Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 11 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11
Joined: Jul 2014
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Gyson

First of all, if you aren't playing on the "Hard" difficulty setting, you're feedback is going to be less useful.


No one cares about difficulty, this is not some competitive game and therefore it is meaningless to the discussion. Furthermore, the title has already been disproven and the whole discussion is a joke at this point. Melee are not terrible, not even bad, they are good to op depending on your level, gear and build.

If there is a problem with melee in hard difficulty than this warrants a completely different topic which I fore sure will ignore since hard mode does not interest me at all in cRPGs.

What I personally can agree with is that melee is limited in the range of available skills being limited to two skill lines and I for sure would like to see two more in the future (dual wield and sword&board) but that again is a completely different matter.

Also the people who argue for melee being good/strong have presented way better arguments.

Last edited by Sykar; 04/07/14 07:04 AM.
Joined: Jul 2014
D
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Gyson
In addition to thanking the original poster for starting off with a well reasoned post, I just want to address some of the responses in this thread.

First of all, if you aren't playing on the "Hard" difficulty setting, you're feedback is going to be less useful. The problem is the Hard difficulty setting decreases your vitality (and your chance of hitting), which makes Man-at-Arms talents like "Picture of Health" less effective. And, as we all know, Mages can ignore the to-hit penalty Hard difficulty brings where as Warriors can not. Thus, "Hard" mode is actually harder on Warriors than it is Mages, and the balance between the two is quite different on Hard mode versus Normal or Easy (both of which actually receive a Vitality *bonus* rather than a penalty).

Second, if your advice consists of something that can be summarized as "Execute maneuver 38!" - that is, you're advising someone to beat each encounter by approaching it with a specific assortment of skills used in a specific order with specific classes, you're not being helpful. The whole point of this game is to not have everyone forced into one mold.

Third, I see a lot of people making the mistake of trying to define what a Warrior's role is supposed to be. It shouldn't have to be only a tank, nor should it have to be only a damage dealer. Another big point of this game is to have a classes system where you can build the type of Warrior you personally prefer, and they should all be viable within reason.

That also brings us to "the proper party". There is no "proper party" make up, especially when players have the option of using anywhere from two to four characters and expecting a relatively balanced experience either way. If your response insists that every group should have a specific class of character (e.g. Warrior) filling a specific role (e.g. Tank), you're not helping.

Also, I've seen post suggesting several different abilities should be raised to "5" in order to create an effective character. A single ability at 5 is a huge investment, requiring almost one-third of the total ability points you receive on your journey to level 20 (assuming you're not using Lone Wolf). Yes, you are obviously supposed to rely on bonuses from gear to help get you there, but that depends on luck with RNG and can only help you so many ways (that is, there are only so many body parts to cover with equipment, and thus a fixed number of opportunities to modify your ability and attribute scores).

Using the effectiveness of "Legendary" equipment as part of a balance argument is just silly. Again, RNG. Congrats on your toy, not everyone has it.

Finally, one of the big problems (I believe) are the Attributes (STR, DEX, INT, etc). In my opinion none of the attributes should ever have a direct impact on anything beyond a secondary attribute that can not be directly modified by the player (which in turn directly impacts everything). In other word, Warrior gear should not be Strength dependent. Instead it should be "Might" (or whatever) dependent, with "Might" equaling some combination of Strength, Constitution, and Speed - all attributes that are vital to a Warrior, yet no single one of them should define a Warrior.

This would allow for a greater variety of builds while not leaving players feeling like they must pool most of their Attribute points into a single stat in order to keep up with gear requirements. And if something similar is applied to DEX and INT dependent characters, it can help alleviate the concern that Warriors depend on too many stats while Mages depend on too few.





