Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Anything else to do with the original Master of Magic
kyrub
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by kyrub » Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:24 pm

Virm wrote:While I agree that no magic should be castable on a unit with magic immunity, I see no reason why existing spells active on the unit should be dispelled upon acquiring immunity.
My main reason for this second part is in-game: to strictly avoid the combination of Guardian wind and Magic immunity (or Invulnerability and Magic immunity or ...). If you could first cast something on the unit and then "lay" magic immunity on it, the whole change is useless.
as casting a spell to grant it should be self-dispelling immediately (as is makes very little sense to have to use magic to sustain immunity to all magic, why doesn't the magic needed for maintaining the spell get dissipated by the spell?)
:D Fantastic part of your post, Virm, it reminds of some of the best scholastic disputations from Umberto Eco's novel.
When seeking some game representation, what about an image of a resistance-ability that "impregnates" the body of the target? And... ehm... repulses the old magic layers?

Iluvalar
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:57 pm

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by Iluvalar » Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:14 am

About the calvalry-swordmen problem.

Let's face it, what good are cavalry ? They are fast ! Why is it ? Not to go faster into melee with the swordmen. Sure not ! It's to take down those pesky archers. So what if the swordmen retreat then ? Those the archers will fall back to ? They'll lose their projectile anyway. So job done !

What if I bring an archer ? Will the swordmen continu to run like a chicken while I fire at him ?

Since I'll corner him at the end, what is that retreat strategy is good for unless loosing both our time ?

The only thing that would be nice is giving victory at the end of the battle to the player who spared most of his move. So the cavalry that move one square instead of two would win at the end (the swordmen being completly exhausted).

Asfex
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:43 am

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by Asfex » Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:00 pm

I think the magic consept about magic resistance and spells are broken.
Almost all spell use this formula: Rnd(10)+spell save-unit resistance >0 then spell is success. I am not worry about it except: the difference between 8 and 9 much lesser than 9 between 10. Rnd(10) is ruling the probability, units resistance grows with a levels.So, the spellsave Identifies "applicability the spell to the unit". I think the formula must be similar to the "dispel magic " formula...
Example: the colossus with a 15 native magic resistance may be vulnerable only by spell binding, or the others "resistance piercing spells" like banish.

kyrub
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by kyrub » Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:24 am

I partially agree that the spell resistance is a half-broken concept, although with a different view.

It is generally quite useless (from a game theory point of view) to cast something that has only 30% chance of working. Or 60% - what if it does not work and you face lost position.
It is also one of the reasons death magic sucks. The formula should really be different than rnd (10) <> resistance level. The resistance based spells are generally poorish.

Asfex
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:43 am

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by Asfex » Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:57 am

To improve the resistance model i offer to cut the resistance over 10 (or 9) by divide by 3, then apply "native "spell save. -it applyes only for spells with a native spelsave. (for example -not banish or life drain, but creature binding)
for example: colossus 15 resist , jafar cast creature binding. it has 4 spell save. [15-9=6, 6/3=2 -so colossus have 12 resist. 12-4=8,]
so it has a 20% chance to be binding.
what do u think?

Whats hell decide to give the stoning immunity to all combat-summoning creatures? Especialy for the air elemetal.(thanks Aureus)
I think the removing this feature will improve game a lot.
Also , poison concept are broken, becouse a unit with 10 or more resistance gain poison immunity. (except the resistance will drop down)
Last edited by Asfex on Sun Feb 28, 2010 1:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Incanur
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:51 pm

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by Incanur » Fri Feb 26, 2010 6:00 pm

But one of the best spells in the game, confusion, is a resistance-based spell. With mind storm and/or black prayer, lots of resistance-based spells become awesome.

