Okay... and am I to understand this is desired behavior? What's the reasoning here?

Doubt it. Here is the fixed code.
[code]
tmp_magic_reduction= self.user.getValue("Magic")/(pTarget.getValue("Magic")+1)
if tmp_magic_reduction < 1.0:
strength *= tmp_magic_reduction
[/code]

I don't understand much about such things so I'll trust Anima fix here

I am glad the poison damage is getting fixed but

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?

probably got overlooked here

Is not always true on casters, is just a coincidence in your case. Depends on the target magic value, so you see that because casters have a higher magic value.

The fixed value is because the actual number have reached the maximum damage for that target, while in others not. If you check is always higher Magic values that have that but can happen also for normal attacks, if you hit an enemy with a high Attack and the target has a very low Defense.

In practice before (version 0.8.5 and earlier) the damage calculations were all wrong!

Yeah I understood it was related to magic attributes what determines the maximum damage? Monster level?

There's a maximum multiplier and lots of calculations but yes you can say that level is a good way to measure it, since monster of higher level means usually they have higher magic, defense etc. Of course depends, a Goblin 3 levels higher could be weaker than a Skeleton 2 levels higher. I mean is not an absolute value, but depends on the base enemy type.

The attack/defence magic/magic calculations create a damage multiplier for the base damage. That multiplier is capped. If the lowest possible number from the random element already results in a modifier above the cap you do not get any damage variance. The old prediction simply ignored the cap.

To recap (I'm trying to understand the reasoning)



- damage is not linear (i.e. 150 % base damage and other descriptions are a "lie")

- the game uses different methods to lower/cap the damage (the step method [calculation is different for values above 49], hard upper limits, did I forgot something?)



I think this methods were used because we find two widely different archetypes in the game: Front line fighters have mostly high HP (bandits ~100, white wolves ~85, ...) while creatures in the back are fragile (archers and mages are mostly in the 45 HP class). Because it is required (not sure why, but whatever...) to permit longer fights you built a highly complex system of checks and balances, so a flexible attack as the druid's nuke (useble on every position) should do high damage to high HP creatures but lower damage to more brittle opponents. So far so good.



But I don't like the complexity of the current scheme, I fear this system will in the long run (we're still in act 1...) not sustainable, you pile special handling on special handling and in the end the stack breaks (my personal and totally unfair assessment).



One way to avoid this would be a redefintion of the "risky" skills (mostly those that are not restricted to the front row: Ranged attacks and attack spells): Instead of "250 % of the base damage [plus dozens of hidden variables capping the amount. Harr harr!]" a damage calcuation in the form "60 % of the opponent's HP, but nor more than 250 % of the base damage".

so a flexible attack as the druid's nuke (useble on every position) should do high damage to high HP creatures but lower damage to more brittle opponents.

Hehe, but that's not how it works out. I can oneshot archers, but mages are a close call. Need decent variance luck + the debuff tick.



I agree that it doesn't feel like a good approach to have all these special rules. I disagree with your 60% nuke if I understood it right. I can't take down Mormont/ratmen back rows like that.



Now however, I'm gonna try to be realistic here. The ideal, ideal scenario is: You can go balls to the wall increasing damage on any character, be it a mage, thief or a warrior. There could certainly be diminishing returns but no hardcap. And in the end yes, maybe you will be oneshotting a lot of stuff, but if the game is well designed, you will be prone to getting oneshot too, because you forsake survivability in your mad pursuit of damage. The concept is called a glass cannon.



But we have what, a 2 person dev team? 1½? I don't know how much time Anima spends on this, but it seems more than a full time job for Jack. Maybe there are some devs I don't know. Anyway the point is... striking the right balance here is probably very tricky, and unless Jack and his minions spend a disproportionate amount of time on it, the glass cannon will be either just glass or just a cannon.



