128 réponses à ce sujet

[Xultep]

F-C wrote...

if bioware did anything wrong it was simply making melee classes require a stat that would seem wrong to players from other games, and thats willpower.

if you stack up a lot of willpower on a melee class they can spam a lot of abilities, and become a lot more powerful as the moderator was saying in the thread about 2hds.

however most players of mmo games and the like see this as wrong, its not the proper min/max build. so they put all of 0 points in willpower, then cry about their melee classes suck and their mages own.

apparently it needed to be dumbed down so that people couldnt make their melee classes wrong.

I think Bioware made the right call here.  Your WP still goes up every level, and you have to make a choice as to how many combos/buffs you can use during a fight.  But the point is, a mage is worthless without mana, but a warrior is still pretty damn powerful without stamina!

But I think you are right, alot of people are struggling with how to make strong warrior builds.  Like I have said before, if merchants has an infinite supply of healing pots, I think mages wouldn't be all that necessary.

Modifié par Xultep, 27 novembre 2009 - 06:48 .

[Ace Attorney]

In any Fantasy Lore, Mages are the most powerful job/class. It is very simple: Magic requires no physical effort and is very effective.

Magic > Melee

But generally, Magic either comes with a price or rigorous training. Also, Magic Users tend to be frail, hence the coined "Glass cannon" term. This is where Melee users come in. They keep the threats at bay, letting Magic Users do their stuff. Behind every good Mage there is a just as good Meatshield or two. A parasitic relationship.

[Byrnghaer]

MR-9 wrote...

Byrnghaer wrote...

Because i hate the robed, gentle and 'polite' (for lack of a better word) appearance of mages.
I love barbarians, light leather armour, preferably bear or wolfskin, long beard, dual axes, long hair, basically a Viking Berserk, not giving a crap about their own safety as long as they can hurt and kill their foe in a barbaric rage.
Mages simply dont come close to that personality.
Being brutal without remorse, emerging from the mist to eviscerate anyone who stands against you.

God of War is your friend.

So far Age of Conan is the closest i ever came to create the ultimate character for me.
You have bearskin armour there, I had 4 scars across my chest, and striped warpaint on my face that resembled those same scars (kinda braveheart style), long untamed hair and i made the longest beard in the game even longer by changing facial features. Then ofcourse i gave him two axes, and a really big twohanded sword

[Ehhra]

Mages are good, yes, but are in no way necessary. I took my sword and board warrior through normal just fine with Sten, Shale, and my loyal hound. I'm sure I could do the same on hard, not sure what nightmare would be like.



So since the game isn't hard enough that you actually need to min/max your character to death, all that's left is playing whatever you enjoy.

[DaeFaron]

I made a warrior as my first character, and hardly touched control to wynne unless I needed to res the warriors, or drink a mana potion.



I have never understood why people still refer to making characters as 'rolling'.

[ITSSEXYTIME]

Because it's fun to play the other classes.

Also: you're using Leiliana wrong if you're giving her daggers. 

[Vaylor66]

You can pretty much rip up all the enemies with a well built warrior or rogue as well.

[Faerell Gustani]

Kaosgirl wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...

So, what if I want to play a CC styled mage but also want a gameplay challenge?

Make suboptimal build choices and try to compensate with in-game tactics?

I know, I know:  heresy.  

No it's an absurdity. I understand why many Bio fans defends DA:O's rule system no matter what... I'm a Bioware fan-boy too: I will buy every expansion, DLC or game with DA brand on it. I enjoy DA:O a lot and I know that it's a miracle that such a game (for scope, lenght and depth) has reach the market. Thanks Bioware!

But still: a game system where you have to make sub-optimal choices to face a challenge is not an example of great design.

Bah. Games should always be balanced according to the average player's character-building skills, not the top elite who *deliberately* (if subconsciously) drop the gameplay challenge rating by only taking the Absolute Best character and party builds.  

(With some accounting for expected audience.)

