INT Scaling on Magic

MolagAmur

Active member
Jul 15, 2020
162
194
43
@MolagAmur - Anyone is welcome to source any of my spreadsheets that I've made public. But please do credit me with them somewhere in the post if you're starting a new topic.
I would have if I knew who you were on the forums. It makes things easier if your names are the same on both this and Discord. Will edit though.
 

Kaemik

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2020
1,089
645
113
1614866415705.png

Still need to do the testing on 10,30, and 40 but you can clearly see at this point the general trend of the graph. Psyche consistently lowers base magic damage taken as well as resist. When I say "Consistently" this is assuming that in places where there are seemingly random upticks in say "Resist %" It's due to the margin of error inherent in the testing method and the general trends of the graph are far more reliable.

Based on these two points combined, my current assumption is that psyche is a better stat for mages on any mage that does not have int greatly in excess of 100. Int is a stat for fatmages for the most part. Fairly dumpable on other builds.

Now I DID run into some irregularities with mana regen during my testing that causes me to believe both in and psy may effect it. This bears further testing I will do later. If true it does slightly increase the value of int once your psy is maxed. Still pretty comfortable in dumping int on anything but a fat mage though.
 
Last edited:

Evelyn

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2021
187
332
63
I feel like the scaling flat damage reduction that PSY gives now further emphasizes the importance of INT scaling in a similar manner in order for magic damage to stay competitive. There's a damage average of about 7 damage difference, with a damage cap difference of about 10, between 20 PSY and 90 PSY based on this graph on top of an increase of about 35% chance to resist the spell between the two.

It doesn't make a lot of sense for INT to be so useless that non-fatmages are better off going 30 INT and 100 PSY instead of the other way around. Hopefully @Henrik Nyström and the dev team take a look at this and consider it. It really just...kinda blows my mind that the optimal play for a mage is to ignore INT and go full PSY if they don't wanna play fatmage.
 
Last edited:

Eldrath

Well-known member
I would remind SV that the current system favours those clade that have intelligence caps over 100, because those are the only that can effectively raise their magic damage. IMO this is a good thing.

Clade with high intelligence caps should be able to deal considerably more damage than those will low caps, just as with strength in melee and bows. Otherwise you end up with mages going for other attributes (again) since it´s not worthwhile to have a character with a higher INT cap.

This affects sidoans, sarduccans, huegar and sheevra afaik. It would be a shame if their current edge in maging is scaled down.

A gradual increase of damage between 50 and 100 intelligence would be fine if after that it goes up drastically.

I feel like the scaling flat damage reduction that PSY gives now further emphasizes the importance of INT scaling in a similar manner in order for magic damage to stay competitive. There's a damage average of about 7 damage difference, with a damage cap difference of about 10, between 20 PSY and 90 PSY based on this graph on top of an increase of about 35% chance to resist the spell between the two.

It doesn't make a lot of sense for INT to be so useless that non-fatmages are better off going 30 INT and 100 PSY instead of the other way around. Hopefully @Henrik Nyström and the dev team take a look at this and consider it. It really just...kinda blows my mind that the optimal play for a mage is to ignore INT and go full PSY if they don't wanna play fatmage.
Actually going up from 100 already yields more damage. It´s a perk for certain clades with high INT caps and archiveable without being a fatmage. Normalizing this will take away from those clades, just as normalizing movement speed took away from high dexterity clade such as Alvarin and Khurites.

Not a fan of killing another bit of variety.
 
Last edited:

Kaemik

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2020
1,089
645
113
Finished Int Chart:



Finished Psy Chart:




I haven't tested mana regen from psyche and int and won't until the int changes that are coming soon. But in the current system now that I understand how it works it's easy to game.

Psyche is a relatively flat line with damage going down fairly evenly the more points I put in. Int caps out at around 45-50 and offers no further damage bonus until 100 (I'd test that more thoroughly if it wasn't getting changed soon).

This means INT is only useful 1-50 unless you will be pumping it significantly beyond 100.

