Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Mages => Topic started by: Halewijn on August 15, 2015, 07:11:50 AM
-
I think the discussion about the wizard is going in circles and I want to know what the general opinions are.
Voting seems very democratical, since every opinion is equally important. If you want to add new insights, maybe it is still better to do it in the other tread.
If not done already, maybe read the other tread about the wizard to read pro's and con's of different oppinions.
Note: This is not an official vote, and I'm not saying it should be! The Arcane Wonders team of course decides everything!
I tried adding all the options I read. If there are options that I forgot/should be added, let me know. :)
Also: Try not to make false votes to improve your opinion.
example: something should happen but none of the above + x3 for elements.
Here this looks like 2 people want to change stuff.
example 2: Nothing, he's perfect + Nothing, improve the others.
Same reason.
There is no problem clicking on multiple suggestions.
-
I don't understand how theme/rule wise you would have him x3 in non-trained elemental schools when no other mage suffers a x3 penalty for choosing elemental spells.
If you said lets develop opposing elemental schools then that would make sense. i.e. Air vs. Earth and Fire vs. Water, this would make sense thematically and rule wise and wouldn't be a direct errata of the Wizard. He would then have (elementally) 1 school * 1, 2 schools * 2, and 1 school * 3 cost. So a Fire Wizard would pay a steep cost for Dissolves and a Water Wizard would pay a steep cost for Flameblasts/Fireballs. Make Nature opposing and you have found balance in spellbook construction for the Wizard.
-
Sadly, truth is not determined by popularity.
The opposing elements option is interesting, but Water Wizard still comes off really well. The Fireballs become Hurl Boulder, and there's no nature spells, right?
-
Hawkeye, Rhino Hide, Dragonscale Hauberk, Regrowth Belt, Fireball, and Flame Blast from the Tournament winning book as example. With my proposal this spellbook would be 9 points over. Yes he could choose Earth or Air Spells instead of Fireball and Flameblast. But it would make for some hard choices and if the decision were made that Hauberk and the belt were worth it, the net result would be a reduction of three cards (more than likely) reducing his utility, and same for all of the other spells in a very carefully calibrated spellbook. If the decision were to avoid Fire (like druids and BMs do) to carry the most number of cards possible, the Water Wizard would have a much harder time with Warlocks or attack oriented Fire Wizards.
The point is, he would now have to make hard choices and not be able to have answers to most major themes from the other Mage Classes. I don't think a hard nerf is needed here, just a bit of de-tuning. Lets take away his Nitros bottle and give make his springs a big looser in street racing terms. As for Wizards Tower, make it Epic. Now it is worth killing.
-
Thats weird, i have a power to edit whole pole... With great responsibility... nah :)
is that intentional? That dot in last option is actually mine :)
-
@Sike:
Making it themed: A wizard is a specialist, that is convinced of his own great intelect. As a child he became convinced that "element A" was supreme to the other elements and afterwards he didn't even bother learning the oher ones properly.
In the game:
Making 1 element pay triple will not change much. Like ringkichard said, fireball becomes a boulder and tadaaa.. Making 3 of them will, in combination with the removal of the spellbind.
If the spellbind is gone they can only use 6sp point boulders once. instead of virtually infinity. In that case most wizards will probably stop having every attack spell possible having in their decks. They would probably stick way more to their choice.
When picking an elemental choice, it would be much more game changing. And it will make the 4 wizards much more diverse.
-
As we talked about, explain how mages that don't train in any elements only have a 2x cost while your Wizards have the 3x penalty for non-trained Elements. It doesn't make sense.
As for Wizards Tower, if you remove spellbind you have nerfed it harder than HoB, ToL, and BF combined. Wizards Tower works so well, because it is cheap to cast, cheap to carry in spellbooks, no cost to bind spells to, and no cost to change spell out on. This you can argue is why it is broken. My thought is leave it alone functionally, and make it so that opponents feel that it is worth being destroyed. Right now it is quite heartbreaking to tear one down and the next round another comes. So it doesn't happen. If it was Epic and only one was allowed to be carried per spellbook, then focus killing it (Acid Ball + another attack) the Wizard would have much more interest in protecting it. This could result in less optimal placement of the tower (neither NC or FC) or a creature to guard it perhaps, maybe it is not the 3rd thing to come out.
