94 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

The same thing works in a party. If the mage is focusing on on the visible members the rogue can take him out, if he shealthed. So the question is how is the mage stronger or more valuable than a rogue? Now if you are saying the mage is stronger because it can do CC then I agree with you. If you are saying the mage is stronger in general I will agree with you. But in certain situations no.

Those of you who have soloed with a mage, how do you get around traps?

[Starcrunchy]

If you mean an AW mage then shimmering shield can shut down most traps that you can't step around.

[Realmzmaster]

@soteria,

I do not play World of Warcraft, so that comparison is meaningless to me. When someone states one class is better or stronger than another it has to have a basis, otherwise it just opinion. For every agrument made for one class, similar agruments can be made for another. If someone is able to solo this game as a rogue and take out every enemy mage does that make the rogue better?Since people are soloing this game on nightmare with all classes it really becomes a moot point.

The only way to effectively say one is better than the other is in a one on one comparison or duel which is not possible in the game.

If you want to say gamewise the mage is better we can agree to disagree. Because I find it to be situational. In my playthroughs I use the rogue/ranger to kill every enemy mage, does that make the rogue/ranger better gamewise? Probably not.

[Realmzmaster]

Starcrunchy,

How do you detect the traps? Shimmering shield blocks most of the damage, but only if you have it constantly on or you know where the traps are..

[soteria]

Wait--you said two posts up that "If you are saying the mage is stronger in general I will agree with you." And now you're saying "If you want to say gamewise the mage is better we can agree to disagree."



I'm confused.



As for the duels, and World of Warcraft, my point is that even in a game that has PvP combat, and allows duels, the classes aren't balanced for 1v1. A warrior may regularly crush rogues in duels, but it doesn't follow that the warrior is actually any better, except in duels. And even on Blizzard's boards, the concept of using a duel (especially a theorycrafted duel) to determine which class is better than which is a discredited idea. All you find out is which class is better at dueling.



The ability to complete the game or any encounter with or without a mage or any other class is not relevant to whether one class is *better* than the other at it. I think we agree on that point? Your post is confusing me. I mean, mages kill mages better than anyone else, they have the best crowd control by far, they do more ranged damage, I'm told they can mitigate the most damage as arcane warriors, and, if they wanted to tank, could hold aggro very well with offensive aoe spells. They're just better all around than everyone else. Are they the end-all be-all of the game? No, but they are, or can be, better than everything else in almost every meaningful way, except disarming traps and sustained single-target damage vs non-monstrous enemies.

[Realmzmaster]

Not to be confusing. in certain situations I believe the mage to be better, but in other situations they are not. Overall they probably better in general, by a small margin over other classes. But in my playthroughs I found that the enemy mages fall quite easily to my ranger and pet. When it come to taking out the wolves I found the mage and arcane warrior to be at a distinct disadvantage. That is why I say situational.

Which is why I find it interesting that gamers are taking a three mage party plus tank.What do they do walk through all the traps? They cannot detect them. Or is the three mage party using a rogue also?

[soteria]

Walk through them. I can only think of a single place where traps are sufficient in number and damage to be a danger, and that can be solved by getting all the enemies to leave the area they start and killing them at the door. The traps aren't dangerous to you when you're out of combat because you regenerate health faster than you lose it just running through. Even if you do bring a rogue, it's quite possible to not have a high enough skill to detect and disarm all the traps anyway.



I'm planning a 3 mage run eventually, but I'll probably bring a rogue rather than a tank, because leaving unlocked chests frustrates me.

[dkjestrup]

Want to know why Mages are stronger?



It's a challenge to beat the game on Nightmare without Mages and potions. Any other class and it isn't. Beating the game without a Warrior? Easy. Beating the game without a Rogue? Easy.

[MarshmellowDonuts]

Back to aggro, I'm referring to aggro with AW's not pure mages... an AW has a harder time keeping aggro.

AW's power comes from their sustainables, the penalties of wearing heavy/massive armor + sustainables leaves little for casting so aggro is hard as an AW you can't spam AoEs. The AW has to use strategy for what little magic they have after armor & sustainables for a key heal or debilitating spell. Being a Blood Mage and Dark Sustenance help but still can't mass spam spells in full armor w/sustainables (plus some spells cause one to sheath their weapon).

