|
Post by l'Ancien on Apr 12, 2006 10:34:36 GMT -6
I notice you made some efforts to improve reincarnation, but it sometimes doesn't work right now. In addition, I have some other ideas that might build on your improvements.
The problem I've noticed is when I reincarnate one of my troops (say if I lost a goblin or a stick-thrower), it doesn't seem to stay after the battle's over. And when it occasionally does stay, I lose the other goblins or stickthrowers that weren't reincarnated, because they were still alive. If you can, it would help if you could check to see if there are any survivors in the triplet. If there are, use a summon method to create a new unit, and then polymorph that unit according to your randomization table. If there are no survivors (like for champions, ogres, or if all three goblins got wiped out), then you can just reincarnate the unit in place (resurrect, then polymorph). If I lost all three goblins, I could reincarnate the first one in place as something else, then any others I reincarnate would be put into new unit slots, if they are different.
I like the improvement you made in distinguishing between champion types and troops, and creatures. I have some suggestions on function though, to make it more interesting.
Include special champions in the list for their respective champion types, the way you do for troops. Consider whether the Lich should even be possible to reincarnate into. I think not, because he's dead, even though he's a cool unit. What do you think? I'm not sure on that point.
Exclude Death creatures as possible reincarnation results. Skeletons, zombies, shades, and vampires should probably not be possible results for reincarnation (again, they're undead). You may have already done this, I couldn't tell from the code. It might be interesting, however, if enemy undead creatures were subject to reincarnation into friendly random units, probably mostly as troops, particularly zombies and skeletons. (Kind of like undoing the summon skeleton or summon zombie spell and "rescuing" the unit). Vampires and Lichs are free-willed undead, and can't be rescued, so reincarnation can't target them (or if it did, they'd come back as enemy scouts?, or bats?) Bad karma, or something. That would be funny.
Include a backdoor from the troop list to the creature list and the creature list to the troop list. Increase the number of options on each list by one. If that additional option is selected by the randomizer, then randomize and pick from the other list instead. This simulates the occasional chance of a person being reincarnated as an animal, or an animal being reincarnated as a person. It should be rare though. The scouts could be included in this possibility too, perhaps, if you choose, but mostly for laughs.
Scouts should have a similar backdoor into becoming a creature, but maybe only CR1. Perhaps the CR1 creatures could be included in the scout list as possible results.
You might want to create a similar backdoor between the champion types, for interest reasons, but I think it would probably be more playable if you keep them separate the way you have them now. That way losing and reincarnating a major champion would not necessarily cripple your military development, especially since they now seem to retain their experience and could still train. I like that, because there's nothing more annoying than reincarnating a high-level champion unit and getting a level 1.
Good work. I like the new reincarnation better, except for the problem I mentioned at first. I think these ideas might fill out your idea a little more and bring in the karma concept behind reincarnation.
|
|
|
Post by l'Ancien on Apr 12, 2006 10:48:28 GMT -6
Here's another idea I had while thinking about reincarnation.
There should be a creature effect (non-castable spell) for vampires, called summon vampire. Vampires should have a chance when attacking of creating another vampire if they kill their target. This spell should work on troops and champions, and probably on creatures, but not on undead.
It would be interesting if the new vampire were to come back as (randomly determined) the same faith as the vampire, the ownership faith, the natural faith of the unit, Death (it's the natural faith of vampires), or marauder (hates everybody). You may want to adjust the probabilities of any particular result for playability reasons. The idea of the randomized faith is the free-will nature of vampires. Essentially, that represents the unit's decision of what to do when he discovers that he is now a vampire.
The probability of this occurring doesn't have to be high, but I think it would create an interesting variable to bringing vampires into the fight, given the legends surrounding vampires.
What do you think? Is it doable? Does it sound fun?
|
|
|
Post by l'Ancien on Apr 12, 2006 11:04:06 GMT -6
OK, one more idea about death summoning spells. Is there any way to add new death units to existing triplets of the same kind lacking a member, perhaps even one that was killed in the same fight.
Before, it seemed that you could add a skeleton to an existing group of skeletons, but only if the vacancy already existed at the start of the fight. But there is no way to reanimate an undead unit that's been killed, so there's no reason to save its place.
So if I come into a fight with three skeletons in one group, and one gets killed, and I kill an enemy unit, and cast raise skeleton, could I first just replace the one I lost? That way I go into the next fight with that unit at full strength. Additional castings would just create a new group if there's no room in any group currently.
This might be difficult, but it would really help. The undead units aren't very strong anyway, so the ability to keep replenishing them as long as there are suitable targets would really strengthen their use.
