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)

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)