Mages and Warriors are still both strong on Hard ( we tried yesterday ). My friend ( Warrior ) has the 50% Magic Resistance Trait ( which is OP as hell ) + used Crafting ( 2 + 3 from Equipment ) to improve his Gear with Resistances.
Without my Buffs he has now 170% Fire 150% Air 150% Earth 160% Water 0% Tenebrium and 90% Poison Resistance -> Total Immunity against Spells.
While my Equipment is focused around Int for more Damage and a little bit of Speed ( 28 max Ap + 24 Ap/Turn ).
This is still the same on Hard. The only difference on hard is that he should use the Precision Stance or i could buff him with Bless -> same as normal.

And now some Spoilers
There are alot of Enemies who are Immune against Magic like some Statues i deal like >0< Damage against. Okay its 10 but still. While my Friend unbuffed is immune to them ( Magic Damage ) and hits for 500 (+ 500 in the Armor ). Also Tenebrium Weapons.
You can later skill Tenebrium -> even more Damage.
And you can later buy Stat Points ( like Int Str etc. ) and Ability Points for Two Handed and so on in the End of Time


Every Class has Pros and Cons, but you can still play them Full Offensive without worrying to much because Enemies still dont deal enough Damage to actually hurt you ( if you use the right Equipment ).

Joined: Jan 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2014
Originally Posted by Plazim
Gyson, that doesnt make alot of sense. First your talking about hard mode. Its supposed to be HARD(Shocker...). Now your saying its harder for melee then it is for mages, but....who cares ? I mean look you selected hard for a reason and even though this game is multiplayer its co-op. So your never in direct competition with anyone which you could then justifiably complain about. If you like playing melee and the game is TOO HARD for melee in hard mode then turn the dial down. The challenge level is completely up to you, and if they buff warriors then people will start complaining that hard mode is too easy for warriors.

I don't believe I ever complained about the difficulty of Hard mode, and I'm not sure where you got that impression. I only pointed out why Hard mode was more difficult for certain classes than others - which is a problem in of itself, but I'll touch on that later. *

That the difficulty scales differently for Warriors (compared to Mages) between easy/normal/hard makes a comparison of a Warrior & Mage duo on Normal and a Warrior & Mage duo on Hard pointless. And yet I see a lot of "Well, I'm not seeing a problem with my Warrior & Mage team, but I'm playing on normal difficulty." That's pointless feedback when the original poster specified he was playing on Hard mode. Warrior are closer to being on par with Mages in Normal mode. The same is not true, however, in Hard mode. And so reviews from Normal mode are not adding anything useful to the discussion when the original poster was not complaining about balance from Normal mode to begin with.

It's not a knock on Normal mode difficulty, it's just the simple fact that changing the difficulty setting has a larger impact on Warriors than Mages - and if the original poster is talking about his experience on Hard mode, everyone else should be doing the same.

* Now, there is nothing wrong with having certain classes being harder to play than others - but the game needs to make that clear from the start. That's why during character creation some games will have a warning specifying which classes are for more "advanced" or "beginner" play. If, however, you are trying to sell your game as being "classless" and equally approachable with a variety of builds, you better follow through on that promise. I'm not convinced D:OS does - chalk that up to too many balance debates and frequent class balance changes that were occurring right up until launch. I am under no delusion that in the 11th hour the developers suddenly achieved perfection in their balancing attempts.


Originally Posted by Plazim

Your also arguing that you dont want to have to use a specific skill or technique and that people shouldnt define what the role of a warrior is....but let me throw that back at you - I want to play a mage that runs into the middle of 10 monsters and kicks butt in melee range. How well do you think Id do ? Maybe I dont want the mage to be defined as a ranged damage dealer...oh wait, thats really kinda what they are designed to be.

Ok, you misunderstood what I was talking about. In fact, I specifically said "viable within reason". Your examples are not what I would define as "reasonable". I suggest re-reading what I wrote again.

I was also criticizing extremely specific examples being used as arguments, like suggesting everyone should have one character teleport their Warrior into the middle of the opponents every battle - as if that's a tactic (and spell) everyone should be willing to roll with or else be prepared to have a disappointing Warrior experience. I just think that's silly.


Originally Posted by Plazim
Im sorry but what it really feels like is people wanting to be overpowered. You want the best armor/defenses + the best damage + the best mobility. Warriors are fine.

I think simply having the various difficulty mode buffs and debuffs impacting each class equally would be a nice start. If that is your definition of "wanting to be overpowered", I don't know what to say. I call it seeking a no-brainer level of balance that should already be there.

Lastly, this part:

Originally Posted by Gyson
Finally, one of the big problems (I believe) are the Attributes (STR, DEX, INT, etc). In my opinion none of the attributes should ever have a direct impact on anything beyond a secondary attribute that can not be directly modified by the player (which in turn directly impacts everything). In other word, Warrior gear should not be Strength dependent. Instead it should be "Might" (or whatever) dependent, with "Might" equaling some combination of Strength, Constitution, and Speed - all attributes that are vital to a Warrior, yet no single one of them should define a Warrior.

This would allow for a greater variety of builds while not leaving players feeling like they must pool most of their Attribute points into a single stat in order to keep up with gear requirements. And if something similar is applied to DEX and INT dependent characters, it can help alleviate the concern that Warriors depend on too many stats while Mages depend on too few.


.. is exactly what I said it was, a suggestion to allow for a greater variety of builds while not leaving players feeling like they must pool most of their Attribute points into a single stat in order to keep up with gear requirements - with the added benefit of alleviating the concern that Warriors depend on too many stats while Mages depend on too few.

Why does that scare you?

Joined: Jul 2014
D
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
D
Joined: Jul 2014
A Warrior is NOT depending on more Stats than a Mage.
You need like 11 Str on level 16 for all Warrior Equipment and only his Damage is scaling with Str -> he can invest some Points into Speed for Damage ( more Ap ) or Con ( more max Ap / Life ) without Sacrifing too much.
While as a Mage i get Cooldown Reduction and Damage from Int.
So a Warrior can freely adjust his Points as he pleases I have to go Full Int because High Level Skills still have Cooldowns > 1 Turn.
So Int >>>> everything else as long as for example Earthquake and Chain Lightning dont have 1Turn Cooldown because i would severely Gimp myself with everything else.

So a Warrior really depends on 0 Stats while a Mage has to go Full Int.

And as i already said Stat Points are no Problem. You can only skill them to 15 ( which is done quite early ) and you can buy more Stat Points in the End of Time.

Joined: Jul 2014
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Gyson

I don't believe I ever complained about the difficulty of Hard mode, and I'm not sure where you got that impression. I only pointed out why Hard mode was more difficult for certain classes than others - which is a problem in of itself, but I'll touch on that later. *

That the difficulty scales differently for Warriors (compared to Mages) between easy/normal/hard makes a comparison of a Warrior & Mage duo on Normal and a Warrior & Mage duo on Hard pointless. And yet I see a lot of "Well, I'm not seeing a problem with my Warrior & Mage team, but I'm playing on normal difficulty." That's pointless feedback when the original poster specified he was playing on Hard mode. Warrior are closer to being on par with Mages in Normal mode. The same is not true, however, in Hard mode. And so reviews from Normal mode are not adding anything useful to the discussion when the original poster was not complaining about balance from Normal mode to begin with.



Already disproven.
Furthermore, the OP simply states that melees are terrible. This also has been disproven and the difficulty is meaningless to this discussion.

Last edited by Sykar; 04/07/14 09:53 AM.
Joined: Jun 2014
H
stranger
Offline
stranger
H
Joined: Jun 2014
Wrong I've seen lot of armor and 2h weapons that requier 13 to 15 str.
So yes you'll have to pretty much max it.

Int and dext don't have this problem, so they can put more points in speed and vita.

Last edited by Huyt; 04/07/14 02:15 PM.
Joined: Jan 2014
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2014
Originally Posted by Sykar
Originally Posted by Gyson

I don't believe I ever complained about the difficulty of Hard mode, and I'm not sure where you got that impression. I only pointed out why Hard mode was more difficult for certain classes than others - which is a problem in of itself, but I'll touch on that later. *

That the difficulty scales differently for Warriors (compared to Mages) between easy/normal/hard makes a comparison of a Warrior & Mage duo on Normal and a Warrior & Mage duo on Hard pointless. And yet I see a lot of "Well, I'm not seeing a problem with my Warrior & Mage team, but I'm playing on normal difficulty." That's pointless feedback when the original poster specified he was playing on Hard mode. Warrior are closer to being on par with Mages in Normal mode. The same is not true, however, in Hard mode. And so reviews from Normal mode are not adding anything useful to the discussion when the original poster was not complaining about balance from Normal mode to begin with.


Already disproven.
Furthermore, the OP simply states that melees are terrible. This also has been disproven and the difficulty is meaningless to this discussion.

*In your opinion*, one which others obviously don't share. Warriors are impacted more by the difficulty changes than Mages. I'd love to know how you went about disproving a fact.

And I think the original poster put a little more thought behind his argument than you're doing now.

Joined: Jul 2014
S
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
S
Joined: Jul 2014
Interesting topic so far. Let me pose a hypothetical for you guys:

In a PvP setting, Warrior vs Caster, both Lone wolf and min-maxed for efficiency - Who do you think would win?

I'd imagine that a Warrior with heavy armor and higher resists, build as a mage-slayer would have the upperhand.

Joined: Jun 2014
C
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
C
Joined: Jun 2014
Originally Posted by Darkraign
A Warrior is NOT depending on more Stats than a Mage.
You need like 11 Str on level 16 for all Warrior Equipment and only his Damage is scaling with Str -> he can invest some Points into Speed for Damage ( more Ap ) or Con ( more max Ap / Life ) without Sacrifing too much.
While as a Mage i get Cooldown Reduction and Damage from Int.
So a Warrior can freely adjust his Points as he pleases I have to go Full Int because High Level Skills still have Cooldowns > 1 Turn.
So Int >>>> everything else as long as for example Earthquake and Chain Lightning dont have 1Turn Cooldown because i would severely Gimp myself with everything else.

So a Warrior really depends on 0 Stats while a Mage has to go Full Int.

And as i already said Stat Points are no Problem. You can only skill them to 15 ( which is done quite early ) and you can buy more Stat Points in the End of Time.


You can buy stat points?! Never heard of this before...please elaborate Darkraign =)

Joined: Jan 2014
Location: Germany
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Jan 2014
Location: Germany
he is correct. play coop two player melee. Completely unbalanced.
Maybe it changes in endgame, but the beginning of this game is completely unbalanced and class depending.

And that's a problem since beta and the did not fixed it.


He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster
Joined: Jul 2014
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Gyson
Originally Posted by Sykar
Originally Posted by Gyson

I don't believe I ever complained about the difficulty of Hard mode, and I'm not sure where you got that impression. I only pointed out why Hard mode was more difficult for certain classes than others - which is a problem in of itself, but I'll touch on that later. *

That the difficulty scales differently for Warriors (compared to Mages) between easy/normal/hard makes a comparison of a Warrior & Mage duo on Normal and a Warrior & Mage duo on Hard pointless. And yet I see a lot of "Well, I'm not seeing a problem with my Warrior & Mage team, but I'm playing on normal difficulty." That's pointless feedback when the original poster specified he was playing on Hard mode. Warrior are closer to being on par with Mages in Normal mode. The same is not true, however, in Hard mode. And so reviews from Normal mode are not adding anything useful to the discussion when the original poster was not complaining about balance from Normal mode to begin with.


Already disproven.
Furthermore, the OP simply states that melees are terrible. This also has been disproven and the difficulty is meaningless to this discussion.

