnout, the best advice I could give
you is to start up a new character and play him for a while. Try a
class with a bit more variety to its spell list.
> Besides, all characters
>are supposed to be equally playable. I guarantee you that the wizard
>is not. They need some refinement in one way or another, but Verant
>is too closed minded to even consider some ideas that are being thrown
>out.
Wizards are 'broken' on a very fundamental level. I don't expect to
see any changes that will put them on par with the other casters.
Joel Weaver
jwe...@bayou.uh.edu
Mr Foo Bar
Joel Weaver <jwe...@bayou.uh.edu> wrote in message
news:csmucs0c88tngd3pn...@4ax.com...
Shock
Shock
Dan Bongard
[60 lines snipped]
>>Wizards are not broken.
>Ha! Keep saying that to yourself. They ARE broken.
Is there some reason why _both_ of you morons had to quote
an entire 60-line article just to say "Are not!" and "Are too!"?
-- Dan
Morgan
>
> Mr Foo Bar <f...@bar.com> wrote:
>
> : Billy Shields <ran...@opera.iinet.net.au> wrote in message
> : news:38cd9b5d$0$19...@motown.iinet.net.au...
> :>
> :> equivalanet of a mana dumping wizard) and that annoys me.
>
> : Hmm. Yesss. But define needlessly buff ?
>
> 1. Stat buffs (eg Inisght)
> 2. Haste buffs on non-tanks
> 3. Rune on non-tanks
> 4. Various combat buffs (Haze, etc) on non-tanks
Insight is a Wisdom buff. It increases the depth of your mana pool.
On a Warrior or a Wizard, Insight would be a needless buff.
Rune is great on any pure caster. It increases your hit point total
by about 25%. You don't get interrupted as often while the shield
is still up. It's pretty useless on tanks except as a last ditch
healing effort when all other healers are dead or dying, in which
case you should have been casting Rune on them, or OOM.
Armor spells on non-tanks are handy if there are blues or greens
whacking on you. If the level difference is big enough, you can find
yourself in a range where your armor value matters.
> :> Bad tanks:
> :>
> :> 1. Don't know how to /assist.
> :> 2. Don't rescue casters/healers being attacked unprompted.
> :> 3. Wait til a monster has switched attackers before they start taunting.
>
> : You forgot 4. Taunts single mobs off enchanters.
>
> That falls into number 2.
If any tanks are listening, feel free to taunt mobs off of me when
all my casts are being interrupted. Just don't hit them. ;)
Joel Weaver
>Wizards are not broken.
*shrug* Don't take my word for it. Play one up to 50, and see what
you think.
Joel Weaver
jwe...@bayou.uh.edu
Erik Halvorsen
wrote:
>> There is nothing wrong with deriving an opinion from the experiences
>> of others. ;) However, I do think he is basing this opinion on a few
>> instances where an Enchanter was wildly lucky with their resists and
>> charm durations.
>
> I was actually deriving my opinion from a combination of an
>examination of the enchanter's spell list and the experiences of
>the enchanters in my guild, which includes multiple lvl 50 enchanters.
>I stand by my stated opinion; enchanters solo fine and if you're
>having trouble, it's because you don't know how to not have trouble,
>not that enchanters are weak. I've grouped with a lot of enchanters
>and heard about my friends soloing with them. Enchanters solo fine.
>
> NBarnes - Dina Demeteran, 49th circle druid, Sol Ro
Enchanters can't solo between level 20 and 33, Because their DD is too
poor, and their pet just plain sucks.
After we get Anarchy a DD upgrade at 34, we can solo at an ability 5
levels lower than druids... We can solo certain level 30 spawns, with
a certain success, and not having to depend on luck. At level 43 we
still can't efficiently solo what druids could at level 37, namely
level 35 mobs (with SOW we can solo them but very unefficiently, still
get more xp from the level 30 mob, due to the time saved by not having
to run, gate and zone if somethings goes wrong..). At level 44 the
balance shifts, and we solo better (more efficient) than druids. We
still cant do HG's specifically as early as Druids.
Our Dot upgrade in this level range is a 100mana 200 damage dot over 2
minutes that we get at level 29, in other words nothing to Cycle. Our
animation doesn't really do much damage yet, and Alacrity/Celerity is
too mana consuming to keep on the pet.
At level 50 we can Solo, but we need to be able to do that for making
up lost xp on Plane raids :P
Hedda
Hedda
Philip Brown
> > :> Bad tanks:
> > :>
> > :> 2. Don't rescue casters/healers being attacked unprompted.
So long as they don't run around screaming and carrying on and making it
impossible to get the mob off them. Casters/healers who do that ought
to die.
STAND FUCKING STILL and your local tank will get it off you.
Oh, and when in the middle of a fight feel free to mention if there's a
mob on you, sometimes we can't tell what all of them are doing if your
HP bar isn't sinking fast.
