Mage class formulas

[TirunCollimdus]

 

I'll take another shot at it... Heal = 70 + magic * 8.2 * (rationality / 106)

therefore -

pro mage lvl 100 rationality 48 = 441 health recovered (max possible health)

newb mage lvl 21 rationality 4 = 76

 

Sound reasonable?

 

edit: typo

 

Actually with the base of 70 it gives you 76 to 101 total healed from level 21 to 100 with a 4 rationality and 149 to 441 with 48 rationality. This definitely hands the advantage to mages when it comes to restoration. It doesn't bottom out the new players and people mages could easily restore their max health without max rationality.

 

Mages would normally not take phys. They would normally not take the nexus required for a dragonblade either. That means 300 max health.

A mage with 24 rationality could heal for 255 points. That would be just about right for when you want to heal at the lowest for most higher level stuff. You might need to restore at an even higher amount like 80 health left.

The extra pick points you could save from not beefing up your rationality you could put on vitality and instinct. Nicely done.

 

Not sure it is the best formula but it would be as good as the first one.

 

TirunCollimdus

[Tauren]

Remember, the formulas are always up there for tweaking, but it has to be done right the first time, before implementation. I still believe this kind of formula is better since rationality acts as a multiplier with magic and vice versa. Yes the mage probably wont have the max possible health, but so do so many other players in the game. It is just that the option is there to do so.

A player is capable of being a mage AND have max health, simply max physique, will and reasoning. And of course wear those items with health bonuses. So once again, as soon as you hit 100 magic and 48 rationality, you have rightfully earned the capabilities to cast a full restore, and don't forget all those other advantages you gain with the other magic spells

[Entropy]

Wouldn't this make the CoL essencially useless?

 

No

[peino]

You mean kind of how it is very hard to survive as a fighter with only 4 p/c?

In case you missed the point of this thread, it is to have a mage class, not to make it easy for non mages or half mages to use the magic and pwn everyone.

I'm all over the proposed changes, can't wait for them to happen. I have no opinion about the specific formulas because I don't understand them enough to comment. However, I do agree with remarks Tirun made earlier and in the other mage class thread about the issue of regenerating mana. I was going to comment there, but you locked that thread, so I'm mentioning it here, just as a reminder.

 

I'm still low level, and I train magic. Yes, I'm one of those horrible people who fight monsters a bit above their level, and I do it on purpose!!! (to train magic). Building the emu to carry all the esses and pots is not an issue for me. If it's what being a mage, needs, then I'll do it.

 

But the cooldown on pots means that mana gets used much faster than it can be restored. There are a few items that pump up mana, but still, mage-craft is going to burn it like mad. Some adjustment to mana usage -- especially for "mages in training" (my level and a bit higher) -- will go a long way to making a mage class workable, I think. Maybe reduce SR cooldowns, or make spells use less mana, or create some item/perk/god blessing/whatever that is only useful to/usable by mages -- I don't know. But, otherwise, if a young mage keeps getting knocked out of battle or training due to running out of mana, I don't think you will see a lot of people take their training as far as it could go. I would expect you'd end up with a lot of "non mages and half mages" rather than people who really master the skill enough to make a class out of it.

[Burfoot]

My head hurts after reading all this- In my day we just rolled a 2d10 (2 10 sided dice) does this help?

I like the idea of having a base modifier added - other than that as long as i can train I'm happy

[ville-v]

4. The best modifier is rationality, because it requires will (which is useful for both fighters and mages) and reasoning, which is not useful for fighters.

Reasoning is very useful for fighters (PKers at least, maybe not for trainers), even before maxing p/c.

 

You get:

 

1. Dexterity, which increases your chance to hit.

2. Perception, which you will need to avoid or use arrows

3. Rationality, which will make you better in casting and avoiding magic.

[vytukas]

You mean kind of how it is very hard to survive as a fighter with only 4 p/c?

 

Fairly high chance to survive, if he/she uses CoL, armor, weapons and fights opponents that have 20-30 a/d less. With the proposed formula, 30 magic levels would make only 45 hp difference, that is not much. And training magic level difference of 30 is even harder than a/d.

