magick power vs. mana

[Evnissyen]

Honestly, having finally finished as a straight Magick User (no weapons) (yes, "only just now"... the other two runs were played as a fighter because Magick Users seemed distressingly weak)... I really have to point this out (again, since this time, unlike before, I've gone through the entire game as a pure Magick User, building the character up) :

The power of spells in Book I does not seem well balanced with the mana cost. All the way through. I've found myself often resorting to weaker versions of a spell because it turns out that typically these are more effective in the long run (60%-65% the damage of a lvl6 spell at 50% the mana cost)... at the very best the lvl 6 spells seem to be merely twice the strength of the lvl3 version of the spell.

This means it's not worth training for higher levels.

So... my opinion is that spells should be notably more powerful at higher levels. The ratio should be reversed: more bang for the buck at higher levels. This would make it worth investing points in training your Magick User for higher levels.

I'm guessing that the spells were weakened because it was decided that the Magick Users shouldn't become too insanely powerful... but they're so weak at the beginning that great power at the end should be justified. If you spend more effort climbing the ladder, so to speak, shouldn't you get some reward for that?

(Supernova not withstanding . . . but there, too, of course, the ratio applies.)

I know BW has already said he sees nothing wrong with the spells/mana system in Book I, but I really want to stress that there's something very wrong when weaker spells become more effective choices and therefore the incentive to train is removed.

...Really hope this is fixed in Book II... ?

[BasiliskWrangler]

Well, I have defended our method of mana/spell power in Book 1, but I wouldn't say nothing is wrong with it. If more than a couple people complain, then yes, something is potentially wrong and should be addressed.

Our take has been that although spells scale up linearly it doesn't mean there is no reason to develop magick skills beyond a specific level. The main idea is that casting a higher-level spell allows you to discharge more mana/damage per round then at a lower level. When fighting a monster with high-HP, do you want to take them out with 2 Level-6 fireballs, or 10 Level-1 fireballs?

That said, I will consider giving a boost to higher-leveled spells for Book II. Perhaps a "plus" damage, such as "+1 effect per level, per spell tier". So it'd look something like this:

Code: Select all

// PROPOSED TABLE FOR SPELL BONUSES BASED ON TIER/CASTING LEVEL //

       Spell Level:
Tier   L1  L2  L3  L4  L5  L6
1      0   +1  +2  +3  +4  +5
2      0   +2  +4  +6  +8 +10
3      0   +3  +6  +9 +12 +15

So this would be a guaranteed "plus" damage (or healing, or spell length) that would be applied without the spending of additional mana points. It gives a small boost to the spell the higher you cast it, and thus "more bang for your buck" as you put i.

Thoughts?

[IJBall]

...So this would be a guaranteed "plus" damage (or healing, or spell length) that would be applied without the spending of additional mana points. It gives a small boost to the spell the higher you cast it, and thus "more bang for your buck" as you put i.

Thoughts?

I suspect that this whole thing is an issue that won't be resolved until wider beta-testing 'balancing' gets done.

FTR, I had no problem with the way Mages, or lower-vs-higher level Mage spells, operated in Book I - yes, you had to "camp" a lot with Mages, but I think that's just par for the the course with that kind of character.
(Now, Healers were another issue, but I've already explained my issues with Healers before...)

[Necromis]

That would help. May I also suggest a potential decrease in cost as well. Meaning you get a reduction in mana cost by adding levels as well. I mean a Mage should learn how to more efficiently expend his/her mana as they increase in knowledge. I would however tie this to skill level, spell level, and tier level.

[CrazyBernie]

While I don't generally play a magic user, I've always seen mages as a catch-22... powerful magic usually comes at some sort of great cost to the user.

Mages (again, from my point of view) are all about efficiency... they don't expend more energy than deemed necessary. Take Gandalf, for example... he gives the everyday appearance of an absent minded old guy... but when the time comes to put his foot down... well you'd best stay out of the way. Firing off ten low level spells that expend less energy and do the same job as two big, mana hungry spells seems like the norm. As long as the higher casting spells do a higher amount of damage, then it shouldn't really matter.

Think of it this way... if the system was designed as a "bang for buck" system, then the mage at high levels would be running around, tossing out high level spells with reckless abandon. This would require a lot of enemy balancing on BW's part. Then you would have enemies with a larger amount of hitpoints so they wouldn't all keel over right away as you venture across the screen, bringing the wrath of the gods down around you. I'd rather have a system where it might not be as efficient to cast that high level spell, but if I'm in a pinch I know I can bring the pain and vanquish my enemies quickly at the potential cost of a mana potion or two.

Personally, I'd prefer to see alterations of higher level spells. For example, I'd like to see a level 3 firedart get a second target, and level six get a third (even if that means less damage per dart). Or a level three fireball gets a 50% larger blast radius, and a level six gets a 100% larger radius. This would be similar to the weapon feats offering extra abilities. Worst case scenario, it'd be cool to see some extra effects that give the appearance of a more powerful spell... rather than a firedart looking the same through all six levels. Of course, I'm a bells and whistles kinda guy.

