Welcome to the Wizard101 Message Boards

Actually Karate, I totally agree with you.

If you look at the possible damage between Tempest and Storm Lord for 7 or 8 pips, you can see that it is quite a difference.

Now, if you compare the damage between Tempest and Sirens for 9 or 10 pips, you can easily see that there is not much difference in the damage, you just get the added effects and a new spell to watch.

People wonder why I post the way I do and this is one of the very reasons, simply because people post, whine, and complain, without using any facts or mathematical figures to back up their complaints.

@Karate: Yes, it's true, PvP complainers care only about their own school in PvP, nothing else. Heh, wouldn't it be ironic if they fought a wizard from their own school and were killed by their favorite spell. Couldn't very well complain then, could they? @Solstice: Technically, you could give Life a 1000 damage AoE and nobody would say a word in the PvE department, they'd just call on their Life friends for help lol. But, the minute a PvPer from any other school sees it, it would be come 700 and Life Trap to one target. So yeah. Also people can get carried away with PvP and are too busy fighting amongst themselves to realize that the real threat is none other then The Forces of Evil! Wizards, to arms, and we can stop Malistaire and Morganthe! Lol.

Cya in the Spiral,

Paul Stormglade, Transcended Diviner

Go Sparks!

darthjt wrote:

Actually Karate, I totally agree with you.

If you look at the possible damage between Tempest and Storm Lord for 7 or 8 pips, you can see that it is quite a difference.

Now, if you compare the damage between Tempest and Sirens for 9 or 10 pips, you can easily see that there is not much difference in the damage, you just get the added effects and a new spell to watch.

People wonder why I post the way I do and this is one of the very reasons, simply because people post, whine, and complain, without using any facts or mathematical figures to back up their complaints.

Ok then. Gee, let's see...

80x9=720
720x1.8=1296

But fair enough, lets figure (10) like you say all power pips:

80x10=800
800x1.8=1440

Sirens
880x1.8=1584

1584-1440=144

However if the storm wizard is lacking one power pip:

1584-1296=288 is "not that much difference?" Lol and if you add in gargantuan, colossal, and blades (nearly always the case) unfortunately for you, the number just gets larger.

Since you bring up Storm Lord:

690x1.8=1242
vs
80x7=560x1.8=1008

1242-1008=234

The numbers don't lie: Sirens is actually a wider gap away from Tempest in terms of damage then Storm Lord. In fact, Sirens is:

288-234=54 points more pip efficient than the original 234 points that Storm Lord was to Tempest. That is still a heck of an improvement, added together.

Now for the cherry on top that you failed to mention in your post, Storm Lord vs. Sirens (a much more fair comparison, at any rate):

690x1.8=1242

vs.

880x1.8=1584

1584-1242=342 Our largest number yet!

I find it kind of comical that you wanted to compare Storm Lord and Sirens through the lame means of Tempest and all the math fell apart on you. And I don't even need to mention that Storm Lord only has one effect whereas Sirens has two.

Sorry but what you want to believe, sometimes just ain't so.

I agree. You're going to ruin it for everyone if you complain a lot!

Wow thanks for all the responses

darthjt wrote:

Now, to put it plain an simple, so even you can understand.

Tempest does 80 damage per pip.

Storm Lord does 87 to 99 damage per pip.

Sirens does 88 to 97 damage per pip.

Do I need to show you how to figure this equation?

Hogwash. It's utter hogwash to compare Tempest to Storm Lord and Sirens, solely on a damage per pip basis, if not the one thing being that Tempest is an X-pip spell than the other being you have conveniently and erroneously left out all consideration of the pip cost in added effects of the latter two. Damage per pip, in fact, breaks down entirely different than your erroneous calculations above when you take into the after-effects into consideration. And frankly, on damage per pip basis, you cannot not afford to take them into consideration without living in fantasy land. It's the main reason I didn't break things down damage per pip: It would be so utterly unfair to your argument in this case. However, since you seem to be a glutton for punishment...

