Idea for Confoundables: Accumulated success.
Keybounce
Posts: 474 ✭✭✭
Right now, each "Cast" is independent; each spell cast has the same random chance of success, modified by spell quality and potion.
I'd like to suggest that this be reworked as cumulative "damage"/"effect". So while your "great" or "masterful" cast might not have succeeded, it will weaken the confoundable to make more casts better -- essentially like cumulative potion gains against that specific trace.
(Remember, masterful green might be 75-90% chance of success. GRR. And if it fails, that spell cast did NOTHING.)
2
Comments
(Remember, masterful green might be 75-90% chance of success. GRR. And if it fails, that spell cast did NOTHING.)
That is a common misconception.
Your chance of success is influenced by (in order of magnitude):
If you're interested in learning more, look at this picture:
Me:
(Remember, masterful green might be 75-90% chance of success. GRR. And if it fails, that spell cast did NOTHING.)
You:
That is a common misconception.
Actually, no. I am aware of that picture. I'm also aware of the stat chart that was posted with it. (do not have that stat chart available right now, sorry).
Green, if you start in the 45-60% sector, and make a masterful cast with no potion, is still only in the 75-90% chance of success. And if it fails, there's no effect
There does not seem to be any randomness in determining your chance. It seems to just be time to trace, level, bonus/penalty/neutral (tracing accuracy), and base/potion chance.
There does not seem to be any randomness in determining your chance. It seems to just be time to trace, level, bonus/penalty/neutral (tracing accuracy), and base/potion chance.
To me, chance implies randomness.
And as for why I called it a misconception: The "scale" goes from red over orange and yellow to various shades of green. So "green" could mean 24% and 100% (and everything in between)
A number of examples to illustrate:
The first three are all "Masterful Green".
If you'd like to know more (or even play with the idea yourself), make a copy of this Excel-Sheet and go wild
Sorry.
I'm looking at https://community.harrypotterwizardsunite.com/en/discussion/2334/frustrating-foundables-the-threat-scale-explained#latest
(just found that link again)
Look at the chart in that thread -- sorry that I don't know how to link to the specific post -- and look at the no potion, three top chance lines (45 to 60% base rate).
For players in the 15+ range -- which is where you'll have the player experience to get lots of masterfulls -- you are looking at top catch rates of 71% (improves with leveling) to 92% (does not improve with leveling). Note that the 50% base line starts at 75% at player level 1; the 45% base gets there around level 50.
That's what I mean by green masterful casts. And if you get that 8 to 30% failure rate, your masterful cast did nothing, and doesn't make anything easier, and doesn't prevent it from fleeing.
* THAT* is what I'd like to see changed. Something for weakening the confoundable, weakening the magic holding down the foundable, preventing it from running away immediately.
That’s where potions come in. Dawdle Draught to reduce chances of fleeing. Various levels of Exstimulo to increase your effective rates. As you level up, they become less necessary on medium, high, and even severe level threats. Early in the game though, you’ll rely heavily upon those potions to catch anything above a low level threat, or just deal with the fact that your success rates won’t be amazing.
There are days when it feels like the failed attempts vastly outnumber the successes, but pretty much everyone who has bothered to track their trace statistics has found that the opposite is true. It’s just that the frustrating experiences tend to be more memorable.
Every five player levels, the traces get a bit easier, but you’ll still use lots of potion to get through the more difficult fortress chambers. Even with a completed lesson plan, there’s no getting through a solo round in one of the Dark chambers without using some healing potion and few strong exstimulos at the very least.
Potions are there for a reason. They’re an important part of the game play experience. It’s natural to want to be stingy with them because they take time to brew, but don’t. Be liberal with your potions and you’ll eventually come up with a good system where you’re using and replenishing your stock fairly seamlessly. Occasionally, you might have to rely on the rental cauldron, and there are tricks to getting the most out of a three hour rental. I made a post about it here...
https://community.harrypotterwizardsunite.com/en/discussion/2490/rental-cauldron
92% (does not improve with leveling)
You're right. Assuming that you don't take a potion, your maximum chance of catching is going to be ~92% - even at Level 60.
At the same time I agree with @Acumen in regards to the congnitive dissonance.
8% rate of not succeeding in the 1st try is small.
0,16% of not succeeding in the 1st AND 2nd try is even smaller.
0,0512% of not succeeding in the 1st, 2nd, AND 3rd try is really tiny.
The chance will never be zero - unless you use potions. And I believe that's intentional - but hey, that's just my opinion. Don't let my opinion stop you from fighting for what you believe in.
8% rate of not succeeding in the 1st try is small.
0,16% of not succeeding in the 1st AND 2nd try is even smaller.
I hate this forum so much I'm not even going to bother trying to fix these misquoting problems anymore.
Neither of what you two said is wrong. But I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
Yes, a green masterful cast might be 90% success. But if it fails? My second spell cast has the same chance as my first. No matter how good of a job my spell is, it's all or nothing.
"You are expected to use potions". Fine, I understand that as a ** point of game design ** . Ingredients drop. You deliberately have tiny inventory spaces unless you spend lots of coins. You have to brew lots. You reach the limit of your brew storage, and have to spend them.
