Talk:Mantra of Recovery

Anyone happen to know if this skill's effects are "attached" to spells or if they apply while MoR is active only? To put it in clearer terms, consider these cases: A) MoR is active, Spell X is cast, recharges fully before MoR peters out. (Base case.) B) Spell X is case, MoR is activated while X is recharging. C) MoR is active, Spell X is cast, MoR ends before X recharges fully.

In case A, the effects are obvious; X's charge time is halved. So far, so good. But what about case B? Is the charge time reduced then, or does MoR not "attach" to spells cast before it was activated? Similarly, case C, does X recharge more slowly after MoR ends, or does the MoR effect remain "attached" to X, regardless?

I'll test this on my Mesmer later on, but if anyone has already done these tests, I'd appreciate the information. An acquaintance of mine claims that case B works fine, and he casts MoR after unloading his barrage of spells, but I'm skeptical of this. Any information you can provide would be much appreciated. 149.169.45.144 22:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the trigger here. The trigger is casting, not recharging. So, to answer your questions:
 * a) MoR is active and spell is cast within the time limit, no problem. recharge twice as fast.
 * b) MoR activated while spell is recharging, no effect. MoR affects the skill recharge time the moment the spell is cast. While a skill is recharging, it is unaffected by MoR.
 * c) MoR ends before skills recharges. No difference. Again, the trigger is spell casting. So, Spell cast before MoR ends THEN MoR runs out is the same as (a).
 * d) the boundary cases I tested as well. MoR activated while spell is cast will cause spell to recharge twice as fast. And MoR running out before spell is done casting will not cause a faster recharge.
 * --Karlos 07:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You can infer this from what Karlos said, but a simpler explanation is recharge times are set in stone when the recharge starts. Nothing will modify the recharge of an already recharging skill.  --Fyren 08:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not sure this is correct. When using Mantra of Inscriptions and Blessed Signet, I find that even if MoI is activated halfway through the recharge, it speeds up the recharge at that point. Perhaps it is not the same effect? This may require more testing or the behavior may have changed in a patch. --RadiKS 06:53, 5 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Inscriptions doesn't speed up an already recharging signet. It's easier to see with something with longer recharge than blessed signet.  --68.142.14.86 08:19, 5 April 2006 (CDT)


 * Karlos is correct, the stance effect happens if you are in the stance when the spell starts to recharge.
 * You can enter the stance while casting a spell and it will affect that spell but if it ends while casting a spell it will not affect that spell.
 * You can enter the stance just before you finish casting the spell and enter another stance right after you have completed the cast (once the recharge starts) and it will work as advertised.--Heurist 01:47, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

Items that have a "Halves skill recharge" weapon modifier do not appear to further reduce the recharge time. I have tested this with about 200 cast of Empathy (10 second recharge) and a “Halves skill recharge of Domination Magic spells (Chance: 20%)” weapon and a “Halves skill recharge of Domination Magic spells (Chance: 20%)” off-hand item and got 5 seconds recharge every time.--Heurist 01:47, 10 August 2006 (CDT) Game Updates July 13th Lowered the cap for Recharge Reduction to 50%.
 * If it used to be able to recharge faster than 50% in conjunction with items and/or Quickening Zephyr, it no longer does. 220.233.103.77 02:33, 10 August 2006 (CDT)

Excellent option for energy denial.
I've tested this build, and seen a handfull of other energy-denial mesmers who outclass the average "E-Surge" mesmer in terms of damage output and energy removal. With 15 FC, one can keep this up constantly, as well as half the casting time of all spells. I know that at such a rank, attaining the "desired" rank of 14 domination for maxing out energy burn would require a helm + minor rune + maxed domination, and maxed fast casting. However consider this, putting a few less points into the domination, weakening your burn, but throwing in guilt, perhaps diversion (costly though at keeping it up constantly), and diversing into inspiration for drain enchantment and energy tap (1.5 second cast time now), for further energy denial, enchantment removal, and keeping your energy high enough for your other spells, so long as you don't LITERALLY spam your spells to a suicidal rate. If you honestly care to see more of my energy rantings, go check the discussion on Energy Surge. (Other uses posted are dandy too except using it as a secondary for 5 seconds... no.) -Daedric Avenger

