My point of view; choose a pattern to follow

[SirLancelot]

Hello, Demivrgvs, i have been perusing your new spell descriptions and i cannot figure out what pattern are you following to do the spell modifications. I see that you mainly try to rebalance all of them, but i think it would be interesting if some specific tendencies could rule the scenario.

 

I think these are some tendencies worth to consider: (there are probably more, but it seems my mind refuses to work)

 

1) Make *all* the appropiate spells level scalable. This is particulary useful if you want computer high level mages to be a real threat until they're killed even if they only have low level spells left.

 

2) Make *all* the spells powerful just inmediatly after reached the required level for learn them, or for bizarre strategies, or for some specific stages of the character development. I'm more inclined towards the first option, because useless spells already exist and make the game both more predictable (when facing the AI) and impoverished.

 

3) A combination of the two systems commented above. Vanilla BG already works this way, but you can make your own version, and in fact, it seems what SR is doing right now.

 

Another general tendency should be to decide if you want most spellcasters to have less powerufl spells than raw BG ones, the same, or more powerful. If you choose the former, obviously you should nerf the overpowered ones instead of boost the underpowered. But it seems you have already set yourself more or less in the second tendency. I would vote for the first, cause high level spellcasters are too much of a demigod, while high level fighters type, are not.

 

And yet another thing to consider. Each time you plan to modify a spell, don't forget that what can be a marvellous tweak to improve the player gaming experience and tactical posibilities, it can be not so good to the AI effectiveness, scripting, and so on. So always take into consideration both the PC and the computer.

 

PS: Have you seen Galactycon Spellpack? Take a look at Galc work!

[Icendoan]

What exactly do you mean by scalable? I beat ToB solo with a sorcerer using no damaging spells most of which are level 5 or lower. This is before SR.

 

I only used 2 other spells that were higher than level 5, which is Summon Planetar and Mordenkainen's Sword in Sendai's lair, bloody magic resistant buggers.

 

So, the power of a mage is not inherently within the power of the spell, but of how intelligently it is used. For example, I could use Greater Malison, Doom and then Wail Of The Banshee, which is one of the most powerful AoE death combinations possible in the vanilla game. Or, I could use Doom, Greater Malison and then Mordenkainen's Sword, all of which are very powerful spells, especially the latter, but I would have wasted 2 rounds before my sword would chop things up.

 

The second point seems to also need this answer.

 

I also do not think he has revised any mods, because that would be a) copyright infringement of the modder's work he is revising and b) one hell of a lot of work that nobody is really bothered about

 

Icen

[Miloch]

What exactly do you mean by scalable?

I think he's talking about spells with multiple headers that get more powerful as you increase in level. But as far as vanilla BG1 having such spells, they are few and far between (something they improved for BG2 and therefore Tutu/BGT). In fact, I patch various BG1 spells to make them this way - something that was driving me insane before I figured out how to clone and replicate headers via macros etc.

[SirLancelot]

I also do not think he has revised any mods, because that would be a) copyright infringement of the modder's work he is revising and b) one hell of a lot of work that nobody is really bothered about

 

I misused the word "revised". I just meant to see its content.

 

I will answer to the rest of your reply tomorrow, now i go to sleep.

[Demivrgvs]

1) Make *all* the appropiate spells level scalable.

I do intend to do so when needed/possible/appropriate. SR's Color Spray and Sleep are good examples, but I'm not sure "all" spells need it.

2) Make *all* the spells powerful just inmediatly after reached the required level for learn them

Spells should be powerful as soon as you get them, and then they should remain somewhat useful at any stages of the game.

3) A combination of the two systems commented above. Vanilla BG already works this way, but you can make your own version, and in fact, it seems what SR is doing right now.

SR probably does a combination of two systems, though I'll probably work toward the former (especially for low-mid level spells).

PS: Have you revised Galactycon Spellpack? Take a look at Galc work!

I won't revise his work, which is brilliant but quite different from SR. Some ideas/implementation are really great (e.g. Mislead), and I'll eventually work to implement them in SR, but our goals are slightly different.

[Miloch]

PS: Have you revised Galactycon Spellpack? Take a look at Galc work!

I won't revise his work, which is brilliant but quite different from SR. Some ideas/implementation are really great (e.g. Mislead), and I'll eventually work to implement them in SR, but our goals are slightly different.

I would suggest that if SpellPack has a spell that's even remotely like what you envision for SR, that you skip modding the spell in SR altogether, rather than copying it or implementing a version that may only be marginally different. That way, someone can install both SR and SP without wondering which version of each spell they'd like, and so on.

