| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (35)

Posted: Oct 10th 2011 1:11PM InfinitasX said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why have one when you can have both?

Posted: Oct 10th 2011 1:35PM Space Cobra said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In Reality (or a fabled "Real-World" MMO that probably does not exist), Melee would win while the "wizard" twiddles his fingers at the fighter, expecting something to happen. :P

Of course, if we assume magic is "real" in the world, simply unplugging the server wins over everyone!

(I can't seem to get thee hang of this.)

Posted: Oct 10th 2011 1:49PM blackcat7k said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I dislike the magic casting mechanic in many MMOs because sooner or later melee has to get nerfed into the ground to balance it. Either that or the mage becomes useless, because the melee can rip them to shreds and the mages can't blow them up even when at maximum range.

Magic is suppose to be extremely powerful, and the caster is suppose to take time to weave the spell. They're even at times suppose to require "ammo" in the form of components.

However, no matter what the game. Sooner or later magic tends to go down the road of becoming instant cast, the mage becomes temporarily invulnerable, or they can no longer be interrupted. All done in order to balance out melee eventually closing the gap.

I'm hoping someone does it, if I don't do it first. After playing Arx Fatalis, Magicka and Black and White 1 and 2, I believe the answer to the mage's power relies in making them have some kind of casting mechanic where they can fail based on the player's skill in weaving the magic by drawing runes/incantations with their mouse.

Having the player draw the runes, or whatever needed to cast the spell would be a more than adequate risk versus reward to significantly increase the amount of power mages dish out.

There could still be some instant cast, but if you want a true "bring-the-house-down" type of nuke then the player should have to weave a spell together. Conversely, if they're hit repeatedly to the point of flubbing the spell then resulting miscast spell should be devastating.


However, the game that does it would most likely be an action game along the lines of TERA, Vindictus, or Dragon's Nest. While it would likely result in majority of the players playing melee or physical range, the result would finally have the mage become the rare type of "Gandalf" due to challenge of casting.

Posted: Oct 10th 2011 2:07PM Manistine said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Damn that's a close poll so far.

Posted: Oct 10th 2011 2:56PM pcgneurotic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Close combat all the way, baby.

Posted: Oct 10th 2011 3:18PM hansh0tfirst said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Anyone who's played pen 'n paper D&D knows Wizard > Fighter.

Posted: Oct 10th 2011 4:30PM Haldurson said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It depends on the game, but I mostly prefer melee or hybrids. In Rift, I tried and enjoyed playing a Necro-type mage, but I really felt like the game was too easy and boring, so switched to a melee Cleric (although I also love healing in groups with him). In Lotro, I loved my Warden, especially while tanking. I liked how engaging that class is -- unlike some classes, it really forces you to pay attention to everything that's happening.

On the other hand, in CoX, which I feel has some of the best archetype (class) designs of any game, particularly on the villain side, I have much more diverse favorites -- scrappers and stalkers are great, but I also love dominators, masterminds, and defenders. I also really like Peacekeepers, who are pretty much a hybrid.

I actually have never gotten into playing either a Tanker, Controller, or Brute, for some reason -- Lotro is the only game where I've actually felt competent and engaged while tanking, and Controllers just aren't fun for me. I don't know exactly why.

Overall, melee comes out on top for me, but as I mentioned, there are exceptions.

Posted: Oct 10th 2011 7:27PM Vgk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
a melee combatant vs. some kind of magic combatant is a very interesting battle.

The melee combatant can and will rip the magi to shreds if he can get close, however it is that very magi to "leads the battle" it is up to the melee fighter to be reactive to the magi in order to close that gap and close it fast (or risk dying)
The melee fighter must be reactive and if ever given the chance proactive against the magic wielder, both are trying to get in their confortable locations, the magi tries to make a distance, slow, and disorient the melee combatant whereas the melee fighter is trying to close the gap and shred his foes to pieces.

It's a very fun, interesting, and if done right volatile matchup.

I personally prefer melee but I can see the appeal of magic

Posted: Oct 10th 2011 8:55PM Fabius Bile said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
melee train > rangeds

melee powah

Posted: Oct 10th 2011 9:39PM ZTZ said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've never understood why magic users absolutely must use cloth and are physically wimpy. If I had magic, I would want my physical strength to be strong to compliment it. Why not be a badass that happens to also shoot fireballs from his hands?

In Dragon Age, you can play as an Arcane Warrior. Your mage uses their magical abilities to make themselves strong enough to wear plate armor. Then they wade into battle blasting out spells point blank in a hurricane of destruction.

But I guess that would destroy "balance" in a PvP setting.

Posted: Oct 11th 2011 3:16AM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ZTZ

The idea is that the ranged magic user is supposed to be poweful enough to kill something before it is able to get to him/her. Including other players. If the mage in question was wearing brick outhouse plate for the lucky few to get to him or her...only to find their weapons barely dent his/her armor, one would reasonabley conclude that magic user is a god. Thus the flimsy armor is there to prevent such ranged magic users from obtaining that status, thus hopefully bringing some assembly of balance to the game. Just saying.
Reply

Posted: Oct 11th 2011 3:16AM pixledriven said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Necromancer doesn't come in a "melee" flavor. =)

Posted: Oct 11th 2011 4:01AM ImperialPanda said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"magic" and "melee" are somewhat superficial terms. It just reflects how the characters look, not necessarily how they play. I would hope actual gameplay is a lot more complicated than two simple categories of "magic" and "melee". There are also plenty of instances when a "melee" plays like a "mage", and vice versa.

Not in the spirit of the poll but meh I felt the topic was pretty weak.

Posted: Oct 11th 2011 7:43AM Heraclea said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Because frustration is the one way to make me dislike a game, survivability is always job one. Whether that's through armor or magic is a mostly indifferent manner.

Posted: Oct 11th 2011 8:39AM Avernus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hokey religions and ancient magics are no match for a good bow at your side.

Featured Stories

Make My MMO: December 14 - 20, 2014

Posted on Dec 20th 2014 7:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW