Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 97

Thread: Spell Research Mechanics

  1. #71
    If play testing shows that spreading your points out between circles is not a viable strategy we can change things. We can even go back to the character design system and change how the points work if we need to. I think the system is sound, but if we find a problem we can make changes to fix it.

    We are constantly getting closer to alpha testing. Once that starts we'll be able to find the rough edges and get rid of them
    Everybody needs friends! Aaron's Facebook Page

  2. #72
    Apprentice
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    22
    Any plans yet on ability to gain extra circles during a game?

    In MoM sometimes books were handed out as loot from nodes.

  3. #73
    Mage of the Lesser Tower
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    286
    Pretty sure that's a Thing.

    OK... I am really sorry, I know it seems like I'm hammering down all this negativity and all and I don't mean to be. But... (And yeah, this is totally the same "But..." that comes after, "No offense, but...")

    Let me start by assuring you that spells are easy to add and that in time we may have more than 1,000.
    That's wonderful, but - that's going to take a lot of time, to get to "almost very close to nearly able" to address this problem. I very much fear that will be too little too late, especially from the perspective of people who aren't, you know, here, now. And it only solves the problem inasmuch as it does by destroying...
    OK, to begin with, one of my fundamental goals was to give players more control over the spells that end thin their research lists. That may not have come across, but the example I have used many times was choosing to play as a Summoner. I certainly don't want to give up the random element, but I want you to be able to work with it and get it to give you more of what you want. So, this is absolutely a design decision and not a flaw.
    ...That. If we have enough spells to give pure combinations enough choices to compare to the Specialists, then we either maintain this problem by scaling everything up as we go, or we have to deny the Specialist about three quarters of their spells while the Diversified catch up.

    I've been trying to take my own advice - step back and take a few deep breaths. Particularly giving the Infusion point the attention it deserves, because it most certainly does. I've been very excited seeing what we're doing with it when we've talked about it in the spell design threads. I'm interested to see if and how it's going to be applied in places we haven't talked about it; your response here sounds like it's going to be a lot more prevalent than we're specifically nailing down there, and I'm happy about that. It'll be cool to have that available for more than just pumping up direct damage spells.

    So; on the goal of keeping low-Tier spells useful throughout the game, I think your Flame Arrow/Flame Strike example is fantastic, and I think we could find dozens more just in the Circles we've determined so far. We're doing a great job with that; all of us, I think, and Hoverdog's guidance in those threads has been fantastic. On the goal of making our high Tier spells worth striving for, I believe we are also succeeding.

    The goal of making the Low Tier spells functually equivalent to the High Tier spells... I do not believe has been one of our goals. And while doing that is, indeed, probably the only way to solve the problem I keep pounding on here without changing our combination strategy, I don't think it should be. Even if we can do it, that's not.. the right answer. We have Tiers for a reason, and the high Tiers are supposed to be exciting. Paladins are better than Spearmen. Not just, "One Paladin Unit is better than one Spearman Unit." Paladins are better. Have one city building Paladins and another churning out Spearmen for the same time period, and the Paladins - or even just "Paladin" - will demolish the spearmen. Quite probably without breaking a nail. The only time the spearmen have an advantage is if you imagine both cities are starting totally empty and close enough together that you can build one Spearman and walk him over before the first Paladin appears; and that's a silly scenario, because cities can build Spearmen, and then Swordsmen, and then Pikemen, long before they can build Paladins... and the thing is, Paladins are supposed to be actually superior. Otherwise, why invest in all that infrastructure to get them?

    Does Low-Tier magic have an early advantage? Like, say, in that period before High Tier magic has even become available? Yeah! It sure does! Existing effects have a huuuuuge advantage over non-existing ones, just like existing Spearmen can totally take non-existing Paladins. But everybody has Low Tier magic, just like everybody has Spearmen (or a deliberate equivalent.) Does Low Tier magic retain its advantage later, as High Tier magic becomes more common? Gosh, I hope not.


    Is our goal to design a magic system in which Phantom Warriors are just as good as Sky Drakes - not individually, of course, but strategically? I totally get getting caught up in the "Oh, I could totally beat your dracolich with a low-magic strategy!", and in a broad sense, sure, yeah, that should indeed be viable. But that's the broad sense: That's when the magic Tiers are balanced against the Disciplines, and your city-building strategies, and your Artefacts and Heroes. Not toe-to-toe, magic-vs-magic. Unless that's the balance we actually want? Skeletons are just as good as Dracoliches? Shooting Stars can be just as effective in a battle as Holy Word?

