80 réponses à ce sujet

[Bibdy]

Hah. Nice list. Pretty accurately describes my opinion on most spells. The Fire and Cold lines of Primal and the AOE CC and Curse lines of Entropy are definitely the best investments out of the whole lot.

Lightning is fun to try out, but pretty weak compared to Fire and Cold due to lack of CC components or spells down the line, just stamina draining, which is pretty negligible when used on enemies. Its only a big deal when used ON YOU. Never really bothered with other lines outside of those. Just too many bad spells mixed in with the occasional good/great one, which makes the investments really poor early in the game. I prefer to grab the heal spell, pick 2 Primal lines to fill for that character, get the Curse and CC lines of Entropy then work on my specialisations.

The Walking Bomb spell is great fun to watch, but is a real pain in the ass to use without a retarded amount of micromanagement to run your party away at the last second. Compared to just flinging out a quick Fireball, on a relatively short cooldown, there's just no contest.

Modifié par Bibdy, 30 décembre 2009 - 05:27 .

[bas273]

Jack-Nader wrote...

RE Creature
hehe.. this is getting rather silly.

Let us presume that you have arcane shield up and you initiate combat.
Your total mana pool is 130 but your available mana is 100 due to the 30 spell cost.
Let us presume that you need 500 mana to complete all spell casts for this battle.

Obviously you need to gain 400 mana from potions/ blood magic in order to satisfy this and complete the fight.

Let us now say that you enter the fight without arcane shield cast.
Your initial mana pool stands at 130.
To satisfy the mana cost for identical spell casts would be 500 / 1.05 = 476.1 mana excluding the fatigue penality. That is, you only actually need 476.1 mana to complete the fight.

Therefore you need to recoop only 346.1 mana from potions.

It is apples to oranges. They are not the same. Consider the effect of the sustainable over the entire course of the game. Higher potion chugging means less combat casting which is likely to result in even more potion chugging. There is also the cost of all those extra potions to consider. Over the course of the entire game this could easily amount to 30 gold or more or talent points if you decide to create potions.

You must consider whether the sustainable is truly worth the talent points and also the mana points.

Arcane shield is a spell that definitely does not justify this cost IMO

Agreed but you don't have to activate the sustainable at the start of the battle.

Simply cast away until you have no mana left, then use Blood Magic to use your health as your mana pool and then activate your sustainables (Shimmering Shield...).

[Creature 1]

Jack-Nader wrote...

RE Creature
hehe.. this is getting rather silly.

Let us presume that you have arcane shield up and you initiate combat.
Your total mana pool is 130 but your available mana is 100 due to the 30 spell cost.
Let us presume that you need 500 mana to complete all spell casts for this battle.

Obviously you need to gain 400 mana from potions/ blood magic in order to satisfy this and complete the fight.

Let us now say that you enter the fight without arcane shield cast.
Your initial mana pool stands at 130.
To satisfy the mana cost for identical spell casts would be 500 / 1.05 = 476.1 mana excluding the fatigue penality. That is, you only actually need 476.1 mana to complete the fight.

Therefore you need to recoop only 346.1 mana from potions.

You were comparing someone with Arcane Shield up and a small mana pool to someone with Arcane Shield up and a large mana pool, since you said that the effective cost of keeping the sustained buff on is greater with a larger mana pool.  It's actually greater with a larger mana expenditure, and a character with a small mana pool expending the same amount of mana as a character with a larger mana pool will pay the same fatigue cost.  Contrary to your assumption a character with a larger mana pool actually pays a lower "opportunity cost" at the beginning of a battle from tying up mana since only 8% is tied up compared to 23% (once mana is drained to zero this cost is gone unless the only potions available would refill the mana pool past the reserve point). 

Certainly a character with lower fatigue will burn through less mana casting the same spells as a character with higher fatigue, I don't think anyone would question that.  The question here is whether the costs of a sustained buff outweigh the benefits, and this will change depending on the situation. 

In most cases costs of sustained buffs on mages do outweigh the benefits.  I try to prevent melee attacks on my mages, and if they do draw attention it's preferable to redirect (Taunt) or reset (Mind Blast) the aggression instead of trying to tank it. 

Modifié par Creature 1, 30 décembre 2009 - 06:32 .

[knownastherat]

Is mana even an issue in this game? If not, debate about it rather academical if I understand it correctly.

[tetracycloide]

Jack-Nader wrote...

