I targeted the lout and hit poor Tristesse! We couldn't recreate this issue but getting the ambush timing all straight was awkward. So, here's the log at least.


sR> prep do
Since you're not feeding enough power into the spell pattern to make it coherent, you quickly work your way to the minimum required.
You raise an arm skyward, chanting the equation of the Dinazen Olkar spell.
s>

> target lout head
You begin to weave mana lines into a target pattern around a hidden sleazy lout, focusing on its head.

s> harn 30

You tap into the mana from thirty of the surrounding streams and attempt to keep it channeling in a stream around you.
Roundtime: 2 sec.
sR>
The sleazy lout reels about wildly as he tries to regain control of his body.
sR>
Tristesse begins to advance on a sleazy lout.

sR>
You notice Tristesse slip into a hiding place.

Your formation of a targeting pattern around a sleazy lout has completed.
s>
You notice Tristesse as she stealthily closes to pole weapon range on a sleazy lout.
s> cast

You gesture at Tristesse.
You contribute your harnessed streams to increase the pattern's potential.
A noose of darkest shadows forms in your hands. With a flick of your wrist, you send it flying at Tristesse!
The air around Tristesse solidifies into a dull yellow haze and intercepts the attack with a shower of coruscating light.
The noose glances off her small shield.
The noose scrapes across her right hand in a wide arc, removing a few layers of skin.

Roundtime: 1 sec.

sR>
Summerfrost raises his head skyward, chanting.
You recognize the familiar mnemonics of the Shadows spell.
sR>
You notice Tristesse as she stealthily closes to melee range on a sleazy lout.
s>
Tristesse leaps from hiding and ambushes a sleazy lout!
Tristesse leaves a shining arc in its path and lands a hard hit to the lout's abdomen.

s>
The sleazy lout reels about wildly as he tries to regain control of his body.
s>
You feel fully rested.

s> "What?
You ask, "What?"
s>
The air around Tristesse shimmers with a weak yellow light that quickly disperses.
s>
Tristesse leaves a shining arc in its path and lands a solid hit to the lout's abdomen.
s> "I'm sorry.
You say, "I'm sorry."
s> puzz
You act puzzled.
s>
Tristesse raises her weapons before her and prepares to strike.
s>
The sleazy lout leaps from hiding and ambushes Tristesse!

Tristesse rushes at a sleazy lout, lashing out with her moonblade!

---

I like to imagine that the popping sound of PD is kind of like the fire swamp.

The problem is that it's extremely easy for AoE TM to be overpowered - the more common complaint post 3.0 that we heard was that there was no point in using non AoE spells, which is what lead to the 3.1 adjustments.

-Raesh

"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose

What situations are you in that you would want to use AOE TM but find it too ineffective? Why should AOE be better than non-AOE in that situation?

The situations you listed when it is useful seem exactly what AOE TM was designed for (excepting the stealth/invis reforming too quickly).

---

Don't forget to vote:

http://www.topmudsites.com/vote-DragonRealms.html

With the exp tweaked for 3.1 I use War Mage AOE TM much less. The best use I found was ROS when mining in places critters are. At level it damages things fine, but the exp is too small and since it's killing things other combat skills suffer. Cyclic TM exp WAS amazing but was too OP in 3.0 in my opinion, but the exp downtweak really makes it only useful for farming in my eyes now.

It was handy when Drogor's minions were out for HE and you wanted to stock up on shark teeth though :)

[20:11] Chatter[Arathael] Usually only get skill when it's successful.
[20:13] Chatter[Morpion] Thats why Arathael has 0.00 ranks in Getting Girls
[20:14] Chatter[Arathael] =(

Fire rain is cyclic.

- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -

> Fire rain is cyclic.

Well I guess that answers that. It still fits in the paradigm though.

>>The situations you listed when it is useful seem exactly what AOE TM was designed for (excepting the stealth/invis reforming too quickly).<<

They're all situations, except the stealth thing, where it doesn't really matter what I do because there's no urgency. I could replace the AOE with just fighting it out. Those are situations where I'm just messing around and could do whatever.

>>What situations are you in that you would want to use AOE TM but find it too ineffective? Why should AOE be better than non-AOE in that situation?<<

Basically situations where my character needs to deal with a bunch of things before they deal with him or someone he's fighting with. For instance, in an invasions where the creatures are dangerous or when hunting with a partner who is over their head. That IMO is the natural niche for AOE TM IMO and it's the niche it occupied back in 2.0 and before (also, killing stealthy people). But right now even though AOE is technically more efficient in the sense that it does more damage totaled over all targets than a single target spell would do on one target, cast vs cast, doing a little bit of damage spread over a bunch of things does me no good tactically because I can't stand there and plink away while my dude and his hunting buddies get swarmed under. That's my issue.


Mazrian

Suggestion on single shot AoE TM rules. The increased modifiers can totally change. Main goal was to make using an AoE on mass targets cost more, require more work, but properly reward people with the investment. You also won't feel dumb if you opt to just rattle off a few single target strikes on a specific mob.

