Wizard changes: Picks & retorts

[Catwalk]

Woooow! We're getting enthusiastic here!

Yes, I could do that too.

To be clear, what is your reason exactly to prefer this?

Anyway, there would be 2 ways that I could go about it.
Catnip.exe could be a graphical Windows/Linux application that would kick off DOSBox with a stripped MAGIC.EXE.
Or Catnip.exe could be a DOS application with a text interface that would kick off the stripped MAGIC.EXE.

Both have their obvious advantages and disadvantages.
What then would be preferred?

If you can steal graphics from magic.exe, that'd be beyond awesome. Definitely my preferred option. And yes, being able to tweak config values is very much to be preferred. I'm working on a table like the following (incomplete) one:

Code:

books | C | T | U | T | R | T | VR| T |
1     |002| 3 |000|   |000|   |000|   |
2     |012| 3 |001|   |000|   |000|   |
3     |112| 4 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
4     |122| 4 |---|   |---|   |--1|   |
5     |233| 5 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
6     |242| 6 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
7     |251| 7 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
8     |351| 8 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
9     |441| 9 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
10    |55-|10 |1--|   |---|   |---|   |
11    |64-|10 |2--|   |---|   |---|   |

[I like Serena]

If you can steal graphics from magic.exe, that'd be beyond awesome. Definitely my preferred option. And yes, being able to tweak config values is very much to be preferred. I'm working on a table like the following (incomplete) one:

Yes, I can steal graphics from MoM in general as you can see in the Tweaker.

And as far as I'm concerned your table would be in the catnip-config-file literally as it is now.

[Catwalk]

That'll be perfect then, thanks a bunch. Remind me to get started on actual changes for the Catnip 2.0 release soon, I'm [strike]procatstinating[/strike] procrastinating something fierce.

[kyrub]

We're back at point 0. I find myself dissatisfied with the ideas developped within the scheme / table. I know it can change a bit, but the problem is substantial, not quantitative.

Thesis:
The way MoM 1.31 setup works, drains a lot of decision making from the early game. Catnip goal is to enrich decisions variety and decision making - I hope we agree on this.

Diagnosis
The 1.31 makes the mistake of giving spells straight to the player. Early on, you should ask, whether you will a) build up your skill, b) research that spell, c) support that magic spirit or whatsoever. 10 turns later, you ask yourself similar questions. What is the right initial sequence? How do I react to unknown circumstances? An opponent declares war, do I have a battle spell? This is where the best strategies shine. MoM is surprisingly out of depth here, compared to other titles.

Should Catnip fall in the same trap, it becomes yet another disapointing mod. Grr. The problem is, it seems, that 11 books are quite a lot. The original stretches the scale. There should be a tangeible difference between 6 and 11. Which one? Not straight spell gifts, please! I cautiously like the guaranteed spells idea, but it's hardly enough difference on its own. Price reduction is important. Research reduction, on the other hand, is a bit irrelevant, because you receive what you want immediately.

Suggestion:
- Conserve price doscount
- Get rid of research discount. Leave (bigger) research bonuses to wizard traits (chaos mastery, sage master, conjurer etc).
- Instead of giving N spells, give a big 50% research discount for N first researched spells, for all rarity levels. Players with higher numbers of book will get quickly higher number of spells, giving them potentially much more power.
- Maybe really give 1 or 2 spells to highest levels.

N could be equal to the number of books in a colour.
For 10 books, the player receives 1 common spell immediately.
For 11 books, the player receives 1 uncommon spell immediately.


This opens a whole new strategical area. You can research rare and very rare spells earlier, if you choose enough books. On the other hand, by doing so, you leave yourself exposed. All the time, it is your decisions, in the concrete game situation, that count.

[Catwalk]

We're back at point 0. I find myself dissatisfied with the ideas developped within the scheme / table. I know it can change a bit, but the problem is substantial, not quantitative.

Thesis:
The way MoM 1.31 setup works, drains a lot of decision making from the early game. Catnip goal is to enrich decisions variety and decision making - I hope we agree on this.

Very much so.