Let me remind you that to Stun all opponents is nowhere in the game, by any means, a free spell. Myth and Fire must both spend two pips to cast it.

Whether or not Storm Lord achieves this desired result on the PvP opponent (stun resist gear, conviction, stun block) is entirely irrelevant: You have to look at total loaded potential value.

Sirens grinds your argument either further into dust with the accuracy mantles it leaves and a max total potential value of 4 disarms casts. The disarms alone are potentially 4 pips of loaded value, in case you didn't notice!

We haven't yet seen an area of effect accuracy mantle quite as good as the one for Sirens. Fire's smoke screen is closest, at -40% accuracy to all enemies and it's 1 pip. Even so, fine: We will use that as the closest basis to establish a relative pip cost for Sirens accur. mantles at 1 pip. Plus a very relative amount of Disarms depending on your opponents blading...

At max there are 5 extra pips of spell beyond mere damage in the worth of Sirens that you have failed to take into your per pips calculations. Too bad I only need about 3 or 4 pips worth of effects charmed to the Siren's opponent to kick the final wobbly leg out from under the table of your atrociously flawed argument.

By the way there are essential tradeoffs with Rain of Fire and Snow Angel, equally. First of all, being damage over time spells, they can both be mitigated over time by the wizard they are cast on. Damage over time cuts both ways, you know.

Second, to complain that Rain of Fire is more damage per pip also has its tradeoff: Sirens has an effect (-50% accuracy mantle to all enemies) that directly improves upon a fire spell learned way back in Mooshu. Since you make the direct comparison between a Fire spell of the same level, you can't fail to take this tradeoff into account. Although you apprently do so, for whatever weird reason. Smokescreen is also a very popular tactic in the Arena: Well, now Storm wizards armed with a better one, with damage...

Thirdly, the flaw with trying to compare Snow Angel with Sirens or Storm Lord is that all three of these spells are different ranks, spanning twenty levels apart from each other. Plus, there is no Storm AoE at level 58 to form a fair comparison to Snow Angel. In fact, the last decent comparison you can make (without being unreasonable, like your being) between a Storm AoE and an Ice Aoe is Storm Lord and Frost Giant. And, given your batting average of late, sorry but you're indefinitely benched on that one...

jojowild23 wrote:

darthjt wrote:

Now, to put it plain an simple, so even you can understand.

Tempest does 80 damage per pip.

Storm Lord does 87 to 99 damage per pip.

Sirens does 88 to 97 damage per pip.

Do I need to show you how to figure this equation?

Hogwash. It's utter hogwash to compare Tempest to Storm Lord and Sirens, solely on a damage per pip basis, if not the one thing being that Tempest is an X-pip spell than the other being you have conveniently and erroneously left out all consideration of the pip cost in added effects of the latter two. Damage per pip, in fact, breaks down entirely different than your erroneous calculations above when you take into the after-effects into consideration. And frankly, on damage per pip basis, you cannot not afford to take them into consideration without living in fantasy land. It's the main reason I didn't break things down damage per pip: It would be so utterly unfair to your argument in this case. However, since you seem to be a glutton for punishment...

Let me remind you that to Stun all opponents is nowhere in the game, by any means, a free spell. Myth and Fire must both spend two pips to cast it.

Whether or not Storm Lord achieves this desired result on the PvP opponent (stun resist gear, conviction, stun block) is entirely irrelevant: You have to look at total loaded potential value.

Sirens grinds your argument either further into dust with the accuracy mantles it leaves and a max total potential value of 4 disarms casts. The disarms alone are potentially 4 pips of loaded value, in case you didn't notice!

We haven't yet seen an area of effect accuracy mantle quite as good as the one for Sirens. Fire's smoke screen is closest, at -40% accuracy to all enemies and it's 1 pip. Even so, fine: We will use that as the closest basis to establish a relative pip cost for Sirens accur. mantles at 1 pip. Plus a very relative amount of Disarms depending on your opponents blading...

