Re: Spell rebalancing notes/thoughts

>   I gave that class a couple spells:
> firebullet - like magic bullet, this fires a bullet that does damage.  It
> does not explode into a fireball.  Costs 1 sp to cast

I think this is a good move.  It is rough that the low level cold/fire/mana
spells destroy loot when the new player needs it most.

> firebolt - basically same as old ones, just lower damage.  Costs 2 sp to
> cast.
>
>   I figure that for low level spells, when character won't have many mana,
> they should start at the low end of the sp cost.  I also reduced the
> casting time - before, both had a fairly high time, which basically meant
> that at best, you could only cast the spell every other or every third
> tick.  Now you can pretty much cast the spell ever ticket
>
>   But even with that, I found that I was waiting for mana to regen a lot. 
> I suppose this isn't really any worse than fighters waiting for hp to
> regen. Since by the very nature, these are range spells, the wizard should
> ideally kill the creatures before they get next to him, and if they get
> close, fall back, cast again, and so on.

Except perhaps that the savvy fighter finds ways to avoid hp going down,
and the caster cannot avoid spending mana or grace, so be careful of
that comparison, I think.

>   But there are also a couple key points here - one actually needs the
> space available to fall back.  In the newbie tower, once I started making
> progress, I could basic remain beyond the monsters detect range and hit
> them with spells (and once the kobolds are dead, gives an outer circle to

Re: Spell rebalancing notes/thoughts

>   But even with that, I found that I was waiting for mana to regen a lot. 
> I suppose this isn't really any worse than fighters waiting for hp to
> regen. Since by the very nature, these are range spells, the wizard should
> ideally kill the creatures before they get next to him, and if they get
> close, fall back, cast again, and so on.

>   I'm thinking some defensive spell may be in order, so if creatures do get
> close, they get killed.  OTOH, maybe that is part of being a mage - you
> really don't want to be close to monsters.  But many maps don't give much
> choice - go through the exit, and monsters are behind door 2 spaces away.
>
>   Another change I'm thinking of is item destruction.  The firebullet
> doesn't destroy items, but the bolt does.  I'm thinking that maybe bolts
> shouldn't destroy items either - as I see it, bolts are maybe a 1' diameter
> bolt that is 3' or so off the ground as it travels - as such, things on the
> ground shouldn't be destroyed.  Otherwise, especially I think at lower
> levels, using bolts is a pretty big disadvantage because of all the
> treasure it destroyes.

I'd probably add that some kind of movement blocking spell in each magic
class seems like something to consider.  I often am annoyed that I can't
get something like earth wall if I'm the wrong kind of caster.  That sort
of difference is part of what makes it seem wrong to start talking about
blocking the ability to learn new types of magic from what you start with.

Re: Spell rebalancing notes/thoughts

> I'd probably add that some kind of movement blocking spell in each magic
> class seems like something to consider.  I often am annoyed that I can't
> get something like earth wall if I'm the wrong kind of caster.  That sort
> of difference is part of what makes it seem wrong to start talking about
> blocking the ability to learn new types of magic from what you start with.

But then you start losing the class difference.

I'd rather see things like closing doors (so you can rest some if monsters are 
too dumb to open them), or darkness (so they can't see you), or other things. 
Or something like Gaea's thorn wall (trees that hit opponents trying to 
cross).

Nicolas
--

-- 
http://nicolas.weeger.org [Petit site d'images, de textes, de code, bref de 
l'aléatoire !]

_______________________________________________
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@...
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: Spell rebalancing notes/thoughts

>   But even with that, I found that I was waiting for mana to regen a lot. 
> I suppose this isn't really any worse than fighters waiting for hp to
> regen. Since by the very nature, these are range spells, the wizard should
> ideally kill the creatures before they get next to him, and if they get
> close, fall back, cast again, and so on.

Yes, assuming fall back is possible. The harder issue is that sometimes when 
you exit the map monsters get on the exit too, or around, and when you enter 
they just kill you straight.

