Ring of Ice vs Ring of Cold

[Sell]

<DIV>Okay, Ring of Ice is 49 more power (201 vs 152), and as far as I can tell the only "upgrade" is that the slow effect is 57% instead of 53%.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Did I just waste a Pearl getting Ring of Ice?</DIV>

[adamflanagan]

i havent bothered getting RoI at all yet. RoC is still working fine for me. i'm certainly not going to use a pearl/vanadium on it for a long time. <div></div>

[QQ-Fatman]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Sell77 wrote:<BR> <DIV>Okay, Ring of Ice is 49 more power (201 vs 152), and as far as I can tell the only "upgrade" is that the slow effect is 57% instead of 53%. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Did I just waste a Pearl getting Ring of Ice?</DIV><BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV>And RoC = 30sec, RoI = 36sec.</DIV>

[Beghard]

RoI adept3 is just incredible. Going from a RoC to a RoI vital, and so is having it at adept3. The A3 breaks way less than the A1 and it has a better slow than truss breaks less and is way stronger at A3 than it is at A1. They got this spell right. <div></div>

[curtlewis]

<blockquote><hr>Beghard wrote:They got this spell right. <div></div><hr></blockquote>Except for the recent, improperly justified duration nerf, yeah, they did.The excuse to reduce the duration because it's AoE is hogwash. The spell mana cost is much higher because it's AoE. We've been double nerfed yet again.

[Nimington]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> curtlewis wrote:<BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Beghard wrote:<BR>They got this spell right.<BR> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>Except for the recent, improperly justified duration nerf, yeah, they did.<BR><BR>The excuse to reduce the duration because it's AoE is hogwash. The spell mana cost is much higher because it's AoE. We've been double nerfed yet again.<BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Actually when they anounced the new way that roots would work with LU13 they said that aoe's were supposed to be shorter duration than single targe roots.  This change was done to reflect that.  As for the power, well look at it this way how much does your aoe attack cost, and how much does it do to EACH mob?  Guess what, you pay more and do less per mob, BUT RoC can hold a group of 5 mobs for a total of 2min and 30 sec (not elapsed, but total mob/seconds, like man hours).

[QQ-Fatman]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Crinisen wrote:<BR><BR><BR>As for the power, well look at it this way how much does your aoe attack cost, and how much does it do to EACH mob?  <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE>I only know ice comet costs the same mana and only does slightly higher damage than devastation EACH mob...<BR>

[Grimda]

<DIV>Do you get fewer initial resists upgrading this spell?  My Adept III truss is not very reliable so I've been hesitant to upgrade RoI to adept III.</DIV>

[Scythien]

<P>RoI is a higher level spell so should get resisted less than RoC in theory.</P> <P>And I reccoment getting both that and Truss up to Ad3 (or better) and double-root mobs for extra security :smileywink:</P>

[Articulas]

i know one thing....as wizards we can take very few hits before we taking a dirt nap. when we have to go against 4+ solo mobs at one time, i need that root to hold, i dont mind the random break from one or two to keep it interesting but i dont' really want to take a dirt nap because the root wears off or all break premature :smileyhappy:

[curtlewis]

<div></div><i>Actually when they anounced the new way that roots would work with LU13 they said that aoe's were supposed to be shorter duration than single targe roots.  This change was done to reflect that.  As for the power, well look at it this way how much does your aoe attack cost, and how much does it do to EACH mob?  Guess what, you pay more and do less per mob, BUT RoC can hold a group of 5 mobs for a total of 2min and 30 sec (not elapsed, but total mob/seconds, like man hours). </i> I never saw any such posts.  AOE spells cost more because they affect more targets.  That's no reason to double nerf them on the duration, too. You're wrong.  RoC holds 5 mobs for a max of 36 seconds.  You can multiply it out if you want, but the mobs are still on you... all five of them... after 36 seconds.  And most likely long before that.  Multiplying it out to root hours or whatever is just distorting the reality. And I'd like to second the comment about Ice Comet only doing slightly more damage that Devastation which is an AoE spell for pretty much the same mana cost and Devastation casts 1 second faster as well. You'd think they'd address the obvious and more unbalancing issues like that rather that  double nerfing someone's root and beefing the root up for an already overpowered class. Warlocks get 19 spells from 50.1-50, Wizards get 15.  Wizards get 1 debuff, Warlocks several.  Looks like they nerfed the wrong class to me... <div></div><p>Message Edited by curtlewis on <span class=date_text>11-22-2005</span> <span class=time_text>08:09 PM</span>