The same thing might be good for the wolf summoning spell.
|
|
|
Post by Boaster on Apr 12, 2006 15:58:29 GMT -6
Raise Skeleton will raise skeletons in new groups, because previously if you replaced a level 3 skeleton with a level 1 skeleton, the whole group would be level 1, plus the experience bonus from that fight.
I will not add special champions to regular champion types.
Adding scouts to the list is possible, even chickens etc.
Death creatures will remain among the list.
|
|
|
Post by l'Ancien on Apr 13, 2006 19:46:24 GMT -6
Raise Skeleton will raise skeletons in new groups, because previously if you replaced a level 3 skeleton with a level 1 skeleton, the whole group would be level 1, plus the experience bonus from that fight. I will not add special champions to regular champion types. Adding scouts to the list is possible, even chickens etc. Death creatures will remain among the list. That's a really interesting problem with the skeletons. That would really be a downer, especially if you had high-level skeletons. Is there any way to have the new skeleton added to the group pick up an amount of experience equivalent to the original experience of the group? In other words, detect the level of the skeleton group, and make the new skeleton be that level? Just a suggestion. I thought it would make reincarnation a little more exciting, if you always wondered if you would get something better than usual. Are you just going to have them in the Lord group instead? I was thinking of adding the whole list as one of the cases. I'm not sure if go-to instructions are possible, but the idea I had was that if a certain single case came up, that a whole different list would be used instead, and the random selection would be redone on the new list. I wouldn't want any particular scout unit to be as likely as a particular regular creature, but the chance of getting any kind of scout would be the same as getting a particular creature. But, maybe that wouldn't work. How's this for an alternative. 1% of the time, a random list is selected. The rest of the time, the list is selected based on the unit being reincarnated, the way you have it. The random lists would be either Lord/Champion/Special for any Champion type, and Troop/Creature/Scout for any non-champion. Still, that would be something like 1% of the time. Why? (Death creatures on list.)
|
|
|
Post by Boaster on Apr 13, 2006 21:14:15 GMT -6
I don't intend to change reincarnation as you're suggesting. I may make some modifications in the future, but none as wide scaled.
|
|
|
Post by l'Ancien on Apr 14, 2006 9:02:31 GMT -6
I don't intend to change reincarnation as you're suggesting. I may make some modifications in the future, but none as wide scaled. That's OK. It's just an idea, a brainstorm if you like. I'd be satisfied if you just fix the bug I mentioned at first. I didn't mean to get distracted, but I got excited and started putting down the ideas as fast as they occurred. I notice you made some efforts to improve reincarnation, but it sometimes doesn't work right now. … The problem I've noticed is when I reincarnate one of my troops (say if I lost a goblin or a stick-thrower), it doesn't seem to stay after the battle's over. And when it occasionally does stay, I lose the other goblins or stickthrowers that weren't reincarnated, because they were still alive. If you can, it would help if you could check to see if there are any survivors in the triplet. If there are, use a summon method to create a new unit, and then polymorph that unit according to your randomization table. If there are no survivors (like for champions, ogres, or if all three goblins got wiped out), then you can just reincarnate the unit in place (resurrect, then polymorph). If I lost all three goblins, I could reincarnate the first one in place as something else, then any others I reincarnate would be put into new unit slots, if they are different.
|
|
|
Post by Boaster on Apr 14, 2006 9:08:54 GMT -6
Its a known problem. I'll take a look at it.
|
|
|
Post by l'Ancien on Apr 24, 2006 17:45:00 GMT -6
Thanks. I hope you can fix that little bug in the reincarnation spell. ***** I like the decision to restore the original artifacts, and make the new artifacts in addition.
I like the changes to increase Death's power and the Hard mode changes. I want to be scared of Death's armies again.
I sort-of like the changes to Wanderlust and Tourniquet. It will definitely be easier to work with, now that they give the entire army the same boost. I thought it was kind of funny (amusing) the way they gave different results before, meaning I had to look at each unit to see what the effect was, but it was kind of annoying when you got good results for most of the army, but one important unit got less than the rest, and had to be left behind.
I really like Change of Fate.
Any efforts you can make to improve the AI use of spells is good. I like having access to powerful spells, but it's a little frustrating that the computer doesn't always use them wisely.
That's a clever adjustment to the Archon Ring. (Darn.)
Scroll of Diplomacy! (Do you read it or trade it?) Does it help both sides simultaneously? One of the problems I have is that if I'm at all generous in my trades, I may have an ally that I loathe, so they will attack my buildings, or spy on my units and attack them by accident. I hope this helps that problem too.
I like the changes to Gift of Life, and Golgoth's Gift should be cheaper, perhaps even less than 4.