>   But there are also a couple key points here - one actually needs the
> space available to fall back.  In the newbie tower, once I started making
> progress, I could basic remain beyond the monsters detect range and hit
> them with spells (and once the kobolds are dead, gives an outer circle to
> move in.  But the difficult time was initial assault - after opening the
> doors, kobolds come out eliminating much space to move about.

Meaning the map is bad, maybe? :)
Also, I'm not sure monsters obey the LOS rules, they often seem to spot the 
player behind wall.
That should probably fixed so we can see the global effect of combat reduction 
(like: fire some bullets, flee around some corners, monster forgets you, you 
can regen sp).

>   Another change I made was to give the pyromancer a spell regen bonus -
> this helps reduce the waiting some more.  Rather than that being a force
> (how I instituted it), doing it as a ring may make more sense - player can
> upgrade it, but it also means that they don't really get a bonus if they
> choose a wizard and play it as a fighter (at some point, they'd likely find
> a ring more suitable for a fighter, and thus loose that sp regen bonus)

Re: Spell rebalancing notes/thoughts

Kevin R. Bulgrien wrote:

> Except perhaps that the savvy fighter finds ways to avoid hp going down,
> and the caster cannot avoid spending mana or grace, so be careful of
> that comparison, I think.

  What I really care about is not whether hp/sp/whatever goes down (because as 
mentioned, a clever fighter could perhaps prevent that), but rather total time 
it takes to gain a level.

  The real time it takes for a fighter and mage to gain a level should be the 
same.  If it takes the mage 3 times longer, that needs to be fixed.

  If it does take the same time, and it means the mage is spending 25% of the 
time gaining back SP, that isn't much a problem, especially if the fighter is 
spending 25% of his time getting back HP.

  If a fighter has a tactic to defeat a monster and take no damage, that is no 
problem, as long as he can't do it a lot faster.  For example, right now, I 
suspect a figther using a bow could probably clear out so low level dungeons and 
not take any damage.  But I believe the bow is a slower way of killing things, 
so in the end, while it may be safer, he doesn't get a big advantage.

> 
>>   But there are also a couple key points here - one actually needs the
>> space available to fall back.  In the newbie tower, once I started making
>> progress, I could basic remain beyond the monsters detect range and hit
>> them with spells (and once the kobolds are dead, gives an outer circle to
>> move in.  But the difficult time was initial assault - after opening the
>> doors, kobolds come out eliminating much space to move about.

Re: Spell rebalancing notes/thoughts

Nicolas Weeger wrote:
>>   But even with that, I found that I was waiting for mana to regen a lot. 
>> I suppose this isn't really any worse than fighters waiting for hp to
>> regen. Since by the very nature, these are range spells, the wizard should
>> ideally kill the creatures before they get next to him, and if they get
>> close, fall back, cast again, and so on.
> 
> Yes, assuming fall back is possible. The harder issue is that sometimes when 
> you exit the map monsters get on the exit too, or around, and when you enter 
> they just kill you straight.

  Yes - that can be a problem.  Typically not so much- players move faster than 
monsters, so if they run back to the exit, the monsters will be some spaces 
behind, and give a small gap.  Once you leave the map, monsters will likely just 
stand still.

  But per your other message, being able to close door behind you, etc, would be 
good.

> 
>>   But there are also a couple key points here - one actually needs the
>> space available to fall back.  In the newbie tower, once I started making
>> progress, I could basic remain beyond the monsters detect range and hit
>> them with spells (and once the kobolds are dead, gives an outer circle to
>> move in.  But the difficult time was initial assault - after opening the
>> doors, kobolds come out eliminating much space to move about.
> 
> Meaning the map is bad, maybe? :)
> Also, I'm not sure monsters obey the LOS rules, they often seem to spot the 
> player behind wall.

SVN password reset notice from SourceForge

Announcement from SF website..

