Posts from Expedition: general discussions. Auto-translated

What is the range of these spells? I only noticed it for Shield and Ardor. Also, as far as I can tell, the damage ratio of a two-handed weapon compared to one-handed weapons doesn't seem very appealing: one-handed weapons have higher damage, offer more flexibility in distributing it, and allow you to hold a shield in your free hand. Are there any plans to give two-handed weapons compensating bonuses for their lower offensive and defensive stats?

Added 13 minutes later
What is the duration of the Burning effect? Overall, it seems very niche and only suitable against very tough non-humans. Because in other situations, it will deal approximately the same amount of damage in ten turns as a regular spell of equal cost deals on cast. Or does it have some hidden features, such as armor penetration, that other spells of the school do not have?

Added 3 minutes later
Oh, I saw the range; it was in the pictures. Sorry.

Expanding on Ment's words, the ability to deal critical damage with spells can be implemented as a separate skill or racial ability. Does dodge from targeted spells exist? Is it calculated the same way as before? And where is initiative? Without skills, it's quite difficult to estimate, but okay. Let's take three builds: an average one-handed warrior-ilinar (I messed up there, I should have taken an assari, but I'm too lazy to recalculate), a heavily armored warrior with a two-handed weapon-kalevrit, and a sorcerer-ishanadec. We'll allocate points based on 130 characteristic points, according to the approximate priorities of each class. 1) **Ilinar** (25-25-50-10-10-10) [assuming that, considering the need for 10 as a minimum value, otherwise two or three characteristics can be completely ignored and the necessary ones maximized.]

Damage: +50%
Crit (M): +18.75%
Health: 250
Resistances: 12.5
Accuracy (M): 100
Speed: 15
Dodge: 75 (M?)
Accuracy (R): 20
Crit (R): +7.5%
Dodge: 15 (R?)
Psychic: 40
AR: 10
Energy: 150
Magic Power: 60

Sword 1: damage 35 (x3) [53 (x3)]
Light armor with no penalties: 10% reduction in physical damage
Artifact for movement speed: +3 [18]

2) **Kalevrit** (20-50-20-10-20-10)

Damage: +50%
Crit (M): +17%
Health: 650
Resistances: 37.5
Accuracy (M): 40
Speed: 5.2
Dodge: 30 (M?)
Accuracy (R): 15
Crit (R): +5%
Dodge: 13 (R?)
Psychic: 160
AR: 20
Energy: 160
Magic Power: 35

Two-handed weapon 1: damage 110 (x1) [165 (x1)]
Heavy armor: -50% speed, -50% dodge, +50% protection from physical damage
Artifact for crit: +3% [20% (m) | 8% (r)]

3) **Ishanadec** (10-20-10-10-40-40)

Damage: +5%
Crit (M): +3%
Health: 120
Resistances: 4
Accuracy (M): 10
Speed: 3
Dodge: 10 (M?)
Accuracy (R): 10
Crit (R): +3%
Dodge: 10 (R?)
Psychic: 240
AR: 40
Energy: 1000
Magic Power: 320

Archmage's Staff 1: (+10% magic power [352])
Archmage's Robe (+10% energy [1100])

