Give us your feedback on the Dispel changes in PvM

[Ibn]

Dispel Spells (http://ac.turbinegames.com/index.php?page_id=218)

Please don't use this thread to discuss the Dispel changes in PvP combat. We've created a second thread specifically for Dispels in PvP here (http://forums.turbinegames.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5446).

[Tofino]

Yay, gems are still great! However, keeping gems and now potions as dispelling everything negative really makes the dispel spells look poor. I have to cast two dispels now, costing probably two full tanks of mana, to equal the effect of a single gem? I guess I don't really "get" the huge cost of the dispel spells.

[hanyuning]

I love the changes. I can't wait to be able to go to the marketplace and get some dispell potions for my melee so she can take them with her. Also, love the fact that all mobs have chance to drop dispell spells, and even more the fact that I can actually USE them in combat to get rid of bad spells.

Honestly, even with the multi casting (this is PvM here, not PvP) I really don't see a need to change anything other than what you stated. If I'm in combat as a mage and get 20 spells put on me, I can either choose to dispell them by casting the spell multiple times, or deal with it. As a mage, the ones that really hurt are the life and war debuffs, so as long as I can dispell those in one or two spells, I'm happy. The vulns generally don't hurt too bad unless I'm gonna be taking on a REAL high mob, then it wouldn't be bad to cast the spell a few more times to get rid of all negative spells before engaging the mob.

[AC-Vet]

I just read over the release letter and find it in good standings...
I'll gladly accept it....Shows Balance and Considerations....
The "Plus" was making them stackable

Stamped Approved!!!!
"ready for delivery"

[Aztek]

Mispost

[sylphia]

Overall, it gets my stamp of approval :) There are a couple points I would like to adress though.

First off, I am THRILLED you have finally made dispels ONLY strip debuffs; having them take buffs as well has always been an uneccessary penalty in my mind, forcing us to always use one dispel level elss than our buff level (lvl 5 dispels with lvl 6 buffs, lvl 6 dispel with lvl 7 buffs), which pretty much hosed us when we got hit with a debuff equal to the level of our buffs. It DOES however raise the issue of being able to strip BUFFS from your target, since all of the dispels will now be debuff only. This mainly affects PK, I am aware, but its also a PvM thing. I want to be able to dispel the "counter buffs" that many mobs use now. I have yet to see my current dispels do it, but they should; mobs can dispel on us, so we should be able to dispel on them. I realize you intend to take that ability away form most mobs, but I can deal with them havingit (so long as you NEVER give them the ability to remove 7s--leave SOMETHING sacred), and as long as you let US dispel THEIR counters. Example, when I hit a crystal golem with an imperil and he casts armor, I want to be able to dispel it. This would of course mean a seperate line of dispels for each of the three schools, that would be learned seperately from the dispel debuffs line.

Kudos on the changes to chests; I am sick of finding low level dispels in Steel Chests, when the players who would REALLY need them are too low level to be hunting in the areas where those chests spawn. LVL 7 dispels in the chests are fine and make perfect sense.

Stacking = good, mana cost changes = good. Doesnt make a great deal of difference to my mages with their high mana conv and mana pools, but to a melee, it can be a big difference.

Number of spells dispelled: set it at 6 for CAST dispels and be done with it. No random modifiers or checks. Just set it to 6 so we can get the proper bang for our buck. The spells cost enough in terms of time, manam comps, etc that we dont need the random die roll gumming up the works to boot. When we cast the dispel, its to get rid of spells we dont want, not to see how "lucky" we are that day. Gems/potion, etc rmeoving ALL debuffs = good. They are consumed on use (or require mana stones for the casting items), so they also have a cost to them. I personally prefer using my dispel SPELL whenever possible, but for multiple debuffs, the gems are king.

One other point I would like to touch on here though. Until you figure out how to prevent "layering" of multiple casts of debuffs, this part needs t be dealt with. If I use a LVL 6 dispel spell, it should "target" lvl 6 debuffs FIRST. If I have 4 lvl 6 debuffs, 3 lvl 4, and 2 lvl 3, then my four lvl 6 debuffs should be dealt with before it even thinks about dispeling the lower level ones.