Right now, though, it's like the speed of potion brewing limits effective playtime. And it's made worse by the whole "This guy is so tough that you only have any real chance of winning by using a potent combat potion". And so you've got 5 great casts -- and you only need 2. Your next three? Nothing but plain low- and normal-level threats around. The rest are wasted.
I fully understand "You have to use potions for stronger chambers". I'm already at the point of needing to use several on my highest level chambers, and generally go a couple of levels lower to avoid draining myself dry. After all, two potions is 16 hours (-15%) to recover.
But saying "Use a 'don't flee' potion all the time"? That's crazy. Ignoring the rare ingredient, it's still 6 hours per don't-flee, 8 hours per potent, 12 hours per 2x XP, and 7 hours per extra traces. You cannot rely on potions and do anything more significant than the minimum to clear your daily task sheet. (Most of the event stuff is either low-threat, or doable with room 1 challenges. The most demanding thing on the daily is "return 10 foundables" that only requires about 20 energy without any potions.)
---
One game design idea is "Lets try to nickle and dime the user for everything." This is the design that says "You need to do lots of actions, and each one costs a rare currency". Lots of potions needed, and that's either coins to finish, coins to rent an extra brewing station, or coins to buy ingredients. This is the design that says "Each attack is independent".
Attack.
Your spells are basically attacking the confoundables, that are normally creatures, to try to get them to stop. And no matter how good or bad your cast is, you never "dent" them. Until you get into actual combat, and now your spells are going after their hit points.
I have made one and only one point in this thread: In the section of the forum for gameplay ideas, I have been saying "Do a game design around accumulated success. Do a design around wearing the enemy out. Without having to constantly do massive potions all the time, have a way to play by casting spells."
After all, how many times do we see people relying on potions in the Harry Potter source books? It's pretty rare. (I don't think we see anything prior to seeing the Order of the Phoenix reform in book 5. Yes, we see potion class, but we don't really see potions to improve spell casting (or it would be all over the OWLs and NEWTs, or in the final battle in book 7) or to keep enemies from fleeing (how would that even work?). The stress is on your spellcasting training. Repeated casting outside of combat really isn't shown, so we don't know how the "real" HP spell system works.
(Note that potions to increase awareness, or to improve your thinking/mental focus, or even healing, are perfectly fine with what we see in the books. Heck, I think we see or hear about potions comparable to most of those game potions in-books.)
Have you responded to my idea? No. You've just shot back how the current system works.
PLEASE. Actually discuss the idea. Don't just **** it down by saying "that's now how the current system works" and explain how the current system works.
Is it a good idea? Is it a bad idea?
Does it make sense from an in-world perspective?
Does it make for a good game design balance?
Does it make for a better/worse design than the current system?
But I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
This goes both ways. Just sayin'
Yes, a green masterful cast might be 90% success. But if it fails? My second spell cast has the same chance as my first. No matter how good of a job my spell is, it's all or nothing.
That is correct. And I think it is good that way, no need to improve.
Your suggestion relies on the idea that your spell made a dent and that you need only 2 more dents to succeed. And I disagree with that.
Does it make sense from an in-world perspective?
You want certainty. Absolute certainty doesn't exist. Therefore the current implementation makes perfect sense.
Is it a good idea? Is it a bad idea?
That's subjective.
Does it make for a good game design balance?
Does it make for a better/worse design than the current system?
No. You need to be able to fail in order to appreciate your success, therefore I argue that certainty is undesirable as it undermines your appreciation.
Additionally I'd like to come back to something @Acumen said:
There are days when it feels like the failed attempts vastly outnumber the successes, but pretty much everyone who has bothered to track their trace statistics has found that the opposite is true. It’s just that the frustrating experiences tend to be more memorable.
Your entire text focusses (reading between the lines) so much on frustration and discontent.
I hate this forum so much I'm not even going to bother trying to fix these misquoting problems anymore.
Hate is the word used for THE strongest negative feeling. Applying a Gauss-Distribution regarding the intensity of feelings, that's something that "should" be very rare. And yet you used that word to describe something as irrelevant as formatting.
So to me the subtext of your comment is "I'm so consumed by my negative feelings that I would rather change the situation that caused it, than reflecting on whether my reaction is actually appropriate in that situation" -> which is why I referred to the situation as COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.
I do get what you're saying, @Keybounce, and I understand that it feels like @Lucoire and I are just here to crush your dreams. Unfortunately, that's just how it goes when we're all sharing our opinions. You're idea of the perfect game probably isn't anything like mine.
Conversations like this one were common shortly after the game went live. Some of us looked at the game mechanics, understood it, and were pretty much cool with it. Well, that's not entirely true. We've all posted criticism and requests. People will agree or disagree, and no one feels too strongly one way or the other. Occasionally though, particularly on threads related to difficulty level, you'll see a pretty clear divide.
Some players will suggest things like accumulated success rates, usually on the premise that changing the mechanics would make the game more fair and just, and several players will agree. Others will read a suggestion like that and translate it to, "I want the game to be easier." And you have to admit, when you **** down your argument, that's basically what you're asking for.
