Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Disable Casting If The Mage Is Under Attack

2

Comments

  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    I'd also like to add that if someone really were to use artillery to shut down a mage...that this would create a weak spot in his lines that you could force an engagement in since artillery can't just change position all that easily? And if he's shooting your mage...he's also not shooting some other unit.

    If the argument is that this would encourage boxing up, I just say that the current setup encourages boxing up anyway, magic be damned.

    Again, I see only positive results coming from this.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213

    I'd also like to add that if someone really were to use artillery to shut down a mage...that this would create a weak spot in his lines that you could force an engagement in since artillery can't just change position all that easily? And if he's shooting your mage...he's also not shooting some other unit.

    If the argument is that this would encourage boxing up, I just say that the current setup encourages boxing up anyway, magic be damned.

    Again, I see only positive results coming from this.

    No he's just removing a unit that definitely costs more than the artillery piece from the game instead.

    And what does the first part even mean? That can theoretically be said about every time arty shoots anything. You don't need to radically reposition the arty to attack a mage, you just need to right click them when they approach your line using your massive range and firing arc. It requires no more effort than right clicking any other unit.

    I'm sure its easy to see only positive outcomes when magic is your least favorite part of the game. For the rest of us, this seems like an added layer of nonsensical restrictions that would massively hamstring any usage of magic at all.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    Ephraim vs the world round 57.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • AWizard_LizardAWizard_Lizard Registered Users Posts: 1,747
    Some spells might be OP, but not all the magic. This would kill the less common spells.
    Prettiest of the foot overlords.
  • WojmirVonCarsteinWojmirVonCarstein Registered Users Posts: 1,598

    Simple, if the mage is shot at or attacked in melee, spellcasting is disabled and any casting attempt is cancelled with the WoM refunded, plus the spell goes on cooldown.

    That's the easiest way to add counterplay to magic without introducing any new mechanics.

    Hybrid casters can be exempt from this.

    This will make missiles even more powerful then they are now since they would also be able to protect somewhat from magic
  • Captain_OzCaptain_Oz Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 81
    Overall I think that the OP presents a great idea. It is so intuitive that I don't understand why it wasn't included in the game to begin with. Though I would tweak one detail - the cooldowns. I believe that the spell should be cancelled and all WOM refunded. However, I strongly disagree with putting the spell on cooldown. It would make the game too hard for new players and might be game deciding if stray shots puts a key spell on cooldown at a key moment. :wink:
    NEDKIL™ for life! :D
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited April 2021
    Cukie251 said:

    I'd also like to add that if someone really were to use artillery to shut down a mage...that this would create a weak spot in his lines that you could force an engagement in since artillery can't just change position all that easily? And if he's shooting your mage...he's also not shooting some other unit.

    If the argument is that this would encourage boxing up, I just say that the current setup encourages boxing up anyway, magic be damned.

    Again, I see only positive results coming from this.

    No he's just removing a unit that definitely costs more than the artillery piece from the game instead.

    And what does the first part even mean? That can theoretically be said about every time arty shoots anything. You don't need to radically reposition the arty to attack a mage, you just need to right click them when they approach your line using your massive range and firing arc. It requires no more effort than right clicking any other unit.

    I'm sure its easy to see only positive outcomes when magic is your least favorite part of the game. For the rest of us, this seems like an added layer of nonsensical restrictions that would massively hamstring any usage of magic at all.
    See, what happens if the enemy has artillery right now? Do you allow them to rake your army for the entire match? No, you counter it. So, even with my suggestion in place, that aspect wouldn't change at all-

    Some spells might be OP, but not all the magic. This would kill the less common spells.

    No, the problem lies at the root and won't be solved by fiddling with individual spells. As long as magic can be applied with no counterplay, some spells will always be too strong. In fact, you could actually leave spells to be stronger if the enemy had a fair shot at preventing them from coming out.

    Simple, if the mage is shot at or attacked in melee, spellcasting is disabled and any casting attempt is cancelled with the WoM refunded, plus the spell goes on cooldown.

    That's the easiest way to add counterplay to magic without introducing any new mechanics.

    Hybrid casters can be exempt from this.

    This will make missiles even more powerful then they are now since they would also be able to protect somewhat from magic
    Why not? That's a role I'd like to see them in. What I don't like is them having too much DPS.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 961
    I think it’s doable in melee for some casters but probably only on stun knockback animations which already do this I just find that it seems like it doesn’t always prevent casting.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001

    I think it’s doable in melee for some casters but probably only on stun knockback animations which already do this I just find that it seems like it doesn’t always prevent casting.