[Brody_WE]

omg you guys rock :)

thanks for FINALLY giving us some better dispel options than lugging around pack full of GOS :P

again thanks ;)

[Hal_E_Tosis]

These changes I could swallow without any heartburn ;)

Thanks for listening to the players.

[Jaspo]

Am I missing something here:

"Dispel gems and the Awakener and the Attenuated Awakener currently have no maximum limit on the number of negative spells they will remove when used"

"In order to increase the convenience of dispel gems and dispel potions, these items will now stack to 25."

I will be able to pop gem after gem. 600 in a pack.

This in itself does not bother me. Except EVERY debuff cast on me will be removed with a gem. The only thing that keeps me from doing it now is pack space. That kind of makes survival a little to predictable.

Unless you are planning on increasing the number of debuffs that critters cast.

Then I have issues with that. Many casual players (like myself) use gems of stillness. They are readily available as a trophy. We simply do not have the time nor the shield(mage/archer) to solo the chlorozite dungeons for ore.

So without the increase in debuffs, the game may become a little ... errrr ... soft. If you increase the number of debuff critters toss, it may become difficult for those without easy access to chlorozite.

Not sure I like this change. The current systems seems to work very well.

[_DOT_1_2_3_4_5_]

looks good but will have to play with it a bit to make sure .. really love the stack ability though .. I am such a pack rat!!

[Harzah]

I think at the least this will make me look into using dispel spells - before I either used a gem or suffered through multiple debuffings. There was no point that I could see to using a spell when it would dispel all your beneficial buffs as well.

I'm a little bothered by the mana costs. They seem high, but maybe that's just me. Being of low mana c, I'd prolly 'pay' the entire cost to cast it.

Otherwise it looks good to me - I'm glad I've been hoarding Chorizite potions in case they were useful =) (Ok I'm really a packrat but that's another issue :D).

[Rhysem]

I be going and getting some chorozite tonight methinks.

Nuff said.

[cstanleytech]

Tofino is right the spells should be as powerful as the potions.
I can see why the devs might want to be careful since everyone has life magic making the spell as powerful would mean few would use the potions But on the other hand a mage has to go through a hollow dungeon for the powder.
I have an idea for this issue though and that is for the devs to either let the level 7 dispell be under the war magic school or move all of the dispells under the war magic school.
This way it would not overpower the hybrid 3 schoolers more then they are now but it would give a nice benefit to training or specing war magic.

[MaddyFF]

Changes sound good to me, couple of questions:

1. Any plans to sell level I-VI disspell scrolls via the vendors?

2. Right now casting a disspell compared to using a gem still seems out of whack. Casting a level VII dispell takes mana, skill, and only removes 3-6 spells. A gem removes all debuffs, requires no skill, and no skill check. Will there be any tweaking to cast disspells?

[Blau]

Let dispell gems and potions stack to 100, not 25.

I like everything else with respect to PvM.

[ufhamlet]

Magnificent! thank you for listening to your playerbase. I self-cast dispels on the Caul like mad, so I'll be keeping that practice up now that I can do 7's! Further, raising Item beyyond 280 now has a purpose. Well done, y'all!

[seeker]

Great stuff :D

I think the dispell spells are relatively underpowered, but overall I am very pleased with the proposed changes.

[Eruditus]

Sounds like a well thought out and implemented idea, kudos turbine.

I have one question though, will the awakeners, potions and gems now dispel item debuffs as otherwise you will be unbalancing what you have sought to create on the Caul.

Actually I have two questions, given manual item dispells can currently only target one item at a time any chance they could see a reduction in the mana required to cast ?

[LirSetie_we]

*kudos* to you all!! :)

sounds like some great changes here

love the stacking thanks tons

the changes to the dispell spells sounds great

:p :p :p :p :p

[Torg918]

Great Job Guys
The Dispell changes are a great step forward in hopefuly a long life of the new AC ( home to Turbine)
keep up the good work




:D

[scrumpy_mt]

A much improved use of this resource.

Stacking is good, potions should stack same as other potions.

