135 réponses à ce sujet

[Laughing_Man]

The Hierophant:

All living circle mages survived going into the fade, where they probably met more than a few demons that tried to make them into a meal - and survived.
That means that they managed to remain at least somewhat effective in the face of combat situation.
Apostate mages are another story, but a mercenary like Malcolm Hawke is a battle hardened veteran, I assume that he taught his children what he knew.

I don't know exactly what you mean by being "ganked", but in game damage has the potential to disrupt spells. (depends on stats)


Templars draining:
First, as I said before, templars are a type of mages themselves, it's magic vs. magic, not some kind of divine intervention.
And if templars could simply drain mages of mana, mages were not even a fraction of the threat they are, it's simply an "I win" button for the templar.
Their effect is in disrupting active spells, again, depends on how good they are with their version of magic.

Modifié par TheRedVipress, 22 septembre 2013 - 02:35 .

[metatheurgist]

One way to balance them would be to make Friendly Fire always on and 100%, but that would make a majority of players scream I protest I think.

[Laughing_Man]

metatheurgist wrote...

One way to balance them would be to make Friendly Fire always on and 100%, but that would make a majority of players scream I protest I think.

Not me, that's a logical nerf.
Of course, if you make AoE very situational, you should make single target spells abit more effective.

[ISpeakTheTruth]

If they're trying to make the game more realistic than mages should be OP. In a realistic situation if you have a warrior or rogue in a fight and they're wearing metal armor all a mage would have to do is throw some lightning and a whole group would be dead.

In a 'realistic' situation who is going to win in a fight 99 times out of 100 some guy with a sword or someone who can make a fire tornado?

[mickey111]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

If they're trying to make the game more realistic than mages should be OP. In a realistic situation if you have a warrior or rogue in a fight and they're wearing metal armor all a mage would have to do is throw some lightning and a whole group would be dead.

In a 'realistic' situation who is going to win in a fight 99 times out of 100 some guy with a sword or someone who can make a fire tornado?

The person who hits first of course. Which would be the archer who need only point the xbow and squeeze the trigger.

Modifié par mickey111, 22 septembre 2013 - 02:49 .

[ISpeakTheTruth]

mickey111 wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

If they're trying to make the game more realistic than mages should be OP. In a realistic situation if you have a warrior or rogue in a fight and they're wearing metal armor all a mage would have to do is throw some lightning and a whole group would be dead.

In a 'realistic' situation who is going to win in a fight 99 times out of 100 some guy with a sword or someone who can make a fire tornado?

The person who hits first of course. Which would be the archer who need only point the xbow and squeeze the trigger.

A mage has ranged attacks too. They also have shields that they can raise, arrow bounces off mage chucks a fireball fight ends.

[Laughing_Man]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

mickey111 wrote...

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

If they're trying to make the game more realistic than mages should be OP. In a realistic situation if you have a warrior or rogue in a fight and they're wearing metal armor all a mage would have to do is throw some lightning and a whole group would be dead.

In a 'realistic' situation who is going to win in a fight 99 times out of 100 some guy with a sword or someone who can make a fire tornado?

The person who hits first of course. Which would be the archer who need only point the xbow and squeeze the trigger.

A mage has ranged attacks too. They also have shields that they can raise, arrow bounces off mage chucks a fireball fight ends.

Yup.
And that's why you need to give others some lesser types of magic too. (Reaver, Templar, etc.)

Modifié par TheRedVipress, 22 septembre 2013 - 03:01 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

I don't really want Mages to be "balanced". That kind of thinking leads to the massive nerfing that happened for Destruction-based mages in Skyrim, which forces players to look for glitches to boost damage and exploit cost enchants to cope for the insanely lopsided cost-to-damage ratio.

As far as possible armor and weapons skills, let 'em. The player only has a limited number of points to put on things, and a point to make a mage better with swords is one less they get to spend on something else.

[The Hierophant]

TheRedVipress wrote...

