Psychic lv79 lv100 skill

ryukage wrote: »

If you haven't bothered to play the class to a good level, you don't understand the class enough to call anything it has OP.

Except that my "QQing" comes from math and understanding game mechanics and comparing skills with skills.

ryukage wrote: »

Wanna know the last time a speed debuff actually caused me or anyone I PvP with any problems? It was sometime in 2008 before I quit for a period of time (unrelated reasons of course). Why so long ago? Everyone I know keeps some kind of speed skill on-hand, be it BM's Cloud Sprint and Will of the Bohisatva; the Assassin version of those skills; or even just a simple Holy Path, which anyone can get easily. If you can't get around being slowed, shame on you.

Let me clarify this. I don't care what YOU think about a debuff and how useful it is.

Glacial Snare, a wizzy skill, has the same debuff, no AOE, is slower to cast, and has similar damage (a bit more though). It also has a chance to fail at the debuff...

Need I say more?

Who cares about the fact that YOU think the debuff is worthless? Geesh it's not like we don't have a similar spell right?

Imagine that everyone is immune to stun, for some reason. Now I know it's ridiculous but just bear with me for the example.

That doesn't mean that a spell, identical in all ways (in this example) to another one, except that it has 8s stun instead of 6s, is balanced. Just because stun is worthless doesn't make it balanced.

It's simple analysis, not "experience" or some subjective thing whether "slow is any good".

And you know that slowing down is useful in PVE don't you. Stop thinking only of YOUR pvp scenarios geesh.

But, if you dare to compare it to phoenix AND in pvp, pushback doesn't even work.

ryukage wrote: »

Sage Sandstorm is STRONGER than our Lv100 Sandball Clash, so wtf is your complaint again? Sandstorm is only weaker for lv10 and under, which is why I said Lv75 versus Lv100. If you really wanna go celestial with it, then its Lv92 FOR A STRONGER ATTACK than a Lv100. What was that remark about Sage Sandstorm supposed to prove...?

I didn't make the conclusion.

Sandstorm does a bit more constant damage, not even weapon damage, for a silence vs accuracy debuff. Seriously? Is that it? I'd trade constant damage for a silencing anytime, and especially for someone who PvPs often like you. Don't act like you wouldn't.


As for the attack levels, you obviously have never made any tests whatsoever. You are the kind of person I would NEVER consider balancing a game, simply because you do not act in a scientific way, you act more like an artist. "Feeling" how good something is and "your experience" or "talent" in seeing these things come above formulas and straight number comparisons.

I have tested Frenzy. 20% more damage with 20 attack level (compared to none) regardless of skill. Hint: I used no weapon so there was no randomness involved, and the skills tested had different "constant" damage (which I assume, you don't include in the base magic attack right?)

You obviously have never bothered to read threads with empirical data on this and research. You are speculating as usual "from your experiences" which, forgive me for saying it this harsh, are absolute **** when it comes to balance because it's just a subjective opinion, no objective anything to back it up.

First damage seems to be based on the difference between your attack and the target's defense. Huge "negative" values (i.e defense > attack, or negative attack to begin with) seem to have diminishing returns in the actual percentage, so -100 would not be 0 damage at all. This makes sense, since +100 attack only does twice damage, it has to be balanced some way. (although the formula doesn't seem very "fair", mathematically speaking, with defense still being preferred).

Have you EVER done ANY mathematical and conducted analysis on this matter, or are you speaking just from your "experiences" which frankly, tell us nothing objectively-wise.

http://pwi-forum.perfectworld.com/showthread.php?p=7842382#post7842382

No offense but people can say anything they want. They can say Mountain's Seize, a wizzy skill, is faster than Gush to cast "based on their experiences" if they want to. (exaggerated example) b:chuckle

There are just so many factors in "the experiences" that it's just not worth it. Numbers, though, now those can be easily compared. b:cute

And above all, include PVE for goodness' sake. It has to be balanced whether you like it or not, not just PVP.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

Except that my "QQing" comes from math and understanding game mechanics and comparing skills with skills.

You can make on-paper comparisons all day long. If you don't have the in-game experience, then you don't have a leg to stand on. A skill isn't good (let alone OP) if its usage is totally impractical. This isn't a math contest, it's a video game. Even if you have all the theories on your side (which really, you don't) it still doesn't mean a thing if you can't apply it in-game.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

Let me clarify this. I don't care what YOU think about a debuff and how useful it is.