*****
I object to some of the changes made recently to two spells. But I have some ideas that might go well also, depending on what you're trying to accomplish in rebalancing them.
I admit I haven't yet downloaded the most recent changes to inferno and ray of hope, but I don't like the description given of the modifications.
I am concerned that in an effort to make the game easier and safer to play (for multiplayer?) you are making changes that undercut the effect and character of certain spells.
Ray of Hope: My understanding of the spell concept is that it is a blast of intense light, sufficient to annihilate enemies. That doesn't sound like a "damage over time" spell to me. Considering the speed of light, it should be very rapid, although I can easily accept the caster level vs target level test for non-fatality protection in that case. I think it might be interesting also to include a significant reduction in missile range and reduction to missile resistance in targeted units (the concept is that they are partially blinded by the flash of light, even if it doesn't kill them, and are thus unable to see very far to shoot, and are also unable to see someone shooting at them.) If you set it so Ray of Hope can only be cast once on a particular target, this deprives Life of a repeatable area blast spell (it could only be cast once per target), but it compensates partially by enhancing Life's other strengths (archers). However, I think making a damage-over-time spell goes too far in removing both the ability to repeat the spell, and the immediacy of the damage.
Other area blast spells mentioned in 4/24/06 update: This seems to reduce the value of these relatively expensive alternatives to the simple bolt spell. I was very pleased with your early decision to allow the bolt spells to spread out into area effect as the caster increases in level, because it keeps them relevant later in the game. But when I can get an area affect spell for 2 mana, why should I cast a more "interesting" spell that costs 10 mana or more, when there's any chance that it won't be fatal even if it would inflict enough damage? I think that most of them shouldn't have the level-based non-fatality test. However, I really like that non-fatality test, and I think it should be applied to all the damage-over-time spells, like poison cloud, drowning, decay, etc. It could also be applied to Shock and Ray of Hope, even if they are area blast spells, because they have other effects also (stun and the missile range/resistence change suggested above).
Inferno: I'm confused. The various changes leave me unsure what the intended effect is. These changes don't seem to make any sense, because they appear to make casting the spell counter-productive. Taken as a whole they seem to be saying, "If you cast this spell, it could kill your army, even if they have fire resistence, but it won't kill your enemies, even if they don't." I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding something here, but it is supposed to be an attack spell. The idea is to kill your enemies, and your friends be ****ed if they can't take the heat. The idea is not to kill your friends, and maybe do some collateral damage to the enemy. That's not toning the spell down, that's making it stupid to cast it.
There already was a risk of fatality for units on the caster's side as well as the enemy's side. Neither side was actually protected in any way, or discriminated against, except for the 1/2 fire resistence that anyone could have (although the fire army is more likely to have fire resistence). The idea is indifference. The researchers of this "supremely" powerful spell didn't take the time (or were unable) to determine a "safe" way of casting the spell. It's just time for survival of the fittest, which in their mind meant the most fire resistent, but even fire resistence only went so far.
Speaking of toning it down, I already have trouble actually casting it successfully anymore. Even before this recent update, I had discovered that with the extended casting time on this spell, reduced fire resistence, increased missile range in general, and increased hitpoints in general, it was more likely that the sorceress would die than that anyone else would. And it definitely no longer demolishes the enemy army and leaves my army ready for another fight. So with that, I'm surprised that you're still trying to tone it down. I thought you'd already successfully removed it from its status as "the most powerful spell in the game, if that was your goal.
However, as an alternative to make it less easy to recover from, how about this idea? Make it so the spells "Fireheal" and "Cauterize Wounds" don't work on any unit subjected to "Inferno" for 2 or 3 turns afterwards. Then reduce the casting time a little, and put back the calculation to 2X Caster Level X (1 - Fire Resist), with no extra fatality calculation. Perhaps also each successive cast actually reduces fire resistence by 25% for 2 or 3 turns, but doesn't prevent taking damage from additional casting of Inferno. After you haven't had Inferno cast on you for three days in a row, all the fire resistence goes back to normal, and healing fire spells work again. Inferno should not be dispellable. Maybe Fireheal just plain bounces, and Cauterize Wounds actually reduces the healing rate a little, or turns it to -1 or something.
My idea is that Inferno should be useful (instead of counterproductive) as an emergency spell, but shouldn't be something you want to cast every turn to clear out high-level encounters. The best way I can think of for that is to have it be more dangerous in successive castings.
