Mage support

• Justified wrote on 2010-04-26 09:45

  By and large, I have found that most competent mage players are far more apt to give consideration to the entire party, who has what skill loaded, etc., than warriors or rangers, who tend to focus solely on the power of their own swords and bows under the maxim that each should hold his own ground. While it's true that each person should be capable of standing on their own two feet, and that doing so is probably better EXP for everyone involved if they would just go solo, party play has an entirely different mechanic, one which competent mages tend to more naturally embrace due to its strategic nature.

  
  
  IMO, it takes far less strategy to play a mage. With melee, you have no spammable skills unless you have your target up against a wall. In higher level dungeons, your ability to OHKO with smash or windmill is taken away from you. Massive multi-aggro is thrown in your face. At the end of every attack sequence you make, you are wide open to attacks from every direction, both melee and ranged.
  On the other hand, a mage can easily spam his high cost skills to no end. Stunlock is easily possible with bolts, Thunder, and Ice Spear. OHKO can still be done with a critical advanced magic spell - the only drawback is the preparation time. But wait, you can load your skill before opening the chest or hitting the orb, eliminating that drawback for the first wave. Multi-aggro isn't a big deal, you can erect walls or send pets to their doom, while you're sheltered safely in your corner. There's no post-attack recovery phase like melee, you can just lock and load continuously with no down time.
  
  

  Quote from Trigger;19188:

  As for the who-should-be-supporting-whom bit, it is very, very true that mages should be the ones being supported, not the other way around. I've lost count of the number of careless warriors who simply Windmill every tightly-packed mob without a second thought to the long preparation and large quantity of MP put into my fully-charged advanced spells. Keep the mage alive, and he will keep you all alive. If you're going to party with a mage, stop playing Rambo and start thinking strategically, like the mage already is.

  
  
  It seems like your entire argument is based on the fact that warriors are brainless idiots who just attack, attack, attack regardless of his/her surroundings. If that's the impression you get, then you're obviously playing with some terrible people. I've done runs with people who are smart enough to rush into battle without dispersing mobs so that they're still vulnerable to my nuke. It's entirely possible for a melee player to dish out a decent amount of damage without disrupting a mage's efficiency, and it's crazy to say that warriors should halt their potential 1,000+dmg/0.8sec windmills to act as a bodyguard while a mage loads a potential ~8,000dmg/~14sec spells.
  
  As Rime said, all characters should be supporting each other to attain the best possible DPS. Since everybody has a unique playstyle, this is more common in repeat parties, such as friends or guilds. If everybody prefer to solo all the time, then that explains why your party lacks synergy and your party dynamics are rotten.
• Archibald wrote on 2010-04-26 14:06
  Here is why I say mage support and made the topic in the first place. 90% of the dungeons I run are ADV HM or Hard shadow. In those dungeons I kill perhaps 70-80% of the mobs myself even in a party of 8 people. There are no mele skills that can as effectively control aggro and deal this kind of damage. I have 900+ ap spent on melee and Have most of those skills r1 but I almost never use them in anything harder than ciar adv due to the incredible power of being a high level mage.
  
  Let's reverse the situation: If a mage were to play as support in say a 2 man run of alby adv hm. The other player is melee with all melee skills r1. The mages job is to keep aggro off the melee person so they can repeatedly smash and wm the mobs. How long does this party last? Answer:3-4 rooms before imminent death. (Some might do it but I've yet to meet a meleer with talent on that level) The whole point is that a high level mage with 1 good support person can duo run any dungeon in the game with very minimal deaths for high gain of nice rares.
• Trigger wrote on 2010-04-26 18:43

  Quote from Justified;19192:

  IMO, it takes far less strategy to play a mage. With melee, you have no spammable skills unless you have your target up against a wall. In higher level dungeons, your ability to OHKO with smash or windmill is taken away from you. Massive multi-aggro is thrown in your face. At the end of every attack sequence you make, you are wide open to attacks from every direction, both melee and ranged.
  