Right now it is so good just to follow the Wizard formula why wouldn't you? Let's change that.
-
Wizards... What are ya gonna do? I don't really see the schism as badly as some of you guys do because I don't play on OCTGN (yet), and have a relatively limited meta. Im also not as willing (read: capable) to do all the statistical math that comes with so much of the pre-game, so i kind of build by experience and theme. I'm not personally too offended by the wizard, but thats likely because my meta has all but stopped using them.
That having been said, of all the arguments/discussions that keep cropping up here, the broken wizard is the biggest by far! There are so many great mages to use, and i love to use all of them (warlords excluded, just not my style), but i figure the bigger issue is the clear difference between casual match books and tournament match books. I'm not saying that we all just fool around when its not tournament time or anything, but a frequent point i hear made is that, though they don't always win every competion, but there frequently more wizards than the other mages in general. but thats i guess not the point.
If it bugs all these folks, this often, this badly, then perhaps that in itself is an issue worth noting. I guess if anything though, adding at least one 3X cost to his build would even out a few issues, by limiting his card advantage, and making him pay a bit more for the size of that toolbox hes so famous for. Wizard tower would become a bit less useful as you might not have ready access to all 4 elements so cheaply. Im affraid that a nature 3X restriction would send the wizard the way of the warlord. Nature is a heavy restriction to have.
-
As we talked about, explain how mages that don't train in any elements only have a 2x cost while your Wizards have the 3x penalty for non-trained Elements. It doesn't make sense.
As for Wizards Tower, if you remove spellbind you have nerfed it harder than HoB, ToL, and BF combined. Wizards Tower works so well, because it is cheap to cast, cheap to carry in spellbooks, no cost to bind spells to, and no cost to change spell out on. This you can argue is why it is broken. My thought is leave it alone functionally, and make it so that opponents feel that it is worth being destroyed. Right now it is quite heartbreaking to tear one down and the next round another comes. So it doesn't happen. If it was Epic and only one was allowed to be carried per spellbook, then focus killing it (Acid Ball + another attack) the Wizard would have much more interest in protecting it. This could result in less optimal placement of the tower (neither NC or FC) or a creature to guard it perhaps, maybe it is not the 3rd thing to come out.
Right now it is so good just to follow the Wizard formula why wouldn't you? Let's change that.
Ah. You're right I didn't think of that. Comparing wiz tower to battle forge and temple of light, it's clear that the tower is far superior. It seems obvious in retrospect that it is undercosted. Now I'm wondering if increasing the casting cost of the tower to 9 or 10 will solve this whole issue. I'm thinking 9 will be better. Battle forge has channeling and costs 8. Temple of light does not have channeling but becomes more powerful with #of temples you control, and costs 9. Wiz tower has channeling like the forge and costs 1 less than the forge. Perhaps the reason it was costed at 7 was because attack spells are generally more mana expensive per attack die in the long game than creatures. But disregarding the cost, attack spells are also generally more powerful than creature attacks. You can ignore elemental wand's spell-changing cost by spawning a second elemental wand from a forge to replace the first. Intuitively it seems like raising the cost to 9 should be enough, but then there is the reinforce enchantment. Maybe raise its cost to 8 and remove its channeling. Wizard already has enough good sources of extra channeling that the tower probably just doesn't need it.
To put this into perspective, if your tower casts an attack spell every round, the channeling lowers the cost of each attack spell by 1. Which means effectively wizard tower wouldn't be much different if it costed 6 mana and then could spam attack spells as a free action by paying the full cost of the attack spell.