[MyGameCompany]

I agree that there needs to be some adjustments made.

I've been playing a mage for awhile, and the problem I'm having is that after I save up for a more powerful spell like fireball, it seems less effective than fire dart and makes me regret the purchase. For example, I can take out an enemy with 4 level-6 fire darts instead of 2 fireballs, and it cost a lot less mana. Something seems wrong with that. At the very least, it seems to me that the same amount of damage should cost the same amount of mana. Otherwise, it does seem like there is little advantage in moving to more expensive/powerful spells. I understand it saves you a few turns, but if you're left weaker in the end, then the more powerful spells end up going unused.

Being a game developer myself, I understand all about game balance and the issues involved. And I understand that you don't want to make the advanced mage too powerful. But there should be some advantages to more potent spells. Either boost the damage it does or lower the mana usage so that in the end, you get the same result using either fire darts or fireballs (same level of mana, same amount of damage), but it took fewer turns. Also (or perhaps alternatively), I like CrazyBernie's idea of a larger blast radius for more powerful spells like fireball, where a target standing nearby might take a little damage (not the full impact of the blast, but maybe a certain percentage of it up to 50% depending on how close they were to the blast). That way, you at least feel like you're getting more bang for your buck, so to speak. I also like your idea, BW - more potent spells should have a higher to-hit ratio, as you would expect enemies to be required to have a higher resistance in order to fend off such a powerful attack.

I think you can probably make some little adjustments without totally throwing off the game balance. Sometimes a minor adjustment can give the player the perception that they have gained some great benefit, when in reality they haven't been helped too much at all (e.g., fewer turns, collateral damage, higher to-hit, etc). But you certainly don't want them to feel penalized for becoming more powerful.

[BasiliskWrangler]

There are many things to consider in this debate, for example:

MyGameCompany mentions that Fire Darts are more efficient than Fireballs for attacks. The thing is, Fireballs do collateral damage as well, so the overall damage a fireball can do is potentially significantly higher than a Fire Dart; it's just that the damage is more wide-spread. Same thing with Supernova- not so much damage on an individual basis, but throw on the screen 10 enemies and the combined damage is really extremely high. I've always wanted players to really need to think about the "right tool for the job" in terms of spells.

CrazyBernie's idea is really a good one, but waaaaaaay harder to balance and leaves a lot of holes for exploitation. For example, if Level 3 Fire Dart gets 2 targets, then the power of the spell has essentially doubled from Level 2 --- unless we say that the damage of each of the two Fire Darts @ Level 3 drops back to a level 1 version --- but then why not just shoot two level 1 spells? It goes back to Evnissyen's original complaint. The wider blast radius of the Fireball, as CrazyBernie suggested, is a bit easier to implement.

Decreasing the casting cost as Necromis suggested is very possible too- we just use the same linear damage chart, but mana cost would decrease with each casting level, making each level slightly more efficient to cast than the level before it. I personally like this idea more than any.

So much to consider....

[CrazyBernie]

You definitely can't compare the Firedart spell to the Fireball spell... they have to completely different purposes. In military terms, it'd be like comparing a missle to a bomb. One's meant for precision strikes, and another is meant for widespread damage. You could technically compare the efficiency of them on the same level... the missle is going to do more damage to a single target, but if you want to hit everything....

In reference to my splitting of the firedarts... I don't think it would be difficult to balance. Consider this: even if you lessened the damage of the level 3 darts (say taking what would normally be level 3 damage and splitting it in two), giving you two targets means an extra attack in a single turn... adding another level of strategy to a mage's combat. The real question would be whether to allow for the first dart to strike (giving the opportunity to switch targets mid-round if an enemy is killed) or requiring the assigning of targets before the round takes place. Depending on the allowed damage output, your "balance" factor could be the limiting target assigment to pre-round completion. Personally, I'd allow full damage output of at least a level 2 fire-dart and maybe increase the mana cost a bit. Even if you limited the damage to two level 1 darts, as long as the total cost of the spell is less than two level 1 darts, it'd be a non-issue anyway (plus, it would give players a reason to use a level 3 dart over a level 1 or 2 dart...). I used to play pen&paper D&D, and every three levels the mage got an extra magic missle. Granted, there wasn't an increase in the damage that each missle did, but then again D&D doesn't have mana or skill points.

I would even considering doing something similar with the fireball. Let's say the level 3 fireball has it's original blast radius, but then a second, 50% smaller detonation occurs inside the first. Then at level 6, the original blast radius is increased by 50% and the second "wave" increases to the original fireball size. I'd certainly prefer my original suggestion in the name of mass destruction, but then again, that might encroach on the supernova's status a bit.

I don't have a huge problem with making spells cheaper to cast as long as it's linear and the lower level spell is always less. The caster should be more efficient, but not to the point where he/she is amplifying damage vs mana cost. I'd probably just tie it to the caster's skill level... something along the lines of every 10 skillpoints = a 10% discount on a spell's casting cost. The spell tier/levels are already in place to determine the initial mana cost and damage.