I'm basing these ideas on your modifications to Meteor Shower, where you blocked repeated use on the same target by applying the ale penalty to the target, and making that penalty last for a few turns. The spell is still useful, and funny, and in a way even more effective, but now it is not a way to pound a target in the ground, and then show up to pick up the experience without a fight. By the same logic, by applying the range penalty in Ray of Hope, you have an excuse for blocking repeated castings in the same fight (they probably can't even see it anyway). And by blocking healing, and making repeated casting of Inferno more dangerous, you remove it as a standard first shot spell, while preserving its panic-button effectiveness. (Although I think it could do with a little shorter cast time and a compensating longer recover time.)
|
|
|
Post by Boaster on Apr 24, 2006 20:46:19 GMT -6
Ray of Hope is a unique multi-target spell. It instantly affects the targets, no missiles. Making it a damage over time spell will not really affect the overall continued use of the spell. Before, if you casted Ray of Hope with two different mages in the same area, one would fizzle. The affects of a Ray of Hope spell buff would last 2 seconds entirely. The new Ray of Hope lasts even shorter. Its duration is {5 caster_luck max caster_level 3 idiv add vulnerability_factor mul} and its repeat modifier fires off at every 1/10 of a second.
Ray of Hope still does the same damage, but it just does damage over time as an added effect. The new Ray of Hope is really a fast acting Decay spell thats fatal for targets with a level less than that of the caster.
Big Bolt spells versus the Little Bolt spells is all a matter of judgement. If you have a Warrior surrounded by goons, a Little Bolt spell with a caster greater than 7 (in some cases 5) will do you a lot more damage for your mana.
Big Bolt spells are one-cast, big damage spells. Over all, this spell will spread its damage out more better and require less repeated casts.
Little Bolt spells, as I have allowed them to increase in radius, have a decent use all game. For 12 mana, a bolt spell can do more damage on a focused target.
It's time vs damage vs mana. Its a matter of judgement. If I wanted to take out an entire army real fast, I'd have Two Mages cast Justice or Fire Arrows. If I wanted to kill someone's Lord real fast, I'd focus Big Single Bolt spells (Hand of Fate, Fireball, Balkoth's Word, etc.) or Little Bolt spells (Rocksling, Lightning, Spirit Arrow, etc.).
Inferno is still lethal versus enemy non-Lord and non-special champion units. Inferno being the own-all kill-all spell, has to present more of a challenge for the caster than his enemies.
Most Fire Sorceresses (i.e. the Queen) travel by themselves and dish out the damage. I want it so that if the caster is not careful, it could lead to adverse affects killing her men (if any are present) and possibly killing herself.
If I was a smart Fire Sorceress, I would invest mana into friendly buffs on myself (Frenzy, Fireheal, Flamesword) to increase Fire resistance. Yes, Fireheal increases Fire resistance and heals? Consider that... consider that the Fire Mage can heal and resist Inferno damage at the same time with Fire Heal where the other army would have to scramble to stay alive (Regenerate Army would help lots).
I never see a Fire Sorceress with Inferno travel with an entourage.
So even though this is potentially fatal to the caster and his or her army, for the Sorceress casting it, never really comes to that. However, the enemy could potentially cast spells on you before you're done. But I tend to cast Fireheal first before Inferno.
Even if you have 20 HP and you're a level 10 sorceress casting Inferno, you have a 50/50 chance to survive. But the fewer HP you have that increases by 50%.
Not including Fire resistances versus a Level 10 Sorceress, her army has the following chances of survival based on HP against Inferno.
21 HP = 100% chance to survive. 20 HP = 50% chance to survive. 19 HP = 25% chance to survive. 18 HP = 12.5% chance to survive. 17 HP = 6.25% chance to survive. 16 HP = 3.125% chance to survive. 15 HP = 1.5625% chance to survive. 14 HP = 0.78125% chance to survive.
Inferno is fatal to enemies, just not Lords or Special Champions. Inferno is potentially fatal to any allies existing in combat. This may not be the final change for the spell, I may yet come up with something better.
Cast Inferno once and you may yet win, cast it twice and you may yet die.
|
|
|
Post by Boaster on Apr 24, 2006 20:51:52 GMT -6
I just came back from testing Ray of Hope and I think it looks really good.
|
|
|
Post by l'Ancien on Apr 25, 2006 19:31:42 GMT -6
That sounds good on Ray of Hope. I think you have a faster time than I was imagining.
On bolts, I know it's a trade off. Because you made the little bolts spread, that really made the options more variable, and keeps them in the game. I just think that with the higher investment of mana on the big spreads, the payoff should include the possibility of a kill if you get the champion near 0. But as it stands, it's fine. Just a comment. I usually lead out with an area affect while they are together, then follow with small bolts, then finish with an area affect when they gather around my defense. I don't think this will change my strategy significantly, however now that I think about it. I just keep hitting the big guy with bolts until he's gone, then I use the area affect. Comparatively, I do like the level-based test, and I think that should be used in other spells instead of a flat non-fatal limitation.
