Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/virilneu/public_html/blog/wp-includes/cache.php on line 36

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/virilneu/public_html/blog/wp-includes/query.php on line 21

Deprecated: Assigning the return value of new by reference is deprecated in /home/virilneu/public_html/blog/wp-includes/theme.php on line 540
Virilneus’ GS4 Idea Book » 2011 » March

Virilneus’ GS4 Idea Book

March 27, 2011

Training Point Factoring Bug

Filed under: Game Balance — Virilneus @ 8:24 am

I call this a bug, because it would seem unintended, unless you intend all professions with AURA or DISCIPLINE as a prime stat to have a TP penalty, which has been fully taken into account in regards to game balance and mangler costs (I doubt it).

But, by all means, if this isn’t an unintended bug, say that it is intended that some professions receive less TPs without having training expectations adjusted down by the same ratio.

This issue is very similar to the Sorcerer/hybrid CS issue that was finally, thankfully, fixed after many years of complaining by myself and others. It is a mathematical anomally. I’m hoping that it too can be fixed like the CS issue was. Though, this is arguably a bigger deal since it involves TPs. When I have brought this up in the past I’ve been told it wasn’t a big deal, but you factor it over 100 levels and you’re looking at significant TPs. Consequently I had also been told the CS issue wasn’t a big deal, so I’m hoping maybe attitudes have changed. Anyways…

In GS3 all professions had the same TP formula, which double counted DISCIPLINE and AURA, thus making them important to all professions for TPs. With the change to GS4 professions were differentiated by using prime stats for each professions. However DISCIPLINE and AURA were still treated differently, namely counted twice and then halved.

On the surface, doubling something then halving it would seem to be a wash, which is probably why it passed review originally. However, this is not the case in practice as you will see.

So here is the formula today:

MTPs = 25 + ((LOG + INT + WIS + INF + ((AUR + DIS) 2) 20)
PTPs = 25 + ((STR + CON + DEX + AGI + ((AUR + DIS) 2) 20)
Note: A character’s prime requisites are doubled for the above formulas.

For the sake of easy math I’m going to give every stat a 100, this will show the disparity at the most extreme point, but in actuality the value non-requisite stats matters little to the disparity, it grows as your prime stat approaches 100, which, because it is a prime stat, tends to happen at early levels, so we really are talking about 100 levels of this disparity.

MTPS = 25 +((100+(100*2)+(100*2)+100+((100+100) / 2) / 20) = 60
PTPS = 25 +((100+100+100+100+((100+100) / 2) / 20) = 50

MTPS = 25 +((100+100+100+100+((100+100) /2) / 20) = 55
PTPS = 25 +(((100*2)+(100*2)+100+100+((100+100) / 2) / 20) = 60

Do you see the pattern? Pure has a max of 60 MTPS and 55 PTPS, square has opposite.

You would think wizards would have the same pattern? You would be wrong

MTPS = 25 +(((100*2)+100+100+100+(((100*2)+100) /2) / 20) = *57.5* truncated to 57
PTPS = 25 +((100+100+100+100+(((100*2)+100) /2) / 20) = *52.5* truncated to 52

The wizard has AURA as a prime stat, so it gets doubled, however, because it then is divided in half, the bonus is divided as well. As such, in the formula, if you have 100 in your prime stats, for a cleric, warrior, rogue, ranger, empath, paladin, the prime stat bonus is 100. If you’re a wizard, bard, or sorcerer, the prime stat bonus is 50. So when you divide by 20 you end up with a difference both sides. So the wizard gains 2 PT, but loses 3 MTP. Considering what point is more useful, that is a net loss of 2 MTP. Over 100 levels that is 200 MTPS (202 if you count level 0). The equivalent of 4 full levels of training points. For a mathematical quirk!

Most people don’t even realize this is going on.

This is especially, IMO, injurious to sorcerers who already have game-high training point expectations, and we have to do with 5% less than others, a factor which obviously was not accounted for in our TP costs.