*In your opinion*, one which others obviously don't share. Warriors are impacted more by the difficulty changes than Mages. I'd love to know how you went about disproving a fact.

And I think the original poster put a little more thought behind his argument than you're doing now.


I did not adress it, I pointed out that it was disproven already by other posters.
Bless taking care of hit penalty and as already mentioned warrior damage can be increased to nearly 200%, magic users have nothing in comparison.
But even if warriors were affected more by difficulty the thread title is still wrong since melees are strong.
What they mostly lack is diversity but that is an entirely different matter.

Originally Posted by Soltaro
Interesting topic so far. Let me pose a hypothetical for you guys:

In a PvP setting, Warrior vs Caster, both Lone wolf and min-maxed for efficiency - Who do you think would win?

I'd imagine that a Warrior with heavy armor and higher resists, build as a mage-slayer would have the upperhand.


Meaningless.
1v1 balance has never and will never be relevant for group oriented games. Also highly dependent on gear, level, and build so it is impossible to give an answer.

Last edited by Sykar; 04/07/14 07:12 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
K
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
K
Joined: Jul 2014
Your big 2-hand weapons user still can be screwed quite easily if he doesn't kill everything fast.
Or by a random blind or stun. Also, not many attacks per turn with the base cost of 4 ap per attack versus the cost of 3 ap of a single weapon, and finally.

Blocking is op.

Last edited by kurausu; 02/08/14 11:51 PM.
Joined: Jul 2014
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2014
Originally Posted by Gyson
First of all, if you aren't playing on the "Hard" difficulty setting, you're feedback is going to be less useful. The problem is the Hard difficulty setting decreases your vitality (and your chance of hitting), which makes Man-at-Arms talents like "Picture of Health" less effective.
Just so people know, this is inaccurate. If anything, Picture of Health is more effective, because the game uses some rather funky math.

In Normal, you start with a +15% boost to your Vitality. After Picture of Health with Man-at-Arms 5, this becomes a +40% bonus. Going from +15% to +40% is in effect 21.7% more Vitality.

In Hard, you start with a -25% boost to Vitality. Picture of Health in this case would take that to +0%, wiping out the penalty. Going from -25% to +0% is in effect 33.3% more Vitality.

So as you can tell, it's actually a case where the bigger the Vitality penalty, the more of a proportional effect Picture of Health has.

This means that Picture of Health is actually extremely powerful in tandem with Glass Cannon. On Normal, Glass Cannon takes your character to -35% Vitality, which Glass Cannon can then bump to -10%; on Hard, Glass Cannon takes you to a devastatingly low -75%, which Glass Cannon then takes to -50%. Going from -75% to -50% is DOUBLING your Vitality! This makes Picture of Health a huge boon to any Hard character, since it transforms the extremely powerful Glass Cannon talent, adding a huge amount of durability to otherwise extremely fragile characters.

I feel the main reason players get a feeling that mages are stronger than melee is the Glass Cannon talent. Putting Glass Cannon on a front-liner seems counterintuitive; putting Glass Cannon on a backrow mage fits in with familiar RPG archetypes. However, it is really that talent which is obnoxiously overpowered, and if anything, Man-at-Arms characters are in a better position to use Glass Cannon than any other character type, thanks to Picture of Health (and, again, counterintuitively). Any character with Glass Cannon is going to BLOW AWAY a non-Glass Cannon character in terms of effectiveness -- Glass Cannon melee is hugely better than non-Glass spellcaster, and vice versa. If your entire party isn't using the talent, your party is not as strong as it could be; in Hard, it's also a fair statement to say that if your entire party isn't using Picture of Health, your party isn't as powerful as it could be (Man-at-Arms 5 is still optional, but Man-at-Arms 2/3/4 is still cheap and provides a substantial Vitality buff). It's not a spell versus attacker thing, it's a Glass Cannon versus anything else thing.

