Getting players to use more spells.

[Martyn van Buren]

Bluddy's idea sounds pretty cool!  That would create some really interesting situations.  I suppose there would have to be a few failsafe provisions --- make sure there's one long-range "bullet" spell available at each tier, that every tier has at least two different elements with damaging spells, and such, but that could really make the game much more variable and interesting.

[nobody]

but it would also force players to use certain spells. like fireball well too bad cant use it cuz the game randomly decided you cant have it at this tier

[Bluddy]

but it would also force players to use certain spells. like fireball well too bad cant use it cuz the game randomly decided you cant have it at this tier

You could use it at any tier, but you just can't upgrade it. So if it happens to be tier 1 and it's really your favorite it'll be powerful through tier 1 and 2, but probably be too weak after that. Around tier 3 though there will probably be a good mid-range fire spell, or at least a good fire melee spell. But you'd want to switch to some other spells.

This idea assumes a lot more spells in existence, which seems to be the direction the devs want to go in. But the idea is that you'd have a reduced range of options at each tier to upgrade to. You can always supplement with lower tier spells though. And you always get to research new spells.

[nobody]

having a spell that is too low of a tier to do decent damage is essentially the same as not having it at all.

however I do like the idea someone else posted (think it was in a different topic) where it takes more effort to get to different regions to get those types of things. so you might be stuck in a jungle area so your going to end up getting a lot of stuff for earth spells, and to get fire spells you need to try to make it into the desert region, using mechanics similar to the buoys. so say your stuck in the jungle and you can gather resources found in the jungle, and to get out of the jungle and get resources found in different regions youd need to complete missions which in turn raises tiers so you now need to be careful about which type of region you want to get to and what element you want to focus on.

[Kregoth]

I think eventually we should adopt the AI war style mechanic, for example complete a rare mission and get a random tier 1 spell that we can choose to level up or not (similar to an ARS in AI War) Each continent starts with the basic spells we kinda see now, and eventually you can unlock more complex and interesting spells, you could even incorporate choosing bonus spells with each new Continent.

I also think we do need more status effect type spells. We need one with low damage but cause things like paralysis or slowness, or stuns! I would love to cast a spell that causes a vortex for enemies? (like what fairies do)

[Wanderer]

Out of curiousity, as much as I say that I don't use more then 2 or 3 spells... why is this such a problem?  No, really.

If you want to use 300 spells, that's your choice.  Why are you trying to force the issue so everyone does?

It's not a complaint, I'm seriously just confused.

[Bluddy]

Out of curiousity, as much as I say that I don't use more then 2 or 3 spells... why is this such a problem?  No, really.

If you want to use 300 spells, that's your choice.  Why are you trying to force the issue so everyone does?

It's not a complaint, I'm seriously just confused.

- If everyone uses just 2 or 3 spells, then adding more spells is a waste of the dev's time.
- If you use the same 2 or 3 spells for each continent, it'll get boring fast. This game is supposed to interest you for many continents.
- In general, it's a shame not to use something that's a resource in the game. The game has a lot of spells, there should be a reason to use them. It's fine, even great for people to have preferences, but if different spells handle different tactical situations so you want to mix them up, that's a much better usage of that element of the game.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

At this point, I'd rather encourage at least experimentation of spells than forcing new spells upon people, especially in a game of choice.  How that can be done, I'm not sure.

King

[Kregoth]

I think the main thing as to why players don't use many other spells, is because the spells most important factors is Damage and Range. We need status effect spells, we need debuff/buff spells, and wide effecting AOE spells that hinders movement or something. not having spells like these is why spells are somewhat narrow in choice.

[TechSY730]

I think the main thing as to why players don't use many other spells, is because the spells most important factors is Damage and Range. We need status effect spells, we need debuff/buff spells, and wide effecting AOE spells that hinders movement or something. not having spells like these is why spells are somewhat narrow in choice.

Ding ding ding!

There is only so much variety, both real and perceived, that can be achieved by fiddling around with range, damage, mana costs, fire rate, and "projectile path" (straight line, arc, boomerang, etc). At this point, to get more variety, more ways to vary spells needs to be introduced.

This falls under the "new content" part of the game that the devs have stated they would love to do, though it would be nice if some of these new effects could be "backported" over to some of the existing spells.

[TechSY730]

Cross posting:

I guess I am the odd one out, but I actually use all eight of my spell key bindings regularly. (9 and 0 are for platforms and crates).

Sure, my first three or so get the most use, but for elemental advantages, times I want a little extra damage, or want an odd firing angle, I will use the others. I have found myself doing that quite regularly recently.
In fact, I frequently do try some of the less "popular" spells when I can finally craft them just to see if they can provide something useful that my other current "loadout" cannot.

