SCS balance discussion

[Jarno Mikkola]

Well, I obviously were unclear, I would like the pre-buff component have a limited value of spells, like as if they were activated by a contingency(with level adjusting system), so that's three spells, not 5... and perhaps the worst part is that they'll last too long, as they are all casted at the same exact time.

After all, not even Borba could have a Sequencer, Contingency, Improved Alacrity or the Timestop. Yes, he could have the Minor Sequencer, but that spell only stores 2 to 3 level 2 spells and is level 4 spell that takes a turn to cast, and if we think that he has two turns to cast the spells, he still is able to cast only 3 to 4 spells at most.

[DavidW]

Well, I obviously were unclear, I would like the pre-buff component have a limited value of spells, like as if they were activated by a contingency(with level adjusting system), so that's three spells, not 5... and perhaps the worst part is that they'll last too long, as they are all casted at the same exact time.

After all, not even Borba could have a Sequencer, Contingency, Improved Alacrity or the Timestop. Yes, he could have the Minor Sequencer, but that spell only stores 2 to 3 level 2 spells and is level 4 spell that takes a turn to cast, and if we think that he has two turns to cast the spells, he still is able to cast only 3 to 4 spells at most.

 

Shield lasts 45 rounds, Mirror Image lasts 27 rounds, and the other three last 9 rounds each. So even if the fight lasts 50 rounds, then one spell expires 20% too early, one expires 10% too early, one expires 4% too early and one expires 2% too early. This is not, I submit, a major distortion. (And most battles last 5 or 6 rounds, in which case there's no noticeable effect at all). As for casting time, all five spells have a one-round casting time, so 2 turns is far more than is needed to cast all of them.

 

Of course, if you don't agree with the philosophy behind prebuffing (which is that it simulates the kind of pre-battle preparation that players can do) then the answer, fairly obviously, is: don't install pre-buffing. (Enemy mages will use contingencies, triggers, etc regardless.)

[Guest Krazy]

I don't agree that wizards should have suboptimal choices, though: in fact, I think it's unrealistic. These guys have high Intelligence scores and years of practice. Do you memorise suboptimal spells with your wizards?

 

Oh gosh, no, I'm not suggesting they don't have good spell selections, but nor do I think they need every 'optimal' choice either. Why not have one that doesn't have mirror image but gets the rest for example? I would still bet they would be bad-ass enough.

 

As for SCS II and the BG2 spell system, as far I'm concerned, once you get to mid-levels, anything is fair game within reason (I enjoyed tactics and Ascension), because I feel that whatever spells you give them, you have a chance to counter it. You have means to cope if you have an understanding of the game mechanics and spell system.

 

My problem seems to me that in BG1, and the levels you are at, especially when you give mages Globe of Invulnerability, that you effectively negate the effectiveness of 90% of the spells in the players arsenal. You need level 4 spells to stand a chance, and they are a long time in coming. That's why I perceive the 'unfairness' and call it borderline cheating (although I do accept your point you are playing within the rules), that there is basically nothing by means of a strategy that I can counter enemy mages with.

 

I agree hitting them with melee is optimal, but you know, with things like mirror image and stoneskin, the few attacks per round and the 'inferior' weapons they possess, a +1 long sword is not a good substitute for celestial fury, AND having to deal with the nasty disabling spells they chuck out and probably a buffed up grunt in full plate with a potion of speed/heroism it's not exactly a scenario I enjoy and to my mind is a gamble.

 

And I use the word gamble here, because I reckon in BG2 levels, whatever spells you use assuming an appropriate level encounter, I should have a reasonable chance to come up with a strategy that will enable me to beat it with say a reasonable chance of success with minimal casualties if I replayed the fight in exactly the same way (adjusting for the way the fight is going).

In BG1 with SCS I never feel in control of the outcome, whatever strategy I use.