I actually don't think the current system is all that bad, but I can't say for future seasons. Random animals have like 100 health. I nuke for like 70. I'm happy with that. What's more, with my dedicated pursuit of +magic I can just about take down an enemy mage with one spell + debuff tick. That seems like okay balance to me.



But not to forget what I came here to ask. You (Anima) said it's a multiplier of the base damage, so I figured hey, that must mean I could increase my spell damage despite the multiplier cap if I got a bigger staff. Imagine how excited I got to see a 6 damage staff for sale (I had 3), I thought my nukes would double in damage. Got the tissues out and everything... and well, it did increase my damage, but only by a few points, like 5 or so. So what exactly is the "base damage"? Obviously not just weapon damage. What affects it?

I suspect if I never explained how it works would have been better

The important thing is the END RESULT. Is the game fun? I think so. Is unbalanced? probably, but NOT as much as many AAA commercial games I've seen.

As yaysword said, I can't do more than this. I'm spending 10h/day on my job (not all on this game of course, I have also other projects to keep going). And is already a miracle that I get a RPG out a year, when other indie team with 4+ people make 1 every 2-3 years

I know that some people are crazy with numbers and wants to know everything behind, but in many good games you have no clue how it works, and is fun. A game must be fun, not an exercise of math or statistic.

I disagree with your 60% nuke if I understood it right. I can't take down Mormont/ratmen back rows like that.

Fair point. (But I meant a percentage of max HP, not current HP - not sure if this was clear)



So what do you think about this brain-fart?



Damage above a specific level of the target (say 50 % of max HP) is weighted lower, e.g. only 40 %. As an example: You nuke for 70 dmg (after resistances and armour is subtracted), the target has max HP of 50. The first 25 dmg points (1/2 of foe's HP) are set, the rest (45) counts only partially (40 % = 1 - total damage would be 25+18=43. The same spell against an opponent with 100 HP max would be worth 50+20*.4=58 points.



No upper limit/hard cap and the damage done is not some stand-alone number (i.e. the 49 Jack uses) but derived from the target - this should scale quite nicely (if we find good starting values for the two percentages).

I know that some people are crazy

(harr, great misapplied quote )

Yes yes, I got it and will shut up

I actually used a % of max HP in a previous build, I think up to 0.8.5, then removed it. Not sure why, can't remember now. At this point I'm quite close to being recovered in a madhouse. I must finish the game before this happens!

I don't like % of max HP. If I want to go mad +magic in order to take down an enemy back row mob before they can get healed, I should be able to do that. And right now, I can

I think this methods were used because we find two widely different archetypes in the game: Front line fighters have mostly high HP (bandits ~100, white wolves ~85, ...) while creatures in the back are fragile (archers and mages are mostly in the 45 HP class). Because it is required (not sure why, but whatever...) to permit longer fights you built a highly complex system of checks and balances, so a flexible attack as the druid's nuke (useble on every position) should do high damage to high HP creatures but lower damage to more brittle opponents. So far so good.



But I don't like the complexity of the current scheme, I fear this system will in the long run (we're still in act 1...) not sustainable, you pile special handling on special handling and in the end the stack breaks (my personal and totally unfair assessment).



One way to avoid this would be a redefintion of the "risky" skills (mostly those that are not restricted to the front row: Ranged attacks and attack spells): Instead of "250 % of the base damage [plus dozens of hidden variables capping the amount. Harr harr!]" a damage calcuation in the form "60 % of the opponent's HP, but nor more than 250 % of the base damage".

This seems like a consequence of the wild variance in starting HP between the classes. When a level 1 caster can have ~35 hp and a level 1 warrior can have ~100 hp and you do fixed damage, you either have an easy time with the former or a tough time with the latter. When Con increases HP by five (so just five points of Con almost doubles your caster HP), you have some really abrupt HP scaling in the early levels.



On the other hand, if casters started at ~150 HP and warriors started around ~250 HP, this would probably be less noticeable (assuming your starting damage was somewhere between 30-50), and you might be able to get away with less hidden modifiers.



