Is it just me, or does Inferno suck?
#26
Posté 10 mai 2010 - 09:58
If you don't like Spell Might (not sure why you wouldn't, as additional spellpower is awesome), then I can see not going for SOTC, but for me, I'll always choose SOTC over Inferno.
#27
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 12:44
My solo nightmare mage is finding Fireball/Inferno to be WAY better than CoC/Blizz. Yes, the latter can freeze things in place (and that's probably better when you have a party to shatter) but the former simply kills things. If monsters are charging me, a Fireball knocks them down just long enough that if I start casting Inferno right after, the spell is done by the time they are back up and charging. You simply can't use SotC in situations like that. On average, my mage was clearing areas TWICE as fast going fire versus ice and died a lot less.
To the guy who mentioned Fireball's damage: I believe it actually only gives you HALF of the listed damage up front and makes you wait for the other half, so it's not 2X whatever is listed total. Also, don't forget that Inferno sets things on fire as well, resulting in burn damage.
#28
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 05:55
TemjinGold wrote...
The problem with SotC is that Blizzard sucks and the 3 Lightning spells you need aren't much better. SotC itself also requires an ungodly amount of time to actually cast (not to mention costing a crapload of mana when it does cast.)
My solo nightmare mage is finding Fireball/Inferno to be WAY better than CoC/Blizz. Yes, the latter can freeze things in place (and that's probably better when you have a party to shatter) but the former simply kills things. If monsters are charging me, a Fireball knocks them down just long enough that if I start casting Inferno right after, the spell is done by the time they are back up and charging. You simply can't use SotC in situations like that. On average, my mage was clearing areas TWICE as fast going fire versus ice and died a lot less.
To the guy who mentioned Fireball's damage: I believe it actually only gives you HALF of the listed damage up front and makes you wait for the other half, so it's not 2X whatever is listed total. Also, don't forget that Inferno sets things on fire as well, resulting in burn damage.
Yes, fireball is half impact and half over time, I mentioned that the first time around. I was comparing it's total damage versus Inferno's total damage however, since they are both damage over time effects. The total damage of fireball is 60+60% of spellpower, or 120 at 100 spellpower. The fire effects from Inferno are simply visual as far as I'm aware, as there's nothing in the spell to indicate otherwise.
#29
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 03:15
While we're talking about fireball, why does grease fire suck so bad? Seriously, Bioware, 1-2 damage a tick? Would it have been too hard to make that scale up a little? And why would I cast Blizzard on grease fire to quench it when Blizzard does more damage and lasts longer in the first place, and takes a good 4-5 seconds to take effect anyway. Considering how the whole "light the grease on fire and put it out with a blizzard" was hyped up before the game, it surprises me how uttlerly useless those spell combos are in practice.
And yeah, a cast time/longer cooldown on fireball would be good. That would make emissaries a lot less annoying. It's funny, but even though I often say the game is too easy, getting hit with a fireball is the one situation that often results in casualties.
#30
Posté 11 mai 2010 - 05:59
soteria wrote...
...getting hit with a fireball is the one situation that often results in casualties.
Yep, and the only reason I'm still not Kind of a Big Deal. One playthrough my only injury was when the Mad Hermit and/or his greater rage demons dropped two fireballs on me almost simultaneously. Had I known at the time, I would have replayed it.
#31
Posté 12 mai 2010 - 12:32
#32
Posté 12 mai 2010 - 12:49





Retour en haut