 

Also, as I probably said before, EL skills depend mostly on level. A/D skills depend on cross-attributes too, but it's roughly like 1 a/d level - 1 cross attribute. IMHO fighters being also mages is somewhat ok, same as if I am manufacturer lets say and I have high alchemy level. That makes me professional alchemist too.

I think EL A/D system isn't bad and it's a good example how to do magic skill too. Cross-attributes (in this case rationality) should be very important but not overwhelm the level, because what's the point of training then.

 

 

Edit: I see my post isnt as clear as I wanted.

I mean, with the formula I discussed, mage efficiency will mostly depend on rationality. Same goes for formulae that have magic* rationality, because levels have exponential system and are hard to increase twice or thrice.

And rationality depends on spent pickpoints. How do you get overall levels - pickpoints? Easy way is to train A/D. Most likely, mages will still be heavy a/d trainers to get picpoints for more rationality and more effect instead of training the primary skill - magic. Is that a "separate" mage class?

Edited December 18, 2007 by vytukas

[Schmurk]

edit: lol conavar just beat me to the base heal

Are you sure?

 

I wonder if anybody take the time to read my post and understand what I gave you...

I'm seeing everybody trying to arrange the formula by modifying all the coefficients in order to obtain something good. Is this really like that we make a good formula? wow, I hope not!

 

Of course, my post is a bit complicated because there's a lot of math. Sorry for that...

But I gave you a formula that you can tune according to what you want for a beginner and a top fighter. You just have to change the numbers I take as an example and you obtain the final formula which is IMO the more equitable for everybody...

 

Now if my formula is a bit complicated to understand, give me the following values and I will redo the math to obtain the final formula:

• * restore amount for a player with magic 21 and rationality 4
  * restore amount for a player with magic 100 (or 101) and rationality 4
  * restore amount for a player with magic 100 and rationality 48
  

[Tauren]

I wonder if anybody take the time to read my post

Yeah sorry I didn't actually read it.

 

Now that I went back and found this post -

In my concern I prefer the second formula for the restoration but I think it should be adjusted. In fact, I think we should consider how many MP a player could recover if he has magic 21 with 4 in rationality and how many MP could recover a player with magic 101 (to have a more rounded formula) and still 4 in rationality. If we say for example that a player can recover 150 MP in the last case, we obtain the first formula:

30 + (magic level - 21)*120/(101 - 21)) = 30 + (magic level - 21)*1.5 = magic level * 1.5 - 1.5

Then, we have to consider how many MP can recover a player with 101 in magic and 48 in rationality. First, if a player have 48 in matter and if he wears a CoL and a MoL, he can reach a maximum of 420 MP. So I think that a restore of 400 MP is correct. So when the player has a rationality of 48, he should have a maximum modifier of 400/150 which is also 8/3. But if he has a rationality of 4 he should have a modifier of 1. Now, if we put the rationality in the formula (I skip some details), we obtain the following modifier:

1 + ((rationality - 4) * (8-3)/3) / (48 - 4) = 1 + (rationality - 4) * 5/132 = (rationality * 5 + 112) / 132.

So we obtain our final formula which is the following:

(magic level * 1.5 - 1.5) * (rationality * 5 + 112) / 132

 

Well, it's a bit complex but at least, it's a totally controlled formula

And of course, it can be tuned a bit in order to remove some weird numbers. For example, we can use the following one instead:

magic level * 1.5 * (rationality * 5 + 110) / 130

 

This last one gives 31.5 MP for a player with magic 21 and rationality of 4 and almost 404 MP for a player at magic level 100 and with 48 in rationality.

 

And for me, (magic 49, rationality of 12) it gives 96 MP which is quite acceptable.

 

Now, about the magic nexus, I also think it should be considered in the magic skill but not to give more power to a spell but to allow only players who have the good nexus to cast some powerful spells.

 

Can you please re-explain how you created the equation in bold print?

Also, you should consider equating 21 magic + 48 rationality into your formula, so as to be sure a fighter increasing will/reasoning doesn't stumble onto the fact that while they have been gaining warrior attributes, they haven't also found their restoration to be highly effective. (I haven't checked myself)

And possibly one more, a player in between? say 50 magic + 25 rationality.