  On the other hand, a mage can easily spam his high cost skills to no end. Stunlock is easily possible with bolts, Thunder, and Ice Spear. OHKO can still be done with a critical advanced magic spell - the only drawback is the preparation time. But wait, you can load your skill before opening the chest or hitting the orb, eliminating that drawback for the first wave. Multi-aggro isn't a big deal, you can erect walls or send pets to their doom, while you're sheltered safely in your corner. There's no post-attack recovery phase like melee, you can just lock and load continuously with no down time.

  
  
  Yet competent mages don't spam for the most part. Ever seen my Ciar Advanced video?
  
  Multiaggro isn't a big deal? Play as a mage and say that again. =P Our strategy does not lie in managing multiaggro, as warriors do, but rather in avoiding it altogether. Having multiple enemies attacking at once can spell doom for a soloist mage, assuming said mage is a purist with few to no melee ranks. This is why Zyrus is advocating support for mages and not the other way around.
  
  Spamming does not equal no strategy. I am referring to the need to have enemies in specific clusters in order to make advanced spells truly effective. Warriors use much the same idea by gathering enemies into clusters for Windmill, but they load virtually instantly compared to advanced spells, and they know their radius of attack. Spells such as Ice Spear can be difficult to predict, and knowing Thunder's chain distance is almost case-by-case. That, and Windmill doesn't burn large quantities of precious MP. The high cost of a mage's attacks forces him to be frugal and not spam all over the place -- assuming he's any good at what he does.
  
  
  
  

  Quote from Justified;19192:

  It seems like your entire argument is based on the fact that warriors are brainless idiots who just attack, attack, attack regardless of his/her surroundings. If that's the impression you get, then you're obviously playing with some terrible people. I've done runs with people who are smart enough to rush into battle without dispersing mobs so that they're still vulnerable to my nuke. It's entirely possible for a melee player to dish out a decent amount of damage without disrupting a mage's efficiency, and it's crazy to say that warriors should halt their potential 1,000+dmg/0.8sec windmills to act as a bodyguard while a mage loads a potential ~8,000dmg/~14sec spells.
  
  As Rime said, all characters should be supporting each other to attain the best possible DPS. Since everybody has a unique playstyle, this is more common in repeat parties, such as friends or guilds. If everybody prefer to solo all the time, then that explains why your party lacks synergy and your party dynamics are rotten.

  
  
  My entire argument is not based on "warriors are brainless idiots" but rather your second point, that most people solo rather than party (and for good reason). Mages, however, tend to look at everyone on the field, whereas warriors do not. I hardly ever play in party, but when I do I make sure everyone around me is able to effectively use their skills as best I know how, and the other good mages I know do the same by default. Most melee users I've seen just jump right in and start "spamming" Windmill without thinking twice about what anyone else is doing.
• Archibald wrote on 2010-04-26 18:59
  I can credit 3 deaths (and thats all the deaths I had thanks to my mana master build) in 2 ciar adv HM runs do to what I describe as fanatical Bloodlust of the warrior class. I would use pet while charging thunder to bring mobs together and then launch thunder. After they were stunned said Warrior runs to middle and...WM. Monsters now out of stun lock forcing me to stun half of them after initial thunder then having to Tank 3 others that were knocked out of the next stun. One of them caught me with my mana pool a little low and crit wm me(150) after being poisened by the first ones I tanked before I could heal. If that same person had been a mage support they would have stayed with me and neither of us would have been touched. He died also.
  
  Its not that all warriors are like this. But I would estimate 60%+ use the same strategy everywhere. Run to center wm. Move a little WM. Hope mobs are dead. Someone with good pet control can do that all day but 1 lag/mistake and they are dead.
• Syrphid wrote on 2010-04-26 19:31
  I think it would be good to go into the mechanics of thunder, IS, and FB, as not many people are familiar with them, me included.
  
  When is what appropriate where?
  
