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. Anyway, despite the lol factor of flare, it's certainly worth testing. Don't know how. But it's worth it. CSM 19:28, 7 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Just use GoLE and you can get the same test....heroes use both of them about the same, which is to say, badly. Give 'em either Glyph and Heal Party and they still won't use them together. Elemental Attunement works just fine, thankfully. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 19:34, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Why?
Why is it that the Non-Elite version of glyph works for 2 spells yet this works for only one?


 * Because ANet has for a long time been retarded with many balance updates --Gimmethegepgun 22:39, 21 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It's kind of hard "Balancing" this with regards to the lesser Glyph, I mean, imagine it affecting two spells. Zulu Inuoe 15:32, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It's elite, it should affect two spells - or at least, have the 25e/exhaustion reduce on the first spell and 15e reduction on the second spell. Then it would be elite-worthy but not overpowered. - Auron 15:42, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * It's elite because it's unlinked, it saves more energy than a non-elementalist lesser energy, and it doesn't exhaust. 68.92.63.138 15:55, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes, but GoLE saves far more energy across 2 spells. At 16 Energy Storage, GoLE will save a possible 38 energy across 2 spells, 33 if you include the cost of the glyph. This saves just 20 after cast cost, and only if the cost is a full 25 energy. Exhaustion? Bah. Any good Ele knows how to handle exhaustion and not run themselves out of energy --Gimmethegepgun 16:01, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Recharge, also, your "33" is also assuming they're 25e spells, if they're 15 you only save 25. –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 16:23, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Which is still a better deal. - Auron 19:31, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * And why is mending still so gud...? Same reason. Blame Izzy I say, blame him! <font color="Black">Readem (<font color="Red">talk *<font color="Black">contribs ) 19:43, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * This is just like Savage Shot/Punishing Shot. The normal skill is on par/out powers the Elite version of it.Done25 19:45, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Amen to that. Arshay Duskbrow 19:52, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh? Since when is 40 < 33? I wouldn't use it (ever), but it's still better than GoLE. –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 20:16, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Because GoLE isn't Elite.
 * And? It's a better version of an existing skill, which several elites are. If it wasn't elite, there'd be no point in using GoLE. –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 20:37, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

(resetting indent) But it is elite. This restrict your choices when the non-elite version is almost as good.


 * This would be usable if it affected 2 spells like GoLE does now, but as it doesn't... --Gimmethegepgun 20:49, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I think it would be balanced as "Your next 1...3 spells cost 25 less energy and don't cause exhaustion: attribute Energy Storage" This preserves it at just as effective as it is now for ele secondaries, and buffs it to a usable elite for ele primaries. --Macros 21:44, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Using this, as soon as it is available can give a free 25 energy spell almost every 15s (using attunement in fact gains you 3 energy while casting a 25 spell) Consider taking Meteor Shower and Rodgort's Invocation, though shower makes use of the anti-exhaust Invoc has a 15s recharge which perfectly matches GoE -Ezekiel 22:18, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Deep Freeze edit: even better: Earthquake –Ichigo724[[Image:Ichigo-signature.jpg]] 22:34, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