 

Sorry for the inconvenience

 

edit: There was already lots of bold print

Edited December 18, 2007 by Tauren

[masterpiter]

I will addapt to whatever changes migh be implemented.

 

If magic nexus is needed i will simply put hundreds of h-bars i got in storage to raise it so np for me

 

If 1st formula will be used i will take full reasoning so i can heal 200+pps so im competite on pk and i can kill yetis( in the past i was the only player who made gc on them w/o using col/com, but even tho i was p80c76 and will 20+thermal serp, i still had only 250hp which wasnt enough for the yetis so i began to use col after like 3 days of killing them).

 

If 2nd formula will be used no1 can pk or train mob higher from desert chim unless he will spend like 70 pickpoints in will/reasoning (220+ hp restore for me then ), which i will do of coz, like any other top oa player

 

So, one way or another, expect me and many top fighters with crazy high oa lvl, taken neg perks and many pps bought to have if not perfect than at least 200-250 points restore

Its essential for training/killing high lvl mobs and for pking, so it will be 1st thing we will care about after we max out our emu

 

I can live with mana drain taking max 15 mana instead of 40+ like it is now, i can live with the harm for 20 dmg instead of 50+ like i cast now, but when it comes to restoring no compromises can be made, i will have to heal all or almost all of my health

 

mp

[TooMass]

little bit off topic but all those other topics r already closed so i have to post it here

has it already been decided which cap it would be? i mean if we r talking about 48 cap or some other number.because as i read in this petition topic, this voting was only for car attributes and doesnt say which number.and i think we should vote about this number as well.

P.S. i didnt read all those posts because i really dont have time to do that so if my question was answered somewhere in those million posts, i'm sorry

[Schmurk]

Can you please re-explain how you created the equation in bold print?

Sure. The first equation take in account the magic level with the minimum rationality:

basic_heal + (magic_level - resto_level) * (max_heal - basic_heal) / (max_magic_level - resto_level)

 

With:

basic_heal: the amount you want to restore with min magic level for resto (resto_level) and rationality 4

max_heal: the amount you want to restore with the maximum magic level (max_magic_level) and rationality 4

magic_level: magic level of the player

resto_level: level needed to use restore, 21 actually

max_magic_level: the maximum magic level a player can reach, I've put 101 based on what Ent said.

 

The second equation take in account the rationality with the maximum magic level:

basic_modifier + ((rationality - min_rat) * (max_heal_max_rat - max_heal_min_rat) / max_heal_min_rat) / (max_rat - min_rat)

 

With:

basic_modifier: the modifier used to increase magic when the rationality is at 4, so 1.

rationality: the rationality of the player

min_rat: the minimum rationality a player can have, so 4

max_rat: the maximum rationality a player can have, so 48

max_heal_max_rat: the amount to restore when the player has max_rat (with magic 101)

max_heal_min_rat: the amount to restore when the player has min_rat (with magic 101)

 

After that, when you replace all the values, you can simplify the equation and obtain something more simple. So the final equation depends on basic_heal, max_heal, max_magic_level, max_heal_min_rat and max_heal_max_rat.

 

Now how I obtain these equations? I did it by cumulating several "rules of three" (I don't know if it's called like this in english )

 

Also, you should consider equating 21 magic + 48 rationality into your formula, so as to be sure a fighter increasing will/reasoning doesn't stumble onto the fact that while they have been gaining warrior attributes, they haven't also found their restoration to be highly effective. (I haven't checked myself)

We can also introduce this in the formula but it will become I think a bit too complicated...

 

Now I'm not saying that my formula is the best (sorry for the previous post, I was a bit upset ), I just think that to make a good formula, we have to take in account the good parameters with the good values, write down the equations on a paper and resolve the system. It's much more efficient than trying to tweak numbers to reach a good result...

[Tauren]

The cap is going to be 48. Why not 50 to be a rounded number? I dunno...

[Entropy]

Speaking of compromises, how about this:

Restoration always (if it doesn't fail) restores your full NATURAL HP, then over that it uses magic*2*(rationality/48) ?

