by jaythibodeau Thu Mar 21, 2013 10:37 amIndeed.hey its andres wrote:This is the part of the argument where we just keep going in circles.
Exactly, as it is now. Magic is severely limited in it's 'options'. Since melee already has the bonus of excellent durability and stamina. Yet magic is limited to a small amount of uses. This makes it a non-option for a main form of combat. For now, it's more or less a supporting role. Or specializes in situations when going up-close for the kill might not be the greatest thing to do.Forum Pirate wrote:
1) things can't be compared in a vaccume when considering balance. I am considering the drawbacks of both. Its the drawbacks that necessitate the boosters. I'm saying the drawbacks of melee (and by extension boosted melee) are negligable and more easily accounted for. Weapon durability is a non issue, stamina management is a very basic skill and always having at least enough stamina for a roll r1 with a heavy weapon is easy, everything (magic) is easy to dodge at range so the additional range of magic doesn't ammount to much.
That 712 damage is point blank, every bead hits damage, which isn't likely unless there is a skill gap. More realisticlly db hits for maybe 600 damage (fully boosted) if it hits at all, and this is within melee range for the katana. Its fast as hell, no doubt, but its also predictable, only being especially useful up close. The only thing I'd change is the cast number (i'd drop it to 3, for all the same reasons wog only gets 3 casts)
2) Roll r1's, running attacks and r2's often deal damage equal to or higher than the ar of the weapon.
I also disagree strongly that a mage is more likely to hit against someone of comparable skill, unless both players suck. It changes weapon to weapon, naturally, but I will clarify that I am factoring over a period of time, not on an individual attack to cast ratio, as that is not how fights play out.
3) the weaker versions of the spells are so weak as to be useless in pvp (excluding the pyromancy with chaos equivelents and soul spear,) because not only do they suffer all the problems of the higher level magic, they are also horribly weak. heavy soul arrow does like 300 damage to the CSS's 850 and its aoe is smaller. It gets more casts sure, but its even less likely to hit than usual. by the same reasoning everybody should be 1handing a dagger if stamina consumption is an issue.
I'm saying, in pvp, the situations where magic is better are few, due to a number of factors (limited uses, generally sub par tracking/aoe, few offensive options, limited ability to counter attack, doesn't stunlock, rarely dead angles (so easy to block if the shield can handle it), and gmb/flash sweat/vos will shut it down completely. (which iron flesh does not do to melee)
4) just reinforcing
I still think that my problem with Dark Bead is that it's damage is too high. Sure, it did 712 damage when all beads hit. But that was when the opponent was wearing the maximum possible amount of magic defense from armor. As with what other people said, Dark Bead isn't entirely 'useful' faraway. Thus, we can assume that it's more or less going to be used in close range combat. Which makes that amount of damage a lot more relevant.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by it doing 600 damage fully boosted. That only sounds right when Dark Bead is used from a distance. Which, is still pretty dang good damage (not entirely sure what distance though).
Also, as you stated before:
Something doesn't seem right here. You're counter point against Dark Bead is that it will realistically hit less and that it wouldn't necessarily be at point blank. However, this statement that I quoted suggests that we need to compare it by how I am comparing them.Forum Pirate wrote:
Nothing is overpowered if its user isn't trying to get a decent effect out of it (and with beatrix catlyst and no damage boosting gear, you're not.) Its the ability to use something in way "x" or to do thing "y" that makes it overpowered.
Which is, when Dark Bead is used effectively. Such as managing the range at which you cast it at.
Ah, so you're comparing who might win the fight over a period of time? Makes sense. Except, when magic is limited by uses. This, suggests that magic is meant to be used scarcely, and effectively. There won't be a 'over a period of time' so to speak when the mage lands a single hit or two. When I compare the skill level of mages and melee classes, I don't compare them having the same abilities. I compare them by comparing what each class might be good at doing with that class by then. For example:
Mages will need more patience. But less close-combat experience than melee classes (such as learning how to stun-lock or dead-angle).
Melee classes need to know things such as stamina management more than a mage might need to.
I'm well aware that some weapons can hit higher on a Roll R1 than their AR. However, I should have stated that I was comparing the damage by considering that it was a regular R1. I apologize for not specifying that.
Indeed, low level magic suffers terribly from magics other problems. However, you somewhat strengthened my point about using a weaker version of a spell. If one handing a Large Club takes too much stamina, the Dagger does in fact take less stamina to do an attack (with some sacrifices obviously, but my point still stands since it was about how much stamina it consumes).
Magic damage also goes up with scaling, so I guess it also depends on the differences between levels.
