I noticed that I was not doing as much damage with my magic as I was supposed to, so I did a quick test. It's pretty simple, I attacked a group of 3 spiders (each had 0 defense) using the fire spell Infernal. I did this both before and after constructing on a fire shard, and I did it several times (more than 10 damage rolls) to get decent statistics. My sovereign had 15 intelligence. The results were:
Without shard: Average damage = 8.6
With one fire shard: Average damage = 7.6
Both results are what you'd expect without a shard. I've also done this for lightning bolt with an air shard, same result.
So has anyone been actually seen shards improve damage like they are supposed to, or are they completely non-working at the moment?
This thread contains a serious issue and good detective work by some players. I've noticed the problem but hadn't put 2+2 together. Good job.
For the XML problem listed above (changing the line to something like value * fireshards * 100) that wouldn't work because the expression system is only valid for binary expressions, meaning one operation per variable for these calculations. We're looking into spell damage and why fire shards (or any shards) might not be calculated properly at the moment.
As for the opinion thing, annatar was simply stating that turning these threads into flame fests makes it harder to debug these issues. I know you guys have honest problems, and you deserve for them to be addressed. Hell, you deserve a game that doesn't have problems in the first place, and I'm sorry that we didn't give you such. We're trying as hard as we can to fix everything that needs fixing as quick as possible, all of our livelihoods depend on it, believe me.
Thanks for letting us know it's being looked into MasonOfSparta, good to know you're aware of the problem
Best post form SD on the matter so far. Goes miles towards making me feel better about this. Keep up the good work.
DRavisher and company: really nice work on this. I wish I had your talents and dedication to detail (but I am laaaazzzy).
Thanks for the info Mason, good to know calcs can only be done 2 at a time. Heres an important question, is there a reason:
<ModType>Unit</ModType> <Attribute>ProduceResource</Attribute> <StrVal>Gold</StrVal>
<ModType>Unit</ModType>
<Attribute>ProduceResource</Attribute>
<StrVal>Gold</StrVal>
Can't use a calculation for its value, ie:
<Calculate InternalName = "IntBasedGold" ValueOwner="Unit"> <Expression><![CDATA[[UnitStat_Intelligence]+[UnitStat_Charisma]]]></Expression> </Calculate>
<Calculate InternalName = "IntBasedGold" ValueOwner="Unit"> <Expression><![CDATA[[UnitStat_Intelligence]+[UnitStat_Charisma]]]></Expression>
</Calculate>
And
<Calculate InternalName="Value"> <Expression><![CDATA[[IntBasedGold]]]></Expression> </Calculate>
<Calculate InternalName="Value">
<Expression><![CDATA[[IntBasedGold]]]></Expression>
OR
<Value><![CDATA[IntBasedGold]]]></Value>
Doesn't work at all? IMO if either worked it would be good. I assume that technically <Value> is just added together, can it be added after being calculated. Also, it would be great if <Description> would be valid with <![CDATA as well, instead of how it ignores the expressions, IE:
<Description><![CDATA[Produces [IntBasedGold] Gildar per turn based on your Int without the aid of a city]]></Description>
just displays
Produces [IntBasedGold] Gildar per turn based on your Int without the aid of a city
Yes. Shards only seem to increase mana replenishment slightly.
I would be nice if they were more useful. Also would be great if their power could be traded.
A few suggestions:
1) They could cap spell-casting to a certain level.
2) They could be required for strategic spell-casting (the overpowered summoning for instance)
3) They could be required for some really cool buildings.
4) They could give access to new more powerful spells (at the same levels).
5) They could be required to embue new heroes. So instead of automatically getting the sov's spell books, they would get the spell books that you have shards for at the time of casting, or there could be different versions of the spell making it possible to add new spell books, even to the sov.
I noticed the shards not working, but since I hate autocombat I didn't know that they worked there. this and the need to restart the game every hour or two are my only real complaints right now. Good catch OP.
For the record, I was casting Heal in my last game (which supposedly heals for up to int/3) and was regularly getting values between 30 and 60, which was way higher than my intelligence. Is it possible that spells which look for shards of a specific element fail, but spells which count all shards work?
Yes, I use auto combat in mage hero stacks with generic fighter support. The spells don't frigging miss 2 out of 3 times and do great damage. I have done several hundred damage in auto combat so the shards are working there, in tactical magic is just plain broken. I had 30 int when I finished my last game and would still constantly "miss" level 1-3 creatures and roll pathetic damages nowhere near my int. Why is there no magic resistance or elemental resistances? A guy in plate armor should take more damage from lightning attacks, not less.
However, with a mage character auto combat is your friend. I win fights all the time with it that I just can't win in tactical.
Yes I noticed the heal spell, when I do have it does rather well; irrespective of whether or not i even have shards. In contrast, the tactical damage spells tend to be pretty plinky regardless of shards or sov stats.
RAT
Thanks for addressing the issue Stardock.
agree 100%.. folk are right to have issues and ask them to be addressed.. We all need to step back from fanning the fire's if we can so we can focus on whats not working and how to fix it..
I'm personally reviewing all the spell XML and I want to let you guys know that changes are coming. We're looking into separating the hit and damage rolls for offensive spells. The hit roll will be caster INT vs. defender DEF. The damage rolls will be between a min and a max value, not just from 0 - max. Here's the fireball description in my current build:
"Target enemy unit is hit with a fireball and is dealt (5-9) damage. Damage is increased by (0.15) for every point of intelligence and by (2) for every captured fire shard."
These change will need some internal testing, but please do let us know what you think. We're always interested in your feedback.
-LTW
Just don't nerf magic too much!