 

Also, if you're doing similar things with projectiles, you're going to end up with duplicates as we discussed previously, unless you use some fairly intense code to try to avoid that. It makes more sense to me to have spell mods that focus only on doing certain things (and doing them well) rather than trying to cover everything and being jacks-of-all-trades (and masters of none).

[SirLancelot]

I have edited my first message to add another query.

 

QUOTE (Icendoan @ Aug 11 2008, 06:08 PM)

What exactly do you mean by scalable?

I think he's talking about spells with multiple headers that get more powerful as you increase in level.

 

I'm talking about make spells that are pointless at most situations of the game when you reach a certain level of experience or chapter, useful. And also about make them more or less significally/deadly depending on the level of the character/creature, which should benefit balance even more. These changes applies both for the PC and the computer.

 

And yes, i was thinking on Miloch method, in fact, i do quite the same with NI when starting a new game. But i guess it is not so important how you achieve it.

 

I only used 2 other spells that were higher than level 5, which is Summon Planetar and Mordenkainen's Sword in Sendai's lair, bloody magic resistant buggers.

 

Mordenkainen's Sword is the typical spell that is useful from the time you can memorize it to the end. In fact, it's better than most of the other level 7 mage spells, which means, depending of your conceptual decisions, that you should either nerf it to match the other level 7 spells power, or leave it untouched.

 

Furthermore, if you decide to nerf it, you have to choose between two options.

 

1) Make it less significative by globally decrease its power, or

 

2) Make it level scalable (trough headers) with a low level spell cap

 

 

So, the power of a mage is not inherently within the power of the spell, but of how intelligently it is used

 

I was talking about the computer mage when he/she is running out of spells, that is, with most of his/her memorized spells wasted.

 

No combos can be released when only a Fireball and two Burning Hands remains.

[Icendoan]

It doesn't matter, I wasn't using the sword to it's full extent, I was Imp hasting it and wiping through areas, even if you decreased duration, it would have made no difference.

 

Icen

[SirLancelot]

It doesn't matter, I wasn't using the sword to it's full extent, I was Imp hasting it and wiping through areas, even if you decreased duration, it would have made no difference.

 

Did i say anything about duration or any other specific nerf? Once the conceptual decisions have been made, it is time to open discussion. That's my point of view, at least.

[Icendoan]

But that is the most obvious nerf to me, the other would be removing some other immunities. Which, would be weird in an RP sense, its a floating sword.

 

Icen

[Demivrgvs]

I've moved here the reply to a post of yours in "SCS AI and SR"

 

So, if i understand you correctly, you want to:

 

1) Don't modify the average power of the spellcaster's spells, just rebalance the overpowered and underpowered ones either nerfing or boosting them.

 

2) Achieve the first tendency through the level scalable method and/or making the difference between high and low level spells more noticeable.

 

3) Make each spell equally powerful to the rest of the spells of the same level.

Mostly correct.

 

I mostly concurr, but regarding 1), i would consider downgrade spellcasters power without decrease AI effectiveness a single bit. This change would encourage players to avoid the overuse of spellcasters while forcing them to play wisely. Am i going too far, maybe?

What do you mean by that? Having PC's spells tweaked differently than enemy's ones? If so, I wouldn't do such a thing.

 

Another general tendency should be to decide if you want most spellcasters to have less powerufl spells than raw BG ones, the same, or more powerful. If you choose the former, obviously you should nerf the overpowered ones instead of boost the underpowered. But it seems you have already set yourself more or less in the second tendency. I would vote for the first, cause high level spellcasters are too much of a demigod, while high level fighters type, are not.

Actually, I would opt for the former too, but most spells are "set in stone" by PnP and/or general consensus, thus I only align the others to these.

 

Some powerful spells "nerfed" by SR include Horrid Wilting (less damage, not affecting undead creatures), Simulacrum and Project Image (many possible exploits are now blocked).

[SirLancelot]

What do you mean by that? Having PC's spells tweaked differently than enemy's ones? If so, I wouldn't do such a thing.

 

No, same tools for both sides. I have to think about it. There are some spells that really make mages unstoppable. The more important ones are those whom benefit the player more than the computer due to unavoidable IE engine limitations, cause that's unfair.

[SirLancelot]

Actually, I would opt for the former too, but most spells are "set in stone" by PnP and/or general consensus, thus I only align the others to these.

 

I understand, although some workarounds have merit

 

Some powerful spells "nerfed" by SR include Horrid Wilting (less damage, not affecting undead creatures), Simulacrum and Project Image (many possible exploits are now blocked).

 

I will take another look at these. Just checked them briefly.