Re: Recruitable Mage Rebalance - seeking comments
 

So Wrathful skies is fair? I've beaten Wrathful Sky casters in a multiplayer game (an Air Queen), but it cost me my whole army of devils (which are hardly weak units themselves). Utterdark is fair? Its the big red WIN GAME button. False Horror is fair? Wow, its -10 fatigue and 1 path; dragonflies take -100 fatigue and 1 nature gem. Vine Ogres are fair? I mean they cost the same as Vine Men, how could you even defend them? (aside from being almost the only Nature thing worth a flip in Multi).

There are previous discussions about buffing 'low level' summons, and how the better players wouldn't even touch them , hording them gems for Summons X. So their conclusion was to buff the low level summons. 5 gems for a Scorpion is fine; 10 gems for a Undead, 20 armor, 42hp, Bane Blade thug is NOT fine. Its not that the previous summons is bad, its that things like the Banelord are simply too good.

Please take into context this thread's purpose: to rebalance mages. What i was saying was that 1) most mages prices are acceptable when you calculate magic paths/cost, and 2) those that seem cheap for their value are so because they are able to cast an overpowered spell/summons. And thus, leading me to conclude that it would be better to adjust the spell/summon than the caster.

You can change balance more towards summons or more towards conventional troops - common knowledge is that, basically, all conventional troops are crap, its only a matter of time when. Because everyone wants to spam temples and castles, that 'when' is pretty damn soon after the start of the game. Since Saber Cherry made a mod just before this one trying to make conventional troops more effective, and this mod is increasing caster cost, i figured a better solution is to tone down the overpowered magics and summons.

I've no love for multi Dom2 anymore, although i had fun while it lasted, so i'm not inclided to accept your contest. Although, i'm not exactly certain what it would prove in any event. I ban WISH, you spam GHOST RIDERS, or whatever. Boy, was i wrong!... or something.

Re: Recruitable Mage Rebalance - seeking comments
 

It's definetly powerful. It can also be defended against if you plan for it.

Did you not have any rings of tamed lightning?

If someone casts Utterdark, they had better have put a huge number of death gems into it, or else it's going to only last a turn. That huge number of death gems could have been used in any number of other ways.

It also is only useful as a delaying tactic to keep the air mages from being overrun by high MR, lightning immune commanders.

Dragonflies are nature magic, which has useful summons, unlike air magic.

They are more than fair. They are cannon fodder that can't stand up to anything approaching serious opposition.

They require a nature 3 mage to spend an entire turn. That's not quite the same cost as vine men.

Lamia's are certainly a better use of your gems than vine ogres. They actually have a chance to defeat fully equipped SCs, unlike vine ogres, which perform worse than barbarians.

That it has a bane blade is immaterial because a bane blade is not really a useful weapon. A unit with 42 hp and 20 armour will only survive a single turn against 20 or so units with the ability to achieve more than 20 damage. (Barbarians and all other two-handed weapon wielders.)

A banelord is nothing special unless you spend three times his summoning cost on equipment. At that point, he can still be killed by elite national troops if you set him up to defend against elemental magic and cover his lousy MR, or by magic if you set him up to not be defeated (easily) by elite units.

Mages are already almost too expensive in most cases, so they really don't need to be made even more so.

It's unfortunate that "common knowledge" doesn't match up with "actual gameplay".

If you define turn 40-60 as "pretty soon", then yes, it is pretty soon.

If you can't defend against ghost rider attacks, then you've probably spent most of the game turtling and avoiding confrontation, and have already lost the expansion race before turn 20. All the high-level spells do is bring the game to a conclusion before turn 150.

Re: Recruitable Mage Rebalance - seeking comments
 

Cherry, I think your idea is noble, but am not sure it would be "worth it" in terms of the hours and hours you will need for testing, because "very difficult research" and a few spell mods will accomplish a similar effect. Balance mods such as this are extremely complex (doh!), since you will have to contextualize the increase of price for individual nations in comparison with the strengths and roles the mages play between the nations.

That being said: looks nice!
I would prefer fewer changes to a few mages. I particularly welcome a small price increase in the Caelan mage.
I think a thematically sensible change (which I have tested and liked) is to make the New Era Pan 2E2N1? (that is, in the New Age, the Pan's Nature skills have decreased due to their increased love of steel), but they keep a random.

Good luck!

Re: Recruitable Mage Rebalance - seeking comments
 

Endoperez found my original work on over/undercosted mages,Cherry. I'll forward you the relevant information.

Regarding 'overcosted mages', I think the problem is more that the 'good mages' (those that people think are costed appropriately) are in fact under-costed by quite a degree, and the rest are more or less evenly priced.

If mages were not summonable, I think that would help.

We'll see.

Re: Recruitable Mage Rebalance - seeking comments
 

Wouldnt that annihilate some themes like Ulm and Carrion Woods beyond all repair?

Re: Recruitable Mage Rebalance - seeking comments
 

Yes. Alternately, living summonable mages could cost upkeep. When it makes sense, of course - nobody is going to expect a GoR'd Vastness to want (or be able to use) money, and neither will a fallen angel demand compensation upon being freed from eternal suffering.