 

If I'm trotting off to temples all the time, why aren't my enemies doing the same? If I feel the difficulty is pitched such that I have to use my brain, I feel there is a reasonable chance if I apply logic to the 'puzzles' you set out that I can prevail with the occasional loss of a character then your mod has done it's job and you've pitched the difficulty correctly. Likewise nor do I want it still to be a cakewalk. But as it stands with all the options turned on, I don't feel that way and I do like to think I know something of how to play this game (perhaps I don't?). Of course, and no doubt there are players that claim even with everything 'on' it's still too easy. Well, I can only bow down to their either extreme good luck, or god-like ability with the game. Kudos to them.

[vile fairy]

Well, here is one vote for the SCS mages and clerics staying the way they are.

As enemies, they added a great challenge to the game, but not one that would be actually frustrating.

 

The spider web spamming was simply annoying, though, since the webs cluttered the map long after the fight is over.

 

Also, last time I checked the bug with the bounty hunters following the invisible PC like lost puppies was still there.

[DavidW]

I don't agree that wizards should have suboptimal choices, though: in fact, I think it's unrealistic. These guys have high Intelligence scores and years of practice. Do you memorise suboptimal spells with your wizards?

 

Oh gosh, no, I'm not suggesting they don't have good spell selections, but nor do I think they need every 'optimal' choice either. Why not have one that doesn't have mirror image but gets the rest for example? I would still bet they would be bad-ass enough.

 

Sure, I could do that. (In fact, I do, indirectly, since necromancers don't get illusion spells). But I need an in-game justification for mages not doing some given sensible thing - "it makes the game easier" won't do.

 

As for SCS II and the BG2 spell system, as far I'm concerned, once you get to mid-levels, anything is fair game within reason (I enjoyed tactics and Ascension), because I feel that whatever spells you give them, you have a chance to counter it. You have means to cope if you have an understanding of the game mechanics and spell system.

 

My problem seems to me that in BG1, and the levels you are at, especially when you give mages Globe of Invulnerability, that you effectively negate the effectiveness of 90% of the spells in the players arsenal. You need level 4 spells to stand a chance, and they are a long time in coming. That's why I perceive the 'unfairness' and call it borderline cheating (although I do accept your point you are playing within the rules), that there is basically nothing by means of a strategy that I can counter enemy mages with.

I have a degree of sympathy for this, at least if by "strategy" you mean "spellcasting strategy". It is fair to say that for a certain mid-game portion of BG1 (roughly, after you start meeting 7th-8th level wizards but before you get access to arrows of dispelling) then your spellcasters have relatively few options against quite a few enemy wizards. All I can say is (a) there are very few battles in that phase of the game in which your spellcasters have no offensive options (i.e. very few battles where all you're doing is fighting a wizard); (b) it's not as if you don't still have other offensive options (melee, mostly).

 

(In BG2, there are significantly more battles like this. If there were no counters to BG2 mage defences, that would be a more serious problem - but there are, of course.)

 

I agree hitting them with melee is optimal, but you know, with things like mirror image and stoneskin, the few attacks per round and the 'inferior' weapons they possess, a +1 long sword is not a good substitute for celestial fury, AND having to deal with the nasty disabling spells they chuck out and probably a buffed up grunt in full plate with a potion of speed/heroism it's not exactly a scenario I enjoy and to my mind is a gamble.

Deal with the grunt first, that's my advice. Stay scattered so area effects don't catch too many people at once, carry spells like remove paralysis and dispel magic, make judicious use of antimagic potions (Freedom, Clarity, etc). There aren't huge numbers of them, but there aren't huge numbers of tough mage battles either.

 

And I use the word gamble here, because I reckon in BG2 levels, whatever spells you use assuming an appropriate level encounter, I should have a reasonable chance to come up with a strategy that will enable me to beat it with say a reasonable chance of success with minimal casualties if I replayed the fight in exactly the same way (adjusting for the way the fight is going).

In BG1 with SCS I never feel in control of the outcome, whatever strategy I use.

Philosophy differences:

(a)I don't particularly have this as a goal for SCS. I do have as a goal that if you play sensibly and intelligently, you ought to be very likely to win any given battle, but I don't think there needs to be a "perfect strategy". (Nothing wrong with wanting a mod where that's true, but SCS isn't that mod.)