No... I was comparing the cost to "expend" the mages entire mana pool. This is what confused SWK3000 and I see it confused you too. I apologies if my wording was not clear enough.

It's only confusing in the sense that it's an arbitrary amount of mana to expend.  There's no reason to assume a mage is going to expend their entire mana pool and only their entire mana pool so while your analysis is somewhat accurate given this arbitrary amount of mana expenditure it is a completely baseless comparison to make and the conclusion, that the mana cost increases with the size of the mana pool, is completely fallacious.

[Creature 1]

Jack-Nader wrote...

No... I was comparing the cost to "expend" the mages entire mana pool. This is what confused SWK3000 and I see it confused you too. I apologies if my wording was not clear enough.

As I explained above, if that's what you're talking about then the supposed increased fatigue cost is moot.  If you *need* to expend 500 mana, you're going to need to expend it whether your mana pool is large or small, and you're going to pay exactly the same fatigue cost in either case. 

[Creature 1]

knownastherat wrote...

Is mana even an issue in this game? If not, debate about it rather academical if I understand it correctly.

When you find yourself stumbling into Denerim as it burns with three mages and a half-dozen lyrium potions, yes.    But assuming proper planning, no. 

If the game were engineered better, it would be more of an issue. 

[tetracycloide]

Mana is also an issue in the sense that potions cost money and there is a finite amount of gold in the game.

[knownastherat]

Yet again, in theory, or under quite specific circumstances. I have yet to experience dire need of mana, but maybe I am doing something wrong.

It's like: You own a store and decide to give apples for free. How many apples do you need in order to satisfy demand? In theory infinite amount of apples, in reality however the demand would certainly be finite.

Modifié par knownastherat, 30 décembre 2009 - 07:16 .

[Gaidren]

Lesser lyrium potions are soooooo cheap though, and since they scale with Magic they return a decent amount of mana. The cooldown on them is so short that it makes the higher lyrium potions almost obsolete, tbh....which is one of my beefs with the game (there should be a shared CD on mana/health pots, and a longer CD in general....and yes, I'm aware there is a mod for that).

[Creature 1]

Jack-Nader wrote...

RE tetra/Creature
Baseless? No, Moot? Certainly not!... My math was for 1 sustainable. People tend to run more than 1 sustainable. The difference in actual physical mana expenditure is HUGE!!! We are talking hundreds of mana points. This is my whole point! You are far better off choosing offensive CC/ damaging spells than running defensive sustainables. There is only 1 sustainable that I use and I cast it as bas273 pointed out earlier, flaming weapons. The only other sustainable that is actually worth this cost is haste but I will never run this on an offensive mage. You aren't casting if you are chugging potions! Chugging lyrium potions is an inefficient, costly waste of time. Blood magic solves all your mana problems PROVIDED you are not wasting precious health on fatigue costs and the time you spend chugging you are CCing and KILLING hostiles.

"Offense is the best Defense"

That wasn't what you were arguing.  You were saying if you have a larger mana pool sustained buffs cost more than if your mana pool is smaller.  The argument you were making was moot. 

The cost/benefit analysis for sustainable buffs is highly situational.  In most cases they are not worth it, in some cases they may be worth it for a short time, and in others they might be worth it for an entire battle. 

I was going to say I used no sustained buffs on my mages, but I actually use a sustained debuff regularly--Miasma.  That one I think is actually worth it, because it helps lengthen the lifespan of the entire party.  Of course I have done no controlled tests! 

[Creature 1]

Jack-Nader wrote...
re: creature
* Face palm *

Why are you trying to tell me what I am or am not arguing? Is it not logical that I am the only person on this planet that is privy to such information? Can you read my mind?

Unfortunately I cannot read minds and can only go by what you post here.  It's up to you to communicate your point clearly or forever suffer frustration when people do not understand what you're trying to say.  

You are trying to tell me that I have some notion of spell costs increasing as your mana pool increases. No.

Then perhaps you should not say that the cost of a spell increases with an increase in mana pool. 

If you don't want people to deconstruct arguments that you do not intend to make, don't make garbled arguments.  If you do screw up and say something that either came out wrong or wasn't stately clearly, don't *face palm* at the people who point it out to you.    Try *face palm*-ing at yourself. 

What you said, underlined for emphasis: 

Jack-Nader wrote...
Arcane shield costs 30 + 5%.  If you have 100 mana it's spell cost is actually 35.  Glyph of repulsions spell cost is 35.  The difference is that as your mana increases Arcane shield's mana cost also increases.  ie 40 mana cost @ 200 mana.

