Caster of Magic II Game balance brainstorming.

[Seravy]

Testing AI balance and this list are pretty much the only things left before we can shift from Alpha to Beta.

So I'll try to summarize open issues.

1. Crack's Call deals irrecoverable damage which is necessary for gameplay reasons but makes no sense.
We can probably leave this for beta.

2. AI players might not eliminate each other quickly enough.
This will require more playtesting but definitely should be solved in alpha.

3. AI players might make too many alliances
This will require more playtesting but definitely should be solved in alpha.

4. Alliance based war might be too difficult to end or avoid for the human player.
This is related to the above. If we reduce the AI's ability to make allies, it can be solved, as we already reduced the human player's ability to make too many allies. (harsher penalties on refusal of DoW request from an ally)

5. Monsters Gone Wild might hurt AIs too much.
There is a good chance we improved this enough but I had no chance to test it. Either way it's probably safe to leave this for beta.

6. Revolting Raiders is kinda useless.
I think it should be removed as an option and merged with Monsters Gone Wild. Not a priority but easy to do so might be worth doing now.

7. City defense mechanics are not implemented for automatic combat. (walls, etc)
As it has a direct influence on "2." it's best to do it during Alpha, but assuming how bad "2." is it might also be a good choice to not implement them at all.

8. There is no AI scouting
This definitely is post-release feature the earliest if AI scouting ever happens.


X. I think the conclusion to spell trading was that it's ok as is currently?

Y. Eliminating wizards is not rewarding enough?
Not sure what the state of this is. One idea to make it rewarding could be a casting skill bonus, when banishing a wizard, that happens only once and is given to the person who first banished them.

Did I miss anything?

[Anskiy]

I still find it incredibly weird that Nature has the best anti hero spell combination. By all rights that should be a Chaos thing, what with its focus on damage and several armor piercing/ignoring spells.

[Seravy]

I still find it incredibly weird that Nature has the best anti hero spell combination. By all rights that should be a Chaos thing, what with its focus on damage and several armor piercing/ignoring spells.

Chaos is already a threat through a different game mechanic (dealing lots of raw damage) and the various hero counters should be distributed between realms, so each realm can be attacked if you have the appropriate solution to their counters.

Sorcery has Phantom Beast and Mind Storm+Confusion but Illusion Immunity protects from it. (Or you can have high resistance, charmed, and against phantom summons, not go into the enemy half of the battlefield or fly.)
Nature gets Crack's Call but Wraith Form protects from it.
Death has Wave of Despair but Cold Immunity protects from it. (or you can never use heroes in less than 9 unit armies)
Death also has Blood Lust but not going in melee range protects from it.
Chaos deals a lot of damage but having Regeneration or simply enough healing magic protects from it.
Chaos can also cause unblockable confusion through Apocalypse and there is no way to protect a hero against that, you either get luck on your confusion roll to not have the heroes kill each other and then also lucky on dispel magic, or the hero is gone. Making Chaos the only realm that can really counter heroes in a way that can't be blocked.

Looking at the list, Nature actually is the only realm where there is only one good hero counter, the others get two. It's subjective which one is easier to prevent or more dangerous.

[Slingers]

Some thoughts on 2., 3., 4. and X.:
AI players can eliminate each other faster if positive diplomacy effects are reduced and negative effects increased. Strangely enough, the spell “Subversion” came to mind.
Dead end in the latest discussion in the Spell system overhaul thread: 
Seravy wrote > “Subversion was removed originally because it was useless - diplomacy didn't work so the spell did pretty much nothing useful. Then diplomacy got fixed. Later on it was never readded because the slot was already in use by a more important spell, and also because the effect was way too powerful in a fixed diplomacy system. A spell that effectively makes everyone declare war on a target, no matter the cost, is a game-winner at uncommon, as dealing with a 3-4 front war is usually impossible assuming the player is on a difficulty level suitable for their ability.
However, now we have a very rare slot. By then, endgame alliances start to get broken by the human player unless they aim for a Spell of Mastery win, and if AI alliances still haven't broken by then, that is a problem for the game by itself, resulting in too many surviving AI players and no target the human player can safely fight without being attacked from all directions. So there are reasons for adding the spell, but there are also strong reasons against it. First of all, it still destroys any chance the human player had at a Spell of Mastery win, and undermines the very purpose of the diplomacy system's existence. Second, maybe even greater problem is, if the endgame does not have multiple surviving enemies then the spell does nothing, which is still the most likely case for maps with 5 or less opponents (1 myrran only).
So I'm afraid the cons outweight the pros for Subversion as well.”
 