I agree that casting dispel should not necessarily have same affect as a gem or potion.(Mana is cheap and recovered in seconds, whereas crafting potions takes a lot of effort)

It is good that dispels can be cast on friends. Only makes sense that a mage should be able to assist hunting partners with dispels just as they do with heals and stamina recovery.

Good luck with fixing the layered spells. I am sure you will get it resolved. Thx for your attention :)

[D X Mage]

WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE


Thank you for hearing our pleas on the layering. Gems are invaluble when it comes to hunting VoD or Sing Caul. Stacking is even better. I don't see any reason to bother with trying to remove the layering effect after doing these things. This is ideal.

Making dispell potions usefull is GREAT!!!! It creates a new item to sell in Marketplace =)

For PvP slapping the dispells with a 20 second timer is an excelnt solution as it is much like the portaling away effect.

[Zalliun]

-In other words, dispel potions will also dispel every negative spell on the player.

i dont get why you make a craftable usuable by everyone item more powerfull than a level 7 spell that have a very high mana usuage.

There is 0 point in updating the spells if the item you can buy off marketplace will dispell all , it should be the other way around imo

[Davidge]

A big two thumbs up Turbine!

One caveat I noticed in the article:


In response to these concerns, we have decided to hold off on removing the ability for gems to dispel all negative spells while we investigate solutions that would prevent the layering effect from occurring.


(bold highlighting added by me)

This is interesting, and my personal hope is that you go with the simple solution and just let gems continue to dispell all negative spells in the future, rather than limiting the number of spells at some undefined patch coming up.

Most PvM I know use them for two reasons: To prepare for a particularly difficult part of a quest coming up, or as a last resort in a hunt to survive (at least for a little while longer) a nasty combinition of vulns.

Given that the gems are quest items, thus limited in availability by timers and characters capable of running those quests, I feel that they would be fine the way they work now.

Oh, and stacking is AWESOME. Thank you! ;)

[Ibn]

Originally posted by MaddyFF
Changes sound good to me, couple of questions:

1. Any plans to sell level I-VI disspell scrolls via the vendors?

2. Right now casting a disspell compared to using a gem still seems out of whack. Casting a level VII dispell takes mana, skill, and only removes 3-6 spells. A gem removes all debuffs, requires no skill, and no skill check. Will there be any tweaking to cast disspells?

1. Not at this time. Like Walls and Rings, we'd like these spells to keep some of their uniqueness.

2. Once you've learned a dispel spell, casting it is just a matter of clicking the icon and having enough mana. Gems and potions are a limited resource -- if you run out in battle, you're out of luck. You can't just wait a while and get more.

That said, while we don't have any plans to tweak cast dispels at this time, we can always consider it in the future.

[Axe111]

Sounds good to me.

[Asbestos]

I've been a harsh critic of late, so I hope it means even more when I say GREAT JOB! It looks like you have really considered the implications of these changes and are implementing something I am really looking forward too. Thanks Turbine!

[Yusuki]

Thank you for not limiting the quantity of spells dispelled from gems and potions.

[MaddyFF]

Originally posted by Ibn
Gems and potions are a limited resource -- if you run out in battle, you're out of luck. You can't just wait a while and get more.


Stacking will fix this though :) I usually only carried 4-5 gems on me at a time, rest of them muled. Now that same 4-5 is 100-125 gems in the same amount of space. If you can come up with a way of dealing with the layering of debuffs, the differences between gems and spells would be acceptable

I won't argue on the selling of scrolls, I can live with it. :)

[Kyayote]

Sounds all good on paper to me.
Kya

[Mc Que]

Looks good!

[Sangria]

Works for me!!! I like that the gems will stack. And stacks of 25 is plenty - anything more than that is over kill.

i think you guys got this one right the first time.

[Flandango]

All I have to say is Awesome!!!:D

[cstanleytech]

I thought the dispell spells consumed a chorizite powder so does that not really make them a very limited resource ?
Also dont the spells take about 6 - 7 seconds to cast for the high end spell where as a potion is much faster ?

[Aaryna]

This all sounds fine... except making it all negative-only. The inherent risk of dispelling positives is a vital counter-balance to the convenience of dispelling negatives. Gems are limited to trophy rewards and are therefore limited, so negative-only makes sense. But potions and spells are both limited only by components, including Chorizite. This makes them virtually limitless, except for long-duration stays in the field. Making those two negative-only makes it WAY too convenient to just brush off dispels after every combat.