When upgraded, firetouch actually has a pretty crazy good DPS if you can get close enough to use it, especially with ROF increase enchants. I guess I'm one of the few crazy enough to try using melee seriously in combat (albeit, long range still is my standard battle strategy)

[khadgar]

When most enemies hurt you on touch, using a melee "spell" seems risky. It would be different if monsters didn't hurt you on contact, but had a quick "melee" attack of their own that a crafty player could block (shield) or dodge via a slight telegraph. This is beyond the scope of this game, however, but it's still a valid point. Melee works in games when the enemy isn't more dangerous in melee than at range. Right now I feel that enemies like espers hurt more when they touch you than when they hit you are range. Not sheer numbers wise, but in terms of how much damage actually hits you. You can dodge a lighting esper all day, but when you are fighting at extreme close range and he decides "its time to move left" and you just happen to be left of him, you take damage.

It's just not worth it.

Some (probably not relevant) examples:

Half life: How-Often-I-Use-Melee-O-Meter = 5%
You have a melee crowbar, but it's not that strong, and most enemies have a powerful ranged attack that precludes you from getting near them. If you were to get in close range, the crowbar would not be very effective.

Deus Ex (Original): How-Often-I-Use-Melee-O-Meter = 30%
You have multiple melee options, and the ability to get close enough to use them very often. Most enemies die very quickly to melee weapons, but if you fail to close the distance before they spot you, they can hurt you pretty badly. There are many situations where melee is completely ineffectual, such as robots & large groups of enemies.

Zelda II: How-Often-I-Use-Melee-O-Meter = 95%
You have a free ranged attack that is only available to use at full hp, but is better than the melee attack in every way, therefore there is no incentive to use the melee attack if you can avoid it. However, you have to use it most of the time, as full health will not last very long.

Terraria: How-Often-I-Use-Melee-O-Meter = 100%
Melee attacks are unlimited, whereas ranged attacks almost always cost SOMETHING. All enemies hurt on contact, and all melee attacks have a slight wind-up and movement to them, so you have to time it right to hit and not be hit in return. Ranged attacks are arguably always better, but because they require a "cost", you cannot use them indefinitely. Melee is both required and effective. It helps that very few enemies have a ranged attack.

Rollercoaster Tycoon 3 Platinum: How-Often-I-Use-Melee-O-Meter = 0%
Game does not have melee attacks.

I just chose 5 random games from my steam games list, tried to pick different genres to illustrate ways in which other games have used melee & ranged together, and why it either makes me want to use melee or makes me not want to use melee.

[Wanderer]

- If everyone uses just 2 or 3 spells, then adding more spells is a waste of the dev's time.

Of the same general tactical value, I agree.  Why create more of the same?  That'd be a waste of everyone's time and I'm quite sure that Chris and Keith have much better things to do than that... and bigger plans.

- If you use the same 2 or 3 spells for each continent, it'll get boring fast. This game is supposed to interest you for many continents.

Only if combat is the primary goal.  As far as I can tell, it's not.  Thus, the primary facets of the game that are supposed to be the hooks should be more interesting.  The combat is merely along the way to achieving those.  How does forcing me to switch between Forest Rage Autocannon and Miasma Blob Artillery really make the game that much more interesting to me?  If anything, you'll frustrate me by forcing me to use a slower spell, not make me more interested in looking for a -52% mp usage enchant to replace my current -50% one with.

- In general, it's a shame not to use something that's a resource in the game. The game has a lot of spells, there should be a reason to use them. It's fine, even great for people to have preferences, but if different spells handle different tactical situations so you want to mix them up, that's a much better usage of that element of the game.

I want to, specifically, discuss this one comment.  There should be a reason to use them is a WHOLE lot more different then FORCING me to use them.  If I want to level up Forest Rage to T5 and ignore everything else and have to deal with rhinos laughing at me until I tickle them to death, well, my choice.  If it's stuck at T1 or I can't get to it and you're going to MAKE me change the entire character's style by moving to Energy Slice (as an example) you've not encouraged me to 'try something different'.  You've enforced it.

This is primarily in regards to ideas of 'cutting off pathing to certain materials' (note, that's not the ones that are coming up with interesting ways to make the landscape more puzzle like, but just outright cutoffs) and 'randomly allow certain spells at certain tiers' arguments.  If the different spells add value to my options as you mention, they add value to my arsenal and depending on my personal play style might encourage me to spend the time to go get more materials and the like to improve my options.  If the idea is simply to force me to switch to Fireball and then to Energy Slice because "It's different".... this is the notion I don't understand.  Why do you care?

Many of the ideas being presented aren't about opening up the player's choices and tactical abilities, they're about enforcing "USE SOMETHING DIFFERENT!".  Um, why?  Why force it?  What's the problem here?