LOL! This used to affect 3 spells every 30 seconds (as oppposed to GoLE, which only affects 2). Now it affects 4 spells every 30 seconds. But people terribly hard of thinking will probably continue to think, like the above, that it affects less spells than GoLE rather than more... :p --68.187.144.197 17:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'd check the date, you'd see that all those comments were made before it was buffed to a 10 second recharge. --Macros 18:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This is way better than GoLE because of the 10 second recharge time. GoLE sucks because of its 30s recharge. -60.166.168.24 04:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering why no one has suggested that izzy semi links this skill to ES by making the number of skills affected scale up from 1-2(possibly 3 if ES is at iono...14-16 ES) but leaving its base skill effect at 1 with 0 in ES this way non ele primes can still use it but primary eles gain further benefits this way it becomes more competative with GoLE...thoughts anyone?
 * You mean like I wrote in July of last year, on this wiki and the official one? --Macros 02:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Recharge
7 Second recharge? Pretty sure it was 10? Zulu Inuoe 20:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * its 7 now. evidently just got changed. --[[Image:Warwick sig.JPG]] <font face="vivaldi" size="4">Warwick (Talk)/(Contr. ) 20:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Heads up... I tell you those Glyph of Energy + Gale mesmers are going to be even more annoying...Big Bow 22:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not go GLypf of Energy + Earthquake + Dragon's Stomp now? AoE ftw! Zyber 15:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC) Aww, already reverted :( 83.72.97.143 22:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Was me there, forgot to log in Zyber 22:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I too was using GoE>Dragon Stomp>GoE>Earthquake>Repeat but as of the Feb 8th update it's back to 10 seconds. Shucks! Khazad Guard 05:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, amazing what 3 seconds less of recharge make. I was having fun making a 0 Energy Storage-No attunement-Rodfort's+Deep Freeze+Earthquake spam! Ah well.. Zulu Inuoe 17:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Change
5...30. What the heck is Izzy smoking. -- 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's 10...30. Cress Arvein(Talk) 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, doesn't matter, it's about the 30 energy. I can't help but think they'll nerf some spells to 35 energy. --[[Image:OrgXSignature.jpg]] 22:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I always wanted some 20 energy skills. I'm looking at Earthquake for example. Seb2net 22:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are cases when you need more than 25 energy already - such as casting a meteor shower when under the effect of Quickening Zephyr, which can boost the cost to ~33. --Falseprophet 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Buffed for one profession nurfed for 9 others. Mercurius Ter Maxim 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC) I used it on a mesmer with lightning hammer and auspicious incantation in ab... I started up the game and started playing before I noticed the nurf when I ran low on energy early >.< I've used it for many builds in the past on secondary ele's in pve, when it was unlinked due to the shorter recharge and better energy cost reduction when compared to GoLE. it's a much less powerful skill for any non-elementalists now.Mercurius Ter Maxim 22:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I had just finished to enjoy building a PvE smiter with that glyph + aura of balthazar... kill 'em all >_< Fexghadi 00:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, in French, it states that it will affect your next spellS -- Fexghadi 01:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly one of the reasons for this nerf was the (no longer existent, insofar as I know) odd idea of a warrior bringing MS and GoE... Again, probably an uber-outdated thing, but I would also venture that it was to counter mesmers/necros as well from using it... same way GoLE was used by monks then got nerfed/buffed (depending on how you look at it)... Also, I agree... wtf is with 10...30? the only way a spell gets THAT high is with QZ... >.> --Timeoffire45 05:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This was nerfed because it allowed a mesmer to spam gale with no disadvantage Blue.rellik 05:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This nerf only made this skill ele only - no use to use this over GoLE now. Only reason I can think of is sumthing like a W/E with GoE and earthquake+dragonstomp with stonefist insignia Shai Meliamne 12:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can still spam Gale with this though... --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest  17:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, linking it to Energy Storage doesn't really stop mesmers from using this with Gale at all, as Gale only costs 10 energy (and exhaustion) to begin with, which is exactly what this will negate at 0 Energy Storage. The recharges don't exactly mesh of course, but that's what the other 6 skills are for.  Huzzah for being annoying! -Gildan Bladeborn 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How about if rather than 10-30 in 12 att., we go 5-20, and add that whatever energy you did not use, you gain as energy surplus. I.E at lvl 12, you save 20 energy, but you only cast a spell with a energy cost of 15, therefore you get 5 energy as a surplus back. This will also benefit heroes who doesn't know what skill to use when they activated the glyph. So what you guys think?75.9.232.33 17:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

35 less energy, too much?
Well, you might now consider using spells under QZ without any penalty... -- Fexghadi 21:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment about 9+ Energy Storage
I think the comment about >9 ES doing nothing for this skill should be erased. Or at least add a comment that >9 ES could be helpfull if you are casting spells while under Quickening Zephyr or Veiled Nightmare Irkm Desmet 15:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the comment since it is wrong. I also changed the note above to say "in normal situations" --Falseprophet 17:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

nerf bat
so now the only real use is for spamming 25e spells under Qz? wtf omg!
 * This is a buff. The only people who used this were mesmers w/ gale, and it still serves that purpose. Unless I'm horribly mistaken.. --<font face="vivaldi" size="3" color="Steelblue">Shadowcrest 16:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In no way is this a buff. Zulu Inuoe 17:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a horrible nerf. I used to have a Mesmer/Ele fire nuker build that could absolutely dominate. This... hurts. First Mantra of Recovery to 33%, now this... Gwen Shadowsound 21:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)