[TooMass]

The cap is going to be 48. Why not 50 to be a rounded number? I dunno...

rofl.so 48 didnt pass at the first time so they made a new poll with cap or not, this passed so we have cap 48...how pr0,this reminds me our politicians

anyway this magic ideas sounds interesting, maybe would be even better to add more spells

[conavar]

Speaking of compromises, how about this:

Restoration always (if it doesn't fail) restores your full NATURAL HP, then over that it uses magic*2*(rationality/48) ?

 

Sounds good to me ( but im sure someone will disagree)

 

 

The cap is going to be 48. Why not 50 to be a rounded number? I dunno...

rofl.so 48 didnt pass at the first time so they made a new poll with cap or not, this passed so we have cap 48...how pr0,this reminds me our politicians

anyway this magic ideas sounds interesting, maybe would be even better to add more spells

 

The 2nd Poll (petition) did state that we were voting for a cap of 48 (people did know what they were voting for) and after reading the views in the first post a lot of people changed there mind to yes.

which is why we are having a discussion first on magic and not just voting blindly this time

Edited December 18, 2007 by conavar

[TooMass]

Speaking of compromises, how about this:

Restoration always (if it doesn't fail) restores your full NATURAL HP, then over that it uses magic*2*(rationality/48) ?

 

Sounds good to me ( but im sure someone will disagree)

 

 

The cap is going to be 48. Why not 50 to be a rounded number? I dunno...

rofl.so 48 didnt pass at the first time so they made a new poll with cap or not, this passed so we have cap 48...how pr0,this reminds me our politicians

anyway this magic ideas sounds interesting, maybe would be even better to add more spells

 

The 2nd Poll (petition) did state that we were voting for a cap of 48 (people did know what they were voting for) and after reading the views in the first post a lot of people changed there mind to yes.

which is why we are having a discussion first on magic and not just voting blindly this time

not true, read again what molime wrote and what the petition was about.

"Only vote when you really know what you're voting for, after reading the attributes cap topic. Remember, it is NOT a matter of 'no, not at 48, but if it would be...'. It is THIS, or NOT."

[Entropy]

rofl.so 48 didnt pass at the first time so they made a new poll with cap or not, this passed so we have cap 48...how pr0,this reminds me our politicians

 

Err, the first poll passed with 61% (which is a lot), but I wanted even more support.

[TooMass]

rofl.so 48 didnt pass at the first time so they made a new poll with cap or not, this passed so we have cap 48...how pr0,this reminds me our politicians

 

Err, the first poll passed with 61% (which is a lot), but I wanted even more support.

so it's gonna be 48?can u answer my question and i wont post anymore "off topic post here".thx

[Entropy]

not true, read again what molime wrote and what the petition was about.

"Only vote when you really know what you're voting for, after reading the attributes cap topic. Remember, it is NOT a matter of 'no, not at 48, but if it would be...'. It is THIS, or NOT."

 

First, plese quote the relevant stuff only, not the whole god damn thread.

Second, it is stupid to vote for the cap, everyone will vote for a different number. 48 seems to be a pretty good number anyway (it's somewhere down the middle).

 

so it's gonna be 48?can u answer my question and i wont post anymore "off topic post here".thx

 

Yes, that was the petition for (and also the value I decided).

[Tauren]

Can you please re-explain how you created the equation in bold print?

Sure. The first equation take in account the magic level with the minimum rationality:

basic_heal + (magic_level - resto_level) * (max_heal - basic_heal) / (max_magic_level - resto_level)

 

With:

basic_heal: the amount you want to restore with min magic level for resto (resto_level) and rationality 4

max_heal: the amount you want to restore with the maximum magic level (max_magic_level) and rationality 4

magic_level: magic level of the player

resto_level: level needed to use restore, 21 actually

max_magic_level: the maximum magic level a player can reach, I've put 101 based on what Ent said.

 

The second equation take in account the rationality with the maximum magic level:

basic_modifier + ((rationality - min_rat) * (max_heal_max_rat - max_heal_min_rat) / max_heal_min_rat) / (max_rat - min_rat)

 

With:

basic_modifier: the modifier used to increase magic when the rationality is at 4, so 1.

rationality: the rationality of the player

min_rat: the minimum rationality a player can have, so 4

max_rat: the maximum rationality a player can have, so 48

max_heal_max_rat: the amount to restore when the player has max_rat (with magic 101)

max_heal_min_rat: the amount to restore when the player has min_rat (with magic 101)

 

After that, when you replace all the values, you can simplify the equation and obtain something more simple. So the final equation depends on basic_heal, max_heal, max_magic_level, max_heal_min_rat and max_heal_max_rat.