-
I think one of the key things about Wizard's Tower that makes it significantly more powerful than, say, an Elemental Wand deployed by Battle Forge, is that the Tower's spell doesn't cost you an action. That is, while your Forge could outfit you with a Wand, you then need to spend an action casting the spellbinded spell. The Tower, on the other hand, frees up your actions, and in fact allows you to combo it's attack spell with your mage's action + quick cast, allowing you to effectively get 3 actions in a row without your opponent able to respond between them (aside from revealing enchantments, of course). With enough mana (something the Wizard often has), you can cast 3 consecutive attack spells, or a Quick Cast attack spell followed by a double-move, or whatever is optimal, while still getting off the Tower's attack spell. Only the Druid's plant conjurations (like Nightshade Lotus and Corrosive Orchid) and the ToL can do something like this, but they're not nearly as powerful or versatile (e.g. the plants have range 0-0; the ToL requires other temples and simply lacks attack power and variety of effects compared to a carefully chosen spell that a Wizard's Tower can cast each turn).
*edit* Also Ballista / Akiro's Hammer, and maybe a few others, but Wizard's Tower is still easily the most powerful/versatile.
-
I think one of the key things about Wizard's Tower that makes it significantly more powerful than, say, an Elemental Wand deployed by Battle Forge, is that the Tower's spell doesn't cost you an action. That is, while your Forge could outfit you with a Wand, you then need to spend an action casting the spellbinded spell. The Tower, on the other hand, frees up your actions, and in fact allows you to combo it's attack spell with your mage's action + quick cast, allowing you to effectively get 3 actions in a row without your opponent able to respond between them (aside from revealing enchantments, of course).
I agree with this. While this isn't what I originally voted for (don't think I can change my vote), I now think that at the very least the spell needs to be epic. To me this is the part that makes the least sense. If the tower could change the spell by paying mana, maybe you could consider it on par enough with elemental want not to make it epic. However, conjurations are inherently more powerful than equipment because there is no direct conjuration removal.
An equipment can be dissolved, so that alone makes it weaker. As a result, I'm not sure if merely adding the spell change cost would be enough. It's still a much harder card to deal with than elemental wand. There are several cards that will directly remove a piece of equipment, no dice needed. Even with a force hammer, there is always the possibility of a poor roll, not to mention that Force Hammer is 9 mana. If you have four copies of the tower, then you potentially need to get rid of multiple Wizard's Towers for quite a bit of cost. With dispel, you're destroying the equipment at an equal mana cost to your opponent. With Wizard's Tower, you're generally going to be putting more actions and mana into destroying one. If you have to destroy more than one, you're slowly falling behind (even if you do manage to kill all of them).
All of the above leads me to believe that this spell qualifies as Epic. In addition to being the most reasonable option in terms of which spells generally qualify as "epic," I also don't think this would render the Wizard's Tower unusable. Maybe it would cause mages to use it more carefully. At least in my (limited) experience the tower is usually placed very aggressively. This comes as no surprise since it is allowed to do a lot of damage while it lives and it can easily and cheaply be replaced (at a large cost to the enemy mage). Perhaps a more defensively placed, single, epic Wizard's Tower would still be tournament viable but would just be played a bit differently.
As I've mentioned, I'm somewhat new to the game, and welcome feedback. I have a lot less experience with it than most, but I have seen it in action and some of this stuff just seems like common sense!
-
I agree with this. While this isn't what I originally voted for (don't think I can change my vote), I now think that at the very least the spell needs to be epic. To me this is the part that makes the least sense. If the tower could change the spell by paying mana, maybe you could consider it on par enough with elemental want not to make it epic. However, conjurations are inherently more powerful than equipment because there is no direct conjuration removal.
An equipment can be dissolved, so that alone makes it weaker. As a result, I'm not sure if merely adding the spell change cost would be enough. It's still a much harder card to deal with than elemental wand. There are several cards that will directly remove a piece of equipment, no dice needed. Even with a force hammer, there is always the possibility of a poor roll, not to mention that Force Hammer is 9 mana. If you have four copies of the tower, then you potentially need to get rid of multiple Wizard's Towers for quite a bit of cost. With dispel, you're destroying the equipment at an equal mana cost to your opponent. With Wizard's Tower, you're generally going to be putting more actions and mana into destroying one. If you have to destroy more than one, you're slowly falling behind (even if you do manage to kill all of them).
