696 réponses à ce sujet

[Graunt]

Gloxgasm wrote...

There are a lot of walking bomb tricks you pick up.
For example

Enemy health <10: Next Tactic
Enemy Clustered with at least 3: Next Tactic
Enemy at Medium to Long range: Walking Bomb

Can skip the range part and just micro your tank back.

Except this is a 100% way to kill at least one, if not two companions since they are almost NEVER in the same area.  Tank isn't even an issue when you're sitting at 99% resists.  Really, it seems like people want to remember the select few times where WB actually made any kind of real difference at all, and selectively forgetting the rest of the game.  What works soloing doesn't necessarily work in a group, unless you don't mind eating 1-2 injury kits after each fight.

Modifié par Graunt, 28 mars 2011 - 02:33 .

[SuicidalBaby]

mmm tasty gause

[Gage123]

Graunt wrote...

Gloxgasm wrote...

No, that is how I use walking bomb every battle. Fighting Ser V and the fanatics right now and I think I hit 15+ with a walking bomb.

If you're talking about the underground fight where non stop fanatics keep pouring out -- err, I'm not saying that's not a fun place to use Walking Bomb, but it's also overkill if you have Tempest since most of those enemies have very low life.  I'm also NOT trying to downplay the potential effective killing power of Walking Bomb either, it's just that I keep finding that even with Pull/Gravitic/Tank@99% resist, the spell is just way too situational.  

It's not really a bad cost to reach with Anders either, it only requires two skill points, but I'm still barely ever finding much use for it, and more often than not when I do land it inside a cluster, the enemy either steps out too far or gets knocked back and the explosion radius only seems like it's 2m even when they are together.

AreleX wrote...

I said I wasn't going to post in here
again, but the ignorance is getting out of hand. I made a video for the
people who have no idea how to get the best out of their companions
(most of you), and for the people who have no idea how to play Warrior,
or how it works (again, most of you). I don't care if I'm coming across
as arrogant; there's nothing more arrogant than acting as if your
opinion has any merit, when, in reality, you don't have the slightest
clue.

Teamwork/Warrior 101

Don't even fix your hands to type something about Warrior unless you know what you're talking about.

Don't worry, some people will fall victim to a case of convenient amnesia after watching this, or will discount it as being an outlier case and that this isn't how the fights "usually" work.

Why does this video feel like it only shows a portion, a REALLY small one, where the mage does damage only every 20 sec rather than every sec like that warrior hacking and slashing non-stop.

I honestly think they made mages too dependent on CCC compared to other classes which don't need CCC to actually kill groups quickly.

[AK2EL]

ITT: A person who is all mad about the fact that classes are never meant to be equally good at everything.

Modifié par AK2EL, 28 mars 2011 - 09:04 .

[rumination888]

www.youtube.com/watch

Some notes:

1.) I avoided taking any warriors for the purpose of this video.

2.) I normally take Aveline over Anders. Without controlled staggers, I'm missing some huge burst potential from Chain Lightning.

3.) I respecced out of Heroic Aura, and put the point into improved Stone Fist hoping to get back some of that lost burst potential for this fight, but it didn't pan out like i'd hope.

4.) Haste was completely pointless due to the magic resistance bug.

5.) The Fire Ward runes not only helps with Firestorm, but also helps with Varric's Bursting Arrow. Not to mention the reduced damage from fire traps and enemies. One Fire Ward adds 90% resistance to allies. Arcane Shield increases that to 95%( AS effectively halved incoming fire damage). Anders does not have any rune slots.

6.) Incase you can't read between the lines, Anders is a complete waste of space.

7.) I ran out of money to buy the Robes of Cleanliness. That item adds a significant amount of damage. No money to buy Cold-Blooded from Act 2, either. Templars are weak to cold, and so a 2H warrior weilding Bloom, or a Mage wearing the aforementioned items would've cleaned house.

Modifié par rumination888, 28 mars 2011 - 10:12 .

[wowpwnslol]

I actually have to side with Grumpy Wizard here. Yeah, some of the stuff mages do is impressive in skilled hands, but absolutely nothing compared to a warrior. I was browsing the berserker thread and he keeps going from group to group without slowing down, obliterating them within seconds with almost no DPS help from the party. I see mages showing off some very nice things, but nothing that makes me say "damn...this class owns!"

Bio's direction is obvious:

warrior Hawke = badass superhero, plays like action game, great talent tree design, strong throughout the game
mage Hawke = tactician, supporter, pauser. Relies more on team mates for CCC's, always missing "that one needed talent", Forced into force mage spec or be knocked on your ass every time someone sneezes in your direction

Rogue is also tactician's choice IMO, huge single DPS with low fort, HP and armor = constant micro, dancing, avoiding aggro. Plus specialized talent trees, not as straightforward as warrior's, make this quite a high skill cap class.

