Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

All new ideas for the upcoming releases of ToME 4.x.x should be discussed here

Moderator: Moderator

Message
Author
HousePet
Perspiring Physicist
Posts: 6215
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:43 am

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#16 Post by HousePet »

There are unique casters with multiple elements though. Urkis has some Ice magic. Vor is mostly Fire and Ice with some Lightning. Linaniil is a bad example in this case. Tarellywelly is Stone and Arcane.
It may also be that the mage npcs were based on the current focus on mono elementalism, which would make basing the class on it circular logic.

One thought I had about Arcane Blades getting Archmage categories was that there could be a third category for each element that was more focussed on support and melee range stuff, rather than Archmages long range stuff. Then Arcane Blades could get those categories instead of the basic blaster ones and Archmage could have access to both.

Oddly the loading screen message about Arcane Blades is that they go through rigorous training, and being part of the Shaloren military I'm sure they would be able to train in Arcane.

Another thought was that the Air element could be split into Wind and Lightning elements. Same with Water into Water and Ice elements. However 7 elements could be too many.
My feedback meter decays into coding. Give me feedback and I make mods.

KaynDarks
Yeek
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:29 pm

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#17 Post by KaynDarks »

HousePet wrote:One thought I had about Arcane Blades getting Archmage categories was that there could be a third category for each element that was more focussed on support and melee range stuff, rather than Archmages long range stuff. Then Arcane Blades could get those categories instead of the basic blaster ones and Archmage could have access to both.
I'm not sure I like the idea of Archmage having access to even more trees. I much prefer the idea of Archmages and Arcane Blades having identical base trees, with Archmage having more specialized 'blaster' trees (cat point) and ABs having more specialized 'melee' trees (also cat point). This way the classes are tied together (same base trees) but become more differentiated as they gain levels.

I think that's superior to what we have now, where the default strongest AB specialization is the only one with an available cat point tree.

Either that or completely redesign AB with entirely new trees and similar but tweaked mechanics. This would also allow a reduction in the innate stat ADD of ABs, which I've always found frustrating.

You might even be able to allow ABs to focus on a stat based on the preferred Element. Something like Fire->Strength, Ice/Water->Cunning, Earth->Con, Air/Lightning->Dex, with Magic being the innate primary stat for the class.

Just my opinion, though.

anonymous000
Thalore
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 5:07 am

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#18 Post by anonymous000 »

Gotta say I love the idea of making the elements more unique and less like a substitute to one another. There had been some related discussions but they are on the wyrmic-remake threads. Hope they could give you more ideas.

http://forums.te4.org/viewtopic.php?f=3 ... 6&start=15

But as HousePet said we should think about what Archmage should be like first, do we want Archmage to be a bag-of-tricks character or primarily for nukes (as they are now)? Making them good at both ends would be far too powerful for me.

Effigy
Uruivellas
Posts: 970
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:00 pm

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#19 Post by Effigy »

Archmage and Arcane Blade are both good classes already. The only problem they have is that there's "one true build" and the other options can't compete. You don't fix that problem by ruining the build that's already good; you do it by improving the options that are considered inferior. Ruining the existing build is just going to piss everyone off and does nothing to improve the other options.

edge2054
Retired Ninja
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 4:38 pm

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#20 Post by edge2054 »

Effigy wrote:You don't fix that problem by ruining the build that's already good; you do it by improving the options that are considered inferior. Ruining the existing build is just going to piss everyone off and does nothing to improve the other options.
This is true to an extent but certain talent trees or even individual talents can eclipse stuff that's actually quite good. Class balance is all about internal balance. One thing being disproportionate can skew everything else.

Anyway, to contribute a bit (and even agree with your point even if I disagree with your logic ;) ), I think fire is a good tree. It hits the right notes for me thematically and it plays well internally.

I think earth and stone have strong themes just need some internal balancing. I use 'just' lightly here though as terrain manipulation and defense are two very hard things to balance.

Water I think is in a similar place. Thematically CC feels really good for Cold. There's some internal balance issues in these trees but I think they're in a much better place than they were before Shiv form was added.

