Veritas94

If members mage was ever nerfed that badly, I'd go to range as my favorite skill. The ability to hybrid with any weapon is literally the #1 reason mage is so powerful - the armor gives massive bonuses that let you use ANY weapon. I can successfully mage while wielding dragon claws - my opponent can never pray mage, or he'll get smashed with high specs, and he's at my mercy while I pray whatever I want to and farcast away. I believe the thread concerns F2P magic. :). So far, you've admitted that magic should recieve: -Boosts to damage -Splitbark armor with higher requirements We're making progress.

I like your sig and ideas, sees_all1 :thumbsup:

I agree that Magic needs major improvements in F2P. Magic maxes out at level 59 in terms of damage, and this is completely unacceptable. F2P Magic could use the following: Better armor that provides defense from melee attacks. Compfreak demonstrated earlier that he is able to attain huge melee defense bonuses while wearing members magical armor, so logically, mages in F2P should be able to attain similar bonuses (Albeit scaled to the F2P level). How about Splitbark Armor? (Someone suggested this earlier). The "Snare" or "Entangle" spell. 5 seconds (Bind) is a glaringly ineffective duration for a holding spell. By the time a mage backs up to cast a fireblast from a distance, the warrior is practically right on top of him again. Besides, members don't really utilize "Snare" and "Entangle" too much anyway, since they have the so called "god-like" ancient magicks which hit consistent 50+ combos (according to Compfreak), freeze, drain, and lower stats all at the same time. Why bother with silly "Snares" and "Entangles?" The F2P mage brethren, however, could use these spells desperately. Harder hitting spells or faster casting. Listen, I know some of you might be against this, but consider the following: In members, mages have a means of performing ancient magick combos to finish their opponents off using spell delay mechanics. In F2P, mages DO NOT have a means of finishing their opponent, and neither do rangers. BUT WAIT! Rangers fire arrows very quickly, and can string ranged/rune 2 hander combos efficiently because of their speed. Mages cannot do this because they cast slowly and can't efficiently combine their attacks with a rune 2 hander. Hence, we need to give mages more powerful spells which they can use to K0 people. Fire waves would be a nice start, but they still wouldn't solve the problems of lack of K0 ability. I'll let others ponder a solution to this problem.

No, that's not at all what I said. I said intelligent people tend to be more social then non-intelligent people. You can be one or the other. And the key word is TEND - it doesn't imply that you or anyone else is or isn't social. Eh, the relationship between being intelligent and being social is still there, regardless of the phrasing (I have some qualms about that relationship, but let us leave that for another time and another place). But yes, "tend" is a critical word in the sentence, I agree.

Sorry if I was being too harsh, but saying something like, "social people tend to be more intelligent than non-social people," pushes my buttons because of the reasons stated above. And yes, I agree that social behavior is not a result of intelligence, and that intelligence is not a result of social behavior. And yes, I'm a single outlying point on the graph of intelligence vs. social behavior (Or at least I consider myself to be), but I'm sure there are quite a few outliers like myself.

I have around 3 very good friends, and everyone else I consider an acquaintance. I don't go out a lot, and I don't enjoy inviting people to my house, either. Also, I don't have any interest in pursuing romance/girlfriends whatsoever, not because I lack the hormones, but because I find a whole concept of sexual reproduction amongst humans a base and vile thing that's slowly crippling our civilization as we know it. Lastly, I'm in high school, I take several college level courses, and I'm doing an independent studying of cellular biology and bioengineering/gene therapy. Meanwhile, the majority of my "socially-minded" peers lag behind in average classes, and they still do quite poorly. I'm hardly what you'd call social; in fact, I'm more reclusive than most other people I know. You don't consider me any "less smart" than someone social, do you?

The time is soon approaching when I will revise the thread to cater to the more clearly defined F2P problems. Sorry I haven't been responding as frequently. I'd like to address the fellow who said: That was uncalled for, and I urge you to make points which relate the discussion of magic/ranged/melee mechanics. My sarcasm sensors are tingling.

