Death Spell Changes (and Spellement Paths)

[Dylan Windwalker]

I'm lost for words at this point

Are they trying to weaken our spells to make up for steadily increasing stats because they don't know how to make enemies powerful? Spell damage goes down, gear stats goes up, there's a balance at where the game is right now where everything is essentially easy to kill. Do they even have an end goal? What's the context? I've read everybody's posts but at the end of the day, it's speculation. Can a Ki Dev meaningfully explain why? Is this a plan for making the game last longer?

The next thing I know, Deer Knight is a 100 damage AoE just because at level 170-180, death wizards have like 200% Damage? (Of course I'm exaggerating, but I'm kinda not lol)

[Ravino.]

From what Artie has talked about, in the past there really hasn't been "rules" for what Spells should do. Most of the time, they just sort of calculated how much "value" a Spell has (via the Pip Cost), then added a secondary effect and made the rest Damage. It was pure randomness. So, in an attempt to create some more consistency in the game, the Design Team came up with "design rules".

Enter: Templates and the Roshambo!

I already know all this. My confusion isn't about why there's weaknesses on Deer, or why Raging Bull lost its smoke screen - it's all in the name of enforcing the new school identities as defined by the Roshambo.

What I'm confused about is why they're changing the spellemental paths again, the current effects we have in Live were already made with the Roshambo in mind. For all intends and purposes, these spells are already balanced by the current standards - KI even said that at one point - so there shouldn't be any need to change them further. Yet here we are, why?

The same does for the pvp-only Roshambo spells.

---

Also Artie is being somewhat duplicitous if he's saying the way spells were made was "pure randomness", KI always had spell standards... they just tended to be very inconsistent, hence why we had the spell audit: to bring every spell in line with the rules, but the Roshambo didn't create "design rules"; The spell audit began 2 years before the Roshambo was invented and KI was doing fine without it, they invented the Roshambo rules to make schools work as they did in Beastmoon from there onward.

I liked it at first, it was just a few pvp-only spells to give each school its own unique advantages... but I'm not enjoying it anymore because they're using it to replace the school identities we had before. The old features of each school are now called "legacy" features, such as Storm being able to remove Charms and KI is now slowly phrasing them out. Now Storm is supposed to generate blades, remove DoT's and HoT's like they do in Beastmoon - blade removal is supposed to be Ice and Death's business.

I do not appreciate KI wanting to redefine the school identities AT ALL. After 13 years no less!

And if you're transcribing Artie's explanation directly, then I also don't appreciate KI trying to frame the Roshambo as the maker of "design rules", partially because it's untrue and partially because they described it quite differently in the producer's letter about it. However it makes sense Artie would see the system in this way since he's the creator of Beastmoon and, by extension, of the Roshambo but it's still an opinion riddled with personal bias.

~R

[bluedreamer]

I already know all this. My confusion isn't about why there's weaknesses on Deer, or why Raging Bull lost its smoke screen - it's all in the name of enforcing the new school identities as defined by the Roshambo.

What I'm confused about is why they're changing the spellemental paths again, the current effects we have in Live were already made with the Roshambo in mind. For all intends and purposes, these spells are already balanced by the current standards - KI even said that at one point - so there shouldn't be any need to change them further. Yet here we are, why?

The same does for the pvp-only Roshambo spells.

---

Also Artie is being somewhat duplicitous if he's saying the way spells were made was "pure randomness", KI always had spell standards... they just tended to be very inconsistent, hence why we had the spell audit: to bring every spell in line with the rules, but the Roshambo didn't create "design rules"; The spell audit began 2 years before the Roshambo was invented and KI was doing fine without it, they invented the Roshambo rules to make schools work as they did in Beastmoon from there onward.

I liked it at first, it was just a few pvp-only spells to give each school its own unique advantages... but I'm not enjoying it anymore because they're using it to replace the school identities we had before. The old features of each school are now called "legacy" features, such as Storm being able to remove Charms and KI is now slowly phrasing them out. Now Storm is supposed to generate blades, remove DoT's and HoT's like they do in Beastmoon - blade removal is supposed to be Ice and Death's business.