Air to me is the outlier. It's a strong nuke tree with some added CC. A lot of overlap with Cold. I understand the idea behind it. Dazing with lightning. But I think this should really be made more minor. I'd like to see some good mobility here. Something to really separate it from Water. Which I think was the major thing mentioned in the OP that I agreed with. I like the passive damage effects from Hurricane and Thunderstorm but don't care much for the execution. Air is an element that I've really really wanted to love over the years. Thunderstorm was one of my favorite spells in Tome 2 so I've given Air more than a fair shot.

So for Air I'd really look to how that theme is being expressed elsewhere in the game (namely, mobility) and play that up some more. Some dazing can be kept. Some strong map effects. But I'd really try to refocus the theme so it doesn't feel like the middle ground between fire and water.

Arcane I think is fine as a less defined, more chaotic element. Arcane Power is kinda bad and Aether Beam isn't a lot of fun as input lag can kill you outright. But these aren't issues with theming.

tl;dr. I'd like if air had more mobility and was less focused on dazing.

Effigy
Uruivellas
Posts: 970
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:00 pm

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#21 Post by Effigy »

@edge: I agree that a category that's objectively too strong should be nerfed, but nerfing something just to make other things look good by comparison feels wrong to me. That would be like saying, "People are playing Marauders too much. Let's nerf Marauders so they play other classes more." Some things get used more because they're more fun or more intuitive to play.

I agree that Air could use more mobility. Right now, mobility for Archmage is really focused on teleports. It would be nice if Air either had some kind of movement speed buff, or maybe had a sustain/passive that granted defensive bonuses or other effects after teleporting.

edge2054
Retired Ninja
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 4:38 pm

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#22 Post by edge2054 »

Effigy wrote:@edge: I agree that a category that's objectively too strong should be nerfed, but nerfing something just to make other things look good by comparison feels wrong to me. That would be like saying, "People are playing Marauders too much. Let's nerf Marauders so they play other classes more." Some things get used more because they're more fun or more intuitive to play.

I agree that Air could use more mobility. Right now, mobility for Archmage is really focused on teleports. It would be nice if Air either had some kind of movement speed buff, or maybe had a sustain/passive that granted defensive bonuses or other effects after teleporting.
I wasn't talking about cross-class balance but internal class balance. If 90% of the player base builds the same class the same way it's not necessarily that only two of the trees are good and the other ten are bad. It might be that all twelve are good and two are just really really really good.

I don't think Fire falls into this though. Fire feels good to me. I think there's a couple of other trees that archmages do have that almost everyone takes. But as they're more support/utility rather than build defining I don't think it's an issue.

I think a temporal wake style lightning bolt would be neat for mages, especially as TWs are no longer using it.

grobblewobble
Archmage
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:39 pm

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#23 Post by grobblewobble »

In my humble opinion the lightning tree is already quite good as a support tree. My first normal roguelike win was a fire + lightning mage. I found half of the lightning and storm skills to be quite good: lightning + chain lightning from the basic tree and hurricane + tempest from the advanced tree. So I went

5/5/0/0 lightning
1/1/5/5 storm

And I also happened to find the gloves that cast chain lightning. All together I was absolutely melting crowds. Chain effects from hurricane are awesome to see in action.

So these 4 skill do not need changing, imho. It are the other 4 skills that could use some redesign. Feather wind is a cool idea, but since a mage is so good at teleporting, the extra movement speed is a little underwhelming. Thunderstorm is a very expensive sustain and does not seem worth it. The first two storm skills are lackluster damage spells that don't add much.

