[Warlocks] Do you use Arcane Projection before casting Sultar's Terror?

[Ulmanyar]

Hello everyone!

The poll in this thread is directed towards people who play the warlock class in war - and only to those players! If you do not match the criteria, do not answer the question, but feel free to read the post(s).



Background:
There have been some discussions about the use of Terror recently. The background to these discussions is that a lot of people thinks that bigger wars have turned into a sole matter of "who-casts-terror-first". This is, of course, an over-simplification of the situation, but I still believe we all can recognize the situation where one group manages to cast a successful Terror. That Terror is then followed by chain areas and, ultimately, total elimination of the enemy army.

Some time ago, NGD decided to change the behavior of Sultar's Terror. Instead of being at the fixed range 30m it was changed to "range 0", which means the same range as the staff of the caster. The result was that many Warlocks now had the ability to cast Terror on a target from a distance of 30m + 15% of 30m, which equals to 34.5m.

There are also other changes that might be of interest (such as the change of "Winter Stroke"), but I won't list them.



My first question:
The reason I post this poll is because I (as well as many others) want(s) to change the game so that the impact of Sultar's Terror isn't as big as it is today since we believe it destroys good gameplay. In order to do this and improve the gameplay, we have to understand why the impact of Terror is so huge.

Yes, "because it has knock, damage and range 0", but that's not enough information to fully understand the issue. So, as a first step I will ask how many Warlocks that actually do cast Arcane Projection before they try to cast Sultar's Terror.


Please answer as accordingly as possible. And if you do not play a warlock in war, please do not answer the poll at all since it will distort the results.

[Carpi]

Depend of the situation. The most of the times, I think.

[Nightchill]

rarely. i just switch to med/30. cba to waste time on spell like projection.

[Bardar]

I always use a med 30 staff with arcane projection when I use sultar. Always.

The only time I dont is when I forget to switch to med 30, and in that case i end up using a fast 25 staff with arcane projection..

[Brother-brian]

I have only gotten sultar to even work about 20% of the time anyway, even with a 30 staff, it almost ALWAYS says "out of range", but im still getting hit by about 1-2 dozen arrows. And i cant even tell how the hell to visually judge "25m" vs "30m" anyway.

And when it does cast, it gets resisted.

Screw it, Im puttin power points somewhere else. Maybe in "Arcane Missile".... which is soon to be the most powerful spell available, lol.

[Mattdoesrock]

I definatly do if it's part of a planned area rush, and I'm trying to open up with Terror, but other than that, probably not.

[thegordo]

You reveal the real reason for your "Poll" here :

"My first question:
The reason I post this poll is because I (as well as many others) want(s) to change the game so that the impact of Sultar's Terror isn't as big as it is today since we believe it destroys good gameplay. In order to do this and improve the gameplay, we have to understand why the impact of Terror is so huge."

So you want to change the game, oh... and the "Others" that you mention too... yes, i get it, you have major problems in organising and even more serious problems in communication when engaging enemies in fort wars, and something that is a small part of the ingredients that make up the holding+taking of forts & castles you wish to do your utmost to try to get it nerfed...

So what in your volition is "Good Gameplay" ? And why does ST Destroy it ?

Why do you think that your...or shall we say you and "Many others" idea about this is going to "Improve" gameplay ?

I am a Warlock, and i use ST, and i am targeted as a result of this, and i realise its not the be all and end all of battles, its a useful area amongst other classe's useful areas...

As for your original Q, AP i don't often use as i wish to put the points into other skills and trees.

[platyna]

I don't. Whole SM tree is a waste of points for Warlock. Anyway if someone insits to make it range 30, I am fine with it. However I pointed the issue it will make arcane projection utterly pointless skill, since many warlocks uses it for the sole purpose of casting sultar.

Regards.

[Ulmanyar]

Originally Posted by thegordo

So you want to change the game, oh... and the "Others" that you mention too... yes, i get it, you have major problems in organising and even more serious problems in communication when engaging enemies in fort wars, and something that is a small part of the ingredients that make up the holding+taking of forts & castles you wish to do your utmost to try to get it nerfed...

So what in your volition is "Good Gameplay" ? And why does ST Destroy it ?

Why do you think that your...or shall we say you and "Many others" idea about this is going to "Improve" gameplay ?

I am a Warlock, and i use ST, and i am targeted as a result of this, and i realise its not the be all and end all of battles, its a useful area amongst other classe's useful areas...

It might be the written language (and the fact that I'm not a native English speaker), but you almost seem offended by my question? Well, I don't know where to start, but I'll make a try to explain this poll/thread. And please, don't accuse me of trying to do my "utmost [...] to get it nerfed", since I'm only trying to understand what's causing my (sometimes bad) experiences of Sultar's Terror. But first, I'd like to point out that:

• I mainly play a warlock on the higher populated server Ra.
• I don't speak Spanish. So, yes, communication with my realm mates is a problem sometimes. But even on Horus this is a problem, since some (most?) people never listens to good advice, such as "spread out to avoid Terror".
• When I play at Horus, I don't see the full problem with Terror as often, because of lower population.
• This is not only about fort wars (I personally don't enjoy the actual pounding-doors-and-GCs part of the game as much as the open-field fights).

Then I'll start with your question about why I believe that Terror sometimes ruins good gameplay: When there are two armies with almost similar firepower and numbers, you could expect a fair fight where the tactically and/or more skilled side will win (most of the times). However, with the current implementation of Sultar's Terror, the result of the fight often boils down to a matter of which group is the first to cast a successful Terror on the other. After that, I often experience chain areas and a rush that completely eliminates the other army.

Yes, there are some ways to stop this: effective use of knights (nerfed), effective use of conjurers (nerfed), effective use of marksmen (nerfed), and better tactics (yes, this is a problem, and I really wish my realm could have better tactics sometimes).

So, instead of an exciting, fair fight between the two groups - where intensive care for keeping individuals in your group alive, and at the same time kill your enemies - we get a duel between the warlocks in each group. I can have 62% cast speed bonus, which allows me to cast Terror in 1.14s, so sometimes it's even only a matter of who's warlock has the best items. This is, in my opinion, one of the things that ruins gameplay, since the result of the fight is not a product of the skills of each individual.

If there was a good way for each player in both groups to cancel or negate the effect of Terror (using protective buffs or CC spells on warlocks) I believe this wouldn't have been such an issue. And since not a lot of classes have CC spells with 34.5m range I want to know if Arcane Projection is used by Warlocks in general, because then a change of range to 30 (as the old Terror) could be a solution to the problem. Another solution would be to replace Knockdown with Stun. Other solution could be strengthening knight buffs, add or change some auras, bring back range 0 of Winter Stroke etc.


As for my understanding of the concept "good gameplay", I think the best way to describe it is to use my own words, with some additions:

Interesting gameplay, where the key is intensive care for keeping individuals in your group alive and at the same time try to kill your enemies and stop them from killing you. As a part of this, no single character should have the power to drastically change the outcome of a fight, at least not without an imminent risk of interference or interruption.


But then again, "good gameplay" is a fuzzy concept as it is more of a feeling than something you can actually express in words.

[Sicker]

i've thought about it. so far i've done okay without. but i still think about it....