Good communication is the single most important aspect of game play.
NBarnes
> NBarnes <nba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > I was actually deriving my opinion from a combination of an
> >examination of the enchanter's spell list and the experiences of
> >the enchanters in my guild, which includes multiple lvl 50 enchanters.
> >I stand by my stated opinion; enchanters solo fine and if you're
> >having trouble, it's because you don't know how to not have trouble,
> >not that enchanters are weak. I've grouped with a lot of enchanters
> >and heard about my friends soloing with them. Enchanters solo fine.
> Enchanters can't solo between level 20 and 33, Because their DD is too
> poor, and their pet just plain sucks.
>
> After we get Anarchy a DD upgrade at 34, we can solo at an ability 5
> levels lower than druids... We can solo certain level 30 spawns, with
> a certain success, and not having to depend on luck. At level 43 we
> still can't efficiently solo what druids could at level 37, namely
> level 35 mobs (with SOW we can solo them but very unefficiently, still
> get more xp from the level 30 mob, due to the time saved by not having
> to run, gate and zone if somethings goes wrong..). At level 44 the
> balance shifts, and we solo better (more efficient) than druids. We
> still cant do HG's specifically as early as Druids.
>
> Our Dot upgrade in this level range is a 100mana 200 damage dot over 2
> minutes that we get at level 29, in other words nothing to Cycle. Our
> animation doesn't really do much damage yet, and Alacrity/Celerity is
> too mana consuming to keep on the pet.
>
> At level 50 we can Solo, but we need to be able to do that for making
> up lost xp on Plane raids :P
Ah-ha! You lose! Sucker!
ONLY A FUCKING MORON SOLOS HGS FOR XP! You _cannot_ say that
druids solo HGs better than enchanters and extend that to mean
that druids solo better than enchanters period. HGs are the most
insanely overpowered critters in the game. Endless hitpoints,
they hit like a ton of bricks, etc, etc.
If you don't know that, get the hell out of a argument about
soloing, because you don't have clue one about what you're raving
about.
Philip Brown
Level 49 mage pets must be the best solo class.
:-)
Jerome Chan
<far...@the-farm.net> wrote:
> >
> > > :> Bad tanks:
> > > :>
> > > :> 2. Don't rescue casters/healers being attacked unprompted.
>
> So long as they don't run around screaming and carrying on and making it
> impossible to get the mob off them. Casters/healers who do that ought
> to die.
>
> STAND FUCKING STILL and your local tank will get it off you.
>
> Oh, and when in the middle of a fight feel free to mention if there's a
> mob on you, sometimes we can't tell what all of them are doing if your
> HP bar isn't sinking fast.
>
> Good communication is the single most important aspect of game play.
Run towards the tanks and stop as you pass them.
Edward James Kilsdonk
Philip Brown <far...@the-farm.net> wrote:
>>
>> > :> Bad tanks:
>> > :>
>
>impossible to get the mob off them. Casters/healers who do that ought
>to die.
>
>STAND FUCKING STILL and your local tank will get it off you.
A couple of weeks ago I witnessed an astonishing example of bad
gameplay.
I was working the courtyard in Unrest with a pick-up group of 4
or 5, led by a paladin who I knew back when he was a scrubby
cleric. We buff up outside the zone and the paladin then
declares that at 60% mana we are good to go back in.
We end up in one of those classic Unrest mob scenes, and it
gets ugly. The cleric may have done some nuking (I did not see
but the paladin yelled at him later on) and was OOM, the Shaman
had been nuking and was OOM, I had memorized burst of fire and
not the AoE lightning spell so I could not summon bugs to
myself, and there were bugs and undead everywhere. The paladin
is in trouple - he had used his LoH on me earlier (sooner than
he should have IMO) and wants us to help him.
He then starts running around like a newbie wizard in
crushbone. I can not catch up to taunt anything off him, and
by the time he finishes his circuit of the side yard we now
have twice as many little critters mad at us. He dies. The
cleric either zones or dies. The shaman waits too long to run
and then dies. I had been trying to taunt the critters onto me
so that the others could run, kill the last bug and wait
for everyone else to run back. (I had a level or 2 on the
others, which helped a LOT in that situation)
The paladin then decides that everyone died because the cleric
had not been healing properly, and starts to yell at him.
I "discover" that a friend wants to meet me in Kelethin and
decide to leave.
I wonder how that paladin made it to 16th level (He talked
about being a good trader and about spending a lot of time
buying and selling in Commons, and I fear that he traded items
for items and items for cash, bought belts and pads, and
leveled without learning tactics.)
The sad thing is that I had been grabbed by a good pick-up
group while talking with my paladin acqaintance, and left them
to work with the dwarven terror.
And so we learn.
