Curse

Rasaek · Jan 21, 2009, 05:49 PM // 17:49

So I was playing pvp the other night, was killed and rezzed with a signet. I get back up, and being the healer am pressed for time to get back healing my team. So first thing I do, of course, is cast my item spell, being dependent on it to maintain energy. (Thanks for a no e-mgt primary, Anet.)

Well, ironically the item spell I cast to be able to manage my energy puts me in an energy hole. I suppose I'd never really given it much thought before, but having to watch my team die while I stood by getting out of an energy hole prompted me to think that perhaps,

1. Rezzes that rez you with % energy should not include weapon set bonuses as "your" max.
2. The cost of item spells cast should come out of the "lost" bonus energy from weapon sets.

But then I considered how much you lose from dropping your mainhand and offhand. Let's look at a fast casting set. 40% chance of 50% cast time, and 40% chance of 50% recharge time. On average that is 20% faster recharges and 20% faster casting.

20% of a bar of 8 skills is the equivalent of being able to cast 1.6 more spells in the same time, as far as the recharge time goes.

And 20% faster casting? I'm sure I've seen skills that in themselves are crappier than this, making this alone on par with another 1 skill in itself.

In other words, on it's own, a wand set could be said to be (at maximum) as effective as another 2.6 skills on your bar, and that's without taking up any skill slots. So if you consider that, compared to an item spell, you get +1 spell to take on the bar itself, that drives the maximum value, comparatively to item spells, to 3.6...

How many item spells out there can you honestly look at and say, "Yes, that item spell is easily worth more than 3.6 other spells..."? None. Thoughts?

jiggles · Jan 21, 2009, 06:15 PM // 18:15

Except your maths is all wrong. A 40/40 set only has a 33% chance to fc spells iirc. As for the rest of your post i have no idea what you said.

Rasaek · Jan 21, 2009, 06:21 PM // 18:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by jiggles

Except your maths is all wrong. A 40/40 set only has a 33% chance to fc spells iirc.

20% chance on the first item, leaves 80%.

20% of 80% is 16%.

That makes a 36% chance rather than 40. However, you also have a 4% chance that they both go off at once, adding a 4% chance of 25% casting time; if you look at it another way, that's 2x a 4% chance of 50% casting time, so an "additional" 4% of 50%-

36+4 is 40. Even if it were just 36 instead of 40, and we disregard the 4x casting speed, that's not exactly "all wrong," just slightly off.

However, since I'm using averages, we aren't disregarding it, and the 40% still stands.

Hmm... since 50% recharge time is actually the same as 200% recharge speed... a 40% chance of casting the spells twice as fast, ie twice the spell casting. That would make a 40/40 set equivalent to a full 8 skills x40%, so +3.2 spells either way instead of 1.6... then consider item spells use up a spell slot, so in order to be worth dropping a good weapon set, suddenly they have to be a better choice than 4.2 spells in order to make the cut...?

Posts Merged by Celestial Beaver: Please use the button rather than double posting.

Dmitri3 · Jan 21, 2009, 07:16 PM // 19:16

Drop the bundle and go into negative energy set.

Item spells are balanced by that fact. Same reason Weapon spells are so costly. They can't be removed (only interrupted). You just gotta learn when to use it.

ac1inferno · Jan 21, 2009, 07:28 PM // 19:28

Swap to a low energy set before you die. When you get ressed, switch back to a higher set. The lower set will hide your energy from the death. Switching to a higher set after you get ressed means you gain all the energy back instead of a percentage of it.

MStarfire · Jan 21, 2009, 07:40 PM // 19:40

First of all, your math is all shitty and assumptive. It's just plain wrong, and speaks of a lack of understanding about basic game mechanics. There is a cap on HSR and HCT chances, and wand/offhand 20/20's don't stack, they overlap. Your math doesn't take that into account, and if it did, you did it incorrectly.

I see your point, though, because as a Ritualist I used to find myself boned for energy when I use an item spell after a res.

That's why real PvPers carry negative-energy sets. They're not just defense against e-denial anymore!

Trust me. I'm a better Ritualist than you are.

Although, I do like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by A shitty Ritualist with no concept of how to use quotes

1. Rezzes that rez you with % energy should not include weapon set bonuses as "your" max.

That is a suggestion I can get behind. Everything else you said was mostly rambling and incoherent.

Eddie Frenzy Spam · Jan 21, 2009, 07:53 PM // 19:53

This post is pretty stupid. What you basically want to do is dumb down a lot of the set values in the game to make it easier not to fall into negative energy when you are ressed/cast item spells/switch sets. Also a lot of the post seemed to be incoherent rambling.