50% faster... or 100% faster?
Ack, this wording throws me for loops. If the recharge time of spells is halved, then don't spells recharge 100% faster?
 * Right. The actual effect is recharge times are halved. Ritual Lord has the same wording problem.  --Fyren 16:46, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Thank you for confirming that for me. I thought I was going nuts for a minute. Tarinoc 19:39, 12 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Nack, I think you answered your own initial question.Without delving into physics and calc -too- much, the description says 50% FASTER. Faster by definition is an INCREASE in SPEED, ie recharge(inversely proportional to a DECREASE in TIME recharge) and slower meaning a DECREASE in SPEED(inversely proportional to an INCREASE in TIME recharge), in this case an increase in speed equals a decrease in time taken by half of the proceeding spell recharge description with no spirit/enchant effects in place. eg 50% faster == .5(x/100) + 1(y/100) == One and a Half times as fast, ie 50% faster - NB: By default(ie no spirit/enchant effects), x and y == 100(can change due to already in effect spirits/spells). For arguments sake, 100% faster == 1(x/100) + 1(y/100) == Two times as fast, or 100% faster. Confused_Enemy
 * Are you suggesting that because they use the word fastER that the description makes sense? If so, then you're also suggesting that something can be 50% fast. While I understand that fastER implies more quickly, this is one of those flubs in the english language where tacking on an ER at the end doesn't take care of business. The description should say 100% faster. Tarinoc 17:15, 28 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Your car is fast, my car is faster. There is a comparative made on mine but none to yours. Make sense? On the bye and bye I did mention fast can be used as I have written it to be above and beyond, not as you have done so. C_E
 * Perfect, if your car is fast, but mine is 50% faster, will it cover the same distance in half the time? No, it'll cover the same distance in 2/3 of the time (you're going 100kph, I'm doing 150kph, takes you 1 1/2 hours to travel 150km, but only takes me an hour).  That's the problem I think a lot of people have.  If I said my car was 100% faster I would expect it to do things in half the time, I think it should be the same here.  The way Mantra of recovery works, it would mean that if my car was 100% faster I could teleport any distance instantly.  I don't think that's what most people would think, and I think the description of Mantra of Recovery would make more sense if they said 100% faster, or reduces recharge time by 50%. Echokin 00:24, 4 October 2006 (CDT)
 * The formula is very logarithmic and that is where you will fall down by thinking it is not. You think it is linear, it is not. It is very exponential. C_E
 * It is stupid. Saying something is 50% faster can only mean that the speed of something (ie distance/time) has been increased by 50%. Let me put this another way. Let's use the word 'refill' instead of 'recharge' and imagine you have a glass that is being filled with water. Normally it takes 30 seconds for the glass to become full of water. Now let's say that use my 'turn the tap' ability that reads 'all glasses refill 50% faster', most people would take that to mean that the rate at which the glass is becoming full has been increased by 50%, which could be achieved by increasing the flow of water by 50%. Which would mean that the glass would become full in 20 seconds instead of 30. It would take an increase in flow (or 'refill rate') of 100% to halve the time it takes for the glass to become full, or 'recharged'. I respectfully submit C_E that it is you who is confused and I would like to hear a clearer explanation of your argument. Speed is linear, not logarithmic or exponential (let alone very logarithmic, whatever that means). You might be thinking of acceleration, or something. Regardless, the wording they have chosen is clearly confusing as demonstrated by the existence of this page. It could easily be changed to something that is equally accurate and less confusing such as 'reduces recharge time by 50%'.
 * I don't think anyone is bothering to disagree because he obviously makes no sense. --Fyren 02:51, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Thanks Fyren, I found one guy on the net who agrees with this joker, which put me off. Reminds me a bit of Gene Rays time cube.  Anyways, I asked a friend of mine who's 3 years into his Physics PHD and it seems that the wording on this is definitely wrong.  The way it's worded, your spells should recharge in two thirds of the normal time.  I'll stop now :-p Echokin 18:31, 5 October 2006 (CDT)
 * This is supposed to be a knowledge repository, and quite clearly you have sunk to the lowest common denominator. Reserve your judgements and never cast doubt greater than your own shadow. C_E
 * I agree with what you say, speed is very linear. However, with reference to the wording of 50% faster, x^3 is 300% faster, x^2 is 200% faster, x^.5 is 50% faster. Hope that clears that up. C_E
 * Actually, I hate to say it, but you are wrong. In the case of x^3 = 300% it fully depends on the value of x, considering ^ means Exponentiation. Thus, if x = 5, x³ = 125. And I believe you will agree with me that 125 is not 300% more than 5. Exponentiation is not the way to go with linear functions, don't you agree? ;)
 * Either way, when measuring increases in percent, x = 100%, 2x = 200%. Since faster is indeed an increase, it is a 100% increase in speed. I see where you're coming from though, since it halves the time, but that doesn't change the fact we're talking about an increase, not decrease. If the description had stated "... decreases recharge time by 50%" it would indeed be a decrease and you would be fully correct. &mdash; Galil  22:43, 7 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Correct, my bad. I should expand on not just using 2 and 4 as my dummy numbers in future =D C_E
 * Well if the discription said 100% faster, you're spells would have a recharge time of 0 seconds, cause 100% of 1 is 1 so 1-1 is 0 seconds. If a skills discription says its 100% slower the spell will take 2 seconds to cast: 1+1 is 2 seconds.--Want2be 11:05, 27 March 2007 (CDT)
 * No. If it says 50% faster that means that the recharge rate is 150%, causing the skill to recharge in 100%/150% = 2/3 of the normal time.  If it reduces the time by 50% that would be a rate of 200% and hence double speed.  Its a question of reciprocals.  The skill acts as if it recharges 100% faster, or in 50% of the time.  Same story with the IAS skills.  They don't increase the rate by 33%, they decrease the time by 33.  Its a confusing jumble with verbs, and Anet doesn't seem to understand it.  If you want more clarification pm me in game and I will try to explain this. Kelvin Greyheart 17:53, 27 March 2007 (CDT)