(  2008-03-06 14:23:47 - SourceForge.net Web Site  )   In support of
improved security, all SourceForge.net user passwords have been expired
and must be changed upon next login. CVS, Subversion and Shell users
will need to login to the site to change their password before they will
be able to access these services.

http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=2352&group_id=1#1181767103

Re: Spell rebalancing notes/thoughts

>   What I really care about is not whether hp/sp/whatever goes down (because
> as mentioned, a clever fighter could perhaps prevent that), but rather
> total time it takes to gain a level.
>
>   The real time it takes for a fighter and mage to gain a level should be
> the same.  If it takes the mage 3 times longer, that needs to be fixed.
>
>   If it does take the same time, and it means the mage is spending 25% of
> the time gaining back SP, that isn't much a problem, especially if the
> fighter is spending 25% of his time getting back HP.

Somehow, I don't like this definition of "fun"...
But I admit I don't have many ideas of other definitions.

>   If a fighter has a tactic to defeat a monster and take no damage, that is
> no problem, as long as he can't do it a lot faster.  For example, right
> now, I suspect a figther using a bow could probably clear out so low level
> dungeons and not take any damage.  But I believe the bow is a slower way of
> killing things, so in the end, while it may be safer, he doesn't get a big
> advantage.

I'd rather see different classes meaning different tactics and possibly 
different time...

>   Likewise, if the player disappears or isn't around, the monster should
> have an affinity to head back to their home.

Monster IA should be much improved - just need to actually do that.

>   If not sure, I'd say just file a bug on the broken map, so at least it

Re: Spell rebalancing notes/thoughts

> >   If a fighter has a tactic to defeat a monster and take no damage, that
> > is no problem, as long as he can't do it a lot faster.  For example,
> I'd rather see different classes meaning different tactics and possibly
> different time...

I tend to agree with Nicolas here. It is not a problem if it takes longer to 
gain a level as an X than as an Y. But that would need to be balanced by a 
high level X being more powerful than high level Y, otherwise I don't see 
many people playing X at all. OTOH, perhaps even that is not a problem: in 
many fantasy worlds, being a powerful wizard takes decades of study, whereas 
becoming a powerful fighter is much faster. It's also quite logical: a 
60-year fighter won't be quite so agile and enduring as a 30-year old, 
whereas in a wizard, the age is not so much of an issue. But since we do not 
have character ages in the game, I'm not sure how applicaple this is.

-Juha

--

-- 
		 -----------------------------------------------
		| Juha Jäykkä, juolja@...			|
		| home: http://www.utu.fi/~juolja/		|
		 -----------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
crossfire mailing list
crossfire@...
http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire

Re: Spell rebalancing notes/thoughts

Juha Jäykkä wrote:
>>>   If a fighter has a tactic to defeat a monster and take no damage, that
>>> is no problem, as long as he can't do it a lot faster.  For example,
>> I'd rather see different classes meaning different tactics and possibly
>> different time...
> 
> I tend to agree with Nicolas here. It is not a problem if it takes longer to 
> gain a level as an X than as an Y. But that would need to be balanced by a 
> high level X being more powerful than high level Y, otherwise I don't see 
> many people playing X at all. OTOH, perhaps even that is not a problem: in 
> many fantasy worlds, being a powerful wizard takes decades of study, whereas 
> becoming a powerful fighter is much faster. It's also quite logical: a 
> 60-year fighter won't be quite so agile and enduring as a 30-year old, 
> whereas in a wizard, the age is not so much of an issue. But since we do not 
> have character ages in the game, I'm not sure how applicaple this is.

  A lot of this is balancing act.

  My own thought is I'd much rather a level 50 fighter be same power as a level 
50 priest which is same power as level 50 mage.

  I think balancing that is going to be easier than a level 50 fighter is same 
power as level 30 cleric which is equal to level 40 mage.

  And when comparing power, it means these characters are going into the same 
dungeons, fighting the same monsters, etc.  If the mage is limited to dungeons 
not as tough, then clear that comparison doesn't hold

  There are lots of reasons I think have equal level is good.  Some of the quick 
one is HP (which is tied to level) - becomes tough if some characters have 30%