At max there are 5 extra pips of spell beyond mere damage in the worth of Sirens that you have failed to take into your per pips calculations. Too bad I only need about 3 or 4 pips worth of effects charmed to the Siren's opponent to kick the final wobbly leg out from under the table of your atrociously flawed argument.

By the way there are essential tradeoffs with Rain of Fire and Snow Angel, equally. First of all, being damage over time spells, they can both be mitigated over time by the wizard they are cast on. Damage over time cuts both ways, you know.

Second, to complain that Rain of Fire is more damage per pip also has its tradeoff: Sirens has an effect (-50% accuracy mantle to all enemies) that directly improves upon a fire spell learned way back in Mooshu. Since you make the direct comparison between a Fire spell of the same level, you can't fail to take this tradeoff into account. Although you apprently do so, for whatever weird reason. Smokescreen is also a very popular tactic in the Arena: Well, now Storm wizards armed with a better one, with damage...

Thirdly, the flaw with trying to compare Snow Angel with Sirens or Storm Lord is that all three of these spells are different ranks, spanning twenty levels apart from each other. Plus, there is no Storm AoE at level 58 to form a fair comparison to Snow Angel. In fact, the last decent comparison you can make (without being unreasonable, like your being) between a Storm AoE and an Ice Aoe is Storm Lord and Frost Giant. And, given your batting average of late, sorry but you're indefinitely benched on that one...

Can Pet's cast Freeze? Yes, I believe they can
Can Pet's cast Disarm? Yes, I believe they can
Can Pet's cast Pierce? Yes, I believe they can
Can Pet's cast Smoke Screen? Yes, I believe they can

Do they cost pips when casted? No, I don't think so.

Should I continue?

You don't understand the basic concept of breaking down a spell to damage per pip? Really? You think that is fantasy and that I am "Benched" on my batting average as of late?

Not quite sure where you get your information, but mine is strictly and purely factual, sorry if this upsets you so much.

Point being, storm would gladly trade off any additional effects for an AoE DoT spell, how is that hard to grasp?

Everyone keeps wanting to nerf Storm and I am stating, it is getting nerfed without getting anything in compensation.

Ice has 70% storm resistance, can have 90% with fortify, without use of a single shield. Ice has 4500 health

People see and think what they want, but they never break things down to the basics and look at the entire picture.

Get mad all you want, I am sorry that the truth hurts.

karate345 wrote:

i hate PvP complainers for one reason, they make PvE harder. I thought that sirens was good as it was, but people who PvP made KI nerf it. That made PvE harder because a 10 attack nerf could turn into a 100 attack nerf with blades and traps. PvP complainers only see things for PvP, never PvE. If it's a good spell and its not theirs, they will want it nerfed a lot( like sirens)

This is not a complaint but i just want PvP complainers to know, not every one PvP's 8)

John Lightblade level 65 life
you wouldn't be here without life

ps, i know some one is going to say some thing negative, but plz dont

As the PvP (poster versus poster) battle rages above, I am dropping back to the original post.

Karate345,

KI added PvP to the game, and since them, it has grown a life of it's own.
It's far more complex than PvE, and I believe the people that stay with the game just for PvP, is a large group.
Also, what is someone to do when they are at level 70, and don't enjoy growing plants?

I can tell you what I do, it's PvP.... and it's not easy.
I have a lot of respect for those that PvP, and get above a 1200 rank.

So tell me, what will you do when you get your Wizard to Rank 70, and KI will not have the next world ready for a year or so?

To me, PvP is as much as part of the game, as PvE is, they are directly tied together.
If they separate them, that will be the only way that PvP can every be balanced, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.

People in PvP complain when thing get unbalanced or they don't understand the game. Remember, I said that PvP was complex, and many don't understand how to set up their player, deck, understand all the other wizards spells, defense, stratergy to use, etc, etc.
These people whine, and if enough whine, KI has to do something about it.
As sad as that is, it does happen, and that will never change.

For the people that really do understand the game, they only way they can get a flaw correct is to complain. It's up to KI to try to separte the two, and only correct what really need to be corrected.