  Does there exist a higher level of warrior-mage co-op, or do you believe that wm camp + adv spam & pet lure is the optimal strategy?
  ~~~
  I would never befriend a mage who expected me to wm camp him 24/7. Besides being boring and self-centered, it is also inefficient. Dmg:mp ratio is nice and dandy for soloing, but in party play, dmg:time and dmg:death are the relevant statistics. Your guide speaks of supporting the mage. But no party dynamic operates only one way. Cooperation is a two-way street. The mage has to move in synchrony with his partner, and has duties of his own to fulfill. I think your guide would be a lot more complete if it also dealt with the other half of the battle.
  
  Consider this. My mage buddy precharges fireball in a corner and I pop the chest. Mage buddy launches.
  
  Where does he launch?
  
  I need to know this. The fireball arcs funny and I can't be expected to immediately calculate where it will land. The fireball should be shot at the center of the mob to minimize the chances of missing. However, let's take into account me, please. I wanna hit something. If mage buddy trusts me, he should launch slightly farther behind center, reason being I can wm all the mobs that are closer to him before detonation, sending them farther back and keeping mage buddy just a little safer. If mage buddy takes this into account his fireball will have maximum accuracy AND we will be 1 wm up. Also, because mage buddy trusts me, he will send his trusty thoroughbred out next to me to bask in the dust.
  
  Now consider the fall out. Chances are the mobs haven't recovered from wm, so the ones that I hit will be redowned (hit state produced by icebolting 4 times) by the fireball. The fireball stuns, so I can immediately nail a 2nd wm. This will undown (5th icebolt) all the redowned mobs.
  
  1 mob is on me, all the rest are on mage buddy; all are undowned. Now what? Mage buddy's thoroughbred assists me in swiping all undowned mobs. Should be easy considering I am invincible, mage buddy can wm to become invincible, and enemies will not auto-retaliate. All mobs stunned where they stand, I wm again.
  
  So in the space of ~10 seconds mage buddy and I nail a fireball and 4 wms against nearly all monsters and we both finish in invincibility.
  
  Compare that to me camping mage buddy, as everything that didn't die from the 1 fireball swarms. Boring, less damage, more dangerous.
  
  In the bold I highlight the places where this strategy can fail because of mage buddy. He launches funny, he doesn't use his pet to support me, or he refuses to wm. All of them make things ugly, and all of them are mage buddy's fault.
  
  Corner camping is the lowest level of strategy. Centerplay is hard and takes work, trust and competence. Isn't that worth writing a guide on?
• Trigger wrote on 2010-04-26 21:58

  Quote from Syrphid;19375:

  Dmg:mp ratio is nice and dandy for soloing, but in party play, dmg:time and dmg:death are the relevant statistics.

  
  
  And this is why solo play is best for mages, because we really would rather not unnecessarily waste precious MP. Appreciate the cost of the mage's attacks and slow down to let him be efficient, or just don't take the mage along. Simple as that. If your Windmills cost an arm and a leg, you'd feel the same way.
• Syrphid wrote on 2010-04-26 22:09

  Quote from Trigger;19457:

  And this is why solo play is best for mages, because we really would rather not unnecessarily waste precious MP. Appreciate the cost of the mage's attacks and slow down to let him be efficient, or just don't take the mage along. Simple as that. If your Windmills cost an arm and a leg, you'd feel the same way.

  
  
  I should have been more specific.
  
  In a party, personal dmg:personal cost is irrelevant; it's all about party dmg:party cost.
  
  Party dmg:party cost > solo dmg:solo cost; ie mages (and all other classes) spend less money in a party to do more, as compared to their solo escapades.
• Justified wrote on 2010-04-26 22:24

  Quote from Archibald;19242:

  Let's reverse the situation: If a mage were to play as support in say a 2 man run of alby adv hm.

  
  
  Here's my question. Why does anybody have to play as support? It's better if everybody goes full out damage, but keeps the entire battle in mind. Occasionally, I'll toss a few Firebolts here or there if I see an ally in danger, but I never focus on that. Likewise, I'll have people Windmill cover me in sticky situations, but that's not their priority either.
