Lightning bolt vs eldritch arrow

[Alamar]

Sir_Toejam got it right.

Everyone and their mother complains oh my god Druids are too strong. Give me Lizard raiders please, anything but druids guarding my mine.

Nival nerfs lightning bolt (but allows it to become stronger with higher spellpower) and all of a sudden it's oh my god "lightning sucks" instead of lightning becomes stronger as your hero gets more powerful but druids can't hurt as much.

As said many times the problem isn't lightning bolt it's:

1. Some spells with very high base damage
2. Casting creatures are broken

Be thankful though. Druids could cast Ice Bolt

[Sir_Toejam]

it's funny, but the argument at the core of this thread was what caused me to actually make a mod for myself both to change how spells work and how druids work overall.

for example, I made power even more important by lowering the base damage on some spells (like ice bolt), and increasing the range of effect that expertise and power have on spells (IOW, with NO training in the skill, the damage from spellpower is lower than current, and at expert level, it's slightly higher).

I also lowered the initiative of elder druids by 1 (gives your fast runners and shooters a slightly better chance to score a hit before they can act), and most important, lowered their power rating by 30%. what that does is make them more likely to run when "overpowered" by your forces (it doesn't affect their damage).

I've been playing with this for over a month now, and I find i really like it.

I'm sure the author of this thread wouldn't be interested, as it actually made lightning bolt a tiny bit weaker for those untrained in destructive magic. However, as soon as you get even basic level training, and at least 3 spellpower, it starts to become more powerfull. At advanced level and power level 6 or better, it becomes more powerfull than icebolt from then on.

same thing with fireball vs. frostring.

[Alamar]

One of the big issues with Druids is that they use the ACTUAL lightning spell from the game. [duh]

From a game design P.O.V. what would have worked MUCH better is the druids having their OWN special version of lightning bolt ... call it D-Lightning Bolt for example. If this was done you could very easily make tweaks to the D-Lightning Bolt spell without effecting what happens when the player casts their version of Ligthning Bolt.

IMHO the same thing would apply to ANY spells that a spell casting creature has ... this gives you a far better level of control and far better ways to balance creatures WITHOUT that causing problems for player spell casting.

[Yet another dumb decision brought to you by Nival game design]

[Sir_Toejam]

From a game design P.O.V. what would have worked MUCH better is the druids having their OWN special version of lightning bolt ... call it D-Lightning Bolt for example. If this was done you could very easily make tweaks to the D-Lightning Bolt spell without effecting what happens when the player casts their version of Ligthning Bolt.

hmm. I both agree, and think it might be possible to make a mod to do just that.

you can create "new" spells that utilize the effects of already existing spells. the only question is if you can successfully reference those spells to be used by creatures, but based on initial observation, it seems likely.

I think I'll make that my afternoon project.

edit:

meh, i can create the new spells alrighty, but can't seem to figure out which particular reference table needs to be edited to make them appear when assigned to a creature.

I did find a way to do it that's a bit on the sloppy side, but it works, if anybody REALLY wants druids to have their own spell.

[Alamar]

From a game design P.O.V. what would have worked MUCH better is the druids having their OWN special version of lightning bolt ... call it D-Lightning Bolt for example. If this was done you could very easily make tweaks to the D-Lightning Bolt spell without effecting what happens when the player casts their version of Ligthning Bolt.

hmm. I both agree, and think it might be possible to make a mod to do just that.

Good work man. Maybe with people like you who are willing not just to complain but do something about it we can end up with a far better [unofficial] game.

It's just too bad that these things were not thought through during design and/or development phases. [UGGGG]

[Jolly Joker]

No, I disagree. From a logical point of view Nival's solution makes a hell of a lot of sense. The Heroes, Rangers for the Elves, are basically the same kind of "creature" than Druids or Hunters or even Dancers. A hero is just something special.
The way spells work for creatures is completely logical - number of creatures is the decisive thing for the spell power the spell has and is cast with (you can debate only over the way druid spell power develops with numbers.
The thing here is that when a map begins ONE Druid has the same spell power than an Elven Hero: 1. Cast Lightning Bolt with them and the result is the same and that makes PERFECT sense.
So hero development here is something special, and getting a Ranger some power-ups for power will give him (and his spell), eventually, the same casting power than Lots of Druids. Again, I think that makes perfect sense.
So this is really a point I COMPLETELY disagree with you. Nival has done it perfectly right and sensible. The only things open to discussion are the following two:
a) spell effects (base damage, damage per power point and damage per level of Destructive magic)
b) curve for spell power development compared to number of creatures.

However, the basic principle is perfectly sound.

[DaemianLucifer]

Weird but I agree with JJ.

[ThunderTitan]

While i don't dispute that it makes sense, i disagree that giving the Druids a different formula would be bad.

And remember he said from "a game design P.O.V.", which doesn't really have to make sense in the game world.

A hero is just something special.

And that could cover any number of differences.

