-
Jiyunjkwind wrote on 2011-02-01 02:19
So I'm rejoining mabi after a while (i'm still a noob) and I was wondering near end-game-ish,
1)which has a higher damage output, mages or warriors.
2)I was also wondering about the damage range of fusion bolt and if its worth ranking?
3)should I bother to rank wm to rank 1 even if im planning to go mostly mage?
Thanks!
-
Zeo wrote on 2011-02-01 02:20
I would say Magic get stronger damage output than the melees does at end..
And to
3) My character is a mostly mage, and he only have rank F windmill, I never use it.
-
Mentosftw wrote on 2011-02-01 02:21
1. Still mages and alchemists.
2. Fusion bolt is pretty good and worth investing in. I've seen lb + fb fusion do about 900+ per bolt on adv snow trolls in TMs.
3. Just get at least r9 to save your skin.
-
Jiyunjkwind wrote on 2011-02-01 02:25
o_O 900 damage... with bolts? this is a single charge magic fusion?
-
Cynic wrote on 2011-02-01 02:26
Magic is slower in the beginning, though. Tanking is harder and you hit very low without your spells. Not to mention you either have to spend a lot of time on gathering materials for MP pots and making them yourself, or spending money on MP pots/their materials.
So if you don't mind a long run toward a rewarding goal, then stick with melee. :P
-
Crimmy wrote on 2011-02-01 02:29
Mages are definitely still in the lead. Fusion bolts are extremely powerful and aren't even evadable.
-
Shizukani wrote on 2011-02-01 02:42
Quote from Crimmy;313709:
Mages are definitely still in the lead. Fusion bolts are extremely powerful and aren't even evadable.
They aren't? The hell. That's rigged.
Along with Assault Slash.
-
Archibald wrote on 2011-02-01 02:45
Apples and oranges people.
Niether is stronger than the other. Each has its own situations where it excells. For example. Melee players have a very hard time soloing offering Hardmode. Mages have a hard time running any version of thier method.
Mage has 1 advantage over melee.
For a mere 430 AP into alchemy the mage can have equal to stronger melee than a capped melee player.
Golem mastery r1
Clay mastery r1
Alchemy mastery r2 (r1 takes more ap into alchemy and the boost isnt a ton)
Melee has 1 major advantage over mage.
Cost to max all str giving skills + all other skills in melee category = 3.1-3.3k AP
Cost to max all Int/Mana giving skills + magic tab = 6.4 Ap
So technically you could be a pure mage for a very very long time vs a melee player could go ahead and add all range skills and some dex along with a few alchemy skills.
Pure Melee players are fairly strong starting about 1-1.2k
Pure mages can be strong about 1-1.5k but...only if you focus your skills really closely. Otherwise its 2k+
-
Valkyrie wrote on 2011-02-01 02:50
Wrong question to ask.
Correct question to ask:
Do you want to spend gold or spam Wm?
-
ugonna100 wrote on 2011-02-01 04:13
Quote from Valkyrie;313754:
Wrong question to ask.
Correct question to ask:
Do you want to spend gold or spam Wm?
Or spam Smash like i do.
-
gentrone wrote on 2011-02-01 04:17
With maxed out skills? Mage.
-
Annihilator wrote on 2011-02-01 05:21
Magic is the clear winner when it comes to damage per attack, but the downside of it is that it's very slow and requires a lot of preparation (both pots-wise and loading-time-wise). A high-level mage will outdamage a high-level warrior every time, but warriors are more efficient at what they do. If you were to put a warrior and a mage in identical rooms with the same spawns, the warrior would most likely clear the room faster than the mage would. Despite the fact that the mage hits more damage, it doesn't really matter because most monsters don't have much more than 3,000 hp anyway, which can be delivered in one hit to all monsters in the room with a crit windmill. How long does that take? About a second...whereas the mage must spend at least 20 seconds loading his or her advanced magic to clear the same room.
In the end, it's not a matter of contrasting the two and trying to decide which one is better, but rather a matter of how to make them work together efficiently. A mage (not an ice-spear-using elf, **** you guys) is a warrior's best friend, as they help to keep multi aggro off them and deal significant amounts of damage, while the warrior protects the mage with windmill while dealing less powerful, but fast AoE damage.
In short, as a warrior, I wouldn't think of doing Peaca without bringing my mage buddies, and I'm sure they feel the same about us warriors. Just choose whichever one you like better - standing in a corner nuking the living crap out of things, or being in the fray whacking the crap out of things.
-
Crimmy wrote on 2011-02-01 06:01
Quote from Annihilator;314237:
In the end, it's not a matter of contrasting the two and trying to decide which one is better, but rather a matter of how to make them work together efficiently. A mage (not an ice-spear-using elf, **** you guys) is a warrior's best friend, as they help to keep multi aggro off them and deal significant amounts of damage, while the warrior protects the mage with windmill while dealing less powerful, but fast AoE damage.
Why aren't there more players like you? Cooperative play is the way to go. I get so tired of warriors who feel the need to try to out-damage my r1 fireball instead of helping keep the aggro off. I did Fortinbras Int with only 3 other warrior friends of mine who knew how to play with a fireballer. We finished it with 10 minutes to spare. Next time I did it with 6 people who all but one ran off into corners to wm and left me by myself. Was a total disaster. They died and I ragequit'd.
-
Cryosite wrote on 2011-02-01 08:30
Actually, there are lots of things where 3k damage isn't enough.
Mages shine the harder and tougher the opponents become. And damage/second not much beats Thunder when in it's ideal environment. large groups of enemies with lots of hp and aren't too terribly scattered apart. Fireball similarly. Wm might load in 0.8 seconds, and based on that alone you could try to argue that you could do more damage with windmills in the time it takes to cast and release thunder, but WM sends things flying and scatters them thus slowing the WM'r down.
In situations where one-two WM's will kill things then yes, WM shines. Mages shine in harder places than that.
-
Annihilator wrote on 2011-02-01 08:39
Quote from Cryosite;314460:
Actually, there are lots of things where 3k damage isn't enough.
Mages shine the harder and tougher the opponents become. And damage/second not much beats Thunder when in it's ideal environment. large groups of enemies with lots of hp and aren't too terribly scattered apart. Fireball similarly. Wm might load in 0.8 seconds, and based on that alone you could try to argue that you could do more damage with windmills in the time it takes to cast and release thunder, but WM sends things flying and scatters them thus slowing the WM'r down.
In situations where one-two WM's will kill things then yes, WM shines. Mages shine in harder places than that.
Absolutely true. I was merely giving a more general situation for my example. When you get up into the ranges of Peaca and such, warriors alone simply aren't enough. Once the enemy tanks come rolling in, rifles aren't gonna cut it - you have to bring in the heavy artillery. This is why I would never even think about not bringing a mage with me on extremely difficult dungeons.
Quote from Crimmy;314331:
Why aren't there more players like you? Cooperative play is the way to go. I get so tired of warriors who feel the need to try to out-damage my r1 fireball instead of helping keep the aggro off. I did Fortinbras Int with only 3 other warrior friends of mine who knew how to play with a fireballer. We finished it with 10 minutes to spare. Next time I did it with 6 people who all but one ran off into corners to wm and left me by myself. Was a total disaster. They died and I ragequit'd.
So sorry to hear about your bad experiences. =/ We really do need you guys. If you ever need people for a difficult dungeon / shadow mission run, feel free to hit me up.