(b)As I've discussed, I don't see any real reason why the PC should always be able to avoid casualties

© Since there's a fair amount of randomisation in SCS (notably in sequencer choices) then in any case a strategy that works one time won't necessarily work the next ... rather like life, in fact!

 

If I'm trotting off to temples all the time, why aren't my enemies doing the same?

Because you don't tend to leave survivors who can retrieve the bodies, I assume.

 

If I feel the difficulty is pitched such that I have to use my brain, I feel there is a reasonable chance if I apply logic to the 'puzzles' you set out that I can prevail with the occasional loss of a character then your mod has done it's job and you've pitched the difficulty correctly.

 

It's not quite that kind of mod. Its philosophy was always "how can I make the existing in-game enemies fight as closely as possible to how they would if they were really intelligent", and then "having done this, how should I tweak it to make it harder when it's still not challenging enough for everyone?"

 

Case in point: I originally wrote it with BG1 spells only, and both my own playthroughs were on that basis. Quite a few people asked for me to include BG2 spells too, so I did. Does SCS now use BG2 spells as intelligently as possible? - I hope so. Does that create the perfectly balanced encounter? - almost certainly not, not least because players vary so much in what they want.

 

I do like to think I know something of how to play this game (perhaps I don't?). Of course, and no doubt there are players that claim even with everything 'on' it's still too easy. Well, I can only bow down to their either extreme good luck, or god-like ability with the game. Kudos to them.

Actually, I'm always amazed at how much variation there is in what people find difficult - components I thought were fairly easy often turn out to be quite hard and vice versa. (It's widely reported that the Improved Kobolds are very hard, which I didn't really expect; conversely, in SCS2 I was quite worried that Spellcasting Kangaxx would be impossibly hard, and actually people seem to sail through it.) There are some players who are clearly incredibly good at this game (much better than me - at least one person's done a no-reload playthrough of SCS), but I think a lot more of the variation is about other things - how relaxed are you about resurrection, how much do you mind reloading, how quickly do you play through battles, how much do you buff and scout, what's your favourite party mix, and possibly lots of other things I don't know about.

 

Thanks for the continuing comments, by the way, and sorry if SCS has been a disappointment. (I think partly I'm the victim of my own flexibility - SCS is very customisable, and it can be hard to know in advance what the right set of options is.)

[Mike1072]

I don't agree that wizards should have suboptimal choices, though: in fact, I think it's unrealistic. These guys have high Intelligence scores and years of practice. Do you memorise suboptimal spells with your wizards?

 

Oh gosh, no, I'm not suggesting they don't have good spell selections, but nor do I think they need every 'optimal' choice either. Why not have one that doesn't have mirror image but gets the rest for example? I would still bet they would be bad-ass enough.

 

Sure, I could do that. (In fact, I do, indirectly, since necromancers don't get illusion spells). But I need an in-game justification for mages not doing some given sensible thing - "it makes the game easier" won't do.

Maybe some wizards gain more thrills out of draining the life out of someone with Larloch's Minor Drain than they do with throwing a bunch of Magic Missiles at them.

 

Just because these wizards have high intelligence, it doesn't make them particularly sane. The opposite almost seems true in the BG series. I don't think we'd want to see spell choices that make no sense because we've decided that wizards are all loonies, but do think most valid-but-non-optimal choices could be explained as idiosyncrasies of the individual wizard.

[jon-eli]

Put suboptimal choices down to human fallibility. Einstein didn't much care for quantum theory, but that hardly made him less of an uber-genius; even though his main reason for rejecting it seems to be that it made him uncomfortable. Even intelligent people are subject to whimsy and irrationality.

 

Would evil characters be more likely to have selfish spells (like stoneskin) than spells that can aid the party as a unit? I'd expect so, yeah. Can you imagine Edwin as a free-thinking party member? Betcha he'd make sure his defenses were dead secure before helping anyone else out. Okay, it's suboptimal; but there's an in-game justification.