Atarlost
Sher'Tul Godslayer
Posts: 1973
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:38 pm
Location: GMT-8:00

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#24 Post by Atarlost »

HousePet wrote:There are unique casters with multiple elements though. Urkis has some Ice magic. Vor is mostly Fire and Ice with some Lightning. Linaniil is a bad example in this case. Tarellywelly is Stone and Arcane.
It may also be that the mage npcs were based on the current focus on mono elementalism, which would make basing the class on it circular logic.
Only the truly arch archmages are really multi-element. The PC may get there, but even so there are only so many cat points and talent points. Currently PCs start out all over the place because of the needs of the tribeam and then focus and NPCs start out focused and then branch out when they reach name level. I want the elements to stand on their own from the start so a PC can mirror the NPC progression. It's possible to put together a two element build, but until you start to run out of places to put talent points it shouldn't be the default. I very much doubt there's any reasonable build that unlocks three locked elemental trees outside the infinite dungeon and I doubt any non-cornac would even consider unlocking two.

I can't stop people from dabbling, but spread out damage types aren't generally favorable in ToME and that can't change without making +element boosting nonstacking or getting rid of resist penetration or something equally drastic.

That can't change without getting rid of the locked elemental trees and I'm certain that won't be acceptable to DG or the community.
edge2054 wrote:I wasn't talking about cross-class balance but internal class balance. If 90% of the player base builds the same class the same way it's not necessarily that only two of the trees are good and the other ten are bad. It might be that all twelve are good and two are just really really really good.

I don't think Fire falls into this though. Fire feels good to me. I think there's a couple of other trees that archmages do have that almost everyone takes. But as they're more support/utility rather than build defining I don't think it's an issue.
My main worry about fire is Cleansing Flames. There's magic removal in meta, but fire has everything removal. Only Arcane has a super utility of comparable power in Disruption Shield and that's in an unlocked category where dabblers can grab it. Maybe every element needs a killer app, but I'm inclined to think they should be equally dabbler friendly or unfriendly and Cleansing Flames is in a locked tree while Disruption Shield and Stone Prism aren't.
Digitochracy
n. 1. technocracy. 2. government by the numbers. 3. rule by people with the longest fingers.

HousePet
Perspiring Physicist
Posts: 6215
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:43 am

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#25 Post by HousePet »

I don't think having a basic category for each element and then two separate advanced categories for Archmage and Arcane Blade would work. Arcane Blade doesn't have room for two categories per element. So then Archmage might not be able to handle three.

Well I just had a look at the latest level 20+ Archmages in the vault, and people aren't going mono element. The ones that aren't completely pick'n'mix tend to focus on Arcane or Fire with branches into other elements just as frequently as taking Meta or Temporal for support. And most aren't all tri-beams either. So either people don't want to play mono element Archmages, or they are just don't work well. I have no idea which, but we can try to cater to both options with some inter element synergies. Maybe restricting the elements to single damage types is an issue?

Anyway, I'd be happy with Air being more mobile and less reliant on dazing.
My feedback meter decays into coding. Give me feedback and I make mods.

donkatsu
Uruivellas
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 4:33 pm

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#26 Post by donkatsu »

Atarlost wrote:My main worry about fire is Cleansing Flames. There's magic removal in meta, but fire has everything removal. Only Arcane has a super utility of comparable power in Disruption Shield and that's in an unlocked category where dabblers can grab it. Maybe every element needs a killer app, but I'm inclined to think they should be equally dabbler friendly or unfriendly and Cleansing Flames is in a locked tree while Disruption Shield and Stone Prism aren't.
This is spot on. Most elements have a really good utility talent (Stone Wall, Shivrogoth Form, Disruption Shield... air is just plain bad all around), but fire is the only one whose standout utility is in its locked tree, and that's what sets Wildfire apart from the other advanced element categories.

HousePet
Perspiring Physicist
Posts: 6215
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:43 am

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#27 Post by HousePet »

Summary of existing elements.

Arcane
Benefits: Good damage. Rare resistance. Interesting shapes.
Detriments: Interesting shapes. Self nuking quite easy.
Comments: Could do with some extra side effects on the talents. Plain damage is plain.

Fire
Benefits: AOE+. Cleansing.
Detriments: Damage is over time.
Comments: Currently one of the best, however its main special tricks are in Wildfire, leaving Fire a bit dull.

