Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 39 of 39

Thread: Character Creation [Cost of Spell Circles]

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by ampoliros View Post
    MoM's semi-blind research already took care of this without placing a hard filter in the game. MoM only gave you the choice between 8 spells at a time and only introduced the higher level spells as you had more spells under your belt.
    I know Aaron is still on the fence about how research is chosen, but perhaps this might spur him to keep MoM's semi-blind style, which I, for one, absolutely loved.
    +1 to amp on this issue. I loved MoM's style. Not getting all the spells every time kept me coming back to play.

  2. #32
    MoM semi random research would be a very great advantage to a specialist though as he would have a smaller amount of spells to research and research faster so he will get acces to top circle spells much faster than a generalist.


    I mean when does a 5 fire/4 destruction have an advantage over a 9 fire wizard? 9 fire would have acces to better conjurations and well everything as long as it isn't destruction. Now the 5/4 would have a more versatile spell selection when it comes to destruction, but I only see one situation where a destruction spell from circle 4 or lower will be better than a higher circle destruction spell from fire and that is when your target is imune to fire damagde.


    As it is now I see very little reason not to specialize into an element.

  3. #33
    Abecedarian Mage
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Frederik Hugger View Post
    I mean when does a 5 fire/4 destruction have an advantage over a 9 fire wizard? 9 fire would have acces to better conjurations and well everything as long as it isn't destruction. Now the 5/4 would have a more versatile spell selection when it comes to destruction, but I only see one situation where a destruction spell from circle 4 or lower will be better than a higher circle destruction spell from fire and that is when your target is imune to fire damagde.
    Well, that situation isn't any different from MoM, and still plenty of people didn't play only the single color strategies.

    And don't forget that the spell level cost is subject to balancing, if tier 9 is too strong it will get more expensive (which many, including me, expect).

    ---------- Post added at 12:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:40 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by ampoliros View Post
    I know Aaron is still on the fence about how research is chosen, but perhaps this might spur him to keep MoM's semi-blind style, which I, for one, absolutely loved.
    +1 from me as well.

    It gives the right feeling of natural growth to have to learn the basic, weaker spells before even getting a glimpse at the possibility of higher-level spells.

    Not revealing the exact set of available spells at the start is a great mechanism to force players to take rather high tiers if they want a good chance to get a specific low-level spell.

    A good example would be the Fly spell (level 3): Taking air tier 3 should not give all level 3 air spells and should thus not ensure the availability of Fly - getting all level 3 spells should require tier 5 or 6. (And a total of 6 tiers in Air and (I guess) Augmentation should guarantee Fly as well.)

  4. #34
    I think we are going to run with the semi-blind system. It works, people like it, and it feels very MoMish.

    The advantage isn't just against creatures that are immune to fire. It's also against those who are weak against cold. Or those susceptible to acid. The advantage of diversity is diversity. You're more likely to have just what you need when you need it. Also, don't overlook power sliders. In this particular case you can ramp up low tier destruction spells to do some real damage (albeit at a greatly increased cost). Plus, in all the systems we've proposed the player will be able to get a larger number of lower tier circles. That makes the range of available spells even greater.

    Both strategies are meant to be sound and I think they are. A little play testing will show us what we need to change.
    Everybody needs friends! Aaron's Facebook Page

  5. #35
    Battlemage
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Frederik Hugger View Post
    I mean when does a 5 fire/4 destruction have an advantage over a 9 fire wizard? 9 fire would have acces to better conjurations and well everything as long as it isn't destruction. Now the 5/4 would have a more versatile spell selection when it comes to destruction, but I only see one situation where a destruction spell from circle 4 or lower will be better than a higher circle destruction spell from fire and that is when your target is imune to fire damagde.
    This is why I feel destruction spells should do more than just pure damage. This is why I keep adding elements like stun 1 turn, immobilize 1 turn, inflict burning in addition to damage etc to my destruction spell suggestions. It makes them more versatile and useful. Sure fireball may make more damage than flash freeze but sometimes ability to root enemies for a turn while inflicting damage is more handy. Otherwise I'd never dip into destruction.

    Honestly outright immunity is the only part where it is better idea to go for some other element if the only difference is damage type. Resistance doesn't mean much when your higher level fire spell is likely to do as much damage even at half level than lower level destruction you get from mixes like fire 6/destruction 3. At the same time you lose access to higher level fire spells. This is very unlike with for example augmentation where having more options is always welcome as they differ significantly. Pure damage spells are boring anyway as you are always likely to go for most cost efficient or damaging. No amount of recoloring is going to make ice bolt different from fire bolt if damage type is the only difference.

    Limiting destruction to damage only would be a mistake.
    Last edited by Beregar; 10-28-2013 at 02:52 PM.

  6. #36
    I wanted to offer a suggestion on how spells can be randomly offered for research.

    You can break spells into some basic categories.
    global word enchantments
    city enchantments
    friendly unit buffs
    enemy unit weakness
    enemy unit directdamage
    creature summon

    Instead of pure random, I think you should get some kind of balance by selecting random spells from categories. That way while you get random spells, you get a good mixture of types of spells. You can also have some disciplines influence what spells you receive, so that a summoner is more likely to get summon spells.

  7. #37
    Beregar, good point!

    Tyrannical, good suggestion!
    Everybody needs friends! Aaron's Facebook Page

  8. #38
    Archmage of the Central Tower Happerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,770
    I like that idea of disciplines changing the weighting on the randomization. +1 from me.
    Last edited by Happerry; 10-30-2013 at 10:21 PM. Reason: fixing the color bug.

  9. #39
    Battlemage
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    343
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrannical View Post
    You can break spells into some basic categories.
    global word enchantments
    city enchantments
    friendly unit buffs
    enemy unit weakness
    enemy unit directdamage
    creature summon
    I broke them to following categories in my thread:
    global
    city
    overland
    tactical

    then did a few further division splits
    terraforming
    curse
    boon
    shield/cloak
    prosperity
    damage
    control
    summon

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
footer