I do not appreciate KI wanting to redefine the school identities AT ALL. After 13 years no less!

And if you're transcribing Artie's explanation directly, then I also don't appreciate KI trying to frame the Roshambo as the maker of "design rules", partially because it's untrue and partially because they described it quite differently in the producer's letter about it. However it makes sense Artie would see the system in this way since he's the creator of Beastmoon and, by extension, of the Roshambo but it's still an opinion riddled with personal bias.

~R

Yet it's all very frustrating them retroactively changing long-standing spells in game. They truly are sucking the life out of this game that has kept me personally playing for 10 years straight, with few days off. I know in the past there was talk of other spin-off 101 games. It would make far more sense for them to create a whole new game, with new spell rules, rather than changing what has been well loved for something that just grinds peoples gears. There's no sense of respect to what the developers created before them, which was so well received the game is now 14 years old, a testament to itself.

[bluedreamer]

So KI are taking the juice now! If you want the old Deer Knight you can BUT you gotta farm the spellements to get the spell you owned for years back again. I bet they think they are doing something good by making us grind and grind, no, not going to happen. I'm not playing your spellement game. I spent hundreds of hours crafting all of these spells, I'm not grinding for something that can and will likely change again. The gentleman in the video thinks losing 1/2 the damage is a good thing

[icourt]

So KI are taking the juice now! If you want the old Deer Knight you can BUT you gotta farm the spellements to get the spell you owned for years back again. I bet they think they are doing something good by making us grind and grind, no, not going to happen. I'm not playing your spellement game. I spent hundreds of hours crafting all of these spells, I'm not grinding for something that can and will likely change again. The gentleman in the video thinks losing 1/2 the damage is a good thing

I didn't watch Goomay's video, but Deer Knight is changing again in the next Novus patch / Novus Live Realm:
- The "base" card is being reverted back to the Damage over Time functionality
- There will be a "No PvP" path with old Damage over Time spellement paths
- Then another path usable in both PvE/PvP with the current Test Realm spellement path (AoE then weakness).

via Cam: "Deer Knight is gonna be split path, between the old DoT path and the new one. For those of you who are wanting old Deer Knight back, there you go."

Hope this helps.
Court
Wiki-Master

[edward sky]

Hm, I don't think spellwrighting is really for me, it just seems like a way to complicate spells way beyond my desire of casual play/set-up.

Not only that they're still relatively lengthy/difficulty to obtain so eh, as long as they're doing this to continue to straighten out school identity by all means keep it up. Death kept their drains of course so it's fine with me, deer being a DOT or not didn't matter much to me.

[Happy Fun Ball]

I didn't watch Goomay's video, but Deer Knight is changing again in the next Novus patch / Novus Live Realm:
- The "base" card is being reverted back to the Damage over Time functionality
- There will be a "No PvP" path with old Damage over Time spellement paths
- Then another path usable in both PvE/PvP with the current Test Realm spellement path (AoE then weakness).

via Cam: "Deer Knight is gonna be split path, between the old DoT path and the new one. For those of you who are wanting old Deer Knight back, there you go."

Hope this helps.
Court
Wiki-Master

Now if they could just make the extra glowy effects for max tier deer knight, like with reindeer knight.

[WarWeaver]

Now if they could just make the extra glowy effects for max tier deer knight, like with reindeer knight.

I hope they give us a option to turn off the glow. I'm not a fan of it.

[Kingurz]

I already know all this. My confusion isn't about why there's weaknesses on Deer, or why Raging Bull lost its smoke screen - it's all in the name of enforcing the new school identities as defined by the Roshambo.

What I'm confused about is why they're changing the spellemental paths again, the current effects we have in Live were already made with the Roshambo in mind. For all intends and purposes, these spells are already balanced by the current standards - KI even said that at one point - so there shouldn't be any need to change them further. Yet here we are, why?

The same does for the pvp-only Roshambo spells.

