|Blizzard, a serious word regarding meteor||October-2-2012 6:10 PM PDT (6 years ago)|
|Ive been running a meteor build since 1.03. |
At first, it was very difficult, but as a geared up it became much easier.
The casting delay was something i needed to get used to as well, but it was something that required a little bit of skill to use. And due to this casting delay, i felt that the damage and proc rate were justified. its not like an instant damage spell, and if you dont land a metoer, your survivability could be compormised.
Fast forward to 1.05
you reduce the casting delay. great. a buff.
you increase the damage. great. a buff.
you decrease the proc rate. a nerf.
now, i understand that reducing the casting delay and increaseing the damage would allow people to use meteor without a lot of apoc, max ap, and crit. that was a smart move. It would also allow more geared players with the proper gear to use molten impact and such.
However, i disagree with the way the proc rate was decreased. As much other threads say, it makes meteor useless. Not only does it not proc CM well, it does not proc APOC well either; thus, the APOC becomes useless too.
Now, i understand what your intentions were behind reducing the proc rate. You were simply trying to make it less powerful, while at the same time, accessable to every one out there. However, there are other ways to do this. For instance, increasing the cast delay to 1.5 or 1.75 seconds would be sufficient. Not only would that put the "skill" back in to the spell, but it would be enough so that its easier for people to use. On top of that, a MINOR decrease in proc rate would be acceptable. A balance would be nice. Not such a big decrease in proc rate....
Now with that said, wizards need an end game spell. Archon works well, but you must admit, gear is expensive. I was under the impression that meteor was an end game spell. it required decent gear, some "skill", and had potential to down mobs. Its not one of those spells that you can just click and run around. you have to pay attention.
On top of that, in the wizard description, its supposed to be a AOE DPS class. meteor falls in to that category perfectly.
I would rather you return meteor back to the 2 second delay and the original proc then do what youve done to it in 1.05. Its VERY doable the way it was. nothing was wrong with it imo.
Im not asking for you to buff this and buff that. Nor am i asking that you return metoer and forget this ever happened. Obviously something needs to be done with metoer, because the majority of players are not useing it at all. All i ask is that you take another look at it. Balance it if you feel its unbalanced. The reduced casting time and increased damage was a start to getting players to begin using meteor; however, reducing the proc rate was the 2 steps backward for 1 step forward approach. Less of an overall buff (casting delay and damage) would fix meteor to a point where players would use it. Recuding the proc is not the right way to go.
|Blizzard, a serious word regarding meteor||October-3-2012 1:35 PM PDT (6 years ago)|
|While the proc coefficient on Meteor and its runes is indeed being nerfed, this change really should be viewed within the full context of the patch. Patch 1.0.5 not only introduces changes to defensive bonuses and monster damage, but also the Monster Power system, and numerous crowd control improvements. Combined with the Meteor’s lowered AP cost and decreased delay between cast and impact, these changes made it so Meteor was more appealing to everyone, which is fine. But they also made the skill extremely efficient (in fact: too efficient) to get Critical Mass procs and 100% CC uptime. Efficiency is good, but there needs to a balance. The skill is still very strong, so the tuning on its proc coefficients will hardly trivialize Meteor builds, and we anticipate that it will be brought back to roughly where it is currently in patch 1.0.4. |
That said, skill synergy isn’t where we want it to be for wizards at the moment, and we’re looking at ways to improve that for the future. The sort of changes we’d like to do are more involved than simple numbers-tuning, though, and they weren’t able to make it in with this patch. But are we absolutely working on them.