    And if so, can somebody remind me again why I should ever spend my 9 points in any Magic School, ever, when I could just spend three or four to get quicker spells that I can buff up to be just as good as the so-called "Great Magics", and have lots of room left over for awesome stuff like Mystic and Warlord and Planar Cartographer?

  4. #74
    I am not even worried about this. I always thought specialists were supposed to be favored over generalists by a certain margin anyway.

  5. #75
    Archmage of the Outer Ring jamoecw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,047
    s s s
    s s s s s
    s s C s s
    s s s s s
    s s s

    so if both sides have 10 cities, and all ten are needed to maintain the 20 regulars and 20 skellies/1 draco lich.
    then 1 city falls due to draco lich attack (obviously), which razes all mana production prior to attack, and 1 city loses all food/production/mana/gold bonuses due to skelly siege.
    scenario 1:
    if the 20 regulars are spread out in the cities as a garrison the 20 skellies just take the city.
    result 1 skelly dies due to no upkeep (should no skellies die in the attack, which is unlikely), draco lich dies due to no upkeep.
    winner skellies.
    scenario 2:
    at 19 cities 1 skelly dies from no upkeep, 1 city must choose to either switch to all farmers or lose citizens.
    at 18 cities 2 skellies are dead from no upkeep, 1 city stays on farmers.
    etc.
    winner draco lich.
    scenario 3:
    at 19 cities 1 skelly dies from no upkeep, city under siege sets all to farmers, but still lacks enough food for all troops, 1 regular dies due to lack of food.
    at 18 cities a total of 2 skellies are dead from no upkeep, city continues to starve, 1 skelly breaks off to attack the now defenseless city.
    at 17 cities 3 skellies are dead due to lack of upkeep, city starves, skelly moving.
    at 16 cities 4 skellies are dead due to lack of upkeep, skelly takes undefended city.
    draco lich dies due to lack of upkeep, winner skellies.

    in other words a draco lich can just walk over and attack a city, but it takes creative thinking to make the skelly strat work. this is the simplest way to make low tier (troops/summons) still useful later in the game. it also makes the game a tad more complex than just making a super stack and running around with it. also all 3 of these scenarios can be done in MoM (similar can be done in civ as well).

    ____________________________________________
    paly vs. spearmen:
    let's say that 1 paly is equal to 15 spearmen.
    should a 15 stack be allowed, then it could match a paly.
    as a paly kills 1 spearman unit every attack, the first attack round of the spearmen would be 15 strong, next would be 14, etc.
    following this out it would take 113 spearman attack to kill a paly.
    max stack of 9 = 45 attacks
    15 - 9 = 6
    stack of 6 = 21
    15 spearmen would be able to do 66/113 damage to a paly due to max stack rule.
    it would take 25 spearmen due to the max stack rule to kill a paly with spearmen.

    head on a more powerful unit is always more cost efficient than a weaker unit, so simply making the paly a better unit 1 for 1 you are making the paly better than the spearman in everything except stack 1 duties (typically scouting, sometimes indirect sieges, anything that doesn't work by fighting basically).

    once you add in magical enchantments and meaningful experience levels, you end up with the paly being better than the spearman just by being better at a 1 to 1 comparison. with enchantments that means that you need fewer enchantments for your army, as you don't need as many troops to do the job. with meaningful experience levels that means that anything that helps your troops live through battles, results in higher level troops over time.
    Last edited by jamoecw; 03-21-2014 at 08:12 PM.

  6. #76
    lol,Jamoecw,serioursly lets give it a rest.
    In MoM I just make one superstack with the Draco and conquer your capital.
    The fact simply will 100% remain true in WoM that you will have a handful of really important cities out of any overall number and the one player than can make the better stack(s) will win the war because he can conquer the game-winning locations like the capital.
    Why arent you responding to this absolutely crucial main point Lintking and me are pointing out all the time?

    + it might very well be that 20 skellies cost more upkeep than 1 Dracolich,which would make all you scenarios pointed out with the last post rather invalid.

    + mana upkeep is one thing,mana reserve the other. So even when making negative mana income per turn due to high upkeep I could still be able to maintain the draco for dozens of turns.Not to mention Alchemy.

