Sippin wrote:
First, you dismiss higher damage for higher mana as NOT an improvement. If the dps/mana ratio stays the same (or, as it does sometimes, improves) this surely IS an improvement, and a significant one. Especially for wizards, since they're all about dps, but for ANY nuker as well. The 105 wizard ethereal nuke does 11% more damage than the level 104, an extra 3,195 damage off a base of 28,548. An 11% improvement in firepower---you don't see that as full justification for paying more for the glowing over the greater? Boy, I sure do.
Yes. I'm not disagreeing with that. Well, not much. My point is that
the highest damage nukes in each set don't always come at the highest level. They tend to be spread out. I just pointed out the three "claw" spells that wizards get. The highest of the three is the level 103 spell, not the level 105. I'll also point out that the lower max damage spells also tend to be more mana efficient (so your starting premise isn't correct). You trade off more bang for less buck over time (ie: you deplete your mana faster). Yes, if all you care about is burning mobs down, then the biggest bang is what you want. But most of the time (especially if grouping), mana management is an issue. You will help your group out more using your more modest damage spells with greater mana efficiency than using nothing but your biggest nuke.
And again. The "biggest" nukes aren't always at level 105. And even those that are are not always the "best" nuke to use.
Quote:
And that doesn't even begin to consider the impact of crits and damage-enhancements.
Which scale directly with relative damage and can therefore be ignored when just comparing spells. Assuming there's some point at all to all those other spells, then we must assume that they are just as "useful" to the caster. My point is that there is no reason for spells to be more or less expensive based on the level they happen to fall at within a given 5 level range. EQ ought to just use the same expansion wide drops for all of them to be honest. It would be a much simpler and much fairer system IMO.
Quote:
You also conveniently ignore the non-damage spells. Clearly the acquisition of spells like HP, AC, crack, focus buffs IN GROUP-CASTABLE FORM, is a BIG improvement.
Um... Ok. The wizards primary shield spell that he'll have up all the time he gets at level 101, not 105. So if this is his "big AC spell buff", why isn't it at level 105 and cost a ton? It doesn't. Your other most used defensive spells will be the Darkmist Guard (that whole line is one I normally walk around with), which is level 103. Or you might want to use Shield of Consequence, which is level 102. There are, in fact,
zero defensive spells that a wizard gets at level 105.
Not talking about wizards? Ok. My paladins primary defensive buffs come at level 103 (armor of formidable spirit), and 104 (Brells Stalwart Bulwark, a spell that no one ever asks for or wants, right? That's sarcasm btw). My "doesn't stack with cleric buff" defense is at level 102. I do get my group version of the buff at level 105, but no one ever wants that one (and I'm not being sarcastic this time). Literally the most important spell I got at level 105 was my last stun, and not because it's "more powerful", but because the previous set of stuns cap at level 103, so while I was level 104, there was this odd one level spot where even con mobs (which you can run into when soloing HAs) can't be affected by one of the stuns, which is a pita.
But wait? When do clerics get their big defensive buff? The one that's better than my own buff, and the one everyone asks for? Surety is a level 102 spell, not level 105.
Again, I'm just not seeing any pattern to suggest that level 105 spells are any more "powerful" than any of the other spells in the set you get between levels 101 and 105. They just aren't. And they aren't in any of the other 5 level ranges for the previous 30 levels either. Yet, for some unknown reason, the game still insists on making each level's spell within that range progressively more rare (usually) and thus more expensive. Which makes zero sense. All the spells in a given 5 level set should be balanced to be equally powerful, and should be equally rare and expensive.
Quote:
Quote:
Maybe some classes get their "best" spells at only the highest level, but from what I've seen it looks like all the spells are equally good, and all of them are spread across the level range, so there's no reason for the later ones to cost more.
just isn't true. It's even self-contradictory! If "some classes" get their 'best' spells at only the highest level", how is it you conclude "all the spells are equally good"? And even you make the case against your claim that "there's no reason for the later ones to cost more."
Because "best" is subjective. And if it's not universal, then it's "random". So if 1/5th of the classes in the game happen to get the best version of a given spell at level 105, then that does not mean that level 105 spells are universally "better". It means, in fact, that the "best" spells are no more likely to happen to fall at that level than at any other level. Which was the point i was making. You can't just cherry pick the handful of "best" spells that do happen to fall at level 105 while ignoring all the other "best" spells that fall somewhat evenly across all the other levels.
Make sense?