[Balance/Discussion] Mana System Rework and Spell discussion

The spell system in FE has some serious problems right now, and they contribute to a lot of broken gameplay.

There are many other issues with heroes right now, but spellcasting affects both strategic play and tactical combat, so it has a heavy influence on all aspects of the game.

The mana system currently does a very poor job of handling the spells, as it encourages you to make heavy use of cheap buffs/debuffs and highly efficient multi-target aoe spells, ignore all high cost strategic spells or spells with a mana upkeep, and then later breaks down completely due to increasing mana income and/or cost reduction traits/items.

Once your total mana income surpasses a certain level and/or your mage heroes have enough traits/equipment, you can cast spells endlessly in tactical combat, and depending on your income, mana costs make strategic spells either impractical or trivial to cast - and trivial Earthquake or Cloud Walk is insane.

The other problem with mana cost as a balancing mechanism is that your mana income is highly variable dependant on the random map generated and the size of the map.

This can easily cause you to be starved of mana income, rendering high cost spells completely useless (indeed, in all of my winning games, I have yet to make use of the >100 strategic spells to any significant degree even once I could afford them, they're just grossly inefficient compared to tac spells with cost reducers or a tiny handful of the cheaper strategic spells).

If you remove cheap effective spells you mandate that the player must find a certain level of mana income every game to be able to use magic to any significant degree, while if you have any number of effective low cost spells you can safely ignore expensive spells and reliably plan your strategy around those cheap spells, which removes a lot of the richness of the magic system if large parts of it are consistently beyond your reach every game.

There are a lot of areas that spells touch, but here's a breakdown of some of the bigger ones and some thoughts on each.

Some solutions that spring to mind for these problems for Tactical Combat:

1) Ditch the mana system entirely.

  • Go to a cooldown based system for spells.
  • Now spells can be tuned with a windup time and a cooldown time, allowing for much, much greater predictability in the power of a spell - if a spell is 'balanced' by a high cost, it is by definition imbalanced when cost ceases to be relevant.
  • Tune workhorse spells to have no windup time and a short cooldown. Players, AI, and monsters are expected to be able to use certain spells repeatedly and reliably, combat is tuned around this fact.
  • Powerful spells have a long windup time and/or long cooldown, giving you a variety of options in battle, without the ability to spam high power spells every turn. This means that a high power spell has a dramatic impact on how a battle plays out, but cannot be spammed to end every fight once acquired.
  • Initiative has no effect on windup or cooldown times.
  • This system also gives consistent, important, and reliable use for Counterspells, which are currently completely useless due to the lack of windup spells and the init system affecting cast times.
  • An additional system for tinkering with spell power: casting certain high power spells also starts a cooldown on other spells, either of the same elemental school, or the same level, or across the board, depending on their power.

2) Cap tactical combat mana.

  • It can be capped to a fixed amount dependant on map size, an amount dependant on hero Level/Int/Traits/whatever, a combination of absolute minimum/% of total mana maximum, or any number of other systems.
  • Once capped, you can predict with much greater accuracy the available mana pool of players/ai in tactical combat and can tune spells appropriately, such that some spells can be cast repeatedly in a fight, but others can only be cast a few times.
  • REMOVE all forms of %cost reduction to prevent heroes from casting level 5 spells for no mana. It's too difficult to tune mana income against spell cost if a player can bypass the system entirely with Affinity and a Mage Robe giving 60-90% cost reduction (unless it's desired that the player can eventually infinitely cast tac spells by the late game, and the combat is tuned around that expectation).

In either case: Remove initiative as a component in spells with windup times. If a spell takes 1 turn to cast, it needs to take 1 full round of combat for all sides, otherwise high level heroes can cast these spells instantly, rendering the balancing mechanism of a windup time completely moot.