[Amioran]

wowpwnslol wrote...

I actually have to side with Grumpy Wizard here. Yeah, some of the stuff mages do is impressive in skilled hands, but absolutely nothing compared to a warrior. I was browsing the berserker thread and he keeps going from group to group without slowing down, obliterating them within seconds with almost no DPS help from the party.

Probably you have see other videos because in all of those there's Merril that does the most of the spike damage to the groups, and she doesn't either have Wound of the Past to use on staggered. In that way she will obliterate anything much before the warrior either did anything of consistent.

More, she constantly paralyzes and prison elite enemies. Didn't you see perhaps that all the time the warrior is on an elite the numbers start rising much faster? Naturally not, you didn't notice, isn't it?

wowpwnslol wrote...
I see mages showing off some very nice things, but nothing that makes me say "damn...this class owns!"

No, the problem is that you expect mages to do damage in the same way as the mech-5 warrior does. Mages don't do constant damage, but do so in spikes. Totally different thing, you know.

More, given the problematic AI, to see the potential of a mage, usually, you have to play micromanage the warrior, because the warrior AI cannot cope well with what is needed from a mage pow. To this you must add that AoEs cannot be tied to enemies this time and FF on nightmare so how can you expect on a mage a non-paused gameplay as the one you see on those videos? What you say makes no sense, really. Just because you have to pause it means that you do less damage?

wowpwnslol wrote...
Bio's direction is obvious:

Given your remarks above I highly doubt you can judge what is the direction Bioware "is going", just because, as your "friend", you still continue to compare totally different gameplay styles as if they are (or should, and they shouldn't) be the same.

You and your friend always says that mages were powerful in DAO, yet, then, show me a video of a DAO mage that does CONSTANT damage as the mech-5 warrior does, more, without pausing, since you always use this excuse of the "video" (as if that should prove anything). You will not find any because MAGES DON'T USE THAT TYPE OF GAMEPLAY TO DO DAMAGE.

Modifié par Amioran, 28 mars 2011 - 11:16 .

[ebx]

I just read to page 3, and can't be bothered reading the many more pages there but I whole heartedly agree with OP. I started the game as a mage and found it challenging on normal difficulty and even had to drop it back to casual for some fights. The only place my mage shined was kiting bosses around once the entire party died, which took a long time and was boring. 2nd time through, I played a 2h warrior and the game was an absolute breeze on hard difficulty. Only time I dropped the difficulty back was for the rock wraith fight in the deep roads, and that was only because I was tired and wanted to get on with the game instead of having a really long fight.

Both times I had no experience with the class I was using, and wasn't really thinking about tactics and ****, yet the warrior pulled his weight much more than the mage did. Even if mages are only for CC, that's not the reason I chose a mage first play through. I chose a mage so I could be powerful and blow stuff up. Turns out a warrior does that a lot better. Surely people choose mages with the idea that they're a devastating but flimsy force on the battlefield. As it happens, their only utility is using glyphs and buffing/healing/resurrecting people. Maybe a hex or two as well. I even turned Anders's attack off entirely because he was so useless in a fight and would only draw aggro with his attacks, which is stupid. His effect on party damage was so pathetic he may as well not even be there. So much for the fearsome mage

[Amioran]

ebx wrote...

I just read to page 3, and can't be bothered reading the many more pages there but I whole heartedly agree with OP. I started the game as a mage and found it challenging on normal difficulty and even had to drop it back to casual for some fights.

Excuse me but if you have a problem with a mage on normal difficulty and you think a warrior is better on it then you do something SERIOUSLY wrong.

Don't blame the game, it is YOUR fault. There's no way a mage is less powerful than a warrior on normal difficulty, it isn't even remotely possible.

But naturally, if you played till level 5-6 with a mage (when he doesn't either begin to be of use) and then started a warrior WITH ALL THE DLC ITEMS, then it's obvious your remarks. Things must be taken in context: A) mages takes a while to become strong, a warrior has absurd DLC items at beginning, that boost damage/survivability immensely. Do the same confront at about level 14-15, then return, want you?

On normal there's no even history.

Modifié par Amioran, 28 mars 2011 - 11:23 .

[ebx]

Amioran wrote...

ebx wrote...

I just read to page 3, and can't be bothered reading the many more pages there but I whole heartedly agree with OP. I started the game as a mage and found it challenging on normal difficulty and even had to drop it back to casual for some fights.

Excuse me but if you have a problem with a mage on normal difficulty and you think a warrior is better on it then you do something SERIOUSLY wrong.

Don't blame the game, it is YOUR fault. There's no way a mage is less powerful than a warrior on normal difficulty, it isn't even remotely possible.

