Buffing Arch Mages?

Just because he disagrees with you doesn't mean he's being hostile lmao. If anything, props to Michael for taking the time to even respond in detail. Especially considering that you literally go around the forums complaining about the same shit regarding arch mages at least six times a day, I'm surprised anyone is even taking this thread seriously.

Maybe try not calling everyone that disagrees with you "emotional" and "nonsensical" and maybe they might consider the merits to your point. Or just come up with irrelevant ad hominem attacks, I'm sure that'll work just as well.

 

I never attacked anyone; I simply pointed out that certain things he said were nonsense, not him as a person. I have nothing against anyone here personally but I will call out bullshit when I see it. And what anyone thinks of me shouldn't affect their ability to reason. That is once again, being emotional since you're taking things to the personal level while what I am trying to do here is simply discuss things that could affect two classes of the game.

Now then, as where you stand is pretty obvious, could you please explain to me why the proposed changes would be a bad idea as it doesn't ruin the nostalgia effect of Pre Big Bang MapleStory and they aren't custom as they're from existing previous version of the game?

 

I don't think anyone is taking this seriously because from what I can understand. You want the Devs to spend time on changes to the mages that actually won't really effect anything. Increase their damage for 1v1 even though they'll still be the lowest damage 1v1 classes in the game? Why even waste the manpower on something of no real importance?

Meanwhile the majority of all shadower skills are actually broken, as in, they do not work at all half the time. From smokescreen to meso explosion. Heros main skill, combo attack 3rd job is bugged and doesn't even deal the correct damage. Actual real issues need to be addressed. Ask anyone on this server if they would rather have mage skills reworked/buffed or have the Devs work on new maps, cash shop items, content in general. I think the answer would be pretty one sided. You could even attach a poll to this thread if you really wanted to gage public opinion.

And don't give me the whole, "just because other things need to be worked on, doesn't mean mages can't get a buff". That's simple not true. The Devs spending time on this would take away from other more important work. As I said before, if any class needs a buff, it's the paladin. End of story. And your whole excuse about not buffing them because that's how they are pre big bang is BS. Theirs a reason they're the least played class. They are a warrior and they are based around bossing and elemental mobs. Except none of their skills allow them to do either properly. Mages are based around mobbing, not 1v1. They are the masters of grinding, no other class even comes close. Paladins on the other hand are good at absolutely nothing. I don't even play pally, so I have no hidden agenda. But, as I said, in my opinion, they are currently the only class that deserves any kind of buff. Also, a well geared FP with its summon out can actually out dps a paladin 1v1. So yea... Theirs that as well.

 

Isn't that how changes are supposed to be? Noticeable enough that it helps the class but not too much that it affects the DPS rankings / balance of Pre Big Bang?

Talking about broken skills, Arch Mages have those too.

But that is true. No one ever said, if these propositions were to be accepted, that these changes have to happen now. I understand that there's a priority list so I'm simply just putting it out there to make sure its not forgotten.

I'm assuming you're talking about Paladins here. When did I ever said that they don't need a buff? What I was said was that it doesn't make sense to support one class but not the either, like in your case, while for me, I'd support both since they are all the underdog classes of Pre Big Bang MapleStory.

That is not true. They still have decent to good 1v1 on weak to elemental mobs and although their 1v1 capabilities are less than optimal for neutral mobs, they somewhat make it up for being better at mobbing than their warrior counterparts. They're kind of like an over buffed 1v1 AM with nerfed mobbing. Yes, their mobbing capabilities are nowhere close to Arch Mages but at the same time Arch Mages's 1v1 capabilities are no where close to Paladins either, which comes to the next point:

Not true, unless you're like comparing a level 200 Arch Mage with 100b funding to a level 135 with 0 funding, its not the case. When they are equally funded, Paladins are still stronger by a mile. And I do remember you bringing up that DPS chart on that other thread, and as I already explained it to you, that chart is incorrect since it heavily overestimated Arch Mages. But even then, to make it clear, I have nothing against a Paladin buff.

