Increase self-cast potency for caster/communer

The issue I see with this fix, is that in the best-case scenario we would have to recode every buffing spell. That's a sizeable task that would require an immense amount of testing, and would screw over more than have the playerbase if not done correctly the first time. Only there is no way to ensure we do it right the first time, because live testing is the only way we can present changes that actually accounts for all the factors simultaneously.

That's not to say I think this idea is bad. I think it has some merit, and it is certainly one of the ways to solve some disparities. I just don't think it is the best way.

Back on topic:

Classes are balanced around their combination of skills and spells (hereafter called Kit).

Some classes have very defensive kits- The prime example would be healers.  They are balanced around the fact that they have very easy access to a large amount of positive spells.  They pay for this in lack of consistent offence and a high degree of spell up-keep.

Warriors are a very obvious example of an offensive kit - other than their natural defences, they have nothing that can be clearly defined as defensive in their kit.  This is balanced by having very high melee output, access to all weapons and reliable forms of lag.

Using hypothetical numbers we could say that a classes Kit should be worth 10 points.

Lets say that a Battlemage's kit has 7 points in self cast buffs, 1 point in melee skills and 2 points in offensive spells.  (Yes i know I'm pulling the numbers out of my ass - this is to demonstrate a point - not to this specific example.)

If a Warrior is balanced to a Battlemage is also needs to have a Kit worth 10 points.  Lets say a Warrior has 1 point in defensive buffs, 5 points in melee output and 4 points in offensive skills.

This is hypothetically balanced - although you'd need to do some analysis on what constitutes a certain point score in any 1 area.

What has happened consistently over the last few years is that QoL changes have been put in place that improve access to defensive buffs.  You now have a situation whereby:

Battlemage: 10 point kit.

Warrior: 10 point kit + 5 points in Defensive buffs via consumables.

This isn't balanced.

Grim is suggesting that we increase the quality of Self-Cast spells to bump (in this example) Battlemages up to 15 points.  The problem with this is that while it looks balanced on the surface - when warrior's don't have those buffs up them they are suddenly at a big drop.  While this was planned for in the original design, pushing self-cast spells up totally unbalances things, and runs the risk of pushing casters up to much.

There are different ways at looking at balancing things, but personally i believe that inflating stats to balance other inflated stats causes more problems than it fixes - if nothing else it can reach the point where the whole engine needs a recode, rather than a few spells / skills need tweaking.

I'm of the belief that while each individual QoL improvement that was added wasn't a big deal, we've reached the point where as a collective, there is to much access to defensive buffs for classes that can't cast them.  Between new pills that were added, new herbs that were added, spell forging, USEable items that bypass class restrictions there is just to much available for classes that were balanced around not having these things.

If we want to balance we need to go through the Affects list and have an honest conversation about what is essential, and what is nice to have.  Buffs that are unique to a small group of classes via their Kits shouldn't be available via consumables - unless the consumable is self is restricted, i.e rare consumables, or class restricted consumables.

I think there is a series of youtube videos that should be considered to give the absolute minimum level of understanding before anyone talks game design. I see a lot of "simple solutions" to fix "everything" that fall apart under scrutiny. That's not a dig at anyone, or at suggestions themselves. Rather, I think it's that a lot of people genuinely want a better system, but lack the foresight or expertise to create a viable method of doing so.

As I am sure the rest of the staff can attest to, I have been really annoying them all with a push for standardization across everything OLC. It's my passion project. But that is a LOT of work that requires a LOT of considerations be taken into account. It will take a LONG time, even if we can even agree on a system to do so. Anume, Erelei, Zoichan, and myself have been doing this for years, and still have very different ideas on how to tackle the issues. And that's fine, in fact it is desirable. Not only does it give multiple perspectives, but it underlines the very core of designing in video games. There is no perfect system. There is no easy fix. It is a constant effort to keep balance, and shifting too fast or too far in any direction is actually worse than inaction.

Please give this playlist a listen. It's long, but it's packed with very insightful information.

I do not believe it was @f0xx's intent to insult.

One might compare it to the extremely rich saying that the poor have no money because they can not manage I well. 

FTR I can remember a day when @Grim_Reefer was a feared Hunter. He has returned to an environment that he feels may need adjusted and offered his opinion.

While he might be in the 1% right now, lets give him time to find his niche.

Standardization is important and the way to solve this issue of ability inflation, no matter which general path is taken. Although it probably shouldn't take years. Just color the disagreements in your master list and vote on them.

I mean, we aren't talking about 25,000 skills or something. We are talking about several dozen of the most common ones, dispersed over a few hundred items. A staff member can get the list together in a sitting or two, or Erelei can get it in minutes with a script.