Strategic level spells are a different issue

Note that, interestingly, some Strategic spells already do have a cooldown. The framework is already there for a cooldown based system, but some thoughts:

Cooldown System

  • Still works for strategic level spells. Can be adjusted based on map size to tune the power of strategic spells.
  • Limits can be imposed on the number of maintained spells based on shards held/research in the Magic tree/magic items/hero traits/etc. This could affect city, unit, and hero buffing spells.
  • Unit buffs could be moved to a maintained limit system, or a cooldown system, allowing for temporary army boosts that need to be timed for maximum effectiveness.
  • Allows even ridiculously broken spells like Cloud Walk to be at least somewhat more reasonable, if given a long cooldown.
  • City buffing spells like Aura of Grace and Aura of Vitality could be given a limited duration, allowing you to produce a handful of buffed units every so often - currently you can either produce them infinitely, or abuse the system by casting both, creating units, then cancelling both since the buffs stick around.
  • Prevents the complete lockdown of enemy units in your territory with the repeated casting of cheap spells like Tremor, or the obscene power of repeated Earthquakes and Tornado which only have one turn cooldowns.

Debuff Spells

Currently debuff spells are the only spells in the game subject to a resistance check. I really dislike all or nothing mechanics, especially in tactical combat, and even more because in this case you have the option of either guaranteed damage, or a guaranteed buff/summon/non targeted spell. This makes debuff spells categorically worse than all other types of magic in tac combat.

Some suggestions:

  • Keep the resist system in place, but allow partial effects if a debuff is resisted. Slow still slows, but has less of an effect. Shrink still shrinks, but does not reduce damage or increase dodge as much. Gravemark still triggers but damage only gains a boost instead of becoming a guaranteed critical.
  • Add buff/debuff removal spells in addition to counterspells. This gives you the ability to counter your opponents buffs and clear debuffs as needed, creating some interactivity between spellcasters, something sorely lacking right now (it would also give another useful role for Spell Mastery)

All Spells

  • Add Hero Traits to support buffing/debuffing/counterspelling/cleansing/summoning.
  • Currently heroes can reduce mana cost and specialize in Evocation, boosting damage spells - but there are zero traits for boosting buffs or debuffs, or aiding in cleansing buffs/debuffs, counterspelling, or powering up summons.

--

Share your thoughts!

My personal preference is dumping the mana system in favor of a cooldown system. Mana has lots of nostalgic ties, but its a pretty shitty system for balancing power, as it's exceedingly binary. You have mana, you cast as much as you want. No mana, you can't cast anything.

Forcing your players to play spell-economics by performing cost-benefit analysis on Haste vs Thunderstrike is considerably less interesting to me than choosing which spells I'm going to use in battle if I can only cast certain spells once in the fight and others more frequently.

It then becomes a game of utilizing spells with varied effects intelligently instead of simply spamming your high powered spells until the entire enemy army is dead with no harm to your units, or casting the same sequence of buffs on your heroes every fight.

7,017 views 19 replies
Reply #1 Top

I cut out a chunk on Shards - they're actually kind of a sticky problem, because randomly generated shards + randomly generated heroes + randomly assigned hero spell schools is a big chunk of variance in terms of mana income, spell power, and casting availability.

I made some posts elsewhere about the hero recruiting issue, but Shards themselves are one area where I'm not sure one way or another if they're an issue. Death magic seems disproportionately powerful simply because you can convert shards to Death, giving you the ability to supercharge that school of spells, something no other school can do.

The others though - combat magic gains most of its power from Path of the Mage + Evocation + Affinity + any caster items a hero has, and buffs/debuffs, while they become more effective with more shards, are still frequently useful even without any.

However, with a bunch of shards of the appropriate element, some of the buffs and debuffs become hyper-powered, giving you heroes with insane defense or evasion or completely crippling enemy units.

Owning many shards also gives the mana income to make use of the very powerful strategic level spells, some of which are game ending.

It's difficult to get a read on this issue (beyond the obvious impact of Death magic's convert and shard stacking), simply because of the state of the AI. Until the AI is beefed up and competing aggressively for shards and making use of magic heavily, getting a feel for just how this system plays out is tough.

 

edit: One possibility without radically reworking the current shard system would be to add more cross-shard modifiers. Several spells already use this mechanic, extending it a bit would reduce the random factor a bit.

Reply #2 Top

I really think a lot of this can be overcome with properly scaling mana costs.

Spells whose effects are shard based ought to have mana costs which scale with the shards involved in the casting of that spell.  (I know, the effects of some of these spells are imbalanced right now.)

Mana costs should scale according to the spell mastery it takes to cast the spell as follows (roughly, for simplicity sake):

Level I : 1 - 9 mana (single digit mana costs, adjusted for shards used)

Level II : 10 - 99 mana (double digit mana costs, adjusted for shards used)

Level III : 100 - 999

Level IV : 1000 - 9999

Level V : 10000 - 99999

This way, if you want to become a Master Mage and cast those really huge world affecting spells you would really have to specialize in mana production to achieve those results

I think keeping the current mana system, adding more city improvements and traits which adjust mana gain, and balancing out the mana costs / effects of existing spells can do a lot for the game as it stands without completely ripping the core systems apart.

Reply #3 Top

 

Most of the recommendations I agree with. I would lean towards removing the mana component for tactical combat entirely, as this both allows magic to be properly balanced by time and effect (as apposed to stockpiling mana) and gives reason for neutral caster enemy heroes to use their spells against you. It also makes considerably more sense that a champion starting with a spellschool has had the opportunity to test it. Lack of magic in the world could simply refer to enchantments and world changing spells, but firebolts have always been possible.

There are two changes that I am in disagreement with:


An additional system would be casting certain high power spells also starts a cooldown on other spells, either of the same elemental school, or the same level, or across the board, depending on their power.

End of quote

Giving up your turns to cast a spell is penalty enough that additional penalties on casting need not be applied. Cooldowns are fine on a spell per spell basis, but any spell requiring a build up time should be balanced on the time it takes to cast. You will otherwise wind up with a party of casters who all 'wind' up to instagib the opposition, and cooldowns won't be relevant, because the enemy will be dead.

 

 In either case: Remove initiative as a component in spells with windup times. If a spell takes 1 turn to cast, it needs to take 1 full round of combat for all sides, otherwise high level heroes can cast these spells instantly, rendering the balancing mechanism of a windup time completely moot.

End of quote

Initiative is an important combat mechanic, and it would unfairly favor melee/ranged type heroes that can act multiple times per round, which was one of the major complaints with War of Magic. I'm perfectly okay with spells being cast faster due to higher initiative, and it makes much more sense that way as well. The effect of Initiative may require tweaking, but it should affect all forms of tactical combat the same way.

Mana should still be a factor in overworld spells, though I would like to see the maintenance costs of spells reviewed, as 1 mana per turn for all spells unfairly biases global effects over unit enchantments. Just fyi though, the city buffing spell thing is a bug. And if you maintain the spell, save, then reload the game, the effects will stack. Allowing you to grant hundreds of extra points of dexterity and vitality to your troops.

Reply #4 Top

Quoting CdrRogdan, reply 3
I would lean towards removing the mana component for tactical combat entirely
End of CdrRogdan's quote

Again I disagree.  A few balance passes could easily iron things out.  I don't condone changing the system in this case.

Reply #5 Top

Ugh... stupid lack of a preview button

Reply #6 Top

As suggested in another thread i think the mana system does not need a complete overhaul. Instead it needs only a few changes:

The evoker talents should be changed to + 25 % damage, because the damage difference is currently too big.

The brilliant talent should be changed to + 3 intelligence.

Every spell effect should be based on the heroes intelligence. The bonus effect should replace the bonus XP and it should be intelligence x 2 %.

Every element should have a spell to change the type of a shard to that element (spell level 3 and 100 mana).

Fireball should be changed into two different spells: A spell that affects all units in a single square and a spell that affects one unit per square within a 1 square radius.

Blizzard should be changed into two different spells: A spell that affects all units in a single square and a spell that affects one unit per square within a 2 square radius.

Reply #7 Top

Another improvement would be that a hero can not learn spells from the opposite element. That would make the spell selection more difficult and would limit the hero to three schools (life or death, fire or water and air or earth).