Anyway, we're getting away from the topic of this thread, so I'll ask you the same thing I asked iEatEmoKids: Could you please explain to me why the proposed changes would be a bad idea as it doesn't ruin the nostalgia effect of Pre Big Bang MapleStory and they aren't custom as they're from existing previous version of the game?

 

lol wtf is going on

 

The staff's biggest fuck up was losing you not releasing the New Source to SoonTM I swear...

Just your daily dose of drama cancer spreading. Just get some popcorn and wait for a staff to close this thread SoonTM.

 

In this thread OP uses the feedback session and people are getting frustrated.

I always wondered why Genesis was 100 magic attack higher and faster than the other ultimates even with spell booster. Archmage's need multiple skill combinations to beat out Genesis and Genesis isn't even the primary focus for Bishop's. I think the developers stated before though they'd rather buff than nerf so I don't see any classes getting intentionally worse than they previously were.

 

Because they're not needed and they're a waste of time for the Devs.

And now you're gonna say this is my opinion again and since it clashes with your opinion, we're at a stalemate. Why don't you attach a poll and get the opinion of the general community. Simply ask if mages should get a buff to 1v1, go for it. I'm sure you already know the result.

This is simply not true. A pally with decent gear around lvl 150 will hit about 30k damage. My fp with hardly any funding at all hits 30k with just paralyse. Not even counting in the summons damage. Mages do out damage pallys in 1v1

 

That is your indeed opinion; if you were able to say why it could negatively impact the game then that could be a fact (Just like how I explained it could positively impact it), but still, that something we can continue with. Yes, like I said, I do not believe it is a waste of time. I do agree with you that new content (maps/PQs/etc...) would have priority as it makes the game significantly better than what I'm proposing here since its only affecting a minor percent of the population. Yes, fixing all broken skills (Including Arch Mage's) have priority over any change to the current working ones.

But when the day comes that class balancing/changes are to happen, I do not see how this is any less important than others. You'll probably bring up Paladins, and if I were to use your logic as "Arch Mages were meant for grinding and not 1v1", well Paladins were meant to be the grinding warrior while being decent at 1v1 but I do not agree with the initial logic since I think both deserve changes. Now what I'd like you to explain to me is that why Paladin deserves these changes so much while changes for Arch Mages would be a waste of time. It wouldn't be a problem if you were against changes for both classes as I'd understand but I fail to understand why its a waste of time for one but not the other.

Alright, I'll apologize here and say that I did exaggerate it, but I'll explain to you why Paladins are still stronger than Arch Mages by a good amount. You are comparing two relatively weak characters. Arch Mages and even Bishops, gain most of their damage by maxing their skills while gear doesn't affect it as much as W.ATK users because of multipliers. So getting to 30k with Blast might be harder than 30k with Paralyze, but if you decide to continue to fund both characters you'll notice that the Paladin will surpass the F/P easily enough. Also, using the equips (Worth ~200b) of the person with the current highest magic, Level 200 + Echo + Cheese, she has 1999 magic, the cap. If those stats were applied to a F/P, the strongest 1v1 Arch Mage, that's about 70k with Paralyze. Yes, the summon does damage too, but as Blast is significant faster than both skills; even Paralyze + Elquines, a 70k Blast would still be stronger, but to simplify things, lets say they're equal. I'll admit that I know nothing of Paladins, but unless it also takes 200b funding + Echo + a Gelt to hit 70k with Blast, I don't see how any Arch Mage would come anywhere close to Paladins. Finally, I already gave up on this previous change that I thought about as it is custom, but for fun here are the calculations for it. With the strongest 1v1 Arch Mage skill, Paralyze x 2, the highest potential damage is 140k in theory while for a Paladin its 199k (If that damage is impossible even for a level 200 Paladin with 200b funding + Echo + Gelt, then this comparison would indeed be flawed, but for the sake of comparing them to their absolute max, these are the numbers). If you include SI and SE, both get stronger and Blast gets faster. 140k becomes 196k and 199k stays 199k since that's the damage cap. If you look at the numbers alone, a hypothetical Paralyze 2x would be very close to Blast, but if you do the math and look and their DPM, Paralyze's would be 16.33m while Blast's would be 19m. Add in Elquines and that's 17.33m vs 19m. That is also assuming a 100% critical rate which is impossible. So the realistic DPM comparison would more be like 13.4m (12.4m + 1m) vs 19m which is nowhere close. Still tho, one could argue that that is way too close and although that's subjective, I wouldn't mind agreeing with it which is why the changes proposed here are a lot less significant. I am in no way trying to make Arch Mages surpass or even compete with Paladins when it comes to 1v1; my goal is just to tune up by a tiny amount their horrible 1v1 capabilities as to make the life of my fellow Arch Mages out there less hell and make them stand out more from Bishops.