Let's conduct three battles: * Ilinar vs. Kalevrit * Ilinar vs. Ishanadec * Kalevrit vs. Ishanadec Battlefield: 24 by 24 (Ishanadec uses fire shield, explosion, flash, and burning. Swordsmen do not have special skills) I don't know the mechanics, so I'll rely on the old formulas and Shamanich's program. I won't calculate resistances either. **Battle 1**
I1 travels 18 units;
K1 travels 2.6 (?) units;
I1 travels 2.4 units;
I1 attacks K1 and deals (53*0.5=27) damage (623);
I1 attacks K1 and deals (53*0.5=27) damage (596);
I1 attacks K1 and deals (53*0.5=27) damage (569);
K1 attacks I1 and deals (165*0.9=149) damage (101);
I1 attacks K1 and deals (53*0.5=27) damage (542);
I1 attacks K1 and deals (53*0.5*2=53) (crit) damage (489);
I1 attacks K1 and deals (53*0.5=27) damage (462);
K1 attacks I1, but it dodges the attack;
I1 attacks K1 and deals (53*0.5*2=53) (crit) damage (409);
I1 attacks K1 and deals (53*0.5=27) damage (382);
I1 attacks K1 and deals (53*0.5=27) damage (355);
K1 attacks I1 and deals (165*0.9=149) damage (0);
I1 is unable to continue the battle;
Well, this is just an example, but overall, I see that dodge now strongly depends on race. If I took the same Assari, the Kalevrit would have almost no chance of hitting. But here, it seems, everything is generally okay. **Battle 2.1**
I1 travels 18 units;
IŠ1 uses explosion (975);
I1 takes 352 damage (0);
I1 is unable to continue the battle;
**Battle 2.2**
I1 travels 18 units;
IŠ1 uses explosion (975);
I1 dodges the spell;
I1 travels 5 units;
I1 attacks IŠ1 and deals (53) damage (67);
I1 attacks IŠ1 and deals (53) damage (14);
I1 attacks IŠ1 and deals (53) damage (0);
IŠ1 is unable to continue the battle;
I simulated two battles, in one I assumed that the ilinar's resistances/resistance/dodge from the targeted spell worked, and in the other, it didn't. In general, that's how it is, any self-respecting Ishanadec will one-shot enemies left and right, the mana pool definitely needs to be nerfed by at least half, IMHO. **Battle 3**
IŠ1 uses burning (1000);
K1 takes 57 damage (593);
K1 travels 2.6 units;
...
IŠ1 travels 3 units;
K1 travels 2.6 units and burns to death, failing to reach the target (0);
K1 is unable to continue the battle;
Here, I didn't have much to calculate. If heavyweights don't have a charge, even high resistances won't save them from being kited by a high-level mage, which, again, could be a serious problem. In general, I see several important points in all this. 1) Dodge ceases to be effective against accuracy (without bonuses and not counting racial predispositions); 2) Agile characters gain an absolute advantage on the battlefield due to a manyfold superiority in speed; 3) High-level mages dominate (without considering resistances); If the first and second points are more or less clear, then I would like to add something to the third. Firstly, mages themselves have the opportunity to invest in 2(3) stats and ignore the rest, which leads to some kind of imbalance. Secondly, the ability to maximize stats and increase damage from spells looks somewhat imbalanced compared to the parallel increase in the amount of mana. From this, there are three options: - reduce the mana pool, which would, in principle, lead to an even greater weakening of average sorcerers - or make the process of replenishing mana more difficult. In this case, even high-tier wizards will have to save one-shot spells, although in general they will still be able to use them more often, but at least not so often. - partially tie the cost of the spell to the strength of the caster. It's hard to say how this can be adequately implemented, but in essence, this could help solve the problem with casting high-damage spells, for example, add a dependence of the spell cost on the magic power parameter, as in the case of damage. Then powerful mages will have to either reduce this characteristic, or invest in willpower, or cast less, thereby saving mana, while weak wizards will be able to spam medium-efficiency spells more often, but with less damage. That's it for now. Heh, well, I had nothing else to do.

Well, you guys are hardcore gamers. You could be having fun instead.

It’s so much fun.

Hero, it's not just about mages maxing out 3 stats; other classes do it too. However, they have very low speed, no dodge, and the range of their spells gives them an advantage of 1-2 turns (in most situations).

A Heroes player can now play against themselves. They created characters, came up with equipment, and ran a battle. Well done!

I even managed to defeat a Paladin.

Exactly!

Ples, here everything mainly depends on how the mages should be balanced with the others. I was calculating based on the assumption that they have great power, but a limited mana pool, which gives them an advantage in short battles, but makes them significantly inferior to warrior-archers in prolonged skirmishes. If Revan wanted to implement it differently, then yes, in that case I would be wrong.

Warriors will also have special abilities, just like last time, and their own mana pool. However, mages without mana are indeed weaker than warriors and archers. But they are also more fragile, slower, and have worse defensive stats. The only viable way for a mage to defend themselves is through buffs, which cost both mana and time.

Moderated: PROFANITY in the message

of some kind. Numbers, tables, SP,

Moderated: PROFANITY in the message

,

Moderated: PROFANITY in the message

. Let's have beautiful pictures, dark elves, taverns with meat and beer, explosions of cities, and burning houses. That's all. Just kidding, mechanics are important.

And besides, you're evaluating the mage based on a hypothetical PvP scenario, even though our experience is more geared towards PvE.

Give your comrade the well-deserved points at last.

Moderated: INAPPROPRIATE LANGUAGE in the message

Well, and besides, you are looking at the mage based on a hypothetical PvP, although our experience is more geared towards PvE.

Well, I wouldn't say so. I understand that there will be fewer encounters with thousands of skeletons, judging by the effect they had last time. Unless Reven has developed a platform with calculations and is now refining the 3D engine.

Give your comrade the well-deserved points already.

I agree. I'm tired of using profanity.

Fewer skeletons = fewer PvP duels. And, on average, it will take a mage 100-300 mana to kill an enemy. It might be less if they can freely use AoE spells, or it might be more to avoid hitting allies with magic. Meanwhile, the enemy will be able to deal damage with a couple of shots.

I wasn't talking about PvP duels, but simply about having fewer enemies in battles. And if a mage can eliminate three or four opponents before running out of mana in a battle against 5-8 enemies, then I think that's quite reasonable.