Items spells are not bad, neither is the % energy when you res you just need to know how to deal with them, which you don't seem to know how to do.

Shayne Hawke · Jan 21, 2009, 08:01 PM // 20:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasaek

But then I considered how much you lose from dropping your mainhand and offhand. Let's look at a fast casting set. 40% chance of 50% cast time, and 40% chance of 50% recharge time. On average that is 20% faster recharges and 20% faster casting.

I stopped understanding once you pulled that bit of math magic out of thin air. That would only be appropriate to say if you had 8 identical skills on your skill bar, and I can guarantee that you won't, ever.

Eddie Frenzy Spam · Jan 21, 2009, 08:11 PM // 20:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shayne Hawke

I stopped understanding once you pulled that bit of math magic out of thin air. That would only be appropriate to say if you had 8 identical skills on your skill bar, and I can guarantee that you won't, ever.

Mm that isn't one of the problems with his post I don't think. Considering the 20% recharge isn't based on using a set skill and applies to all 8 skills regardless of what they are, well, as long as they are skills/spells. If you're thinking about varying recharge times of the skills that to is irrelevant as you will always get 20% of the recharge.

However there is a great deal of other things that ARE wrong with his maths/post.

Kerwyn Nasilan · Jan 22, 2009, 12:00 AM // 00:00

PvP is srs bznz

If you don't item spells, dont use them. If you don't like Rits lack of e management don't use a rit. Simple as that.

Dr.Jones · Jan 22, 2009, 12:31 AM // 00:31

there are a lot of things broken with the rit. item spells where you have to hold something is one of them. spawning power is another.

Rasaek · Jan 22, 2009, 03:37 PM // 15:37

Hmm, all right, in order then...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Someone with questionable reading comprehension

First of all, your math is all shitty and assumptive. It's just plain wrong, and speaks of a lack of understanding about basic game mechanics. There is a cap on HSR and HCT chances, and wand/offhand 20/20's don't stack, they overlap. Your math doesn't take that into account, and if it did, you did it incorrectly.

You will notice that was addressed here,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasaek

That makes a 36% chance rather than 40.

And if there is a cap, that is not a fault of the math, but a game mechanics oversight. If you need, I can explain the difference. As I stated before, a change from 40% to 36% would not nearly be enough of a difference to invalidate my point. I'll go over the math again, since I was on break when I did it, see below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shayne Hawke

I stopped understanding once you pulled that bit of math magic out of thin air. That would only be appropriate to say if you had 8 identical skills on your skill bar, and I can guarantee that you won't, ever.

It applies to any bar that contains spells the HCT/HSR mods apply to. Effectively the mods are bar compression, and I used them because ceteris paribus they are the most easily measurable item mods in terms of performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerwyn Nasilan

If you don't item spells, dont use them. If you don't like Rits lack of e management don't use a rit. Simple as that.

If you don't like my post, don't reply in this thread.

Now,

So far I have seen no effective rebuttal, and although I am aware of certain (negligible) issues with the premise, noone as yet has pointed these out. Anyway, here's the case again with 36% rather than 40%, perhaps if I make the numbers more exact, the logic will become clearer. (Even to people with math degrees.)

36% chance of a 50% casting time and 50% skill recharge.

Half the time is the same thing as saying twice the speed. If it takes you half as long to get to the store, you were driving twice as fast, all else being equal. (Still with me, MStarfire?) Twice as fast is the same as 200% speed, or a speed bonus of +100%.

So this means 36% chance of +100% spell speed. This is overall, because it affects both components of how fast you can pump out spells in the long run: casting time and recharge. In reality it's probably better than that, because typically only one of those factors is what really limits you from pumping out spells quickly, so the other factor is a bonus on top of that. However, I'm going to assume they're both relevant, for the sake of argument. (Giving me some leeway.)

So now if we average out the spell speed increase, it's 36% of +100%, which results in an average spell speed increase of +36%.

36% of 8 spells is 2.88, which is the effective hidden bonus that fast casting mods can have on a full bar of spells affected by this bonus. This is assuming that both of the mods are necessary to overcome the limitations; if only casting time or recharge time is limiting you, then effectively the other bonus is in addition, and could be considered equivalent to a buffing spell in itself. Certainly there are spells/skills that have similar effects, with energy cost and chance of stripping.

