Accepted Buff mage's spellbooster skill speed

another bypassing NL : c...can I add shadow partner on list? its delay sucks
other every classes : can I ask every buffs range matches with SE? SI got boofed why not HS/HB :^) It's QoL! Ah, I missed to ask '5min buff time' to match it with most of 5min buffs, why not.

I'm still doubtful for asking every stuffs under name of QoL, I feel the word 'QoL' is heavily abused somehow.

It's been always 'QoL ynot' vs 'not v62like'. Sadly, im side of being authentic unless i feel heavy needs of change, and 2 sec mage booster delay isn't enough to change my mind, personally.

 

go on a rope to buff, its faster

 

i do think that extending the time for which the booster is active would be a better idea, since other skills such as MW and HS also take ages to the animation finish. For me i think 5 minutes or more is a nice active time for the booster.

 

To expand on my previous question, what warrants a difference in skill cast time? Of course, in a world where everybody gets everything they desire, all the skills would be short and smooth with no delay. Sure, there really is no real purpose in having a skill take longer to cast than others, similar to how there really is no real justification in not increasing the duration of certain skills. However, tweaking things little by little using the justification of - "well that class has ___, so we deserve it as well" - for the sake of 'quality of life' will only serve to push uniformity.

The reason I suggested perhaps we can have a trade-off is because Spell Booster is seen as such a given, especially with its low mana cost. For a class that has such a large mana pool by mid-game, a measly 30 mp cost is 1/1000th of a mage's mana pool by lvl 140+. By making the skill cost a significant amount, mages would have to think twice about utilizing Spell Booster, like an NL would think twice about using Shadow Partner for casual play like card hunting. I also like the dual purpose as an added sink to mage playstyle.

 

That sounds like a potentially dangerous view. "Well that class has damage, so we deserve it as well", and suddenly any and all efforts of balance become trivialized. The justification for mage booster speed is that quite literally every other class already has a uniform booster, or (in bishop case) doesnt even have to cast it. In general, I'd agree with the notion that the uniform solution is not always the best solution, but to wave off needed balance to keep differences for differences sake seems worse.

We dont have a listing here for a normal booster or si cast time to compare, but it's interesting that a 3-second booster for a 200-second buff means an arch-mage spends 1.5% of their time simply casting this one skill. I'm fully in the camp of at least making spell booster last longer to match its cast time. It is still weaker than traditional boosters anytime dispels are in play, but hopefully makes an archmage feel like a rock less often.

Regardless of thoughts on the necessity of more "mage taxes" or ultimate redesign, spell booster just isnt the place to put it. None if the 3rd job mages are largely viewed as problematic in the gamespace. Even if f/p misting is thought to be too fast, booster isnt going to rein in their eph if at all due to misting being limited by movement speed not casting speed and use of a finishing character to outsource any other speed issues. Priest/bishop doesnt even get booster, so theyll dodge any kind of tax put on booster. Thus any tax put on booster is to impact 3rd job i/l and 4th job archmages, but if the issue is in ultimate gameplay, I (will continue to) say fix the ultimate rather than bandaid around it. Current optimal mage-ult farming doesnt even USE spell booster.

Considering part of the arch-mage identity seems to be faster and stronger spell casting compared to their holy, supportive counterparts, I'd also like to add that genesis is faster than blizz/meteor even after paying the booster cast-time tax.

Tl;dr Make spell booster better not simply to remove uniqueness from the game, but to put something in line that should have been the entire time. Either let mages read le funny spellbook faster or let then remember what they read longer than 200 seconds. And take the mage tax elsewhere; I agree theres fixing needed, but this is far from the right place.

 

I suggested later on that Spell Booster cast speed, duration, and mana cost be added onwards past level 11 so as to not impact 3rd job mages as much.

For balance sake, these are non-factors with no definitive answer. Why does SE last 5 minutes with a shorter cast time? Why does x do y when z doesn't? However, I am more concerned about the slippery slope in which players push for uniformity by comparison. Are mages in need of a buff to make them more comparable to their counterparts? The only argument I've seen so far is quality of life improvement, which isn't invalid. Like I said, in a world where everybody gets everything they want, every class would be the same. There would need to be some sort of trade-off to make it a lateral change, otherwise it'd be a direct buff.