When MoR procs
This will only proc if you're in the stance when your spell completes casting. It does nothing in all other cases. If you cast meteor shower and put it up immediately after casting, you will still have a 60s recharge. This can be easily verified by doing something like the following: cast a 5s recharge spell, immediately upon completion use a 5s recharge stance like distortion, and then use MoR. You will see that even though MoR is up, the 5s recharge spell's recharge hasn't been reduced at all (by using the 5s stance recharge as reference). --Fyren 15:12, 7 October 2006 (CDT)

recharge speed
think of it as 100% recharge-50% of the normal recharge time woila- spells take only 50% of the normal time to recharge


 * We are having people continuously changing the note - it is correct - 50% faster isn't actually 50% faster, it's 100% faster, as it is 50% of the recharge time. ANet continuosuly mistakes rate for speed, leading to confusion. --[[image:Epinephrine.jpg]] ~ Epinephrine 12:18, 12 January 2007 (CST)


 * 100% faster=instant recharge... that can't be right--65.185.196.228 20:05, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Test Weekend
Awsome. They made my favorite mes elite better. It lasts longer for this "test" weekend. Now its relatively easy to maintain this forever. Anyone know of any other changes? I've been looking when I think about it but this is the first one I've noticed because its really useful to me. Kelvin Greyheart 21:43, 19 January 2007 (CST)

MoR+PS+SoA ? Caramel Ni 18:54, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Mantra of Recovery + Energy Tap > Energy Drain. :) Also, Mantra of Recovery + Power Drain is some pretty powerful energy management, unfortunately I suck at interrupting though. :( -- BrianG 11:29, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Relevant?
"Despite the skill description saying it increases the recharge speed, it actually reduces the recharge time by 50%." - Isn't this redundant now since the actual description is "Your spells recharge 50% faster"? Luigi 17:20, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * "Recharge faster" means the recharge rate is higher. That's not what this does.  --Fyren 17:23, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * It just means that your spells recharge faster if you use them while this is active. They receive no bonus if you activate this after you have cast the spells. (If I understand correctly) Silver Sunlight [[Image:SSunlight.jpg|19px]] 17:35, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * But it says 50%. Recharging 100% faster is the same as recharging in half the time.  This is the same discussion that's been had twice on this talk page already.  --Fyren 17:44, 28 March 2007 (CDT)
 * Alright alright, sorry for bringing it up again. Luigi 16:07, 29 March 2007 (CDT)