Air:
Benefits: Chaining and splashing damage everywhere. Dazelock.
Detriments: Damage is unreliable.
Comments: Both categories basically rely on dazing to get Hurricane procs. Could use another trick.

Earth
Benefits: Some terrain manipulation. Increased toughness.
Detriments: Reduced mobility.
Comments: Terrible to start with and the themes could be stronger.

Water
Benefits: Crowd control. Shivgoroth Form.
Detriments: Relies on beating stun resistance.
Comments: Terrible to start with.

I think it would be good to have around two plusses and one minus to each element, so something like.

Arcane: Good damage/rare resistance. Weird shapes and debuff effects. But you can hurt yourself easily with it.
Fire: Cleanses enemies and you. Spread damaging ground everywhere. But takes time for the full damage to apply.
Air: Damage chaining and splashing everywhere. Good mobility. But damage/targeting is unreliable.
Earth: Terrain manipulation. Increased toughness. But reduce mobility.
Water: Crowd control. Self healing. But short range?
My feedback meter decays into coding. Give me feedback and I make mods.

grobblewobble
Archmage
Posts: 336
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:39 pm

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#28 Post by grobblewobble »

Atarlost wrote:My main worry about fire is Cleansing Flames. There's magic removal in meta, but fire has everything removal. Only Arcane has a super utility of comparable power in Disruption Shield and that's in an unlocked category where dabblers can grab it.
Yeah, cleansing is pretty OP. Unlimited, continuous removal of ANY debuffs, AND continuous unlimited removal of enemy buffs. Together with timeless/unstoppable and timeless/draconic will, this is one of those shenigans that let you completely ignore a large part of the game.

Mex
Thalore
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2014 10:20 pm

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#29 Post by Mex »

Amusing thread, I'll put in my 2 cents. To clarify I think wildfire is just miles ahead of any of the other "upgrade trees".

First the issue is that the best spells for the other elements are just in the unlocked category and do not require you to go that specific element. Cleansing flames is 1) in the locked category 2) dependent on you going full fire, Disruption Shield is unrelated to arcane, Stone Wall also, Shivgoroth Form (which you don't pick up due to Draconic Will) is also available with a bit of point investment to the extent they justify going 1/1/1/4. Of course Air has the speed buff but it's just terrible.

Secondly let's look at the package for each element, assuming you focus on one element and pick up the best utility spells, which I mentioned earlier; I would also include Meta as a given for any build. The appreciation in the thread so far has been a bit too generic, let's look at the spells specifically. Ranked within each tier.

Tier S

Wildfire Archmage

Spell/Fire
Flame: damage: very good; range: long; aoe: decent
Flameshock: damage: poor range: long aoe: good; effect: stun (this is pretty game breaking on NM-)
Fireflash: damage: good; range: extremely good; aoe: extremely good; note: LoS sniping
Inferno: damage: good; range: extremely good; aoe: extremely good; note: LoS sniping

Spell/Wildfire
Blastwave: junk
Burning Wake: DoT
Cleansing Flames: status: removal on enemy/self
Wildfire: damage

Overall: great damage, x2 LoS sniping spells, status removal on enemy/self

Tier A

Arcane Archmage

Spell/Arcane
Arcane Power: junk
Manathrust: weaker by 25% compared to Flame (without considering burning wake)
Arcane Vortex: I'm not sure the 150% even works, but this does very little damage considering its CD, getting an enemy to not have others in LoS is also a bit situational
Disruption Shield: everyone takes this

Spell/Aether
Aether Beam: damage: good; range: medium; status: silence 25%; aoe: decent
Aether Breach: damage: excellent; range: medium; aoe: decent
Aether Avatar: basically lets you just cast Manathrust which is the best spell you have, optimally you just cast this spam Manathrust and Stone Wall to wait for CDs
Pure Aether: damage

Overall: excellent damage, short range spells, 25% silence chance, LoS sniping possible but limited range and requires unlock

Stone Archmage

Spell/Earth
Stone Skin: junk
Pulverizing Augur: 1 point wonder which everyone takes
Mudslide: damage: poor; aoe: good
Stone Wall: everyone takes this

