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?
I'm starting to think that squads having DEF equal to (individual unit DEF * NumberOfTroops) is a mistake. What do you guys think about this?
I get that def is all you have but it should be halfed or quartered for magic resist puproses because phsical and magical damage just aren't the same and magic is less common. You could even that magic would be AMPLIFIED in some cases (lighting based attacks on metal armor...should cook troops *evil grin*). You need to abstract things and aren't going to go into the detail of electric vs metal...but still. Def values skyrocket in a hurry in the game and that all but nullifies already weak magic.
Not to mention, the main topic of this thread is the fact that shards seem to be broken and not amplifying magic damage.
I totally agree but that's a topic for another thread. Party/squad/etc units are insanely/ridiculous/indestribably overpowered and there needs to be some rational means to their behavior, like this ^
On the melee balance side, doing it where defense = 1 unit and attack = all units summed up means that defense quickly becomes worthless. So I would rather defense stacks up per squad else it will be near impossible to balance defense for 1 vs 16 person squads.
I guess if you can write the attack code to do 1 swing per unit vs defense it could work out though.
Well I don't mind having intelligence vs defense to see if a spell hits. However as was pointed out, that would make fully armored units impossible to hit.
Therefore I propose using The caster's intelligence times his level (so a lvl 7 caster with 15 intelligence would have a 105 hit chance vs whatever the target's defense is.
I think this is a mistake, too, but that squads having an ATT equal to (individual unit ATT * NumberOfTroops) is a mistake, too, in my opinion.
As many have already suggested it would be perhaps better to roll with the ATT of every unit in the squad against the DEF of every unit in the squad.
The damage part is very good.
The to hit part not. Due to defense stacking when creating parties and bigger units a sovereign wont be able to hit simple troops. Even parties equiped in leather will have 20+ defense. And it goes only up from there.
Do simple units have a DEX score? Maybe check INT vs (DEX + Level). Just an idea.
Not to be an ass (well, i am most times), but that problem is known since BETA. There have been a score of posts that the combat system is a bit problematic.
See this post for a discussion about the problematics:
https://forums.elementalgame.com/392412/page/1/#replies
Agreed, I'm faintly irritated that this is coming to light now again, when it was brought up repeatedly in beta
But yes, in short - STACKS of troops should be multiple INDIVIDUAL combat rolls. 3 party members? 3x attack/def rolls. Same deal for 6 member stacks.
Just like in MoM, this also has the effect of differentiating single, strong creatures against small armies that work together as a unit. It also opens up the possibility of traits that allow multiple attacks for single creatuers etc.
It also prevents defense and attack values from balloning out of control.
LikeTheWhirlwind: Just wondering, are these changes far ahead in time? Because if they are, I hope you guys will try and fix the current problem so that shards do amplify damage in manual tactical battles. I see now that the max damage listed in the spell book during tactical battles is reflecting the doubling of damages that shards should do, however this is not actually reflected in the damages that are done in combat. Computing the average over several attacks reveals that there is no difference between having a shard and not, even though the spell book listing shows that it has doubled. So apparently the correct value is making it's way into both the spell book and into auto-resolve, but not into manual battles.
I really hope this is slotted into the next patch, since as a mage-lovin' auto-resolve hatin' gamer it's kind of a big deal to me
This is a mistake and it should go by figure in the stack.
Further DEF as one unified stat has *got* to go. You will never have "deep combat" with ATK/DEF vanilla.
We need the piercing/slashing/blunt/fire/ice/water/air/poison/etc... vareigated damage types with associated defenses simply to reach the gaming industry basic standards for even simple RPG or fantasy combat types. Real Time Point and Click fests have this, so TBS games should be more in depth, not less or why even bother with it?
Even Mount and Blade's extremely Low Fantasy system has more damage and defense variety right now.
It does seem a little much. But just having (individual unit DEF) would be too weak.
What about (individualUnitDEF + (individualUnitDEF / DEFfactor) * (NumberOfTroops)) where DEFfactor is a variable that defaults to say 10 but can be affected by objects/tiles/stance. So putting the unit into a fortification stance makes DEFfactor = 8.
I would like to add to this debate that Magic attack should be:
INT vs INT for it's hit roll.
