696 réponses à ce sujet

[CLime]

szsleepy wrote...

I want to be able to play a mage like the warriors in those two videos. Visceral. Involved. Cerebral. Intense. Exciting.

Not this chess champion bull-kaka.

"Doesn't fit my preferred playstyle" =/= gimped

[Atmosfear3]

The OP is a ****** and has no idea how mages are even suppose to perform. This isn't a game where you solo with Hawke and nobody else.

[szsleepy]

Amioran wrote...

szsleepy wrote...
Again you miss the point.  Can you play a mage with that pace?  Real time?  No heals?  Hell no.

No, it's you that change the point depending on what it feels better for you at the time. Firstly the point was damage, but you have been proven wrong so then it changed to who can play the game solo. Being proven wrong also there you now changed to visceral gameplay (whatever that means).

I repeat: "visceral" gameplay can mean many things. A game of chess can be much more visceral than a soccer game, I assure you, it always depends on your knowledge on what is being shown.

Definition of VISCERAL
1 felt in or as if in the internal organs of the body  deep <a visceral conviction>
2 not intellectual  instinctive, unreasoning <visceral drives>
3 dealing with crude or elemental emotions : earthy <a visceral novel>
4 of, relating to, or located on or among the viscera : splanchnic <visceral organs>



As for the claim that I'm changing my point to whatever suits is false.  The damage is the pace.  The terrible DPS of the mage leads to an agonizingly slow pace that demands ample use of pause-tactics that strips from the VISCERAL gameplay that rogues and warriors enjoy.

Modifié par szsleepy, 19 mars 2011 - 07:23 .

[Zombievarning]

Oh no, the controller style crowd control class can't solo properly. Balance isn't about each class being equally good at solo play in a party-style game.

[Rehwyn]

szsleepy wrote...
WRONG.





ENJOY.

You do realize the reason he was able to use no healing in the first video was because of Merrill and Anders, right? They're pretty much constantly CC'ing, debuffing, and using cross-class combos.

The second video has Merrill.. and Anders... and healing. Interesting choice of videos to prove mages are bad and that you don't need healing on NM.

Modifié par Rehwyn, 19 mars 2011 - 07:27 .

[szsleepy]

Zombievarning wrote...

Oh no, the controller style crowd control class can't solo properly. Balance isn't about each class being equally good at solo play in a party-style game.

Fair enough, perhaps my original challenge was crude at best.  An effort to challenge the thinking that mages are designed anywhere near as VISCERALLY as the warrior or rogue. 

My intent was to open discussion on the nature of the mage, and to point out the fact that they simply don't match up to the quality of gameplay that is inherent for rogues and warriors.

[knownastherat]

Not like it matters, but I agree with OP. Not sure about other difficulties, but on NM where "physical" rules mages are not as strong as rogues or warriors.

To all those trying to disprove OP, come up with methodology for comparing strengths of classes. If her/his (challenge) is not good enough, how would you go about comparing them, because it we agree it is possible to compare them, there has to be a way how to do it.

[szsleepy]

Rehwyn wrote...

szsleepy wrote...
WRONG.





ENJOY.

You do realize the reason he was able to use no healing in the first video was because of Merrill and Anders, right? They're pretty much constantly CC'ing, debuffing, and using cross-class combos.

The second video has Merrills.. and Anders... and healing. Interesting choice of videos to prove you mages are bad and that you don't need healing on NM.

My point was to show how the PLAYER CHARACTER plays.  Not NPC support.  It's about the MAIN CHARACTER and the class disparity that becomes all too apparent when compared with videos such as these.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

Official description of the mage.

Mages in Dragon Age II deal in raw power, whether sapping, bestowing,
or inflicting it. They have incredible tactical potential, a fact
underscored by how doggedly they are hunted by the Templars. Versatile
and devastating, an apostate mage lives a dangerous life in Kirkwall,
but he or she is more than capable of handling the risk posed by the
over-tasked authorities.
Mages can all but destroy an enemy’s ability to fight. Slowing,
weakening, disenchanting—once they know a weakness, they can turn the
most dangerous opponent into a helpless target.
Alternately, Mages can turn their teammates into an unstoppable
force by healing, adding elemental damage to weapons, and seemingly
altering time in the party’s favor with Haste. Both Warriors and Rogues
can benefit from having a Mage at their backs.
But perhaps the main reason Mages are feared is that they command
the battlefield with incredible area-of-effect damage. Enemies who are
not incapacitated or countered with empowered allies are simply
obliterated. All of the classes in Dragon Age II are masters in their
own discipline, but it’s Mages who truly leave the earth scorched in
their wake.

Sorry, their damage sucks on Nightmare.

[Ace Attorney]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

Official description of the mage.