I'm reassured on Inferno, but I'm still confused. You seem to be agreeing with the way I want it to affect my units, but I didn't get that from the descriptions of what it does. Maybe I just misunderstood, but I still don't understand.
OK. That clarifies the lethality. I almost thought you meant you'd taken out the potentially lethal effect altogether. I don't see why it has to present more of a challenge for the caster. Can't it just be the same?
I used to do this, but it doesn't seem to work anymore. Now I always get shot up or hit by spells if I don't have an army to keep them off while I cast Inferno. It used to take effect faster (Fire magic was some of the fastest), but now it takes so long she seems to be half dead before it even starts, and doesn't last even half-way through the spell. But even the original version, if the caster was not careful it would frequently lead to the adverse effect of killing her own men and sometimes even herself. You've increased the likelihood, but it always was a very real concern.
I haven't gotten good at using the buffs to get extra resistence much yet. I need to practice that more. I usually start with a big spell right away, to get it in before the archers or mage take down my mage. However, my concern is that I don't seem to have the time to cast many spells before they start shooting anyway, so I am not sure how the buffs will keep her alive long enough to cast the spell. A few times I've used heat shield, and she still died before anyone else, every time.
It works both ways, but you don't put foreigners in a fire army, nor do you cast Inferno unless everyone is perfectly healed up. They do seem to survive longer though now, due to increased hit-points. My problem is keeping the sorceress alive long enough to damage the other army and my army significantly. If the sorceress dies, and my army is only half dead, then I probably wasted my spell, because the enemy is only 2/3 dead, and probably outnumbers me. I don't cast Inferno when I have numerical superiority.
OK. I'm not sure exactly how Fireheal would change the picture, though it should help, but it looks like I've only got about 5 hitpoints to spare most of the time though. A level 10 Queen has 9 hitpoints to spare, according to your stat sheet (by the way, I can't increase the size of the sheet, that's a little annoying). A level 15 has 35, or 5 to spare. A level 10 sorceress has 7 to spare, over the potential sudden fatality you're adding. All it takes is one hit, and you're dead. And as I've mentioned, she always seems to get attacked by missile units, and Inferno isn't fast enough to stop attackers before they do enough damage to have her kill herself with her own Inferno even without the sudden death. They do enough damage to remove the hitpoints she saved from her 65% fire resistence (for regular sorceresses).
Assuming no-one can hit you. But with the increased, range, that's not true. (I'm not griping about increased range, that's cool, but the point is, it throws off the balance already, and so when you power up other units, and then power down the mage, you throw the balance out of whack twice as fast. Maybe the sorceresses just don't have enough hitpoints. I don't know. I guess Fireheal could help, but I always seem to lose hitpoints too fast to sustain Inferno.
The army already has a chance of dying, especially if any of them are injured. I think these rates might be over-doing it. This kind of idea might make sense for her army, just to liven it up, but I think you're working the table a little on the harsh side. How about flipping the percentages the other way, and making them the chance to die? And only for the troops/creatures, not for champions (champions could still die if they lose enough hitpoints, but no bonus death for champions. For the troops also, of course, if they lose all their hitpoints, they still die. Any flame berserker or raider is going to die 100% of the time anyway if he's at 15 hitpoints when a level 10 Fire Sorceress sets off a full Inferno. But at 20 hit points, I really think more than 50% of them should survive. I think a 3% chance of death is enough to catch me by surprise occasionally at that level (they actually should be perfectly safe). 6 % at 19, 12.5% at 18, 25% at 17, 50% at 16 would provide a nice curve moving in a consistent direction, and actually meeting the natural 100% at 15 (which doesn't even need to be programmed). And I think that the magic resistence level should affect this by adding one hitpoint per 25% resistence for purposes of calculating the sudden death table probability, so casting a fire resistence buff would still have an effect, of cutting the chance of death in half.
This part is fine. I'm much relieved. Protecting Lords and Special Champions keeps it a little more interesting (although maybe you should build in a sudden-death rule table, after protecting them from losing the last hitpoint from simple damage inflicted.) For example, if they were shielded from one hitpoint of damage, they have a 3% chance of losing that last hitpoint after all. If they were shielded from 2 hitpoints, they have a 6% chance of losing one of them after all (enough to die). If they were shielded from 3 hitpoints, they have a 12% chance of losing one of them, 4 hitpoints = 25%, 5 or more hitpoints 50% of losing the last hitpoint. That way, if I pound them into the ground first with Fireballs, and then hit them with Inferno, they'd still have a chance of dying. (I'm not sure why I'd do that, but it seems rather unreasonable to have even a Lord survive Inferno when they only had 5 or 10 hitpoints left to begin with. Just a thought. Maybe that's last idea's too much trouble to program.
