On the Power of mattack

[Noobus]

So I had been going through the log of the OOC meeting and since I wasn't there, I never really got the chance to comment on the specifics on the combat situation Laxus found himself in-- Yes, I play the mage in question!

First, let me put a few things out there about my character:
-- With Magic, Leofrick has over 450 HP and MV, won't give the specific number for reasons. That is 96 Con and yeah... that Dex

-- His Fire/Arien is at 75/75, attack rank being peerless.

-- I fight with Sanguine( don't ask if you don't know ) on and I do an average of 80-87 HP per hit, anything higher than that is when I do critical hits, but it is never more than 100, not that I have seen. This is when using mattack. With Jemven, I could do this amount of average damage with a dagger at 37-- using the same NPCs.

-- I have another weapon, which is at 61 and has an attack ranking of Mighty-- this weapon easily does 130 HP on average if in similar circumstances with my mattack. That means the opponent does not have armour and are using a defence that is neutral against it. The weapon in question can do this amount of damage in 'fair' condition.

--My defense skills are very high: I have one in my Grandmaster slot-- which happens to be the one I used in the battle even though I knew it was going to get a penalty. I have a set of steel plate in excellent condition.

On a completely unrelated note:

--Being attacked by Rimilde with arrows easily did nearly twice the damage of my mattack per round AND Ariel was able to land close to my average mattack while suffering a blindness penalty against someone with steel plate.
-- Zellos has shit stats, even with the advantage of range on his side, Zaerieth was able to bit him to a pulp while he didn't do that much damage to her, he was GM void.
-- Uhm.... Zellos couldn't kill a falcon with his mattack. >_>

So to the battle he had with Laxus:

--I was wearing a full set of steel plate. I was at full health and Near full MV.
--The entire battle was five rounds. Which landed me two powerful hits and three critical hits. I started getting critical hits after the first two rounds.
--I attacked three times before I got attacked.
--My HP was at 76% percent when it all ended-- I am not familiar with the combat code, but I think this is reasonable because the three attacks I got in before he managed to hit me greatly lowered his attack output, that plus the fact that I had still plate is what lowered his damaged.
-- Lastly, 80- 87 HP on average a round nets 400-435 HP in five rounds-- he did state that he has close to 400 HP.

With all that said, mattack doesn't do more damage than weapons-- even at its highest point a weapon at master can easily do more damage than it when in similar situations. I know this because I have tested it and been exposed to it a few times-- but of course staff have to test too to check if my readings are at all accurate. If that doesn't show how not OP mattack really is, then I really don't know what will!

TL;DR Mattack isn't really that powerful compared to weapons, its neutral stance against all defenses and it ignoring armour makes it look like it is indeed more powerful.

[Dice]

The problem is, as I see it, that mages are not supposed to be able to stand toe-to-toe with Knights in outright combat using magery - they're supposed to be able to do so if they invest in combat, sure, but using magic? Nope. But maxed-out fighters are getting walloped in a one-on-one with a mage using magic to attack.

Given that, I think this has been clear evidence mattack is too strong. It already has the advantage of being usable at any range sans penalty; I think it 1) probably shouldn't be neutral to all defenses, and 2) probably shouldn't ignore armor.

[Icarus]

Mattack not doing more than weapons is great that it's true. But on the subject of ignoring armour this does seem to shift the power in it's favour, for if you are wearing full plate you will easily outdamage your opponent as weapons do not ignore armour but your normally less damaging mattack will still be just as fine even when your opponent has armour. This seems like it more than compensates for the lower damage and means there seems to be almost no protection for magic attack itself. So that really does seem to be a very big point. The neutral to defence seems okay if it works similar to unarmed (but unarmed doesn't have the any range thing)

But yeah the helpfiles and board posts always made it seem like a mage should not be able to compensate for a weapon with magic, but it seems like they rather can and go toe to toe with various knights on many occassions. I think the armour ignoring is the biggest thing to look at as if it acts the same as weapons against armour then that could help balancing wise a lot. I do not feel the damage is the issue but the extra effects that make it either better or stand toe to toe with weapons.

