Quote:
Originally Posted by Quitti
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tollund
Falling frost is worse than falling fires, especially since F2 mages can cast falling fires, while W2 mages can't cast falling frost.
|
Exactly. And falling fires is 15AP damage while falling frost is 17+ normal damage (and you don't see anyone boosting it much over that 17 damage since you'll want the mages hitting with something like niefel flames when they are w4 or around that (with a booster) for 10an and aoe of ~5 times more.
|
Sure. If you've researched enough to fire Niefel Flames instead of Falling Frost in the second year, go for it.
There's no absolute requirement for Falling Frost to be be directly comparable with Falling Fires. It just has to do a decent job in many situations, which it does. You may as well complain about Blade Wind, needs E3, huge fatigue, and easily ruined by things as complex as armour and shields.
And to be fair, if you're going to talk up Fire, you need to consider the spell "Rain", and Water has a 50% fire resist spell (with earth, W3E1 I think) as well. And if you're a fire nation with heat auras and stuff, just think how Wolven Winter ruins your battlefield.
The only moral of the story is that almost nothing is equal. But Falling Frost is fine for what it does.