That's the idea! I'd just like to help that "may yet" be more close to "possible" and less like "in your dreams." This may actually be an issue of speed more than anything, besides the overly fatal sudden death table. Even if the spell effect repeat rate isn't quite as fast, I think it should perhaps start taking effect a little sooner.
Now, a lot of this thinking has been in terms of the player using it. But I have to point out that there's another side of the problem too. That is, I want to be scared when the marauder/encounter sorceress casts Inferno. I don't want to laugh while she annihilates her own army and leaves me to clean up what's left. Note: A Fire Lord attacking a Fire encounter would be disproportionately aided by the Fire Encounter casting Inferno. For that reason, I think you should have the sudden death table be for both teams, not just for the caster's team, but have the sudden death not occur quite as often as it does now, the way I suggested above. That way both sides are affected equally by the spell, even perhaps in spite of their resistences.
|
|
|
Post by l'Ancien on Apr 25, 2006 19:53:14 GMT -6
Whole new idea on Inferno. What if each unit had a random 100% to 0% of its Fire resistence applied? In other words, a unit with 50% resistence might have anywhere between 50% and 0% resistence.
This probably wouldn't even have to be changed for positive/negative resistences. (Right now, taking only 50% of resistence makes sense only for positive resistences, negative resistences should probably double instead). But with this concept, you either get the full effect, or 0 effect, or anywhere in between.
This is completely rethinking it, so it's just an idea. It could perhaps be combined with the sudden death table too (with reduced fatality, and applied to both teams), although that might be too complicated overall.
|
|
|
Post by Boaster on Apr 25, 2006 20:19:58 GMT -6
Trust me, if you are a Level 10+ Sorceress Queen and cast Frenzy, Fireheal and then Inferno, you'll be better off.
Frenzy gives you +25% Fire Resistance, level based armor and attack, and a maximum HP bonus based on your level. However, Frenzy will reduce current life based on your level.
Fire Heal gives +25% Fire Resistance, and Heals 2 HP for ever level of the caster (over time), practically negating Inferno all together.
Also, your calcuations on how much left over HP a sorceress would have after an Inferno is slightly flawed. A sorceress queen has 75% Fire resistance. That reduces inferno damage by 37.5%. You'll get a solid 50% Fire resistance versus Inferno with just the Fire Heal buff. So if you're a level 15 sorceress queen with Fire Heal and cast inferno, you'll take 15 damage, and still recover that damage recieved afterwards.
Inferno presents its own challenges. You can't bring an army, you can annihilate armies upon armies and it can also potentially kill yourself. And to be fair to enemy Lords, they'll be left with 1 HP.
I'd say a better spell than Inferno is backdraft. It's a wicked cool spell. Have you seen this spell in action since I changed it a few months back? It is sick!
|
|
|
Post by l'Ancien on Apr 26, 2006 10:24:39 GMT -6
Trust me, if you are a Level 10+ Sorceress Queen and cast Frenzy, Fireheal and then Inferno, you'll be better off. Frenzy gives you +25% Fire Resistance, level based armor and attack, and a maximum HP bonus based on your level. However, Frenzy will reduce current life based on your level. Fire Heal gives +25% Fire Resistance, and Heals 2 HP for ever level of the caster (over time), practically negating Inferno all together. Also, your calcuations on how much left over HP a sorceress would have after an Inferno is slightly flawed. A sorceress queen has 75% Fire resistance. That reduces inferno damage by 37.5%. You'll get a solid 50% Fire resistance versus Inferno with just the Fire Heal buff. So if you're a level 15 sorceress queen with Fire Heal and cast inferno, you'll take 15 damage, and still recover that damage recieved afterwards. Inferno presents its own challenges. You can't bring an army, you can annihilate armies upon armies and it can also potentially kill yourself. And to be fair to enemy Lords, they'll be left with 1 HP. I'd say a better spell than Inferno is backdraft. It's a wicked cool spell. Have you seen this spell in action since I changed it a few months back? It is sick! I haven't. I think I need to try Fire again. I've been working on Chaos (witch) recently. I know I was ignoring the resistence, but I thought that's what your sudden death table was for. I'm not worried about the normal Inferno damage, I'm worried about your sudden death table. I didn't think Frenzy would change the survival percentages, even if it has magic resistance. Am I still not getting that right? Here's the way I was doing the math. A level 10 regular sorceress with 27 hitpoints, capable of inflicting 20 damage on others, while taking only 14 hitpoints damage (Most Fire Sorceresses have 65% resistance by the time you have Inferno). She doesn't cast frenzy or fireheal, even though maybe she should. Normally that means she'd have about 13 hitpoints left, if she doesn't get hit. That's not enough to lay out a second Inferno, but should deal with the inevitable pre-emptive attack nicely (because it takes a little while to loose Inferno, and those archers are fast), say an arrow doing 8 damage. She comes out with 5 hitpoints, and hightails it home so she can heal, along with any demons or elementals she had along as muscle to clean up after Inferno. Doable, but tight. But wait. That 8 hitpoint damage means she has only 19 hitpoints when Inferno goes off, and she's no luckier than average. 