Base mana regeneration is just too low

"

StillSingle wrote:

probably will at some stage, haven't decided what bow user to make.

Then again, I might just stick to pure life builds from now on :P BM only!! :) My witch, even when I get to 120% regen and 1000 mana can only sustain the 3L FP for 70% of the time (using Zaka's awesome spreadsheet). That is pitiful :( And the only reason it had that much up time? I didn't stack any other auras.... had 800 mana for it to chunk through before it ran out :( in and out mana is not close to right yet.

I can't see how bringing mana costs down (unless everything was 12 mana at max level) is going to make things fair between a sopell vs attack. Witch stacking mana should be able to cast kick arse spells without going dry. Especially only a 3L. What's the point if int stacking otherwise?

FlickerFlare, I have 1 Mana pot on my belt, it's ALWAYS dry. as soon as there is a blue mob, dry. as soon as there is a white mob. dry. and it doesn't stop me from running out of mana. (other 4 flasks, are 3x HP, and 1x Quicksilver).

To reiterate (I think I lost my point in the prior paragraph), witchypoo cannot kill a rare enemy before I've run a full MP flask completely dry, and had to runaway because of out of mana issues.

Perhaps you've leveled your gems above a point where they are viably maintained?

"

StillSingle wrote:

In fact, I can only get another 60% increased mana regen without going well out of my way in the witch build I have set up. That will bring me to 120%. This would bring the uptime of the same FP to 47.13%. Still not even close to 100%, and that would be with 20% ish mana node investment excluding travel.

What impact does a single 60-mana affix give you? Just look in column 3.

One thing that's become painfully obvious with all this is just how important mana on gear is for skill support. And, sadly, it's a damned prefix :(. That puts it completely at odds with defense. This is all about the offense-defense tradeoff.

One experiment: wearing 100% worth of regen on accessories, how much more +mana on gear will you need to break 50% uptime? It should be on the order of 2 affixes. Plug that in. 100% additional regen, 120 additional mana on gear. Bet you break 50%.

Again, this is why I consider CI a glass cannon talent. Mana affixes have a massive effect on your casting uptime, and without CI you literally can't afford any at all (except maybe on rings). Much larger of an effect than mana passives, usually. Even more of an effect if you happen to have mana passives and high regen bonuses already. With CI you can afford to carry mana affixes.

And, yes: I put a disclaimer at the bottom there, regen from clarity is off by a little bit because of how google dogs works. Your final calculated regen should be within a few percent of your character screen. If it isn't, send me screenshots. Also, I need more complete progression info on clarity - the info on the wiki currently has lots of holes.

Freezing pulse is fair, single. FP build is about one of the most effective in the game. If you're suggesting buffing THAT one, you haven't considered all options. Remember, you don't need anywhere near 100% uptime. Try for 50%, and make sure you're evaluating all reasonable changes to build and equipment. I was able to figure out how to get 5-linked EK above 50% uptime with the right build and accessories, so you can work out a 4-link FP :). Also - cast speed. Don't focus so heavily on it.

I believe Freezing Pulse is the cheapest spell in the game (base-cost), though don't quote me on that... it certainly is trivial to support compared to Arc, Shock Nova, Ice Nova, Firestorm, et cetera...

"

Islidox wrote:

Obviously the reasoning behind this was because I don't have enough mana to support my skills running the aura, or auras. For Rangers, Grace is a must have, no two ways about it. As a Frenzy/physical Ranger, Haste makes a very nice addition especially after the buff and Hatred takes advantage of physical damage. At the current stage, I can't support more than 2 auras at once, otherwise I'd literally have NO mana to attack with. Due to the Blood Magic having a ridiculous cost muliplier, I have to rotate my auras based on the situation.

Basically, what you're describing is something I don't think GGG has ever addressed. It nerfed a lot of auras in 0.10.0, but I think failed to explain why.

Auras are extremely powerful and they were made even more expensive in 0.10.0, but WHY. Why? Are they used on almost every character? Yes! As you say, Grace is absolutely required as a Ranger. I totally agree, it's the same for the Shadow too. I lost a HC Shadow two days ago because I wasn't able to run Grace (pretty sure of that anyway, I would have lived against a pack of flickers if I had evaded just one or two more hits), nevermind Hatred, with clarity. I was using split-arrow too, which is supposed to be cheaper than LA...?

It's at the point where you can't level your main damage skills after a certain point, because even with clarity, you simply cannot afford the mana cost. As Zakaluka points out, cleave is DIRT CHEAP and it can become a bitch to maintain especially once frenzy charges or dual wielding get thrown in.

Mana flasks have weak progression. That's one problem.

But the other is auras. Auras are seen by players as huge stat-boosts that cost a set amount of mana. They aren't seen as optional, indeed, I think much of the game's balance has been made around the assumption that players would be using auras to complete areas.