Glacial Snare, a wizzy skill, has the same debuff, no AOE, is slower to cast, and has similar damage (a bit more though). It also has a chance to fail at the debuff...

Need I say more?

I'll tell you again, learn what you're QQing about before you start doing so. Crystal Light DOES have a chance to fail the debuff, and I see it failing rather frequently when I use it. And I'll say it again, the AoE effect is nearly worthless because the line is far too narrow. Out of a few thousand casts, I can count the number of times my mobs lined up just so perfectly with one hand. This is where the issue of practicality beats your assumptions which you base solely on game-text. Keep looking at a skill you've never used or tested in such a scrub way. Meanwhile I'll continue to lol at your inability to escape the game's most easily avoided debuff.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

Imagine that everyone is immune to stun, for some reason. Now I know it's ridiculous but just bear with me for the example.

That doesn't mean that a spell, identical in all ways (in this example) to another one, except that it has 8s stun instead of 6s, is balanced. Just because stun is worthless doesn't make it balanced.

Again, practicality. Let's say I had a skill that took 10 hours to cast. But once it casted, the person I had targeted dies, with no way to go immune to the effect or dodge it. Except for the fact that by the time 10 hours passes, the person would have left my radar range and I'd have lost the target and invalidated the skill altogether. Would the skill still be imbalanced? On paper, sure. But who the hell cares if no one can ever pull it off?

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

It's simple analysis, not "experience" or some subjective thing whether "slow is any good".

And you know that slowing down is useful in PVE don't you. Stop thinking only of YOUR pvp scenarios geesh.

Because the classes were SO perfectly balanced in PvE before, right? I mean, there was nothing at all broken about a Venomancer soloing all her BH's with a Herc, while the rest of the classes have to actually depend on squad support. Nothing imbalanced at all. Yeah, uh, no.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

But, if you dare to compare it to phoenix AND in pvp, pushback doesn't even work.

I already told you I agreed that the person who compared Crystal Light to WotP failed pretty bad. Want me to say it again? He failed.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

You are the kind of person I would NEVER consider balancing a game, simply because you do not act in a scientific way, you act more like an artist. "Feeling" how good something is and "your experience" or "talent" in seeing these things come above formulas and straight number comparisons.

And that is why you understand so little about how MMO's are run.

How do imbalanced things ever get fixed? How do useless skills in MMO's get stepped up a notch? It's not because the developers felt nice. Feedback from the people who "felt" the skills in action play a critical role in this. People who actually applied the in-game tactics to the ideals they were designed for; as well as any unorthodox usage they come across. Numbers are good to know, but they can't tell you this info. People have to actually USE the skills and see if they actually fill the role they were made for. People have to actually PLAY a character class, to see if there is any practicality to the mechanics of the class. To see if the skill is glitched, or rather it works as promised. Open your effing mind. Numbers can't prove everything.

Aside from practicality, there are issues of synergy between skill A of a class, and skill B of the same class. The numbers on these skills won't tell you a freaking thing about how these skills get used in combination with one another, and this is a HUGE point that determines how good skills are. Sometimes a skill isn't even that good on its own, until you look at how it gets used in combination with something else. They're called combos. Experience teaches any intelligent player that he can't base "balance" on individual theories.

Now as for the feedback from someone who actually DOES have the in-game practice to mention, there's nothing broken about these skills compared to the effort required to acquire them; combined with various issues of practicality that render the theoretical usage of some of the skills rather moot. Having a pretty hard time using this AoE as an AoE. It might as well be a single target cast, because it's rather difficult to get it to do otherwise.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

And above all, include PVE for goodness' sake. It has to be balanced whether you like it or not, not just PVP.

PvE has never been truly balanced in MMO's, and probably won't ever be. It's only natural that some classes will have it easier than others, again with issues of practicality.

I'll say it to you again. Play the class, or stop assuming you know the class. With the issue of the nukes again, remove them and Psy's become handicapped endgame (yes, we were handicapped endgame before they were released because we had no other way to deliver that needed nuke that most other classes can).

Practicality + Synergy > Raw numbers. Don't even call yourself a gamer if you can't understand this. Don't get me wrong, the potential power of the skills is indeed a factor. Your concern for the numbers behind the skills is something that is also needed for the sake of judging balance, but you're blindly looking at them as if nothing else about the skills matter. Look at every side of the issue. People who think like that often wind up being theoretically knowledgeable, but terrible at any relevant application of the knowledge.

