Jump to content

Geneforge 1-3 Spellcraft gives more damage output than Battle Magic


Rook
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just tested Spellcraft vs Battle Magic in Drypeak Gates on fyoras and thahds.

19 Spellcraft and 1 Battle Magic = ~110 dmg.

1 Spellcraft and 19 Battle Magic = ~65 dmg.

So Spellcraft and Battle Magic aren't equal in damage levels as everyone here seems to think.

 

What I wonder is if this is true in other Geneforge games as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, did some additional testing. This time on ornks in Drypeak, hoping that they don't have any armor. Also edited script, so that firebolt and searer will deal 1-1 not 1-4(5) dmg per level.

The exact formula would be:

Damage = (base) x (3 + Battle Magic Skill + 2 x Spellcraft + Spell Skill)

 

So Spellcraft equals 2 points of Battle Magic or Battle Spell Skill. It's probably also not true for Mental and Blessing Magic.

 

Shame all those spell canisters actually don't worth much.

Edited by Rook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh.  That's a much, much higher discrepancy than I've ever heard anyone suggest.

 

Do you mind sharing the data points (or averages or whatever)?  Thanks for the testing!

 

(also, there is a base damage component that is separate from the damage dice part, but I guess at 1d1 damage it would be hard to tell the difference)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, with 1d1 damage there is no averages. If you have say 2 Battle Magic, 3 Spellcraft, and 1 Firebolt, you'll always deal 3+2+6+1=12 damage to that poor ornk. For every additional Spellcraft point it'll be +2 damage, for every additional Battle Magic or Firebolt skill it'll be +1 damage.

 

I've tested further and that's what I've got:

 

Terror damage = (base) x (3 + Mental Magic Skill + Spellcraft + Spell Skill)

Healing points = (base) x (3 + Healing Craft + Spellcraft + 1 level if you know Heal)

NO Spell Skill!

War Blessing - +4 damage levels and +40% Hit Chance, doesn't matter how skillful you are, only duration is increasing. I'm pretty sure same goes for Protection.
So there is no point in buying, if there is a book.

Augmentation = +(28 + PC Level + Healing Craft + Spellcraft + Spell Skill) Max HP

Yes, every stat point will give you whole +1 HP 😃 Those f...... trainers. Don't waste your money!

Essence Shield = +(13 + 2 x (Blessing Magic + Spellcraft + Spell Skill))% Dodge

Essence Armor = +(20 + 2 x (Blessing Magic + Spellcraft + Spell Skill))% Dodge and +(26 + 2x(PC Level + Blessing Magic + Spellcraft + Spell Skill)) Max HP

 

So for mental, blessing, and healing Spellcraft works as advertised.

 

Also:

Melee damage = (1-8) x (1+ Strength + Melee Weapons + Weapon level)

 

Missile damage = (base) x (1 + Missile Weapons + Weapon level)

Crystal damage = (base) x (Missile Weapons/2 + Spellcraft + Crystal level)

NO Dexterity! (OR Strength) for missile damage.

Forgot to test wands. Didn't have one in a vicinity anyway...

 

For those who doesn't know:

Weapon level equals your minimum weapon damage in description.

Base = damage in description divided by weapon level.

 

P.S. Wands damage = (base) x (1 + Missile Weapons + Spellcraft + Weapon level)

Edited by Rook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would you mind sharing the actual test scenarios, not just the formulas you derived from them?

 

The reason I'm asking is that in the past, people have suggested a fractional coefficient like 0.75 on some of these skill contributions.  You'd still need multiple data points to see that, even with 1d1 dice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With 1d1 dice you don't have random anymore. It'll be always 1. So now you can calculate actual damage levels added with stats. For Battle Magic 2, Spellcraft 0, and Firebolt 1 I thought to see 3 damage hit, but it was actually 6. I checked it couple more times, it was still 6. Then for every point in Battle magic or Firebolt spell damage is increasing +1, and for every point in Spellcraft damage is increasing +2. Meaning that Battle Magic 2, Spellcraft 0, and Firebolt 1 gave me 3 damage levels and other 3 is some kind of base.