[Ghostbeard]

<span><blockquote><hr>curtlewis wrote:<div></div>You'd think they'd address the obvious and more unbalancing issues like that rather that  double nerfing someone's root and beefing the root up for an already overpowered class. <div></div><p>Message Edited by curtlewis on <span class="date_text">11-22-2005</span> <span class="time_text">08:09 PM</span></p><hr></blockquote> It doesn't help that you have morons who are constantly crowing that we (wizards) are overpowered and SHOULD be nerfed. When you look at the Warlock community - they tend to be a very coherent bunch who have each others back and have little tolerance for poseurs who follow then entire community around and start screaming and hooting like angry little fan-boi monkies whenever someone posts a criticism or concern about the class. When you compare the fact that warlocks stick together and speak with one voice very loudly when they've been nerfed or perceive they've been treated unfairly - to the wizard community where you have idiots that meet every nerf or ill-advised combat change with a "YEAH! We NEEDED THAT!" - it starts to be pretty clear why things shake out they way they do sometimes. -GB- </span><div></div>

[IllusiveThoughts]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> Ghostbeard wrote:<BR><SPAN><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> curtlewis wrote:<BR> <BR>You'd think they'd address the obvious and more unbalancing issues like that rather that  double nerfing someone's root and beefing the root up for an already overpowered class.<BR><BR> <P>Message Edited by curtlewis on <SPAN class=date_text>11-22-2005</SPAN><SPAN class=time_text>08:09 PM</SPAN><BR></P> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR>It doesn't help that you have morons who are constantly crowing that we (wizards) are overpowered and SHOULD be nerfed.<BR><BR>When you look at the Warlock community - they tend to be a very coherent bunch who have each others back and have little tolerance for poseurs who follow then entire community around and start screaming and hooting like angry little fan-boi monkies whenever someone posts a criticism or concern about the class.<BR><BR>When you compare the fact that warlocks stick together and speak with one voice very loudly when they've been nerfed or perceive they've been treated unfairly - to the wizard community where you have idiots that meet every nerf or ill-advised combat change with a "YEAH! We NEEDED THAT!" - it starts to be pretty clear why things shake out they way they do sometimes.<BR><BR>-GB-<BR><BR></SPAN> <BR> <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE><BR> <DIV>it's pretty obvious there were a ton of warlocks back when they got their first tweak and got some serious dmg output.  That ton of warlocks wanted to stay on top and make sure they never lost that edge.  Wizards on the other hand never had that so called advantage.  I think thats why the warlock community has 15 page threads when something goes wrong.  while the wizard's get 10 posts if we are lucky.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>I think some people are just tired of complaining.  Myself included, and just roll with the punches.  I see something I do not like, (our root nerf) I voice my opinion.  I find it amusing that just a few wizards even bothered to post in that thread. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>some things I do know, </DIV> <DIV>can we expect more root changes in the future "most definately"</DIV> <DIV>will they be good "probably not"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>can we expect changes to our aoes in the future "probably"</DIV> <DIV>will it be good "i hope so"</DIV><p>Message Edited by IllusiveThoughts on <span class=date_text>11-23-2005</span> <span class=time_text>09:28 AM</span>

[Grimda]

<DIV> <DIV>I know two high-level warlocks on butcherblock.  When we group I notice they often pull aggro w/ their AOE and make crowd control impossible. Since our nukes, dots, and stuns can be focused, we seem much more useful in hazardous situations.  Despite warlocks abiity to do impressive dmg and easily solo, 50+ wizard has the superior combination of skills for most grouping situations.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV></DIV> <DIV> </DIV>

[Nimington]

<BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR> You're wrong.  RoC holds 5 mobs for a max of 36 seconds.  You can multiply it out if you want, but the mobs are still on you... all five of them... after 36 seconds.  And most likely long before that.  Multiplying it out to root hours or whatever is just distorting the reality.<BR><BR>And I'd like to second the comment about Ice Comet only doing slightly more damage that Devastation which is an AoE spell for pretty much the same mana cost and Devastation casts 1 second faster as well. <HR> </BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Sorry, but i'm going to differ on the first point with you, I look at it differntly, but i would say neither you nor I are "wrong" I respect your opinion and way of looking at the issue and request the same from you.</P> <P>The second point, yah unfortunatly that's what i get for posting at work, didnt have numbers, but a bit in my defense, IC is our specialty and probably one of the best damage/power ratio spells.  Before anyone replies on that even, yes it's a week defense. <img src="/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /><BR></P>