It's likely too late to do this in SotW without retuning everything (again), but maybe in the next RPG.

Yes is true, but the 30% defense for back row saves the problem a bit and I think also made the combat better, in Loren was too easy to snipe the enemy casters, unless they started as you said with 150-200 HP. I prefer the current system myself, is still possible to kill target in back row but requires more strategy than before

I thought the special damage rules were there to stop players from doing too much damage, not monsters. I don't feel monsters are particularly hindered in any regard... except the 30% back row defense buff I guess. I mean sure, I bet the multiplier cap still applies to monsters, but it's not like I feel I can ignore a non-mage's magic stat because "monster damage will be capped anyway".



Not to change a good subject but I was wondering something about resistance to Burning, Frozen etc. Oh right, I'm not supposed to ask about mechanics how about I assume how they work and complain instead, let's try that not feeling bitter, just making a point.



If you don't wanna read all this... just skip to the last sentence of the entire post.



When you changed a lot of abilities to being guaranteed to apply their debuff, I thought that was a big step forward from Loren. You know I think the druid skill tree is boring, but at least I can be a little surgical with the debuffs, or I will be later. Yet I sometimes don't apply my 100% chance debuff, I just feel like maybe I should just use whatever does the highest damage. And the reason it doesn't apply feels pretty obvious... ailment resistance.



I don't know if Poison Bite has a 100% chance to apply poison, but if it does it's a prime example. Poison resistance can prevent the application. And it can reduce the damage, though presumably not the -crit effect.



When resistance reduces both the chance of being affected, and then the damage even when affected, its value becomes too great. Let's say, for nicer numbers' sake, we have a debuff with a 100% chance to apply that deals 100 total damage over its duration. Okay, so now you have 50% resistance to that debuff. 50% of the times, it's not gonna get applied, quite simple. You're already taking half damage from it like that, by avoiding it altogether half the times. But the other half when it does apply, you also reduce its damage by half, so you only take 50 damage. Therefore, with 50% resistance, you will take on average 25 damage from this 100 damage debuff (50% chance of 0, 50% chance of 50, averages to 25), which is 75% effective resistance.



Resistance -> Total damage reduction

A rather simple pattern: Reduction = 1-(1-resistance)^2
[code]10% -> 19%
20% -> 36%
30% -> 51%
40% -> 64%
50% -> 75%
60% -> 84%
70% -> 91%
80% -> 96%
90% -> 99%[/code]
For effects (attack loss from Burning, defense loss from Shattered etc) the resistance value is as stated though, not increased as per the table. Unless of course their effect is also reduced by resistance but I don't think so.



What do I want? I want my 100% chance to be applied debuffs to always be applied, exceptions for like paralysis and bosses. Resistance should affect the debuff's effect (damage and stat loss) or its duration. I don't really enjoy playing casino when I throw a 100% chance debuff. We don't have to get mathy: Seeing my 100% chance not happening is not fun.

Yes I think that is a reasonable request excluding paralysis because it's too powerful, but even for bosses could happen since let's say if a boss has 99% Burning resistance the damage over time could be very low (like 2-3hp/turn).

Lining up your debuffing spell only to have it fully resisted or miss http://www.winterwolves.net/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1670#p5326 (though it's a little bit understandable for bosses). As an alternative (don't know if this is too much work at this point in SotW), what if debuff resistance lowered the duration of the debuff (to a min of 1) - that way, it would even work for Paralysis. It could also lower the damage as well, but when you go to burn a target, they'd at least always burn (unless immune) and your skill points won't be a complete loss.

Anima by email pointed out that some effects don't do damage, like Weakened, Scared, etc. So using this system would make the resistances for them almost useless. The idea of reducing the effect duration is good though, shouldn't be too much work. Also just to be clear even with 100% resistance you would still get damaged, but not as much. I definitely don't want to get immunity on any type of attack, both for players and enemies