I would be happy to be proved wrong of course, but from my view of things this certainly seems where it is worryingly powerful.

[Silrie]

Redacted.

[chronodbu]

I kind of like the idea of Mages being able to stand toe to toe with a single Knight using mattacks. Don't really agree with them absolutely owning a Knight but having a chance at coming out on top, yes please. It keeps them scary in a blatant way. Usually mages tend to end up becoming "villain of the month" due to getting beaten too easily or having everyone mob them. Seeing the current situation for example has invigorated my actual fear of them.

[Andruid]

Not in favor of mattack being further nerfed, for valid reasons already stated.

[Dice]

The way I'm reading this, and I apologize if it just comes off to me in ways unintended, it just seems like all the knights are disgruntled because mages have not been easy wins lately, and that people are eager to see mattack damage lessened, mattack's any range and its armor immunity possibly being removed.

I feel like it's really rude to dismiss people's perception of things in this way. This is not just being petulant because we "can't win".

The fact of the matter is that magic is incredibly strong given time to plan and plot and choose your ground. Nobody can deny that anymore after the recent events. A lot of new powerful toys have gone in for mages over the last year or so, and only recently have we seen what happened if they're actively used to their full potential. I'm not even arguing we should strip those new spells and items down, but making a point: mages are demonstrably extremely powerful if they plan in advance.

The intended balance for this power, from everything I've ever understood about magic design on TI, was that it SHOULDN'T be that strong when a mage was fighting toe-to-toe, 1v1, unless they had also spent the time/energy to raise their combat skills. That's why there was hesitation about adding mattack to the game at all, and making sure it balanced in a way so that mundane combat still had the edge in a straight-up fight.

Nobody can deny mages are frightening right now. You could rip mattack out of the game entirely and mages would still be frightening. The question is, has the weakness that supposed to be the counterbalance for their power been functioning as expected? I would argue not. And I would ask for a little respect for that viewpoint rather than dismissing it instantly as biased.

[Pixie]

The way I'm reading this, and I apologize if it just comes off to me in ways unintended, it just seems like all the knights are disgruntled because mages have not been easy wins lately, and that people are eager to see mattack damage lessened, mattack's any range and its armor immunity possibly being removed.

I feel like it's really rude to dismiss people's perception of things in this way. This is not just being petulant because we "can't win".

This.

If the system is still supposed to be "mages can't fight toe to toe against a Knight with mattack", it does need a bit of a tweak. I've been dumbfounded by how much damage it deals, both on the giving and receiving side.

[Noobus]

When combat is mentioned, do people mean weapons only, as in this is just a matter of weapon vs mattack and everything else is irrelevant, or combat as a whole? Meaning defenses, said weapons AND the combat situation? Because I feel like it is being assumed that all the attacks that happened on knights have been with them attacking right back from the onset too-- they haven't.

Not to come across as a prick-- but the way the system is structured, if a mage is prepared and they set the playground to their favor beforehand-- anyone is going to lose if they don't have backup and aren't able to get out of there in time. Mages are not supposed to win a fight when the playing field is even for both opponents and they use mattack, yes-- but I have never been in a situation where the playing field is even for both combatants, because I know that in an even playing field my mattack will do damage but I will most likely be owned: I have been in such a situation and I got out of there with 29 HP after three rounds, I take 5-6 to down people with HP lower than mine using mattack.

[Dice]

Unless I'm wrong, blindness is supposed to exact only a small penalty on combat (to keep it from being too wildly overpowered), and given that I would call at least our fight pretty dang close to even - we both attacked every round, I was at my ideal range, and the blindness was the only actual disadvantage I had at all. But I couldn't do any damage to you (I think it was swings wildly or glancing hits), and you were crit-hitting from the start, inflicting a pretty serious amount of damage - something like 130 in two hits or so.