1) Make all costs 3x what they'd be as a single target TM (you get the fourth target free!)
2) Keep damage consistent with single target TM
3) Give it 2x the prep time of a single target TM spell. This time, you get the third and fourth targets free!

---

Uzmam! The Chairman will NOT be pleased to know you're trying to build outside of approved zones. I'd hate for you to be charged the taxes needed to have this place re-zoned. Head for the manor if you're feeling creative.

>>1) Make all costs 3x what they'd be as a single target TM (you get the fourth target free!)
>>2) Keep damage consistent with single target TM
>>3) Give it 2x the prep time of a single target TM spell. This time, you get the third and fourth targets free!

This would be another version of "technically more efficient than single target but tactically not useful" and I think it might actually be less efficient than the way AOE TM works now. <g>

Mazrian

>>If it was tactically better than single-shot in all situations, then it would probably devalue single shot TM too much.

Tactically better in some situations is the thrust of these suggestions. Currently AOE TM is tactically better in no situations. In practice plinking out a little bit of damage to a large number of targets, unless it's done with a cyclic, is not a useful thing to be able to do.

>>I think that's the major issue when it comes to balancing out stuff like this.

For sure. I think we can think about balance a litte differently and arrive at a paradigm where it works. For instance, let's think about the criteria that would lead people to strictly choose AOE over single target.

1) If AOE teaches better. This is likely to trump every other factor in peoples' decision making so let's discard it by putting AOE TM on a different exp model such that single target teaches better.

2) If AOE grants more tactical advantage against a single target in a single cast than single target TM, for the same cost in time/attunement/concentration. If this is the case AOE strictly dominates single target as a tactical choice.

And that's pretty much it, right? The standard way to think about #2 would be as a computational exercise (my perception - I apologize if this is incorrect) - comparing X theoretical damage for Y mana over Z time for each spell. That's a good way to balance two spells that have the same application. For thinking about classes of spells that shouldn't have the same application I would propose there is a more useful way to approach the problem.

I think it would be useful to approach the balance between AOE and single target by thinking of the benefit conferred in terms of the tactical value experienced by the player - "How is this thing going to qualitatively change my situation if I cast it?" and the cost in terms of the actual impact on the player's ability to keep using combat magic - "Is this a small outflow that doesn't impact my readiness very much or is it a big investment of resources that will impact my ability to follow up?" - before giving any thought to tweaking numbers.

Right off the bat you can create a difference in kind between between single target and AOE that is something like this:

Single target qualitatively changes the caster's situation by putting some damage on a target, for a small cost. It's the equivalent of firing a magical arrow at something in both cost and intended effect.

AOE qualitatively changes the casters situation by dumping a ton of damage on the entire area (or damage + secondaries, etc) in a bid to swing the battle in the caster's favor with one spectacular burst, for a significant outlay of resources - for example, from full attunement you could cast one full power and maybe have some juice to follow up if you planned well, but not two back to back.

That difference in kind should create separate niches for single target and AOE that don't overlap. And if you done that you've achieved balance in the sense that one class of spells doesn't dominate the other in all niches. From there you can tweak costs and effects (maybe AOE needs a specific cooldown timer or something, or single target needs to do more damage, etc) so that things aren't too good in an absolute sense.




Mazrian

> IMO, the best scenario would be making AoE better against 3+ mobs, and single shot better against 1 or 2 mobs.

I think everyone agrees this is the best case scenario, but pulling it off is incredibly difficult. This is exaggerated by DR going from "2 mobs: no problem, can handle in my sleep" to "3 mobs: I'm going to die unless that third mob is quickly dispatched". That makes single target very nice in 3+ mob scenarios and AOE not so great as it takes longer to kill the third.

>>That's why I was suggesting upping the prep time and mana costs, but not to the point where you might as well rattle off four single shot TM spells as opposed to letting loose one AoE against three or four mobs.

You're thinking in terms of the computational balancing I just posted about. In practice that's not going to be enough difference to make AOEs useful and the increased costs would actually make them worse than now because 300 mana and 20 seconds targeting time is a very large resource cost while doing the equivalent of 1 single-target TM spell to 4 targets is not going to change very much for the caster.

The problem is like I outlined it - any situation where I can stand and hold off 4 mobs while I plink away - even if the plink is a little bigger - is one in which I could just do whatever because I'm in no danger. Arguably, in that situation, I deal damage a little more efficiently using the AOE and that isn't nothing. But that is the most boring possible way to distinguish those abilities and the point of this thread is that people don't find it fun.

Like I said, I think we need to think about differences in kind rather than differences in degree.