 

Just checked with Battle Magic 30, Spellcraft 30, Firebolt 1 and as expected ornk was hit for 94. Battle Magic 30 = 30, Spellcraft 30 = 60, Firebolt 1 = 1, and 3 base levels.

Fractional coefficients detected - 0.

 

Everything else is pretty much the same. No random with 1d1 dice, and adding different numbers to stats checking results.

 

The only way I could've made a mistake is if I didn't find some additional stats that weigh in. Like with Augmentation spell your PC Level adds +1 to spells Max HP. That would be easy to overlook. But when you add 1 point to Spellcraft and see +2 increase its pretty obvious. Then add 20 points and see +40 damage increase and you're sure.

Edited by Rook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tested formulas for Battle Magic damage in Geneforge 1 & 3.

Geneforge 1:

Damage = (base) x (1Battle Magic Skill + 2 x Spellcraft + Spell Skill)

Works 10 points diminishing returns cap.

 

Geneforge 3:

Here for every spell in formula was added base spell multiplier. For Firebolt it would be 4, for Searer - 8, Essence Orbs - 20, etc. Look in gf3objsmisc script for ab_effect_base.

Damage = (base damage) x (3 + base spell multiplier + Battle Magic Skill + 2 x Spellcraft + Spell Skill)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Rook changed the title to Geneforge 1-3 Spellcraft gives more damage output than Battle Magic

You might be right, but if you're only testing one scenario for each of these, I'm concerned.  As you note, there may be other factors (for example, experience level, or "+ levels of damage" item effects, or differences in base damage between spells -- which you did not even acknowledge could exist until G3) that you have overlooked.  It's also possible, no matter what you say, that changing the die size affects some parts of the equation differently from others.  Changing the die size is in no way necessary to get accurate results regardless -- all it does is remove the need for multiple trials of a single scenario.

 

I have asked repeatedly and politely for you to share at least some of the scenarios + test results these formulas are based on.  (Enough to confidently settle on these formulas; however much that is, it's definitely more than 1.)

 

If you can't share any of those, I strongly suggest caution in assuming these formulas are accurate. (edit: turns out they are anyway)

 

We have had more than a few urban legends around game mechanics that existed for years simply because somebody said something and nobody double checked it.  So please understand that I'm not distrusting you personally.  I'm just asking you to offer a substantial reason to believe that your formulas are right, and other suggestions are wrong.  (Particularly in light of the fact that the "x2" is both different from the formulas used in other Spiderweb games -- including those based on the same engine -- and a bit unexpected, considering how the skills are described and costed.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, there's a guide on steam (admittedly for G5, but claims to apply to previous games as well) that suggests that Spellcraft is applied to the die size, not the result, and then rounded.  I have no idea if this is accurate -- it might not be (edit: it's not) -- but given that it's a competing theory, the combination of

a) editing the game files to change die size to 1;

b) not testing multiple die sizes (i.e. different spells), or any die sizes that are actually used in the game; and

c) apparently only testing at large or tiny numbers for each skill*

makes it hard to rule out other effects along the lines of what's suggested here.

 

*which could also result in soft cap issues, especially in G1, which I'm pretty sure applies it to these stats

 

Btw, if you are editing these stats in def files rather than through levelling up a character (presumably with shift-D codes), it is also possible the game won't handle them the same way as normal.  I'm hoping you did the latter, though.