The other component of that - being able to cast dispels on friendlies... is really, not going to be used with potions widely available.

However, being completely random is too inconvenient. I still stand by my original proposal: dispel levels I - IV should dispel a maximum of one positive in the random count, and V - VII should dispel a maximum of two positives in the random count. This should be reversed for the Other spell versions. Potions should be negative only at III - IV and dispel a maximum of one positive at V - VII. Gems should stay negative only at all levels.

If you want the convenience of an inexhaustible supply, accept the risk of dispelling some positives. Just not a completely random dispel like we have now.

I also rather dislike having dispels removed from creatures' spellbooks... especially at VII levels, this would have added alot of fun to hunting.

[Taarna]

I strongly approve of your decision to leave Gems and the Awakener as they are. The debuff stacking issue would make the previous proposal intolerable. I also agree with the increase in potion power as I think this is long overdue.

I agree with the direction of your changes regarding the dispell Spells. However, I think dispell Spells should have a bit more bang to them, not a great deal, but a bit more. Gems are cheap and common, and chorizite is relatively easy to get also. The spells mana cost should probably be about 2/3 to 1/2 of their current cost.

This is due to the fact that these spells suffer from the debuff stacking issue also. Without the stacking issue the proposed spell changes would be more reasonable. Its good to see you are looking into that issue and I hope that you are able to find a solution.

[Ally]

I give the proposed changes a 9 out of 10.

My issues with the proposed changes are as follows:

Gems/attenuated awakener still seem a bit overpowered v. spells.

If gems were a bit more rare and the attenuated awakener had a maximum spell removal limit a la the spell proposal then i see more balance. The non-attenuated Awakener seems like it should be more powerful than the attenuated version in regard to dispel ability given the spec v. trained difference to wield it.

As for potions..level 7 dispel potions should require massive skill and never more than 75% chance to create at highest level. That's somewhat arbitrary I know, but keep in mind my main character is an Alchemist! I just see a flood of potions...I wonder how much they will weigh...chorozite is not exactly light...

[Ibn Ghon]

This really does sound reasonable for PvM unless I am missing something.

[Jet-eye-nite]

Now , what about the way one gets a gem now ,will you lower the amount of triangles available now ? So of the chars out there have 0 magic and that other ugly word " solo" . Which for me anyway means "solo" = anti-social in some sense of the word.

[Cybeonix]

I'd like to address a few concerns and current comments on the changes.

1. Short Supply

No such thing. The situation has to be evaulated as though all of the items are in UNLIMITED supply. If you want to truely make gems in short supply, remove them as quest items (olthoi pincer) and limit them to lockpicking quest (mnemosynes); then we'll start talking. Give lockpickers a reason to train the skill; I'm sure a few trade mules will train it for gem selling in Marketplace.

2. Layering

This is the only REAL problem with casting dispells. The mana cost isn't even an issue. The only reason it becomes an issue is because it has to be cast several times to be less than useful. The other problem was no level 7 equivalent, which should be corrected with the upcoming changes.


3. Dispell Count

For the cost of the chorizite and huge mana drain, I don't think it would be too much to ask that the level 7 dispells ALL negative enchantments. The "Self" version of the spell should remove ALL, and the "Other" version of the spell should remove 1-3. Leave the others "as is". Give a player a reason to cast it himself and please don't turn the game into players running around with packs full of 200 gems. I don't particularily like the stacking idea. My only use for the gem of stillness is the fact that I can't dispell level 7s.


4. Player crafted dispells

Trying to avoid the "big pack o gems" issue I have; I'd hope to see that crafted potions wiegh 150u each, at least.


Thanks

[Rauth]

Interesting.

[Follow]

This changes are great, in fact I love them good job on doing something right.

[Akira Ran]

I am afraid I must join the small handfull of people above expressing some concern about it being too good.

Since gems are theoretically small and light and other potions stack, stacking is nice.