The Hierophant:

All living circle mages survived going into the fade, where they probably met more than a few demons that tried to make them into a meal - and survived.
That means that they managed to remain at least somewhat effective in the face of combat situation.
Apostate mages are another story, but a mercenary like Malcolm Hawke is a battle hardened veteran, I assume that he taught his children what he knew.

If the mage isn't wearing armor or using a defensive spell when  they are being attacked,  spellcasting  should be interrupted due to staggering. 

I don't know exactly what you mean by being "ganked", but in game damage has the potential to disrupt spells. (depends on stats)

gang attack + shank (shiv) = gank

Templars draining:
First, as I said before, templars are a type of mages themselves, it's magic vs. magic, not some kind of divine intervention.
And if templars could simply drain mages of mana, mages were not even a fraction of the threat they are, it's simply an "I win" button for the templar.

My bad about mentioning draining, but the reason the majority of the mages resorted to blood magic is due to their mana being negated, or dispersed. 

Their effect is in disrupting active spells, again, depends on how good they are with their version of magic.

This sounds right.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 22 septembre 2013 - 04:58 .

[Laughing_Man]

The Hierophant wrote...

TheRedVipress wrote...

The Hierophant:

All living circle mages survived going into the fade, where they probably met more than a few demons that tried to make them into a meal - and survived.
That means that they managed to remain at least somewhat effective in the face of combat situation.
Apostate mages are another story, but a mercenary like Malcolm Hawke is a battle hardened veteran, I assume that he taught his children what he knew.

If the mage isn't wearing armor or using a defensive spell when  they are being attacked,  spellcasting  should be interrupted due to staggering. 

I don't know exactly what you mean by being "ganked", but in game damage has the potential to disrupt spells. (depends on stats)

gang attack + shank (shiv) = gank

Templars draining:
First, as I said before, templars are a type of mages themselves, it's magic vs. magic, not some kind of divine intervention.
And if templars could simply drain mages of mana, mages were not even a fraction of the threat they are, it's simply an "I win" button for the templar.

My bad about mentioning draining, but the reason the majority of the mages resorted to blood magic is due to their mana being negated, or dispersed. 

Their effect is in disrupting active spells, again, depends on how good they are with their version of magic.

This sounds right.

There is no reason that prevents a mage from wearing armor, and I know that I always have defensive spells.

To stab a mage you need to get close to him, which puts you in a perfect position for a freezing-shatering combo,
AoE repulse attacks, etc. And that's if you were not burned to cinders on your way in...

Staggering interrupts everything, not just mages.
In fact, a mage should be the least disturbed by it, he only has to complete a spell, not swing an axe.

And yeah, no doubt that blood-magic should be alot more effective against templars.
To negate mana-based spells they need their "regular" magic and enough skill and willpower to overpower the mage, to negate blood-based spells they might need blood themselves, and even then it might not be enough.
(I would guess that those red Lyrium users are kinda using a type of blood-magic already)

Modifié par TheRedVipress, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:14 .

[Fast Jimmy]

ISpeakTheTruth wrote...

In a 'realistic' situation who is going to win in a fight 99 times out of 100 some guy with a sword or someone who can make a fire tornado?

Neither. The guy who would win is whoever can make the SHARK tornado.

[DarthSideus2]

Bioware already balanced the Mage class when they eliminated the Arcane Warrior Specialization.

[DarthLaxian]

hm...

i don't know - it is really hard (even though i don't see the need for "balance" in a single player game)

i would love the mages to be as powerfull as the Dragon Age lore says they are (and is powerfull as they are sometimes shown in cutscenes (like Jowan, who was a novice-blood-mage but able to kill/knock out a lot of templars, the PC and even the First Enchanter and Knight-Commander of a Circle!)) - otherwise i feel kind of cheated out of the experience (i mean they tell us that blood-mages are this awesome and can more or less do everything, from controlling people, to using the blood of others to strengthen their spells and even rip the veil and summon and controll demons and then what the PC and his companions get if they chose that magic as a specialisation is a cheap knock-off that can't do much)....

that's why i don not know, on the one hand i want to be able to do everything that's in the lore about mages (including: using tons of lyrium or blood to destroy whole buildings and with more mages: a city (remember: the old magisters destroyed the elven capital by sinking it into the ground!)) - on the other hand, i agree that this would make mages an "i win"-button and that is not all that fun then either!

greetings LAX

[L. Han]

With the inevitable multiplayer modes coming along with the game, the best bet for "balance" is some form of weakness for the mage. A sensible weakness could possibly be that they are extremely vulnerable to attacks.