Populations of mages, meleers, and rangers in PvP worlds. Good night. I'll respond back as soon as I can.

If Compfreak wants to do testing, then I'd ask him to vs. someone of my choosing who has roughly equal stats. However, I really want to get back to F2P PvP because P2P discussions are getting me nowhere.

The numbers of meleers/rangers/mages speak for themselves. Magic requires extremely quick thinking and a great deal of luck to pull off, and there are many drawbacks to it. A few pages back, I think Compfreak agreed that one could reasonably remove the magic combos in place of a special attack that hits just as hard as ranged and melee specials do.

That's nice. I don't believe you'll pull it off against a ranger. By the time your done adjusting yourself, and running, you will have suffered very substantial damage. And when you have him frozen, then what? Keep casting magic on ranged armor. I know better then to do that. Jagex's triangle is what we're aiming to adjust because of obvious imbalances which deviate from intended gameplay; I.e. making the triangle closer to what is intended. Even so, "the obvious drawbacks" remain, and I can't understand how mages can beat most rangers. I'm not going to post my stats here, and I probably feel this way because I want to keep the elitism of stats out of this conversation for the reasons of discussing pure mechanics. I have and will again post my methods and experiences, but it's 12:30 on a school night and I'm a little embarrassed to still be on this forum arguing with you. I care too much :(. You and I are currently arguing about power of magic in order to ascertain whether or not magic should or should not become cheaper, correct? I think we've argued enough on the point of P2P Magic vs. Melee pvp. I can't convince you, and your combos, gear, and utilization of miasmic spells which should NOT be included in the calculation have not convinced me. Frankly, I'd rather turn the conversation to F2P PvP, which is where I was headed before you guys got me sidetracked on cost of P2P spells. P2P, in which you're apparently god, has not been the same for me. Defense bonuses have gotten so rediculous for meleers and rangers that it takes huge specials to K0 your opponent, and we've debated the nature of combos. I think I've posted enough on my experiences, and the fact that magic+x hybrid is actually weaker than ranged/melee hybrids. Using x combat style + magic (unless it's a switch from miasmic to melee/ranged for the purposes of improving something other than magic, LOL) is gimping yourself, and I've spoken enough about it to see I've made no progress whatsoever in proving this to you.

Excuse my lack of knowledge on this terminology but isn't sidestepping just another form of farcasting in which your opponent can't hit you but you can hit them? If that's the case, good luck setting that positioning up, watching out for pjers w/ overpowered dragon claws, making sure you don't splash on the huge magic defense bonus, and breaking through passive magic defense, getting your magic level reduced, getting damaged and healing the ranger at the same time because of that damage, etc. My answers indicate that I know the complications of doing said techniques on experienced opponents. Splashes, weak armor, and expensive spells are all valid examples of the difficulties mages face. I'm sorry, but when I PvP I tend not to fight imbecile rangers who will let you farcast/sidestep/x them. Jagex has specifically stated ranged>magic. YOU have stated ranged> magic. Stop contradicting yourself. My ideas are based on extensive experience; you have no right to comment on that - it's sophomoric. I have tried the methods listed in your posts. Don't forget, I both staked and pked. Ignorance in the arena will cost you dearly, and I made sure not to be ignorant of those techniques. However, I have repeated, NOT parroted, time and again, that your methods are unreliable and cost too much for the average runescaper who has but a few mil. Let's make magic a little more friendly toward them, ay? Oh, so you know Lolcats? Good to hear. I posted that as merely a comedic trinket to drain some of vast sea of negativity you exude. By the way, not only is my vocabulary on par or above yours, but I understood what you meant by parroting from the very beginning. You parroted your superiority and godliness without thinking about the financial assets and real in-game circumstances of other players. How's that for a sentence, you jerk? And for your information, I'm 6 months old, so there! :roll: Lastly, parroting would be the incorrect word to use, since I've both eloquently countered everything that has been said against my argument, and I have aquired great understanding from my extensive experience.