INT this way relate to magic in attack as well as defense. That make more sense to me...
The ATK of a squad is displayed as (individual ATK * NumberOfTroops) but thats not how it gets used in the damage roll. Each troop does a roll from 0 - (ATK/NumberOfTroops). This is another area where our UI doesn't communicate to the player very well.
In tactical at game start I miss 0 def creatures a fair bit. Magic is just borked with tactical combat, that's the whole story at the moment.
In my experience, magic works relatively well (with shard modifiers) if I automatically resolve combat. Going through several combat logs, I have spells hitting for 130+ damage (the fire spell that is 2X int in damage, coupled with some fire shards) frequently. When I use tactical combat, though, my spells seem to hit for very little.
yeah ofc
having 4 warriors doesnt make them tougher
but most of all the problem is that when they die, they should scale and now they dont
Well this is good to know... I was wondering about this because of how hard a time my archers were having against hard targets. But I definitely believe in the cumulative defense being too good. To compensate though so that squads don't instantly obliterate each other it might be good to have a max number of units that can attack at a time. Some experimentation is probably called for. Also can we have AoE spells apply to each soldier individually. Of course we will then have to rebalance them but it doesn't feel right for squads to be protected from AoE.
EDIT: Wait so does the defender get a defense roll for each attack roll or just one defense roll to counter the attack rolls added together? THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Well you can't really change that without altering the attack formulas too otherwise you'd end up having high attack units just obliterating those groups because they'd have no defense anymore.
To be honest I'd really like to see the stat system completely overhauled into something like:
Offense vs defense = hit chance
Damage vs damage resistance Blunt/Slash/Pierce
Magic vs Elemental resists Fire/Lighting/Cold/etc...
It would add more reason to design your own units and use the different weapon types. It'd also add more weight to the choice of magic books and which spells to research. Generally just deepen the combat system as a whole.
If that isn't in the works, is this something the players could mod in on their own? Or is the combat system hardcoded currently?
Magic should be:
To Hit: Attacker Int vs. Defender Wis
Damage: Spell Damage + Int Modifier + Shard Modifier
Different Spells could also utilize additional Wisdom Modifiers, or use (e.g.) 2x Int, or 2x Shard, or whatever you can think of.
The current character stat 'Essence' should be called 'Wisdom'. Essence should instead be a global stat just like food, and be used differently - but that is a different discussion.
Melee should be:
Unit stats for squads should be displayed and used on a 'per unit member basis', meaning:
A Squad with 5 archers that each have 10 attack, 5 defense, 10 health should display 10(5) attack, 5(5) defense, 10(5) health and both attacks and defenses should be on a per-squadmember basis.
A 5-man squad that attacks does 5 seperate attack rolls (I REALLY want to see 5 arrows flying when a 5-man archer squad attacks), however, because these 5 people work together, there should be an attack bonus (for example 10% per squad member). So, for our example squad, there should be 5 separate attack rolls with 15 attack (10 + (5 x 10%)).
The same 5-man squad should also have separate defense rolls. Each the squad defends, one squad member rolls his defense + 10% per squad-member. If the attack kills the squad member, the next squad-member rolls to defend as well, and receives the remaining damage (modified by his defense roll). For example:
Attacker rolled a 22.
First defender has defense of 8 (5 + (5 x 10%) = 7.5 rounded up to 8). He rolls from 0-8 and gets an 8.
First defender reduces 22 by 8, therefore receives 14 damage. He only has 10 health, so he dies, and 4 damage go to 2nd defender.
Second defender has same defense as first defender (this turn there were still 5 defenders, so he receives the same bonus to his defense roll as the first defender, in subsequent turns the defense bonus would be lower, due to fewer squad members). He rolls from 0-8 and gets a 5.
Second defender reduces the remaining 4 damage by 5 and receives 0 damage.
Thank you very much for the information.
Yeah, it makes it tough. I once chased a company of well armored archers around a map until they ran out of moral, then had four separate units pounding on them for several turns (of mostly misses) before whittling away their 130 hit-points.
As mentioned above, why not have groups get a sort of defense synergy. 5% defense increase per unit, and 10% per experience level, whereby a 12 unit company of elite trained soldiers would have their individual defense doubled. Sort of like a Roman legion versus heathen Barbarian.