Lets look at SEMIs

MTPs = 25 + ((100 + (100*2) + 100 + 100 + ((100 + 100) /2) /20) = 55
PTPs = 25 + ((100 + 100 + (100*2) + 100 + ((100 + 100) /2) /20) = 55

MTPs = 25 + ((100 + 100 + 100 + (100*2) + (((100*2) + 100) 2) 20) = 57.5 truncated to 57
PTPs = 25 + ((100 + 100 + 100 + 100 + (((100*2) + 100) 2) 20) = 52.5 truncated to 52

So, bards receive 2 MORE MTPs than rangers, but 3 less PTPs. Because Bards and rangers do not have obvious TP preferences (like pures do) this is harder to say that it is a penalty. I cannot necessarily say Bards are being penalized.

However, wizards and sorcerers definitely are when compared with the other pures (clerics/empaths) because for these professions MTPs are preferred and needed (I myself have almost 6000 PTPs converted)

In practical situations, the disparity will not reach 202 mtps unless you put your AURA to 100 at level 0. This isn’t often done. However, because AURA is so very important (spirit, mana, etc) it isn’t often tanked, 80s, 90s, are common, even for low levels. The disparity for your average typical training over 100 levels probably is somewhere around 180 mtps, still a big number.

I think it is a big deal, I think it should be fixed. Yes, it would mean giving wizards & sorcerers a TP boost after the fact, and that may seem egregious, but you’re only giving us TPs we would have earned over the life of our characters had this mathematical quirk of a penalty not existed. It is only fair.

The fix, by the way, would be to remove the prime stat bonus, if it is AURA or Discipline, to AFTER the stats are averaged and divided by two.


If Profession = Wizard or Sorcerer:
MTPs = 25 + ((LOG + INT + WIS + INF + ((AUR + DIS) 2) + AUR 20) = 60 (with all 100s, just like a cleric or empath)
PTPs = 25 + ((STR + CON + DEX + AGI + ((AUR + DIS) 2) 20) = 50 (with all 100s, just like a cleric or empath)
Note: A character’s prime requisites are NOT doubled for the above formulas.

If Any Other Profession:
MTPs = 25 + ((LOG + INT + WIS + INF + ((AUR + DIS) 2) 20)
PTPs = 25 + ((STR + CON + DEX + AGI + ((AUR + DIS) 2) 20)
Note: A character’s prime requisites ARE doubled for the above formulas.

405 Proposal

Filed under: Spells — Virilneus @ 5:37 am

E-Lore Review is MIA. And I don’t remember 405 even being in the preview, but I feel strongly it needs work. It takes skill into account almost not at all, and in general just works pass fail. But rest assured, I’ve worked it all out:

When cast on yourself/others/monsters

Works as currently done, add lines to identify any current elemental resistances. It is “elemental detection” afterall, in lots of other games similar spells do this. “Critter is weak to fire.”

When cast on items

Currently this is just pass/fail if you know the spell, you can identify it, this should change. Like when cast on yourself when young and unskilled you can only identify known spells, but as you get more skilled you can start to identify other spells, and get durations too.

1 1d100 roll, used twice.

1. Spell detection: Take your mana control skill in the applicable sphere, plus your die roll, and divide by 10. If the level of the spell is less than or equal to the result, you are shown which spell is in the item. If you’re trying to detect a hybrid sphere (like empath) take the two mana controls and average them first. This would encourage off native mana control training for some people.

2. Spell charges: Take your MIU skill, plus your die roll, and divide by 10.  If the number of charges left is equal to or less than the result, show the exact number of charges remaining. Otherwise, show “Too many for you to discern.”  So the “too many” threshold would be different for each player, and each cast with the roll component. A maximally trained player would be able to detect up to 30 charges if they rolled a 100, 20 if they rolled a 2. A typically trained just-capped pure (1x) would be able to see a max of 20 charges if they rolled 100, 10 if they rolled a 2.

Use the same roll for both halves, should be more efficient that way, but because of training difference it would be possible, on say a minor mental spell, for a player to detect the charges well, but still not get the spell name.

Possible Forseen Resistance to Change

Bards: You’re stealing our turf, no one will love us anymore.
Response: This would not detect rechargability, so you will still be needed for that. Also, with the introduction of the enhancive treasure system, your work load ballooned exponentially. People need you more than ever to check their enhancives. Don’t worry, you still have a purpose.

Powered by WordPress