Dispells being more targeted so to only affect negatives only is also not a bad idea. Perhaps you could also then consider introducing offensive spells that dispell positive enchantments.

However, the cost/quantity issue is a real one, for both spells and items. Stillness gems are somewhat limited, chorizte potions, if the same creation methods are follwed, take a LOT of chorizite to make a few potions of high level. Spells, though, can be cast repteadly. DO we want a couple of spells after... or even during... combat to completely "clean up" all dispells?

[Leelando]

Everything sounds great to me. Wow, finally it appears that you all (Turbine) are listening to the players!!!

Now, about that ... (Hmmmm, me thinks not a good time to ask for the Super Uber X-bow)

Anyhow, other than the Dispell Spell costing so much mana, that it won't get used, great article, and again THANK YOU !!!!

:D :D :D

[Emo]

The concern that things would degrade into constant dispelling is a valid concern, but the issue is really that Missile and Melee toons are REQUIRED to cast negative life spells on their target in order to have a chance at killing them.

Missile and Melee should not have to cast these spells to do the same damage in PK. Please make weeping weapons Life Magic Hollow. This fixes the dispell problem entirely because if means that neither mages nor missile/melee are required to cast life debuffs. The requirement of life magic debuffs unbalances PK in favor of mages. Particularly with so many grief mages that have very high magic defence skills, which effectively preclude a non-life specced melee/missile from killing them. Let's eliminate the need for life magic debuffs by missile and melee in PK please.

[MaddyFF]

Originally posted by Akira Ran
However, the cost/quantity issue is a real one, for both spells and items. Stillness gems are somewhat limited, chorizte potions, if the same creation methods are follwed, take a LOT of chorizite to make a few potions of high level. Spells, though, can be cast repteadly. DO we want a couple of spells after... or even during... combat to completely "clean up" all dispells?

Well, gems are limited to a timer, but easy to get. Plus you can get them via turning in triangles. I have 30 gems muled right now, and timers up on several characetrs when I feel like getting more. :)

Concern should be given to make sure it isn't too easy to get rid of debuffs, which I think gems do right now. But that is just an opinion.

[Phosphine]

Good
1. "In order to increase the convenience of dispel gems and dispel potions, these items will now stack to 25." I think that this will improve the effectiveness of gems overall.

2.layering
"we have decided to hold off on removing the ability for gems to dispel all negative spells while we investigate solutions that would prevent the layering effect from occurring." I think allowing the gems to peal back the layers of debuffs is a good one for PvM.


could have problems
1. "all dispel spells currently in a player's spell book will change to spells that remove negative enchantments only, and all newly-learned dispels will also remove negative enchantments only." How do you dispel your own enchantments from a piece of armor? This may or may not have ramifications for crafters.

2. Our plans include the ability to craft level 6 and 7 dispel potions using techniques similar to the current dispel potion crafting processes.

3. "In addition, the lower gems –which current dispel level 4 and 5 spells – will dispel level 5 and 6 spells respectively." Does this mean that the tiny triangles yield dispel 5 gems, the smalls, dispel 6 gems, and the large dispel 7 gems? Not sure about how the numbers will work on this one or how the quest rewards will work . . . .


Bad
1. "Due to the planned changes in dispels, we will also be removing the ability for most creatures to cast dispel spells on players. Traps, however, will keep this ability (as will very special 'creatures' such as Asheron himself)." I think that monsters should continue to dispel enchantments. Please watch this behaviour carefully.

[Beastman]

I think the changes sound good.

I'm a huge fan of making the gems stackable as well. I usually carry a few with me, but because pack space is limited, I either run out, or end up hunting with debuffs because I am conserving my gems. It'd be even better if they stacked to 50 (or 100 like potions).

I don't think the point that was brought up about having a pack full of 600 gems is going to be an issue. At least for me, I don't think I'll spend all my time hunting for gems just so I can use one every single time I get debuffed.

I'm not really looking forward to going back to the steel chests with my SIKs to get my L7 dispell scrolls, so I'll probably just have to trade for those. :)

Sounds like a good plan.

[Argea]

The proposed changes to dispell spells are going in the right direction - but unless mana cost is decreased and effectiveness is increased, i don't see dispell spells being used as a viable alternative.