 

Archmages can also teleport while casting booster, so its not like you are stuck in 1 spot for 3 seconds. You can time the cast with repositioning so you lose less total time overall.

 

That thinking only serves to obfuscate any design for the sake of it, especially when the answers have, in fact, been given. Put more straightforward, booster skills have a booster cast time and booster duration for booster effect. It doesnt have to be this way, but it *is* this way because it makes sense to human players (who happen to be the ones playing this game). So when I ask why mage booster is different than every other booster in the game, this isnt meant to be time for your existential tea party, it is quite simply asking "is the game better for making such a change?".

Under similar questionably existential reasoning let's say instead of buffing mm damage when they were considered weaker than bm we gave them a faster or even longer se. It'd be the kind of lateral change that stops the uniformity you are so afraid of. And yet, it's a disgustingly inelegant solution from both a mechanical design standpoint, and a player satisfaction standpoint. But Y not amirite? If mage booster acting like every other booster in the game throws off the rest of the balance, fix it elsewhere. You say quality of life improvement isnt invalid, yet immediately invalidate it saying that there needs to be more than that.

 

Not invalidating the suggestion at all, just adding my justifications as to why I think 'quality of life improvement' seems insufficient of a reason in this particular case. It's not invalid to ask for buffs, but to ask for buffs "because it'd make my experience playing this game better" doesn't serve as much of a justification, imo. Almost any suggestion asking to buff any aspect of the game could fall under the justification for 'quality of life improvement'. Make, limitless meso cap, sure, quality of life. Make travel faster 100x - that would also improve quality of life. Hell, making any buff lagless (hello Shadow Star) would be a quality of life improvement as well. But if the justification for "quality of life" applies in one instance for Spell Booster, should it suffice as enough reasoning for every other long skill in this game? This thread alone seems to suggest just that.

Now granted, I'm not against the idea of just making everything faster - I'd stand to benefit from any positive change myself. However to quote:

For some reason, I feel like it wouldn't. I think knowing to hang on rope or to set a specific macro cast order to shorten cast delay are little nuances of Maplestory that I enjoy.

 

I'm not sure why booster cast time should open the gate to other skills like hs or mw, which are an entirely different class of skills. "If it looks like a booster, quacks like a booster, it's a booster". Yet this one is gimped because... cool spellbook animation? The other examples you quote "meso cap" and "travel time" have wider design considerations around them, we both know that. Suggesting the small change shouldnt be done because it could justify unrelated changes makes no sense. Even if the thread suggests that ( which I dont believe it does), it does not change my argument. Give the booster skill a booster treatment.

And fwiw, if youll put a rope anywhere I need it or let me make my own, I'll concede to your rope cast point. Otherwise, it's just as out of touch as the above "use a cs transform and get hit" suggestion.

 

IMO, the extended cast duration on Spell Booster was designed so as to distinguish it from other boosters (mages unlocking it in the 3rd job with a class-unique animation vs other classes unlocking it in their 2nd with a uniform animation). At its implementation, I think the extended duration was given for no apparent reason, and it simply was 'just the way it is'.

However, if a change is made to reduce the cast time on Spell Booster, it begs the question:
If extended cast duration on Spell Booster is considered 'bad design' and reducing it can improve quality of life, is extended cast duration on other skills considered 'bad design' as well, and would 'improving quality of life' be enough justification for its changes? Or are those skills given extended cast durations because 'it is just the way it is'?

Is there an apparent reason to give any other buff an extended duration?

 

By that logic, a 3rd job booster should be better than a 2nd job booster, not worse...

You are once again generalizing far beyond the scope of the argument. Booster = Booster. Mw = mw. Booster != hs. It can beg the question if unrelated skills also deserve changes because of booster inequality however many times it wants, the answer is still an obvious no. Why do you keep bringing it up?

 

-ovv is asking a fair question here which you're avoiding for some reason. I'm not very convinced by the arguments made so far why mages booster should be made faster so I'd love to see that question answered.

By your logic bandits and assassins shadow shifter should be equal because shadow shifter = shadow shifter right?