Asfex
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:43 am

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by Asfex » Mon Mar 01, 2010 8:57 am

kyrub wrote: It is generally quite useless (from a game theory point of view) to cast something that has only 30% chance of working. Or 60% - what if it does not work and you face lost position.
Its a game feature. if you want a stable result of the battle- you may use the summoned creatures and the swords of the army. If you want a great random element in the battle you may use magic. Its a reason i like mom.The battle gains the random element,wich names "magic".
Beside, if you watch at the summoned creatures you may see the tendences: the stronger rare creatures has 12 resist, summon cost about 800-1000, the cheap very rare -about 600-700, and 10 crosses, the rare creatures -9 resist,and cost 450-600,the cheap rare(cost less 450) -8, the common and cheapiest 6-7. the tendence is :the more summon creature costs the more resist they have.
Its aprroximately 1 cross for each 150 mana cast,1 cross above to 10 for each 200-250 mana cast.start with a 5 resist... 5 resist mean the half success.
Is somebody said the confusion is a great, if he gets only -1 spell safe (instead of 2), and the AI will avoid be close with the it's confused unit?
I tend suppose that the each cross is decrease the chance of the success casting spell, not the ability to gain the immunity.
Beside, the non-fantastic (arcanus) unit has at leat 7 resist (typicaly 9) at the elite lvl.with the magic resist it gets 10 - 12 crosses and become almost totally immune to the confusion.
Look at the resist -based spell overview: it can be divide into 4 brunch: 1) -direct damage: (psionic blast and life drain) 2)low resistance :disintegrate,petrify,shatter...- for the lowcost units 2)low penalty -2 to spell save -almost any spell 3)high spell save penetrate:banish,word of death,dispel evil.
It seems to penetrate 1 cross of the high resist units cost 3x more, than the low resistance unit (<10).resist magic just move the unit from the one cathegory to the high-resistance cathegory.

kyrub
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by kyrub » Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:16 am

@Incanur
Giving the confusion spell as an example = more or less aggreeing with what I just said. Everything bar confusion is very unforgiving, it fails too often to represent a valid combat strategy (this the mathematical game theory as simply put as possible). Surely, Mind storm, Black prayer give you the enemy on the plate. But if you need to cast another powerful (rare), not very cheap, spell BEFORE being able to use your bunch of common spells, is it really an advantage? For me, that is broken. Note, that you very rarely cast the Mind storm spell, you have better and cheaper strategies to use with sorcery. Only maddening death realm can bring you to Black prayer / Black sleep combo.


@Asfex
I surely see the tendencies that you mentioned. The ideal is nice, but the reality is useless.

My problem is, that the general resistance is too high. The confusion is valuable because it has -4 to save. (And it is quite cheap and common spell.). Every spell should +- work like Confusion, then I am content.

I never cast 90% of (non-pumpable) resistance based spells. If you do, explain why. Shatter, disintegrate, petrify, horrible spells. I dislike even the pumpable spells, they are not worth it.

In battles I cast spells only 1) to minimize damage to my superior army or, often, 2) to change the outcome (to win when I am losing).
In second case, 2), when I face lost battle, I hate resistance spells. The risk is too high and more often that not (7/10 you said), you get absolute nothing.



And I disagree, there are many ways to recreate the concept without making it too strong. And to make it less and less strong with the biggest units.
But the current concept is disgusting, it breaks the gameplay for Death realm.

Asfex
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:43 am

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by Asfex » Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:36 am

kyrub wrote: My problem is, that the general resistance is too high. The confusion is valuable because it has -4 to save. (And it is quite cheap and common spell.). Every spell should +- work like Confusion, then I am content.
I agree with you about common spell, becouse it can be dispelled later.(howewer the confusion is bugged this way). but what about
disinegrate, banish, holy word , word of death? I dislike concept the 600-1000 mana casted creature may be killled one round one shot with a high probability.Even with a word of death or banihs the chanses would not be too high.


The targets for petrify: haos spawn,the cheap chimeras, wrath. sometimes shadow demons.. they are non-corporeal...
and cannot be webed then crack called.and cannot be confused.
Sometimes werewolfes, if you can kill unit with 4 of them,and cannot kill 6. petrify can remove 2 of them with a better probability than a crack call the whole unit.

The targets for shatter: gnoll wolfriders. the effect is better than a heroism on the army of veteran swordsmen.I agree ,howewer, the shatter and petrify is overpriced.disintegrate is better than petrify.

