安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
奖励
You're right, I may change Thunder to Aero for a few reasons
-Diversity from Wizard
-Earlier availability of a wind spell which is better early on
The way you mentioned using Spell enhances is exactly what I had intended it to be used for. But I don't think it's THAT good early game, mostly because it's hard for a Warlock to have the MP pool to support that kind of burst. My Warlock in testing got use of spell enhance at level 19 where he has 48 MP, but a Spell enhance + Double Cast + Shell + Protect costs 53 MP, 2 turns, and would leave the warlock unable to use spells until they recover.
I do understand it seems strong, but it was meant to be a "Oh F***" button.I haven't tested it yet, but I also don't think the spell power reaches Wizard levels when it comes to cost either.
But of course I am hearing a lot of concerns about it, so I may have to reconsider Spell enhance, as it was just meant to be a neat toy anyway.
Thank you very much for the encouragement! I'll continue to flesh these changes out a bit to bring them more in line!
As for the idea of enhanced normal attacks draining MP, That's a good idea but I'm not sure if there's a way to make not having the required MP revert the warlock back to normal Attacks.
I wasn't sure how well Warlocks gold up with MP considering their small pool, and the fact that I bumped their spells up to 8 MP from 5 or 6.
The idea of changing the Thunder Spell into a Wind spell actually did occur to me at one point, so Warlock doesn't step on Wizard's toes too much, and also Wind spells get a bit more use early game, So I may actually consider making that change. I also didn't give Warlock and AoE spell specifically because I didn't want to take away a Wizard specialty, I didn't mind giving Warlock a 2-turn 33 MP way of doing it though.
I'd actually be more in favor of having them drain MP per enhanced normal attack rather than restoring it. Warlocks are already very MP efficient and don't have any issues with running out.
The idea of adding an extra elemental attack is neat, as is the idea of having an option to make their spells AoE, but I think the AoE aspect is far, far too good. What I would do personally is change the thunder spell into a wind spell and make that an AoE damage spell, and then remove Spell Enhance. It's a neat idea, but it just makes Warlock far too powerful and overshadows every other caster.
Something like Spell Enhance would be a really neat idea on Nomad instead, since I really like the idea. Make it an instant cast stance, and it fits right in to that class wonderfully.
Conceptually I do love most of these ideas and changes, so keep it up!
Adding a thunder spell is fine, although I'd have probably gone with VerAreo if you wanted to keep in theme with the 'totally not a red mage' vibe.
Magic Knight makes zero sense. Warlock already gets mana regen passive and a mana regen buff, there's zero need for more mana regen on top of that, they're already the most mana efficient caster in the game.
Spell Enhance is the most busted ability in the game. Spell Enhance + Twincast for Shell + Protect on turn two? Or just mass AoE debuff application? Completely overpowered, especially in the early game.
More debuffs on top of the debuffs that the Warlock spells already applies on top of that, while being able to AoE and doublecast them? Yikes! Why not just add an 'I win' button and be done with it.
-Only Mixed Magic
-Costs 25 MP, pairing it with Double cast is also an option, but MP will get highly taxed by it
-It's meant more to boost Healing/support spells, because of the MP cost I think a wizard still does better AoE damage, not even taking into consideration the turn cost.
I appreciate your comment and will give it more consideration!