Heh. I'm going to ask that you actually read my post, because my previous ones either weren't explaining the issue correctly, or you just closed your mind to them. Either way, lemme try this one more time.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

Is it so wrong to demand balance here? If you think the skill is impractical why do you even CARE that it gets a nerf? Meanwhile, at least if you do nerf it, it will be on par with a similar wizzy skill. I don't CARE if they are impractical, I only care that one is NOT better than another. End of story.

Wtf are you trying to say exactly? That both skills need to have the exact same statistics to satisfy you?

Here's the problem. Psychic is only "close" to a wizard on paper, not in actuality. In actual practice, the two classes are miles apart. This is the main reason why your comparisons aren't valid enough for me.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

As for "experience", how is that supposed to be measured I wonder? Do you want me to have the same experience as you? What scale? Comparison? How can you quantize this?

Why would either of us need to? Lemme try to be a little more clear. Experience teaches you how skills are intended to be used by their class. If you don't have this experience, the only thing you can see are the numbers. I'm not saying experience itself makes a skill balanced. I'm saying the experience SHOWS you if the skill is or isn't balanced (see below). Balance is not something you can judge on numbers alone.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

Even oracle noobs have "experience". Can you prove theirs is worse than yours? Can you say yours is any better than theirs? How so? What's the criteria for measure?

The fact that half of them don't know what the @#$% they're doing; but regardless, this doesn't actually affect my argument. All that I'm saying about "experience" is again, that it shows you how combinations of skills in a class function together, and shows you how a class performs as a whole. This is a much much greater factor than the individual skill is. You can't expect all similar skills to be carbon-copies, therefore it falls on the class as a whole to provide the balance. And that fact can't be determined by number games. Why is THAT so hard for you to get?

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

See what I'm saying? Let's keep it simple, skill vs skill wise, with similar skills. It does NOT matter that one skill is worthless, because if one is, the other is also, BUT EVEN WORSE.

When the skills are different, get used differently and contribute to different skill combinations, then your skill by skill comparison becomes as valuable as a piece of garbage on the roadside. You have to see the entire picture, not just the part that's convenient for you.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

You are right but you forgot one important thing.

Suppose there was a wizzy skill IDENTICAL to this one but needed 11 hours to pass.

Both are impractical, but the second one is WORSE.

Unfortunately, the skills ARE NOT identical. By the way, Glacial Snare's slow effect success rate is A LOT higher than Crystal Light's success rate. GS has a 92% success rate at lv10, 95% at celestial. Based on my experience having casted Crystal Light so many times, I see it fail to slow my target at least 30% of the time I cast it, maybe even more. I almost dare say the slow will fail half the time I use it. So while I can't see the game code to actually prove the number, I can safely assume it's not 90%+, and it certainly is NOT 100%. So there goes your argument.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

But this thread is about psychics. They are the closest analogy to wizzies I can get (not saying they ARE the same, I'm saying they are the CLOSEST) so EASIEST to compare and know what to nerf.

They aren't close enough. Get that into your head, please.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

Not really since you have diminished vigor for that.

Let me tell you the facts about Diminished Vigor.

1) I can only Diminish one player per 90 seconds that I'm involved in combat. In group PvP and TW, how many people do you think I am likely to encounter in that length of time?

2) Psychics are the most squishy class in PW when Black Voodoo is on, and our DPS isn't anything special without it on. The odds are very good that a Psychic involved in regular and frequent battles is going to try to cover his own **** by using Empowered Vigor on himself. This shares a cooldown with Diminished Vigor, thus meaning he can Diminish no one.

3) Taking the above 1&2 into account, Diminish Vigor is nothing but a ganking skill. It's what you use when your team desperately needs a single person to die, for example a Barbarian pulling catas in TW. Outside of this, the skill doesn't see the light of day for many Psychics.

---

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

A psy on my sever with +11 nirvana is not complaining much and that was before he even had triple spark btw.

Wait, what? Run that by me again?

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

A psy on my sever with +11 nirvana

...One more time, just for clarity...