You can't farcast a ranger. Rangers have d'hide and longranged attacks which hit harder then yours do. Those who learn know the power? Are you blaming the majority of the Runescape population for not knowing how to play the game? Are you blaming high level players with clear experience in PvP combat for choosing the more practical ranged and EDIT: Melee alternatives. Please, stop "parroting" your own elitism and get over yourself. Magic needs changes to its cost and mechanics. It's impractical and costly to PvP with miasmic spells and ancients, and to farcast others "while watching" for Pjers. Puh-leaze. I noticed how much you love to use the word "parroting," so here it is, just for you

Which is it, Compfreak? You're contradicting yourself.

Compfreak, I'll quote you on something.

Ahrims costs plenty. Expensive melee weapons can easily be protected. Runes can't be protected because, well, you have to use them! Zuriel's staff can't be protected, because, well, IT DEGRADES INTO OBLIVION. The cost of magic is too high.

Magic is not the best combat style in the game. Ranged easily beats magic. That's the way it should be. Making miasmic spells affect ranged is a step in the wrong direction. We've had significant debate about magic beating melee, and hence we're still arguing. A meleer with full armor will dominate a ranger. This is a fact. I can make a thread about it to see what other people think about this ridiculous statement. Ranged should be effective against magic because the combat triangle exists, to answer your question. I point you to Jagex's backing of the existence of this combat triangle:http://www.runescape.com/kbase/viewarticle.ws?article_id=1702. We're here to help with our discussion in their tweaking of the combat triangle. Every class has a disadvantage. Therefore, it is safe to say that magic should not cost as much because it begins to get too expensive when trying to counter an experienced warrior. I.e. Using barrages and miasmic spells is extremely expensive and the cost should be reduced in order to increase the number of mages and tone down the absurd number of meleers. You seem to WANT melee & ranged dominance in regards to their population, and this seems equally ridiculous. Mages would not overwhelm castle wars because rangers would have a field day slaughtering them and racking up insane numbers of kills. A balance will be created where there are equal numbers of mages, meleers, and rangers. This is the objective. If magic is so !@#$ing overpowered, then how come there are so little mages. I'll answer that: It's because costs are insane for something that is sub-par.

Lolwat? Are you saying that magic is fine in F2P? Is that a yes or a no? I like the word you useds, "Slight feel." How about a full feel of the power of higher level magic spells: harder hitting spells and immobilization for longer durations. Oh yeah, and the issue of magic armor in F2P needs to be addressed as well. Don't you agree, Warrior? Melee can hit 30s on flimsy F2P magic robes. Magic can bind for 5 seconds. 5.

I'm glad you agree on the fact that mages need cheaper spells, :-).

Magic SHOULD NOT beat ranged easily, and this needs tweaking. Have you not already agreed with me that spells should be made cheaper because of the continuous cost and the fun factor? The level should be the only thing that keeps everyone from using them, as is the case with melee. Melee = free because once you have gotten a certain amount of money, you can buy a weapon and sell it back again for the same cost. Magic's "weapons" are spells, and once you use them, you can never get your money back. Reducing the cost of the spells is a solution, perhaps by allowing a random number of spells per cast in order to make them more like ranged (You can collect a certain portion of your arrows back and reuse them, no?) The miasmic spells should also be far more cheap and more practical to use. 15 minute usage is, frankly, unacceptable, and so it the fact that not only does the staff cost a lot, but the spells themselves affect ranged. I don't know why you claim that ranged should be affected by miasmic spells, Compfreak. I'm all for increasing the practicality of using magic against melee, and reducing its practicality to against ranged.