Maybe the mage class doesn't even hit that.  But I'm seeing lots of people complaining that the game is "too hard" on normal, and playing with two mages in their party.  The people complaining that the mage is "broken" all seem to be either top-tier character builders or devotees blindly following the top-tier builds.  These same people literally define doing anything that isn't perfectly Min-Maxed as "retarded" or "absurd."  AFAICS, their real problem isn't really that the mage is 'overpowered,' it's that the other classed don't break as easily with a touch of butthurt over the game being balanced with their "lessers" in mind.

FedericoV wrote...
The lack of balance between classes is not a game balance issue of course. It does not break the game. But it does effect the experience of players nonetheless. Considering that they have 6 years to develop DA, I expected a better system than BG's adaptation of AD&D.  Well, it's not the case. Even in AD&D mages were overpowered but they still need a party. That's not really true for DA:O.

Actually, "need" is debatable in BG, and moreso in BG2 (where you don't have to worry about the typical AD&D "mages are damn near useless in the beginning to make up for being godlike in the endgame" method of balancing the mage.)  I've seen plenty a walkthrough with solo mages in BG. 

Except, that the "standard" progression for mages is still overpowered.  Without even going into AW/BM you might as well have party of 3 mages.  The argument I'm making is not at the fully optimized level, I'm making it at the standard gameplay progression level.
Mages are OP and without realistic drawbacks.  By themselves, mages reduce the challenge of the game.  Just take Morrigan up her normal progression of Primal-Ice and the Entropy and Nightmare paths.

At the fully optimized setting the gap of power is just more definitive and noticable, but the Standard progression for mages is already pretty clearly above the curve.

Modifié par Faerell Gustani, 27 novembre 2009 - 09:37 .

[Faerell Gustani]

Elanareon wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Elanareon wrote...

Because BM/AW is boring. Though i liked the concept

Besides Mages are supposed to be almighty and alpowerful! It's not about the game mechanics or the game system etc. etc. etc. Its about the "lore"! I ask you why does warrior has to be as powerful as mages whereas mages command the elements and warriors just swings his sword? Its illogical! If playing warrior for you isnt fun then don't play em!

As a side note u don't know why you you are not having fun as a warrior. I think the warrior class in this game is the most fun to play with. Don't get me wrong in all of the RPG's i played i always choose a mage. I was even a mage in WoW. hehe but that didn't last long.

Yep, but if it's a lore thing... they should have penalized MORE mages in terms of RP/Story and the templar specialization should have been more powerful. Choiche and consequences: people hate and fear mages, right? Where are the consequences? C'mon, the lore can't be an excuse for game design choices. A system where you have to resist the urge of using spells/potions to face a challenge in battle is far from perfect.

But what does balance has to do with anything? Warriors are far from useless like many has stated. Yes mages are powerful. They have to be, they use magic. I really don't know how you find warriors and rogues. I've played all three of them and personally i'm finding warriors much more fun than playing mages. And i usually go for mages. If you find them weak and subpar you are playing them wrong.

You're right.  I also find Warriors and Rogues more entertaining than mages, but that's because there's no thought to being a mage.  It's about "how many people can I catch in the AoE and simultaneously CC them and kill them with 1-2 spells"

Warriors and rogues actually have to worry about tactics.  Intelligent timing of Stuns/knockdowns tactical positioning and using your abilities intelligently rather than just button mashing the same 2 abilities over an over again with little regard to timing or tactical positioning.

So the issue I have is that I would like to be challenged while playing a mage using a "standard" progression.  I can min-max with a warrior or a rogue as well and have a boring time with the game being unhittable, so I'm not really worried about the l33t upper teir of min-maxed play.  My concern is the base level of play, at the base level, mages do what the warriors and rogues do at the max level.

[Kaosgirl]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

Kaosgirl wrote...

Faerell Gustani wrote...

So, what if I want to play a CC styled mage but also want a gameplay challenge?