Subversion may be too difficult to implement and the spell system is ready atm. If used, it would need to treat AI and human differently, I guess.
How about some random events that negatively affect relation. They could even be set for certain conditions. For example, an AI wizard accidentally insults the other, or blasphemy ... There would be room for some funny texts.
Spell trading improves relations and could take place less frequently between the AI’s. Getting the lower value spell could adversely affect the attitude.
 
As far as I’ve tried, I haven’t received any good deals on spell trading from the AI in COM II Alpha. A better relation could lead to better deals. It should take a few turns before it becomes possible to attack a former ally.

About 5. and 6.:
Aha. Both settings could be merged into one.

About Y. Eliminating wizards is not rewarding enough?
Some thoughts or ideas from a psychological perspective, that may or may not work in terms of game balance:
When banishing in MOM, the player may receive 2 spells. So, I’ve always tried to avoid defeating an AI wizard. Weak wizards usually became pets in order to gain more spells. In COM you can get up to 2 spells the first time you banish a wizard. Early on, this means spells of lower value. Repeatedly banishing or defeating a wizard appears to be a waste of resources. Imho the big banana should be the defeat. Banishing could be a little banana every time it is achieved. Banishing a wizard should feel pretty powerful, so after the banishment animation, my idea was to program a jump to the Magic screen where the player can spend a bunch of power on Research, Mana or Skill for 1 turn. It could be the exiled wizard’s power base or a multiple thereof.
The big banana could be 1 book of the defeated wizard. This could work when books no longer turn up in lair treasures and AI players eliminate each other faster.
It would have the advantage that a random element is exchanged for a strategic element. A bigger incentive would be created to defeat other wizards in resource-intensive battles.

[jhsidi]

5. Monsters Gone Wild might hurt AIs too much.

There is a good chance we improved this enough but I had no chance to test it. Either way it's probably safe to leave this for beta.

 

From my testing, it seems OK now. AIs experience some losses but they seem to continue growing anyway, rather than remaining stunted for years, which was the problem before.

6. Revolting Raiders is kinda useless.

I think it should be removed as an option and merged with Monsters Gone Wild. Not a priority but easy to do so might be worth doing now.

I think even if it was working, it should be removed, because you already stated that you want neutrals to remain weak and ineffective. However I think the ability of neutral cities to send out stacks is actually bugged / broken anyway. In my test games where a neutral city has survived until lairs and nodes start sending out rampaging monsters, the neutral cities never produce a raider stack.

It was working when I started testing (over a month ago?), but maybe something was changed in the interim.

X. I think the conclusion to spell trading was that it's ok as is currently?

Seems better to me, now. In a test game with 1 book of sorcery, I've been unable to get focus magic and a couple other spells through trading.

Y. Eliminating wizards is not rewarding enough?

Not sure what the state of this is. One idea to make it rewarding could be a casting skill bonus, when banishing a wizard, that happens only once and is given to the person who first banished them.

I like that idea. Casting skill seems like a more valuable / interesting reward than a couple random spells, assuming that any books are shared in the first place.

[massone]

X. I think the conclusion to spell trading was that it's ok as is currently?

This has been the main subject of my recent test games. I've found the following:

In one game (the same game which had the Merlin/Ariel relations problem that went unsolved before the save-format changed), by turn 100, I had met 5 wizards with multiple shared books. I was 5 Life 4 Sorcery, and early on, trading with a partner who only had one out of the two realms shared with me seemed excessively difficult. I could see by comparing the Tribute action that they were clearly missing my spells yet they weren't deemed good enough to trade. They usually demanded an entire rarity tier higher spell to trade, or the really good ones in exchange for useless ones. I found it annoying when they refused to even trade stuff like Nagas for a common spell when they were already obsolete and I just wanted it to fill up my spellbook and avoid getting redundant spells from lair treasure.

On the other side, when I met Ariel, another Life-Sorcery Wizard, the gains might be too large in comparison. I traded him Holy Arms for Invisibility, and Dispelling Wave for Divine Order. I then traded Invisibility to 3 other sorcery wizards for Philosopher's Stone, Counter Magic, and Phantom Beast. Then I traded Phantom Beast back to Ariel for True Sight. Finally, I could trade Holy Arms with Merlin for any of several Uncommons as well. Basically, 1 Rare spell got me 1 Rare spell and up to 5 Uncommons. 

In other games, without having a dual shared realm Wizard, trading played a minuscule role. It was impossible to get any of the useful spells, so I basically didn't trade at all.
So you could say that luck plays a very large role right now. But I'd say that one to one trading is a bit too hard right now, while brokering is still too strong.

Another possibility is that my experience with Ariel in that game was a result of having played through to Rare spells. I ended most of my other games before that, and my latest game hasn't gone there yet either.