That has to be hard job to begin with, but they also don't want a large group leaving W101 either. So, I don't see any way to fix your complaint, unless KI does what some are really asking in other posts, just separate PvE and PvP.

Just my thoughts, (any replies don't beat me up too much....I just took a horrible beating in PvP already today.)

Joe.

jojowild23 wrote:

Oh my I simply can't resist...

May cast pet talents... Bwahahahaha. Seriously! I've heard it all now! That's just rich. Honestly, that a way to think on your feet!

In case you didn't notice we were arguing about spells that actually cost pips and do consistent damage, not free spells a pet may randomly cast that have no damage accompanying them. After sarcastically questioning my comprehension of the matter and miscalculating your own supposed facts, you stray down some weird Orange Grove where we had been arguing in an Apple Orchard then question why it's so hard for me to grasp? You're too much fun, for realz 8) You're a real kooky character, there, sir.

How Storm wizards feel about how their spells are constructed is actually quite irrelevant (though not unimportant in itself) to an accurate factual analysis of what a spell is technically worth. Period. Other than that, there is only one solution but to ignore a fool.

However, on the other topic, I will suggest that maybe what bothers you doesn't have as much to do with Storm's damage or getting a DoT as much as it does with Ice's new Zafaria clothes? That I could actually understand. I believe the new crafted Ice Boots provide an even higher resist to fire than they do to storm. Don't quote me on that, though...

I don't personally want to nerf Storm, the original 915 Sirens was fine with me in itself. In fact, 1000 Sirens plus -50% accur and One blade to all enemies would even have been fine by me. And you are neither worth me being mad about nor does the truth as you (mistakenly) state it hurt very much, since...

Sirens real damage per pip:
126 (+1 pip for group accuracy mantle, +1 pip minimum for Disarm)

Rain of Fire damage per pip:
122

Ice Angel:
95

Departing thoughts: A blade or a fizzle can literally be the difference between life or death in the arena. Rain of Fire nor Ice Angel contain either advantage.

Peace and desist.

Point being, you can't say secondary effects must be accounted for.

Take Efreet for instance, do you know how many pips it would take to get a 90% weakness?
Or take Gnomes, which leaves 2 life dispels, 4 pips.

You keep stating things that are irrelavent to try and stack the deck in your favor.

The fact is, all schools get effects after their spells, that is the point of getting higher spells and why damage needs to be broken down on a per pip basis. Why you ask? Simple, why would anyone wait for storm to get 9 pips to cast a spell, when they can do the same damage with tempest or storm lord for 7 or 8 pips? They wouldn't! Especially when you are waiting that long and making sure any opponents you have have multiple storm shields up.

As for Ice gear, I am just stating the facts. I don't have a problem with it, but these are simple facts that people choose to ignore.

People complain all the time because of storms power, they want to keep nerfing storm, but at the same time, they don't have a storm and don't look at the rest of the picture.

darthjt wrote:

Point being, you can't say secondary effects must be accounted for.

Take Efreet for instance, do you know how many pips it would take to get a 90% weakness?
Or take Gnomes, which leaves 2 life dispels, 4 pips.

You keep stating things that are irrelavent to try and stack the deck in your favor.

The fact is, all schools get effects after their spells, that is the point of getting higher spells and why damage needs to be broken down on a per pip basis.

Well, a) I'm not the only one who adjusts damage per pip to factor in special effects to get a more accurate portrayal of pip cost. If you think so, oh well. In a post a while back entitled "efreet was made wrong" Solstice64 successfully (in my opinion) proves that Efreet was made wrong and a global damage dispel of 2 pips was mistakenly not factored into the cost and damage of the spell. And Gnomes, again, was potentially made wrong, according to Solstice64's assessment of Efreet. However (lol) I am not inclined to hold it against Life seeing as how Gnomes has never beaten me in the arena yet and my main PvP wizard doesn't need life spells to heal himself. b) A recent example from the Death school proves I am not just randomly stacking the deck in my favor. Skeletal Dragon damage per pip: 126 Dr Von's Monster damage per pip:91 How else, according to your evaluation of damage per pip, do you account for the lower damage of Death's latest spell? The only thing that makes this trend of Death damage even remotely palatable to Death wizards is to figure that there is about a pixie's worth of healing on the back end of Dr Von's Monster. And thus Bam! you are figuring effect into pip cost. Unless you, what, prefer not to? What's the next excuse? Because it's not DoT and Skel Drag is? Because Skel Drag was overpowered? Lol.