 

Now how I obtain these equations? I did it by cumulating several "rules of three" (I don't know if it's called like this in english )

 

Also, you should consider equating 21 magic + 48 rationality into your formula, so as to be sure a fighter increasing will/reasoning doesn't stumble onto the fact that while they have been gaining warrior attributes, they haven't also found their restoration to be highly effective. (I haven't checked myself)

We can also introduce this in the formula but it will become I think a bit too complicated...

 

Now I'm not saying that my formula is the best (sorry for the previous post, I was a bit upset ), I just think that to make a good formula, we have to take in account the good parameters with the good values, write down the equations on a paper and resolve the system. It's much more efficient than trying to tweak numbers to reach a good result...

 

May I say, if I had spent a little more time to read every post in this thread, I would've saved myself a lot of embarrassment trying to fine tune a formula that was inferior from the beginning as your formula is ingenious and highly effective.

Entropy you should really consider implementing Schmurk's formula for the restoration spell, and keep it as a base for other spells

All that needs to be done is to discuss what the base heal, magic efficiency and rationality efficiency should be. Sorry to say this, but possibly another thread?

 

Schmurk: I am intrigued by your mathematical abilities.

I thought I would've figured it out once you laid out the first 2 formulas but it seems i cant I'm asking if you could find the time to please explain how this formula arised from your conclusion -

(magic level * 1.5 - 1.5) * (rationality * 5 + 112) / 132 It would be very much appreciated

[molime]

(off topic)

 

rofl.so 48 didnt pass at the first time so they made a new poll with cap or not, this passed so we have cap 48...how pr0,this reminds me our politicians

 

The petition wasn't only 'for a cap', but 'for a cap at 48'. Not a 'cap at number to be decided'. That was *because* a lot of people wanted a cap, but preferred a different number. Obviously, in the end more people wanted a cap at 48 more than no cap at all. And there was just no discussion possible, no matter of choosing a number. Ent still does have some say in the matter, and he wanted 48 or not. Something like 60 wasn't 'negiotiable' even if we wanted to.

 

Btw, 48 'passed' the first time as well, just not good enough for Ent, so now people had a chance to rethink and now clearly vote for 'a cap at 48' (only option with a cap) or 'no cap'.

 

not true, read again what molime wrote and what the petition was about.

"Only vote when you really know what you're voting for, after reading the attributes cap topic. Remember, it is NOT a matter of 'no, not at 48, but if it would be...'. It is THIS, or NOT."

Yes, indeed. Read again what I wrote . What was meant there was that 'I vote no because I do want a cap but not at 48' was no option. It was this cap, or no cap.

 

(/off topic)

[Vanyel]

Speaking of compromises, how about this:

Restoration always (if it doesn't fail) restores your full NATURAL HP, then over that it uses magic*2*(rationality/48) ?

 

I'm not really convinced when it comes to it. I would rather see the previously mentioned formulas. I know that restoration often fails, yet, it is too powerful for level 21 in magic.

[Tauren]

I'm not really convinced when it comes to it. I would rather see the previously mentioned formulas. I know that restoration often fails, yet, it is too powerful for level 21 in magic.

Agreed.

[masterpiter]

Restoration always (if it doesn't fail) restores your full NATURAL HP, then over that it uses magic*2*(rationality/48) ?

For my character its fine, for all/most yeti trainers too. as long as they max out reasoning.

 

It will prevent low/middle lvl fighters from training in CoL, they will need to put pickpoints in WILL attribute, no more 30-50health points characters on fluff/feros, also no more pk for them ( so i would expect a lot of bitching here ).

 

No idea if mixers/harvesters will like it, probably not, but hard to say for me, most of them have decent WILL(16-28) but low magic lvl- till now they didnt need big magic at all, so 49 was just fine, and for many even mag 21.

 

mp