Instead of a hidden variable I would prefer to lower the announced damage percentage of the spell, if needed for balancing reasons (my 2 cents )



-- edited to add: Or make it transparent, like "200 % of the base damage, but not more than 60 % of the target's HP" (or any other value your hidden variable defines)

[code] if self.cElemental:
if self.dmg>49:
self.dmg=49+self.dmg*.25
elif self.dmg>29:
self.dmg=29+self.dmg*.25
self.dmg=int(self.dmg)
[/code]
that's the code, but the reason why I don't write it in the game is that it could change 31209832 other times before the final version

We spent the weekend trying to redo it "the right way", but in the end wasn't working so we reverted back to this code... the amount of experiments/tweaks going on behind the scenes is quite crazy



edit: actually that is the NEW code, that works better. Before was <39 and the multiplier only 10% (*.1). Now I tried and is better, spells are more powerful, but still not unbalancing

So I can understand it:

[code] if self.cElemental:
if self.dmg>49:
self.dmg=49+self.dmg*.25
[/code]
If I read this correctly this would be in complete sentences something like>



Check if the damage is done by an elemental attack, when this is true look at the damage value: If higher than 49 take 49, add one quarter of the damage and use it as final amount.



So a damage of 50 would be result in a damage of 50+12.5=63? But a damage of 49 would stay at 49?

Yes exactly, in practice prevents damage values too high, but is not a real damage cap, since let's say if you make 100 damage is still 49+25. But of course before there are other 140983201 calculations like backrow, defense/attack, resistances etc.

If I remove it, there are some cases in which takes 1 spell to kill an enemy with less than 100hp, and sucks a bit to play if I want to make weak enemies that gets killed with 1 spell I can always reduce their HP to 50 or less (like I did with Ratmen).

This doesn't feel like a longterm solution. Besides, the ratmen thieves have over 60 and the casters over 50 health. At least when I practice fight them now.



Also I never nuke for over 49 so I don't know that it's even working.



Anyway this feels very inelegant... I hope some better formulas are in progress.

The new one works well, the damage with targets of different magic resistances is more noticeable. I'm not doing any new formula since would mean completely unbalance again the whole first act, I would need to spend 2 weeks to design it again, and the game would be out in 2050

Yes okay, I was referring to what was in place and not what we're apparently about to get gimme!

There must be a better way to include an upper limit. Any mathematics nerds present?

I can of course tweak it, as long as returns the same damage range, sorry if wasn't clear. I mean I don't want suddenly spells to do 100dmg, because it can't work. We (Anima and I) spent last weekend trying for a completely different approach but after several attempts, we had to give up.

I think the important is that the game is fun and battles are challenging

There must be a better way to include an upper limit. Any mathematics nerds present?

The system I made seems OK, I mean it still takes a percentage of the attack damage. I can tweak the percentage amount, but I can't see another solution that wouldn't mess up with what I've done so far.

In Loren I think was much worse, spells could do 100+ dmg and so on, but enemies had more HP, but then battles were lasting ages, etc. I am not a mathematician but I playtest the games and as I said my main concern is that they're fun to play. The approach I used on SOTW is less damage overall but more strategy and fun skills

Yes but if you set a practical hardcap on spell damage you will be setting one for monster health too or casters will be marginalized, and if you hardcap monster health you have to hardcap all physical damage too or warriors and thieves will see casters marginalized anyway, and if you hardcap everything then you have a boring game where you do the same damage as you did 3 hours ago



I realize an actual hardcap isn't the intent but it's how the current system works out, never seen myself do over 49, not sure I've even seen 49. I can see the merit in diminishing returns, but more magic should always mean more damage, even if going from 90 to 100 yields less than going from 30 to 40

Yes indeed I raised the percentage, and now works better. For example, caster magic 27, using Inferno:

target magic 24 = 27-35 (skelly archer)

target magic 31 = 19-24 (skelly mage)

target magic 50 = 10-13 (lol! this is Mormont though, so...)



now seems much better, there's more variety. I tried also in act 2, with a save that has a druid with magic 38 and does 67 dmg to a target magic 12

That does sound promising. When are we getting the next build? I can't make a druid without this change. It's against my religion.

Well I can upload one now, since fixes also the bug you found with Vaelis SP regen

you could fool around with log funtions, one near to your approach (smaller damage raise above 50) is dmg=dmg/log(dmg*30)*3
[code]
10 -> 12
20 -> 21
30 -> 30
40 -> 39
50 -> 47
60 -> 55
70 -> 63
80 -> 71
90 -> 79
100 -> 86
[/code]

Yes that would work, will make some tests

I am decent at maths, but not at programming. I am seeing larger numbers now (<3), but I also have a feeling you just moved the cap from 49 to 70... did you?

No I changed as I said, same formula as above but multiply by .3 instead of .1 which is a big difference.

Before 100 dmg = 49*(100*.1) = 59

Now 100 dmg = 49*(100*.3) = 79

anyway, since I'm manually coding the fights and with the limited grinding system I think that rarely the effective damage would go over 100. Is just a safeguard system

Okay, it's not a problem at present at least. Can you explain though why I get a damage range (like 40-60) when I nuke an enemy caster but a definite number when I nuke anything else?



Also, what determines the damage of Poisoned/Burning etc, I've seen some pretty damn generous damage from poison



In fact...

Show Spoiler

http://i.imgur.com/Ordc57i.jpg" style="max-width:100%">

http://i.imgur.com/jzIdFRt.jpg" style="max-width:100%">

Compare the quite different (12 vs 17 is a big percentile difference) damage numbers from two very similar spiders. Wanna know what else is different between the screenshots? I took off a fair bit of Vaelis' gear (one piece even had poison resistance), in particular his magic score went down a lot because I had a hunch that... he takes MORE poison damage when he has all his gear and therefore higher magic.



Vaelis with almost no gear (+1 magic, no poison resistance): 11 per tick from a spider weaker than those two.



I don't mean to jump to any conclusions but don't you dare come back stat derivation! I don't know exactly what does it, +magic is just a guess, but for sure he takes more damage with his gear on than without it. I don't think poison resistance is bugged 'cause when I removed that gear only I lost 34% resistance and 3 magic, and now poison is ticking for 20. However my druid, with twice Vaelis' magic and slightly less poison resistance than a fully dressed Vaelis, takes 16. I don't know what to make of these observations anymore ^^

You're on the wrong track. The problem is this line in the code:
[code]tmp_magic_reduction= pTarget.getValue("Magic")/self.user.getValue("Magic")[/code]
The effect strength is multiplied by this modifier. So the higher your magic the stronger the poison effect will be, if applied on you only of course.