And yes, Glass Cannon + Picture of Health, in Hard, on a melee character works great. Just pump Constitution a bit, and you'll be fine.
Originally Posted by Gyson
And, as we all know, Mages can ignore the to-hit penalty Hard difficulty brings where as Warriors can not. Thus, "Hard" mode is actually harder on Warriors than it is Mages, and the balance between the two is quite different on Hard mode versus Normal or Easy (both of which actually receive a Vitality *bonus* rather than a penalty).

Although this is true, the to-hit penalty only applies against enemies who are actually eligible to dodge. Some of the best status effects Stunned, Blind, Frozen, Knocked Down allow automatic hits. When automatic hits aren't attainable, using the Bless buff often allows melee characters to attain 100% (or 90-something percent) chances to hit, anyway. This means that it's actually a somewhat rare thing for the Hard to-hit penalty to even come up, and it's safe to say that the majority of melee damage potential is unaffected. When it does come up you can't negative status the enemy, or Bless the melee then yes, it does sting, while mages never ever have to worry about it, so I agree that it's favoritism towards mages, but it's not an insurmountable thing.

Last edited by ScrotieMcB; 02/08/14 08:53 PM.
Joined: Jan 2011
C
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
C
Joined: Jan 2011
Originally Posted by Parlance


Thank you, someone else who has actually tried melee on hard for longer than 5 minutes and understands. There are a ton of drawbacks to being melee, and none of the benefits justify them. Consider the following massive theoretical changes:

- Battering Ram : CD is reduced by 1 turn for each target hit, damage scales with strength instead of knockdown.
- Whirlwind : CD reduced from 6 turns to 1 turn.

Even if you did those things, which are massive, MASSIVE changes, melee would STILL suck. That's the point I'm making.
This is actually a good suggestion and we should refrain from attacking the OP or telling him how great your tank is.

We all should focus on the problems at hand and one of the main problem is the skill and AP for our default tank really need to rebalanced, why? because melee in this game require tons of AP to function.

I'm only level 7 but my Madora a 2hand melee can only swing 1 time before having to rest. It piss me off to no end.

All strength build (10 total for level 7)

To be fair, it's pretty satisfying to wait for a turn and my next swing rip a large chunk of health from an enemy.

ps. It would also be a nice test for the OP if you ask your mage friend to solo without a tank around and see how long he can survive :]



Joined: Apr 2011
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Apr 2011
It's rather unfair to compare a glass cannon mage with a non-glass cannoned melee though.

And pumping only STR and then say you have too few AP? SPD! Or as mentioned, glass cannon.

Melee are really, really good... even if not encountering some of the many heavily magical resistant foes.

Joined: Aug 2014
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Aug 2014
nah melee are awesome. The best use of my mage was to buff up my 2H warrior, move him around and let him destroy stuff.

Melee don't get super strong till the second half of the game

Joined: Aug 2014
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by Gyson
Originally Posted by Plazim

Your also arguing that you dont want to have to use a specific skill or technique and that people shouldnt define what the role of a warrior is....but let me throw that back at you - I want to play a mage that runs into the middle of 10 monsters and kicks butt in melee range. How well do you think Id do ? Maybe I dont want the mage to be defined as a ranged damage dealer...oh wait, thats really kinda what they are designed to be.


Ok, you misunderstood what I was talking about. In fact, I specifically said "viable within reason". Your examples are not what I would define as "reasonable". I suggest re-reading what I wrote again.


It bears noting that it is viable within reason. A close-range mage, exclusively using mage skills, can do exceptionally well on Hard mode. You won't have the raw damage of a man-at-arms with two-handed weapons, but as long as you're patient, you'll make up for it with better tanking and better debuffing. There's no shortage of close-range spells with low AP costs and low cooldowns, from the various touch skills, to Lightning Strike and Teleport for positioning, to Why-Is-This-A-Witchcraft-Skill Punch, and Better-version-of-Whirlwind-quake.