---

Also Artie is being somewhat duplicitous if he's saying the way spells were made was "pure randomness", KI always had spell standards... they just tended to be very inconsistent, hence why we had the spell audit: to bring every spell in line with the rules, but the Roshambo didn't create "design rules"; The spell audit began 2 years before the Roshambo was invented and KI was doing fine without it, they invented the Roshambo rules to make schools work as they did in Beastmoon from there onward.

I liked it at first, it was just a few pvp-only spells to give each school its own unique advantages... but I'm not enjoying it anymore because they're using it to replace the school identities we had before. The old features of each school are now called "legacy" features, such as Storm being able to remove Charms and KI is now slowly phrasing them out. Now Storm is supposed to generate blades, remove DoT's and HoT's like they do in Beastmoon - blade removal is supposed to be Ice and Death's business.

I do not appreciate KI wanting to redefine the school identities AT ALL. After 13 years no less!

And if you're transcribing Artie's explanation directly, then I also don't appreciate KI trying to frame the Roshambo as the maker of "design rules", partially because it's untrue and partially because they described it quite differently in the producer's letter about it. However it makes sense Artie would see the system in this way since he's the creator of Beastmoon and, by extension, of the Roshambo but it's still an opinion riddled with personal bias.

~R

We all know the answer of why the spellements are getting revision after revision until something sticks.....PvP complaints. However, KI won't say it, because they keep pointing to the "template, DPP, Roshambo, etc" is if they are following an established rule set that oddly keeps being adjusted just like the original set of developers did subjectively. The difference is the new dev team (PvP focused) is changing old spells; the old dev team (PvE focused) would add a whole new spell to make the adjustment. PvE players will just have to settle for whatever is left from the dust. What's worse on the newest changes for Death is that it there are even more conditionals involving your opponent having not just one HoT, but more than one. Barely anyone uses HoTs in PvP and enemies in the PvE arcs where you receive these spells don't HoT at all. HoT conditionals in Beastmoon/Mayhem work, because that system was designed balanced from the beginning and you actually have a scenario of enemies creating an opportunity.

Thankfully, the DoT was added back to Deer as a path, but one of the reasons listed for removing it was that it wasn't Death's identity in Roshambo....yet we still have poison, Skel Dragon, and Avenging. Not sure if that is a warning for those spells in the future. Fools is clearly a better option for first round enchanted strike, but what I don't understand from players in favor of the Deer change is yes, you can hit harder on the first hit of the spell, but no one is discussing the weakness utility that was added? If the "good" aspect of the deer change is the first hit enchant, why aren't those players asking for the weakness to be removed and up the damage on deer to be over Fools? If you are alpha striking with Deer anyways, you don't need the weakness. Enchanting Deer DoT is actually more overall damage than Fools or Deer with weakness (just takes longer....like DoTs are suppose to).

[An81angel]

My response to Deer Knight. KI - doesn't this fall under the category of bait and switch. Offering one item FOR PURCHASE then changing the item after the sale is completed.

What KI should have done is KEEP the original spell as is for all the existing players, then offer the alternate path choice via spellement path upgrades. Instead, from what I hear, to get your original Deer Knight back you have to choose it via path upgrade. Yeah bait and switch.... ILLEGAL.

KI "hey, buy a bunch of packs to get this cool spell/ement drop"
Everyone "wow that's a great spell - here's my money"
KI "So remember that spell you bought years ago? Yeah, we got rid of it. Sorry, not sorry"
Everyone "***!?!"
KI "Oh, but maybe if you really want your spell back, you can choose to upgrade it to your original spell you paid for years ago. Oh, and here's the pack sale that offers the spellements needed to get your original spell back. Give us your money".

Bait and Switch is illegal in the USA. It is an unfair and deceptive act or practice to Advertise merchandise for sale (deer knight via pack sales), then substituting an inferior item (changing the item to be not what was advertised). Then offering another option for more money as an alternative (give more money to purchase spellements to turn your already purchased deer knight back into the item you originally purchased).