Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

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

Moderator: Moderator

Message
Author
supermini
Uruivellas
Posts: 800
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:44 pm

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#46 Post by supermini »

Atarlost wrote: Just saying "I don't like balance" is not going to convince me.
Good thing I don't have to.
Atarlost wrote: Please stop clogging the thread.
Please stop being a jerk.
<darkgod> all this fine balancing talk is boring
<darkgod> brb buffing boulder throwers

darkgod
Master of Eyal
Posts: 10750
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2002 9:26 pm
Location: Angolwen
Contact:

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#47 Post by darkgod »

I concur with edge, while individual talents may or may not need to be buffed/made more fun; the overall structure is fine.
Symmetry of design is good for design, but fun comes from the ways the symmetry breaks down too.

Anyway, you are welcome to continue discussing it and pondering it but I probably wont change archmages (though you're very welcome to make an addon to test your ideas).
Just keep it civil (and no "Please stop clogging the thread." is not civil).
[tome] joylove: You can't just release an expansion like one would release a Kraken XD
--
[tome] phantomfrettchen: your ability not to tease anyone is simply stunning ;)

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

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#48 Post by donkatsu »

I like the Base Tree with penetration structure. I promise you, if the "Killer apps" are anything like Cleansing Flames or Disruption Shield or Stone Wall, every build is going to get every "Killer app" regardless of what element(s) they actually use, and I think that defeats the purpose of having a tree structure at all.

In order to add variety to what you get access to at various levels, I would suggest having the Phantasm tree be the one that breaks from the pattern. Light is not a real Archmage element, which makes it a great candidate for being an unlocked splashable tree, with Meta and Time being the locked splashable trees.

So Phantasm could be something like Utility/Utility/Utility/Attack, which would give you access to at least one attack talent and at least one utility talent each tier.

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

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#49 Post by HousePet »

All they really need is a basic attack in slot 1 and a great synergy in slot 4.
Specifying the content of slots 2 and 3 will just lead to creativity restrictions and by the look of it, pure attack categories.
My feedback meter decays into coding. Give me feedback and I make mods.

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

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#50 Post by Effigy »

Phantasm could definitely use some improvements. Keep in mind that it's the only "caster" tree that Shadowblade gets though, so I'm not entirely on board with changing Illuminate into pure utility.

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

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#51 Post by edge2054 »

I made a suggestion for phantasm a few pages back. Basically amounted too make invis a timed effect, merge blur sight and phantasmal shield, make mirror image, leave illuminate as is.

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

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#52 Post by Atarlost »

darkgod wrote:(and no "Please stop clogging the thread." is not civil).
And people telling me I'm not allowed to pursue balance without wading through pages of naysaying is civil?

There have been maybe five useful posts in four pages: a few exploring the spreading of resistance penetration and a couple expressing a preference to move resist penetration. Pretty much everything else can be boiled down to telling me to abandon the exercise because enabling functional single element builds is badwrongfun.
Digitochracy
n. 1. technocracy. 2. government by the numbers. 3. rule by people with the longest fingers.

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

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#53 Post by donkatsu »

Phantasmal Shield is pure damage and defense sucks, so a Phantasmal Shield + Blur Image merged effect would still be pretty bad utility, I imagine. Invisibility is one of those weird things where it's godlike if it works, and completely useless if it doesn't, so balancing it is difficult. Just gonna throw out some Phantasm-flavored utility ideas that could be splashed together in any permutation:

-Afterimages
-Evasion
-Projectile deflection
-Confusion
-Luminescence

In particular, I think the mirror images/afterimages idea has a lot of potential to become a unique, effective, and interesting mechanic.

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

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#54 Post by edge2054 »

My thought on Phantasmal Shield + Blur Sight was to add an on_death effect to it that deals light damage in a radius. Targets with Phantasmal Shield would be immune to this.

So the tree would be set up like this.

Illuminate - As is pretty much.
Mirror Image - Summons X copies of you that die after one hit. Maybe at talent level five let the caster switch places with them.
Phantasmal Shield
Invisibility - But made a timed effect.

Once you have Phantasmal Shield Mirror Image becomes both an attack and a defensive spell, since they'll inherit your Phantasmal Shield.

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

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#55 Post by donkatsu »

It still sounds like Phantasmal Shield only contributes pure damage and no utility, with all of Mirror Image's utility coming from Mirror Image itself. I'm looking at this from the viewpoint of counterbalancing basic element trees that are all structured as Damage/Damage/Damage/Penetration. Maybe something like this?

Illuminate - Somewhat less damage and 1 more turn of blind
Mirror Image
Invisibility - Timed
Phantasmal Shield - Explosions on Mirror Image deaths, and also add damage to Invisibility/Illuminate in some fashion? Just to make it feel more like a tier 4.

edit: and also change Phantasmal Shield's name because it isn't, and was never, a shield in any way, shape, or form.

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

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#56 Post by HousePet »

Could Phantasmal Shield be made into a shield then?
Sort of like Dismissal?
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 2: What should elements have in common?

#57 Post by donkatsu »

My (weak) preference for new Archmage utility is that it never, ever directly reduces the amount of damage that they take, because they already have so much in that department.

Delmuir
Uruivellas
Posts: 992
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2013 5:55 am

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#58 Post by Delmuir »

On Phantasmal Shield…

My thought is that because this category deals with light and invisibility, here's my suggestion:

Phantasmal Shield stops damage from stealth and invisible creatures. No all-purpose damage reduction, just straight up 100% damage negation from stealth and invisible strikes AND drops their stealth and invisibility for "x" turns. Every time this happens, it costs mana… instead of per turn, it's on triggered effect.

That second part is so that you can continue hitting them but also so that you aren't invincible.

For non-invisible or stealth enemies, it doesn't negate any damage but does what it currently does: light damage on being hit. No mana cost on hit.

Thoughts?

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

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#59 Post by HousePet »

I'm not sure really, maybe the defensive stuff should be separate from the retribution stuff.

I think we may have derailed this thread. :x
My feedback meter decays into coding. Give me feedback and I make mods.

malboro_urchin
Archmage
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 7:28 pm

Re: Rethinking Mages 2: What should elements have in common?

#60 Post by malboro_urchin »

edge2054 wrote:My thought on Phantasmal Shield + Blur Sight was to add an on_death effect to it that deals light damage in a radius. Targets with Phantasmal Shield would be immune to this.

So the tree would be set up like this.

Illuminate - As is pretty much.
Mirror Image - Summons X copies of you that die after one hit. Maybe at talent level five let the caster switch places with them.
Phantasmal Shield
Invisibility - But made a timed effect.

Once you have Phantasmal Shield Mirror Image becomes both an attack and a defensive spell, since they'll inherit your Phantasmal Shield.
I'm a fan of this idea. Sounds like it'd be a lot of fun to play around with illusions that explode into light on death while the archmage itself is invisible
Mewtarthio wrote:Ever wonder why Tarelion sends you into the Abashed Expanse instead of a team of archmages lead by himself? They all figured "Eh, might as well toss that violent oaf up in there and see if he manages to kick things back into place.

Post Reply