Jack-Nader wrote...
Therefore you can see that as your mana pool grows the cost of Arcane shield and any sustainable increases.

Jack-Nader wrote...
RE SWK3000
Obviously, the higher your mana pool the greater the spell ends up costing you in terms of mana.

After I pointed out size of mana pool was moot, you said:  

Jack-Nader wrote...

RE tetra/Creature
Baseless?
No, Moot? Certainly not!... My math was for 1 sustainable. People tend to run more than 1 sustainable. The difference in actual physical mana expenditure is HUGE!!! We are talking hundreds of mana points. This is my whole point! You are far better off choosing offensive CC/ damaging spells than running defensive sustainables. There is only 1 sustainable that I use and I cast it as bas273 pointed out earlier, flaming weapons. The only other sustainable that is actually worth this cost is haste but I will never run this on an offensive mage. You aren't casting if you are chugging potions! Chugging lyrium potions is an inefficient, costly waste of time. Blood magic solves all your mana problems PROVIDED you are not wasting precious health on fatigue costs and the time you spend chugging you are CCing and KILLING hostiles.

"Offense is the best Defense"

This was not your original argument, and this new argument boils down to "fatigue is bad, m'kay?", which I think we all know.  Fatigue was designed as a means of balancing cost and benefit of sustainables.  Fatigue is bad, but sometimes it can be tolerable.  When exactly it is tolerable and how much is tolerable is a much more complicated question that can't be answered by saying "Never use sustainables". 

Modifié par Creature 1, 30 décembre 2009 - 08:34 .

[Creature 1]

If we're going around the mulberry bush again. . . 

Creature 1 wrote...

Jack-Nader wrote...

No... I was comparing the cost to "expend" the mages entire mana pool. This is what confused SWK3000 and I see it confused you too. I apologies if my wording was not clear enough.

As I explained above, if that's what you're talking about then the supposed increased fatigue cost is moot.  If you *need* to expend 500 mana, you're going to need to expend it whether your mana pool is large or small, and you're going to pay exactly the same fatigue cost in either case. 

[tetracycloide]

Chugging lyrium potions, in my experience, actually costs no time because the animation can be skipped. The same is true for most of the animations in the game, they need not complete for the action being undertaken to have effect.

Your point that sustainables are rarely worth it is one I would readily agree to but if that's the point you think I'm addressing you misunderstand my words. I was addressing the following:

Jack-Nader wrote...

Therefore you can see that as your mana pool grows the cost of Arcane shield and any sustainable increases.

My purpose for doing so is, while the math was correct this conclusion was patently false even if it is what lead you to the conclusion I agree with, that sustainables are rarely worth using. You have since retreated from this supporting argument and replaced it with a more accurate one based, I assume, on creature 1's prodding.  If you intended to relate this supporting argument earlier we cannot say as we have no basis to devine intent, we simply reacted to the arguments you provided with more accurate arguments apparently to the effect we, or at least I, intended based on your new line of reasoning.

Modifié par tetracycloide, 30 décembre 2009 - 08:40 .

[Creature 1]

Jack-Nader wrote...

I cleared up my intended meaning as it was clear that my original wording did not do it justice. I also apologized for the confusion.

No need to apologize.  I think I know now what you meant, I still wasn't sure in my response second to last.  

I try to minimize fatigue on my mages because the ongoing costs are so large.  I find sustainables are more useful with the other classes.  Two-handed warriors should almost always be using Indomitable, two-handed rogues should always be using Momentum (unless a mage is hasting them), and sword and shield warriors should always be using one of their shield defense modes.  Using Momentum on a rogue decreases the number of special attacks that can be made, but because the number of useful attack types is low (Dirty Fighting and Riposte for sure, potentially Dual-Weapon Sweep, Flurry, or Mark of Death) and the cooldowns fairly long having stamina available all the time is not so critical--and of course Momentum has immense benefits to dps.  

[swk3000]

You seem to forget the cardinal rule of Corporations, Jack: If it makes any sense at all, under any circumstances, then it gets tossed out the window as a Bad Idea.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Do people seriously start a battle with buffs up? Why?

Enter the battle without the buffs active, and use your mana. As soon as your mana level drops below that that will be withheld by the buffs, cast the buffs. You get the benefit of the buffs for the whole fight, but you don't have to do without the mana they withhold.