Ted K.
>Oh, and when in the middle of a fight feel free to mention if there's a
>mob on you, sometimes we can't tell what all of them are doing if your
>HP bar isn't sinking fast.
>
>Good communication is the single most important aspect of game play.
--
Edward J. Kilsdonk Look, ytte is written in Olde. It muste
Graduate Student, History bee fromme before they invented fpelling.
Univerfity of Virginia
Red...@Virginia.EDU http://faraday.clas.virginia.edu/~ejk4e
Morgan
Soloing to 50 and soloing at 50 are not the same thing at all. I
do not disagree that an Enchanter *can* solo to 50. What I disagree
with is the statement that they are better at it then Magicians,
Druids, or Necromancers. That is simply not true between 20 and 40.
Also, the only tales I have heard of Enchanters performing miraculous
feats come from very high level Enchanters and rely heavily on the
Charm line. The fact that the caster is very high level means that
they can get experience from things 15 levels below them, which is
enough of a level difference that the spells will actually stick.
This does not translate well to a viable strategy at mid levels.
> Ah-ha! You lose! Sucker!
> ONLY A FUCKING MORON SOLOS HGS FOR XP! You _cannot_ say that
> druids solo HGs better than enchanters and extend that to mean
> that druids solo better than enchanters period. HGs are the most
> insanely overpowered critters in the game. Endless hitpoints,
> they hit like a ton of bricks, etc, etc.
> If you don't know that, get the hell out of a argument about
> soloing, because you don't have clue one about what you're raving
> about.
Those things are nasty! I tried picking on one at level 38. I was
harvesting tailoring materials in WC with a pet of questionable
merit and saw a nice blue hill giant. I figured, what the heck, and
tried to take him down.
I ran out of mana long before he ran out of hits. I was still at two
bubbles of health and would have gotten away. But I saw that there were
a whole bunch of teen level characters near the zone hunting wisps near
the EC zone, so I ran the other way. Then I discovered that I was bound
at Mistmoore. ;)
I think I could probably take the hill giant with a 39 pet. The 34
pet was too low level and never hit. Also, I could have taken more
time to prepare by casting Rune on myself and the pet, buffing us both
fully, and then medding to full. However, the hill giant probably
would have been taken before I could do all that by a Druid or Magician
who can take such fights with far less preparation.
I know that there are much better things to solo than hill giants. I
think that aviak avocets work pretty well and that big legionnaire in
Lesser Faydark is a popular target. There are some spots in Upper Guk
where a lone caster can take out froggies in relative safety. But, you
know what they say, no guts no glory!
Philip Brown
If you run towards the tank and a little bit of lag comes into it, or
the tank heads your way to save you, your having moved is going to cause
problems.
Once the tank has engaged the mob, you may move to a suitably safe
location.
Jerome Chan wrote:
>
> In article <38D0D0FD...@the-farm.net>, Philip Brown
> <far...@the-farm.net> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > :> Bad tanks:
> > > > :>
> > > > :> 2. Don't rescue casters/healers being attacked unprompted.
> >
> > So long as they don't run around screaming and carrying on and making it
> > impossible to get the mob off them. Casters/healers who do that ought
> > to die.
> >
> > STAND FUCKING STILL and your local tank will get it off you.
> >
> > Oh, and when in the middle of a fight feel free to mention if there's a
> > mob on you, sometimes we can't tell what all of them are doing if your
> > HP bar isn't sinking fast.
> >
> > Good communication is the single most important aspect of game play.
>
Lawless
clarity.
prostuck wrote:
>
> Give Wizards clarity and give Enchanters just self teleports,
> and I'm not being sarcastic, I truly think that could work.
Billy Shields
: So long as they don't run around screaming and carrying on and making it
: impossible to get the mob off them. Casters/healers who do that ought
: to die.
: STAND FUCKING STILL and your local tank will get it off you.
Yeah thats true enough too. I've lost count of the number of
panicked people I've watched die after they ran out of range
before my healing spell went off.
: Oh, and when in the middle of a fight feel free to mention if there's a
: mob on you, sometimes we can't tell what all of them are doing if your
: HP bar isn't sinking fast.
True. With good tanks often they just seem to notice (you can usually
tell somethings up by the dropping health bar) but yes communication
is good.
: Good communication is the single most important aspect of game play.
Agreed.
Billy Shields
[snip]
: I wonder how that paladin made it to 16th level (He talked
: about being a good trader and about spending a lot of time
: buying and selling in Commons, and I fear that he traded items
: for items and items for cash, bought belts and pads, and
: leveled without learning tactics.)
Its worse than that. I remember a group I had in Unrest (mid 30s
camping the dwarf). I asked the paladin (level 38) to pull from
the pit. He looks at me dumbfounded and after much prompting we
finally get out of him that he doesn't know how to pull. He
doesn't know what to do.
