An elegant way to balance Cast When Damage Taken

[Removed by Admin]

Ice, can you please explain why a gem that is best at level 1 is something we want in the game?

ggnore, interesting feedback

1. opportunity cost, and a valid point. While it doesn't mean its balanced, it definitely isn't completely and utterly broken.

2. Gem slots are dependant on build for availability, but same reason koams is not just instant wint

3. This makes no sense. 99% of gems are best at level 20. Do you know why? Because thats the point, you want to level them up. Clarity is also best at level 20, most just can't afford to get it there and run it. Infact every gem is, the only reason gems aren't level 20 is due to resource management, be it mana/health or passive stats.

4. This is true, no one disagrees. it can be very useful though for ones you don't care if are triggered a lot, like MS's armour boost (but not the damage when broken)

5. I don't get it. Do you think all gems should be best at level 1, and if you level them they get worse. Or as per your statement in #3, should we have random 'effective' points for them. So we have Spark. At level 12 its best. Increasing the level after this decreases the cast speed. Why? Because its best at level 12, and its nice to have gems that work well at different levels

6. The other gems are primarily % chance to activate, while this is gaurenteed after certain damage

7. We aren't jumping to conclusions. The conclusions are clearly along a basic path of logic. While you might not find an end-game use for it, that is up to you, but it clearly has great value in its use, while the issue remains that its not worth levelling up

"

RogueMage написал:

[Removed by Admin]

Ironically we both see a different problem with the gem, although I believe we don't disagree with the other just feel our problem si more important.

[Removed by Admin]

[Removed by Admin]

There are a few character types that don't need cwdt (summoner and dual totem), but it should be a net gain for everyone else defensively. Its a no-brainer for melee and close ranged skills. This single gem has probably been the main component to get 2 of my characters through act 3 merciless since release. As such, I think it would be more balanced if it reserved the mana cost of the gems it is linked to.

For example, if cwdt is linked to a single enduring cry gem that normally cost 38 mana, then when equipping this gem, 38 of your mana is reserved. When leveled, cwdt could lower the reserve below 100%. These changes would give cwdt an actual cost and more reason to level the gem.

This change would not likely be bad for blood magic or non-int characters as well.

"

gh0un написал:

I dont understand why everyone tries so hard to get this nerfed.
This support was one of the best additions to the game in a long time.
It automates several processes that were very tedious to do: casting buffs/curses.
Implementing quality of life changes to games should always be top priority in a game, and this support is the epitome of quality of life.

couldn't agree more. the fluidity of the gameplay feel soooo much better and smooth than before because of this and the other trigger gems added.

I guess I take issue with the argument that it is "No-brainer for melee and ranged"

What ranged builds are you guys using where you get pounded all the time and can keep molten shell and endurance charges up? My rangers and witches rarely get hit... and the benefit provided from using that 4 link for something else is almost always preferred.

Are you guys mostly talking about late Normal and Cruel? Because I really don't find the gem powerful in late game play. I haven't tried using it through Cruel so maybe it is a much better leveling tool. If so, I definitely see no reason to add a significant additional cost.

I just think any sort of mana cost defeats the purpose. It is more effective to just cast it then. I personally already find it more effective to cast linked spells, with the exception being curses. And how would it know what to reserve if it 4 linked, anyways? The highest individual cost? The total combined cost of the supported skills?

"

ggnorekthx написал:

I guess I take issue with the argument that it is "No-brainer for melee and ranged"

What ranged builds are you guys using where you get pounded all the time and can keep molten shell and endurance charges up? My rangers and witches rarely get hit... and the benefit provided from using that 4 link for something else is almost always preferred.

Are you guys mostly talking about late Normal and Cruel? Because I really don't find the gem powerful in late game play. I haven't tried using it through Cruel so maybe it is a much better leveling tool. If so, I definitely see no reason to add a significant additional cost.

I just think any sort of mana cost defeats the purpose. It is more effective to just cast it then. I personally already find it more effective to cast linked spells, with the exception being curses. And how would it know what to reserve if it 4 linked, anyways? The highest individual cost? The total combined cost of the supported skills?

I disagree aswell that it is a no-brainer, you do have to use your brain.

That being said, most builds do take damage at some point, even ranged/summoners. Admittedly ranged take it elss often, but it still occurs or else you would build pure glass cannon.

The gem is still definitely very powerful, and allows you to have good defenses on builds that inevitably take damage, which considring bosses/ranged mobs is 99% of builds.

The issue is that there is no reason to level it beyond level 1. Why level something that gets worse. No one has provided any argument about why this is a positive thing, only things made up, such as 'cleave is better at level 5 (because mana cost increases and ele dmg doesn't)' or 'clarity is not levelled to max' (because mana cost increases and most builds can't handle that'

No one seems to know why we would want to have levelling a gem make it worse

But people are still posting saying this idea is wrong

"

JohnNamikaze написал:

"

RogueMage написал:

At lvl-1, CWDT would cast triggered spells at 70% of their mana cost and produce 70% less damage. As you leveled up the gem, mana cost would decrease and damage would increase, but the damage trigger would increase as well. This would give players an incentive to increase gem level to the point where CWDT triggers often enough to be useful, but without excessive mana drain. The number of spells linked to CWDT would likewise be naturally limited by the amount of mana needed to support them.

When you mean damage trigger would increase, you mean that the likelihood of the spells being cast when the player takes damage as the gem levels up, increases?

No, my description may have been a little too concise. As you level-up the CWDT gem, the damage level that triggers the linked spells rises to a higher threshold. As a result, the gem is triggered less often (assuming all other conditions remain the same).

If CWDT was revised to consume a scaled fraction of the linked spells' casting cost, it would drain less mana over time, both because the gem is triggered less often and because the fractional mana cost decreases as you level-up the gem. If the gem's damage scaling factor was applied to scale mana cost, it would consume 70% of the linked spells' normal casting cost at CWDT lvl-1 and decrease to 38% at lvl-9. I think that would provide a significant motivation to level-up the gem, in spite of the fact that it would then trigger less often.