And you're telling me about stacking the deck? Lol. Unless you figure there should be one standard of damage per pip calculation for Fire and Storm that is not so for Death?

darthjt wrote:

Why you ask? Simple, why would anyone wait for storm to get 9 pips to cast a spell, when they can do the same damage with tempest or storm lord for 7 or 8 pips?They wouldn't! Especially when you are waiting that long and making sure any opponents you have have multiple storm shields up.

Well, ahem ahem, speaking of stacking the deck: storm shields? really?

And more importantly where are you getting this nonsensical same damage fantasy of yours from?

A 7 pip Tempest is 560 damage (not counting any boosts). An 8 pip Tempest is 640 damage. A nine pip Tempest is 720 damage.

A 7 pip Storm Lord is 690 damage. A nine pip Sirens is 880 damage.

A 10 pip Tempest is 800 damage, still not as pip efficient as Sirens, at one less pip Lol.

The 7-8 pip range is the only place where it gets a bit dicey for Storm.

880-720=160! Rofl! You need to adjust your perception of what same damage is. But I do understand the argument that if you can Lord or Tempest without Storm shields present earlier, it's a gamble to wait for 9 pips to use Sirens and face more Storm shields (or Volcanic, Glacial, Elemental, etc. I mean...) That I do understand, of course.

But in which case, that's got nothing to do with the way the Storm damage is being constructed these days and is merely the nature of PvP to shield attacks and I'd suggest you quit confusing the two

darthjt wrote:

People complain all the time because of storms power, they want to keep nerfing storm, but at the same time, they don't have a storm and don't look at the rest of the picture.

Well I have a storm wizard and it has consistently felt more to me, across these various posts and other than perhaps the 70% Ice gear argument, like you mean to say that Storm is being nerfed because Storm wizards have to deal with various types of Storm shields in the arena.

Lol.

Yeah and my Lady Judgement: homegirl says she wishes tower shields didn't exist either

jojowild23 wrote:

darthjt wrote:

Point being, you can't say secondary effects must be accounted for.

Take Efreet for instance, do you know how many pips it would take to get a 90% weakness?
Or take Gnomes, which leaves 2 life dispels, 4 pips.

You keep stating things that are irrelavent to try and stack the deck in your favor.

The fact is, all schools get effects after their spells, that is the point of getting higher spells and why damage needs to be broken down on a per pip basis.

Well, a) I'm not the only one who adjusts damage per pip to factor in special effects to get a more accurate portrayal of pip cost. If you think so, oh well. In a post a while back entitled "efreet was made wrong" Solstice64 successfully (in my opinion) proves that Efreet was made wrong and a global damage dispel of 2 pips was mistakenly not factored into the cost and damage of the spell. And Gnomes, again, was potentially made wrong, according to Solstice64's assessment of Efreet. However (lol) I am not inclined to hold it against Life seeing as how Gnomes has never beaten me in the arena yet and my main PvP wizard doesn't need life spells to heal himself. b) A recent example from the Death school proves I am not just randomly stacking the deck in my favor. Skeletal Dragon damage per pip: 126 Dr Von's Monster damage per pip:91 How else, according to your evaluation of damage per pip, do you account for the lower damage of Death's latest spell? The only thing that makes this trend of Death damage even remotely palatable to Death wizards is to figure that there is about a pixie's worth of healing on the back end of Dr Von's Monster. And thus Bam! you are figuring effect into pip cost. Unless you, what, prefer not to? What's the next excuse? Because it's not DoT and Skel Drag is? Because Skel Drag was overpowered? Lol.

