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?
not really I have an intellegence of like 38 and atleast 2-3 of each shard and I still get misses and never really see insance damage
I think the problem is that damage is in all cases randomized from 0 to maximum. I believe defense also reduces magic damage, so even mediocre rolls will seem weak at late game.
In my opinion the minimum damage needs to rise a bit with the maximum damage to produce more consistent results.
Yes, but my test was conducted agains critters with 0 defense. If the maximum damage is supposed to be doubled by controlling a shard, then the average damage would also be doubled. It was not. It simply seems to me that shards are not having any effect, at least that's the case for inferno, lightning bolt and chain lightning (I think those were the lightning names), which are the spells I've checked.
After a few attempts at fixing this by modding the xml files I've discovered this.
It seems like the relevant lines in the CoreSpells_xxx_tactical.xml files are lines like these (here from fire dart):
<GameModifier InternalName="FlameDartModifier"> <ModType>Unit</ModType> <Attribute>DefendableDamage</Attribute> <Calculate InternalName="AttackerIntelligence" ValueOwner="CastingUnit"> <Expression><![CDATA[[UnitStat_Intelligence]]]></Expression> </Calculate> <Calculate InternalName="Value" ValueOwner="CastingUnit"> <Expression><![CDATA[[AttackerIntelligence] * -0.5]]></Expression> </Calculate> <Calculate InternalName="Value"> <Expression><![CDATA[[Value] * [UnitStat_NumFireShards]]]></Expression> </Calculate> </GameModifier>
Specifically the line:
<Expression><![CDATA[[Value] * [UnitStat_NumFireShards]]]></Expression>
is not doing anything. For instance, changing it to
<Expression><![CDATA[[Value] * [UnitStat_NumFireShards] * 100.0]]></Expression>
should make fire dart insanely powerfull, but that is not the case. However, if the part that should account for the number of shards is removed, so that the line just reads
<Expression><![CDATA[[Value] * 100.0]]></Expression>
then the spell will be as powerfull as one would expect (i.e. 100 times as powerfull as it's supposed to be). [UnitStat_NumFireShards] appears to be invalid somehow, causing the game engine to ignore the statement which should take care of the shard number dependency.
Wonderful, another problem with the game. Now shards doen't even work? I really want to like this game and support Stardock, but it looks we were all right.... This game needed another few months at least.
Off the subject, but Galactic Civ 2 is a great game, but there were quirks about it that really cause me agony with it such as the all labs / all factories strategies (that exploit bugs me - you feel stupid if you don't do it), also how over powered economic bonuses are, and how population growth is step wise function (having 100% approval is double pop growth but 99% approval is only 1.25 times pop growth, so you are a complete moron if you don't tediosly try to meet 100% approval every turn...
Now I will feel stupid trying to control shards knowing they are useless.
Hire more workers Brad! Fuel Michigan's defunct economy! Surely you can afford more to put out better products?
How about you leave this kind of commentary to yourself and not attempt to derail another thread into a flamefest? Leave the people to report their issues in peace so the SD guys who have to dig through them don't get berated in each one.
Paying customers are allowed to complain. Paying customers of a company who flogged the Gamer's Bill of Rights for 2 years are entitled to a minimum of 2 years equal gripe time over incomplete games. Thanks for your opinion of our opinions. How about keeping your commentary to yourself?
Just as valid.
I've only ever had 1 shard in a game (restarting repeatedly, ftw) but I've always felt like they do nothing.
Even if damage is 0 thru int * 2 the upper range for dmg should be higher with a shard and I have NEVER seen a spell do more dmg than my sov's int. I usually have my sov up to 20 int or so by the time I should be getting a shard multiplier and it pretty much fall out of my chair in shock if a spell does over 10 dmg to anything.
IMO, armor/def should not reduce spell dmg, but that's just me. I guess if you blow off a resist system you could simplify it that way, but meh.
Sort of agree but IMO, if shards are broken, that's pretty much pathetic and someone should be berated.
Could just be yet another case of information not being adequately related by the UI or "documentation" but spell description text seems pretty clear to me.