All of the above leads me to believe that this spell qualifies as Epic. In addition to being the most reasonable option in terms of which spells generally qualify as "epic," I also don't think this would render the Wizard's Tower unusable. Maybe it would cause mages to use it more carefully. At least in my (limited) experience the tower is usually placed very aggressively. This comes as no surprise since it is allowed to do a lot of damage while it lives and it can easily and cheaply be replaced (at a large cost to the enemy mage). Perhaps a more defensively placed, single, epic Wizard's Tower would still be tournament viable but would just be played a bit differently.
As I've mentioned, I'm somewhat new to the game, and welcome feedback. I have a lot less experience with it than most, but I have seen it in action and some of this stuff just seems like common sense!
QFT
-
I have already stated I would have opposed the current configuration of wt as a playtester had I been on the team for that set. Doesn't mean I could have gotten it changed, but would have tried. Those mentioning it should be epic are incorrect. A lot of things go into determining the level, mana cost etc of a card. A simple change to epic and not meddle with the level, armor/hp etc would screw it up. I completely disagree with the call for epic on this card.
There should be a cost associated with the spell change. Perhaps that should be mana (like elemental wand) or qc action or both to change the spell. Both may be a bit too much, but should be considered. Removing some of the versatility may be just enough to mute its impact.
I am opposed to errata generally. Though I supported the idea that hob needed some work, because we showed how broken they could be at the time. I think wt is in the same boat. Muting wt may finally get all the incessant griping about the wizard to finally fade some. My extensive experience is that the wizard is not broken and very beatable consistently enough that it is not overpowered. It is a difficult challenge sure, but he is top tier, so that should not be a surprise.
I am still skipping the vote.
edit: Sorry to everyone. But of all the things on the forum, this droning about the wizard (and before that - teleport) really gets under my skin in a grating way. I am not sure why it aggravates me so much either. It has certainly brought out strong opinions and harsh tones when normally I am very easy going. And it is not that I need to see wizard being all powerful. I strive for balance during playtesting duties. But this discussion reminds me so much about the excessive complaining about teleport. I would bet there were less than 3 teleports cast the entire gencon tourney. Clearly it is still overpowered. Sigh. The two threads are nearly identical. These tempest in teapots are a part of the reason I left the forums for so long. I see things very differently than others I suppose. So apologies again for the tones of recent posts surrounding wizards.
I do have to say though I do like the anchor enchantment, very subtle card. One decent way of dealing with teleport - without errata.
-
I am opposed to errata generally.
Why?
I have never understood this position. It is literally the same thing as saying, "I don't like bug fixes for my software."
-
But of all the things on the forum, this droning about the wizard (and before that - teleport) really gets under my skin in a grating way. I am not sure why it aggravates me so much either. It has certainly brought out strong opinions and harsh tones when normally I am very easy going. And it is not that I need to see wizard being all powerful. I strive for balance during playtesting duties. But this discussion reminds me so much about the excessive complaining about teleport. I would bet there were less than 3 teleports cast the entire gencon tourney. Clearly it is still overpowered. Sigh. The two threads are nearly identical. These tempest in teapots are a part of the reason I left the forums for so long. I see things very differently than others I suppose. So apologies again for the tones of recent posts surrounding wizards.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I accept that you are likely right about epic since you have a lot of experience balancing the game. I'm not an experienced player, but I do enjoy contributing to the conversation, especially since it often points out flaws in my logic and makes me a better player. I wasn't on the forums much during the teleport griping, but I haven't really found the WT conversation to be very "gripey" so much as just a discussion of first of all whether it's overpowered at all and secondly if so what options are possible to deal with it. I guess I see it as a type of theory-crafting.
I've generally found these forums to be miles above those of more-established games or games with a bigger player-base. I am very new to the forums, so maybe I've missed some flame wars, but probably the most anger I've seen was in response to the first round of errata'd cards; the anger was mainly regarding the fact that no explanation was given when the initial errata was issued.
As is often the case, I find that a lot of the players on the forums who have proven to be excellent players are usually the ones on the forums who are the most level-headed and polite in their responses. It makes it easier to filter out the crap :P I generally make a point of mentioning how new I am so that other new players don't assume that my opinions are backed by years of playing the game as opposed to months months. Anyway, I'm just glad that these forums are nowhere near as bad as those of games like Starcraft and Hearthstone with a huge player base. The general sentiment on those forums: Everything is OP!