And you're telling me about stacking the deck? Lol. Unless you figure there should be one standard of damage per pip calculation for Fire and Storm that is not so for Death?

darthjt wrote:

Why you ask? Simple, why would anyone wait for storm to get 9 pips to cast a spell, when they can do the same damage with tempest or storm lord for 7 or 8 pips?They wouldn't! Especially when you are waiting that long and making sure any opponents you have have multiple storm shields up.

Well, ahem ahem, speaking of stacking the deck: storm shields? really?

And more importantly where are you getting this nonsensical same damage fantasy of yours from?

A 7 pip Tempest is 560 damage (not counting any boosts). An 8 pip Tempest is 640 damage. A nine pip Tempest is 720 damage.

A 7 pip Storm Lord is 690 damage. A nine pip Sirens is 880 damage.

A 10 pip Tempest is 800 damage, still not as pip efficient as Sirens, at one less pip Lol.

The 7-8 pip range is the only place where it gets a bit dicey for Storm.

880-720=160! Rofl! You need to adjust your perception of what same damage is. But I do understand the argument that if you can Lord or Tempest without Storm shields present earlier, it's a gamble to wait for 9 pips to use Sirens and face more Storm shields (or Volcanic, Glacial, Elemental, etc. I mean...) That I do understand, of course.

But in which case, that's got nothing to do with the way the Storm damage is being constructed these days and is merely the nature of PvP to shield attacks and I'd suggest you quit confusing the two

darthjt wrote:

People complain all the time because of storms power, they want to keep nerfing storm, but at the same time, they don't have a storm and don't look at the rest of the picture.

Well I have a storm wizard and it has consistently felt more to me, across these various posts and other than perhaps the 70% Ice gear argument, like you mean to say that Storm is being nerfed because Storm wizards have to deal with various types of Storm shields in the arena.

Lol.

Yeah and my Lady Judgement: homegirl says she wishes tower shields didn't exist either

Oh, well, if Solstice64 said it, then it must be a fact!

Granted, Solstice64 knows more about this game than most of the people that post on here and has some very good insights and ideas, however, Solstice is not right about everything.

1st off, Yes, DoT spells do have more power than any other spell. This has been evident since fire elf to heck hound and so on.

Secondly, you say Dr. Von's monster does a pixie's worth of healing? It heals 50% of damage cast back. That is not a specific amount, it is a percentage amount. It can heal you anywhere from a pixie, to a 500,000 health. How is that for a secondary effect.

Since you want to argue everything JoJoWild, let me make my point perfectly clear.

You want to add in boosts, effects, etc? Fine. Do the math on this equation!

Tempest + Colossal with 4 Pips!
Tempest + Colossal with 2 Pips!
Tempest + Colossal with 2 Pips!
Tempest + Colossal with 1 Pip!

How much Damage do you get? How many storm shields can you take out with this? How many Critical chances do you get?

Now, Use Sirens + Storm Blade + Enchanted Storm Blade + Colossal!
I am allowing the use of Blades with 0 pip cost as it will be the same amount of turns as the Tempests with Colossal enchantments.

Now, how much Damage do you get? How many storm shields can storm face and how many will this 1 attack take out? How many chances does storm get to hit critical?

Which would be more effective? Which would do more damage?
You want to stack the deck, I just showed you, that I am the master of stacking a deck.

You obviously care more about your Balance than any other school, which leaves you biased and not objective.

I am done debating this with you, because you refuse to keep an open mind and allow your personal feelings to cloud your judgement.

darthjt wrote:

Oh, well, if Solstice64 said it, then it must be a fact!

Granted, Solstice64 knows more about this game than most of the people that post on here and has some very good insights and ideas, however, Solstice is not right about everything.