Diagnosis
The 1.31 makes the mistake of giving spells straight to the player. Early on, you should ask, whether you will a) build up your skill, b) research that spell, c) support that magic spirit or whatsoever. 10 turns later, you ask yourself similar questions. What is the right initial sequence? How do I react to unknown circumstances? An opponent declares war, do I have a battle spell? This is where the best strategies shine. MoM is surprisingly out of depth here, compared to other titles.

Should Catnip fall in the same trap, it becomes yet another disapointing mod. Grr. The problem is, it seems, that 11 books are quite a lot. The original stretches the scale. There should be a tangeible difference between 6 and 11. Which one? Not straight spell gifts, please! I cautiously like the guaranteed spells idea, but it's hardly enough difference on its own. Price reduction is important. Research reduction, on the other hand, is a bit irrelevant, because you receive what you want immediately.

Agree somewhat, but I don't understand your opposition to getting a few starting spells. I don't mind lowering the amount, but I think 1 common for 10 books and 2 for 11 books is underboard. Maybe it's best to not give out uncommon spells, though.

Suggestion:
- Conserve price doscount
- Get rid of research discount. Leave (bigger) research bonuses to wizard traits (chaos mastery, sage master, conjurer etc).
- Instead of giving N spells, give a big 50% research discount for N first researched spells, for all rarity levels. Players with higher numbers of book will get quickly higher number of spells, giving them potentially much more power.

This opens a whole new strategical area. You can research rare and very rare spells earlier, if you choose enough books. On the other hand, by doing so, you leave yourself exposed. All the time, it is your decisions, in the concrete game situation, that count.

I don't mind differentiating so research bonuses are elsewhere. But I don't understand the last idea. How's this going to help you get rare and very rare spells earlier? By the looks of it, you'll get a discount on the cheap spells and be stuck paying the full price for the expensive ones. Plus it's a confusing system which will have to be coded and explained. I don't see any big advantages here. ILSe, what are your thoughts on starting spells?

Second draft:

Code:

books | C | T | U | T | R | T | VR| T |
1     |--2| 2 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
2     |-11| 2 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
3     |-12| 3 |--1|   |---|   |---|   |
4     |-21| 3 |---|   |--1|   |---|   |
5     |112| 4 |---|   |---|   |--1|   |
6     |121| 4 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
7     |122| 5 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
8     |213| 6 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
9     |223| 7 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
10    |233| 8 |---|   |---|   |---|   |
11    |37-|10 |---|   |---|   |---|   |

[Catwalk]

Another thought: Should we change how starting skill is calculated?

[kyrub]

How's this going to help you get rare and very rare spells earlier? By the looks of it, you'll get a discount on the cheap spells and be stuck paying the full price for the expensive ones.

No.
An example: You choose 3 books in Life. You research Heroism, Just Cause for 50%. Now, you are about to use your last discounted research point (in LIfe realm). Will you
a) go for Dispel Evil, because your Death opponent has just DoWed on you and his Shadow demons are close?
b) do a gambit and research Invulnerability for 50%, e.g. quickly?
c) research Healing because with it you can take a nearby node with your hero immediately?
d) decide to go, totally mad, for Crusade (about 100 turns with the discount) because you are a Warlord

[Catwalk]

No.
An example: You choose 3 books in Life. You research Heroism, Just Cause for 50%. Now, you are about to use your last discounted research point (in LIfe realm). Will you
a) go for Dispel Evil, because your Death opponent has just DoWed on you and his Shadow demons are close?
b) do a gambit and research Invulnerability for 50%, e.g. quickly?
c) research Healing because with it you can take a nearby node with your hero immediately?
d) decide to go, totally mad, for Crusade (about 100 turns with the discount) because you are a Warlord

I understand what you're saying now. I still think you're somewhat crazy How would you represent this system in-game? And how are you going to make Crusade available that early? There's still the limit of two pages in the spellbook to choose from.

[kyrub]

Second draft:

Better, but: Very little difference between the books for me. Why should I take 7 books over 6? Tell me one reason.
And the table is super confusing, over complicated. I'd really love to have a simple model. I feel I am growing desperate again. Can we actually find a common model? What are the priorities for you?

