Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Today
  2. alhoon, I just googled this. Literally all the references that turn up are comments from you. And in one of them, in 2019, you actually asserted the opposite, that the creation strength bug was added in the Steam versions. I don't know where you got this idea -- maybe from somebody commenting that the bug was fixed in Geneforge 5 (which it was, but that was true when the original version came out)? But it seems that no one else on the googleable Internet thinks this. -- It's true that Spellcraft boosting Battle Magic so much does give Battle Magic a boost
  3. No? Didn't they try to fix the creation strength bug? Regardless, battle magic was a bit weak so it needed a bit of a boost IMO. And while going 4 spellcraft and 2 battle magic may end up around the same ... spellcraft increases mind magic as well. I.e. the way I see it is that you focus on mind / spellcraft and have 3 points in battle magic and you're fine as far as battle magic goes as your ice spray damage keeps going up - and fast - regardless.
  4. Repackaging for Steam wouldn't have any reason to touch the numerical combat mechanics at all. But as it happens I tested on the original Spiderweb version, so I can confirm it happens there. Based on Rook's testing above the x2 only applies to levels of damage, and only for Battle Magic. (Not for Terror, which I was not expecting!) Whether it affects success power for Daze would require different testing, but that doesn't seem likely. So, how much you want of each depends. If you mostly just care about daze, nothing is different. If you care more about battle magi
  5. So spellcraft is x2 levels? Does this work for mind magic too? Frankly, I think it's not intentional and perhaps a bug introduced in later reintroductions of the game (i.e. making them for steam). If Spellcraft adds 2 levels to all magic skills, then it's insanely important. The only things you need magic for is to unlock the spells after all.
  6. I wouldn't lock yourself into that theory for the entire run of however many chapters there are moving forward. The premise of the story is that it was the Queen's wish for you to get off your royal butt & get out of her castle & be productive for once. That sets the stage for your biography moving forward, and thus the title of the story. There's nothing to say that background events can/can't have/or not have an impact on what 'you' are off doing at any one particular moment/chapter in the story. Nor is there any indication that the line of succession is matriarchal rather than 1
  7. Huh! So the defs assignment is to ability slot 1 -- I wonder if it's possible it uses that for any ranged attack. Alternately, I guess it could be a base stat difference. (Or something hardcoded, but that would be unusual for Spiderweb.)
  8. Yesterday
  9. Searer tested same as Firebolt Wait, that means I need to check Searer for a shaper... For a shaper too.
  10. I believe I have found the source of those extra levels of damage. In the defs file, the default shaper gets a hidden base level of 1 assigned to Firebolt, which I believe is connected to Firebolt. (This is really there for NPCs, who do not have their spell knowledge stats populated.) Due to a failure to inherit definition aspects properly, the default guardian and agent get a hidden level of 3 assigned to Firebolt instead. I don't think this affects any abilities other than Firebolt, especially given your melee results.
  11. Huh, interesting. You're right about base level for a shaper. I tested G1 earlier with a shaper and got 1 for base level. And now I've tested in G2 - also got 1. Tested an agent and a guardian they have 3. 😃 Thought that if so then base for an agent in G1, will be also 3, just checked, nope, still 1. It looks that base levels were changed in G2, and that for a guardian melee base could be higher, or maybe augmentation spell base, and such. However for PC building purposes it matters very little, so I'm not gonna test it. Ok, tested melee for a guardian, b
  12. Never let it be said that I cannot be goaded into doing useless statistical testing. I installed G2 and did a whole slew of testing myself, covering all the cases I thought would be different. End result... it looks like you are correct. I find this formula incredibly weird and unexpected, but I guess we've just been making incorrect assumptions all these years yet again. Augh. Thank you for persisting in your viewpoint. I'm glad this got tested more. One small detail that was different: I found a base 1 level of damage instead of 3, as you did. Not sur
  13. If you look at statistical deviation from formula, it's -2.2, 2.22, and 0.38. Add it together you'll get 0.4. Sure 3 numbers is very low, but still. You're trying to complicate the formula with some percentile bonuses and such. What for? I tested it with 1d1, and it always added 1 with BM, 2 with SC, on low and high numbers. G1-3 works on damage levels not percentile bonuses, even in scripts it's "ab_effect_per_level". P.S. Damage level means another throw of 1d4. Keep it in mind. Battle Magic can't add 1.1768 level and get it to +30. It was 1 additional throw per 1 BM. Spellcraft
  14. I'm arguing that there could be a percentile bonus to total damage, not to the quantity of dice used. You're jumping to conclusions on a lot of accounts. You have shown that Spellcraft is stronger, which is a useful service! But you're claiming certainty about exact formulas that deserve many grains of salt.
  15. Even if we calculate it your way: (112.22 - 82.8)/2.5 = 29.42/2.5 = 11.768 levels added with 10 Battle Magic (135.38 - 82.8)/2.5 = 52.58/2.5 = 21.032 levels added with 10 Spellcraft Obviously 1 Battle Magic doesn't add 1.1768 damage level, it's 1 level. Or maybe you gonna argue with that? 1 Spellcraft added 2.1032 levels meaning 2 levels. No? I won't be doing more tests. Period. Formula works, meaning changing die size was ok, meaning all other formulas are accurate as well. I will say it again, if somebody wants to prove me wrong they are welco
  16. Because at 50 tests, your averages are actually pretty trustworthy. You expected +25/+50, but your testing gave you +30/+53. That's a legit skew given the quantity of small dice being rolled and the large number of trials. But if you're right, you should be able to get results of, I guess, 17.5 at BM1/S1, 160 at BM20/S20, and 235 at BM30/S30. If I'm right, you won't get those, and will in fact see skew to a greater degree.