    Right now only knocking the caster down cancels the cast, so a caster on a mount is flat immune to this.
  • BjornNorlinderBjornNorlinder Registered Users Posts: 847
    horrible idea
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    I can make a bad build, crap, we need the game to force me to make a good build!
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • ImpartialHorseImpartialHorse Registered Users Posts: 615
    There are several unintended consequences of this change:

    1/ As mentioned above artillery or harassment units (like skink chief) sitting on mages all game to interrupt any spells.

    2/ Ability of all mages to get spells off becomes heavily dependent on APM dodging ability and ability to get the spell off between ranged shots or in a quick driveby cast before the opponent switches targeting.

    3/ Short cast time spells and long range spells highly favoured.

    Or, more likely if hybrid casters are immune:

    4/ Only hybrid casters see use as usability tax on pure mages is too high.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001

    There are several unintended consequences of this change:

    1/ As mentioned above artillery or harassment units (like skink chief) sitting on mages all game to interrupt any spells.

    2/ Ability of all mages to get spells off becomes heavily dependent on APM dodging ability and ability to get the spell off between ranged shots or in a quick driveby cast before the opponent switches targeting.

    3/ Short cast time spells and long range spells highly favoured.

    Or, more likely if hybrid casters are immune:

    4/ Only hybrid casters see use as usability tax on pure mages is too high.

    1.Already dealt with, you're already incentivised to deal with such tactics in regular play right now, so what would change?

    2.No, because that would require so much micro, you'd not get spells of reliably without other parts of the battle getting neglected. Instead it woulde encourage formulating tactics to keep units that could harass mages occupied so you can get your casts off.

    3.That's already the case anyway. Things that have long casting time or long lag between cast and effect are less popular than fast spells that pay off immediately. That's more an issue of internal magical balancing

    4.Hybrids are also more expensive than regular casters, but now their price would actually match an important ability
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213
    edited April 2021
    You can play starcraft without mining gas; you're going to lose all your games though. You can play league without taking flash even though thats objectively suboptimal on the vast majority of characters. In chess castling is almost always a good move when it's available despite it being optional.

    It's an obviously optimal choice that's not something inherently unreasonable or uncommon to strategy games. You're expected to use certain baseline strategies and or exploit resources to win.

    Magic in particular isn't that bad because most factions have lots of choice in magic, and it promotes a wider variety of synergistic builds. Bret is a good example, you can go healing fey, or wider Louen with Amber/heavens. Magic, contrary to whatever you're spewing, encourages a lot of build diversity.

  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,585
    Sixteen off topic personal/trolling remarks removed.

    Just a 'heads up'. Under the new guidelines published today, there will possibly be warnings/points given for similar posts in the future.

    https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/287645/new-forum-rules
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    Cukie251 said:

    You can play starcraft without mining gas; you're going to lose all your games though. You can play league without taking flash even though thats objectively suboptimal on the vast majority of characters. In chess castling is almost always a good move when it's available despite it being optional.

    It's an obviously optimal choice that's not something inherently unreasonable or uncommon to strategy games. You're expected to use certain baseline strategies and or exploit resources to win.

    Magic in particular isn't that bad because most factions have lots of choice in magic, and it promotes a wider variety of synergistic builds. Bret is a good example, you can go healing fey, or wider Louen with Amber/heavens. Magic, contrary to whatever you're spewing, encourages a lot of build diversity.

    In Starcraft you have access to the Vespine Gas extractor no matter what. So that's again an argument in favor of making mage slots mandatory.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213

    Cukie251 said:

    You can play starcraft without mining gas; you're going to lose all your games though. You can play league without taking flash even though thats objectively suboptimal on the vast majority of characters. In chess castling is almost always a good move when it's available despite it being optional.

    It's an obviously optimal choice that's not something inherently unreasonable or uncommon to strategy games. You're expected to use certain baseline strategies and or exploit resources to win.

    Magic in particular isn't that bad because most factions have lots of choice in magic, and it promotes a wider variety of synergistic builds. Bret is a good example, you can go healing fey, or wider Louen with Amber/heavens. Magic, contrary to whatever you're spewing, encourages a lot of build diversity.

    In Starcraft you have access to the Vespine Gas extractor no matter what. So that's again an argument in favor of making mage slots mandatory.
    In Starcraft you have the OPTION to build it, but like in TWW you have the OPTION to take a mage. Neither is required though both are fundamentally important to winning the game.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited April 2021
    Cukie251 said:

    Cukie251 said:

    You can play starcraft without mining gas; you're going to lose all your games though. You can play league without taking flash even though thats objectively suboptimal on the vast majority of characters. In chess castling is almost always a good move when it's available despite it being optional.