Others spells actually allow you to draw and tank aggro better than a warrior does. Pyrokinetics in particular gives you Wildfire for Haste, Self-Immolation for close-range punishment, Smokescreen to shut down ranged attackers, and self-healing Fireballs and Explosions if your Fire Resistance is above 100 (which it will be, because Fire Shield). If you're really cheap, you can use Lava Core for that last thing, too. The other skill groups are less robust for melee, but they bring more self-healing, more ways to focus aggro on yourself, more debuffs to make that non-threatening ... in addition to Fortify, elemental shield spells, the status-immunizing spells that are so crucial at melee range, Become Air, Absorb Elements, and Invulnerability for emergencies.

The point of all this is to demonstrate that once mages get going, they're not just BETTER than warriors, they're better than warriors at the things warriors are supposed to be good at. I don't like using mages this way, because I liek me some sword mans. But well-played mages are better than anything else at every range; and if we're working from the premise that casters and fighters should be equal, that's a problem. That premise isn't necessarily correct (though I agree with it), and you can beat the game on Hard with any skill set. But for mages, it's a whole lot easier.

Joined: Aug 2014
H
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
H
Joined: Aug 2014
You describe a tactic that uses more than 2 turns, having "tanking,""patience," and "emergency." And claim that it is somehow better than 2 handers. Hahahaha

Anyway, mages suck because they don't scale well with gears. Once you get your hands on something OP, that 2handers is better than anything at any task. Can't say the same about mages, the damage is static. And damage is all that matter end game. I am sorry to say this but if you reach that stage and even think that something can remotely bring your HP down to 70%, you are doing it wrong.

Edit: oh yea, and that god mode defense is without nonsense such as elemental absorption or fortify. Just from gear. If you cast any defensive skill you are wasting AP. Anything that doesn't enhance your damage is a waste of AP.

Last edited by haxingW; 12/08/14 06:08 PM.
Joined: Aug 2014
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Aug 2014
Originally Posted by haxingW
You describe a tactic that uses more than 2 turns, having "tanking,""patience," and "emergency." And claim that it is somehow better than 2 handers. Hahahaha


Given glass cannon, wildfire, a pre-summoned tank and the fact that you don't have to waste AP on movement, a mage can do in 2 turns what melee can do in 4-6.

Moreover, because of the ridiculously low cooldowns, they can support this efficiency through the entire duration of the fight.

Originally Posted by Hassat Hunter
It's rather unfair to compare a glass cannon mage with a non-glass cannoned melee though.


Is it? Other than Know it All (taken late so you can have 16 unbuffed int), and Far Out Man, there's really no other talents that mages will find remotely useful. Melee strategies as presented in this thread are very talent hungry. In other words, the opportunity cost for a mage to take glass cannon is much lower.


Melee needs help in this game, but some of the fundamental systems, most notably combining movement and attacks in the same AP pool are holding it back.

Last edited by gritz; 12/08/14 06:19 PM.
Joined: Aug 2014
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Aug 2014
How to make melee worthwhile:

Tanking-
-Unlimited OA's per turns. (but still only 1 per provoke)
-Make any spell or ranged attack provoke OA's.
-Get rid of Opportunist talent, allow OA's to be done by anyone holding a melee weapon (except a staff).
-Give Man at Arms a 0 ap power to "Mark" a target within melee range. A marked enemy has a penalty to hit anything but the man at arms, and when it tries to hit anything else, it provokes OA's.

AP loss from movement-
-Separate AP pools for movement and actions. Speed sets your movement AP, Con sets your action AP.
-Create new skills that take movement AP: Disengage (move away without provoking), Power through (ignore terrain effects). Stealth could be put here too.

Cooldown imabalance-
-Allow STR and DEX to reduce cooldowns of MaA, Scoundrel and Marksman. Duh.
-Double or triple the cooldown timers for summoning spells. No more disposable permatanks.

Last edited by gritz; 12/08/14 06:32 PM.
Page 8 of 11 1 2 6 7 8 9 10 11

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5