Why should I be punished by losing almost all of my mana AND only removing a few spells? If i use an Attenuated Awakener on a fellow member, I often remove 10-12 debuffs. If my dispell hits the low end of the spectrum every time, that's four dispells to one hit with the Awakener. It's just not a practical combat alternative.

On the upside, level 7 dispell potions are crafting love =). Time to start hitting the mines again.

gea

[Nova_Cat_HG]

Speaking of limited... the medium Chorizte Ore still has a 16 hours timer for refineing it.

Will there be any changes to this timer ?

[Drakelatecomer]

You guys are probably going into shock! I do believe we all like this change! Very well done, indeed.

[Bloodbow_HG]

These changes are great! I've been waiting for you to make still gems stackable ever since you mentioned you had the tech for it a number of months ago:D

[Crone_MT]

In order to increase the convenience of dispel gems and dispel potions, these items will now stack to 25

I would like to see it at 50 or 100 both for when I'm hunting and when my trade bot is trying to sell them.

Can you think of new ways in which we might be able to get gems? Maybe adding them to like the Faovor quest or in return for a new trophy turn-in?

[Alicex]

While your at it how about bringing back spell research for those who want to do it. The scriveners would still be there but for those who dont want to spend all the money they have the option of learning the spell the old fashioned way.

Besides I want to be able to fizzle dance again :-)

[Grinless]

Originally posted by Phosphine
Bad
1. "Due to the planned changes in dispels, we will also be removing the ability for most creatures to cast dispel spells on players. Traps, however, will keep this ability (as will very special 'creatures' such as Asheron himself)." I think that monsters should continue to dispel enchantments. Please watch this behaviour carefully.

Totally agree with the above.

Beautiful changes overall but keep dispels on monster. Hell, put dispels on LOTS of monsters, everything restricting the usefulness of buffbot s fine with me.

[Zimarathon]

If you eliminate the dispells on monsters that also eliminates one advantage the item-only melee had, namely the monsters would occasionally remove debuffs from you. It was always a nice treat.

Might I suggest doing the positive and negative versions of the spells? It would add a bit more fun to PK and also give some additional tactical spell casting for creatures that buff themselves.

[sionwarwick]

Thank you for reconsidering the gems not removing all negative spells. My no-buff melee with only lvl 6 protects relys on those gems to survive in VoD/Caul/etc.

Everything else sounds cool. Though I always got a laugh out of the Virindi dispelling the debuffs they had just put on me, since I wore all my buffing spells on jewelry/armor/etc. :)

[Mogosh]

Gems are not an infinite resource, and running out of them is a serious problem for high levels. There is a constant trade going on between players fighting non-casters (Olthois, Tuskers...) who sell their gems to VoD / Caul hunters, and I think it's good for the game.

As stated many times, the balance between gems and spells is quite good now, since you can burn a gem in emergency any time, regardless of your mana pool. Gems will work when you run, and remove everything. It's a life-saver. On the other hand, casting saves gems, at the expense of time, mana, and chorizite (an easily accessible resource).

The ability to craft potions may ruin this.

If I can bring my 50 potions every buff, I will never hesitate, and I will fight constantly without debuffs, as if I had an infinite amount of gems.

If you make the potions inconvenient enough so that they become an alternative to gems, not a solution to running out of gems, then you have enriched the game. If you make them as planned (not really heavy, based on easily accessible chorizite, stackable, fully dispelling), then you *will* have some players fighing 100% without debuffs. Expect yet another level slide, with the ususal "more content and challenge while keeping balance between all classes" syndrom...

Do not listen too much to us ... ;)

[Goragg]

I am not sure I like these changes.

Today my item only axer does his best to avoid using dispel gems due to their limited availability. I don't trade for them or hunt for triangles because I can only carry so many. If you make them stackable, and make lvl 7 Chorozite potions, and keep them removing ALL debuffs then you are making it too easy. I will easily have 50-100 potions on me at all times and will never worry about debuffs again.

I think the only part of the system that doesn't work right now is dispell spells. The only reason they don't work is due to the stacking of debuffs by mobs. If a debuff spell removed ALL instances of 3-6 negative spells then that would be great!!