 

I'd also suggest that there's really no such thing as an "optimal" way to win a battle. I've successfully (and easily) caned the heck out of the illithid city, with Minsc under Chaotic Commands, and also with a bunch of hasted skeletons, and also with a hasted fighter-thief and a stack of invisibility potions. It's not clear to me that one of those approaches is superior.

 

But these are just random thoughts, rather than actual suggestions. SCS's smarter mages are so much better than the Tactics' ones. Like many, I played Tactics long before SCS came out, and I developed a list of pet peeves with that mod, and was pleasantly surprised with the different approach of SCS (I'll hazard a guess that much of SCS coalesced as a reaction the Tactics formulae).

 

Take care, everyone.

[Ithildur]

I might take the OP's posts a bit more seriously if he didn't make laughable statements along the lines of 'Tactics does not cheat or cheese, but SCS cheats and lies and steals babies!'

 

SCS with bg2 spells is indeed extremely challenging, and the first time I tried it, I too was taken off guard by how hard the wizards (and clerics too, unholy blight, woa!) were suddenly, especially with full pre buffing option installed. It took some adjusting, and quite a few deaths of NPCs and some reloads, before I started to get the hang of it and adjusted my tactics. It's quite doable once you get the hang of it.

 

My current install does not have BG2 spells or pre buffing installed and it's almost too easy to kill mages now (especially with Kivan with the archer kit in my party-extremely powerful in bg1 but it makes sense imo that he's an archer, especially after having played the Kivan mod with BG2), and I'm tempted to turn them back on. The main thing that's holding me back is that I'm attempting a no reload run while trying to play through the game a bit more sensibly from a RP perspective, which means less meta gamish tactics and skipping some loot/xp, and generally less than totally optimal/powergamish choices. To me having rezzes left and right for NPCs breaks the RP oriented approach I'm attempting (in spite of what many CRPG players think, rezzes are not extremely common in DnD in most well run campaigns), so currently I'm settling for a slightly less challenging setup-though as I said, it's a bit too easy and I may adjust.

 

Overall SCS and SCS2 are excellent mods and I appreciate that they in fact DO NOT CHEAT like tactics, and gives a wide variety of options as far as installation of components to adjust for difficulty. The only 2 things I might object to is changing the debuffing spells into AOE spells rather than single target; since the SCS enemy ai assumes this is the case, turning this option off would seem to mean the enemy spellcasters become much less effective, which to me meant I didn't really have a choice regarding this component but to have it installed. Secondly, I do agree sometimes the pre buffs with BG2 spells seem overkill and mechanical; if a slightly less than optimal/more randomized version of this component (ie have all day buffs like SS on, but the wizard might not have had time to put up a minor globe without access to contingencies and such) could be introduced i think it would improve the game balance and the feel of the mod. One of the things that really appeal to me about SCS and SCS2 is that the enemy casters are more intelligent, but there's still a degree of randomness in their spell selections that makes them less than 100% fully optimized munchkins; ie overall more realistic game experience.

[DavidW]

if a slightly less than optimal/more randomized version of this component (ie have all day buffs like SS on, but the wizard might not have had time to put up a minor globe without access to contingencies and such) could be introduced i think it would improve the game balance and the feel of the mod.

Just turn off prebuffing. Enemies will still use longterm stuff like stoneskin.

[Ardanis]

Just turn off prebuffing. Enemies will still use longterm stuff like stoneskin.

I think the point was as mine - with prebuff on they're invincible killing machines (who need a full rest worth of spells and HP to deal successfully with), with prebuff off - pathetic whelps (who fall instantly to weapons that deal additional elemental damage). With no mid option.

 

Again, I haven't played SCS1 yet, so I may be a bit incorrect in my assumptions regarding it, but being both mods made by the same person I suspect that what I say isn't too far from truth.

[DavidW]

Just turn off prebuffing. Enemies will still use longterm stuff like stoneskin.

I think the point was as mine - with prebuff on they're invincible killing machines (who need a full rest worth of spells and HP to deal successfully with), with prebuff off - pathetic whelps (who fall instantly to weapons that deal additional elemental damage). With no mid option.

