I must say I am still not content with the result. Horrible representation. How can one say, how well is his War Mamoth protected with 9 crosses? Should I cast possession on it? What are the odds, without constant looking in a table? Bad implementation, if you ask me, anti intuitive.
So, while doing my job, I have actually fallen upon another idea that seems much better to me, right now. (I know we are in a phase where ideas should be completed rather than thwron around... bah).
I propose a 3 step change:
using the old vanilla model, 1 cross = additive constant %. Because: it is easy to read.
lowering the constant % to allow wider range. 10% were too big a step, 10 resistance was impeccable. 5% is too small to matter. But 7% seems about right, making resistance of 15 * 7 = 105 impeccable. 1 cross....7%.
use Catwalk's suggestion: To save modifiers can decrease the value of a cross. This way the modifiers are very useful against bigger creatures, less useful against normal units. Rare spells have higher modifiers, allow you to touch bigger foes. This is the right thing for the game development.
Examples:
- let's have a Great Wyrm with 20 resistance. I'll cast a spell on it, with no modifier. 20 * 7% = 140%, there is no chance of touching the Wyrm. Now I have another, very powerful spell, with -3 to save. Blocking chance is 20 * (7-3) % = 80%. The spell can succeed about once in 5 times.
- a swordsmen unit has 6 crosses. You know instantly, that casting Possession spell on it has a chance of (100 - 6*7) = 58%. That is probably too strong, so we may have to increase Possession to +1 or +2 to save. Then we would see 52% or 46% success. - The point, however, is how easy one can count the success rate!
I still like the multiplicative system better, since it prevents total immunity. I don't need to know the exact percent chance of landing a spell when I cast it. I'll just keep in mind that 7 crosses is ~50% and call it close enough.
I have to say I'm not keen on the new system either. Can I think on it a little more and get back to you tomorrow? I think we should just provide a few easy to remember percentages in the help text, such as 1/5 chance of resistance for 3 crosses, 1/2 chance of resistance for 7 crosses and 4/5 chance of resistance for 15 crosses.
(First: I have the multiplicative system ready for Catnip. You wish it, you can have it tomorrow.)
I have these problems with the old system:
1) representation, I'll explain more. For me, it's of utmost significance that a player knows more or less % of success. The game decisions need to have a rational background, I hate games where I cannot see what is going on "behind scenes". Surely, if we had a special success % interface... (impossible for me). Catwalk, OK, but once you throw in -to save, you're lost again.
2) -to save in multiplicative system is almost useless. For crosses > 5 it makes max 5% difference of success, for crosses > 9 max 3%, crosses > 13 2% etc (old to_save method, substracted crosses). Bleh. I was excited by Catwalk's new method (substracting crosses' power), sadly it does not make almost any difference, very similar results to old method (even for big resistances!). Either we double -to save bonuses, or it's nonsignificant. But: if we double the bonuses, how can anybody guess the actual percentage, with -5 to save? Back to point 1)
With additive suggestion, you know instantly what you get. 7% per cross substracted (old method) is much better than anything multiplicative methods give you. To save bonus (new Catwalk's method) makes that 6% or 5% or 3% per cross, very easy to count. Guardian spirit, all your crosses are 8%, easy math. Is prayermaster hero useful for you? - Extra crosses, you know exactly how much it helps. And the 7% numbers sound about right scale for MoM.
Quote:I still like the multiplicative system better, since it prevents total immunity.
Dunhere, I see your point, I thought the same in the beginning. Still, with rebalanced additive model, no creature is totally immune. But you have to find a powerful, probably rare spell with -3 or -4 to save to tackle the really big foes. Is it wrong? It prevents lack of balance or over reliance on early game luck (and subsequently, it prevents reloading to get that unlikely 5% role with a common spell).
(Btw, I could go with additive_model + any resistance spell having a 1% of succes chance, no matter what circumstances.)
kyrub Wrote:with rebalanced additive model, no creature is totally immune. But you have to find a powerful, probably rare spell with -3 or -4 to save to tackle the really big foes.
This statement is true in vanilla as well, but we've already decided that we don't like the way vanilla resists work.
kyrub Wrote:-to save in multiplicative system is almost useless.
If you reverse this one, it's the same as saying increasing crosses is almost useless because each only increases chance to resist 5%, or 3%, or whatnot. While it does reduce the power of -save modifiers, I don't see that as a serious prolem, as a 0% chance to resist a spell is almost as broken as a 100% chance.
Either the extra cross gives you meager +2-3%, or it gives you +7%. How is that same? It's a gulf of difference.
And in vanilla, higher creatures were simply unattainble, unless you used items with big -to save. E.g. very late in the game. So I suggest to allow it in midgame, relatively early, with acquisition of rare spells.
What a comedy of a thread: I invented a concept and now I am trying to convince people it is not good enough.
Just one point:how you will calc the life drain damage?can it drain 25 life per spell?
I just ask about spell-protection:
Resist elements must get about half protection to be useful.Also,melee attack vs. death gaze may be suicide with the new model.
Dunhere Wrote:a 0% chance to resist a spell is almost as broken as a 100% chance.
I think in Dungeons & Dragons there was always a 5% chance (1 in 20) of failure/success even in "sure thing" situations. So perhaps Catnip can use the flat 7% (or 10%) per cross system, subject to a 5% (or 3%?) chance of failure/success even in guaranteed/hopeless situations.
This way players should not be tempted to reload constantly (30x for a 3% chance isn't worth the hassle) yet they know they can try their luck at a long shot anyway if it's already a lost cause. Kind of like a half-court shot (chances are very low but not zero) and a slam-dunk (chances are very high but not 100%). That's what good war stories are made of, after all - triumph against the odds.
Much to my dismay, I'm finding myself leaning towards kyrub's argument :neenernee I don't really want to enhance luck in Catnip, quite the opposite. More pondering required!
In theory, I would always prefer multiplicative model (I even suggested it myself). But when it comes down to actual cross count, -to save, the model does not fit the game. Its scale is wrong: big difference between 1 cross and 2 crosses, micro difference between 10 and 11 crosses, negligible difference between 20 and 21.
If this solution creates too much dissent, I propose this: Since I have both solutions ready, we can put two test alternatives out, Catnip 1.a and 1.b. Short testing will show how the features work. Then we will freely embrace a prevailing decision (or a veto from Catwalk) as our only possible choice. What do you think?
-------
Momfan: 2% or 3% is possible for me, if the community wishes so, I am really indifferent (though I would prefer the simplicity, 0%). It has to be very low chance of happening, because a spell can be recasted many times during a combat.