I don't think I could have won that fight even if I could see, and while granted my PC isn't ideally specced for combat (nor is this about me), it is pretty bad when a Knight with all maxed skills and maxed stats can't win a toe-to-toe fight with a mage using mattack. The damage decrement mattack suffers from in comparison to weapons looks to be significant, but when you unpack the whole combat situation, it may not be at all. Why?

Ultimately, all combat on TI comes down to damage. Hitting harder than your opponent is translated into damage. Wearing more armor than your opponent is translated into damage. Being nerfed is translated into damage. If you balance an attack by giving it lower damage, but then giving it other benefits that then allow it to add the damage back on in other ways, that balance is illusory.

So how does mattack get its damage "back"?

1) The mage can wear armor to make up for the damage difference while their enemy cannot;
2) The mage can attack from any range with no range penalty while their enemy cannot;
3) The mage has an attack that cannot be nerfed by any defense while their enemy's can be.

It's issues 1 and 3 I think we should consider.

The effect of platemail is pretty obvious, so I won't belabor point 1). (And I think it's 100% logical that armor COULD protect against magic given that mattacks in TI have physical form.)

I think 2) is a logical and good benefit of mattack working the way it does, ICly and all, and should stay the same.

3) is the point that requires the most explanation. Theoretically, being neutral to all defenses shouldn't be a big boost, you'd think - it should balance out, because you'd be weak to one and strong against another. But that theory presupposes that it's equally easy to switch weapons as it is to switch defenses, which it isn't; it takes turns to switch weaponry, and that's utterly prohibitive for combats that tend to last 3-6 rounds.

Therefore the advantage skews in the direction of defense. It is entirely plausible to take 3-4 defenses - indeed, most serious fighting PCs do - and be able to thus be strong against any essentially weapon that ever faces you... UNLESS you're facing somebody who's using unarmed or mattack. Yes, I think unarmed should also lose this advantage. It turns out to be a monster one against other talented combatants, as a recent fight showed me: I beat somebody wielding a weapon while unarmed, and it was probably MOSTLY because I could nerf them and they couldn't nerf me.

So, hopefully you're still reading and at least buy my argument's plausibility. But do 1) and 3) matter that much as to overcome mattack's damage decrement? Well, let's math this out. (I don't have access to all the numbers behind the scenes, so what follows will be my best guesses, but I think it's pretty close to reality.)

Take a sword-wielding Knight of equal skill against a mattacking mage, both in platemail, both having a couple defensive skills. Let's say the base damage of mattack is 30 and the base damage of the sword is 50.

Let's say they both swing at each other at the same time, ignoring the question of who goes first, and that they're so evenly matched that both of them would have skillfully hit. The Knight can't choose a defense that nerfs the mage, so he just uses parry. The mage CAN choose a defense that nerfs the Knight, so he too uses parry.

The Knight's skillful hit is demoted to (probably?) a glancing hit due to nerfing. That base 50 then becomes multipled by 1.6 or something like that to become 80. Plate mail then reduces that to 48 damage; chain mail would make it 64; leather would make it 72.

The mage's skillful hit remains a skillful hit, because it cannot be nerfed. That base 30 then becomes multipled by 2.0 or something like that to become 60 damage.

So mattack is doing more damage than a weapon if a mage simply has armor and the right defense: advantages a mage may or may not have, true, but advantages a Knight CANNOT have when facing mattack.

I know my math may be incorrect, and I'm not asking that it be taken as gospel, just that the situation be investigated and thoroughly tested by staff. Mattack hasn't been tested for balance in a very long time now, and in the meantime combat code has changed tremendously. And whether or not people agree with me that this is a problem that needs to be addressed, I hope this at least demonstrates that this position is potentially based on real factors in the code and not just the result of bias.