How the hell do you get to level 38 (as any class let alone a
tank) without knowing something about pulling in such a simple
scneario as that pit?
Its beyond me.
NBarnes
> NBarnes wrote:
> > ONLY A FUCKING MORON SOLOS HGS FOR XP! You _cannot_ say that
> > druids solo HGs better than enchanters and extend that to mean
> > that druids solo better than enchanters period. HGs are the most
> > insanely overpowered critters in the game. Endless hitpoints,
> > they hit like a ton of bricks, etc, etc.
>
> Level 49 Mage pet (without buffs) Solo's HGs just fine.
>
> Level 49 mage pets must be the best solo class.
>
> :-)
At 49th lvl, HGs are 99% green as spit and don't give XP.
And even the green ones will kick the pet around pretty badly,
leaving the magician to sit around and wait for their pet to heal
back up before taking another (probably green too) HG. So this is
hardly an argument in favor of soloing HGs for XP.
Erik Halvorsen
wrote:
> Ah-ha! You lose! Sucker!
> ONLY A FUCKING MORON SOLOS HGS FOR XP! You _cannot_ say that
>druids solo HGs better than enchanters and extend that to mean
>that druids solo better than enchanters period. HGs are the most
>insanely overpowered critters in the game. Endless hitpoints,
>they hit like a ton of bricks, etc, etc.
> If you don't know that, get the hell out of a argument about
>soloing, because you don't have clue one about what you're raving
>about.
>
> NBarnes - Dina Demeteran, 49th circle druid, Sol Ro
Who talks about soloing HG's for xp? I am talking of what we can
specifically solo - when I talk about HG's as you say no one solos
HG's for xp.
Defining Enchanter as a solo class cause they are halfway decent at it
at 44, and Good at 50?
The enchanter sucks at it between 20 and 33, Is poor at it till 44,
and good at 50.
Those things we can solo at 34-44 can a tank usually solo too, it's
just about finding the mobs for it.
Philip Brown
The smiley should have made it obvious enough, but read what I said.
Level 49 mage *PETS* must be the best solo *CLASS*
Pets ain't a class.
It was a joke.
As it happens, a buffed 49 water pet can take down Gornit all by himself
and remain above half HP. The speed at which pets regenerate means that
it's not an issue. By the time he spawns again (6 minutes), you've got
bored waiting around and killed a Seafury.
An unbuffed one can still take it down, but you wouldn't do that if you
wanted a quick kill and less downtime.
If you were really soloing them (and yes very few would give XP), then
you throw one lava bolt in and med. Pet is 70% ok and again you're FM
and FP by the next spawn.
But once again, it was a joke.
NBarnes wrote:
>
> Philip Brown wrote:
> > NBarnes wrote:
>
> > > ONLY A FUCKING MORON SOLOS HGS FOR XP! You _cannot_ say that
> > > druids solo HGs better than enchanters and extend that to mean
> > > that druids solo better than enchanters period. HGs are the most
> > > insanely overpowered critters in the game. Endless hitpoints,
> > > they hit like a ton of bricks, etc, etc.
>
> >
> > Level 49 Mage pet (without buffs) Solo's HGs just fine.
> >
> > Level 49 mage pets must be the best solo class.
> >
> > :-)
>
> At 49th lvl, HGs are 99% green as spit and don't give XP.
> And even the green ones will kick the pet around pretty badly,
> leaving the magician to sit around and wait for their pet to heal
> back up before taking another (probably green too) HG. So this is
> hardly an argument in favor of soloing HGs for XP.
>
Edward James Kilsdonk
Pulling is dangerous - I find that the puller seems to die
about twice as often as the usual group member.
Pulling is tricky - you have to work to learn the tricks and to
learn the zone. I am still figuring out the basics.
Pulling is fun - and so there is often someone else who wants
to do it.
Ted K.
Tim Smith
> I wonder how that paladin made it to 16th level (He talked
> about being a good trader and about spending a lot of time
> buying and selling in Commons, and I fear that he traded items
> for items and items for cash, bought belts and pads, and
> leveled without learning tactics.)
A guildmate of mine met a level 19 druid who claimed to have *never*
killed anything...he did it all through quests that didn't require
killing. I don't know if this is actually possible.
--Tim Smith
D. J. McCarthy
>A guildmate of mine met a level 19 druid who claimed to have *never*
>killed anything...he did it all through quests that didn't require
>killing. I don't know if this is actually possible.
Not to mention boring.
I could see doing the mail delivery quest enough times to make some
decent newbie money, then using that money to buy Tumpy Tonic ingredients.
I'm sure there are other quests that don't involve killing anything but
those are the two that spring to mind right away.
--
D. J. McCarthy (remove the obvious to reply) - not speaking for Intel.