Reply #8 Top

All spells should be resistable, but a resist should only reduce the effect:

Fireball: 6 damage (+ 3 per fire shard) if the target does not resist and half damage if the target resists

Burning Hands: 8 damage (+ 4 per fire shard) if the target does not resist and half damage if the target resists

Slow: - 2 initiative (- 1 per water shard) if the target does not resist and half of the initiative penalty if the target resists

 

New spell that replaces the all unit version of fireball:

Scorching ray:

Level 2 fire spell

Affects all units in every square in a straight line

6 damage (+ 3 per fire shard) if the target does not resist and half damage if the target resists

 

Changed fireball:

Level 3 fire spell

Affects a single unit per square within a 1 square radius

8 damage (+ 4 per fire shard) if the target does not resist and half damage if the target resists

 

New spell that replaces the all unit version of blizzard:

Cone of cold:

Level 3 water spell

Affects all units in the square in front of the hero and in the three squares behind the first square

6 damage (+ 3 per water shard) if the target does not resist and half damage if the target resists

 

Changed blizzard:

Level 4 water spell

Affects a single unit per square within a 2 square radius

8 damage (+ 4 per water shard) if the target does not resist and half damage if the target resists

Reply #9 Top


Maybe this isn't the game you're looking for?

 

Don't mean it in the harsh since, but this is suppose to be 'Elemental' done right. Without the horrific bugs, without the overly complex micromanaging. Without the need to spam settlements (played at launch).

 

The mana system is one of the core aspects that I like about the game. There has been times where it frustrated me (early on, wishing I could rush an engagement), but over all I like the global mana pool as a resource. I also like it's tie in with the lore.

 

One thing I think would be interesting to look at it is allow for commerce wars/damage. Example: Abilities that damage the mana pool/Rob you of Gildar/Steal Research Points, etc. This could have both a drain or destroy aspect (one ability destroys 40 points of mana, another may DRAIN 30% of your targets mana (thereby being a potential gain/loss depending upon how much mana your opponent has). This is all pie in the sky stuff, probably too much to throw in at this stage.

 

That being said, please don't try for a radical knee jerk change to the current resource system. I enjoy at is something different. I dislike people trying to make this series 'conform' to more traditional models. Work on balancing, keep the unique resource systems.

Reply #10 Top

Of course if a magic resistance check favors the unit the spell is being cast on gets half damage or half effect, you'd still want completely immune units to not get any damage (or only 1 damage).  And partial magic resistance for a certain element would reduce damage by a certain percentage both when a magic resistance check succeeds *and* when it fails.

Reply #11 Top

Quoting mqpiffle, reply 4

Quoting CdrRogdan, reply 3 I would lean towards removing the mana component for tactical combat entirely

Again I disagree.  A few balance passes could easily iron things out.  I don't condone changing the system in this case.
End of mqpiffle's quote

I agree with your disagree. Crazy to remove the mana system. The cool down system sounds fun, but just based on that? Plenty of problems with that as well. 

 

 The other problem with mana cost as a balancing mechanism is that your mana income is highly variable dependant on the random map generated and the size of the map.
End of quote

This I submit isn't a problem. If you choose a smaller map size, with less magic shards, it means you are choosing a faster game/less magic rich game where you interact with AI much earlier, so obviously you won't get a chance to use too much of the higher level spells. As for type of map you get, well that's part of the game!

 

 This can easily cause you to be starved of mana income, rendering high cost spells completely useless (indeed, in all of my winning games, I have yet to make use of the >100 strategic spells to any significant degree even once I could afford them, they're just grossly inefficient compared to tac spells with cost reducers or a tiny handful of the cheaper strategic spells).
End of quote

If true (which I am not sure), sounds like a problem of balancing spells..Just .Make the higher level spells more powerful. Besides not all the spells need to be equally useful! Besides I am of the school where.. "fun" is as important as "balanced". Take MOM, are all the high level spells we love to talk about really efficient? Like the spell that freezes time? Still it was cool and we all loved it..

Anyway i think is impossible SD would remove mana and just do cool downs so it's moot. 

I am okay with most of the other ideas, like traits that increase effectiveness of bluffs, summons etc.. And maybe 

 

a) resists for everything even direct damage or

b) having limited effects even for resisting curses..