As you said so yourself, the result would be pretty obvious since majority of people on forums (Not in the game) are against any changes to Arch Mages. But even if the majority of the playerbase would be against it (Although I doubt it since I haven't really seen any objection from the majority of players I've talked to), unless someone comes with a detailed logical explanation as to why this is "bad" and a "waste of time", I still fail to understand what's the problem. I will stand up for what I believe is right and you are too; in no way I'm trying to shit on others. Trust me, I'm really trying to understand your perspective but I'm confused.

I don't think its impossible coding wise to do it, but in practice I have to agree that its a bad idea as that that is a big blow to all the Bishops out there that spent billions into perfecting their Elemental Wands. As OrcaGel said it too, even if its a nerf on Genesis instead of their Elemental Wands, the result is the same and the developers here don't want to make any nerfs.

 

I just don't see a convincing reason as to why AMs should get these buffs. I mean, if you argue that you want to boost up AMs 1v1 capability, that's like asking NL to get buff for their farming capability.

 

I'll assume here that you are against both Arch Mage and Paladin (Or any other class) changes unlike SmokerT69 or else I'd like you to answer the same question I asked him.

If my assumption is right, what you said would indeed make sense from a certain point of view, but like I explained, the end game of MapleStory is to get better equips to become stronger and with being stronger you kill stronger monsters. Those stronger monsters are bosses. If you disagree with that statement, I'm all ears as to why.

Part of my proposition was also to compensate for the damage increase that Bishops have due to the elemental weapons's bug. As a nerf to Bishops would be a bad idea, I proposed a buff to Arch Mages.

 

If I had it my way Genesis would definitely be the same as the other ultimates thus making it weaker and slower to further cement Bishop's as a class with the best combination of support buffs and Archmage's as the end game farmers. I just do not think the developers would ever take nerfing a class into consideration since they're adamant about wasting peoples times who previously invested in a class.

I don't think the OP is looking for classes to be more fitted in their roles though he just wants Archmages to do better 1v1 which I don't think does any harm considering how weak they are and as far as opening a can of worms for giving classes buffs, well they're already doing that a 3rd time.

 

Oh he is saying it.

 

I don't see how nerfing bishops would accomplish anything. The only thing that would accomplish is to remove any reason to play bishops besides using one as a mule, and it would in no way help arch mages in terms of bossing. The only way bishops are overpowered is through the game basically forcing you to play with HS, which most people mule anyway (look at how many people main bishops compared to how many people use them as mules). The most a well geared bishop can do compared to a mule is double as a somewhat decent attacker at zak and horntail, while a well geared arch mage can work as a full decent attacker, not to mention sell the best leech in the game with barely any gear. Saying players can just make arch mages and transfer their gear is kinda like saying it would be ok to nerf bowmasters because players could just make nightlords and transfer their gear. As a bishop player myself id probably just quit the game if they were nerfed as the already small reason to gear one would just be removed almost entirely.

 

Your point of view for buffing AMs can be applied to any class though. That's why I'm against it. If your only reasoning for getting a useless damage buff on a class that isn't supposed to be 1v1ing is that "it won't negatively impact the game". That reasoning can be applied to all the other classes. Increase a night lords avenger so they can farm better, it doesn't negatively impact the game. Increase a BM arrow rain, it doesn't negatively impact the game. You see where I'm going with this?

I don't know how I can make you see that buffing AM is pointless and a waste of time. It is simply not needed. No other class can do what AM can do, that's why people make them to leech and farm. It's the same reason people make NLs for HT, it's what they're good at.