    It's an obviously optimal choice that's not something inherently unreasonable or uncommon to strategy games. You're expected to use certain baseline strategies and or exploit resources to win.

    Magic in particular isn't that bad because most factions have lots of choice in magic, and it promotes a wider variety of synergistic builds. Bret is a good example, you can go healing fey, or wider Louen with Amber/heavens. Magic, contrary to whatever you're spewing, encourages a lot of build diversity.

    In Starcraft you have access to the Vespine Gas extractor no matter what. So that's again an argument in favor of making mage slots mandatory.
    In Starcraft you have the OPTION to build it, but like in TWW you have the OPTION to take a mage. Neither is required though both are fundamentally important to winning the game.
    No, you always have access to the building, you don't have the option of it being unavailable to you. So it's like bringing a mage but then not casting any spells.

    So, therefore, make mage slots mandatory. Not bringing a mage is never an advantage because you lose access to WoM and mages are so cheap, you can't make up for the loss by having a bigger or better army.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213

    Cukie251 said:

    Cukie251 said:

    You can play starcraft without mining gas; you're going to lose all your games though. You can play league without taking flash even though thats objectively suboptimal on the vast majority of characters. In chess castling is almost always a good move when it's available despite it being optional.

    It's an obviously optimal choice that's not something inherently unreasonable or uncommon to strategy games. You're expected to use certain baseline strategies and or exploit resources to win.

    Magic in particular isn't that bad because most factions have lots of choice in magic, and it promotes a wider variety of synergistic builds. Bret is a good example, you can go healing fey, or wider Louen with Amber/heavens. Magic, contrary to whatever you're spewing, encourages a lot of build diversity.

    In Starcraft you have access to the Vespine Gas extractor no matter what. So that's again an argument in favor of making mage slots mandatory.
    In Starcraft you have the OPTION to build it, but like in TWW you have the OPTION to take a mage. Neither is required though both are fundamentally important to winning the game.
    No, you always have access to the building, you don't have the option of it being unavailable to you. So it's like bringing a mage but then not casting any spells.

    So, therefore, make mage slots mandatory. Not bringing a mage is never an advantage because you lose access to WoM and mages are so cheap, you can't make up for the loss by having a bigger or better army.
    You're arguing pointless semantics.

    The resource is vespine gas right? And you can pay 75 to access that resource via building an extractor in the building menu.

    In this case, the resource is WoM. And you can pay 600 - 2k to access it in varying qualities, in the army selection menu. Are either of these options gated in any way? No.

    In both cases, refusing to do so has a significant negative impact on the outcome of your games.

  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited April 2021
    Cukie251 said:

    Cukie251 said:

    Cukie251 said:

    You can play starcraft without mining gas; you're going to lose all your games though. You can play league without taking flash even though thats objectively suboptimal on the vast majority of characters. In chess castling is almost always a good move when it's available despite it being optional.

    It's an obviously optimal choice that's not something inherently unreasonable or uncommon to strategy games. You're expected to use certain baseline strategies and or exploit resources to win.

    Magic in particular isn't that bad because most factions have lots of choice in magic, and it promotes a wider variety of synergistic builds. Bret is a good example, you can go healing fey, or wider Louen with Amber/heavens. Magic, contrary to whatever you're spewing, encourages a lot of build diversity.

    In Starcraft you have access to the Vespine Gas extractor no matter what. So that's again an argument in favor of making mage slots mandatory.
    In Starcraft you have the OPTION to build it, but like in TWW you have the OPTION to take a mage. Neither is required though both are fundamentally important to winning the game.
    No, you always have access to the building, you don't have the option of it being unavailable to you. So it's like bringing a mage but then not casting any spells.

    So, therefore, make mage slots mandatory. Not bringing a mage is never an advantage because you lose access to WoM and mages are so cheap, you can't make up for the loss by having a bigger or better army.
    You're arguing pointless semantics.

    The resource is vespine gas right? And you can pay 75 to access that resource via building an extractor in the building menu.

    In this case, the resource is WoM. And you can pay 600 - 2k to access it in varying qualities, in the army selection menu. Are either of these options gated in any way? No.

    In both cases, refusing to do so has a significant negative impact on the outcome of your games.

    No, you have simply not used a suitable analogy because the choice of using or not using a certain resource is made on different layers in TWWH and Starcraft.