Make suboptimal build choices and try to compensate with in-game tactics?

I know, I know:  heresy.  

No it's an absurdity. I understand why many Bio fans defends DA:O's rule system no matter what... I'm a Bioware fan-boy too: I will buy every expansion, DLC or game with DA brand on it. I enjoy DA:O a lot and I know that it's a miracle that such a game (for scope, lenght and depth) has reach the market. Thanks Bioware!

But still: a game system where you have to make sub-optimal choices to face a challenge is not an example of great design.

Bah. Games should always be balanced according to the average player's character-building skills, not the top elite who *deliberately* (if subconsciously) drop the gameplay challenge rating by only taking the Absolute Best character and party builds.  

(With some accounting for expected audience.)

Maybe the mage class doesn't even hit that.  But I'm seeing lots of people complaining that the game is "too hard" on normal, and playing with two mages in their party.  The people complaining that the mage is "broken" all seem to be either top-tier character builders or devotees blindly following the top-tier builds.  These same people literally define doing anything that isn't perfectly Min-Maxed as "retarded" or "absurd."  AFAICS, their real problem isn't really that the mage is 'overpowered,' it's that the other classed don't break as easily with a touch of butthurt over the game being balanced with their "lessers" in mind.

FedericoV wrote...
The lack of balance between classes is not a game balance issue of course. It does not break the game. But it does effect the experience of players nonetheless. Considering that they have 6 years to develop DA, I expected a better system than BG's adaptation of AD&D.  Well, it's not the case. Even in AD&D mages were overpowered but they still need a party. That's not really true for DA:O.

Actually, "need" is debatable in BG, and moreso in BG2 (where you don't have to worry about the typical AD&D "mages are damn near useless in the beginning to make up for being godlike in the endgame" method of balancing the mage.)  I've seen plenty a walkthrough with solo mages in BG. 

Except, that the "standard" progression for mages is still overpowered.  Without even going into AW/BM you might as well have party of 3 mages.  The argument I'm making is not at the fully optimized level, I'm making it at the standard gameplay progression level.

And that's why you called taking a less-than-optimized approach "absurd," when you had the opportunity at the time to say "No, even that doesn't work" instead.  I hope you'll forgive me if I interpret this as either backpedaling somewhat or confusing the line between 'standard' and 'expert' character building.

[Faerell Gustani]

First, I don't recall ever saying that taking the "less than optimized approach" is "absurd". If you check the quote tunnes, you'll note that it would be FedericoV you're talking about. I don't necessarily disagree with him, but that's not how I would define absurdity vs standard.

Second, even if I did, it still does not dispute the fact that "standard" progression for mages is still severely OP.

By standard progression I mean mirror the Warrior/Rogue selection of abilities.
Pick a style and take all 12 abilities in that style.

So all 12 primal talents, or all 12 Entropy. Whatever you pick (aside from creation which is a support style) you are guaranteed to perform better than Rogues and Warriors built for the same purpose.

A rogue built to have a high enough defense as to dodge every attack also falls into the "Absurd" category as it requires so much dex that you begin sacrificing other class features for it. Just like the AW/BM.
They're certainly ingenious uses of game mechanics, but these fall into the category of "problem mechanics" which should probably be fixed.

There's my layout of "standard" vs "absurd".

Modifié par Faerell Gustani, 28 novembre 2009 - 07:36 .

[Kaosgirl]

Faerell Gustani wrote...

First, I don't recall ever saying that taking the "less than optimized approach" is "absurd". If you check the quote tunnes, you'll note that it would be FedericoV you're talking about.

Oops, mea culpa there.  I conflated the two of you.

Faerell Gustani wrote...
Second, even if I did, it still does not dispute the fact that "standard" progression for mages is still severely OP.

By standard progression I mean mirror the Warrior/Rogue selection of abilities.
Pick a style and take all 12 abilities in that style.

