Spell Balance

[Terraziel]

This seems as good a place as any to ask so....

Given that this phase of beta is a sort of content push I've been wondering how complex you can make or perhaps more importantly want the spells to be? as some examples of what I'm thinking of...

1) Elementless spells - spells like this usually do naff damage to make up for never being resisted, but is elementless damage even an option?

2) Mixed element spells - Launch Meteor that strikes me as a prime example of spell that can easily be justified as 50% earth damage and 50% fire.

3) More complex mechanics - To pick on launch meteor again, it struck me as a fun, if complex idea, if there were spells where the distance fell increased the damage, so I would do more damage squishing enemies with a rock from above than throwing it at them from the side (blame leaping over skelebots to critical hit them as the inspiration)

Number 1) is something I had been considering asking about for a while in the context of logistics spells, but blurring the link between elements and gems seems problematic.

[x4000]

1. Element-less spells are technically feasible, but I don't want to really do them.  I'd like for traps to be the source of element-less damage, which we class as "physical" damage instead.  But having a spell that spawns traps is fine.  And actually summon rhino is element-less, because while it is a green spell while is summons the rhino, the rhino goring your enemy is a non-elemental attack.  So I'd prefer to keep framing it in that sort of fashion, just... I'm not sure why.  It feels right to me.

2. Mixed element spells are not technically possible at the moment, although we could extend the engine to handle that without terribly much fuss.  It would be a source of bugs for a few days at least, though, I imagine.  I'm not inclined to go through that cycle for this sort of thing until later if then -- I feel like having a single-elemental system at the moment gives us more room to explore that sort of space, and then later getting to multi-element stuff as a minority of spells might be interesting.  I was a big MTG player for years, and so I'm just thinking back to that: playing a mixed-color deck tended to be a lot more interesting than actually using gold cards, if you know what I'm talking about.

3. It depends on the mechanic, but in general that is precisely the sort of thing we're wanting to do.  Some mechanics like that really aren't all that complex to model, others would be insanely difficult (or have some sort of exploit that allows them to be cheesed against bosses or whatever).  It doesn't hurt to suggest, and if something is too complex for the next three weeks it's still something that might be possible later. 

But in general, I would have to say the thing I am most interested in for spells is stuff that adds some minor new twist that gives you subtle new tactical options.  Something that lets you shoot through walls or shoot from safety is out, because that's so easy to just cheese bosses without taking damage.  So that limits some things.  But there are so many other kinds of spells and options.  Things that do more damage but take your own life to use... all sorts of stuff.  There's a pretty good list in mantis already, but it could really use a ton more.  The one for the next release that knocks both you and the enemy back is a good example of reusing an existing mechanic (knockback) in a new way, and I'm of course open to that, too.  Not terribly much with changing existing spells, but adding more powerful variants of them would be cool.

In general, I seek variety, like we all do, for this.

[Terraziel]

As you mentioned MTG you reminded me of something...

Is there, or supposed to be any sort a theme to the elements?

to compare with MTG, blue was spells, green was tough creatures, red was direct damage, etc. obviously they were only vague themes but they were still enough to consider whilst choosing your colours.

[keith.lamothe]

On multi-element: we could have a spell spawn multiple projectiles, and those individual projectiles wouldn't have to be the same entity type, and thus could do different element damage from each other.  I imagine that we wold not want it to be too easy to get a fire/ice-ball, but it could be done.

[x4000]

That's an interesting way to do it, Keith: pretty cool.

For the "theming" of the various colors, yes there's several different things (some in and some not):

Red
Fire obviously, but also bits of light to a much lesser degree.  In general a theme of power and destruction, etc.

Green
This one is split very majorly.  On the one hand, you have the whole animal/plant/alive-things theme.  So most summon spells are here, for example.  On the other hand, this is also the earth category.  So you get some degree of power-type spells that overlaps with red a bit, and which in general is themed around dirt and rock and earthquakes and stuff.  Also, since this has an alive-things theme, this is also the main healing color.

Yellow
This is both air and lightning, in a large respect.  So anything stormy, or electrical, and so on.  It's also related to things that are robotic but NOT clockwork.  But for robots, they tend to be yellow-based but also yellow-weak.  This is also the color from which all transmogrification spells will go: if you're changing your form, that's air-related for reasons I forget.   Oh, and most of the movement-related augmentation spells also go here.  Those that actually push you physically around, I mean, not those that teleport you.

Blue
Split again: both water and ice.  Some extensions of that are obviously slowing type effects for ice, but you also get into area-of-effect type stuff with water "washing over" multiple enemies in a row, etc.  AOE damage isn't unique to this color, naturally, but I intend it to be a larger theme here than in some other colors.  Most colors will do all the basics in terms of general types of spells (piercing, AOE, melee-range, long-range, defensive, etc), but as you get more advanced spells the idea is that some colors do certain things just plain better than others at those higher levels.  Which mostly aren't in the game yet when it comes to that sort of thing.

White
Light is primarily focused with things that are... light-related.  Illuminating dark areas is one major theme here, but you also get things like changing the time of day, or in fact even any sort of time-manipulation stuff in general would go here because of that (sun cycle, etc, being the reason).  I ultimately want light and darkness to play a more major role in parts of the game, but right now in some respects this is kind of the most generic color when it comes to combat.  It needs a little something else, but I'm not sure what.  Some kind of clerical and "good" effects could also go here.  Like the ability to peacefully send vengeful ghosts to rest without "killing them again," etc.  Any sort of "pacification" stuff would go here.