A lot of people have already shown some of the numbers problems with balancing INT and Def, but there is a more fundamental gameplay reason why this should not be done:
The critical balance between Might and Magic.
A hero who puts all his effort in to upping his might should have a vulnerability to magic, an area he has neglected. Likewise, a hero who has put all his effort in to his spellcasting is, well, extremely squishy.
This is a necessary balancing mechanism to make each choice meaningful and with consequences. There shouldn't be just one right approach.
If a might focused player can trick out all the weapons and armor, and have that same Def which works against other might heroes also nullify magic heroes spells, it breaks that balance. One solution, Big Shiny Armor, solves both his problems. Meanwhile the Magic hero, with his cloth armor and spiffy staff and rings is still .
When it comes to the second problem of what to roll against to block spells, the right answer is...you don't need to!
Unlike physical damage, spells are already being balanced by a number of other limitations that, when spells can also fail, makes them too weak and unreliable an option. These limitations are:
1. Mana. Mana is in short supply. If a spell is too powerfull, the mana cost can always be raised. Keep in mind that a spell caster without magic is dead, whereas a might hero can always keep attacking turn after turn meaning misses and bad rolls are less devastating. Mana also takes many turns to regenerate further increasing the cost of using it.
2. Magic users are extremely scarce in this game: Hundreds of turns may pass with only 1 person in your empire (your sovereign) able to cast. This makes magic even more critical that it work reliably, because if your sovereign is a mage and his spells fail to work in a battle it can be game over.
3. The only ways to up damage on spells are incredibly difficult and time consuming. Leveling and upping int and gaining shards of the right type being the major ways. On the other hand, weapons for upping attack are really easy to come by. For this reason, the damage curve of a spellcaster as opposed to a warrior is easier to control.
Edit: A spell Resistance attribute that blocks some damage from spells could be good for additional tactics and strategy, i.e SR 10% would block 10% of spell damage. But all units do not need it to start. Certain creatures can have spell resistance, and certain gear as well in exchange for lower defense. Also spells can give resistance, etc., but a standard starting value that can block all spell damage on certain rolls is a bad idea.
For the issue of shards, the benefit for acquiring them needs to be great enough to be worth the expense, because unlike might improvements, shards can be attacked, causing a mage to lose all their power. It costs time, money, and effort getting the land to control shards and that needs a strong enough effect to make attacking them a real strategic option in a game. If they are two weak, no one will care about obtaining or attacking them, which is a waste of a very interesting element of the game.
The best approach would be to use a curved power scale, with bigger power jumps for the first shard or two and lesser benefits as more are acquired. A good curve should avoid brokenness of acquiring lots of shards that might happen later in the game as adventure tech opens up. Something like:
First shard 2x
Second shard 3x
Third Shard 3.5x
Fourth Shard 3.75x
and so on. I'm sure it will need tweaking but the important thing is the shape of the curve.
Also with shards, it's very likely magic will become more differentiated later on. I also see a good chance of players needing to choose spell schools more carefully after further patches; It's too easy to acquire all schools right now making all heroes the same. If more choice and diversification does come in later patches, finding and capturing the right shards may become even harder to do.
Anyway, please keep these ideas in mind as you move forward with your changes. Magic needs a lot of love, but when it starts working it will be good times.
The problem I have with spells missing squades that have higher defense values is this: since dex is the defense stat in this game you can explain try to dodge out of the way of an incomming fireball to "reduce" damage, but it shouldn't be a complete miss. Also when you stack units together, defence go higher as of now, but since the squads are closer packed, it should actually be easier for me to *hit* with a fireball. Imagin shooting a canon at 1 duck in the distance, you might miss, now imagin shooting a canon at 100 ducks in the distance, you are more likely to hit. So the hit chance for spells like fireball should actually go up with more units in a group, especially with aoe spells like infernal, since you can't dodge an area effect spell, where the hell are you going to dodge to when it's everywhere?
didnt read the entire post
found now out if you select auto combat the bonus from shards actually count
on the magic defense subject, just a sugestionyou want to use INT to hit the target, an atribute, then at least make the defensive roll come from another atribute as well, DEX, completely ingoring defense and equipments that do not give more DEX bonuses
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
