I Compiled the following stats based on all the chars with pbfs. The stats show that after the wand changes, if anything mages have become more effective slightly then they were before the changes.

General Stats
................Count....Hours
Pre Change......402.00...270.87
Post Change.....18.00....191.72

PK type Stats
...............PK Wins.....PK-Loses.....pk/hour.....PK Ratio
Pre Change......39.95........17.45.......0.15.........0.58
Post Change.....39.72........16.39.......0.18.........0.61

Explory type Stats
..............Mob Deaths.....Exploration Points.....Quests
Pre Change.....17.21.................31.22..........14.00
Post Change....17.94.................46.83..........24.06

The pure numbers suggest that mages in general are slightly deadlier because their pk/hour and ratio have increased slightly. They seem to die slightly less too since the wand change, They also play significantly fewer hours but do significantly more exploring and quests with no real difference in number of mob deaths.

So since the wand change the overall consesnsus is that mages seem to be doing what they were doing before if not more then before and doing it in less time. So case in point wand changes are good?

I mean obviously at the very least it shows that mages were not nerfed in any way as a result of the wand changes except in the people bitching about it part.

What about mages who deleted on their mid ranks and did not buy PBF?

the mages who made it to hero, found their wands, and didn't buy a PBF.

So long, and thanks for all the fish!

quick statistical analysis pointer:

There's no particular reason the latter scenario which you mention would be more common under the current system relative to the previous system.

There IS a reason why Dervish's scenario might be more common under the current system: more frustration.

Now whether the numbers pan out on that is hard to verify (to the extent that, as Straklaw said, this analysis is a pretty worthless enterprise, all issues considered), but do you understand why your response is not a good rejoinder to what Dervish wrote?

Splendid.

The whole exercise is stupid for the reasons Straklaw mentioned.

We don't know how many mages deleted in frustration without finding wands.

We don't know how many mages found theres but never bought a PBF.

We don't know how many of the ones who deleted would eventually have found theirs if they hadn't deleted.

etc. etc. etc.

Actually, "pks per hour" wouldn't be a good measure even IF we had data on "all mages". If the wand system has encouraged people to roll mages, rank to 40, look for ~50 hours, then delete if they don't find any, then that's going to reflect poorly on the PKpH numbers of mages as a whole, since these characters' lives were spent almost entirely on ranking and looking for wands. Not PK.

I'm inclined to think the system is "okay" as long as there are successful mage characters for whom the following are true:

1. They're not some super-powered build (e.g. undead),

2. They're not the result of the player rolling and re-rolling mage characters until he gets one with "easy" wands.

Current examples might be: Lornis, Bambizlo, Gzurweeg. I can't say for sure that those characters aren't the result of "keep rolling/ranking mages until I get easy wands." But I kind of doubt it.

The argument is that mages are not actually performing worse since the change then they were before. The data if nothing else suggests that mages are performing better since the changes in terms of PK and Exploration. The whole question of did people find their wands or not is moot because the numbers show that with or without them they are doing more or less the same pk wise as before just in a shorter time period (which to me is better cause you have a higher value added percent of time). And they are doing much better in terms of quests and exploring.

these numbers also do not yet represent the "boost" mages got by having shield as a class spell which would likely make them look more appealing still.

also keep in mind that the game is not mages vs everyone else, there is a lot of mage on mage violence too.

And I don't think you got my point.

"The data if nothing else suggests that mages are performing better since the changes in terms of PK and Exploration."

The data suggest that the set of mages whose PBFs have been published prior to the changes are performing about as well in PK as the set of mages whose PBFs were published prior to the changes taking effect.

I think the main issue of this whole thing is the fact that players see ABS as part of a mage class, and not an extra feature. If you compare this to classes who cant use wands or staves, they see aura and shield as an "extra bonus" and not nessecerily something that you absolutly need. The only real way of sorting this out is to define what preps should be available to a mage for balance purposes, then engineer the game to fit this. Right now imms are saying that mages dont need ABS to succeed, while most of the playerbase disagrees heavily.

When I play a mage I expect atleast decent access to ABS, to the point where I can use it when I feel like using it. For me to play a mage without barrier is completly unthinkable, it would be like shooting myself in the foot. Like playing a warrior without choosing legacies or a druid without herbal forage, I see it as part of the class just as legacies is part of the warrior and herbs is part of the druid.

The only way I see to solve this is to take barrier out of the game (for the most part, may leave some hard to get wands in as exploration rewards in hard areas). Then remove the shield spell from all mages, and replace it with a similar barrier spell. This way mages can still do the egg hunt for aura and shield which is seen as less usefull but increase the overall power. Barrier will be a situational tactical spell that you got to use wisely. Since it you pop it, there will be some time untill you can use it again.

Note on the whole egg-hunt part of the game. The system as is now encourage list sharing, since few people really enjoy egg hunts (except the easter egg hunt which is fun). Its tedious and boring, and yet is required to gain what is essentially a HUGE boost in power. Steps needs to be made to reduce the egg-hunt aspects of this game, and the sleek system is a good place to start.

Just the math geek side of me kicking in, but just by the definition of how you're getting your data, your sample is going to be horribly more biased, and the stats are a lot less useful. You'd really need to have an Imm take a sample from the entire mage population within certain ranges.

Really, you're looking at people who liked their character enough to spend the $5 on it. Any player who didn't turn out well and maybe got frustrated and gave up, is probably not going to be in your sample. Hence...you're non-included sample is probably going to have the lesser kills, etc.

I do think the comment on doing more quests is reasonable, and that there is probably a correlation between more exploring/observing -> more quests, and that more exploring/observing -> more likely to find wands, so that quests and wands are likely to have a positive association.

Anyways...this isn't an argument for or against the wand system, just that your basis of discussion might have flaws based on the sample. I personally have NEVER been good with mages, so happily play mine as support chars or heavy artillery