 

Quote

Ability multipliers calculations
Well you might think a multiplier should effect the end resualt geneforge games seem to do this differently. The multiplier seems to be done on the maximum dice roll for the attack meaning you will only see the upgrade on certain levels of the skill multiplier.
Example (spellcraft multiplies all magic effects)
Firebolt *d4 (random 1 to 4 damage)
Spellcraft (10% bonus per rank)
1 no change
2 d5 (d(4*120%)=d4.8 rounded =d5
3 d5 (d(4*130%)=d5.2 rounded =d5
4 d6 (d(4*140%)=d5.6 rounded =d6
5 d6 (d(4*150%)=d6 rounded =d6
6 d6 (d(4*160%)=d6.4 rounded =d6
7 d7 (d(4*170%)=d6.8 rounded =d7
8 d7 (d(4*180%)=d7.2 rounded =d7
9 d8 (d(4*190%)=d7.6 rounded =d8
10 d8 (d(4*200%)=d8 rounded =d8
*this is only an example exact firebolt damage varies between games.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After I've discovered that PC Level influences Augmentation spell, I've checked for Battle Magic damage - no dice.

Base damage between spells: I've tested Firebolt and Searer in G2 - no difference. The reason I've found it in G3 was because it was added in a script.

 

In the beginning I've been testing without changing the die size with Firebolt 1 and got ~110 and ~65. According to formula it should've been 107.5 and 62.5. I admit it was nowhere near thorough testing. I only did maybe 20 or something trials and on fyoras and thahds.

 

I'm not interested in dealing hundreds of iterations and in the end still guessing the exact formula for damage calculation because one average damage level for 1-4 equals 2.5 (too small to differentiate from statistical error).

Changing the die size affects some parts of the equation differently from others: from what I've seen it's very doubtful, so it's good enough for me.

If somebody wants to prove me wrong they are welcome to try.

 

As for Spellcraft applying only to maximum dice roll, in G1-3 it's definitely not true. With 1-(1 x Spellcraft multiplier) die random numbers would appear. They didn't.

 

Anyway I just wanted to emphasize that Spellcraft give far more damage than Battle Magic does, non-believers can quick test it and see with "unarmed eye" for themselves.

 

P.S. Large or tiny numbers? Arithmetic progression is clearly seen, why would I test it differently? And I did mention about 10-caps in G1.

P.P.S. I was using cheat engine to change skill points. Spell skills and experience changed through book by adding into relevant script few strings of my own.

Edited by Rook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

tl;dr -- the conclusions stated in this thread may or may not be correct (edit: turns out it is)

 

- cheat engine was used to change skill points; as is clearly evident with G1 creations, sometimes adding the skill point (or gaining the level) causes things to happen that don't happen simply from editing the number with cheat engine.  this is a well-documented spiderweb phenomenon

 

- most of the testing was done using edited scripts as well

 

- finally, the OP is simply making a lot of assumptions about how things work and extrapolating from a very tiny data set.  they might be right, but they might not be.  the fact that they won't share most of the actual test scenarios they used does not help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I have one more conclusion I can with all responsibility state:

In this thread

https://spiderwebforums.ipbhost.com/topic/16643-geneforge-2s-instruction-manual-is-a-house-of-lies/

you wrote completely unfounded and in some cases simply wrong formulas without any proof or testing and put in G1-2 strategy peripheral.

Maybe you got it right for hit percentages, but definitely NOT for How Damage Works.

 

Only game mechanic I edited through a script was die size. Other script editing like gaining exp or stats through a book, you encounter it playing the game meaning it changes nothing.

Checked again without using cheat engine, only scripts - same results for battle magic.

 

Edited by Rook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? 

Then load and hit said enemy with firebolt 2, battle magic 1 and spellcraft 10 (<==XP bought). See how long it takes to kill him. 20 attacks? 18 attacks? 25 attacks again? 

 

Then compare. 

  

Edited by alhoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Rook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 "wow, everyone was wrong for the last 19 years."  But yeah, saying that requires substantiation, not just assertion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

Quote

With 1d1 dice you don't have random anymore. It'll be always 1. So now you can calculate actual damage levels added with stats. For Battle Magic 2, Spellcraft 0, and Firebolt 1 I thought to see 3 damage hit, but it was actually 6. I checked it couple more times, it was still 6. Then for every point in Battle magic or Firebolt spell damage is increasing +1, and for every point in Spellcraft damage is increasing +2. Meaning that Battle Magic 2, Spellcraft 0, and Firebolt 1 gave me 3 damage levels and other 3 is some kind of base.