As I've said before, the only class that really needs a buff is pally. They are the lowest damage in the entire game excluding bishops. They serve absolutely no purpose and currently have no value at all, for anything in the game. Their "ultimate" skill only takes mobs to 1hp, doesn't kill them. Their damage at bossing is beyond a joke. That is why they deserve a buff. Just to break it down for you, FP/IL = best AoE mobbing class in the game, pally = does absolutely nothing well. If you can't understand the difference between a completely useless class like pally and a class like FP that is the best AoE attacker in the game, then theirs no point in discussing this any further.

As for you working out the damage for pallys, someone just posted a SS of a pally with a 8k range in another thread. A lvl 16x pally with 8k range is being out dps'd by my nearly naked FP. GG

https://royals.ms/forum/attachments/upload_2017-10-11_19-37-5-png.50245/

 

The idea is to create a more obvious reason to choose a bishop over an archmage. Archmage's only advantage vs Bishop is more damage and they still need booster to catch up in speed and a larger amount of mp to use. Bishop's have amazing support skills from 2nd job all the way to late 4th job. You can definitely use Bishop's primarily as a mule, but it's still harder to manage since Bishop's have many duties in bosses cause they have so many skills and options. Priest's are used primarily as a holy symbol mule, but you still miss out on things like holy shield and resurrection if you refuse to somewhat go further in levels.

Cause of the nerf hate a better alternative is more higher leveled farming mobs with fire/ice weak or neutral to give arch mage's more advantages and appeal vs just petrifighters.

 

Exactly, transferring your gear because your class got nerfed is a bad idea as that negatively impacts the player and somewhat "forces" them to change classes. Just like Martin said:

Although personally I'd change the BM -> NL to BM -> MM for a more just comparison, that's of little relevance.

Also, for

that sounds great in theory, but in practice, at least from what I heard, lots of Bishops out there do not get EXP from boss runs because their party members think that they do not deserve it. Fair or not, that is something out of the developers's control.

I do see where you're going with this as you're pretty much saying the same thing Michael said but as I already explained it to him:

Although if they aren't custom and part of Pre Big Bang MapleStory, as I haven't double checked myself, I indeed do not see any problem in implementing a Avenger and Arrow Rain buff. I would not see the need of it as it doesn't contribute to their endgame experience, but I wouldn't be against it.

I will also agree with Michael that if this proposition is accepted, its kind of like opening Pandora's box. Not exactly it because the box has been opened long before with other skill changes, notably the New Source ones. As I've already said, If this server was purely v62 with no changes at all, I'd respect that but it clearly isn't. There has been changes in the past and new ones are already planned. That can be be seen both as bad because it doesn't keep the v62 purity or good as the server is willing evolve and become better.

Not exactly. In theory Corsairs are at the top when it comes to single target DPS and Bishops are at the top of AOE attacks as Genesis is faster than both Blizzard and Meteor, but in practice, NLs are at the top when it comes to single target DPS as they have good mobility and high avoid while F/Ps are at the top for AOE attacks since they the highest base attack ultimate making it easier to 1 hit popular maps so you are right and wrong at the same time. Next, there's Paladins. They are somewhere in the middle; decent single target DPS and decent AOE attacks. Jack of all trades but master of none.

That is interesting. 8k range should indeed have took a good amount of funding but it seems like the 1v1 damage reward for it is very low. As you and I both do not play Paladins, we're somewhat stuck because you have this SS that proves your point but I with my own eyes have seen Paladins hit 100k and heard of Paladins hitting 160k. It would require someone with extended Paladin knowledge to help us figure this out. If you are right, I will indeed agree that a Paladin buff is indeed more pressing than a Arch Mage one as they have nothing going for them: weaker than Arch Mages on both single target DPS and AOE attacks.

Even then tho, why would would a buff be applied their single target DPS side instead of the AOE attacks one? That's because the end game of MapleStory is killing stronger monsters, aka bosses, and single target DPS helps out more. As Arch Mages have terrible single target DPS, Post Paladin changes, I still do not see the problem of implementing these changes. Also, there's this portion of my proposition that keeps getting ignored and that is my goal here is also to differentiate Arch Mages better from Bishops.