-
Welcome to the forums. We love to have new players in the game. And make sure to get your friends involved. More play time will make you a better player over time.
I got timed out and lost my lengthy response to the errata question. As a note to the moderator, why do we get timed out when we are actively doing something on the site? It seems that only IDLE connections should start some timeout clock. And that any keyboard activity should reset said timeout clock.
The reason I am opposed to errata is that I really hate that I paid money for something that is printed, and I have to check some external source to see if it really is as it is printed. It means that the company that printed it couldn't be bothered to get it right the first time, just winged it and printed anyway. It means that consumers are beta testers. New players can get very easily confused that their play is incorrect, because they did not keep up with some website. I hated it from wotc in mtg. Cards outright banned even. Really? I understand things cannot be 100% 100% of the time. But for something this mature (multiple years in development) and within 2 tournaments, they had to errata several cards. Some of that should have been caught. And folks here are clamoring for even more. If you want to change mages, then change the necro poison immunity. But I am not advocating errata for the necro, just pointing out something that is so much more egregious than the wizard base stats.
Errata is a very last resort. It is expensive for the company to reprint cards. It is expensive because of the hit to confidence in the company from consumers. It implies they do not do enough testing before printing. It should be extremely rare, and very considered when implemented. Something that is lost in the din sometimes.
-
Welcome to the forums. We love to have new players in the game. And make sure to get your friends involved. More play time will make you a better player over time.
Thank you, I really enjoy the forums and I seriously love Mage Wars! I see what you mean about errata. I hope I am not seeming too contrarian in my responses, I promise I'm not just trying to pick a fight :P
Solving any potential imbalances with future expansions definitely seems like the most creative solution. I really like that as a solution because it also help to shift around which mages are considered top-tier at any given time. Both in this thread and the other, I'm mainly just advocating for casual discussion of the strength of mages/cards because it is another form of theory-crafting. I personally am excited to see where the meta goes from here. If people start jumping on the wizard bandwagon, I am sure there will be some talented players who exploit this. I just think that the discussion can be healthy as long as it's not being used as a basis for errata by the designers.
I really like the Mage Wars community so far, everyone has been so friendly to me as a new player and I truly appreciate that :)
-
Casual play is great fun. However, the cards/mages must be balanced for tournament play. If things are balanced there, the casual play will also be balanced.
And no worries about any fight. It is great to see new folks jumping in. We certainly want the game to grow, and I think sometimes the discussion may impact new player perceptions unnaturally.
-
Normally you would have been able to change your vote. I don't know why it doesn't work now..
@Zot, we have a different opinion but you are right that nagging about this might look like the game is completely unbalanced for new players. Which it is not! I'm sorry about that.
I don't think the wizard needs x3 for nature or WT needs epic. (even though it could help) I think the cost for the tower is reasonable since you still have to pay for the attack spell. But, I do think that the wizard is too versatile. The tower allows him to save tons of spellpoints. He can have every attack spell in his book rather cheaply and re-use it over and over.
Making him pay triple for elements and removing the spellbind would solve this. But, like Sike said: it doesn't make sence that the apprentice wizard doesn't need to pay triple. :-\
On the other hand, archers can destroy walls and a steel wall is vulnerable to lightning ::)
-
Remind me, why isn't Wall of Steel immune to lightning...?
-
just a wrong perception about lightning. Since lightning is a good conductor they assumed the "damage" spreading very fast. Really wrong physically but actually I really don't mind. makes lightning better in the game. :P It's good it's not always fire.
-
I like to think that the reason metal things in Etheria are weak to lightning rather than immune is because it's not really the pure metal. It's a mixture of a particular metal and something else. Maybe harshforge? Not enough of it for observable magic resistance, but enough to make a weakness to lightning when mixed with certain minerals...? But if harshforge becomes a resistor in the thermal/electrical sense when mixed with other metals, that might imply some sort of relationship between magic and electromagnetism. Considering that magical energy can have different colors, this might make a lot of sense, if the details can be figured out.
And wow the comprehensive fictional scientific explanation of how magic in Etheria works that I've been working on for my fanfic but was partially stuck on just got unstuck!