Again, every increase by 1 in Battle Magic gave +1 damage level, every increase by 1 in Spellcraft gave +2 damage levels, every increase by 1 in Spell skill gave +1 damage level. Is it really that hard to understand?

 

Funny thing about broken record=)

Edited by Rook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 either say, "yup that sounds like it covers all the bases" or "hmm, here's a way the lack of other trials could mean the formula is actually different"

 

Glad to hear you just added xp/spells that way, that should be fine and is not what I was worried about.  As far as die size though, you already know my complaint.  It doesn't necessarily mean your results are wrong -- but it absolutely, 100% means it requires further testing to know whether they do or don't apply the same way to regular die sizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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, 114, 118, 114,
98, 118, 108, 119, 113, 127, 119, 108, 99, 113,
108, 119, 106, 100, 104, 110, 107, 120, 111, 124,
106, 108, 108, 111, 116, 112, 100, 106, 120, 114,
117, 104, 112, 107, 105, 115, 119, 113, 111, 107

 

Average damage = 112.22

According to formula should be 110

Statistical deviation = 2.22

 

Testing:

Battle Magic 10, Spelcraft 20, Firebolt 1

 

139, 135, 149, 143, 144, 145, 146, 133, 145, 141,
120, 142, 141, 147, 133, 130, 130, 128, 133, 139,
120, 148, 126, 141, 135, 127, 122, 139, 135, 126,
134, 132, 121, 135, 140, 126, 124, 137, 143, 136,
126, 130, 154, 131, 140, 144, 134, 152, 118, 130

 

Average damage = 135.38

According to formula should be 135

Statistical deviation = 0.38

Edited by Rook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 expect to be... about 22 levels of damage.

 

What would explain BM adding more than the expected 25 damage (or 12.5, if the 10-cap applies here; I don't think it does) is if the existing 10 points of Spellcraft added a percentile bonus of some sort.

 

If 10 Spellcraft stretched the effective die size from 1-4 to 1-5 -- perhaps in addition to contributing levels of damage -- that would explain the +30.  A more straightforward percentile bonus could do that, too.

 

Extending the percentile bonus further (in addition to adding 10 levels of damage) could explain the extra 23 points of damage in the last result.

 

This is all just brainstorming ideas, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by Rook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 welcome to try.

 

 

Edited by Rook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 doesn't stretch 1-4 to 1-5, if that would've been the case, then my 1d1 eventually would've stretched to 1d2 and random numbers would appear. They didn't.

Edited by Rook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 sure where that difference comes from, but I tested with a shaper and at a somewhat lower level, so I guess it's possible one of those is relevant (or some other agent/shaper base stat difference).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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, base level still 1.

Edited by Rook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 magic, the optimal way to assign points is to pick Spellcraft until it costs twice what Battle Magic does, then switch back when it costs less.  In other words, you'd alternate 2 points into Battle Magic and 4 into Spellcraft.  Because of the way costs ramp up, I'm not sure this will result in that much of a different outcome from what people might do anyway -- but it will be a bit better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Cait Slith said:

Repackaging for Steam wouldn't have any reason to touch the numerical combat mechanics at all

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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, but as you note, the damage boost is actually more significant for someone focusing on daze than someone focusing on damage spells.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2021 at 4:35 PM, Cait Slith said:

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.

 

Oh. Ohhhh... 

 

Sorry for spreading misinformation then. I didn't do it on purpose. I just thought that there were differences in the various versions and apparently I am the only one that thought so in the googlable internet. 

 

Frankly, to me, it seems bizarre that there are no changes at all. I will try to remember in the future but if I forget in 2 years or something please don't hold it against me. It's just what I used to think (that versions are different one way or the other) for years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...