[Boycott Bioware]

using logic

i. using weapons don't need mana to deal damage
ii. weapons can be used just by auto-attack or regular attack
iii. weapons damage have base damage and stats modifier
iv. magic need mana to activate
v. no mana no magic, and have cooldown
vi. although have base damage and magic modifier, no mana no magic and have cooldown

So, weapon attacks are always but magic attack is when have sufficient mana.

That is the problem in Skyrim, magic have been toned down to useless. At level 5, two handed weapon can deal 40 damage or so outright with normal attack, while Flame spell only 8 damage persec and it consume 15 mana persec, see that?

At higher level, two handed weapon can deal 120 and above damage in one strike with the help of perks, enchantment and smithing, but magic must take some seconds to activate, consuming a lot of mana, must have backup from enchantments, perks and alchemy to reach the same amount of damage and it is friendly fire in which makes allies ether dead or turn against you.

Now that is unbalanced

DA so far is balanced magic, only few things that i believe is oversight and never being tested properly. Example, DA:O fireball, low cooldown, AoE knockdown, AoE direct hit damage and aftermath damage, is so unbalanced. Then level design that have 3 or 4 Mages in the Fade that cast fire balls and stone fist one after another or the same time, that is unbalanced. Enemy Mages Chain Lightning repeatedly, that unbalanced while the same time own Chain Lightning don't level

I remember the quest of saving refugees from Darkspawn that have Emissary at high level, no refugees survived because they got Fire Balls, Chain Lighting and Stinging Swarm simultaneously and those Darkspawn hacking them the same time before The Warden and the gang reach them

Modifié par Qistina, 22 septembre 2013 - 02:40 .

[Topsider]

Qistina wrote...

using logic

i. using weapons don't need mana to deal damage
ii. weapons can be used just by auto-attack or regular attack
iii. weapons damage have base damage and stats modifier
iv. magic need mana to activate
v. no mana no magic, and have cooldown
vi. although have base damage and magic modifier, no mana no magic and have cooldown

So, weapon attacks are always but magic attack is when have sufficient mana.

That is the problem in Skyrim, magic have been toned down to useless. At level 5, two handed weapon can deal 40 damage or so outright with normal attack, while Flame spell only 8 damage persec and it consume 15 mana persec, see that?

At higher level, two handed weapon can deal 120 and above damage in one strike with the help of perks, enchantment and smithing, but magic must take some seconds to activate, consuming a lot of mana, must have backup from enchantments, perks and alchemy to reach the same amount of damage and it is friendly fire in which makes allies ether dead or turn against you.

Now that is unbalanced

Skyrim magic is far from useless, but it helps to advance in several schools at once, not just destruction. Conjuration for flame Atronach makes a huge difference at low level. This keeps enemies busy while you blast them with spells - friendly fire is not a problem. And dual firebolt + impact is all you need to beat most opponents, the stagger effect is unbelievably good. A two-handed weapon may do more damage in one hit than magic, but a mage has the advantage of range and powerful summons, not to mention high level spells like Paralyze. But yeah, if you focus only on Destruction then it could seem a bit underwhelming.

DA so far is balanced magic, only few things that i believe is oversight and never being tested properly. Example, DA:O fireball, low cooldown, AoE knockdown, AoE direct hit damage and aftermath damage, is so unbalanced. Then level design that have 3 or 4 Mages in the Fade that cast fire balls and stone fist one after another or the same time, that is unbalanced. Enemy Mages Chain Lightning repeatedly, that unbalanced while the same time own Chain Lightning don't level

I remember the quest of saving refugees from Darkspawn that have Emissary at high level, no refugees survived because they got Fire Balls, Chain Lighting and Stinging Swarm simultaneously and those Darkspawn hacking them the same time before The Warden and the gang reach them

DAO fireball was far superior to the puny version we got in DA2. Yes, it was very effective against groups of enemies - and it should be. The aftermath damage was perfectly acceptable given the force of the blast. An impressive spell to show off a mage's power. Could the cooldown be a bit longer? Possibly, but since enemies use fireballs against us too its a level playing field. To be honest, Curse of Mortality bothered me more - dangerous when used by Emissaries, but never seemed that good when I used it...