Purple
Entropy is the theme here, and that is expressed in a couple of ways.  First off, you have have the obvious "evil" angle.  Stuff centered around death, etc.  But this isn't like a necromancer class or something, and it's not the main meaning of this color, either.  It's primarily focused on the decay and reorganization of matter/energy, which is why entropy is what we call it.  So, sure, death fits under that banner.  And some powerful death spells fit here (and spells that use your own life force to damage the enemy would also fit here tidily).  But shrink, seize, and teleport also fit here logically, because all of those are transforming the states of matter and energy of other objects in powerful ways.


Good question!  This should probably be cleaned up a bit and moved to the wiki, actually.

[Terraziel]

I'm in the middle of writing up a bunch of spell suggestions and another question came up

Do we have\can we have cast times?

[x4000]

Do we have\can we have cast times?

We currently have what we call a "telegraphing" time for enemies, which is basically a cast time.  But it tends to be under a second or so.  We could probably adapt that over to the player side, but I'd want to use that sparingly because I find that sort of thing to be, frankly, rather annoying.

We also do have a charge-up mechanic that Keith developed out for the crests system that enchants replaced, and that allows for more of a Secret-Of-Mana-style (or Crystalis-style, if you prefer) multi-charge where you can keep holding the button and charge up to level 1, level 2, level 3, etc, and release at a varying power range depending on when you release.  It also locks your facing and makes you move slower while you're charging, to my recollection.  How many bugs would be introduced by dusting this one off, I'm not sure, but it strikes me as more interesting than a linear cast time because a) you can stop anytime you want; b) if you don't get to level 1 charge, no spell is cast, but you're also not locked into place and can dodge an enemy attack if you need; c) you're rewarded, but not forced, for taking the charge time higher and higher.

These can be tricky to balance, though, because of the existence of cover, which complicates everything in AVWW.  In a lot of action-RPGs, there is no cover to speak of.  So if you are doing a large charge-up/cast-time, you're still having to dodge enemy shots or whatever.  In AVWW, it's far too easy to just find a perfectly safe spot, hide there, charge to full, come out, release hell, and repeat.  That can make it so that boss battles become a joke with any charge weapon, or if we fix that problem, that they become murderously too long without a charge weapon.

So... it strikes me as a rather large balance problem, and a potential source of a lot of grief and bugs.  Make no mistake, it's something I want to pursue... but it seems like a rabbit-hole in the pre-1.0 period.  We need more time to really Do This One Right, I think, which means largely sticking to not doing charge shots that give more power.  UNLESS the charge shot prevented you from moving at all, perhaps -- but even that gets tricky in multiplayer, potentially.  It's certainly less risky for abuse, though.

With any new spell, my big fear is introducing ways for players to attack from cover -- that's just devastating to game balance.  Players being able to have cover is also important, but their actual spellcasting needs to happen out in the danger zone.  That puts even spells like richochet stuff into the territory of where players shouldn't be able to have it unless the enemy has some sort of counter that can get the player in return if they use it.

Make no mistake, I'm also just talking about boss encounters.  If you want to cheese/overpower regular mobs, be my guest.  That sort of thing can be entertaining and satisfying.  But if boss battles are supposed to be epic struggles, the player has to always feel like they are on the brink of losing, even if they really are not remotely so.  Been some interesting articles on Gamasutra about that, the idea is not mine.

[Terraziel]

The reason I was asking was for a trap-style spell, so something to represent the time it takes you to well, carve it in to the ground or what have you, so for that I'd say the charge-up method would be fine if that's what you'd prefer it be.

[x4000]

The reason I was asking was for a trap-style spell, so something to represent the time it takes you to well, carve it in to the ground or what have you, so for that I'd say the charge-up method would be fine if that's what you'd prefer it be.

In that sort of context, sure -- you have to go out into the "danger zone" to lay the trap, and then stand there while doing so, and that would have none of the drawbacks I was worried about.  Nice!

[BobTheJanitor]

For charge up or cast-time spells, you could make it that you can't hold the charge, but that it fires automatically after a few seconds. Or add an overcharge mechanic, where if you don't shoot it off within a short time, it backfires on to you instead. That doesn't completely take out the ability to charge in cover, but it does make it more of a game mechanic of constantly weaving in and out of cover if you want to play that way.

[Terraziel]

What about giving bosses an ability that short circuits charge spells? only to be used when they have lost track of you.

Sort of an "I am giant and evil and I know you are in here somewhere" aura

[x4000]

Both or either of those could work well, yeah.

The question is, is it worth the time to iron out that in the next three weeks?  I'm tempted to say no, but it's hard to be sure.  Then again, Bob's one is pretty straightforward if the spell auto-fires when it reaches max charge.

[keith.lamothe]

Sort of an "I am giant and evil and I know you are in here somewhere" aura

Fee Fie Foe Fum...

[KDR_11k]

What about giving bosses an ability that short circuits charge spells? only to be used when they have lost track of you.

Sort of an "I am giant and evil and I know you are in here somewhere" aura

I think that would feel arbitrary and would confuse players. Probably a better option would be cover-piercing attacks.

[Terraziel]

I think that would feel arbitrary and would confuse players. Probably a better option would be cover-piercing attacks.

The issue with that is that it just removes cover as a whole, rather than just being able to exploit cover for hypothetical charge attacks. unless of course said attack just interrupted you and I think that would probably be even more confusing.

My personal logic was that it makes more sense to change the bosses than the spells, because by making something have to apply to all the spells you limit variation.