Solstice isn't the only one I've read break pip efficiency down that way. I was just using the best example from this forum that I could remember.

darthjt wrote:

1st off, Yes, DoT spells do have more power than any other spell. This has been evident since fire elf to heck hound and so on.

Secondly, you say Dr. Von's monster does a pixie's worth of healing? It heals 50% of damage cast back. That is not a specific amount, it is a percentage amount. It can heal you anywhere from a pixie, to a 500,000 health. How is that for a secondary effect.

1) Fire Elf does 260 damage, lower than the average damage of Storm Bats: 265 (245-285). How do you figure more powerful? No, not always the case. Once again, you compare Heckhound (an X-Pip spell) to fixed pip spells and when you compare a spell that does damage based on a relative amount of pips to a spell that has fixed pips, like you originally did with Tempest Storm Lord and Sirens, things become, well...very relative. However, you are right about Dot having more power when you look at, say, Fire Dragon vs. Storm Lord. On the other hand, Frostbite vs. Stormzilla (both rank 5 spells, if you want to get technical)? No comparison: Less powerful DoT. All of this reinforces my original point that damage per pip is far from an exact science. And by the way, thank you for putting in your own words, a possible reason why Rain of Fire is more powerful Sirens! You've come a long way! Lol

2) Not stacking the deck, though, the card value of Dr Von's heal is slightly over a pixie.

darthjt wrote:

Since you want to argue everything JoJoWild, let me make my point perfectly clear.

I actually don't. I just don't think you're right about Storm being nerfed.

darthjt wrote:

You want to add in boosts, effects, etc?

No, not as badly as you wanna break storm damage spells down to their bare bones basic damage per pip in order to complain about Ice's Gear (deck stacking) Resist and the spamming of Storm shields (oh, look, more deck stacking in your favor.) My only point is, you can't look at it only one way, which you seem to want to, and, in fact, did many times in this post. But let's see what you come up with...

darthjt wrote:

Fine. Do the math on this equation!

Tempest + Colossal with 4 Pips!
Tempest + Colossal with 2 Pips!
Tempest + Colossal with 2 Pips!
Tempest + Colossal with 1 Pip!

How much Damage do you get? How many storm shields can you take out with this? How many Critical chances do you get?

Now, Use Sirens + Storm Blade + Enchanted Storm Blade + Colossal!
I am allowing the use of Blades with 0 pip cost as it will be the same amount of turns as the Tempests with Colossal enchantments.

*yawns*

darthjt wrote:

Now, how much Damage do you get? How many storm shields can storm face and how many will this 1 attack take out? How many chances does storm get to hit critical?

Which would be more effective? Which would do more damage?
You want to stack the deck, I just showed you, that I am the master of stacking a deck.

That's nice.

darthjt wrote:

You obviously care more about your Balance than any other school, which leaves you biased and not objective.

Yeah, except for nothing in this post has anything to do with the Balance school. I was kidding with you about the tower shields not existing thing. Lighten up. Again and again you missed the point that I have nothing against Storm and don't want it to be nerfed in any way. I think the kind of changes (I'm guessing) you want to see in the Storm school (DoT, increase of power, etc...) would not only effect Balance negatively but also Life and Death and maybe Myth (iffy on that one) as these are the schools that don't have as high or wide in-school means of shielding that Storm DoT.

Balance is, in fact, a better to school acquire an objective point of view of the schools than any other. Look at the elemental schools: Constantly comparing themselves to each other in an attempt to prove who's better, who's more powerful. Constant need to be better, have better spells. Constant complaining between Storm Fire and Ice over whose spell is better more powerful etc. On and on it goes, never stopping.

Whereas the young Balance student, the first time s/he sees their Sandstorm in comparison to Tempest...no, you don't even need to go that far...Meteor Strike! Well, let's just say, they know earlier than anybody else comparing themselves to other schools will get them nowhere.

darthjt wrote:

I am done debating this with you, because you refuse to keep an open mind and allow your personal feelings to cloud your judgement.

Thank God :D Ok, I'm going to get let my personal feelings cloud my judgement some place else then