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

+11 nirvana

Gee I wonder why he's not complaining. You can put ANYONE into +11 Nirvana gear and watch them own people. Do you have any freaking idea how good that gear is? Do you have any idea how hard it is to actually get that gear? I couldn't care less what those cash-shopping (read: cash-wh0ring) TB's think. It has nothing to do with whether or not his class is balanced.

Sorry, but I needed to put some emphasis on that. Forgive the over-quotes. I'll go back to being serious now.

---

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

Of course I agree that PvE is not balanced and neither is PvP for that matter. There's much we can't do about it. HOWEVER this issue I'm talking specifically HERE (remember it's one of the smaller ones) is so blatantly obvious that it's better than wizzie skills it's not even fun.

Even if SOME of our skills are better than the Wizard's similar skills, the fact still remains that you're blatantly ignoring the fact that Wizards have several skills in their own arsenal that are superior to our "similar versions". Some of your skills are better than anything in our entire arsenal. (Can a brotha get a Blade Tempest?) Thus your cry of imbalance loses its ground.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

And Stone Smasher... that one is balanced as a skill but is NOT balanced on a psy who should NOT get a hard nuke.

Explain something to me: Why is it that a DD class should not get a hard nuke, when Clerics have Wield Thunder and Tempest? Ahhh, forgot about that didn't you?

But more than that...

Who the **** are you to decide what a class should and should not get? I don't give a **** what someone in downright godly gear tells you; normal people have a much harder time getting through high level defenses from the attacking perspective of a Psychic. Sadly, we can't debuff 60% of their ERes whenever we damn well please, so I'll once again ask you to stop assuming your Wizard logic applies here. It does NOT apply to us as closely as you think it does. You don't know anything about this class so stop assuming, and open your freaking mind to someone who knows more than you do on the issue.

Borsuc - Raging Tide wrote: »

If you think that it being an AOE does not merit that damage nerf, look at Landslide and Phoenix and compare and see how much the "AOE" part of the phoenix compensates for interrupting channeling AND a much larger mana cost (and skill level) for similar damage.

You are once again crying before you figure out what you're crying about. WotP also has a much wider AoE line, and in all likelyhood, you can very easily affect multiple targets. Crystal Light's AoE line is so crappily narrow, that it rarely accomplishes this. Furthermore, its actually really hard to line targets up from 28m away. As an AoE, it really does fail and fails hard. The slow effect isn't even all that reliable, for all the good slow may or may not even do for you. As a nuke though, its pretty good. So take away the nuke aspect and the skill serves no purpose even existing. This is what you don't seem to understand.

Do you want me make a guide that goes in-depth into why Wizard isn't now, never was, and never will be worse than Psychic as a class? Maybe then you'll quit QQing?

Let me help go to next page....

MagicHamsta - Lost City wrote: »

me finish teh job.
o.o'
also so cute.

they be attempting to argue with each other.
b:chuckle

QQ, teh hamsta is watching us. b:avoid

Hypnos - Raging Tide wrote: »

I have something just for him....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GydyA_cVJNA
(Viewer Discretion is Advised. Only watch this if you can stomach it - Don't say I didn't warn you. And no, I'm not fond of this vid either)

Lol turtles are op, why can't we be turtles?

awesome.. awesome!! awesome!
the spell with 300% dmg on lvl 79 is best.. i am soon lvl 79
i am only lvl 69 and my mag.atk is 4000-5000.. 300% : 12000-15000+ 1200 water..
wth.. i kill people 1 hit in duel with than.
the lvl 100 with 400% and 10k earth damage i guees something crazy too
on lvl 100 i can have 15k-20k mag.atk.. 400%?!!? 80k+10k!!!!!!
how much the spell in lvl 79 with water damage cost??

400% not that much b:surrender u do they will have mag res lowering ur damage right

else wizards would go around one shooting everyone with there 500% sage black ice dragon...wait they do that

it add to weapon damage. The Magic atk you see on screen is already amplified by Magic stat and rings =/

attacker180799 wrote: »

I want to see what exactly does every skill for lvl 100.

This looks like a NECRO!

attacker180799 replied to a message that was 3 years 9 months 14 days 19 hours 42 minutes old.

Any thread over one month (30 days) old is considered to be a dead thread and you're not supposed to post in them. The person you are replying to probably doesn't care any more or can no longer be found on the forums. The topic itself could be out of date. Next time just make a new thread.

Let's see how long it takes for a mod to close this