Mazrian

I would think the mana scale could be adjusted to have a significant rise in power in the 50-100 mana range without changing the "plink" of lower preps, and not making higher mana usage overpowering.

i.e. mana < 50 = x + mana | 50 < mana < 100 = 2x + mana | mana > 100 = x + 2mana + (2x + 100)

---

"Game balance is sobbing over in the corner as it considers the ramifications of AoE Blufmor Garaen. Your spell slots send their condolences." - GM Raesh

Actually a timer would be the simplest way to have useful AOE TM that doesn't dominate single target TM, since while the timer was running a caster couldn't substitute one for the other even if they'd prefer to.

Mazrian

I think there is also fear of system resource use in invasions. Not to mention the opness that is a cast that hits 20 targets.

Yes, I believe specifically due to the system resource concern during invasions.

I would also like to see each type of TM spell have its own niche. I like a lot of the suggestions I see here, and I have one thought that hasn't come up, that might or might not help give each type its own niche.

It is my understanding that right now, the damage an area-of-effect TM spell deals is pretty much symmetric with its damage to the multiple targets, meaning that on average it damages everything equally. If the amount of damage it deals to each target is close to the same as a single target spell, this make the single target spell obsolete. If the amount of damage is far less than the single target spell, this makes AOE not a good tactical choice, even for defeating large numbers of enemies quickly, because killing the first target more quickly with the single target spell makes it easier to survive long enough to kill the rest.

If the damage were not symmetric, it might be easier to reach our desired balance: the mana cost of AOE still made it undesirable for one or two enemies, but it is still the best/fastest option for situations where multiple kills in rapid succession are desired. My suggestion is that if you're facing one of the targets, then that target takes almost as much damage as a single shot TM would deal, but the rest of them take less than full damage. This gives the GMs two knobs to turn when trying to balance the damage from AOE spells. One knob is how much damage the first target takes, and the second knob is how much supplemental damage the rest of the targets take. Hopefully this would provide the flexibility needed to reach our desired balance.

As far as in-game concerns go, it would make sense that the intensity of the lightning arcs (or telekinetically propelled debris, or holy fire rains, etc) would not be completely uniform over the entire area of effect. This change could represent the small amount of limited control the mage has over where the most intense portions of the lethal energies are focused.

<The problem with this is that casting a single target spell to immediately remove one target is still almost always a superior option over doing almost-single-target damage to one and less damage to others. If it was doing more damage to one of the targets than a single target spell does, then you immediately make AoE spells superior to single target spells.>

If your goal is to immediately remove one target, then a single target spell is what you want. If your goal is to remove as many as possible as fast as possible, then an AOE is what you want. At least, that's the balance I believe we're trying to strike: each type having its own tactical niche. The difficulty right now, as I understand it, is that the AOE damage is so much weaker, that unless your defenses can handle all of them, you are better off killing one at a time until they can, which means there's not much place for AOE (not even when you want to kill more than one enemy). Are you saying that even if AoE killed one target just as fast as single target TM, but also did somewhat reduced damage to the other targets, at the expense of a greater attunement loss, you still wouldn't want to use it when you needed to quickly get rid of 2-4 enemies, for the sake of your defense? I can see how your suggestion does give each type of spell it's niche, but it could also be considered unbalanced, and I'm not sure it makes in-game sense for the targets to take more damage when there are more of them. If the GMs were feeling ambitious they could do some AOE spells of one style, and some of another.

> That won't happen, because if it did we'd be back to the problem that existed in 2.0 where there was no reason to use single target stuff. It was changed to what it is now FROM that.


I seriously wonder if it's feasible to just scratch the idea of straight cast AOE spells. Take the three straight cast AOE spells that exist now, Chain Lightning, TKS, and HH, and change them. TKS becomes a room based pulsing spell. HH becomes a pulsing or triggered spell on the cleric. Chain lightning becomes a TM/Debil spell (AOE nerve damage - since it matters now). Give them a reason to be cast if there's a horde, or if you anticipate a horde.

If that's out, maybe at least reducing the slot requirement for AOE spells considering their so niche and just call them niche spells for farming high spawn mobs.

>Is the line between those two really so fine? Do you not think having that second knob to adjust would blur that line a bit?

I think the second knob needs to be something new because the knobs we have will lead to one or the other always being the right choice.

>Right now, I think single target spells are more powerful (if you need to kill fast, you use them), and area of effect spells are more efficient (the total damage over all targets is more than you would get for the same mana in single target casts).

This is already true, but the issue is that when you factor in the wound reduction from vitality, you need say, 6+ casts of an AoE spell to theoretically clear out a room of 4 things, where you will only likely need 4-6 casts of a single target spell.

The idea of single target vs area effect spell shouldn't be as convoluted as more dmg vs more efficiency, it simply needs to be "better vs single or few targets" vs "better at multiple targets". In my opinion there should never be a reason to use a non-cyclic AoE spell against a single target. At the same time tweaking the knobs the way they have been taeaked in the past makes one or the other always better, rather than situationally better.

We need new knobs.


- Starlear, Warrior Mage and Lieutenant of Ilithi's Crystal Vanguard -