If auras are seen by GGG as toxic to the game and that they should ideally only be considered as a 'supportive' effect for parties/allies/pets, maybe they should just be fundamentally changed? I honestly think they should be. Let's buff auras back up, but let's only make them effect allies. Then, let's put a keystone in the game that lets them effect the user, at some cost. And at the same time, let's shore up the holes not using auras creates. Let's consider ways for players to empower themselves actively using their mana. Actively using your mana is going to encourage the use of mana flasks, which I think is something GGG wants. We can also probably buff mana flasks a little too, maybe introduce a level 65 mana flask to help with end game progression?

"

Zakaluka wrote:

One thing that's become painfully obvious with all this is just how important mana on gear is for skill support. And, sadly, it's a damned prefix :(. That puts it completely at odds with defense. This is all about the offense-defense tradeoff.

I still say life should be a suffix. Needing flat def, % def, life and mana for a non-BM/CI build is rough. While for suffixes you don't need all 3 (4 I guess now) res on each piece. Also would make rolling very worthwide blues possible. 100% def and 99 life would be great by itself.

With life being a prefix it becomes a battle between def and life, in most cases life will win.

I didn't read any of the thread besides zaka's post because he always goes against the grain so I like to stalk him and learn more but in general I think mana is getting really out of whack. BM and EB are starting to become the only real options for a fully decked out, godly gear, 6l type build.

With more people able to make 80+, easier, many people will see this and start getting annoyed. Especially with how often 6ls have been showing up on the trade forum. It's only a matter of time before these people spending 50 gcps on these start raging that they can't spam their skills while using them.

Either mana needs to be reworked or they'll need to add more 0 mana cost supports that can't be easily found on gear/passives (which really is just a band aid anyways).

Well I have decided to join the current and went the way of BM for my latest Shadow. This is the only BM char I made outside 2 marauders I had in CB. Until mana is fixed I am also going EB or BM from now on. It is not only that BM get get much better regen through life regen but life flasks are just so better (and those that give 60% more life at expense of nonexistant mana lol) and you can use life leech supports instead of mana leech that both fill your "mana" and give you more survivability. There is no competition.

EB for mass auras, or BM for no mana problems. What is left is gimping yourself with many mana passives and mana on gear or wasting on slot for mana leech that unlike life leech + BM leeches less and does not help to survive.

Thanks for the feedback people.

You're spreadsheet was telling me the biggest increases to uptime was increased mana regen nodes. + mana on gear I think was third (behind higher level clarity).

Side note: I haven't spent any passives on cast speed. (so I was using base FP casting speed of .66 seconds per cast).

Flickerflare: it's a witch.... if you don't level the spell you will not kill anything.... Unlike attacks, spells don't base their damage off your weapon (which can be upgraded to higher damage independently of upgrading the gem level). Therefore to get a boost in spell damage, you need to level the gem.

It seems there is a critical mass for max mana before mana regen nodes are more important than getting more mana.

Moosifer: Funny you said that about stalking Zaka's posts..... I do the same to yours and Zaka's :)

"

StillSingle wrote:

Flickerflare: it's a witch.... if you don't level the spell you will not kill anything.... Unlike attacks, spells don't base their damage off your weapon (which can be upgraded to higher damage independently of upgrading the gem level). Therefore to get a boost in spell damage, you need to level the gem.

It seems there is a critical mass for max mana before mana regen nodes are more important than getting more mana.

I've never played a game that balanced regen based on max MP that doesn't have spreadsheets lying around that give the best balance for max mana vs regen speed for optimal outputs. I know how witch works, but Zak couldn't have unintentionally defending my point better, it being;

"

Zakaluka wrote:

One thing that's become painfully obvious with all this is just how important mana on gear is for skill support. And, sadly, it's a damned prefix :(. That puts it completely at odds with defense. This is all about the offense-defense tradeoff.

Both leveling a gem and increasing your maximum mana/mana regen speed to maintain it's new damage require you to sacrifice defenses for more offensively minded affix's. It's likely easy to maintain it if you don't concentrate on defenses, but then you'd die, so you don't, and then complain that you don't have enough mana regen.

FlickerFLare. I think you just don't like where I'm coming from. Which is fine.

back to the topic on hand.

We've got a game where life/defense stacking is mandatory. We've got a game that makes you choose between + def, + HP and +mana/regen on an item.

Therefore, assuming you take a balanced approach, having half your gear +def/hp, and the other half +mana/regen, you should get very very good uptime. This is not the case. Hence why the OP thought this came down to base regen being too low.

Zakaluka showed that it is not necessarily that base regen is too low, but it could come down to the base cost of the skill, or the lack of investment in gear/passives to power your offense. Following that he (I'm assuming Zaka is a he) found that mana is a prefix, and therefore must be chosen instead of +def, +hp prefixes on gear.

