computer games forum

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

Doubt it. Here is the fixed 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".

renke_ wrote: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?