Re: CF: BUG in spell_effect.c?

[Florian Beck <fb@ue801di.lrz-muenchen.de>]

Michael Martin wrote:
> IMHO, making monsters more powerful is not necessary.  The real problem is
> that players can become way too powerful.  For example, I once had a

Agreed - at least it's too easy.

> Most of this seems to me to result from the experience/level table (in
> common/living.c).  For the earlier levels a new level is gained by
> (approximately) doubling the experience of the last level.  But after
> about level 12 or so, it flattens out.  For example, it takes 900000 exp
> to get to level 12, but only another 500000 (roughly 50%) to get to level
> 13.  I would suggest changing this so that levels require something much
> closer to a doubling of experience.  This would dramatically cut down on
> the number of ultra-powerful characters, and in turn the nasty monsters
> would still be nasty. 

Another thing is that characters become more powerful than their level
would suggest (using artifact weapons). And you get MUCH more experience
from higher level monsters. And a 50 lev fighter + "demonbane +10" has
little difficulty with the lev 100 angels in Lake Country. And he gets
tons of experience points. (And you get even *more* exp if the
artifact gives a stat bonus.)

Powerful equipment is very/too easily obtained, so powerful monsters
are very/too easily slain, so experience is gained very quickly.

What I did in my version (or plan to do) was removing most artifacts 
from the treasure file. I think they should almost NEVER be handed out
randomly. Better make them quest items so charaters have to start with 
simple equipment and EARN the artifacts.
This includes enchanted weapon/armour, spellbooks, stat rising potions,
alchemy recipies and rings.
[I once got a(!) One Ring from killing a red dragon; should never happen!
The Rings of Life/Acid a too easy to get (that is too soon!). Grimreapers
and the acid type monsters are Nice And Nasty things (who says you have 
to kill every monster;-). But as you'll find the protective rings 
very/too soon (even in shops) they are only a problem in the very 
beginning.]

I'm planning to put some mid-level artifacts at the end of the maps
I'm working at. (e.g. large fireball spell, ring of life/magic, stat potions,
amulet ac+2, etc) Of course that's quite pointless as long as these things
are sold out in the shops.



> 
> > I agree here, mana blast SHOULD perhaps do more a percentage of damage
> > than a fixed amount.
> 
> It makes sense to me to have the failure effect "proportional" to the
> difference in levels between the spell and the spellcaster.  If a
> 12th-level mage botches a 1st-level spell, no big deal (maybe lots of
> flowers appear ;).  But if he botches a 12th-level spell, look out!

He should more likely FAIL with a high level spell. But the damage
should better be depend on his hp or his spellcasting level.
(There are not so many spells > level 10, but there are other reasons
for spell failure)

> > I've hit some nasty scroll failure effects on occasion, and didn't notice
> > where it came from for a week.  Turned out that a failure effect
> > disenchanted my sword from a +7, and it wouldn't let me re-prepare it so I
> > could charge it back up again.  Definately not fun when you have a 5th
> >level Wizard with no weapon worth talking about. ;)

Thats probably a bit overdoing it when reading a scroll. But a magically
untrained fighter casting a high level spell while carrying a bonecrusher
- well, he has to know the chances he's taking...

 
> >  It might make sense to have a list of 'failure effects' that happen instead of
> > randomly choosing a spell.  Certainly, if you mess up a spell, and a detection
> > spell is cost instead, that is no big deal. (as a side note, if you flub a
> > spell, and it turns into something that kills the monsters, I don't think you
> > should get exp for that - not sure if you do right now, however.)
> 
> This sounds pretty good.  Something like a detection spell is almost
> certainly going to be beneficial (as opposed to detrimental), so I
> wouldn't think it'd make a good failure effect.  It seems to me that if 
> the magic "gets out of hand", a good light-moderate failure effect might 
> be a ball lightning.  It could seriously damage the spellcaster, or maybe 
> not (it could instead damage nearby enemies, but the point is that you 
> don't know exactly what'll happen).  I think I'd have to agree that the 
> spellcaster should not get experience for any kills resulting from a 
> botched spell (not because he wasn't responsible for the death, but 
> because it was accidental).
> 
> Does anyone else agree with this?

Sure. Though there is no need for hurting spells. Mana storm does this 
already. 
Note: spell_failure_effect does NOT the same as a failed scroll. The 
magic of the scroll is warped randomly, I think. Spell_failure_effect
does only wonder/confusion/mana storm and does not take into account
the level of the spell (afaik).
The scroll failure system might be an improvement (perhaps + the mana
storm which is a cool idea). Spells that do damage to the player 
are either to weak (-10% hp? just retreat for a while!) or too strong 
(no need to kill the player for a failed spell). I'd suggest e.g. 
confusion (BAD in a room full of monsters), sleep, desruction, curse
(an item), summon hostile monsters, magic draining. All bad things but
not fatal.

> 
> -Michael
> 
> (BTW, Brian, I like the lighting code.  Too bad more maps don't make use
> of it.)
> 


-- 
Florian 
------------------------------------------------
| h729ihqu@sun1.cip.fak14.uni-muenchen.de      |
| http://www.fak14.uni-muenchen.de/~h729ihqu/  |
------------------------------------------------

P.S. After thinking about it, doubling the experience for every
level gain seems not such a good idea. I like my characters 
"specialize" in certain exp categories. If the next level needs so much
more exprerience than the last level, other categories can "catch up".
Result: an "average" character, not my taste.