    + no one is doubting the usefulness of 20 Skeletons,or any other low level summon for that matter, but the usefulness will gradually decrease from Early game to Late game. 20 Skeletons shine when you only have like 30 units overall and really strong single units are rare/non existent. 20 Skeleltons are pretty unimportant when you have 200 units overall,with lots of elite units running around.
    This is a given and this is how it has to be to have balance in the game.
    Last edited by Mardagg; 03-22-2014 at 02:24 AM.

  7. #77
    Archmage of the Outer Ring jamoecw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Mardagg View Post
    In MoM I just make one superstack with the Draco and conquer your capital.
    in MoM i could create a couple of stacks of skellies and sack the enemy capitol, that doesn't mean anything since we all know the AI isn't very good.

    in multiplayer 4x games that have tournaments, super stacks are counterable.

  8. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by jamoecw View Post
    in multiplayer 4x games that have tournaments, super stacks are counterable.
    sure it all depends on the stage of the game and available resources.
    If you take an early game build and do much better in that game stage ,you will have an overwhelming resource advantage that might be sufficient to counter a specialist's strong summons or whatever else superstacks you will meet.No doubt at this. It is balanced exactly this way.

    In our example though,both had the same resources.And with every additional Dracolich appearing the other player would have stood less and less of a chance.

    Regarding MoM:
    I recommend playing it with one of the latest unofficial patches,only about 1 or 2 years old, and then lets talk again about the bad AI
    I wasnt talking about the AI btw, I was super theoretical talking about playing you in our scenario in MoM.
    Last edited by Mardagg; 03-22-2014 at 06:15 AM.

  9. #79
    Mage of the Inner Tower Endless Rain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    RPG.net
    Posts
    532
    Now that I think about it, I think it's fine the way it is. Sure, a specialist will be powerful in the late game, but she'll have to survive being defeated early on first, and many games don't even last past the early game. (I generally prefer to rush my opponents ASAP, and I prefer to play on smaller maps, so I almost never get past the mid-game myself in most strategy games.)

    P.S. Sorry I haven't posted much over the past few days, I've been sick over the past week. I'll try to write my two titan suggestions tomorrow BTW.
    I am waiting for the relaunch before playing Worlds of Magic, so I don't check the forums as often as I used to. In the meantime, the main forum I post at is RPG.net, if anyone here needs to contact me.

  10. #80
    Archmage of the Outer Ring jamoecw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,047
    Quote Originally Posted by Mardagg View Post
    sure it all depends on the stage of the game and available resources.
    If you take an early game build and do much better in that game stage ,you will have an overwhelming resource advantage that might be sufficient to counter a specialist's strong summons or whatever else superstacks you will meet.No doubt at this. It is balanced exactly this way.

    In our example though,both had the same resources.And with every additional Dracolich appearing the other player would have stood less and less of a chance.

    Regarding MoM:
    I recommend playing it with one of the latest unofficial patches,only about 1 or 2 years old, and then lets talk again about the bad AI
    I wasnt talking about the AI btw, I was super theoretical talking about playing you in our scenario in MoM.
    ya, it is totally unrealistic scenario. after all we were comparing two specific spells against each other. my point was that a dracolich alone isn't insta win vs. 20 skellies if the 20 skellies avoid battle and aim to use their one advantage, resource denial (20 skellies can deny 20 resources, 1 draco lich only 1). a dual user would be able to give his stack of elite troops +1d6 of one element, and +1d6 of another for the same price roughly of roughly one dracolich. if things keep escalating the high tier person could get a whole stack of dracoliches with +1d6, which is better than any one stack the dual user could get. if the high tier user doesn't hold back some resources for when things go bad, he will most likely lose to a resource denial strategy, even if he can sack cities. of course if the game goes on long enough for a person to get a full stack of dracoliches with enough resources to operate the stack without income for the time it takes him to all key cities of the dual user, then the dual user pretty much handed the game over to the high tier user by not either A. making use of his advantage while he had it, or B. not crushing the high tier user when he had the chance (which would probably happen when the dual user can stick a full stack of troops with 2 +1d6 enchantments on them, as then he would have the resources to use both circles fully).
    Last edited by jamoecw; 03-22-2014 at 05:46 PM.

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast

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