 

Then I'm not completely sure what you're asking for - I thought it was for enemies who use long-term buffs but not short-term ones?

[Jarno Mikkola]

Then I'm not completely sure what you're asking for - I thought it was for enemies who use long-term buffs but not short-term ones?

Well, if you can build in a sub-component system that would pre-cast the 3 best protection spells(+1... Spell Triggers, Contingencies and the like spells each, but only 1 per opponent) instead of the all of the once they can... just to comment the previous, I meant 1 turn not 1 round(10 turns)!

Or 1 to 4 protective spells depending on the mages level; 1 in BG... 4 in ToB(levels 30+).

 

PS, Timestop is not a protective spell, so no 3 Timestops in a row...

[Ithildur]

Just turn off prebuffing. Enemies will still use longterm stuff like stoneskin.

I think the point was as mine - with prebuff on they're invincible killing machines (who need a full rest worth of spells and HP to deal successfully with), with prebuff off - pathetic whelps (who fall instantly to weapons that deal additional elemental damage). With no mid option.

 

Then I'm not completely sure what you're asking for - I thought it was for enemies who use long-term buffs but not short-term ones?

 

Sorry if I was a bit unclear DavidW. Yes, I think both Ardanis and I are suggesting something similar. ie have all long duration buffs up, but a slightly random choice as far as how many short term buffs they're pre-buffed with, similar to the random coding of offensive spells. I think it's a better (or at least very viable) option game balance-wise and also feels less predictable and more dynamic, if potentially slightly less optimal. It makes sense too, RP wise. Some of the casters may be able to anticipate the party's arrival with remarkable accuracy using divination etc, but maybe not 100% right a 100 % of the time, hence spellcasters occasionally having to hurriedly put up a couple short term buffs but maybe having to skip one due to lack of time, etc. Surprise is supposed to be a huge variable factor in combat; a campaign in which the enemy casters always surprise the party or are always fully prepared really is giving them a huge advantage that doesn't seem to fit the philosophy of SCS's 'play it fair and smart' approach.

 

Again, it's the feature I really like about SCS's offensive spell selection; it's tough, very smart, (infinitely more so than the vanilla game), but also there's a bit of 'character' - i.e. some deliberate random selection of spells/less than 100% optimal every single time/less predictable.

[DavidW]

PS, Timestop is not a protective spell, so no 3 Timestops in a row...

 

I never pre-cast timestop, so this isn't a prebuffing issue. Mages who have multiple timestops do tend to cast them in a row - but that's just good sense.

 

@Ithildur: it's a nice idea in principle. I'll consider it (when I have a chance), though it's a bit of a pain to code.

[Ithildur]

PS, Timestop is not a protective spell, so no 3 Timestops in a row...

 

I never pre-cast timestop, so this isn't a prebuffing issue. Mages who have multiple timestops do tend to cast them in a row - but that's just good sense.

 

@Ithildur: it's a nice idea in principle. I'll consider it (when I have a chance), though it's a bit of a pain to code.

Aye, like all things modding related, easier said (by us) than done (by the hard working modder).

 

FYI I've decided to suck it up and install the prebuffs for enemy spellcasters for now, although I still have bg1 spells only for everyone. I've decided solo wizards especially have to have a bit more protection ready or else they fall over too quick, especially with no stoneskin. Really, I'm surprised at the number of solo low/mid lvl wizards BG1 throws at the party; it's suicidal for wizards to take on parties at lower lvls!

 

Someday I look forward to seeing a slightly randomized version of prebuffs released, but until then...

 

edit: wow, the first fight after installing pre buffs was the red wizard quartet encounter in spiderhaunt woods... and they kicked my party's arse like no one's business. The second time I got em but four out of six were dead. It really does seem quite extreme in that either you have no prebuffs and the mages fall over like flies, or they prebuff and become nearly untouchable... I had my entire party invis btw and positioned perfectly, but to little avail. I know this particular encounter is supposed to be tough; I'm going to give it one more go and see how it goes.