 

 

 

Reply #12 Top

Quoting luketan, reply 11

I agree with your disagree. Crazy to remove the mana system. The cool down system sounds fun, but just based on that? Plenty of problems with that as well. 
End of luketan's quote

Like what?
 

Quoting luketan, reply 11

If true (which I am not sure), sounds like a problem of balancing spells..Just .Make the higher level spells more powerful. Besides not all the spells need to be equally useful! Besides I am of the school where.. "fun" is as important as "balanced". Take MOM, are all the high level spells we love to talk about really efficient? Like the spell that freezes time? Still it was cool and we all loved it..
 
End of luketan's quote

I am as well - I'm raising this point because its currently no fun due to being so imbalanced that it removes any sense of challenge or satisfaction from playing the game. That's uh, kind of a problem :P

Balance is a nebulous and dangerous word that's tossed around with little regard to its meaning, particularly in regards to multiplayer.

In this specific instance, I'm talking about the spell system being imbalanced in the sense that 1) some aspects of it are so glaringly broken that once active, they remove all challenge from the game and 2) due to those same factors, entire chunks of gameplay become either nearly or entirely relevant (other spells, equipment, armies, etcetc).

I don't care about having 'overpowered' spells in the sense that there can (and should) be powerful, scary spells that show up and cause problems for you or the AI, or for having magic that is highly effective and interesting, I do care about a system where you can stampede over the entire game with a handful of spells, ignoring the rest, and ignoring many other aspects of gameplay.

Reply #13 Top

 I am as well - I'm raising this point because its currently no fun due to being so imbalanced that it removes any sense of challenge or satisfaction from playing the game. That's uh, kind of a problem
End of quote

Believe it or not MOM is worshiped as a classic but It's hardly balanced and the AI is weak. The fact MOM is so worshipped tells me there is a fairly large amount of players who want to cast cool spells to see what happens, try dozens of ways to play just to see if it works... I presume you never played it, or dont like it?

You on the other hand belong to another school, that if they find they can win with one method, without using anything else, immediately get unhappy. 

Nothing wrong with that. 

Quoting Mtrixis, reply 12
m being imbalanced in the sense that 1) some aspects of it are so glaringly broken that once active, they remove all challenge from the game and 2) due to those same factors, entire chunks of gameplay become either nearly or entirely relevant (other spells, equipment, armies, etcetc).
End of Mtrixis's quote

That may be so, but let's just fix those spells/equipment/traits then. Besides what makes you think with your all cool down system it will solve this problem? 

 

Reply #14 Top

Quoting luketan, reply 13

That may be so, but let's just fix those spells/equipment/traits then. Besides what makes you think with your all cool down system it will solve this problem? 

 
End of luketan's quote

That's what I suggested doing in the first post O_o

As for cooldowns, again, in the first post.

I'm not clear what you're arguing for here - you agree with me that there are flaws in the system that need to be changed, but you seem stuck on this concept of cooldowns - I don't care what system they use to fix the problems in the game right now, only that they're fixed. That's why I made this thread in the first place :P

Reply #15 Top

I am reacting to this

 

My personal preference is dumping the mana system in favor of a cooldown system. Mana has lots of nostalgic ties, but its a pretty shitty system for balancing power, as it's exceedingly binary. You have mana, you cast as much as you want. No mana, you can't cast anything.

 

End of quote

Pretty shitty system for balancing power is pretty strong words.  You make even stronger comments on how it's impossble/tough? to balance using the mana system etc.. 

 

Once your total mana income surpasses a certain level and/or your mage heroes have enough traits/equipment, you can cast spells endlessly in tactical combat, and depending on your income, mana costs make strategic spells either impractical or trivial to cast - and trivial Earthquake or Cloud Walk is insane.

The other problem with mana cost as a balancing mechanism is that your mana income is highly variable dependant on the random map generated and the size of the map.

This can easily cause you to be starved of mana income, rendering high cost spells completely useless (indeed, in all of my winning games, I have yet to make use of the >100 strategic spells to any significant degree even once I could afford them, they're just grossly inefficient compared to tac spells with cost reducers or a tiny handful of the cheaper strategic spells).