  17. Formula: Damage = (base) x (3 + Battle Magic Skill + 2 x Spellcraft + Spell Skill) base = 1-4 (2.5) Battle Magic 10, Spelcraft 10, Firebolt 1 Damage = 2.5 x (3 + 10 + 2x10 + 1) = 2.5 x 34 = 85 Battle Magic 20, Spelcraft 10, Firebolt 1 Damage = 2.5 x (3 + 20 + 2x10 + 1) = 2.5 x 44 = 110 Battle Magic 10, Spelcraft 20, Firebolt 1 Damage = 2.5 x (3 + 10 + 2x20 + 1) = 2.5 x 54 = 135 How is it not applicable? P.S. I've edited previous post... Added numbers from formula and statistical deviations.
  18. Thanks! So this is interesting. I just listed those as a few example scenarios, not thinking about them much, but even here we can see that the "x2" formula is not applicable (edit: whoops, it is) -- though you're definitely right that Spellcraft increases damage more than Battle Magic does. They probably were bad suggestions since the 10-cap is involved, but oh well: 10 BM, 10 S = 82 20 BM, 10 S = 112 (+30) 10 BM, 20 S = 135 (+53) Firebolt is 1-4 per level, so that's an average of 2.5 per level. So +30 we'd expect to be... 12 levels of damage. +53 we'd e
  19. agent, level 35, naked, base skills except leadership 3, mechanics 8 target: ornk in Drypeak Testing: Battle Magic 10, Spelcraft 10, Firebolt 1 91, 94, 84, 75, 75, 86, 83, 86, 75, 77, 77, 83, 82, 82, 93, 95, 89, 76, 83, 81, 70, 75, 83, 80, 85, 92, 83, 81, 75, 87, 78, 81, 80, 86, 88, 78, 81, 88, 93, 80, 90, 86, 89, 75, 81, 72, 89, 84, 83, 80 Average damage = 82.8 According to formula should be 85 Statistical deviation = -2.2 Testing: Battle Magic 20, Spelcraft 10, Firebolt 1 116, 123, 128, 126, 115, 109, 106,
  20. Thanks for explaining that my request was not making it from my mind to your mind clearly -- that's helpful. Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm asking for: "agent, level 30, only base skills except the ones listed below, naked target: ornk at front gates I tested: 10 BM, 10 Spellcraft, Firebolt - X damage 20 BM, 10 Spellcraft, Firebolt - X damage 10 BM, 20 Spellcraft, Firebolt - X damage" etc. etc., just listing what the actual combinations of stats+skills that you tested. That way, the rest of us can look at it and eithe
  21. Cait Slith, I don't quite understand what do you want from me? In a script that applies to Shanti's book in Drypeak, I was adding a code for exp or spell skill gain, which is done throughout the game many many times, so your argument about altering something invisible in a process is strange to say the least. I did write how I've done it, what else do you want? Edited script so the firebolt damage would be 1-1 not 1-4. Launched the game, started hiting ornks, changed stats, hit more ornks, changed stats again, hit more ornks... Again, every increase by 1 in Battle Magi
  22. Last broken record post before I exit the topic. If you would like to share the actual scenarios you tested to come to these conclusions, great. Until then, there have been too many corners cut to trust these conclusions at face value. Cheers.
  23. Come to think about it, those formulas actually are wrong. As I wrote in my previous post, the die is thrown as many times as there are damage levels, so what you can calculate with them is average damage, but for that you need to multiply damage levels not to base damage but average base damage.
  24. The whole point about cheat engine applies to script edits as well. There are documented cases in Geneforge of stuff happening when you hit the plus arrow to raise a skill (and confirm it) that doesn't happen if you assign those points via script defs or memory editing. If you would like to share the actual scenarios you tested to come to these conclusions, great. If not, I see no point in arguing with someone who refuses to be transparent about data gathered using testing methods that, at best, cut a whole slew of corners. Substantiate your claims and I'll gladly say
  25. There is no need in doing thorough testing to establish that spellcraft is more powerful than battle magic, difference in numbers can be easily seen. With those stats it'll be ~40-50 against ~60-70. You see, the die is thrown not just once and then is multiplied, no, it is thrown as many times as there are damage levels and results are added. So you'll see pretty much average numbers every time, and the more damage levels you have the more average numbers will be.
  26. The Barrier Tunnel being the final part of the Troglo/Giant quest, you might not want to clear out Castle Troglo just after getting through that (might want to run away and avoid the final battle/s there as well, but there's stuff you don't want to miss first). But once it's done, you can clear out the giants at your leisure, and then go via them. Can't remember if you can just walk up to the front door of Castle Troglo and enter that way.
  27. Let's remain civil here. Rook has said something very interesting. He also stated that he's not that much interested to do more tests which is IMO understandable. A nice way to do the test is, in my opinion the following: Use the script in an area to turn an enemy's walking speed to near 0, resistance to fire to 0, give said enemy 2000 hp and enough XP for your character to advance 10 levels or something. Hit said enemy with firebolt 2, spellcraft 1 and battle magic 10 (<== XP bought) many many times and see how long it takes to kill him. 25 attacks? 22 attacks?
  1. Load more activity
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
×
×
  • Create New...