You're allowed to complain, not to turn every thread into a flamefest. There are plenty of existing threads for you to continue. Leave issue reports as issue reports.
I'm getting this same problem. I like powerful mages in games but my mages have not been nearly as strong as they should be. In one battle I had 20 intelligence and 2 fire shards, I think my max hit was 15, if I hit at all (fighting trolls with 150+ health, not really useful at all) instead of closer to 100 like it said.
I think this may be a left over from the old Shard system, since shrines(built shards) Provide:
<GameModifier InternalName="Production1"> <ModType>Resource</ModType> <Attribute>AirMana</Attribute> <Value>1</Value> <PerTurn>1</PerTurn> <ResourceShared>0</ResourceShared> </GameModifier>
While spells call for "UnitStat_NumFireShards"
Seems to be a disconnect between the two, or there is a code side change that we cant see.
On a side note, what do i have todo to get my xml to look decent in these posts, ie how others have it. When i do it, it always looks ugly and doesnt copy/paste properly.
The flamefests come from the horde of fanboys who charge into the thread and claim "that your complaints aren't valid, you don't own the game, PC Mag UK is paying you to post, some other game was buggier so STFU, or that I should keep my complaints to myself and shut up because the devs work hard."
Someone complained in a post and you immediately illustrated the point by telling them to keep it to themselves.
He didn't use profanity, call the devs names, assert that the company should be defunt or anything even remotely flamey, instead he said:
You think that is a "flamefest"? The internet must be a terribly bruising experience if you do.
Disagreement is not flaming, expressing deep disappointment over a game's staus is not flaming, and being annoyed that a company said one thing for 2 years while doing another isn't either. They call it "disagreeing", just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make them an unhelpful troll.
Strange. My Sov has INT 17 and i have seen Fire Dart do 20+ damage. It is not consistent (which sucks), but something must influence it beyond INT. I have one fire shard.
I too think I've seen higher damage than my int on occasion (not sure), but the statistics are not right at all, of that I have become quite convinced. Unless each shard is supposed to only give a hard-to-measure increase (5-10% or something) I don't think my experiences can be written off as bad luck on my part.
If you use auto combat instead of tactical combat, the spell damage is correct. This strongly suggests a bug. I've tried to report it as a bug at https://forums.elementalgame.com/392663
and requested someone find the coding problem in
https://forums.elementalgame.com/392900
I don't understand how to mod yet, but I thought a ! meant it was commented out and not working. What DRavisher posted has several ! in it.
Is that the problem?
Hmm, as I said adding
does make the spell super-powerfull, so the "!" is not making it irrelevant.
Hadn't noticed any one else making noise about the low spell damages with shards, hope the devs take note and get it fixed. Currently it's my biggest gripe with the game. Out of memory errors every other hour I can live with
The values are modified somewhere else. Even if you multiply with a 100 the damage remains minimal.
If I do the multiplication by 100 as described I've seen damages above 1000, so it seems to work correctly here.
Note that what I've done is copy the relevant file into the installdir/mods directory, and enabled mods in options. I've read comments that makes it sound like editing the files in place does not work.
Yea its just weird because with my late game I had over 10 fire shards, listed damage was over 700 and in auto combat was regularly doing over 600 yet in tactical my best hit was probably 53 or so. Which was just under double my int, using a spell that does double int in damage.
So lets assume that UnitStat_NumXXXShards is incorrect reference in tactical combat based upon the fact it works in auto (which is referenced at the strategic level). Any other items that reference the UnitStat_NumIceShards stat that do work in tactical battles? It could be as simple as tactical battles do not support references to strategic resources.
Spell damage works properly in auto-combat, but not in tactical combat.
Where's spell damage listed? And how do you see the damage done in autocombat? Or is that just inferred from the outcome?
production
note: gives 1 'Fire Mana Shard' resource
Damage is listed in the spell book. In autocombat click details.
Ok, the autocombat details I get. But I can't find a numeric listing for spell damage in the spell book (spell book = where you research spells right?), just the text that says up to caster int. Probably missing something obvious here, but could you be even more specific?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
