Pessimistic about the mage

A range of reflect mechanics and a range of how they work too. Have some additive effects for several reflects, where multiple reflects in an aoe all hit the mage, which makes the mage die before the targets do. Again, this obviously have to be balanced with CDs and costs and availability, but I do think that mageball aoes can exist while also not being too op.

NiKr wrote: »

A range of reflect mechanics and a range of how they work too. Have some additive effects for several reflects, where multiple reflects in an aoe all hit the mage, which makes the mage die before the targets do. Again, this obviously have to be balanced with CDs and costs and availability, but I do think that mageball aoes can exist while also not being too op.

As of now across all games I have played through all their test phases.

Nope, still doesn't work, unless the difference between Mage HP and 'nearly everyone else' HP is massive.

I don't expect to see that in Ashes. Anything is possible to balance in design if you focus everything in that design around balancing it, but the bases of Ashes do not currently trend toward being able to solve the 'MageBall' through damage reflection.

Maybe as a FOOS where the Mages in question don't have any coordination, but otherwise, no chance.

Azherae wrote: »

Nope, still doesn't work, unless the difference between Mage HP and 'nearly everyone else' HP is massive.

I'm probably missing something here, cause I haven't thought this through deeply enough, but why wouldn't it work if an aoe that does 100dmg to 5 people did 250dmg back to the mage, cause each target reflected 50 back?

Mages would have to have few times more hp than other archetypes if they were purely hitting with aoes against crowds. I'd imagine that 100% reflect would be a bit too op, but why would that kind of reflect not work?

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Nope, still doesn't work, unless the difference between Mage HP and 'nearly everyone else' HP is massive.

I'm probably missing something here, cause I haven't thought this through deeply enough, but why wouldn't it work if an aoe that does 100dmg to 5 people did 250dmg back to the mage, cause each target reflected 50 back?

Mages would have to have few times more hp than other archetypes if they were purely hitting with aoes against crowds. I'd imagine that 100% reflect would be a bit too op, but why would that kind of reflect not work?

Because that's not the AoE type being used. That's not even the AoE Type that Ashes has presented us with. The timing and coordination required on the side of those doing the 'reflection' is too high for this to be worthwhile.

MageBalls are not about 'everyone just dump AoE blasts on the targets at once', not even close. It's a matter of 'calculating a way to get enough Area Denial DoT combined with your positional AoE attacks'. On the other hand, again, if we're talking about having basically a 'damage reflection stance', then we're back to 'people being able to just hard counter mages without doing much, which DOES work, I guess?

Is this how L2 handles this? You just 'activate damage reflect and then it's the Mage's fault for attacking'?

Azherae wrote: »

Because that's not the AoE type being used. That's not even the AoE Type that Ashes has presented us with. The timing and coordination required on the side of those doing the 'reflection' is too high for this to be worthwhile.

I was thinking more in the context of a siege gate push or smth similar. Obviously open world encounters wouldn't really go as smooth as that for either side, but they're always way more complex so I don't think that mageballs are that big of a problem there.

Azherae wrote: »

Is this how L2 handles this? You just 'activate damage reflect and then it's the Mage's fault for attacking'?

L2 had a bigger problem of "30sec invulnerability for your whole alliance as long as you didn't hit anyone", which kinda removed any "aoe reflect" interactions. Tanks would still use the reflect in smaller skirmishes and in 1v1s, but huge battles and especially sieges usually revolved around the CD of the alliance invincibility. Only one class had this and guilds would usually have several of them to use it at different times of the siege (quite often with a few alts on standby).

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Because that's not the AoE type being used. That's not even the AoE Type that Ashes has presented us with. The timing and coordination required on the side of those doing the 'reflection' is too high for this to be worthwhile.

I was thinking more in the context of a siege gate push or smth similar. Obviously open world encounters wouldn't really go as smooth as that for either side, but they're always way more complex so I don't think that mageballs are that big of a problem there.

Azherae wrote: »

Is this how L2 handles this? You just 'activate damage reflect and then it's the Mage's fault for attacking'?

L2 had a bigger problem of "30sec invulnerability for your whole alliance as long as you didn't hit anyone", which kinda removed any "aoe reflect" interactions. Tanks would still use the reflect in smaller skirmishes and in 1v1s, but huge battles and especially sieges usually revolved around the CD of the alliance invincibility. Only one class had this and guilds would usually have several of them to use it at different times of the siege (quite often with a few alts on standby).

Yeah this is the understanding I had. L2 PvP from my research and your description is very INTENSE but it is not what anyone I know would actually call 'good'.

Happens a lot in my circles. Is the game INTENSE? Very. Is it fun? If you like specific types of skill expression. Is it GOOD? Comparatively to other stuff ... dubious.

Either way I can't say anything because Ashes could easily lean into that type of gameplay if that's what Steven wants to recreate, I'm just speculating based on what I have seen. I always assume 'they will make decisions in the direction of fun+skill' and from their current bases, that limits where they go. But they could make decisions in the direction of 'fun only' or 'skill only' and end up somewhere totally different.

We have not received permission from Lodrig to share the quoted post.

Having reread everything, the basis of this conversation was actually you stating your preference for the 'Artillery Mage' and then discussing how there could be counters to 'Multiple Artillery Mages'.

I am in no way attempting to accuse you of being either biased or disingenuous, moreso the realization that the conversation 'doesn't need to happen'. If Ashes chose to make 'Artillery Mage' style gameplay work, I feel that a discussion with you based on the 'reality in front of us' at that time, how to make it not feel bad on either side, would be useful, but the current situation is a bit more 'you like something and believe the something can be designed in a fun way that can be countered' and a bunch of people (myself included) not believing you.

Doesn't seem at first glance as if it would lead to a discussion that led to any positive sentiment on either side, over time, so I'm retracting my previous 'interest' in talking about it at this time .

We have not received permission from Depraved to share the quoted post.

Somehow this seems to change when you're trying to solve two problems at once, though.

I feel like solving the problem of 'a Mage dying because they already fired off a lightning ball and someone activated a reflect and walked along inside the ball taking damage' is important too.

We have not received permission from Depraved to share the quoted post.

The problem with reasoning like this is that it doesn't result in anything, (except players blaming devs).

Players go 'this skill would be cool, I hope they add it'.

Devs go 'Hmm this skill can't be balanced in our game, let's not add it'.

Players go 'why didn't the Devs add the skill I like? I'm sure it could have been balanced, there's always a way!'.

They have my sympathies always.