I'm not saying it's not my fault, all I'm saying is that for a novice to both classes the warrior is more powerful and easier to use. The fact that the game was easier playing a warrior on hard difficulty than it was playing a mage on normal difficulty says a lot. My warrior totally negates the effect of a mage, because his methods are simply better. A samurai can do a nice pretty dance and mess someone up pretty badly, but a dude can just whip out a gun and shoot him dead. The warrior is the guy with the gun. I'd choose an extra warrior or rogue in my party any day over another mage.

My mages in NWN, NWN2, DA:O were much more impressive than the mages in this game.

Edit: in response to your modification, I finished the game as a mage and as a warrior. The mage was the weaker

Modifié par ebx, 28 mars 2011 - 11:34 .

[keginkc]

ebx wrote...

I'm not saying it's not my fault, all I'm saying is that for a novice to both classes the warrior is more powerful and easier to use. The fact that the game was easier playing a warrior on hard difficulty than it was playing a mage on normal difficulty says a lot.

The main problem with a mage (in my opinion) is that they start you out without any offensive skills.  So when you first begin the game, after the exaggerated bit in the prologue, you can't do anything but shoot stuff with your staff.   Mind Blast is utterly useless (speaking as a Nightmare player).  So you get to the Ogre with very little at your disposal, in no small part because you have that spell taking up space that a more useful spell could fill.  You're also hampered by being in a 3-person party with another mage running a weak early skill (fireball), and then later trying to face the Ogre with, again, 3 people, limited skills, no healing if you've chosen to level attack skills and no real attack if you've chosen to level heal.  So it's not a real good situation initially for a mage.

However, mages are extremely powerful once you advance them further into their trees.  That's not to say that warriors aren't more powerful and easier to use, especially early on.  They are.  But the thread has the issue backwards: mages are not 'gimp'.  Warriors are overpowered early on.  As it turns out, Mages are fine where they are, especially once you get further into the first act and start to get you spells up to full strength.  I can tell you for a fact that I'm wiping stuff out without much of a problem in act 2 as a mage on Nightmare (just killed Xebenkeck), and I don't even run with a 2h warrior (I use Avaline).  At no point in either act have I had to lower the difficulty from Nightmare. 

That is to say, it's not really a matter of it being too difficult for mages.  Because it's not.  It's a matter of it perhaps being a bit too easy for the others.

[exskeeny]

Well as someone looking to start their first ever playthrough as a mage this has actually been a very informative topic.

If it did at some points remind me of a mage vs templar argument.

So thanks to all involved.

[Amioran]

ebx wrote...
I'm not saying it's not my fault, all I'm saying is that for a novice to both classes the warrior is more powerful and easier to use.

Warrior builds have always been easier to do than mages one. It is not case that the "predefined" hero of all RPGs is a warrior class. For a novice they are much easier to be powerful with. However this has nothing to do with the REAL power of a class, but more with accessibility.

ebx wrote...
The fact that the game was easier playing a warrior on hard difficulty than it was playing a mage on normal difficulty says a lot.

No, it just say that probably you were more good at making a powerful build as a warrior than a mage, because, OBJECTIVELY, a good mage build on normal it destroyes everything in a manner of seconds. There's no way a warrior can be comparable.

ebx wrote...
My mages in NWN, NWN2, DA:O were much more impressive than the mages in this game.

In normal difficulty? They have almost the same spells (with the same power) without either the problem of FF. In nightmare it is another thing because there are many resistances/immunities, but in normal no enemy has a % of resistance that really does any difference, so it is the same exactly as DA:O (or comparable).

The difference, however, is that in DAO (and also NWN) you noted the difference between a warrior and mage much more, now instead warriors are more powerful. It is not that mages have been "gimped" (more so on normal) but of warriors having been made stronger. If the gap is lower the sense of "power" of a class in respect to another it is obviously less.

ebx wrote...
Edit: in response to your modification, I finished the game as a mage and as a warrior. The mage was the weaker

If it was weaker for you is because probably you used the mage in a way that it was suboptimal. The mage class is always the most difficult class to play well. When you have a new game, with new skills etc. it is always the class that take the most for powerful builds and strategies to come out.

But, anyway, in normal, just for an example, Walking Bomb destroys everything with a taunted warrior, much more so than in DAO that had FF. You can cast two/three AoEs on top of the party, annihiliating everything. You don't either have the problem of being stunlocked (Rock Armor suffice to never being knocked back), so I cannot see how one can objectively say a warrior can be better on that difficulty.

The issue, if there's any, can be apparent only on nightmare difficulty, when some things make the mage consider more variables than before, while instead a warrior gameplay remains mostly unchanged.

Modifié par Amioran, 28 mars 2011 - 11:57 .

[Teknor]

ebx wrote...

My mages in NWN, NWN2, DA:O were much more impressive than the mages in this game.

Mages trivialized those games. If you are impressed by that then i'm sorry.

[ebx]

keginkc, I agree with that.
Amioran, I'd say you're right. I'll be playing a mage differently my next time through, should I decide to replay as a mage in the future.

