Celtic Heroes

Basically all you need to know is that Ice does more damage in short 10 secondish fights so is burst damage, while fire is less damage at first, but in long fights does waaaay more damage. So if you do lots of quick lock fights go ice, but if you do tons of endgame boss killing go fire. Hope I helped.

Incorrect. Better?

Yes, ice is worse than fire at everything except 205/210. End of discussion

You are still ignoring my points, but the OP has definitely seen both sides and can decide for himself now.

He is not ignoring your points. You haven't made one single valid point. Several people have proved you wrong by now by just stating the facts.

yet all you are doing is stating opinions while I have given true facts on why ice is better for short fights.

4* mobs if not locked by a rogue, will get locked by a fire mages instant bolt. Only on 5* bosses will the damage needed to lock be big enough that maybe an ice mage could get it but unless that lock happens in under 2 casts from the ice mage the fire mage will win again. That is far too situational, at the moment the only good reason to play an ice mage over fire is that gear is easier to get (on my world at least). Ice mages could use a boost.

Ice mages with void and godly items still lose to a fire mage with dark/mighty. By a mile

I dont have the numbers to either confirm or deny that lol but someone playing an ice mage may consider that a deciding factor, even if it isnt as good as the average geared fire mage at least he can say that he has godly/void gear. Not that i care about that personally. I dont play an ice mage but the benefit of having the time to let sigils kick in at bosses is appealing. The slow casts would be beneficial for dual loggers and it synergises well with freeze which allows them to increase their survivability without a dps loss as big as what a fire mage would get if he were to use it. Im still all for ice mages getting a damage boost though.

Yes, ice is worse than fire at everything except 205/210. End of discussion

/thread

Yes, ice is worse than fire at everything except 205/210. End of discussion

/thread

what does that mean lol.

Any mage will tell you that you will probably miss your first hit and have to wait for 20 seconds before you can actually hit it as well. As in my response fire over ice anytime ...

Unless all you do is really short fights.

All you say is that ice mages are better for locks, because they do more damage according to you(talking from a level 120 perspective)

You forget that it takes alot of time to even cast ice shards and blast. If you would have said ice mages could get the kill on certain bosses I totally agreed.
But you just make your own theories, leaving out the facts that bust your theory. Thats why everyone is so annoyed by you.

Any mage will tell you that you will probably miss your first hit and have to wait for 20 seconds before you can actually hit it as well. As in my response fire over ice anytime ...

Unless all you do is really short fights.

All you say is that ice mages are better for locks, because they do more damage according to you(talking from a level 120 perspective)

You forget that it takes alot of time to even cast ice shards and blast. If you would have said ice mages could get the kill on certain bosses I totally agreed.
But you just make your own theories, leaving out the facts that bust your theory. Thats why everyone is so annoyed by you.

You are utterly ignoring all my points. You are just bent on being right because of your level. Ice does burst damage for short 10 secondish fights until fire has recasted both skills.

Firebolt isn't 10 second cooldown, endgame mages actually have skulls ya know

Since you keep asking otm to delete my "mean" comments I think I will just have to use smiley faces on everything