  As much as people say "this isn't a traditional MMO" the mage class still operates in the same way. Extremely high damage dealing power while the other classes beat the snot out of the thing in the mean time.
  
  

  Quote from Trigger;19334:

  Yet competent mages don't spam for the most part. Ever seen my Ciar Advanced video?

  
  
  I've seen one, and I'm not sure if that's the one you mean. All you did was spam Thunder, with an occasional pointless Windmill here and there. Also, Ciar Advance is an extremely weak dungeon, a single Windmill crit can clear those waves. Not a good test for strategy.
  
  

  Multiaggro isn't a big deal? Play as a mage and say that again. =P Our strategy does not lie in managing multiaggro, as warriors do, but rather in avoiding it altogether. Having multiple enemies attacking at once can spell doom for a soloist mage, assuming said mage is a purist with few to no melee ranks.
  
  Spamming does not equal no strategy. I am referring to the need to have enemies in specific clusters in order to make advanced spells truly effective. Warriors use much the same idea by gathering enemies into clusters for Windmill, but they load virtually instantly compared to advanced spells, and they know their radius of attack. Spells such as Ice Spear can be difficult to predict, and knowing Thunder's chain distance is almost case-by-case. That, and Windmill doesn't burn large quantities of precious MP. The high cost of a mage's attacks forces him to be frugal and not spam all over the place -- assuming he's any good at what he does.
  

  
  
  It isn't a big deal. You said yourself, mages don't manage multi-aggro. This makes the game a hell of a lot easier, since multiaggro is the only challenge presented to us. A warrior must always be in close quarters with his target, and always susceptible to multi-aggro. A mage can be clear on the other side of the room, with Barrier Spikes protecting him. This makes the game harder for warriors by nature, thus probably why some don't analyze the entire field at once.
  It requires more strategy to survive staggered enemies in all directions out to kill you at once, than it does to send a pet to clump together mobs for a super long-ranged magic attack. You're saying that the "strategy" involves knowing how to snag the most targets and save the most mana, but the strategy for a warrior involves life or death. Warriors have much less freedom than mages - which could be an argument for why mages should "support" warriors. There is minimal risk in spammable magic spells, but there is high risk in melee combos.
  
  

  My entire argument is not based on "warriors are brainless idiots" but rather your second point, that most people solo rather than party (and for good reason). Mages, however, tend to look at everyone on the field, whereas warriors do not. I hardly ever play in party, but when I do I make sure everyone around me is able to effectively use their skills as best I know how, and the other good mages I know do the same by default. Most melee users I've seen just jump right in and start "spamming" Windmill without thinking twice about what anyone else is doing.

  
  
  I was directing that at you actually. Because YOU prefer to solo, you don't predict your warriors actions or know how to follow up their attacks. Or because YOU prefer to solo, those warriors don't know how to predict what you are doing, or don't know how to synergize with it.
  The trick to good party play is for everybody to party often so that they learn party dynamics. You can't deny a warrior his windmill, since it does give out much higher DPS than magic - it's just not as clean.
  
  In most Hardmode Shadow Missions/Dungeons, the 10+ seconds it takes me to load magic to its highest potential is enough for the warriors/archers to knock the enemy below 50%.
  I could ask them to bodyguard me instead and hope for a critical, which in most cases is a OHKO. But, if it doesn't critical, then we're still at 50% and now have tons of multi-aggro coming at me. I prefer the first scenario that pretty much ensures dead targets, and the rare ones which don't die are still locked on their melee target, while I prepare the spell for the next wave.
• Trigger wrote on 2010-04-26 22:35

  Quote from Syrphid;19460:

  I should have been more specific.
  
  In a party, personal dmg:personal cost is irrelevant; it's all about party dmg:party cost.
  
  Party dmg:party cost > solo dmg:solo cost; ie mages (and all other classes) spend less money in a party to do more, as compared to their solo escapades.

  
  