Assuming that, (+1 spell, bonus for the other mod), and that this does not take up a spell slot, as item spells would (+1 spell, as a bonus for saving a spell slot in comparison), you might even say that in order for an item spell to prove a superior choice, it would have to be as good as somewhere between 2.88-4.88 other spells combined.

Orange Milk · Jan 22, 2009, 04:22 PM // 16:22

What?

Are you trying to say that if you have a 40/40 set then you "mathmatically" have, on average, 11 spells on your bar or 3 more spells, but if you have an Item Spell you have 3 less spells?

Are you also saying that you keep dying on high energy then getting rezed and casting an item spell and now being out of energy? Is that your complaint/question?

And then, after all that, are you trying to figure out if a Item spell is compareable to a 40/40 set, or atleast inferior to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasaek
So far I have seen no effective rebuttal

So far I have seen nothing effective to rebuttal, other than random blathering, mathmatical failures and lack of game mechanic understanding.

Rasaek · Jan 22, 2009, 04:44 PM // 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange Milk

What?

Are you trying to say that if you have a 40/40 set then you "mathmatically" have, on average, 11 spells on your bar or 3 more spells, but if you have an Item Spell you have 3 less spells?

No, what I am saying is that if person A can cast 5 spell in the same time that person B can cast the same 5 spells twice, it is measurable performance. In this over-simplified case it would be 5 spells vs 10 spells, a 1:2 ratio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange Milk

Are you also saying that you keep dying on high energy then getting rezed and casting an item spell and now being out of energy? Is that your complaint/question?

No, this is only what prompted me to think about this whole topic in the first place, as evidenced in the original post where I said "prompted me to think that perhaps," etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange Milk

And then, after all that, are you trying to figure out if a Item spell is compareable to a 40/40 set, or atleast inferior to?

Not even that much, it's just an attempt at determining the value of a 40/40 set. Since an item spell would replace this, the item spell would have to be superior in effect to be a fair trade-off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orange Milk

So far I have seen nothing effective to rebuttal, other than random blathering, mathmatical failures and lack of game mechanic understanding.

The post I made just before yours is the most accurate, perhaps you can demonstrate from this which "mathmatical" failures you mean, or which mechanical issues need correcting.

Eddie Frenzy Spam · Jan 22, 2009, 05:15 PM // 17:15

There is one very basic but important oversight you are making though. According to your calculations of getting an extra couple of spells off because of reduced recharge times you would have to be continously casting.

This very very rarely is the case as it is not feasible in terms of energy. So most of the time you won't actually get the extra spells, it just means that the skill is recharged and ready in case you do need to use it again before it's standard recharge time.There are other factors as well that need to be taken into account, such as energy, how often you're casting (as I said previously) and also what other players are doing to you, edenial etc

I think in terms of raw numbers, if we do actually assume you are continously casting (which you never will be) then yes, the trade off of the 40/40 set to an item will not be worth it, but in practical terms it IS.

There is also something else you haven't taken into account when saying you get xx amount of extra spells when in 40/40 and that's the fact that when holding an item a lot of other skills become more effective (soothing memories, caretakers charge etc) and a lot of rit bars are synergised in order to take full advantage of this.

Rasaek · Jan 22, 2009, 05:36 PM // 17:36

Hmm, very good points, Eddie, interesting.

As to the whole "constantly casting" point, I have to offer this: You're not necessarily always getting the full effect of your item spell either. Granted you will not always be getting the "full" bonus out of your fast casting set, since you're not always casting, but that's situational, and your item spell bonus may go unused just as often. That's subjective in both cases, but the "maximum possible" bonus is a little more concrete, and in the case of the fast casting set at least, quite high. And wouldn't it be possible to design "sustainable" spell bars, where you could in fact cast all your spells as fast as they come up?

The synergy of the rit bar, as the second point, also a good one. Frankly, most of the spells with such synergy seem quite weak on their own to me, that is to say, without the "while holding an item" bonus, making it more of a necessary evil - compromising freedom of optimal spell bar design for the sake of e-management, in the typical case for rits. My impression is that it will usually only affect one or two skills at most on a rit bar, and it won't do much more than change them from a crappy spell to a marginally more useful spell, or one made a necessary evil by the poor e-mgt rits suffer from.

MagmaRed · Jan 22, 2009, 05:51 PM // 17:51

I won't argue the math, as that isn't the important issue. Question is basically wether an item spell is worth using since you lose the 40/40 weapon set. This is ENTIRELY dependant on which item spell and why it is used. Some examples of what I mean:

[mighty was vorizun]
Using this will boost your energy and armor. This means you have more energy and take less damage. Can be quite useful for dealing with spikes and having that extra energy to cast a needed spell.