[Sir_Toejam]

here's the deal:

I can create exactly 2 spells for custom use for creatures, and then only if you are running HOF. only one "slot" is available for the original h5, unfortunately.

these spells could have any effect, any base level, any power level, can do any kind of elemental damage, and can be area or not.

but only 2 (it's a long explanation as to why, so don't ask).

so, I could create say a custom lightning bolt for druids, and a custom fireball for mages and pitties.

or, alternatively, you could give any creature a completely custom spell that does something entirely different. maybe you want druids to have a weak area-effect lightning spell, for example? Maybe mages cast a chain lighting type spell that does fire damage instead?

anywho, if someone is interested, just go ahead and make a post over in the modcrafting guild forum with what you want, and I can whip it up in a day or so.

cheers

[Alamar]

No, I disagree. <edit> Nival has done it perfectly right and sensible.

How did I know that would be exactly your reaction?

BTW: Before I discuss this further with you I will give you one point ... Your arguement does make sense from a certain perspective!! I wanted to point that out at the beginning of the post because it could be lost elsewhere.

The basic point of my arguement as to why it is a DUMB design decision to tie casting creature spells directly to the exact same spells the player has is that if you WANT/NEED to modify how one spell operates without effecting the other you CAN NOT DO IT in an elegant fashion.

Basically if you want a Sprite's wasp swarm spell to do 3*SP damage and reduce initiative 25% but you want the player's spells to be unchanged then you simply can't do it with the current system.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As to a single druid having the exact same damage as a hero ... that does have nice symmetry. However, IMHO, it is VERY BAD for game play. Reaons to abandon this system are:

1. Heroes are special. As such the abilities of a hero do not need to mirror those of outwardly similar creatures.

2. If you give creature's spells that do significantly more damage than their ranged attacks you create a TON of problems. Basically the creature will either be too strong in short encounters OR they won't be strong enough in longer encounters.

3. Having creature damage being logarithmic is something that's been annoying a large number [majority?] of heroes fans almost since the beginning. Why not just try to patch that up and come up with a system that will begin to heal the rift?

[Jolly Joker]

No, I disagree. <edit> Nival has done it perfectly right and sensible.

How did I know that would be exactly your reaction?

BTW: Before I discuss this further with you I will give you one point ... Your arguement does make sense from a certain perspective!! I wanted to point that out at the beginning of the post because it could be lost elsewhere.

The basic point of my arguement as to why it is a DUMB design decision to tie casting creature spells directly to the exact same spells the player has is that if you WANT/NEED to modify how one spell operates without effecting the other you CAN NOT DO IT in an elegant fashion.

Basically if you want a Sprite's wasp swarm spell to do 3*SP damage and reduce initiative 25% but you want the player's spells to be unchanged then you simply can't do it with the current system.

I can't understand how you can seriously come up with such a point. With most spells there are FOUR different workings possible: one for each level of the magic involved and the fourth for not having a level at all. So it's perfectly possible to do it with the current system.
This is the only point you make because what you say next has got nothing to do with that basic design decision.

As to a single druid having the exact same damage as a hero ... that does have nice symmetry. However, IMHO, it is VERY BAD for game play. Reaons to abandon this system are:

1. Heroes are special. As such the abilities of a hero do not need to mirror those of outwardly similar creatures.

2. If you give creature's spells that do significantly more damage than their ranged attacks you create a TON of problems. Basically the creature will either be too strong in short encounters OR they won't be strong enough in longer encounters.

3. Having creature damage being logarithmic is something that's been annoying a large number [majority?] of heroes fans almost since the beginning. Why not just try to patch that up and come up with a system that will begin to heal the rift?

Your points habe nothing to do with the design system. As I said, you can discuss the exact workings of each spell and the exact formula or way of how a number of creatures generate their spell power.

[nosfe]

Having creature damage being logarithmic ? i don't really care about that, it's got its good points and bad points, but, having a different spell for creatures than heroes would indeed be a good design choice. I'm not talking about another spell, the same spell is good enough just store it's information in a different place so that if you need to change the spell of a creature you can do so without having to think about the impact it would have on the hero's spell.

[Caradoc]

I just scanned this thread, so maybe someone already pointed this out: The Arrow is useful against Lightning-proof or Lightning-resistant creatures. It also helps during the first week or so when you can't can't afford MG-2.

[Corelanis]

Actually its the opposite Arrow is better than Lightning with no skills. I dont like it but Im not a fan of the lightning spells anyway but I havent really used them with mastery. But meh I dont want druids stronger anyway as was said earlier.

[Gaidal Cain]

I can't understand how you can seriously come up with such a point. With most spells there are FOUR different workings possible: one for each level of the magic involved and the fourth for not having a level at all. So it's perfectly possible to do it with the current system.

Yes, and none of them can be used for creatures and edited without changing how they work for heroes as well. Neither of the ways are better a priori, but each have good and bad points depending on what you wish to do- if you have no intention of differentiating between hero and creature spells (and don't want modders to do so), having an extra entry to keep track of is just going to be more work. Hopwever, if you do wish to differentiate, it's much easier with that extra entry.