    Here's a better one, you can choose to not enter the first cave and pick up the wooden sword or any sword in the first NES Legend of Zelda game, but it has no practical use because you can't finish the game without a sword since the last boss has to be stabbed with one of the three you can pick up. So in practically all other Zelda games, that choice is taken away and the sword is forced on you to advance the plot, if you don't already start with it.

    So, since mages are indispensable and leaving them out pointless, why have that choice at all?
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 1,213

    Cukie251 said:

    Cukie251 said:

    Cukie251 said:

    You can play starcraft without mining gas; you're going to lose all your games though. You can play league without taking flash even though thats objectively suboptimal on the vast majority of characters. In chess castling is almost always a good move when it's available despite it being optional.

    It's an obviously optimal choice that's not something inherently unreasonable or uncommon to strategy games. You're expected to use certain baseline strategies and or exploit resources to win.

    Magic in particular isn't that bad because most factions have lots of choice in magic, and it promotes a wider variety of synergistic builds. Bret is a good example, you can go healing fey, or wider Louen with Amber/heavens. Magic, contrary to whatever you're spewing, encourages a lot of build diversity.

    In Starcraft you have access to the Vespine Gas extractor no matter what. So that's again an argument in favor of making mage slots mandatory.
    In Starcraft you have the OPTION to build it, but like in TWW you have the OPTION to take a mage. Neither is required though both are fundamentally important to winning the game.
    No, you always have access to the building, you don't have the option of it being unavailable to you. So it's like bringing a mage but then not casting any spells.

    So, therefore, make mage slots mandatory. Not bringing a mage is never an advantage because you lose access to WoM and mages are so cheap, you can't make up for the loss by having a bigger or better army.
    You're arguing pointless semantics.

    The resource is vespine gas right? And you can pay 75 to access that resource via building an extractor in the building menu.

    In this case, the resource is WoM. And you can pay 600 - 2k to access it in varying qualities, in the army selection menu. Are either of these options gated in any way? No.

    In both cases, refusing to do so has a significant negative impact on the outcome of your games.

    No, you have simply not used a suitable analogy because the choice of using or not using a certain resource is made on different layers in TWWH and Starcraft.

    Here's a better one, you can choose to not enter the first cave and pick up the wooden sword or any sword in the first NES Legend of Zelda game, but it has no practical use because you can't finish the game without a sword since the last boss has to be stabbed with one of the three you can pick up. So in practically all other Zelda games, that choice is taken away and the sword is forced on you to advance the plot, if you don't already start with it.

    So, since mages are indispensable and leaving them out pointless, why have that choice at all?
    Except it isn't, because the mage isn't forced on you. Just like building a gas extractor isn't.

    You don't NEED a mage to win the game. It's highly recommended, and foregoing it is definitely a bad move. But you definitely can still win without one if you are a much better player than your opponent.

    Just like I don't need a gyser to win in starcraft, I could pull off some marine rush that wins me the game. Now, by forgoing the super important late game resource, I'm totally screwed if that rush doesn't work out. But again, players choice.

    Likewise, unless your strategy has some direct need to not take a mage, you have that option. And in both cases, unless you have some extremely important reason for not tapping an essential resource - you're punished for it.

    Idk, maybe you need that hero slot for a 3rd witch hunter.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 1,572

    Cukie251 said:

    Cukie251 said:

    Cukie251 said:

    You can play starcraft without mining gas; you're going to lose all your games though. You can play league without taking flash even though thats objectively suboptimal on the vast majority of characters. In chess castling is almost always a good move when it's available despite it being optional.

    It's an obviously optimal choice that's not something inherently unreasonable or uncommon to strategy games. You're expected to use certain baseline strategies and or exploit resources to win.

    Magic in particular isn't that bad because most factions have lots of choice in magic, and it promotes a wider variety of synergistic builds. Bret is a good example, you can go healing fey, or wider Louen with Amber/heavens. Magic, contrary to whatever you're spewing, encourages a lot of build diversity.

    In Starcraft you have access to the Vespine Gas extractor no matter what. So that's again an argument in favor of making mage slots mandatory.
    In Starcraft you have the OPTION to build it, but like in TWW you have the OPTION to take a mage. Neither is required though both are fundamentally important to winning the game.
    No, you always have access to the building, you don't have the option of it being unavailable to you. So it's like bringing a mage but then not casting any spells.