I like the idea of ice spells draining run energy, that's very creative. However, if you're going to eliminate the freeze effect of barrage, then I'd suggest compensating by slowing the target a little bit in addition to draining their run energy. I'd also agree that it would be ridiculous for everyone to run around with godswords. Then again, godswords have high stat requirements which mean that it is usually high levels wearing them, and not noobs who don't deserve them. The same applies to mage, and here we may disagree a bit. Magic doesn't rely on weapons as much as melee does, and because of this it does not suffer the high price tags of buying weapons. It does, however, continually penalize mages for the use of high levels spells (I.e. You continue to lose money you cannot ever get back as you use up your runes), and Compfreak and I have agreed that this penalty is sometimes too large and subtracts from the fun of using magic - i.e. Spells should cost far less, but still keep their high level requirement so only people with high magic levels can use them. I don't see how this would be unbalanced because magic spells really get more powerful at higher levels, and hence a smaller fraction of the population would be barraging you in "x" period of time. At the same time though, you would have more mages casting medium level spells, and thus the ratio of meleers, rangers, and magers will balance out a bit.

OMG, another WoWer, :thumbsup: . Shatter combos FTW. I haven't really thought of frequency of mages as that much of a problem. Maybe reducing the number of people that magic can hit? I'm fine with single target damage though, hehe. Not frequency as the amount of times one can hit with magic, but the frequency of their presence. Example: there is a 12.5% chance of meeting a mage in Soul Wars (hypothetical) which means that 1/8 of the people in Soul wars are mages. that means that 2/16 are mages. and in reference to my first post, the presence of a second ancient mage will greatly tip the balance (the difference between 1 and 2 is much greater than 2 and 3 analogy). basically, that's my argument. edit: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: it's always AFTER I post that I figure out that I've misread my quote. Sorry about that #-o And yes, I played (and play) WoW :). [hide=read for WoW]Recently, I play WoW just for the raids and instances as a break from the hard road to 99 attack and hp in Rs. My mage build is pve with a few pvp talents like counter spell for those times when a damn ally nightelf/gnome rouge jumps me, but I usually phail epically. I usually spend my time kiting mobs like crazy (I'm getting better; I can now effectively kite three elite mobs in Utgarde Pennacle and not get hit at all) because there's something enticing about running circles around npcs and killing them. I never really liked the shatter combos; I was always the scorch x5 - arcane power - presence of mind - pyroblast combo because of the insane dps and burns. But I've talked too much about a rival game trying to uproot Jagex in all their game glory for $6 a month :o![/hide] So you're saying that the frequency of mages should not increase? I think mages need to be just as numerous and present as meleers and rangers. What makes magic something that can tip the balance of the game? Is it their ability to hit multiple opponents at once? If so, then I'd be happy to allow Jagex to drastically reduce multi target damage or reduce the number of opponents magic can hit at once - My only concern is single target damage. My question: Why do you feel the need for mages to be less plentiful than warriors and rangers?

First of all, it's spelled "Pai Mei." Second, Beatrix Kiddo stands no chance against Pai Mei. Elle killed Pai Mei using cheap poison, ergo that says nothing about her skill. When Beatrix fought Pai Mei (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fktuYN1 ... re=related), she was defeated utterly and humiliated. Pai Mei is her master and it's safe to assume Beatrix in no way surpassed the legendary Pai Mei in any skills. It stands to reason that Pai Mei = Warrior, and Kiddo = Mage. This is, of course, concerning higher level F2P combat. My references were entirely appropriate, but thanks for trying :roll:. I'm not sure what you mean by the word acronym. I didn't list or refer to any acronyms. :|

Nachalo I absolutely don't agree with this idea. I value my scythe, and I like the way it separates me apart from the new players. I played all those years ago, shouldn't I get something special that will distinguish me from the average Joe who starts playing Runescape today? And I absolutely love rares. They're part of the reason why I'm still playing this game (Rares & PKing); I have something to work towards. I can already get all the smaller rares, but I want a blue partyhat eventually. Rares are also great for merchanting, and they're something that gives players a chance to distinguish themselves even further. If you want a rare, you should work for it. I wouldn't want noobs wearing phats they don't deserve. Rares are pieces of history, and a few players willing to work for them will get to obtain such treasures. If everyone has the same treasures, then no one will have them because they're not treasures if everyone has them. I'm sorry, but I don't support your thread.

W4t 1s schimitar? can ani1 tel me pls?