Talk:Glyph of Energy

Why does the second note mention attunements? It looks like it was going to talk about the combination of attunements with this glyph, but then doesn't. BigAstro 15:15, 16 September 2006 (CDT)


 * The note makes sense. Eruption costs 25, with GoE, it costs 10 energy, with attunement you get back 7 (max) so it costs only 3 to 5 energy. --Karlos 15:24, 16 September 2006 (CDT)
 * It's not clear the way it's written. GoE reduces the cost of a 25 energy spell to 5 with or without an attunement active, whereas you and the first sentence of the note are referring to net energy used. The second sentence only further enforces my initial intepretation of the note by stating that 15 or lower energy spells will cost zero energy, when in fact there is still a net loss. Example for a 15 energy spell: 5 (cast glyph) + 15 (spell itself) - 15 (reduction from glyph) - 4 (return from attunement) = 1. The point is that the note either needs to talk about either spell cost or net energy cost, not both. This is a better way to write it:
 * It should also be noted that when combined with one of the Attunement skills, this skill reduces the net energy cost of a 25 energy elemental spell to 3 energy, with an increase in casting time of one second. 15 or lower Energy elemental spells will cost zero energy to cast, but will still result in a slight net energy loss due to the cost of the Glyph itself. Combined with its ability to be reused every 15 seconds, it makes it a very potent Elite.
 * Seem like a reasonable change? BigAstro 16:02, 16 September 2006 (CDT)


 * Since you seem to understand what the note is saying, the objction is now one of clarity... feel free to rewrite it as you like, you don't need anyone's permission or approval for that. --Karlos 18:37, 16 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I know I can edit things as I see fit, but I just wanted to resolve the discussion I started before making changes to an article =) BigAstro 19:05, 16 September 2006 (CDT)

-anonymous person the net cost under a (30%) attunement would be 8-5 for the glyph and 5-2 gained back from attunement
 * I just retested to make sure and you're wrong.
 * For a 25 energy spell, 5 (cast glyph) + 5 (spell cost reduced by glyph) - 7 (return from attunement) = 3
 * For a 15 energy spell, 5 (cast glyph) + 0 (spell cost reduced by glyph) - 4 (return from attunement) = 1
 * For a 10 energy spell, 5 (cast glyph) + 0 (spell cost reduced by glyph) - 3 (return from attunement) = 2
 * For a 5 energy spell, 5 (cast glyph) + 0 (spell cost reduced by glyph) - 1 (return from attunement) = 4
 * In other words, you get the return from fire attunement based on the original energy cost of the spell, not the glyph reduced cost. I am reverting your edits. BigAstro 21:46, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

Updated for 10/25/2006
 * For a 25 energy spell, 5 (cast glyph) + 0 (spell cost reduced by glyph) - 7 (return from attunement) = -2
 * For a 15 energy spell, 5 (cast glyph) + 0 (spell cost reduced by glyph) - 4 (return from attunement) = 1
 * For a 10 energy spell, 5 (cast glyph) + 0 (spell cost reduced by glyph) - 3 (return from attunement) = 2
 * For a 5 energy spell, 5 (cast glyph) + 0 (spell cost reduced by glyph) - 1 (return from attunement) = 4

--Midnight08 12:46, 26 October 2006 (CDT)

And now after the +1/rounding update, the gain from attunements is 2(5), 4(10), 6(15), 8(25). --Bob III 15:00, 6 January 2007 (CST)

Mega pwnage e-manage
Arcane mime Elemental Attunement off someone and cast it at high ES. That way you end up getting like 17 energy for free
 * Overkill, this and an attunement is superb as it is. L u i g i [[Image:Luigi shodansig.jpg]] 19:12, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
 * What could you possibly do to make you run out of energy when you're running dual attunes? M s4 19:18, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Spam Heal Party. Readem (talk *contribs ) 19:27, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
 * >.< using elemental spells. M s4 20:21, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Heroes suck at using this
They'll use it with flare or whatever skill they feel like
 * Oh really? What if they don't have flare on there bar? Readem (talk *contribs ) 19:26, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
 * :iceburn: L u i g i   [[Image:Luigi shodansig.jpg]] (T/C) 09:21, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, gosh, that doesn't seem nice. CSM 19:28, 7 June 2007 (CDT)