I agree the resistance is too high, commonly.Howewer, the trick is balanse about (8/10) chance of kill the dear creature by hi-end spell.
"there are many ways to recreate the concept without making it too strong. And to make it less and less strong with the biggest units." i do not know any good idea. D20 for resistance roll allow to kill an archangel or haos hydra, or ... by one banish,or the confusion ever.do you think the army of the spearmen with a strong casting wizard will kill every hi-end creature very cheap?

kyrub
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by kyrub » Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:27 am

At least we concur on the resistance being too high.

Some very interesting suggestions for petrify. THe problem is that I never needed it, because I had better (cheaper) option. But I agree this is useful for these situation, after some balancing. (Shatter good only against one unit? And it is still not reliable!)
"there are many ways to recreate the concept without making it too strong. And to make it less and less strong with the biggest units."
OK, let us take into account "the big creatures should not be beaten by simple spell".

One of possible solutions:
- creature gets +2 or +3 to resist per level of rarity (common creatures - 0, unc_creatures +2, rare +4....)
. and bigger dice, d20

-------------------------

Another possible solution:
- normal units don't get any + resistance per promotion
if necessary. This makes tthese spells useful for a longer period.
Also, this way, Bless, Resist elements, Resist Magic would be much more useful.

Asfex
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:43 am

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by Asfex » Tue Mar 02, 2010 11:57 am

I do not say:"the big creatures should not be beaten by simple spell".
I say "the big creatures should not be beaten by simple spell" quick (with high probability) and with no chance to take it back.


shatter also good against: catapults,pikemen, non-elite griffins.. but yes, its very rare used.to make it -2 spell save is desired.
Some interest would be if the shatter cost less than the dispel magic.
1) how about the direct -damage spells? life drain and mind blast?and (black) prayer and mind storm?The main effect of black prayer is lower the resistance.
2) and the old d10 dice? and lower spell save for confusion? how about stoning gaze, death gaze,poison attack? Can the "gold upkeep" unit kill night stalker with no magic immunity(and resistanse)? Gnoll wolfrider with a resist magic would decrease chance to be confused from 80% to 50% (if confusion will be -2 spell safe). is it great help for resist magic?

I have the Idea: each resistance - based spell probability will use logariphmic scale: the each cross will lower probability by 20%.
so the formula is: ( (0.8) ^(unit resistance -spell safe-2) is a success spell cast. (0.8)^3~0.5 so, the resist magic is lower probability twice, magic immunity - 9 times, the spell against an unit with a 2 resistance always success.
Death knights may be "holyworded" at the (0,8)^6~25% against 20% with normal, demon lord ~15% against immunity in normal.
Is dispel evil -4 spell safe? this completely dispel werevolfes.If you think the chances to survive must be >0 for low--resist creatures,you can change formula to 1-((0.8)^(spell safe+5- unit resistance))/2 for (spellsave+unit resistance<5)


offtop: what protect the cold immunity? fire immunity do not protect against fire bolt.

Asfex
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:43 am

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by Asfex » Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:18 pm

EDITED:
Some problem may be with banish...it's base cost is 20, and pump is 15 per resist -it's too expencive...
you may cast it twice instead of pump it by 3X15 to achieve the same effectiveness...
it may be improved this way:
so exact formula may be seen as: X= (spell save-5 +units resist),
crance of sucess: if x<0 then suc= 1 - ((0,8)^x)/2
if (x>0) & (x<5)? then suc =((0,8)^x) /2
if x>5 then suc=((0,8)^5 -(0,7)^(x-5))/2
if you want to force use the high lvl spells on the high lvl units or pump the magic immunity.
I use (0,8)^3 ~(0,7)^2 ~1/2. so (0,8)^(spell save+unit resistance-5) ~(almost equal) ((0,8)^(spell save+unit resistance-2))/2
Resume:
this mean any cross will increase your resistance ability beyond the 5 cross difference from 20% block to 30%.
The other model "the cross have +10% chance of blocking per "applyed before" cross is also usable. for example: i cast shatter onto elite griffins (resist 9): spell save =-1 (native). x=9-1-5=3. chance of success will be:50%*(0.9)*(0.8)*(0.7)~25% -its almost same as the previous model.