[Taura-Tierno]

I think mages have been pretty well-balanced as they are ... I've not played warrior a lot, but both mages and rogues kick ass if built the right way on the protagonist.

[Boycott Bioware]

Topsider wrote...
Skyrim magic is far from useless, but it helps to advance in several schools at once, not just destruction. Conjuration for flame Atronach makes a huge difference at low level. This keeps enemies busy while you blast them with spells - friendly fire is not a problem. And dual firebolt + impact is all you need to beat most opponents, the stagger effect is unbelievably good. A two-handed weapon may do more damage in one hit than magic, but a mage has the advantage of range and powerful summons, not to mention high level spells like Paralyze. But yeah, if you focus only on Destruction then it could seem a bit underwhelming.

Well, comparing each schools in Skyrim magic even show that it is imbalanced. You see the game devs try to balancing it out but it make it unbalanced by itself. They want to balance Destruction and Conjuration, they tone down Destruction but Conjuration is auto win spell (especially summon two Dremora Lords), low cost, even higher damage than Destruction...see that? Bound Weapon damage is low cost, can be upgraded by it's own perk, that weapon skill perk, sneak bonus plus fortify enchantment, so damage output from Bound Weapon outweigh Destruction spells and it is less micromanaging

It is because they thought Destruction magic will become unbalanced by it's nature, they totally miscalculated it and i believe they don't really play test it. That is the enemy of game balancing, no test or not testing it properly. I do involved in DotA heroes suggestions, i know it is a hard work to balance a game especially magic. Change one thing could mean change everything. The devs probably are lazy enough to test it all.....then we got the complaints about "this is OP!", "this is UP!", "this suck", "that suck", "this and that not working"........

DAO fireball was far superior to the puny version we got in DA2. Yes, it was very effective against groups of enemies - and it should be. The aftermath damage was perfectly acceptable given the force of the blast. An impressive spell to show off a mage's power. Could the cooldown be a bit longer? Possibly, but since enemies use fireballs against us too its a level playing field. To be honest, Curse of Mortality bothered me more - dangerous when used by Emissaries, but never seemed that good when I used it...

Actually, Curse of Mortality is not dangerous if you have large health pool. but i believe most players min maxing not invest much or not invest at all in Constitution, that is why Curse of Mortality seems dangerous. I know what trigger that curse, the enemy mages will use that when your health level reach certain amount by percentage (.<20% or <50% not sure), so even you reach that level but you have high health, the curse run out before your character fall/dead

Modifié par Qistina, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:12 .

[AlanC9]

So the case against Skyrim's balance is only that Destruction isn't very efficient compared to, say, bound weapons? Isn't that a TES tradition? IIRC Morrowind did the same thing-- you could come up with custom soells that would be effective enough, but it isn't very efficient, especially since it's pretty easy to get your hands on glass equipment.

[Boycott Bioware]

So the case against Skyrim's balance is only that Destruction isn't very efficient compared to, say, bound weapons? Isn't that a TES tradition? IIRC Morrowind did the same thing-- you could come up with custom soells that would be effective enough, but it isn't very efficient, especially since it's pretty easy to get your hands on glass equipment.

Nope, since Skyrim is the only TES that have perk system, it is not a tradition, in previous TES you need to buy higher level spells each time, Magicka points don't level your magic, each spells are fixed damage

For example, low level fire bolt, higher level fire bolt, low level fire ball, higher level fire ball, each sold separately. Mana/Magicka cost that changed when you level your skill, the cost beome cheaper but your spell not become powerful, you only can cast them many times than before

in Oblivion, there is spell making that will break everything, you can determine how much damage and cost, and meddling with everything and making your own unique spells

In Skyrim, there is no higher level spells of the same spell because they have perks, and there is no spell making, so the problem is, the perk is not enough, it fixed. So in higher level, that damage upgrade is nothing.