[protective was kaolai]
Another armor boost that can help deal with spikes, but this also provides party healing. Useful for countering party wide pressure and will heal people out of casting range.

[resilient was xiko]
No armor boost this time, but a solid way to deal with degen from hexes and conditions, as well as removing conditions.

[energetic was lee sa]
Energy management.

[Tranquil was tanasen]
Another armor boost, which helps with spikes, but this also prevents interrupts. Mesmers and Rangers giving you problems?

No, if you were struggling with interrupts, using [Energetic Was Lee Sa] wouldn't be much use, but a 40/40 weapon set might, as you could cast spells faster. However, [tranquil was tanasen] would prevent those interrupts as well as provide you with extra armor to deal with spikes.

Entirely depends on what you need to do, and what you are facing. Planning properly and making adjustments is all that is needed. I see nothing wrong with Item Spells, not with weapon mods.

AshenX · Jan 22, 2009, 07:43 PM // 19:43

I do not believe that having the ability to cast the skills already on your bar more frequently due to a 40/40 set is the same as having 4 more skills on your bar. Would you really want to compare the effectiveness a character with only 4 skills on his bar and a 40/40 set to a character with 8 skills on his bar ?

I am sorry but your basic assumption of the effect of a 40/40 set is flawed. It allows you to cast more often. Something you ideally should not need to take full advantage of. If you tried to take full advantage of that effect you would likely suffer from energy management every bit as much as in the example you gave.

A 40/40 set is more about timeliness of spell availabilty than of bar size increase. It allows you to have specific spells available more precisely when you need them. Sure it does allow for more spamming of skills that were already semi-spammable but spamming is not what skilled play is about.

Last of all changing a mechanic so that you dont have to learn or use player skill techniques to get around a balancing factor of a type of spell is not the best solution to a problem.

Eddie Frenzy Spam · Jan 22, 2009, 07:58 PM // 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasaek

Hmm, very good points, Eddie, interesting.

As to the whole "constantly casting" point, I have to offer this: You're not necessarily always getting the full effect of your item spell either. Granted you will not always be getting the "full" bonus out of your fast casting set, since you're not always casting, but that's situational, and your item spell bonus may go unused just as often. That's subjective in both cases, but the "maximum possible" bonus is a little more concrete, and in the case of the fast casting set at least, quite high. And wouldn't it be possible to design "sustainable" spell bars, where you could in fact cast all your spells as fast as they come up?

The synergy of the rit bar, as the second point, also a good one. Frankly, most of the spells with such synergy seem quite weak on their own to me, that is to say, without the "while holding an item" bonus, making it more of a necessary evil - compromising freedom of optimal spell bar design for the sake of e-management, in the typical case for rits. My impression is that it will usually only affect one or two skills at most on a rit bar, and it won't do much more than change them from a crappy spell to a marginally more useful spell, or one made a necessary evil by the poor e-mgt rits suffer from.

In PvE yeah it's probably possible to create bars that never run out of energy, however in PvP it's near impossible to create a bar that you can constantly spam with and which remains effective. The skills that it takes to create the near infinite energy just gimp the bar to much and make it useless apart from the novelty.

As for the synergy, saying the spells are quite weak on their own without the Item Spell is quite pointless because if you're playing the bar right, you WILL nearly always have the Item Spell active while casting it. Also saying that it compromise the flexibility of the bar isn't right either, it is by far the most optimal synergy for the rit. Item Spells are pretty good, take Protective Was Kaolai for example, I can cast it, maintain a pretty large +armour boost, while getting the additional bonuses from my other skills. Then when pressure really starts mounting up you can drop it and get a rather substantial party heal and then instantly recast it and drop it again if need be. The pressure this alleviates is pretty amazing.

Because you are pretty much always holding the Item Spell you could almost say any bonuses gained from holding it and casting other skills are not just chance effect bonuses, they nearly occur 100% of the time if you play right. The fact that are just mediocre without the item active is irrelevant.

You really will not find a better synergy on a Rit.

Rasaek · Jan 22, 2009, 11:18 PM // 23:18

Let's assume 12 casting skill.

Channeled Strike:
10e
77 lightning damage w/o item
106 lightning damage with item
Casting time 2
Recharge 4

Immolate:
10e
106 damage always, more than a third of it armor ignoring from burning
Casting time 1
Recharge 3

When is synergy not synergy? When it's dependency. You can't claim this as an "advantage" of item spells: this is not something that makes item spells preferrable. For a rit player, this sort of thing only makes them necessary.