    So, therefore, make mage slots mandatory. Not bringing a mage is never an advantage because you lose access to WoM and mages are so cheap, you can't make up for the loss by having a bigger or better army.
    You're arguing pointless semantics.

    The resource is vespine gas right? And you can pay 75 to access that resource via building an extractor in the building menu.

    In this case, the resource is WoM. And you can pay 600 - 2k to access it in varying qualities, in the army selection menu. Are either of these options gated in any way? No.

    In both cases, refusing to do so has a significant negative impact on the outcome of your games.

    No, you have simply not used a suitable analogy because the choice of using or not using a certain resource is made on different layers in TWWH and Starcraft.

    Here's a better one, you can choose to not enter the first cave and pick up the wooden sword or any sword in the first NES Legend of Zelda game, but it has no practical use because you can't finish the game without a sword since the last boss has to be stabbed with one of the three you can pick up. So in practically all other Zelda games, that choice is taken away and the sword is forced on you to advance the plot, if you don't already start with it.

    So, since mages are indispensable and leaving them out pointless, why have that choice at all?
    That analogy doesn't work in any way shape or form. Believe it or not, you actually CAN win without a mage. I promise you, the game wont present you with a lose screen if you build an army without a mage.

    If having no magic actually made winning a battle literally impossible then Dwarfs would never win, not even once.

    I've never played starcraft a day in my life, but I assume you can win without this gas, and I assume the gas is a resource you have no reason not to use (other than cost of course).

    Unless you play dwarves, you always have access to a mage just like you always have access to this gas.

    You can build an extractor to get the gas like you can purchase a mage.

    You can then choose to either build or not build anything with the gas and you can choose to cast spells or not cast spell after getting your mage. This gas analogy analogy seems perfect to me.
    "Daemons are abroad again, and the servants of the foul gods march south with the storm at their backs. But as the winds of magic stir, other powers rise to contest it.
    I have seen the Lady, my brothers. She came to me from the waters and told me of the trials to come. This is why I call you here, so that Her summons may be answered. I call Errantry, a crusade to strike at the heart of the new darkness"


    -- The Lionhearted
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,322
    As someone who lost to players that took no mage on stream i can assure you it is possible to win without a mage.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604DaBoyzAreBackInTown#9604 Registered Users Posts: 1,363
    This change would make magic borderline useless.

    Some magic is good, some magic is bad, it is certainly very powerful but this is a fantasy setting after all. Just nerf the stuff that is too strong and buff/change the stuff that is too weak.

    As others have said, with how powerful some heroes are currently it is certainly possible to win matches without a mage (Even though probably not optimal).
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    OK, then what would you say about making the lord slot optional too?
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,908
    edited April 2021
    As much as I like this idea, it's just too abusable, especially vs foot wizards who have a hard enough time as it is. Maybe add a slight miscast increase if in combat. Also, maybe give foot wizards the earthing campaign feature.

    Earthing (also known as grounding) refers to contact with the Earth's surface electrons by walking barefoot outside that transfer the energy from the ground into the body.
  • User_ClueUser_Clue Registered Users Posts: 1,572

    OK, then what would you say about making the lord slot optional too?

    You know, some people might think this is dumb, but why not just have have 3 character slots instead of a lord and 2 hero slots? That would allow you to take a hero as a general instead (although 3 lords is probably a bit much). That's how table top technically worked. You could get a discount on your general which would let factions like HE invest more on their rank and file.

    I don't think it's important for the game to do that, it's just something to consider.
    "Daemons are abroad again, and the servants of the foul gods march south with the storm at their backs. But as the winds of magic stir, other powers rise to contest it.
    I have seen the Lady, my brothers. She came to me from the waters and told me of the trials to come. This is why I call you here, so that Her summons may be answered. I call Errantry, a crusade to strike at the heart of the new darkness"


    -- The Lionhearted
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,908
    I wouldn't mind having an additional hero slot.

    I also wouldn't mind if certain troops had anti-hero special damage type.
  • another505another505 Registered Users Posts: 3,182

    OK, then what would you say about making the lord slot optional too?

    honestly would love it. I think since ETW they enforced it, but as I played MTW2 and RTW1 growing up. I find it kinda restricting.

    Nothing wrong if i want my timurid elephant cannons to be my lord.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,322

    OK, then what would you say about making the lord slot optional too?

    I actually think that be great, you would still need to have a general but a hero could be your general.

    With that i would add a way to encurage lords over hears as generals.

    Say If lord is your general you get +3map wide leadership OR could be lords encourage aura is 55m but hero ones is 30m.
Sign In or Register to comment.