Once that change is in place then you could make lvl 6 and 7 chorozite potions have the same effect as the spell. They would become the stackable resource that is not as good as a gem but easier than a spell.

The final result would be:

Spell - Slow to cast but no resource mining required and limited only by mana, tapers, and scarabs (chorozite, triangles etc)
Potion - Limited effect like spell but stackable
Gem - Guaranteed to clean you up but eats pack space

I think that would be a fairer balance

*edit*

Sumation: Fix debuff stacking first then dispel problems will be easier to handle.

[Jaspo]

I agree with Goragg's view 100%

Gems absolutely should not stack.

[sublimaze]

I like the changes overall, but agree that monsters still should remove spells. It adds challenge!! In fact, I'd rather we go to the 'random number of spells removed' idea. That way you have to use a bunch of dispell items to really remove all your debuffs. Exception to this for me would be the Awakener.

In any event, all these changes are POSITIVE in my opinion. Great work!

[Kremti]

I share the sentiment that spells are really underwhelming still.

First,

"...2. Once you've learned a dispel spell, casting it is just a matter of clicking the icon and having enough mana. Gems and potions are a limited resource -- if you run out in battle, you're out of luck. You can't just wait a while and get more...."

Not true. You have to have the chorizite potions to cast the spell. That's a quest in itself, going through mage unfriendly hollow lugian dungeon. Then find alchemist who can turn it into the potion. Not to mention the 16 hour timer on refinary.

Plus, gems and potions are *far* quicker. No need to have casting item in hand (which basically makes the spells impractical for Melees and archers to use it in combat). No animation required to use the gems and potions (actually, I don't know if potions has the 'drink' animation...never used it before *laugh*). Spells have a chance of fizzling.

The layered spells are the main source of problem with the dispels dispelling '2-6' spells. If you can come up with the tech to get rid of all the spells that's layered together, THEN dispel spells looks good enough to use instead of gems and potions. You'll still probably have to cast 3-5 to get rid of everything when you are severely debuffed. As it's written without the spells being able to get rid of all the layers of one spell, I'll never use the spells.

-K

[Taker_AC]

Thanks for not limiting the number of spells that a Gem dispells.

[L.B. Johnson]

(Sorry, too much to read, I'll just post my comments)
(Sorry if something similar has been posted)

First let me speak of "Stacking". I decided to ask here because the letter brought up stacking of dispel gems, I was wondering, are there any plans to make Town Portal Gems stackable?

Until we get 36 or 48 item packs, this would help alot :)

and as for layering of spells...

Personally I like that gems dispel all spells, but if you guys prefer to do it the other way how hard would it be to make the gems dispel say, 2-6 spells at each level of spell, for the higher gem (stillness I think?) and maybe 2-4 at each level for the next lower one.. ?

My Thoughts.

[TTF]

You're catching on :D The tenative changes you plan for the dispells is right on the money (mine at least)!! Thank you for the pre-emptive commo like this!

[Mosswart Ninja]

To be honest , I'm puzzled. Why dispell SPELLS at all? It seemed a pointless waste of development time compared to gems. Cast dispell SPELLS have one unique disadvantage that pretty much renders them pointless that gems do not. That is the vulnerability you have swapping between bow and wand or sword + shield and wand and back. Gem use does not carry the same penalty for use that spells do. Thats why gems are the better choice. The obligatory addition of Chorozite questing to the ingredient list only adds insult to injury for spells utility.

The dev paradigm that as players we MUST use a wand, orb or staff and accrue the vulnerability to attack equipping and unequipping to cast is the problem here. Till that goes away kill off the dispell spells idea, keep the stackable gems and create more great new content with the dev time, please.

Thank you for your attention

[Mistikal]

I like :)

[pacesetter]

WTG turbine, And thank you for taking prior feedback into consideration.

I have one reservation and one suggestion.