Spell/Stone
Earthen Missile: damage: very good; range: long (but can be dodged)
Body of Stone: improves damage output by 38%, but won't let you move
Earthquake: damage: very good; range: long; aoe: extremely good; note: LoS sniping, status: stun?
Crystalline Focus: damage

Overall: very good damage, has a LoS sniping spell which is on par with Inferno but it requires an unlock

Tier B

Storm Archmage

Spell/Air
Lightning: damage: good; range: long; aoe: decent
Chain Lightning: damage: poor; range: long; aoe: good; you can LoS snipe in theory but situational again
Feather Wind: junk
Thunderstorm: damage: excellent; range: medium; aoe: good but around you

Spell/Storm
Nova: damage: junk; aoe: decent but around you; status: stun 75%
Shock: damage: poor; status: daze/or halve stun resist [this spell could be really good with some tweaking]
Hurricane: damage
Tempest: damage

Overall: very good damage, all spells require LoS, stunning has potential

Ice Archmage

Spell/Water
Glacial Vapour: junk
Freeze: damage: decent; range: long (shield is lackluster)
Tidal Wave: damage: extremely good; aoe: good but expanding and around you (seems a bit hard to pull off)
Shivgoroth Form: you have Draconic Will

Spell/Ice
Ice Shards: damage: good; range: good (but can be dodged); status: stun?
Frozen Ground: damage: very good; range: medium; aoe: good but around you; status: pin
Shatter: damage: excellent; range: good (requires set up)
Uttercold: damage

Overall: good damage, requires stunning, all spells require LoS

Wildfire has many more spells that are worth putting points in, whereas other trees will have a lot left over. Wildfire just offers everything the other classes do but more: with more spells, more LoS sniping abilities, and status removal on self and enemies. Furthermore, it has all its important spells in the unlocked tree, other elements have literally 1-2 spells they can use until level 20. There's not really anything unique in the other branches that make me seriously consider them over Wildfire.
<shesh> cursed is fine

EatThisShoe
Higher
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 7:01 am

Re: Rethinking mages 1: what should the elements mean?

#30 Post by EatThisShoe »

Just an idea that popped in my mind: What if the unlocked trees focused on having 3 basic attack spells and the relevant resistance pentration as their 4th skill. And the locked trees all had the utility.

So Fire would be: Flame, Flameshock, Fire Flash, Wildfire.

And wildfire (perhaps renamed) would have: Blast Wave, Burning Wake, Inferno, Cleansing Flames.


Earth might have: Stone Shards, Pulverizing Augur, Mudslide, Crystalline Focus.

And Stone would have: Stone Skin, Earthquake, Body of Stone, Stone Wall.


Water would be: Ice Shards, Glacial Vapors, Freeze, Utter Cold.

And ice would have Shivgoroth etc.


Arcane would have Manathrust, Arcane Vortex, Aether Breach, and Pure Aether.

While only the locked Aether tree would have Disruption shield.


That's the basic idea. The pros would be that it makes dual element builds easier due to easy respen, and that builds would be less likely to just beeline a few key skills like Shivgoroth Form, Stone Wall, and Disruption Shield.

Downside would be that most unlocked trees wouldn't feel as unique. Many locked trees would need to be reworked, especially when trading basic attack spells for some of the weaker utility like Stone Skin and Featherwind.


I'm kinda just brainstorming here, this is more a solution for Wildfire being the best locked utility, rather than actually defining the differences of each element. I could also see such a change going badly. Ideally it would lead to more build diversity from dual element builds and people choosing their favorite utility spells, but in the worst case it would still just lead to people choosing the best locked trees and ignoring solid utility like Shivgoroth Form which is great but doesn't really feel as strong as Disruption Shield. If everyone just went Wildfire + Aether it wouldn't be such a good idea. But it might balance out just because Aether Form is bad synergy with other elements while Disruption Shield is fantastic. And Arcane/Aether's benefit from Metamagic and Spellcraft would run counter to Wildfire/Cleansing Flame.

Post Reply