  Define "more"? In virtually all parties I spend more MP to DO less and GET less because other people are screwing with spawn patterns (making it impossible for me to hit as many monsters as I normally could) and EXP gains are cut thanks to the party EXP distribution.
  
  I suppose in the end, I just despise relying on other people. Party play is not my thing, which is why I find Mabinogi so attractive -- I can accomplish things alone without having to worry about whether or not everyone else knows what they're doing. I would rather maximize my own personal efficiency and effectiveness than have to work through messy party dungeons while everyone gets a handle on "party dynamics". With deaths at a premium price now (Nao Soul Stones cost NX and revival by Phoenix Feather costs the ever-expensive Holy Water), why should I risk my life by putting it in the hands of someone else?
• Syrphid wrote on 2010-04-26 22:43
  Party dmg:party cost < solo dmg:solo cost means that partymates are actively interfering with each other, which seems like a fair definition of fail. Whether the blame lies on you or those you associate with is beside the point. If you have never experienced successful teamwork, why should I accept your assertion that teamwork is pointless? If it hasn't worked out for you, does that mean it can't work out for others?
  
  What you choose to do is indeed your own choice; there is no right or wrong, and I have nothing to say about it. However, that a party can be greater than the sum of its parts is a statement that can either be true or false, and I don't think you are making a meaningful argument against its truth.
• Trigger wrote on 2010-04-26 22:50

  Quote from Syrphid;19480:

  Party dmg:party cost < solo dmg:solo cost means that partymates are actively interfering with each other, which seems like a fair definition of fail. Whether the blame lies on you or those you associate with is beside the point. If you have never experienced successful teamwork, why should I accept your assertion that teamwork is pointless? If it hasn't worked out for you, does that mean it can't work out for others?
  
  What you choose to do is indeed your own choice; there is no right or wrong, and I have nothing to say about it. However, that a party can be greater than the sum of its parts is a statement that can either be true or false, and I don't think you are making a meaningful argument against its truth.

  
  
  I never denied that a party CAN be greater than the sum of its parts. The question is whether or not it actually IS, and in the vast majority of cases that I have seen, it is NOT.
  
  My argument is not against team play itself, but against team play with mages. It is far easier to run a party of melee/range users than to throw a mage into the mix, because as the mage casts his spells over a wide area, chances are someone (mage or warrior) is going to end up mistiming something, hitting an enemy during a stun animation and making it charge someone prematurely, causing unnecessary deaths (seen it happen all too many times). If the same party were made of warriors and rangers, since a majority of warriors use range and all rangers are very familiar with Windmill, accidental stun interrupts are far more unlikely. The basis of it all is that most people have no advanced magic experience and have never partied with a competent advanced magic user, and thus have no idea how to synergize with one, as Justified has already said.
• Axx wrote on 2010-04-26 23:13
  Mabinogi is far too easy for actual perfection in team play to make any noticeable difference. Mob AI more or less consists of bullrushing mixed in with a massive hp pool (mixed in with high protection) to keep the bullrush up longer.
  
  Not sure where I was going with this.
  /whine for better AI
• Archibald wrote on 2010-04-26 23:21
  Wow good discussion guys. And coming from the mage side of the debate I agree with Trigger. Its hard to run any dungeons with a party larger than 2(even 2 makes it harder) people as a mage due the the issues he talked about. However I get bored with Solo maging all the time. This guide was written in order to help some melee people understand whats going on a little with a mage. I soloed Rundal Adv Hardmode with 0 deaths but for the life of me I havent been able to do that with ALby adv HM(12), Ciar adv hm(9), Peaca(12), Peaca Basic(havent tried), Shadow Wiz hard(2). My goal was to develope a 2 man strategy to run those with 0 deaths.
  
  The best party magic (although it annoys meleers alot) is Icespear. Since most of the time the ranges/meleers don't hurt your freezing. With thunder (a preferred magic for many mages) less is more. Casting fireball in adv HM is suicidal unless you have a bunch of barrier spikes (that the fireball doesnt blow up).
  