3 times out of four, she gets a "fatality" result instead of just the 14 damage, and cremates herself on the spot. And that's just with one arrow, which seems to be practically guaranteed. Now, does she actually get to expend her full damage, or is she somehow cut off early? Is the sudden death at the beginning or the end of the spell? I assume at the end. I'm assuming that your sudden death table reflects the number of hitpoints at the beginning of the spell effect, not after the damage. It seems to be related to the amount of damage that could be inflicted on an non-resistent unit. By that estimate, a level 15 Sorceress Queen is in even worse trouble, because all it takes is 5 hitpoints of damage to reduce her to 30 (the 50% survival category, if it's based on her total potential damage). That same 8 damage would take her to 27 hitpoints, which, would correspond (if I'm reading this right) to a 6% chance of survival. That's a 94% chance of dying from getting hit by a single arrow and then casting Inferno. That seems a little steep. I think it's fair for the enemy Lord to normally survive Inferno, because it is such a one-stop answer. But I'm talking about my Lord getting killed by a bunch of mercenary archers, that she ought to be able to handle with her best spell. Two groups, yes, that's a problem, because Inferno was never intended to be safely reusable (even if it was too safe for a while when you were first adjusting resistance levels). I'm becoming convinced of the general idea behind this recent modification. I just think that it is too much by itself (by having such low survival rates if you drop below the "safe" level of hitpoints), and that this adjustment combined with earlier efforts to tone down Inferno combine to mean it is toned down far too much. If you are going to add (modestly) to the risk of casting a spell that is inherently risky already, well and good, but if you do that, then I think you should give back some of the speed that made it a powerful spell in the first place. (Slower makes sense, riskier makes sense, but slower and riskier just doesn't make sense.) For comparison purposes, take Hand of Fate. It's a great spell, and does a pile of damage instantly. Only one eensy, teensy, problem--if it backfires. But what if you made it have a long activation time too? Then why bother with it? You could do more damage in less time with less risk with the random bolt spell. The whole point is to balance risk versus reward. Both Chaos and Fire are big on taking the extra risk to get the extra reward of high-damage, fast spells that might (Chaos) or will (Fire) hurt or even kill your own people. The problem is, near certainty of death isn't something that even Fire or Chaos wants to accept. It's the chance, not the certainty, that powers their decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Boaster on Apr 27, 2006 21:26:09 GMT -6
What I want to do with Inferno is make it have a natural 15% chance of spell failure and do a level check for fatality versus non-lords. I did some experimenting and came close, but things just weren't working right.
|
|
|
Post by l'Ancien on Apr 28, 2006 14:25:52 GMT -6
What I want to do with Inferno is make it have a natural 15% chance of spell failure and do a level check for fatality versus non-lords. I did some experimenting and came close, but things just weren't working right. How about this for a spell "failure"? The spell just continues until it has killed the fire sorceress, fire resistence and all. So instead of damage being limited to twice the caster's level (success), instead for a failure it's limited to the caster's hitpoints divided by ( 1 - half of the caster's fire resistence). For a level 10 sorceress that would be up to 36 damage instead of the expected 20. (27 / (1 - .25)) Anyone with no fire resistence would take 36 damage (except Lords and Special could stop at 1). The fire sorceress would take 36 * (1 - .25) = 27 damage, sufficient to kill her. Other fire units would take less than 36 damage, depending on their resistence. If anyone does damage to the Sorceress, the damage to everyone else would be reduced accordingly, because she'd die that much sooner. In other words, there's simply no turnoff switch if it fails. The spell just keeps going until the sorceress dies. But all the Lords and Specials will never go below 1 in any case (friendly or enemy). So, instead of a fizzle, when Inferno fails it's out-of-control and probably fatal to everyone in the battle (unless they can kill the sorceress before they die). Even if you chooose to include the Sorceress Queen in the won't go below 1 group, she'd still be very vulnerable after casting that spell if it failed.
|
|
|
Post by Boaster on Apr 28, 2006 19:17:25 GMT -6
The spell has a chance to fail, but not a solid 15% chance. It is level based, like Hand of Fate.