[Randomizer]

It's the trade off of damage per target for mana cost versus total damage for mana. Firedart is great for single targets when you can retreat to slowly wear down an opponent. But you want those area effect spells for multiple targets where Supernova is the best for clearing the screen, but they aren't cost effective when applied to a single target. Maybe at higher levels there could be a higher damaging single target spell that has a slightly higher cost to balance out against the higher health of later game foes.

I hated running around to recharge as I was wearing down my enemies. Seeing the trail of blood wasn't helpful.

[Evnissyen]

You all have interesting ideas.

I think BW's proposed tiered system is an improvement on the current one: getting bonuses for higher tier spells.

I also think Necromis' point about mana reduction per level should be important to consider, and ideally this should be coupled with damage bonuses both per level learned and per tier. At higher levels of learning in Divination or Elemental: the respective spells should cost less mana and do more damage. Old spells should become more effective and less costly.

It seems to me that the more a mage trains: the better that mage should become at controlling any particular spell. Being able to control a spell should mean both more damage and less drain on your mana. After all: surely a mage trains not just to learn more spells but also to be a more effective spellcaster and to develop greater and greater control?

If you wanted to you could, of course, tie control in with a certain trait a person has to train in, like Concentration or Perception, but this is complicating things too much, I think. The simpler the better.

Bernie's idea of collateral damage is very interesting as well, though obviously more complicated... and... not quite as important to me. Still, it would be an interesting feature to further implement if you happen to have the desire to do so.

There're two other things, actually, that disappointed me :

1.

The lack of clarity about specialty-difference between a few of the offensive spells. The speciality and talent of a few particular spells wasn't always clear, so with those spells you would really have to experiment intently to come to a strong conclusion as to the strategic benefits of each spell. I wasn't among the beta-testers and I'm not especially patient, so... I didn't do much of that. Several of the spells seemed almost interchangeable.

My favorite offensive spell turned out to be Fire Dart. I rarely used Fireball, I used Compress Atmosphere and Deep Freeze slightly more often than Fireball but still not very often... with certain creatures it seemed that either of these two spells turned out to be more effective than Fire Dart, but I didn't do much work trying to verify this. With me it was more: kill, get loot, advance. Again: testing the game system wasn't my goal.

As far as I can recall I think I just about almost never used Sunder Flesh or Fleshboil. I think I maybe used them just a few times over the course of the entire game (that is: the part of the game during which I possessed those spells... obviously).

Are Cat's Eyes and Predator Sight interchangeable? I couldn't quite tell; I always went with Predator Sight, never Cat's Eyes. The way the enemy lights up green like that is nicely satisfying.

Smite is an example of a spell that has a specific purpose, and this is very good.

Entangle is an excellent spell, and nicely drawn/animated, although I rarely used it.

Toward the end, Supernova became an increasingly better friend to me.

2.

There are only two area-of-effect spells. Mass Boil and Supernova. There should be more, I think.

I've just tested the two and it appears that, for the same mana cost, Mass Boil does a little more damage. In retrospect I suppose maybe I should've used that spell more often, but the sound and animation of Supernova is so much more satisfying.

[MyGameCompany]

The lack of clarity about specialty-difference between a few of the offensive spells. The speciality and talent of a few particular spells wasn't always clear, so with those spells you would really have to experiment intently to come to a strong conclusion as to the strategic benefits of each spell. I wasn't among the beta-testers and I'm not especially patient, so... I didn't do much of that. Several of the spells seemed almost interchangeable.

I think that's my problem as well. I didn't realize Fireball did collateral damage. The few times I used it, I did not see that happen. I would like to see these tradeoffs more clearly documented as well. I think that might clear up a lot of the confusion and some of things that I'm perceiving as issues that may not really be issues at all.

[Evnissyen]

Yeah, I didn't realize, either, that Fireball produced collateral damage, but there's no excuse for either or us for not knowing this, because I've just noticed that this nice little feature is stated very clearly in the spell's description.

My laziness knows no bounds. I should be ashamed of myself.

...And so should you, MyGameCompany! Shame on you! Let us repent! Let us beg forgiveness etc.

Let us be brothers in CRPG failure!

[Josia]

There is a rather old thread that seems relevant to this topic here.

[TNoyce]

To be honest, I do not recall a single RPG I have played recently, that was what I would call 'easy' playing as a straight
mage - that is, no weapon skills at all.

I like the idea of reduced mana cost, and the adjustment to damage mentioned already - but I'm also very concerned about the
game balance, as has also been stated.

I trust that the developers will make the decision which best fits into their vision of how the game mechanics are supposed to work.

[Evnissyen]

TNoyce: Geneforge 1-5.

In the Geneforge games it's actually more difficult to play as a melee character than as a magic-only character. Magic wielders can become extremely powerful. In general: melee characters only get by, and even then only if they have creations to assist them.

But in general you seem to be right: when playing a new game I always go with the melee character.