Mages in Dragon Age II deal in raw power, whether sapping, bestowing,
or inflicting it. They have incredible tactical potential, a fact
underscored by how doggedly they are hunted by the Templars. Versatile
and devastating, an apostate mage lives a dangerous life in Kirkwall,
but he or she is more than capable of handling the risk posed by the
over-tasked authorities.
Mages can all but destroy an enemy’s ability to fight. Slowing,
weakening, disenchanting—once they know a weakness, they can turn the
most dangerous opponent into a helpless target.
Alternately, Mages can turn their teammates into an unstoppable
force by healing, adding elemental damage to weapons, and seemingly
altering time in the party’s favor with Haste. Both Warriors and Rogues
can benefit from having a Mage at their backs.
But perhaps the main reason Mages are feared is that they command
the battlefield with incredible area-of-effect damage. Enemies who are
not incapacitated or countered with empowered allies are simply
obliterated. All of the classes in Dragon Age II are masters in their
own discipline, but it’s Mages who truly leave the earth scorched in
their wake.

Sorry, their damage sucks on Nightmare.

And Nightmare is the intended default difficulty since when?

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

T3hAnubis wrote...

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

Official description of the mage.

Mages in Dragon Age II deal in raw power, whether sapping, bestowing,
or inflicting it. They have incredible tactical potential, a fact
underscored by how doggedly they are hunted by the Templars. Versatile
and devastating, an apostate mage lives a dangerous life in Kirkwall,
but he or she is more than capable of handling the risk posed by the
over-tasked authorities.
Mages can all but destroy an enemy’s ability to fight. Slowing,
weakening, disenchanting—once they know a weakness, they can turn the
most dangerous opponent into a helpless target.
Alternately, Mages can turn their teammates into an unstoppable
force by healing, adding elemental damage to weapons, and seemingly
altering time in the party’s favor with Haste. Both Warriors and Rogues
can benefit from having a Mage at their backs.
But perhaps the main reason Mages are feared is that they command
the battlefield with incredible area-of-effect damage. Enemies who are
not incapacitated or countered with empowered allies are simply
obliterated. All of the classes in Dragon Age II are masters in their
own discipline, but it’s Mages who truly leave the earth scorched in
their wake.

Sorry, their damage sucks on Nightmare.

And Nightmare is the intended default difficulty since when?

Since the other classes vastly outperform the mage on Nightmare obviously there is a balance problem. It should be corrected because right now mages suck in comparison to the other classes on Nightmare.

[swk3000]

I find it telling that anytime anyone tries to defend the other side of the argument, the OP starts calling them names. No matter how valid his argument or the other person's argument may or may not be, calling people names is like shooting yourself in the foot. If you want a serious discussion, then start discussing, not calling everyone names. As it is, you're coming across as a little kid who gets mad that we don't all see things in exactly the same way you do.

And keep in mind that I didn't say anything for or against you. I've not played a Mage class yet, so I have no valid input on the situation.

[szsleepy]

T3hAnubis wrote...
And Nightmare is the intended default difficulty since when?

Their damage sucks on any difficulty without CCCs compared to rogues or warriors.  No matter how difficult the game is, the mage suffers from tedious gameplay that borders on something akin to standing in line at a bank while one waits for cooldowns.  Even on Casual difficulty the disparity is clear.  As the main character, there is nothing visceral or engaging about the mage experience at all.

Nightmare difficulty simply brings that point home.  Pure immunity to the mage's damage leaves the class less than stellar, considering it's counterparts.

There is nothing strong about the mage, except when one throws immersive gameplay aside and echews fun for tactical dominance.  I suppose being a military genius is fun in its own right, but why not sit down for a good game of Risk instead?  Surely the "gameplay experience" is similar.

[Rehwyn]

szsleepy wrote...
My point was to show how the PLAYER CHARACTER plays.  Not NPC support.  It's about the MAIN CHARACTER and the class disparity that becomes all too apparent when compared with videos such as these.

Hmm, I might agree on a point here. I don't believe this is because mages are weak, however. It's because of their role in combat. Both warriors and rogues are designed to be in the thick of things, using their abilities to actively tank or DPS. They don't get as big a benefit from CCCs, but they rely less on them too. Mages (on Nightmare) are designed to CC/buff/debuff and use their damage spells when they get the massive multipliers: in CCCs.

I suspect the limitations of tactics and AI are partially at fault here as well. An AI mage with good tactics can CCC perfectly without needing to pause or interrupt gameplay, but a PC mage will need to pause in order to select proper targets and activate their spells. However, a PC warrior or rogue will pretty much always outperform an AI counterpart, without needing to pause as frequently simply because a PC will be better at chosing targets and combat movement in real time..

So yes, because of their role and the precision needed to perform well as a mage, combat likely will feel less "visceral", as you say. This isn't because mages are weak or gimped though. It's because their role and design is different.

Modifié par Rehwyn, 19 mars 2011 - 07:41 .

[szsleepy]

swk3000 wrote...

I find it telling that anytime anyone tries to defend the other side of the argument, the OP starts calling them names. No matter how valid his argument or the other person's argument may or may not be, calling people names is like shooting yourself in the foot. If you want a serious discussion, then start discussing, not calling everyone names. As it is, you're coming across as a little kid who gets mad that we don't all see things in exactly the same way you do.

At the start of the conversation, yes.  But I feel in my more recent posts that I've redeemed myself and taken a more focused and objective stance on the argument.

Thanks for the choke-chain-pull, though.  I appreciate what you were trying to say.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

Actually, the official description of the mage has them as awesome damage dealers.