So sure one can spam AoEs as an AW and grab aggro if one takes the armor off, doesn't have the sustainables, and doesn't plan on doing melee... but why be an AW? If that's what one wants then be a spirit healer & blood mage they'll be more effective. An AW is on the front lines in full armor with well chosen sustainables, and little magic left, but they do have issues with aggro.  

Modifié par MarshmellowDonuts, 27 janvier 2010 - 09:15 .

[knownastherat]

Strength of a class should, in my opinion, be viewed only from solo play standpoint. After all, we are comparing classes in some context where the context is the game itself, not their symbiosis with a team, nor in a hypothetical duel.



Following on this assumption, we would have to define "strength of a class", and here I will assume this means "how easy" can a class beat the game. "How easy" translates to time spend playing, where the strongest character would be able to get through all (or set amount of) game content the fastest - easy.



Would that be a mage? Possibly. Any mage? Do not think so.

[soteria]

I disagree. There are a lot of things that change when playing solo--a lot of the builds you see people using for solo runs are very different from what they would use in a group. I see soloing as a different beast entirely.

[Snorepoke]

soteria wrote...

I disagree. There are a lot of things that change when playing solo--a lot of the builds you see people using for solo runs are very different from what they would use in a group. I see soloing as a different beast entirely.

This.  In a party build you can afford to specialize, and as expected you WILL be more effective than a solo'er of the same class.  Where by "effective" I mean you'll probably kill things faster, lose fights less, be able to counter situations more easily with a team than solo.  But going solo, generally you will have to sacrifice combat aptitude for utility or survivability.  AW's swinging a sword (even opening with AOE spells) will probably do less dps than a well-micro'd pure caster with aggro off of it.  2H will more than likely NOT go berserker in a solo build (other specs have more utility), whereas a team 2H can afford to go for the extra dps.  CUNN rogue vs. DEX rogue.

Also, interesting fact (according to Dragon Age Wiki): "...worth noting is that Cleansing Aura can draw as much aggro as a Warrior with Threaten."  But it drains mana.

[mosspit]

MarshmellowDonuts wrote...

Back to aggro, I'm referring to aggro with AW's not pure mages... an AW has a harder time keeping aggro.

AW's power comes from their sustainables, the penalties of wearing heavy/massive armor + sustainables leaves little for casting so aggro is hard as an AW you can't spam AoEs. The AW has to use strategy for what little magic they have after armor & sustainables for a key heal or debilitating spell. Being a Blood Mage and Dark Sustenance help but still can't mass spam spells in full armor w/sustainables (plus some spells cause one to sheath their weapon).

So sure one can spam AoEs as an AW and grab aggro if one takes the armor off, doesn't have the sustainables, and doesn't plan on doing melee... but why be an AW? If that's what one wants then be a spirit healer & blood mage they'll be more effective. An AW is on the front lines in full armor with well chosen sustainables, and little magic left, but they do have issues with aggro.  

There are armour that do not inccur much fatigue like wades. im currently using wades+evons. Against normal mobs, an AW will just need armour from items, rock armour and acrane shield. With proper setup, fatigue is under 20. I do not need to change armour after aggro. I do need to turn on combat magic and maybe miasma. I repeat - normal mobs.
What I trying to say is mages have "something" to gain aggro as compared to rogues. AW do as well with tanking qualities thrown in.

[dkjestrup]

As others have said, soloing is nothing like party based. A Cunning based Bard/Ranger archer does great party support. In solo, the same character would suck.



In solo's, there are two things that make life much easier. High defense, and utility.



Which is why Reaver is great, for utility, and most players use dex-based builds (archers, dual wielders) for defense.

[Realmzmaster]

dkjestrup wrote...

Want to know why Mages are stronger?

It's a challenge to beat the game on Nightmare without Mages and potions. Any other class and it isn't. Beating the game without a Warrior? Easy. Beating the game without a Rogue? Easy.

Already beaten the game using no mage for the last 80% of the game (Twice). Once I got Lelianna, Morrigan stayed in camp. Once I got Zervan, Wynne stayed in camp. The only time Wynne was in the party was during the circle quest and saving Connor.  I ran a three Rogue/Ranger + tank party all the way to the ArchDemon. My first playthrough was the only time I carried a mage to the end.