The mana cost seems to be too high at upper levels. 280 mana is hard to come by in an all out fight with many baddies. IMO this should be reduced for lvl 6 and 7 at least if not for all levels. A lower level (newbie) would have a hard time coming up with 80 mana for a lvl 2. I do agree that this should cost alot but is a bit high considering fighting situations. My lvl 126 mage has 335 mana so would have to be near full to be able to cast a lvl 7 dispell and follow with heal self immediately. My lvl 42 mage has 240 mana and would spend 200 for a lvl 5 dispel. see what I mean?

Considering the high mana cost and the number and types of baddies you fight when you can cast 6's and 7's, and the skill and effort to get to this point, IMO 6's and 7's should remove more than a level 1 to 5 spell. My suggestion would be for lvl 6 and 7 dispel to remove up to 8 spells. It is not uncommon for me to have 8-10 vulns not including layering.

now, since you are looking at layered spells, can you simply update the timer of a repeated spell rather than adding a spell? or when a spell is repeated it dispels the like spell??

Also I believe there should be at least one way to remove all negative spells and gems should stay as is. It is our most effective life saving technique when fully debuffed in a fight to the point of just healing to stay alive, as happens when you fight mobs of casters.

[Gothgul]

I have no issues with the gems or potions in themselves.

But in regards to the dispell SPELLS, they are not balanced. Especially not now that gems/potions stack.

As a mage, I'm actually looking forward to creating an alchemy mule to make stackable potions, rather than the new lvl VII dispell spells. Something is not right with that. The only thing that stopped me before was pack space. Now I don't see why everyone wont carry around hundreds of gems/potions and pop them like Pez if the wind blows the wrong way.

Dispell spells are simply not useful compared with the gems/potions. Mainly because they only remove 3-6 spells, combined with the stacking issue. That alone is the problem. Not getting the chorizite, not the mana or the skill needed. When a potion or gem removes all negative spells instantly, and a spell which takes considerably longer to cast, and uses tons of mana, only removes 3-6, why would I cast the spell? I have to get the chorizite either way if I make potions or use them in spells.

The other option is to make debuffs not layer on you. If something casts Life inept on you, and then you get another one 2 min later, it should just surpass/remove the previous spell, and reset the timer, so at any one time, you can only have one unique neg spell on you. Combine this with a lvl 7 dispell removing at least 6-10 spells, and I would find casting these spells useful compared to gems/potions.

G

[Chak]

I like it!

[Cris1]

Could you implemnt somthing similar to the way field rations work in reguards to well anything :)

400+ clicks to make 20 items == bad.

[Red Syke]

Davidge quoted you about continuing to investigate the layering of negative spells . . . then he said:

Originally posted by Davidge

This is interesting, and my personal hope is that you go with the simple solution and just let gems continue to dispell all negative spells in the future, rather than limiting the number of spells at some undefined patch coming up.



yep, well said ;). keep it simple :p you at turbine sometimes seem to enjoy making your lives more difficult than they HAVE to be.

the gems are not broken.

the dispell letter seems good. the stacking of gems seems great. I just have grown to doubt your every move since there always seems some nasty little surprise at the end of the trail from turbine these past few months.

If it comes out working as stated , I'll be happy about the dispell gems . . . but that ALONE doesn't turn this into a GREAT game again. There is still ALOT of stuff you need to work on and you know where and what I've posted about those things you need to improve. So I'm not letting you off the hook yet :p

so far, this proposed change is one of the few good moves you've made in the last few months.


Red Syke

[evolutionoccurs]

One comment. Dispell Spells...... Why can't you make these where they burn more Chorizite and act just like these potions your referring to. I mean potions would still serve a great purpose (melee/archers ), while mages could spend up to 3 min's trying to rid themselves of some 8-35 negative enchantments on themselves. Don't get me wrong i luv using nullify spells, but it becomes so tedious when your fighten hoards and get like 18 to 32 debuffs on you and counting (every second literally). Wouldnt it make since to make these a lil more user friendly. I mean with the new potions most likely being able to rid peeps of all negative enchantments than why now make things mage friendly as well. Most mages carry 4 foci, and 3 packs, 1 or 2 less pack spaces than most melee/archer types. If Turbine would ever give us what we NEED. Another 2 pack spaces this wouldnt be a problem. Im just saying; Make it Spells equivalent to the potions. If not , Oh well, I do at least like the stackable idea. (thumbs up).