How could they? After all its "Elemental - War of Magic" and not "Elemental - War with Pointed Sticks, Fruits ... and a bit of Magic". *evil grin*
First, thanks for all the work you guys are putting into the game.
If it is intelligence vs defense and an enemy sov is all decked out in the best researched armor a caster sov won't be able to touch him. The caster sov has to invest in both essense and intelligence. So maybe consider all of the caster type stats in "to hit" and not just intelligence.
Or else also make magic staffs and magic robes available for research that boost caster stats. There are a lot of melee weapons, armor, and jewelry available for melee sovs but that is lacking for casters.
Deck out your sov in the best researched armor and look at his defense rating. It is unlikely that he will have a comparable intelligence.
Not sure I'm a fan of hit rolls on spells. Spells consume MP which currently regenerates at 1 mp a turn, so the actual cost of a single damaging spell is very high in comparison to a simple attack by any constructed unit in the game.
Spells need to be 'imbalanced' for them to be worth using, and missing with your MP investment of 2-10 turns to deal damage in comparison to the ability to summon up a new troop or teleport across the entire map isn't a great tradeoff.
It would be great if i could get an answer to my questions posted earlier on this page, kind of hard to do alot of modding in regards to those questions.
Separating hit and damage rolls across the board is probably a good idea (so many late-game melee fights amount to tons and tons of misses until the stars finally align and somebody takes 80 damage), but are you changing how defense works in general along with this? Because the defense stat of a late-game army can easily breach 200, and I'm pretty sure nobody's getting that much intelligence any time soon.
I think requiring INT to be checked against Defense is a horrible idea. Why would wearing a full suit of plate armor protect you better from a magical spell? If anything, it would make you easier to hit. Most of my decent sized stacks in mid-game (squads of troops) have like 100 defense. How's a 20 INT caster ever going to hit those squads?
This is how I feel as well. I honestly never liked magic systems in games where magic could simply miss. Take the D&D spells for example. Any spell with a roll to save against usually does and the time and effort put into memorizing and casting spells like that are usually a huge waste of time. It is much more efficient using a direct damage spell (they never miss unless you're a rogue dodging a fireball) and simply killing the poor sod flat out instead of trying to hold/silence/sleep/dominate unless you severely out level your target. Even then its still pointless to do anything but blow it up.
When you start allowing direct damage spells to miss entirely it becomes pointless to even use magic at all. You'd be better off equipping a weapon and hitting them or summoning up a minion to do it for you. The only saving grace the D&D magic system has in my eyes is the fact that direct damage spells never miss with the exception of the fireball example given above. However I find that to be acceptable because completely evading a fireball is a class skill of rogues and that only works on AoE type spells. Even then you can simply just use a single target direct damage spell instead like Acid Arrow, Flame Arrow, or Lesser/Greater Missile Storm (I freakin love that spell so much).
There is also the problem that sovereigns/units in this game can get some pretty insane attack and defense rating and there is no way for the same to be said about intelligence and essence. As it stands right now it would be impossible for intelligence to be raised high enough to compensate for the amount of defense that is obtainable in this game unless you patch in items with intelligence stats to them. If you need examples of items that could boost intelligence then staffs, robes and tiaras/crowns would be a great place to start. Right now staffs are kinda pointless TBH. I don't see any use for them. Game also needs caster type armor badly. I don't really like the idea of mages running around in leather/plate armor but there isn't anything else to put on them right now.
As it stands right now I think an intelligence vs defense check would be a horrible idea.
You guys have been doing a great job so far on fixing the broken stuff though. I have faith you guys will figure something out to make magic useful.
If you mean that you want to see how much damage spells did after a battle, it's on the Victory (or Defeat) screen you get after a battle. There are two tabs located below the heading. Click on the one that says Detail.
If spells will work as INT vs defence, then it's time to have a separate stat for magic defence.
BTW I can understand why Fireball may be resisted by a piece of armor, But let's suppose you have not only elemental based direct damage, for example something like mind burn or drain life?
The only problem I see with this, as others have mentioned, is that magic "missing" seems...stupid, to put it frankly, particularly if it's based on DEF. To cast, I'm investing mana in addition to action points. Granted, I'm doing it without the possibility of retaliation, but using tactical spells still seems like a poor trade-off when there's that much of a possibility of it doing absolutely nothing.
This. Oh please, God, this would be so amazing. Consistency in magic would be incredible, although the specific formula mentioned here wouldn't appear to scale well at higher levels. I think the multiplication-from-shards can work fine, but the key is to keep magic useful at higher levels. Maybe the level-1 spells won't do you any good, but...well, it all depends.
Also, it's a bit of a problem when sovereigns can be wiped out with one cast from across the tactical map (whoever gets attacked loses 1 essence!) but I think that's more of a problem with the general toughness of sovereigns than spellcasting--you can do the same thing with a few archers.
INT vs defence will have two problems. The first is that as everyone has said, it makes magic all but useless except for the odd buff in the late game. The second is the issue of doing damage - with the fireball example, if it's going to do 5 - 9 points of damage, then even if you succeed the hit roll there's still a good chance of getting a "miss" due to the damage being lower than the defence, unless all spells are going to start ignoring armour.
I'd rather see some secondary effects from spells applied. Fireball for example could ignite the target and cause a second helping of damage in the next round. Lightning style spells could do more damage the higher the targets defence is (all that metal armour...). It might be a better solution to the scaling issue if spells had useful side-effects on the target even if the damage was low - reducing the target's move for a turn or two or lowering their defence or attack for example.
Also a few persistence spells would be nice - we have things like vortex which block off a square, why not a similar spell which damages units entering the square?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