[Bluddy]

Of the same general tactical value, I agree.  Why create more of the same?  That'd be a waste of everyone's time and I'm quite sure that Chris and Keith have much better things to do than that... and bigger plans.

I'm not sure what their plans are. So far they have mostly kept adding combat spells, and I don't expect that to change significantly without player input.

Only if combat is the primary goal.  As far as I can tell, it's not.  Thus, the primary facets of the game that are supposed to be the hooks should be more interesting.  The combat is merely along the way to achieving those.  How does forcing me to switch between Forest Rage Autocannon and Miasma Blob Artillery really make the game that much more interesting to me?  If anything, you'll frustrate me by forcing me to use a slower spell, not make me more interested in looking for a -52% mp usage enchant to replace my current -50% one with.

Combat actually seems like a huge part of the game -- much bigger than I expected initially. Platforming itself is basically non-existent, and Chris has mentioned that exploration isn't a big part of the game (and people don't seem that interested in making exploration deeper), so you're left with combat and choices. Even though you're not encouraged to kill mobs, they're currently the main way to keep you interested in the game. And virtually all the spells are combat spells, so it's hard to say combat isn't a large part of the game.

I want to, specifically, discuss this one comment.  There should be a reason to use them is a WHOLE lot more different then FORCING me to use them.  If I want to level up Forest Rage to T5 and ignore everything else and have to deal with rhinos laughing at me until I tickle them to death, well, my choice.  If it's stuck at T1 or I can't get to it and you're going to MAKE me change the entire character's style by moving to Energy Slice (as an example) you've not encouraged me to 'try something different'.  You've enforced it.

This is primarily in regards to ideas of 'cutting off pathing to certain materials' (note, that's not the ones that are coming up with interesting ways to make the landscape more puzzle like, but just outright cutoffs) and 'randomly allow certain spells at certain tiers' arguments.  If the different spells add value to my options as you mention, they add value to my arsenal and depending on my personal play style might encourage me to spend the time to go get more materials and the like to improve my options.  If the idea is simply to force me to switch to Fireball and then to Energy Slice because "It's different".... this is the notion I don't understand.  Why do you care?

Many of the ideas being presented aren't about opening up the player's choices and tactical abilities, they're about enforcing "USE SOMETHING DIFFERENT!".  Um, why?  Why force it?  What's the problem here?

The idea here is that by forcing a different spell usage, it'll create different challenges and force exploring different tactics. I think the best model for this is Binding of Isaac. I don't know if you played that game, but if not, you should -- it's brilliant. You get random powerups as you go through a random Zelda-like dungeon. But you can also choose to purchase some powerups in shops populated randomly. Some powerups give you health and stats, and some affect your weapon. Weapon upgrades allow your projectile to phase through obstacles, to zigzag, to shoot faster and farther, to pierce through several enemies, or to shoot out beam style, negating speed considerations. Everybody has their favorites, and it's fun when you get the ones you like best. But you always get/buy a unique combination of powerups, and they determine the strategy you have to use. You have to adapt to new weapons as you try them out, and they make some enemies harder and some easier.

The way it applies to AVWW is that, for example, if you like to zap rhinos with lightning bolts, when you play this continent or this tier or whatever, you'll only have earth long-range spells, so rhinos will become huge threats. You'll have to approach them differently. Ideally, the spells would be different enough and the enemy patterns different enough such that taking away a certain spell or spell type will require completely different tactics for certain enemies, or certain traps or environments.

Of course, you have to balance this randomness effect with the ability of players to have varied and customized spell selections, but if you give the player certain (reduced) choices and let him choose from those choices, each player will have variation, but that variation will still be limited by the constraints that were applied to the spell selection, and hopefully this will affect both gameplay and tactics.

[keith.lamothe]

- If everyone uses just 2 or 3 spells, then adding more spells is a waste of the dev's time.

This is largely true of direct-damage spells, yes.  Personally I don't see a sufficient point in adding more of those at this stage unless the method of acquiring them is not just "gather ingredients, hit craft button".  The "further up the tree" ones like meteor are something that would be worth doing more of, as well as ones that were simply unavailable except as specific mission rewards (which would unlock it for that continent), but I dunno if Chris would go for the latter.

And then there's other non-direct-damage types of spells, where there's less of this problem.

But anyway, in general, if we were going to force variety on spells in the same way (and degree) we forced variety on bonus ship types in AIW, before 1.0 would have been the time to do it (and Wanderer: to respond to "why force it?": what would the impact on AIW be if all bonus types were always available to research?  It used to be that way pre-1.0 of that game).  Now it would probably just be a crapstorm.

But hopefully the more powerful stuff that Chris wants to add later can be made less "automatically available".  Dunno how he feels about that.