Modifié par Qistina, 22 septembre 2013 - 05:20 .

[Incantrix]

Uh...how did we get to skyrim? Lol

Anyway,yes. Destruction magic sucked. Skyrim crushed my dreams of being a mage. You pretty much had to put out so much effort when with a enchanted now you could do the same amount of damage with the one sneak attack.

[Topsider]

Qistina wrote...

Well, comparing each schools in Skyrim magic even show that it is imbalanced. You see the game devs try to balancing it out but it make it unbalanced by itself. They want to balance Destruction and Conjuration, they tone down Destruction but Conjuration is auto win spell (especially summon two Dremora Lords), low cost, even higher damage than Destruction...see that? Bound Weapon damage is low cost, can be upgraded by it's own perk, that weapon skill perk, sneak bonus plus fortify enchantment, so damage output from Bound Weapon outweigh Destruction spells and it is less micromanaging

It is because they thought Destruction magic will become unbalanced by it's nature, they totally miscalculated it and i believe they don't really play test it. That is the enemy of game balancing, no test or not testing it properly. I do involved in DotA heroes suggestions, i know it is a hard work to balance a game especially magic. Change one thing could mean change everything. The devs probably are lazy enough to test it all.....then we got the complaints about "this is OP!", "this is UP!", "this suck", "that suck", "this and that not working"........

I think Bethesda toned down Destruction because of how broken it was in Oblivion, even though they removed spell creation, ironically. Attempting to balance the schools they've created new imbalances, but you've also got to factor in players wanting to break the game. Not much any developer can do about that. Destruction is slightly too weak but if each spell scaled damage per level I'm sure you'd get people saying it's overpowered. In my opinion, Skyrim is well balanced until very high level, and that takes time.

Actually, Curse of Mortality is not dangerous if you have large health pool. but i believe most players min maxing not invest much or not invest at all in Constitution, that is why Curse of Mortality seems dangerous. I know what trigger that curse, the enemy mages will use that when your health level reach certain amount by percentage (.>20% or >50% not sure), so even you reach that level but you have high health, the curse run out before your character fall/dead

The curse can be dispelled but its still a pain for low constitution characters. A mage without dispel is probably dead. It was rarely this effective on enemies though, even if their health was low.

Modifié par Topsider, 22 septembre 2013 - 06:33 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

I don't care about cross-class balance in a singleplayer game.

I'm not competeing against anyone, so I'd like classes to be "balanced" according to lore. That would mean REALLY powerfull mages.

Would that mean an all-mage party would make a game too easy? I don't care.
Throw some templars at it (which would be the ultimate anti-mage class anyway).

But I really don't consider it a problem. If someone wants to make a game more difficult or easy for himself, let him. All this "everyone is equal" schtick bothers me. Right now, everyone is pretty much a mage, just wrapped in a different looking package.

[Ieolus]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

I don't care about cross-class balance in a singleplayer game.

I'm not competeing against anyone, so I'd like classes to be "balanced" according to lore. That would mean REALLY powerfull mages.

Would that mean an all-mage party would make a game too easy? I don't care.
Throw some templars at it (which would be the ultimate anti-mage class anyway).

But I really don't consider it a problem. If someone wants to make a game more difficult or easy for himself, let him. All this "everyone is equal" schtick bothers me. Right now, everyone is pretty much a mage, just wrapped in a different looking package.

I agree.  Templars ARE the balance to mages in Thedas.

[Boycott Bioware]

Topsider wrote...
The curse can be dispelled but its still a pain for low constitution characters. A mage without dispel is probably dead. It was rarely this effective on enemies though, even if their health was low.

Yes, and the spell prevent any healing, enemies don't heal in DA:O, so there is no point in using that curse on enemies, better using other direct damage spells

That is why i say DA magic quite balanced, but there are many things that over-sighted or never seriously tested or even not tested at all by the devs