So all 12 primal talents, or all 12 Entropy. Whatever you pick (aside from creation which is a support style) you are guaranteed to perform better than Rogues and Warriors built for the same purpose.

Not IME, though I'll grant that's primarily early-game. My first run-through with a mage actually got wiped in the Harrowing, and struggled through the Ostragar missions.  I haven't had that problem with any other character, not even the Dhalish that I thought I gimped. 

This is (also IME) how mages typically run.  They're a struggle in the early game, and a cakewalk through the latter - enemies with massive magic resists notwithstanding.  And from an obscure thread I lost somewhere, it seems there might be an issue with enemy resists not working as the code implies they should (which, if true, would indicate the problem is not with the mage itself but with enemies being more vulnerable than they should be.)

I'll grant there's likely some issues with the AW (including the known bug of Shimmering Shield(?) not shutting off when it should on the PC), but tankmages have always been either Drastically Overpowered or Gimped Beyond Usefulness (depending on whether the setup creates a mage without his traditional weaknesses, or a warrior with the mages traditional weaknesses.)  So I'm not overly surprised there.  Also the Infinite Lyrium Potions, which all but eliminates one of the traditional mage weaknesses (useless without mana) all by itself.

[Endurium]

This game has me addicted to mages; while BG1/2 had me rolling paladins most of the time. I just created a noble mage thanks to a console trick someone pointed out awhile back.



For some reason the spells just come naturally to me; haven't had any trouble; my last complete game was an elven mage. Going to try the arcane warrior setup this time around.

[BiowareFanatic]

 Mages are overpowered yes, but I justify it by playing on the hardest difficulty :happy:

[FMAGNET]

If your complaint is that your warrior isn't as powerful as your mage ( low damage, stamina too low to spam abilities ) then use your mage to restore that stamina and buff the damage. Mages in this game are more than AoE, and Healz - They're CC and Buffs.



Kind of a shame that most people don't want to play it that way, but I guess it's hard to resist the temptation to give every mage the big dmg #s. They really needed to strip some CC and all buffs from mages and create another class that just does those two things. Or just limit the skill tree path early, so that some npc mages only make sense to use in that role.



my 2c

[Roxlimn]

Because it's fun.

[0mar]

FMAGNET wrote...

If your complaint is that your warrior isn't as powerful as your mage ( low damage, stamina too low to spam abilities ) then use your mage to restore that stamina and buff the damage. Mages in this game are more than AoE, and Healz - They're CC and Buffs.

Kind of a shame that most people don't want to play it that way, but I guess it's hard to resist the temptation to give every mage the big dmg #s. They really needed to strip some CC and all buffs from mages and create another class that just does those two things. Or just limit the skill tree path early, so that some npc mages only make sense to use in that role.

my 2c

Or you can cast three spells and face-roll the mob.

There is literally nothing a warrior can do that a mage can't do better.  IMO, warriors are redundent.  I'd much rather have a rogue getting constant critical hits with coup-de-grace.  The ability of mages to constantly keep things in stun-lock is absurd.  Mobs 3, 4, 5 times the size of your party are simply more experience points, not a true challenge.  With the proper spell picks, you can cycle stuns, do massive DPS, completely negate boss character ability to do damage.  And this is, literally, with just a single mage.  The more mages you add, the more exponentially powerful your party is.

Sure, mages are powerful, lorewise.  Lorewise, you should also be subject to the downsides.

1.  Whenever you camp, you have a chance to become an abomination and your game ends right there.
2.  Blood magic makes all the good-aligned characters leave right there and then.  They actively work to hunt you down and destroy you.  On top of that, you have a chance to meet 50 templars out hunting you, again, due to dabbling in blood magic.
3.  Lyirum potions should induce addiction.  Eventually, you simply become a blubbering idiot incapable of anything, much less magic.