This would lead me to any of the following conclusions:
1) Mana at high levels using many Link skills is supposed to be a severe limitation on the uptime of those skills.
2)Barring 1, base mana regen is too low given the placement, and availability of passive investment into mana.
3)Barring 1, mana on gear is incorrectly placed (as a prefix), therefore not allowing you to have enough gear investment to charge your skills.
4)Barring 1, the game has some much incoming damage, including damage spikes, that you have to invest so much gear and passives into survivability that the required investment into making mana work is not possible without serious sacrifice to your survivability (think less HP on gear, think less HP+ or other defensive stats on the skilldrasil).

"

StillSingle wrote:

FlickerFLare. I think you just don't like where I'm coming from. Which is fine.

back to the topic on hand.

We've got a game where life/defense stacking is mandatory. We've got a game that makes you choose between + def, + HP and +mana/regen on an item.

Therefore, assuming you take a balanced approach, having half your gear +def/hp, and the other half +mana/regen, you should get very very good uptime. This is not the case. Hence why the OP thought this came down to base regen being too low.

Zakaluka showed that it is not necessarily that base regen is too low, but it could come down to the base cost of the skill, or the lack of investment in gear/passives to power your offense. Following that he (I'm assuming Zaka is a he) found that mana is a prefix, and therefore must be chosen instead of +def, +hp prefixes on gear.

This would lead me to any of the following conclusions:
1) Mana at high levels using many Link skills is supposed to be a severe limitation on the uptime of those skills.
2)Barring 1, base mana regen is too low given the placement, and availability of passive investment into mana.
3)Barring 1, mana on gear is incorrectly placed (as a prefix), therefore not allowing you to have enough gear investment to charge your skills.
4)Barring 1, the game has some much incoming damage, including damage spikes, that you have to invest so much gear and passives into survivability that the required investment into making mana work is not possible without serious sacrifice to your survivability (think less HP on gear, think less HP+ or other defensive stats on the skilldrasil).

I think we're just interpreting things two different ways. But that's the sound of progress, so long as our conversation is read and mulled over by a developer and they decide if something needs to be done. :P

Being a prefix isn't -necessarily- a bad thing. It's important to have a touch decision in between either having survivability or high damage, I think we both can agree on that; what we don't seem to agree on is if that balance has been appropriately met, and if not, where the problem is. You first thought it was the regen, and someone else suggested the skill cost, then I suggest the risk/reward, difference being I think that risk reward is fine as-is.

I think point 1) is correct; I think placing many links to the same skill was supposed to transform it into a powerful; but not infinitely usable, attack. I think this might cause the illusion of 2) being correct, and that 3) is in place to make certain that remains true. However I do think 4) is a reasonable suggestion; it is possible that in the attempt to make such a decision inbetween DPS and survivability they have made it impossible to DPS properly without literally dying in one blow. That's something that might need looking into. Too much damage can throw an otherwise perfect equation out of balance, just like too little can do the same in the other direction. This game might reward tankiness far more then it rewards DPS, and so creating a DPS might be too difficult to adequately accomplish.

Just a thought, ignore the rambling bear~

interesting thing I just found (guessed, and was right).

if you plot base 300 mana, and 8% increases accross, vs 20 increased mana regen on your vertical axis. and work out the regen for the whole grid {regen/sec = max mana * 1.05 / 60 * (1 + mana regen increase%)}.

What I found:
Low regen increase, low max mana: regen increase outperforms max mana increase
mid regen increase, low max mana: regen increase outperforms max mana increase
High regen increase, low max mana: max mana increase outperforms more mana regen increases

Low regen increase, mid max mana: regen increase outperforms max mana increase
Mid regen increase, mid max mana: regen increase outperforms max mana increase
High regen increase, mid max mana: max mana increase outperforms more mana regen increases

Low regen increase, high max mana: regen increase outperforms max mana increase
Mid regen increase, high max mana: regen increase outperforms max mana increase
High regen increase, high max mana: regen increase outperforms max mana increase

I used ranges of 0-300 for mana regen increase (with forward looking 20% increases)
I used 300 to 500 for max mana (with forward looking 24 max mana increases (8% of 300).

I think that this must mean there is an optimum amount of max mana one must have (through passives or gear), and after you reach that, you need to smash the regen increases until it's impossible to get any more.

Note: this doesn't take into account clarity.
Note: this doesn't take into account unreserved mana amounts that can be used while a skill is in defecit (higher cost/sec than regen/sec).
Note: 588 max mana with 300% increased regen (is this even possible?) will only give you 41 mana/sec. I think even with 3x max clarity you will still be in net defecit for high L skills. Which means you need to have mana fat to eat into to have useful uptime of skills.
Note: this doesn't not even come close to the mathematical analysis that zaka is capable of (and has done in the past on armour and evasion). :)