50 + (3X Caster Level) = Success rate of Inferno. Level 15 Mage has 95% success, where as a Level 10 Mage has an 80% success rate.
Inferno seems to be bugged though. A Level 1 Mage casting the spell will drain the Mage's HP completely, in some cases only reduces to 1.
|
|
|
Post by l'Ancien on May 1, 2006 10:49:37 GMT -6
The spell has a chance to fail, but not a solid 15% chance. It is level based, like Hand of Fate. 50 + (3X Caster Level) = Success rate of Inferno. Level 15 Mage has 95% success, where as a Level 10 Mage has an 80% success rate. Inferno seems to be bugged though. A Level 1 Mage casting the spell will drain the Mage's HP completely, in some cases only reduces to 1. This change sounds good. I'll download it and try it out. Hmm. Going out on a limb here, but what if the fizzle was a "miniature inferno" with a radius of 1 or 2, the way spark works, but targeting friendlies in that range as well as enemies? That means that the mage will always take the normal expected damage (reduced by resistence, of course), although it might get any unit that is actually in melee combat against the mage as well, plus any escort still nearby. Also, with the chance of fizzle (especially if the fizzle still inflicts self-damage), would it be more balanced to reduce the casting time of the spell somewhat? I noticed that the original casting time of 6 has been increased to 30 or something. Maybe 15 would be a happy medium, although I'd rather see something around 10. Perhaps the casting time could actually equal the level of the caster. That way a small inferno by a low-level mage would go more quickly, but a full-power inferno would still take a fair warm-up time. The faster casting time reflects greater carelessness, and greater chance of (partial) failure also. A relatively long recovery makes perfect sense, perhaps equal to the potential damage inflicted (twice the level). I think that makes the fizzle much more exciting, instead of just "oops, failed to fire." It would also make it more likely to be cast only when enemies are actually closing (because then you'll still get someone, even if it fails), but that only makes sense if the casting time is reduced significantly, otherwise they'll be all over you. This might even take it back closer to the spell legend, that it was invented by a Sorceress being overrun, casting a fast thoughtless spell, which turned out surprisingly effective.
|
|
|
Post by Boaster on May 1, 2006 11:25:11 GMT -6
The spell has a chance to fail, but not a solid 15% chance. It is level based, like Hand of Fate. 50 + (3X Caster Level) = Success rate of Inferno. Level 15 Mage has 95% success, where as a Level 10 Mage has an 80% success rate. Inferno seems to be bugged though. A Level 1 Mage casting the spell will drain the Mage's HP completely, in some cases only reduces to 1. This change sounds good. I'll download it and try it out. Hmm. Going out on a limb here, but what if the fizzle was a "miniature inferno" with a radius of 1 or 2, the way spark works, but targeting friendlies in that range as well as enemies? That means that the mage will always take the normal expected damage (reduced by resistence, of course), although it might get any unit that is actually in melee combat against the mage as well, plus any escort still nearby. Also, with the chance of fizzle (especially if the fizzle still inflicts self-damage), would it be more balanced to reduce the casting time of the spell somewhat? I noticed that the original casting time of 6 has been increased to 30 or something. Maybe 15 would be a happy medium, although I'd rather see something around 10. Perhaps the casting time could actually equal the level of the caster. That way a small inferno by a low-level mage would go more quickly, but a full-power inferno would still take a fair warm-up time. The faster casting time reflects greater carelessness, and greater chance of (partial) failure also. A relatively long recovery makes perfect sense, perhaps equal to the potential damage inflicted (twice the level). I think that makes the fizzle much more exciting, instead of just "oops, failed to fire." It would also make it more likely to be cast only when enemies are actually closing (because then you'll still get someone, even if it fails), but that only makes sense if the casting time is reduced significantly, otherwise they'll be all over you. This might even take it back closer to the spell legend, that it was invented by a Sorceress being overrun, casting a fast thoughtless spell, which turned out surprisingly effective. I don't think I'll do what you have stated, but I am considering that perhaps on a failed cast, inferno only procs for 1X damage with resistance factored in 100%, and on a success remain 2X damage with resistance factored at 50%. Or maybe the 1X damage proc ignoring resistance. I don't know. Inferno is a deadly spell, much more so than Tremor is. I think that the casting time and recovery time increase was good, as well as the additional chance for failure. I feel like I am done with Inferno. I'm going to focus more attention on my latest achievement.
|
|