If we are going to invoke the "lore" excuse, then the negative has to be emphasized just as much.  I'd rather warriors/rogues/mages all be in a line, complimenting each other's roles in battle.  Not the mage freezing, stunning, burning, hexing, crippling, etc etc, the entire mob and leaving the clean-up to the rogues.

[Curlain]

I guess I fit into the camp the sees the mage class as overpowered without suffering any serious drawbacks to that power (as they are in DnD related games). It still might not seem so extreme if there was no AW spec but that just blows the mage class into demigod status. When I first read on these forums how powerful the AW was back when I was playing my shield warrior Temp/Reaver I thought these guys must be exaggerating and didn't think that a mage would be able to out warrior a warrior.

However on my next playthrough I decided to role a mage and try it out. And man the difference was truly astonishing, this character (paritcularly once he got Shimmering Shield) just steam-rolled through anything, even tough fights for my first character like the last Deep Roads boss battle etc, I no longer hardly ever needed to worry much about tactics or strategy, just go in there swinging, the guy's virtually indestructable. I may as well just be god-moded with him and be done with it.

So yeah, I guess it's that mages seem (or should I say can with the right paths) to do everything better then other classes (not just magic), apart from open locks (since they don't have a knock type spell), even the very things that are supposed to be those classes area of expertise.

I don't wait class balance in the sense of PvP since it's unnessary in an SP agreed, but I would like a playing experience balance for want of a better word for the 3 classes. In the BG series I never felt that my mage or fighter-mage characters were greatly more powerful then my fighter or paladin characters, or the theif classes. The game was a different experience with a different class (or multi/dual class) but it didn't mean it translated to the game feeling suddenly much more difficult or easy depending on the class I choose, each felt strong in their area of expertise and offerred me a equal but different challenge.

Let me finish that I do love this game, but yeah I wish warriors and rogues got some more love, but that is just my opinion on the matter, so I'm not stating this a fact, just my experience so far, I still love the story, origins and everything else

Modifié par Curlain, 30 novembre 2009 - 09:22 .

[Elizire]

All I know is that my mage-hunting, DW warrior loves nothing more than to Riposte or Punish the first mage I see.



I ran through the entire game with a warrior heavy group and completed the final battles using a group of 4 tanks (me, Alistair, Ogren and Shale).

[valis123]

Don't really care if mage is OP or not, this isn't an MMO, if it was then yes I'd probably whine about it too but so far i've had no problems passing the game and enjoying it and the first playthrough was with two tanks (Me and Alistair) leliana (ranged dp, though kinda sucky damage in my opinion) and Morrigan (healer/dps) on hard difficulty.

[Roxlimn]

A warrior can live through a Mana Clash or a Crushing Prison better than a mage can.

[Mavkiel]

I am not getting all this mage hate. I found warriors to be MUCH more powerful then my mage. The only difficulty I had was the early levels, when I didnt have access to resist gear and high end weapons (Good luck finding nice robes/staffs for your mage if your anything other then frost spec)



Heck my templer/reaver pretty much chopped up anything in his wake. And he was a sword and shield spec. I had over 50% spell resist/physical/mental. He could solo revenants on hard difficulty. My mage on the otherhand would be utterly slaughtered in the same encounter. Yes, if my mage gets off a spell, and if its not resisted, he tends to win fast. On the other hand every creature in this game seems to have a stun. In later portions of the game all I could do is shake my fist at creatures while my mage was pounded into the ground.

[stevebo77]

My opinion on the mages is that it's a refreshing change. I usually trend to mage in any game because I guess I like the sparkles and junk



After always being the gimp in DDO and Drakensang, it is definitely a nice change to be the champion damage dealer hehe. But that doesn't mean that my warrior party members are at all useless- the field is just more even for me now.



And I wouldn't say that I steamroll through the game by any means. I definitely have a much better time and get great kills, but going up against a strong npc mage in the game is still a challenge every now and then.

[MerinTB]

I dunno about anyone else,



but my dog, Bear, loves to see mages. He goes for their throat and has an early-fight chew-toy.