Maybe some summonables should have disadvantages? I wouldn't want to live in a town being patrolled by Anthrax, the King of Banefires... and I would avoid the public library if he was hanging out there doing research in level-8 death evocations. Being forced to keep these guys on the move (and some of more vile blood and death summonable mages) because you don't want them polluting your territory (like with Demon Lords) might be interesting.

Also, it would be neat if some creatures like Hama Dryads, Fairy Queens, and Arch Angels attracted people to provinces, opposite to the way Harvesters of Sorrows repel / kill them, providing incentive to keep certain mages at home rather than in battle. If I, a lowly peasant, had my family killed by the Lord of Plague Wind that my God was keeping in my hometown for his own inscrutable reasons... and I heard that the province next door had a fairy queen curing blindess and disease... I'd probably move.


But that's all out of the scope of this mod. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions above. It's starting to seem that Dominions II is complex enough that you have to balance some units more by "feel" than by equations, so post your thoughts on other mages that feel too expensive, too cheap, or too useless.

And please try not to attack other people, no matter how poorly-thought-out or poorly-phrased their post might be. Discussion and disagreements are fine, but people tend to avoid posting their thoughts in threads where criticism is too sharp.

Re: Recruitable Mage Rebalance - seeking comments
 

Well, national summonable mages shouldn't go away.

It's just that certain summonable mages, at the very least, are very undercosted, if they should be allowed at all. Spectres and Lamia Queens spring immediately to mind.

Any non-national mage that can summon itself is also immediately suspect.

Re: Recruitable Mage Rebalance - seeking comments
 

1) What mages are too expensive for their power?

Compared to ordinary troops, once much research is done, none of them.


2) What mages are too cheap for their power?

All of 'em. Maybe particularly some of Pythium's and Caelum's, for what they can do in the unmodded game.


3) Are there any mages you ALWAYS or NEVER build when you have the capability?

Strictly speaking, no. However, I am frequently particularly tempted by the price of:

Sages (for research)
Communicants (for communion)
Caeleans (for flying air-spell casters)
Mictlan Priests (for blood hunting)

I often wince and decide to hire someone else when considering the price of: Alchemists (of course a fettish hoarder will be happy to hire them).


4) Do any nations strongly need a type of mage, a certain path, or a certain level in a path? For example, base Vanheim has no real blood hunting ability, and base TC or BF Ulm cannot use their national spells.

I kind of like the need to do something besides just hire someone to get an ability. I think it's neat that there are methods that require tricks, investment, and/or luck to develop some special abilities. Also, since there are ways to get bonuses to make these things possible, making them automatically hirable instead of one short means they can actually be expected to go one level further than that, which can have other implications. However:

* Base TC relies on randoms to get their national spells (but they have those randoms - they just need to be lucky and/or patient etc).

* BF Ulm needs to empower in blood or have a matching pretender to do sanguine heritage.

* Broken Empire Ermor can do a lot with a Grand Thaumaturg prophet - more automatic unholy access would of course be useful.

* Ulm could use an E3 mage (though they _will_ make boots).


5) Any other suggest changes to the games mages?

* IF Ulm holy-2 priest could be somehow unique.
* Base TC's NON-mage eunichs and priests are the TC units I really don't see any reason at all to summon, unless maybe I were desperatey fighting undead or demon hordes.



I think TheSelfishGene's comment is right on target:

<font color="red">"... as far as cost and everything, mages are fine. What is not fine are the summons and spells some of them can cast."</font>

I'd tweak the "best" spells rather than tweak the mages, mainly, I'd:

* Make life drain weapons cost at least 40 death gems or 80 blood slaves.
* Increase cost of gem-generating hoard items (clam etc.).
* Increase cost of Wrathful Skies.
* Increase cost of Bane Lords.
* Increase difficulty to cast and reduce strength/attack/defense of False Horrors.
* Increase cost of Ghost Riders.
* Increase cost of other powerful yet low-path and cheap spells.
* Increase path requirements of all troop-massacreing spells so it requires a powerful mage thanks to being a pretender or empowerment and items, rather than just research and a gem or two, to be the bane of mortal warriors (this is one of the main elements of the mod I've been working on, but not having time to finish).


PvK

Re: Recruitable Mage Rebalance - seeking comments
 

I'd just switch to skull standards at that point, because 12 armour negating, auto-hitting life drain damage is probably a better bet than whatever the weapon damage would be.

Increasing the requirements so that they match the fire version would probably be a better solution.

To what extent? They walk a very fine line between cost-effectiveness and being wiped out by two-handed weapons.

National mages with path enhancers should be all that is required, as empowerment is far too expensive to be practical.

Re: Recruitable Mage Rebalance - seeking comments
 

But wouldn't the fact that empowerment is needed to use Wrathful Skies, Murdering Winter etc. make it very expensive, but also very practical?

Making them more expensive would be good, but I don't know if *needing* empowerment is too high or not. I see both pros and cons, but I don't know which would have bigger effect in the end.