For instance my Sheevra build I ran before these charts had 101 Int. I now know I was spending 61 points to get practically nothing in that build. If I remade it, I'd move 61-66 points over to Psyche to get the same mana total while making the character significantly stronger. Sheevra is actually perhaps the MOST negatively impacted by this because while they can theoretically get their Int to 120 something you're obese by that point. And the whole point of a Sheevra is that it's both fast and high INT.

A Sheevra fatmage is objectively worse than Heurgar in nearly every single way. Once you make it obese the race is trash.

I'd argue a similar thing for Sidoians. They are a very high int and high str cap race. This would seem to set them up for some hybrid builds but upon learning you need greatly over 100 int, their int cap seems useless for anything but a fatmage, completely throwing out some interesting mounted hybrid builds I wanted to try. Better off with a full Tindremene for those builds once you learn every point beyond 50 is wasted on non-fat mages.

Hopefully the way they recurve it breaths some life back into 100 INT Sheevra dex mages and Sidioan hybrids as well as other builds that come close to 100 without greatly exceeding it.
 
Last edited:

Eldrath

Well-known member
intscaling.jpg

Personally I would prefer the red graph since it penalizes cheaping out on INT and make every point spend somewhat worthwhile. Obviously magic damage between below 100 would drop. If that is not desireable the whole could be scaled up, which would also lead to significantly more damage for above 100 characters.

Yellow might be alright but would probably kill fat mage since the difference between a fast and fatmage would shrink to a point where being a barrel of lard is not worthwhile at all.

Green would be similar but even worse since the difference between a full speed 92 INT Veela and a tub 138 INT huegar would be less than 5%.

I just hope they don´t make the INT curve as stupid as the dex curve...
 
  • Like
Reactions: huckbuck

Kaemik

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2020
1,089
645
113
Some variant of red would work for me. While it would be a nightmare to graph though, my ideal curve wouldn't be a singular curve. It would be say... lesser heal capping out at 50. Thunderlash capping out at 138. Flamestrike capping out at 100-110. Etc.

This would keep hybrids very strong in a limited subset of spells, dex mages very strong in a less limited range of spells, and give fat-mages some spells they really shine at.

Best way to do it IMO. I will gladly spend 3-4 days graphing every spell in the game if that's how they end up doing it.
 

Evelyn

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2021
187
332
63
I am really looking forward to seeing 90-109 INT scores being worthwhile, especially 100-109. Even if it's only just a little bit. But Kaemik's idea above is an interesting one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xunila and Bernfred

KermyWormy

Active member
May 29, 2020
152
166
43
California
Sometimes I wish I could get into whoever's mind that came up with some of the head scratching mechanics that've been a part of MO for so long. The fact that magic damage never scaled in a simple linear fashion was a choice someone way back when made, and I'd like to know why they implemented it the way the did, because to me this is one of those cases where the simplest way of doing it (linear scaling) would've worked fine, and what they did instead doesn't really serve a useful purpose that I've ever seen anyway, but surely there was a reason behind it right?
 

Evelyn

Well-known member
Jan 6, 2021
187
332
63
Sometimes I wish I could get into whoever's mind that came up with some of the head scratching mechanics that've been a part of MO for so long. The fact that magic damage never scaled in a simple linear fashion was a choice someone way back when made, and I'd like to know why they implemented it the way the did, because to me this is one of those cases where the simplest way of doing it (linear scaling) would've worked fine, and what they did instead doesn't really serve a useful purpose that I've ever seen anyway, but surely there was a reason behind it right?
I dunno. FarmerJoe said in Discord today that it is a strange piece of design that he's in favor of changing. So they're aware of it :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Runaljod

Eldrath

Well-known member
I dunno. FarmerJoe said in Discord today that it is a strange piece of design that he's in favor of changing. So they're aware of it :)
It allows effective magery for all clades. My preference and Kaemiks suggestion have basically the same goal but are more sophisticated.

Sebs ideas are usually terrible and he should stick to coding instead of backseat designing. There is a division of labour in teams for a reason.
 

Anabolic Man

Well-known member
Sep 7, 2020
426
276
63
I find this good, becuase the damage can´t be prevented. I like it, so Players will get 50 int and rather skill some psy to have magic Resist.
It must not be forgotten that mages can also carry a pet with them. They will still make full damage to fighters, which won´t have much psy.