[Mytical]

Sometimes even with basic and advanced Eldritch is stronger I noticed. In HoF 3rd compain (don't worry not a spoiler) when my hero had Advanced Destructive Eldrich would do like 220 (don't know the exact damage) and Lightning would do 1(60ish?) or some such. So I think only expert may make a difference...havn't checked yet.

[Alamar]

No, I disagree. <edit> Nival has done it perfectly right and sensible.

How did I know that would be exactly your reaction?

<deleted info>

The basic point of my arguement as to why it is a DUMB design decision to tie casting creature spells directly to the exact same spells the player has is that if you WANT/NEED to modify how one spell operates without effecting the other you CAN NOT DO IT in an elegant fashion.

Basically if you want a Sprite's wasp swarm spell to do 3*SP damage and reduce initiative 25% but you want the player's spells to be unchanged then you simply can't do it with the current system.

I can't understand how you can seriously come up with such a point. With most spells there are FOUR different workings possible: one for each level of the magic involved and the fourth for not having a level at all. So it's perfectly possible to do it with the current system.
This is the only point you make because what you say next has got nothing to do with that basic design decision.

Would you at least bother to try to understand what I'm saying. I know it's difficult for you but at least show me the respect of trying to understand what I'm saying.

I'm aware that the current game gives you unskilled, basic, advanced, and expert options. However if none of those do what you want your creatures to do then you either have to take whatever is closest OR you could change what one of the spells does on unskilled, basic, advance, or expert. Of course this also changes what you do for a hero. If you don't want either suboptimal solutions then you're simply HOSED.

I understand that you're not a programmer so you don't know about design per-se but what I'm recommending is a minor design / implementation difference which leaves you with the ability to have far more flexibility in how creature & opponnent spells work. Deliberately picking a design / implentation that doesn't allow for flexibility is just silly.

As to a single druid having the exact same damage as a hero ... that does have nice symmetry. However, IMHO, it is VERY BAD for game play. Reaons to abandon this system are:

1. Heroes are special. As such the abilities of a hero do not need to mirror those of outwardly similar creatures.

2. If you give creature's spells that do significantly more damage than their ranged attacks you create a TON of problems. Basically the creature will either be too strong in short encounters OR they won't be strong enough in longer encounters.

3. Having creature damage being logarithmic is something that's been annoying a large number [majority?] of heroes fans almost since the beginning. Why not just try to patch that up and come up with a system that will begin to heal the rift?

Your points habe nothing to do with the design system. As I said, you can discuss the exact workings of each spell and the exact formula or way of how a number of creatures generate their spell power.

That's why I drew the line between the discussion about design and druids themselves .... jeez this board doesn't like double posts so try to keep that in mind before you flame someone.

[Jolly Joker]

One of the big issues with Druids is that they use the ACTUAL lightning spell from the game. [duh]

From a game design P.O.V. what would have worked MUCH better is the druids having their OWN special version of lightning bolt ... call it D-Lightning Bolt for example. If this was done you could very easily make tweaks to the D-Lightning Bolt spell without effecting what happens when the player casts their version of Ligthning Bolt.

IMHO the same thing would apply to ANY spells that a spell casting creature has ... this gives you a far better level of control and far better ways to balance creatures WITHOUT that causing problems for player spell casting.

[Yet another dumb decision brought to you by Nival game design]

Actually this is the post that got me going. You call things in it a (nother) dumb decision by Nival game design. With the same right I call this post of yours yet another dumb know-it-all-better post. That means, I'm flaming you the same way you flame Nival and I don't think that's too impolite because you are setting the tone here.

My point is simply, that from a game design pov there should no difference whatsoever between spells (not abilities working like spells like Stor´m Strike), whether they are used by creatures or by the hero.
A simple example for what YOU mean is Assassins' Poison ability and the Decay spell which is quite comparable, but something else completely in game terms.
However, when a unit casts what is called SPELL, especially if it's "creatures" like the heroes, it makes a whole lot of sense that they work alike and things are worked upon by spell power, the way it is.
The system is flexible enough and I have no problem to fit into it anything you want from it.
Of course you COULD make a difference (game designers can do everything), but this way is much more logical and elegant.
The actual task of testers and designers is to set the values of the spells so that it works. However, as has been said, this has more to do with the base damage, the spell formulas and the way the Logarithmic spell power development for creatures work.
I'm pretty sure you can redo things within the current system to fit all purposes.

[DaemianLucifer]

Though Alamar is right here that making a separate spell for creatures is a good thing because it lets you tweak creatures much easier,JJ is right that using the same spell is a much more logical thing to do.Funny thing how ubival uses logical solutions only when they dont make sense gameplay wise

[Sir_Toejam]

That means, I'm flaming you the same way you flame Nival and I don't think that's too impolite because you are setting the tone here.

so, you are officially declaring yourself to be essentially equivalent to Nival?

an insult to Nival is an insult to you, is it?

you take your "job" way too seriously, dude.