Again, just because your idea of the perfect game-play experience is different from mine doesn't mean you're wrong. I just can't relate is all. To me, the game isn't very challenging to begin with. If we take away what little difficulty exists, I don't see any point in playing.
I don't understand the desire to hoard gold like a dragon. A player can earn up to 600 or even 700 in gold per month just from Daily Treasure, Daily Assignments, Brilliant Events, Community Days, Holiday Events, random coin drops, and so on. You never have to spend real currency, and you'll still earn enough in-game currency to purchase nice bundles, keep expanding your vaults, rent extra cauldron space, and so on. Everything a player needs to progress easily is there. Earn gold, and spend it. Pick up or grow ingredients. Brew potions, and use them.
Still, I get it. You feel like the game would be more enjoyable if certain aspects had less to do with chance and more to do with skill. I don't agree, but that shouldn't make you feel any less validated. Your opinion is still perfectly valid. It's just wrong, lol. 😆
Kidding, of course. Catch some dragons today and have a good time, UCLA dude.
Captain America: LANGUAGE
(I can kinda guess the word that was redacted there. Still, the language filter doesn't like it and I get why)
LoL, @Lucoire. Right? The filter can sometimes make it seem like the words we’re using are extremely offensive. I really think it’s over-the-top to filter words like st-r-ip, but I also get it. When it comes to opening yourself up to liability, it’s better to be too careful.
@Keybounce the thing about some of your posts are they are topics that have already been hashed out on this forum months ago. Have you gone through older posts and read them? Have you chimed in on some of them to refresh them and renew the conversation? The game has changed in different ways since launch, so maybe a renewal is warranted. But sometimes, it's still beating the same dead horse. (Watch the mod-bot ** something out...).
Cumulative effect - Here's a perspective you may or may not have considered. Let's say casts are cumulative. Someone who can cast masterful consistently will have a big advantage over someone who can't. People who have medical issues that cause their hands to shake, or people who just aren't as dexterous, would be at a disadvantage. Is that fair? No. Is that really what you want? While cumulative effect may be more realistic (in the real world), not having cumulative effect is actually a way to make the game (NOT the real world) ever so slightly more fair. People who can cast masterful consistently get the benefit of being rewarded extra XP. I feel like that's a fair concession, a middle ground if you will.
You are a baby wizard. And I don't say or mean that to offend; we were ALL baby wizards at some point. The game in the beginning is hard for a reason. Many of us automatically expected severe and emergency foundables to flee no matter how many potions we threw at it, because we were baby wizards. That doesn't mean you need to spend money to succeed, you just need to persevere and "improve" your skill level. As you continue to play on the daily, you will accumulate those rare ingredients, and start hoarding some like the rest of us. You'll start to accumulate silver keys, dark detectors, coins, and whatever other resource the game provides, without spending a penny. Just because it's not all handed to you from the get go, that doesn't make the game wrong, unfair, or unbalanced. If you expect to speed through levels and ranks, you will be incredibly frustrated. This game is meant to be played for years, not weeks or months.
@Dogoutlaw is spot on. As many have previously mentioned, it’s a marathon not a sprint.
Enjoy the journey rather than the destination, share your highlights along the way.
Ask loads of questions, the forum members are awesome.
I have searched. I could not find anything relevant. Can you link to the appropriate old thread to bump? And is bumping a "dead" thread from earlier game versions considered appropriate here? (I've seen forums that go both ways.)
Hate is the word used for THE strongest negative feeling. Applying a Gauss-Distribution regarding the intensity of feelings, that's something that "should" be very rare. And yet you used that word to describe something as irrelevant as formatting.
There's stronger words for dislike/disapproval. Usually they are considered "swear words". These are words that offend some people, and there is some behavior that offends me even more than what I use "hate" for. But to describe that behavior would get into present-day senatoral politics, so I will not.
And yes, my dislike of this forum and it's utter stupidity is at the level of "hate". I have much less dislike of the game (I'm enjoying it -- spend almost 90 minutes walking around the park today chasing dragons and other things. Got some pixie wings to Hermione, and of course they disappear right after she looked at them.)
Someone who can cast masterful consistently will have a big advantage over someone who can't. People who have medical issues that cause their hands to shake, or people who just aren't as dexterous, would be at a disadvantage. Is that fair?
While I did not consider motor issues, the current game hardly handles that case even now.
Adjusting the base success rate to be harder and combining it with "wear and tear", or even just having the wear-and-tear factor be small, etc -- there are ways to balance the behavior. I'm not asking for "easier", I'm asking for "less frustrating".
If you expect to speed through levels and ranks, you will be incredibly frustrated.
Then the early game needs to be rebalanced, because you do speed through the early game, and then WHAM you slow down hard. Just as the game teaches you to expect rapid advancement, you stop.
I'm not asking for "easier", I'm asking for "less frustrating".
Frustration is subjective and therefore a horrible basis for balancing. Balancing requires metics, statistics - "hard evidence".