Teknor wrote...

ebx wrote...

My mages in NWN, NWN2, DA:O were much more impressive than the mages in this game.

Mages trivialized those games. If you are impressed by that then i'm sorry.

Not at all sure what you mean, but I don't want or need your pity.

[Roxlimn]

ebx:

I played my first Mage on Normal for the first Act. The Staff of Parthalan ensured that I had the highest DPS of the entire party for the majority of the first act, as well as making sure that Fireball killed entire masses of enemies as soon as I took the first point.

[Roxlimn]

rumination888:

Would've taken Fenris in place of Anders for that fight. The initial CoC to Reaper for the first group is a massive bit of an overkill, but it's just so fun to watch. Also saves you some bit of time to run to the Firestorm on the docks.

[Gloxgasm]

Roxlimn wrote...

ebx:

I played my first Mage on Normal for the first Act. The Staff of Parthalan ensured that I had the highest DPS of the entire party for the majority of the first act, as well as making sure that Fireball killed entire masses of enemies as soon as I took the first point.

Bought Arlathan replica right off the bat for my archer rogue and it kills the staff in damage output with the right build =D

[Roxlimn]

Gloxgasm wrote...

Roxlimn wrote...

ebx:

I played my first Mage on Normal for the first Act. The Staff of Parthalan ensured that I had the highest DPS of the entire party for the majority of the first act, as well as making sure that Fireball killed entire masses of enemies as soon as I took the first point.

Bought Arlathan replica right off the bat for my archer rogue and it kills the staff in damage output with the right build =D

Just the Adder of Antiva would do that handily, but it's still just single target damage.  A Fireball powered by the Staff in early Act 1 on Normal is a veritable force of destruction.

Outfitting your entire party in DLC stuff and Black Emporium Stuff will kill whatever little difficulty might have been in Normal.

[bayes1881]

1 quick thing.
SPIRIT HEALER.
Unless you have forgotten the spirit healer is extremly OP. You get loads of nice passive bonuses and you can heal your whole team to full and ress them.
The primal tree is also not FF on nightmare something that makes mages a main source to aoe demage in the party. If you get some staggers your chain ligthing will pretty much destroy anything dealing INSANE amount of demage and no FF
Petrify is pretty much the longest disable in the game and if upgraded you get brittle wich is great for your warrior to take advantage of.

Also haste and the normal heal are both ****ing amazing!

I could continue like this all day!
My first playthrough was a warrior and I thought that mages was gimped too until I got around lvl 10 on my mage and I could do some seriusly ****ed up things with the primal tree and the spirit healer tree.
For all you struggling with mages try out spirit healing or go primal and build your team around that.
Mages arent gimp its just people that dont know how to spec or play them ( no offense )

[Trefecka]

Personally, the hardest thing I find when playing a mage is dealing with the retarded camera views and companion AI. The lack of isometric view (or whatever the fully top-down view is called) makes aiming ranged stuff (which is 90% of mage spells) a hassle. Combine that with the snap-to AOE targetting (makes FF a pain) and it the majority of the fight is simply getting your spells to land where you want them.

I'm sure people have commented on it before but the AI issues certainly don't help. Especially since movement behavior seems to override everything else. It seriously makes anything aside from aggressive to be useless if you use hold position a lot. Ranged would be nice for mage/archers, but I find if you use hold position when enemies are close the AI will opt to run away instead of any tactics, but since it can't move it just stands around doing nothing.

[Bourne Endeavor]

I do not understand the purpose of this thread. Mages have always been incapable of high survivability devoid of a party, be it a Final Fantasy game, Dragon Age or MMO. They are designed as support either through obscene amounts of damage in some instances, buffer powers or healing. Were I to attempt WoW or Guild Wars solo with a mage I would be pulverized into a fine paste, whereas with a Warrior-esque class I would quite possibly have a degree of success.

If mages functioned as you seemingly insinuate they should. The class would be remarkably overpowered in a party setting. The Rogue and Warrior benefit from bolster statistics specifically designed to either absorb damage or avoid it completely. A mage simply does not have access to the equivalent unless they wish to sacrifice something else.

[Nerivant]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Mages have always been incapable of high survivability devoid of a party, be it a Final Fantasy game, Dragon Age or MMO.

You can solo DA:O as a mage on Nightmare. It's really not too bad.

[bayes1881]

Nerivant wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
Mages have always been incapable of high survivability devoid of a party, be it a Final Fantasy game, Dragon Age or MMO.

You can solo DA:O as a mage on Nightmare. It's really not too bad.

I DAO mages were  OP as ****

[Graunt]

she doesn't either have Wound of the Past to use on staggered.

People keep saying how much "better" Merril is as a Blood Mage, yet her Hemorrhage doesn't actually get a stagger bonus.  May want to check that.