[jhsidi]

On the other side, when I met Ariel, another Life-Sorcery Wizard, the gains might be too large in comparison. I traded him Holy Arms for Invisibility, and Dispelling Wave for Divine Order. I then traded Invisibility to 3 other sorcery wizards for Philosopher's Stone, Counter Magic, and Phantom Beast. Then I traded Phantom Beast back to Ariel for True Sight. Finally, I could trade Holy Arms with Merlin for any of several Uncommons as well. Basically, 1 Rare spell got me 1 Rare spell and up to 5 Uncommons. 

This doesn't seem particularly overpowered. Invisibility isn't a spell you'd ordinarily want to spread around that widely. Even if you have True Sight, personally I wouldn't have handed it out to everyone like that. And it seems pretty normal to be able to swap a higher tier spell for a lower tier one.

On the other hand, I did like the idea of a small relations penalty among all the other wizards for each trade you make -- that would curb chain trading where, for whatever reason, the player finds the trades to be to their benefit despite the cost differential. For instance, if you're Life and have Divine Order, you probably want to trade that to everyone possible. Not sure what the final verdict on a relations penalty was, though.

[Seravy]

<p><blockquote>
<!--StartFragment-->Not sure what the final verdict on a relations penalty was, though.
<!--EndFragment-->

<br></blockquote></p><p><br></p><p>It goes way beyond trading so I don't think we should add one. We don't want the game turn into a "oh, you traded 5 spells this turn? Now you are at war with 3 more people than you otherwise would be.".</p><p>A trade interest penalty wouldn't have this side effect but would be counter-intuitive, as it means other wizards react to being left out of trades by refusing to trade instead of wanting to be part of it next time. It also does have a side effect - if any of the three "interest" variables drops below the threshold, that AI will refuse to listen to the player which means the player loses their chance to do more important things like tributes or pacts as well.</p><p><br></p><p>I also don't think there is anything wrong with getting 5 uncommons for a rare spell that's a huge pain to fight against and even gives the AI a somewhat large boost in automatic combat against lairs, not to mention if they had the spell available then they jumped quite a bit ahead in research and that much closer to very rare Sorcery.</p><p><br></p><p>Finally, if AI's eliminated each other at the intended speed then finding that many players to trade rares away to won't be so likely to happen.<br></p>

[Seravy]

<p>...I think the forum is broken...</p>

[massone]

I didn't trade 1 rare for 5 uncommons.

I traded Holy Arms for ([Invisibility + Counter Magic + Philosopher Stone + Phantom Beast + True Sight]+ [Altar of Peace]), and Dispelling Wave for (Divine Order).

That is
1 Rare = (1 Rare + 4 Uncommons) + 1 Uncommon
and
1 Uncommon = 1 Rare (which if there had been more Life Wizards, I could've traded again for even more stuff).

If you consider Holy Arms to be worth Invisibility, then I got 5 uncommons for free, 3 of which I'd personally rank as more strategically valuable than Invisibility (Altar of Peace, Philosopher's Stone, True Sight), in the context of having or not having it in the spellbook (as opposed to research priority if they were all in the spellbook, which would be different).

And I suppose everyone's valuation would vary, but I would absolutely trade Invisibility just for either Philosopher's Stone or True Sight, without anything else. Philosopher's Stone alone wins defensive wars all the way until Very Rare spells become commonplace. A free strength 70 counter makes many battles which Chaos Wizards would easily win to become lopsided defeats for them. I find the strategic value of it higher than Invisibility, except for the fact that it can't be combat cast. But if I don't expect an imminent attack? I would much rather have Philosopher's Stone. I would also much rather get True Sight for myself and trade away Invisibility, than for somebody to have Invisibility already and for me to not have True Sight. Every spell I traded for above was a spell that I was missing in my spellbook.

Even if you don't agree with the strategic view regarding having certain spells available in the spellbook, in 2-3 turns, you could say I got 16,000 RP worth of research by trading. Giving each AI wizard 3500-4000 RP is nothing in comparison. It doesn't matter that I wouldn't trade Holy Arms for Altar of Peace normally. I'd rather trade holy Arms and get both Invisibility and Altar of Peace than to trade Holy Arms only to let the AI trade it to the other AI after they get it from me and leave me without the second spell. Whoever trades first is clearly better off, regardless of the difference in spell values.

EDIT: I also want to reiterate that you shouldn't look at this as a standalone issue of being overpowered. If every game was like this, it's not as big of a problem. You do need a strong research game to be able to do the above at all, and getting missing spells doesn't make you research any faster. But as it stands, simply finding a double shared Realm Wizard is...game-changing, compared to being limited to single shared Realm wizards. It's true that I would hesitate to trade Invisibility away for a bunch of uncommons, if I were ONLY dealing with those Sorcery wizards. That is why I basically traded NOTHING when I dealt with only one-shared realm Wizards in all other games. And similarly, I barely traded those 3 before I met Ariel. The disparity here is the issue.