If you remove cheap effective spells you mandate that the player must find a certain level of mana income every game to be able to use magic to any significant degree, while if you have any number of effective low cost spells you can safely ignore expensive spells and reliably plan your strategy around those cheap spells, which removes a lot of the richness of the magic system if large parts of it are consistently beyond your reach every game.

End of quote

I understand you well enough I think, I see you are engaged with people who are arguing that melee is even stronger hence no need to fix magic system which I think is clearly missing the point (Melee being even stronger is besides the point).

 

 

Reply #16 Top

Quoting luketan, reply 15
I understand you well enough I think, I see you are engaged with people who are arguing that melee is even stronger hence no need to fix magic system which I think is clearly missing the point (Melee being even stronger is besides the point).
End of luketan's quote

Not at all, we are arguing that melee is even more broken so nerfing magic for being OP is not desirable at the moment.

If "fix the magic system" means "nerf magic" then you have a problem since magic is suboptimal strategy already.

Reply #17 Top

Quoting taltamir, reply 16

Quoting luketan, reply 15I understand you well enough I think, I see you are engaged with people who are arguing that melee is even stronger hence no need to fix magic system which I think is clearly missing the point (Melee being even stronger is besides the point).

Not at all, we are arguing that melee is even more broken so nerfing magic for being OP is not desirable at the moment.

If "fix the magic system" means "nerf magic" then you have a problem since magic is suboptimal strategy already.
End of taltamir's quote

Honestly, I think we should nerf both. Or ramp up magic to match. But if we do that, say bye bye to unit based strategies..

Or another fault with the magic system is how some spells are less useful than others but that's another issue... 

Reply #18 Top

There's been plenty of suggestions for nerfing the other crazy hero power stuff, I'm focusing on the magic system in this thread (though some of the issues do bleed over, Initiative is insanely powerful for melee or magic, as is movement speed).

I'm not too worried about the individual spells, they actually did a decent job for a first pass on differentiating spells and schools (not every school has a generic damage spell, they covered most types of damage delivery like point blank, point blank aoe, ranged, ranged aoe, etc). There's plenty of variance, though the spell schools do overlap in a few areas - just about every school has a spell that delays/damages units within your borders.

I'm more concerned with the underpinnings of the mana system, only a few parts of the spell system itself bug me (eg, debuffs), and a few related hero issues (lack of traits to power up other types of casting).

Though at this point I'm waiting to see what SD does in the next patch, they've been extremely uncommunicative about... well, any issues really. Despite having multiple good discussion threads on different parts of the game (cities, tac combat, heroes, magic, research, etc), I haven't seen any sort of feedback from the devs along the lines of 'yes this looks good' or 'no we're not touching this'.

It also means there's a ton of repeated issues/discussions popping up as new threads daily, with the same stuff coming up over and over again.

Reply #19 Top

Uncomfortable silence from the devs....

Might vs Magic is a stupid argument, neither is better because both are so broken

Magic is slightly more ridiculous when tactical spells become free and you've got 12+ shards

Warriors though can get like Charge+Impulsive+Quick+Fast+Compass+Master Scout+Warg+Uber Weapon=running across battlefield and triple striking for like 80dmg. Once had 5 Heroes who could do this.

 

Whole Magic system is unbalanced like crazy.

+Int is basically useless unless for some odd reason you wanna try to blind dragons instead on just killing them.

+Upkeep on spells is so high (1?) that no one uses them and just nukes everything with tactical spells

+Mid lv Mage Champions can cast super powerful tactical spells with unlimited mana even though they have horrible Int due to overpowered talents.

+90% of spells are useless

+There should be SOME mana cap like Int+Shards. Even if its just really high

+Unit groups are just wierd weaker versions of champions and monsters units that cannot protect themselves from spells because resistance only protects against curses and debuffs.

+Last two magic discipline talents and multidiscipline spells shouldn't just be talent dependant, you should research to unlock them. Having Archmagi running around without even researching magic at all is annoying and unbalanced.

+Rituals Suck Hard