  Maybe one of you guys can write a ADV dungeon party Guide in which all parts work flawlessly.:what:
  If I am in a party thats large 4-5+ as a Mage I tend to become a support (directing aggros, healing, bolt stunning a mob chasing someone) if I want to flow harmoniusly with the others (since casting thunder will just cause my death more often).
  
  Either way good discussion. I find myself soloing alot like Trigger but that gets boring at times.
• Justified wrote on 2010-04-26 23:40
  Fireball usually doesn't draw aggro in party situations, and it always knocks back (unless your timing is off and it un-knocks back).
  
  Considering things like - Fireball Crits being more lethal than Thunder, Fireball being more stable than Thunder, Fireball being stronger than Ice Spear, Fireball being faster than Thunder (with upgrades), Fireball splash beating both spells, and no use of wand durability - this makes Fireball a huge plus for party runs.
  
  I can shoot off a Fireball at whatever my allies are fighting and go straight back to charging another one. Whatever I hit will continue to attack their previous target. If a stray mob locks onto me, I can send a Fire-Counter or Ice-Revolver pet out and just ignore it. My damage is maximized, my allies maximize their damage, and no risky stun problems or aggro draws. It's also easier for the party to flow with a Fireball. They can see it coming and know when it's going to land, all they have to do is make sure the mob doesn't leave the target zone. Asking them to perform perfectly for Thunder is a much larger expectation than Fireball, and at little or no extra damage output.
  
  Just another reason why I think Thunder is pretty overrated. Aside from being easy on mana, it's outclassed by Fireball or Ice Spear in every other way.
• Trigger wrote on 2010-04-27 01:17

  Quote from Justified;19529:

  Just another reason why I think Thunder is pretty overrated. Aside from being easy on mana, it's outclassed by Fireball or Ice Spear in every other way.

  
  
  I saw "Thunder" and "overrated" in the same sentence, and I roflmao'd. <_<
  
  Sure, Fireball is great. But you're saying that from the standpoint of someone who quite obviously dungeons in party the vast majority of the time. Of course Fireball is good for that, for the reasons you stated, assuming of course that everything you hit is already aggro'd on someone else.
  
  Why, however, should I waste my time Fireballing for a party when I could be spending that MP on far greater EXP gains elsewhere by running solo? I have said it before and will say it again, and again, and again, until people understand it -- party EXP gains suck compared to solo EXP gains. There is no possible way to make leveling anywhere near as fast in party as it would be solo. The math is too harsh -- halving your EXP gain but definitely not your MP consumption, and quite possibly not even halving your time spent in the dungeon in question (depending on the dungeon).
  
  Your Fireball spam tactic won't work with a 2-man party, plain and simple, so let's assume four people, three people out in the middle of the room to draw aggro and keep the enemies occupied so that you have to deal with at most one stray monster, the one that a Magic Counter pet will take care of. That's 25% of your normal EXP gain. You will definitely not be spending 25% of your usual MP expenditure by Fireballing (assuming that your usual is a tactic similar to mine, Thunder R1 + pet control), although you may be moving 3-4 times faster depending on who is in your party. Let me do the math:
  
  Assuming time for two Fireballs before a three-wave room is cleared in a four-man party, total consumption would be 125 * 2 = 250 MP for 25% EXP.
  
  Assuming that each wave is struck with a five-charge R1 Thunder attack which clears the wave completely, total consumption would be 109.6 * 3 = 328.8 MP for 100% EXP. Being even more generous and assuming that some bolt spells are needed to finish off enemies, let's round up to 400 MP for 100% EXP. Still better than a four-man Fireball fest.
  
  Granted, these numbers assume something that is relatively easy (monsters that can be killed by a five-charge R1 Thunder on most tries). With more difficult dungeons and Shadow Missions, both numbers will obviously increase.
  
  I won't even bother doing the math on Ice Spear; it doesn't need to be done. Thunder is clean, efficient, and completely predictable. Ice Spear is none of those three, unless you're an elf.