My priorities:
1) "Research from the scratch". leaving as much decision as possible to the game part
2) "Opinionated choices". Make a tangeible difference between each book choice, make it count. Why this and not that?
4) Relatively simple general rules. This is a bonus, but I would love it.
7) Conserve some "gambit" feeling to the highest number of books.

Another suggestion, to show the direction (for me) :

Code:

GENERAL RULES
- max 10 books in a realm
- 11 picks for wizards
- 50% of the spells in a rarity bracket (rounded down) are guaranteed
   to be available for research

1.... you may evantually learn all common spells (exchange, lairs)
                2-0-0-0
2... uncommon            4-1-0-0
3.... rare            6-2-1-0
4.... very rare            8-4-2-1
5 .... 10%             -6-3-2
6.... 20%             -8-4-3
7.... 30%               -6-4
8.... 40%               -8-6
9.... 50%                 -8
10 .. gambit, you get 1 common + 1 uncommon spell straight away.
             (all spells available)

Examples:
You choose 6 books in a realm.
- You get 20% casting and research discount.
- You automatically can research all common spells.
- You choose 4 uncommon, 2 rare, 1 very rare spells you are guaranteed to research. Other 4 unc, 2 r, 2 vr spells are selected randomly.

You choose 7 books in a realm
- You get 30% casting and research discount.
- You automatically can research all common and uncommon spells.
- You choose 3 rare, 2 very rare spells you are guaranteed to research. Other 3 r, 2 vr spells are selected randomly.

You choose 3 books in a realm
- No bonuses.
- You may get all rare spells from exchange or lairs.
- You choose 3 common, 1 uncommon spells you are guaranteed to research. Other 3 c, 1 unc, 1 r spells are selected randomly.

[Catwalk]

Better, but: Very little difference between the books for me. Why should I take 7 books over 6? Tell me one reason.
And the table is super confusing, over complicated. I'd really love to have a simple model. I feel I am growing desperate again. Can we actually find a common model? What are the priorities for you?

My priorities:
1) "Research from the scratch". leaving as much decision as possible to the game part
2) "Opinionated choices". Make a tangeible difference between each book choice, make it count. Why this and not that?
4) Relatively simple general rules. This is a bonus, but I would love it.
7) Conserve some "gambit" feeling to the highest number of books.

Another suggestion, to show the direction (for me) :

Code:

GENERAL RULES
- max 10 books in a realm
- 11 picks for wizards
- 50% of the spells in a rarity bracket (rounded down) are guaranteed
   to be available for research

1.... you may evantually learn all common spells (exchange, lairs)
                2-0-0-0
2... uncommon            4-1-0-0
3.... rare            6-2-1-0
4.... very rare            8-4-2-1
5 .... 10%             -6-3-2
6.... 20%             -8-4-3
7.... 30%               -6-4
8.... 40%               -8-6
9.... 50%                 -8
10 .. gambit, you get 1 common + 1 uncommon spell straight away.
             (all spells available)

Examples:
You choose 6 books in a realm.
- You get 20% casting and research discount.
- You automatically can research all common spells.
- You choose 4 uncommon, 2 rare, 1 very rare spells you are guaranteed to research. Other 4 unc, 2 r, 2 vr spells are selected randomly.

You choose 7 books in a realm
- You get 30% casting and research discount.
- You automatically can research all common and uncommon spells.
- You choose 3 rare, 2 very rare spells you are guaranteed to research. Other 3 r, 2 vr spells are selected randomly.

You choose 3 books in a realm
- No bonuses.
- You may get all rare spells from exchange or lairs.
- You choose 3 common, 1 uncommon spells you are guaranteed to research. Other 3 c, 1 unc, 1 r spells are selected randomly.

Your table is no different from mine, just other values. I don't mind tweaking them a lot, this is still a draft. I gather from your points that you want few books to yield less relative to more books. I have no major objection to that, that's the direction I was going with the second draft. Details can be discussed lots, I assume we can agree on the general system of having a table with starting, guaranteed and random for each bracket. I'd much prefer keeping the 5% progression rather than 10%, though.