the trick is to use the spell save from items as a constant 30% or 20% chance of blocking in this model.
so , items -3 spell save just means: "this increase the chance of succes twice". (instead of :"Iehoo! I can a colossus gets confused!")
Last edited by Asfex on Wed Mar 03, 2010 4:26 am, edited 9 times in total.

kyrub
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by kyrub » Tue Mar 02, 2010 9:22 pm

20% block per cross - hmm, that is a VERY good model. It is easy to read and understand (and I would substract that -2 from all units' crosses, to not complicate the matter).

I would say that it still is totally conservative, no changes for low resistance units (which means I won't be using black sleep, shatter yet again), but as a MODEL, it suits my vision perfectly.

Asfex
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 5:43 am

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by Asfex » Wed Mar 03, 2010 2:22 pm

shatter just have too small spell save. if confusion have -4 why shatter (wich is less powerful) must have -1? It's not a question of game concept.Like black sleep.

kyrub
Posts: 33
Joined: Fri May 15, 2009 5:11 pm

Re: Which game concepts in MoM are broken?

Post by kyrub » Wed Mar 03, 2010 5:16 pm

OK.
Back to the conceptual thing, and 1 step ahead, the resistance based spells need some general differenciation, to offer a mix of strategy. I am specifically adressing the death realm, because it has the majority of res_based spells. Right now, the choices are almost irrelevant, the variety of effect does not suit the game and the situations you are likely to encounter.

Below, I use three criteria, mana economy, percentage of success, strength of effect.

Resistance spells can have
- economical value,
it has relatively poor % of success (0 or -1 to save), but it is VERY cheap (but it has good effect), so if you throw it a lot, you'll eventually get a result (with Asfex' model). Also, when you have last 5-10 mana, you cast this. Many of current spells work like this, but they are often wimpy, Weakness for instance (see below what I think of it). Black sleep, and it should be cheaper.
- "lottery" value
- you face a very strong opposition (yes, even the magic creatures!), but spell X can save your skin, if you're lucky. Of course, X has good % of success (which is still probably not enough against Sky drakes) but it is VERY expensive (60-80 mana), so you probably cannot throw it twice (and increase % of success). Think of good Cracks call, but resistance based (it can have -7 or -8 to save, for me). Possession, Creature binding were thought to be this, but they are wimpy. Word of death, if much stronger and more expensive.
"daily bread" value
- Simple spell with very small effect, but it WORKS, has high %. Medium cost (15-20 mana). Can be used everyday. These I miss the most. Weakness used to be automatic. OK, not this back, but I would very much like to see it back with a big -5 to save, bigger cost. Weakness should be the one, for me, the daily bread of death magic. Every realm has a common "daily bread" spell (web, confusion, heroism, fire bolt, fire elemental, phantom warriors...), bar Death magic. That is nr 1 reason why I dislike to play it. Also, I think that Confusion is too poweful to be "daily bread" type of spell.
normal, strong spells
should be some of those that are Rare and maybe the uncommon ones. They should be solid spells, good % (-2..-4 to save), expensive (35-55). Now Petrify, Disintegrate, Wrack, question mark is over Possession, Vertigo. Many of these fail to do the "strong effect" part. They are wimpy.
"let's hurt him at least" spells - You face a lost battle but you want to do harm to the opposition. You have a spell that can utterly destroy one of its unit, good %, higher cost. Now Word of death (stronger, please, and it should come earlier in the game, uncommon). Otherwise, it is only Cracks call, but there could be a resistance based spell able to quickly and fatally harm the opposition. (And no, Petrify is not the right one, because Nature already has THAT one.)

The main point is to give you the MIX of these, instead of 1 spell that works like a miracle and a bunch of economical value spells, that feel totally interchangeable. This will make this spell branch attractive to play, the concept will work.

Every spell should have a distinctive situation, distinctive combat moment for its use.

Post Reply