Page 2 of 2

Re: Spellmaking and Enchanting: factor harmful effects as negative

Posted: 02 May 2020, 05:05
by Jemolk
jmelesky wrote:
01 May 2020, 19:08
Jemolk wrote:
01 May 2020, 00:25
This does make me think of something else, however: for this to work, I think you'd need it to only apply when the range and area parameters for the effects are the same. Otherwise you could abuse this to make kinda broken spells. For example, you'd be able to make the Blind effect have an area of 50, causing it to affect all enemies near the targeted ally while also reducing the cost by more. Similarly, if the Blind effect was on touch and the heal on target, you could cast the spell from a distance without problems, getting the cost reduction basically free.
I guess that's what I'm getting at: MW's magic system is extremely flexible, so adding complexity is going to need to handle that. I have a hard time seeing the proposed feature not allowing for extremely broken spells.

You could limit the flexibility, by redoing the spellmaker to only allow certain good/bad combinations, but that would be a substantial overhaul. Or make the "drawbacks for lower cost" a completely separate category that had a set list of options (e.g. "Drain Fatigue X on self for spell duration, for X/10 cost reduction", "Blind X on self for spell duration, for X cost reduction"), but that would require significant additional functionality.
And that is, in turn, why I didn't think it could be done yet, prior to de-hardcoding. However, if the effects all had to have exactly the same range and area parameters, it would theoretically significantly reduce problems. That said, you're probably right. It'll either be too easy to break, or pretty useless, without the ability to tinker with things we currently can't.

Re: Spellmaking and Enchanting: factor harmful effects as negative

Posted: 02 May 2020, 14:22
by DecumusScotti
Jemolk wrote:
30 Apr 2020, 00:55
As I understand it, the issues you all raise shouldn't be a problem necessarily. If, for example, I were to create a spell that heals and blinds, then if the healing effect is more powerful than the blind effect, it would be thoroughly ineffectual as a blind spell used on opponents. If, on the other hand, the blind effect were more potent, it would be distinctly less than ideal to use as a healing spell on allies. Thus, if the heal effect is stronger, the blind effect cost is subtracted and the spell is nonhostile. If the blind effect is stronger, the heal effect cost is subtracted and the spell is hostile.

I really, really like this idea. I've certainly thought about things like this before. I didn't really think it could be done just yet, prior to de-hardcoding, but if it can, that would be absolutely delightful.
I'm glad someone understood me :D this is precisely what I meant.
Jemolk wrote:
02 May 2020, 05:05
jmelesky wrote:
01 May 2020, 19:08
Jemolk wrote:
01 May 2020, 00:25
This does make me think of something else, however: for this to work, I think you'd need it to only apply when the range and area parameters for the effects are the same. Otherwise you could abuse this to make kinda broken spells. For example, you'd be able to make the Blind effect have an area of 50, causing it to affect all enemies near the targeted ally while also reducing the cost by more. Similarly, if the Blind effect was on touch and the heal on target, you could cast the spell from a distance without problems, getting the cost reduction basically free.
I guess that's what I'm getting at: MW's magic system is extremely flexible, so adding complexity is going to need to handle that. I have a hard time seeing the proposed feature not allowing for extremely broken spells.

You could limit the flexibility, by redoing the spellmaker to only allow certain good/bad combinations, but that would be a substantial overhaul. Or make the "drawbacks for lower cost" a completely separate category that had a set list of options (e.g. "Drain Fatigue X on self for spell duration, for X/10 cost reduction", "Blind X on self for spell duration, for X cost reduction"), but that would require significant additional functionality.
And that is, in turn, why I didn't think it could be done yet, prior to de-hardcoding. However, if the effects all had to have exactly the same range and area parameters, it would theoretically significantly reduce problems. That said, you're probably right. It'll either be too easy to break, or pretty useless, without the ability to tinker with things we currently can't.
I guess the easy solution would be to only allow it for effects on self. And also, I think this is something that is much easier to achieve as a "hardcoded" feature. It can still leave a flag accessible for whether or not people want to use it, but trying to script it would be much harder and hackier I think.