Design is just a matter of reaching agreement. If agreement is hard to come by, either change how your organize the list a bit (categories of abilities to tiers, for instance), vote, or get to the core of what the disagreement is about (which is likely the same person for the same reason over many items/abilities). Maybe a couple of weeks to mull over the list to give the less involved staff some chance at input. Don't spend all year organizing how to organize.

Alternatively, just trust your head builder/designer to do their job correctly and skip the committee stage. Use the committee for proofing instead. Hopefully you don't use the committee method for determining how the coder codes, for instance. Heh.

Actual OLC can be done by a single staff member very quickly. Probably in a sitting or two as well. This is almost negligible. Just execute the master list; a 52 can do it.

Release early and often, so the development axiom goes.

+1 to Cel's comment.

I'd also add - don't spend so long trying to get it 'perfect' that you get paralysed on it.

Right now there is a problem, not making a change isn't going to fix it.  Realistically you aren't going to get it right 1st time, no matter how long you spend trying to - its much better to get a release out - realise all the mistakes you made, and get working on them, than to never get the release out.

We are small enough to be Agile here - changes don't need to go through a full CAB and Test function - nobodies bank details are on the line!

For every combination there should be a bane combination.

Seems an easy fix would be to give all psi mages a vulnerability.

Somethings that one combo or another could use to defeat them.

Such as a fury vulnerability, make it last twice as long with an additional 10% break of concentration for one path. 

Let Stone Giants be highly resistant/invulnerable to petrification.

Perhaps cause one of the bard repertoire's vogue to disrupt the psi's thoughts with a chance of forcing them to forget something they memorized.

All that said, kudos to the psi's player, the character would not be so successful without having researched and planned accordingly to be what they are.

Just thinking out loud.

It would take 30 seconds to fix this issue, 2 minutes to 'test' it while being fully reversible within 10 seconds.

Without writing the 2 lines of code for you, open up magic.c and scroll down to obj_cast_spell. Add a check for smana && fmana classes else drop the spell level.

All the sudden casters get full benefits from magical items and consumables while melee classes get a toned down version, wallah. Feel free to add an ifcheck for warmasters so their treats don't take a hit.

UC

I can test it without even logging in.

The problem with that is that level affects some spells differently than others, UC.  Some have increasing effects like warcry and bless, some get increasingly longer durations, like armor and sanctuary.  Yet others get both.

That might work for the spellforged items, but it won't work for consumables, which take their level directly from the consumable itself.  A nymph heart gives L30 cure critical, regardless if the person eating it is L50 or L1.  Herbs should be the same way.

21 minutes ago, Magick said:

I can test it without even logging in.

The problem with that is that level affects some spells differently than others, UC.  Some have increasing effects like warcry and bless, some get increasingly longer durations, like armor and sanctuary.  Yet others get both.

That might work for the spellforged items, but it won't work for consumables, which take their level directly from the consumable itself.  A nymph heart gives L30 cure critical, regardless if the person eating it is L50 or L1.  Herbs should be the same way.

Those are 'objects' casting spells. Objects dont cast at object level, they cast at a defined spell level. Another simple ifcheck that can be added is if the spell level is above 25 to tone it down, or above 40 to max it at 40. etc

And part of the point of the original post were those melee classes (among others) getting the benefits of the same spells (armor, shield, flesh armor, stone skin, etc) at the same power that those mage classes do.  A lot of these spells tend to be the same across the board, independent of level save for duration rather than intensity.  Grim's post addresses the latter, yours the former (and occasionally the latter).

The point was poking at your "30 second and 2 lines of code band aid fix."  Without even testing, you've already had to patch it.

2 hours ago, Unknown Criminal said:

Those are 'objects' casting spells. Objects dont cast at object level, they cast at a defined spell level. Another simple ifcheck that can be added is if the spell level is above 25 to tone it down, or above 40 to max it at 40. etc

It is my understanding the spell forged items cast at the players spell level. 

This was divulged in a prayer discussion with the imms surrounding the minister robes on a high mental spell level character.

I just think it would be a bandaid anyways.  The problem continues to be saves scaling.  Used to you could be a tank, or a dps.  Now you can be both to am effective degree.

Stop assuming how the code works and giving suggestions on how to change it. 9/10 times that’s not the case. 10/10 times I know how to make the change - it’s whether or not that change is necessary or if it’s the best step. 

Continue the discussions and eventually a solution will present itself.

1 hour ago, Erelei said:

Stop assuming how the code works and giving suggestions on how to change it. 9/10 times that’s not the case. 10/10 times I know how to make the change - it’s whether or not that change is necessary or if it’s the best step. 

Continue the discussions and eventually a solution will present itself.

I keep forgetting the code was totally rewritten to do the exact same thing 95% of the time... 

And i wasnt talking about spellforged, that completly destroyed any remaining balance, lol. My suggestion would have just lessoned the affected times of melee classes, so instead of 8 and 10 hour sanctuary they would get 6 typa things.

Ignorance at its best ;)