It would be a challenge for the mage to beat the game on Nightmare with no heal spells or potions. The only way the mage beats the game on nightmare is by utilizing the Heal spells. Show me a mage that has beat the game only as a damage dealer.
Now if someone solos the game using only Dog, that would be impressive.

[jsachun]

One could easily argue that mages are also the most vulnerable class in the game. It all depends who you prefer to play & which ability sets your playing style is suited too. With the right tactics, even the Orange Level Mages can be dealt with by a warrior within 10 seconds at Nightmare mode.

[soteria]

Realmzmaster, are you implying that the other classes can solo the game without potions? I hesitate to say anything is impossible, but without extreme stealth cheese, I can't see warriors or rogues soloing the entire game without potions.



We've already been over this before... whether or not something has been done or can be done is not relevant to the question of whether a mage makes it easier. And, I'm guessing you were still using potions in those two runs, eh?

[mosspit]

Actually heal is not fantastic. A lesser poultice can easily heal more than a heal due to mag scaling. As soteria said, its either stealth or high armour+def. Possibly both to get thru nightmare solo without the mentioned healings.

Mages have the highest armour potential in the game. Gd def. A variety of CC spells. Anti mage spells. Healing. Dps. This versatility is gd for solo.

Btw for solo, it makes more sense to win by attrition rather than neglecting survivability. Dmg is not what solo builds are made around... at least not for me.

[knownastherat]

We can imagine a class or a character being part of a team, doing nothing, but being invisible while buffing other team mates with +100 attack, +100 damage, +100 magic resist etc etc. Such character could not kill anything alone. Claiming such class/character is strong seems to me odd at least.

Modifié par knownastherat, 28 janvier 2010 - 12:27 .

[mosspit]

Im guessing it is odd for you since you have equated "strong" with dps.

[soteria]

Your hypothetical character would be very strong. Obscenely so--bringing them along would be a winning strategy for any group, however poorly built the party members are individually. Characters that amplify the abilities of the rest of the group while being weak individually have been a staple of RPGs and even RTS games for years. It's called a support role, and there's nothing inherently weak about being support. Shale's Stone Aura is a good example of this; it's really useful.

[knownastherat]

mosspit wrote...

Im guessing it is odd for you since you have equated "strong" with dps.

Actually not, as I said initially I equated "strong class" with a class by ifself, not in context of teamwork or benefits, in the first place.

Dunno .. s/he was strong .. but only when s/he had xzy others around. Sure, matter of interpretation of her/his strenght.

[draxynnus]

One thing to keep in mind here is the effect of experience...

My first playthrough was a mage (I do have a tendency to gravitate to them first). Now, there's no doubting that the character had some quite valuable tricks up his sleeve, but on my second (Warrior) playthrough, I've actually been finding things on the whole easier - there have been times where one of my Mage's abilities would have been really useful and there probably will be more, but on the whole I've found it easier going. It might help that the Warden seems to draw more than his fair share of aggro regardless of class.

Now, I'm not saying I think that the Warrior is more powerful - clearly it isn't - but people playing Mage on their second or third playthrough should keep this in mind when assessing the magnitude of this difference.

Referring to the thread title: It would make sense, since mages have the "control" spells, anf a wider view of the battlefield. In some game worlds you'd also say that mages are probably smarter as well, but in DA the smartest characters are probably actually the rogues, so class most suited to generalship is probably the archer bard.

Modifié par draxynnus, 28 janvier 2010 - 02:06 .

[flagondotcom]

Realmzmaster wrote...
For example a 20 level mage againt a 20 level rogue who wins. I assume the mage would win, but only if the mage survives the rogue's first attack.
 

In this game, even after the 1.02 patch on PC, any 20th level mage will have Crushing Prison...and in the time CP is active (and damaging the rogue) the mage will get enough other things going that the rogue is toast before getting to make another (or even first) attack.

Only some combination of high spell-resist gear, or starting the combat stealthed, would allow a melee rogue a chance to close to melee distance.  AoS would be the only other way the rogue could win, I'd expect.

[stribies]

If I could run 4 mages in my party, I would. That's how good they are.