But perhaps the main reason Mages are feared is that they command
the battlefield with incredible area-of-effect damage. Enemies who are
not incapacitated or countered with empowered allies are simply
obliterated. All of the classes in Dragon Age II are masters in their
own discipline, but it’s Mages who truly leave the earth scorched in
their wake.

[Rehwyn]

Grumpy Old Wizard wrote...

Actually, the official description of the mage has them as awesome damage dealers.

But perhaps the main reason Mages are feared is that they command
the battlefield with incredible area-of-effect damage. Enemies who are
not incapacitated or countered with empowered allies are simply
obliterated. All of the classes in Dragon Age II are masters in their
own discipline, but it’s Mages who truly leave the earth scorched in
their wake.

On normal, I suspect that might be true. I've only done Hard/Nightmare though, so can't really comment.

[szsleepy]

Rehwyn wrote...


So yes, because of their role and the precision needed to perform well as a mage, combat likely will feel less "visceral", as you say. This isn't because mages are weak or gimped though. It's because their role and design is different.

But isn't that the point, Rehwyn?  The gimpness of mages causes deliberation and ample use of pause-tactics.  If the class performed on-par with its counterparts then the experience would surely be more gratifying.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

On normal, I suspect that might be true. I've only done Hard/Nightmare though, so can't really comment.

My mage is on Nightmare and is level 20. I can tell you for a fact that his damage sucks and he has something like 56 Magic.

Edit: Actually, he has 61 Magic.

Modifié par Grumpy Old Wizard, 19 mars 2011 - 07:49 .

[Koshnek]

Eh, I think their design was a little poor then. Especially when you take into account that mages are supposed to be feared for the immense power they wield. Playing as the hero in DA:O and DA2 skews your understanding of these things, but just a couple abominations are supposed to be a massive threat...the same for blood mages too. Blood magic/possession only amplifies the power that is already there by removing the limitations.

If the player wants to deal damage with a mage, they should have that option, especially being it is implied throughout the lore of the series. Bumping up a difficulty shouldn't leave mages the passive positions of buffers, healers, and controllers.

Edit: This was in response to the post above about how mages are meant to be played more strategically a couple replies above.

Modifié par Koshnek, 19 mars 2011 - 07:52 .

[Rehwyn]

szsleepy wrote...

But isn't that the point, Rehwyn?  The gimpness of mages causes deliberation and ample use of pause-tactics.  If the class performed on-par with its counterparts then the experience would surely be more gratifying.

I'm not sure how a more tactical style of play is something new for a mage compared to a warrior or rogue. In DA:O I always paused more often to set up mage spells than for anything else.

I'm not entirely sure how you're defining "gimp" either. I'd consider a class "gimp" if it failed to contribute significantly to the overall success of the party in combat. That doesn't necessarily mean doing lots of damage or healing or tanking or whatever, but being an effective party member.

It sounds to me that you're complaining about the playstyle, not the class effectiveness.

EDIT: @Grumpy - Perhaps Mage damage scaling needs some tweaking, in that case. It's hard sometimes to really tell who is doing what damage on my high-level rogue because not all the damage values are shown and because stuff dies so fast. I do know I hear the CCC "sound" fairly frequently though, usually followed by stuff exploding.

Modifié par Rehwyn, 19 mars 2011 - 07:56 .

[swk3000]

szsleepy wrote...

swk3000 wrote...

I find it telling that anytime anyone tries to defend the other side of the argument, the OP starts calling them names. No matter how valid his argument or the other person's argument may or may not be, calling people names is like shooting yourself in the foot. If you want a serious discussion, then start discussing, not calling everyone names. As it is, you're coming across as a little kid who gets mad that we don't all see things in exactly the same way you do.

At the start of the conversation, yes.  But I feel in my more recent posts that I've redeemed myself and taken a more focused and objective stance on the argument.

Thanks for the choke-chain-pull, though.  I appreciate what you were trying to say.

I see that. I stopped reading part-way through page 3, when you were in full name-calling mode.

[gremlinfat]

The reason mages don't solo well is they have low constitution and armor. They and up taking damage quick. Unless you are doing bloodmage, why would you be putting points into constitution? It doesn't make sense to expect a mage to be attacked my 20 people and not get hurt. My mage does tremendous damage. I cast tempest on a group, then on a tough enemy cast walking bomb, then crushing prison, then gravity thing to bunch them up and fights over. My rogue is usually dead before this short sequence is over.

[Tj14]

You're
insane 



Mages aren't supposed to play solo, especially in
Dragon Age Universe, oh I mean especially in Bioware's game. Bioware are known
for how they create such characters that can interact with their companion and
all (Baldur's Gate, Star Wars KOTOR, DAO, DAII, ME, ME2 etc.) and this is why
Bioware is so unique 



I'm not going to lie, it's tempting to treat
Bioware's game as such any other RPG like Elder Scroll with Solo Mages and
roaming around the city with spells..but sadly it's not Elder Scroll, so play
how you suppose to play, complaint how you suppose to complaint  

[Koshnek]

Thankfully, everyone has already moved on from the "try solo on casual" thing.