Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrower


Although the central place for design discussion is ##crawl-dev on freenode, some may find it helpful to discuss requests and suggestions here first.

User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1850

Joined: Monday, 20th December 2010, 04:22

Location: Surabaya, Indonesia

Post Friday, 17th February 2017, 08:17

Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrower

Mechanic
Basically fire-elemental scattershot that doesn't check AC as much. Damage could be on par with bolt of fire or a little bit weaker.

Reason
Fire magic, the way I see it, should be the best elemental spell school when it comes to outright destroying enemies. This means that fire magic should give you the best ways to deal any kind of practical damage in any situations. But this characteristic isn't currently employed too well by the spell school. Between dealing decent damage with low to mid-ish spells (up to Bolt of Fire) and totally obliterating everything with Firestorm, there is no "if you have this, you can pretty much relax"-type one. Bolt of fire is good but doesn't cover much space, Ignition and ring of flames are expensive. Fire needs something that can wipe out a large number of enemy at once and make the caster feel safe, BUT also not too expensive. I mean, Ice magic has Freezing Clouds, air magic has CBL. (Earth doesn't seem to have any spell that fills that niche but it's ok.)

With the addition of this spell, the mid-to-endgame tactics of a fire mage would go like this:
- Enemies in a line or a bit far away? Bolt of fire!
- Enemies coming in from many directions? Flamethrower!
- Enemies everywhere? Ignition!
Last edited by pratamawirya on Friday, 17th February 2017, 13:50, edited 1 time in total.

Halls Hopper

Posts: 80

Joined: Tuesday, 3rd January 2017, 21:47

Post Friday, 17th February 2017, 09:14

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

pratamawirya wrote:Fire magic, the way I see it, should be the best spell school when it comes to outright destroying enemies


Good thing it's already the best conjuration spellschool.
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1750

Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05

Post Friday, 17th February 2017, 10:02

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

IMO a lot of that comes from conjure flame, which feels like a bit of a cheesy spell to use to its full potential. (Especially because of how enemy AI deals with deciding to walk into damage clouds.)
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1850

Joined: Monday, 20th December 2010, 04:22

Location: Surabaya, Indonesia

Post Friday, 17th February 2017, 10:05

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Shard1697 wrote:IMO a lot of that comes from conjure flame, which feels like a bit of a cheesy spell to use to its full potential. (Especially because of how enemy AI deals with deciding to walk into damage clouds.)

Sorry, but what are you replying to? ONIchinchin's post?
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1750

Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05

Post Friday, 17th February 2017, 10:31

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Yeah, I think fire magic is pretty carried by that spell(in comparison to other elemental schools anyways).

Crypt Cleanser

Posts: 714

Joined: Saturday, 5th December 2015, 06:56

Post Friday, 17th February 2017, 13:23

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

"Fire magic, the way I see it, should be the best spell school when it comes to outright destroying enemies."

What about conjurations? =/

This spell just doesn't jump out at me, sorry. So it shoots in all directions? If you're in a situation where everything is coming at you from different directions you are already playing wrong. Spells that require you to play wrong to use them (ring of flames is another example) are bad. QED
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1850

Joined: Monday, 20th December 2010, 04:22

Location: Surabaya, Indonesia

Post Friday, 17th February 2017, 13:50

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

lethediver wrote:What about conjurations? =/

I mean among elemental schools. Maybe I didn't word it properly.

lethediver wrote:This spell just doesn't jump out at me, sorry. So it shoots in all directions? If you're in a situation where everything is coming at you from different directions you are already playing wrong. Spells that require you to play wrong to use them (ring of flames is another example) are bad. QED

This works the way scattershot works. Now do you think scattershot (with regards to it's wide spread) is a badly-designed attack?

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8670

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Friday, 17th February 2017, 22:35

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

FWIW ignition probably needs to be dropped to level 7 to be remotely worth memorizing/casting.

For this message the author duvessa has received thanks: 2
Doesnt, pratamawirya

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1737

Joined: Tuesday, 13th March 2012, 02:48

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 02:47

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

FWIW ignition firestorm probably needs to be dropped to level 7 to be remotely worth memorizing/casting.

(Am I doing it right?)
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1850

Joined: Monday, 20th December 2010, 04:22

Location: Surabaya, Indonesia

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 03:58

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

duvessa wrote:FWIW ignition probably needs to be dropped to level 7 to be remotely worth memorizing/casting.

Yes, lol. Don't hold back. Fire magic needs a good and not too expensive tool to destroy everything on screen. I mean, that's why we pick fire magic at the first place: because we don't care about getting cheap armour, turning into a statue, etc, etc, and only about killing dudes.

bel

Dis Charger

Posts: 2100

Joined: Tuesday, 3rd February 2015, 22:05

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 03:59

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

pratamawirya wrote:This works the way scattershot works. Now do you think scattershot (with regards to it's wide spread) is a badly-designed attack?

Scattershot works in many ways. One of the best ways is to use it against a hydra (or any monster with low AC) right next to you; it will shred the monster in one hit.

Coming back to the OP, I don't really see why Fire needs more offensive spells.
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1850

Joined: Monday, 20th December 2010, 04:22

Location: Surabaya, Indonesia

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 04:10

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Scattershot is flexible. It's like chain lightning, really; you can use it on multiple targets, or just on one to kill it immediately. I really think fire magic needs something really powerful like that. Right now our options are:
1. Bolt of fire (powerful but goes in a line only, and it's not so strong that it can OHKO a single nasty dude)
2. Ignition (too expensive, and doesn't have an OHKO potential either)
3. Firestorm (too damned expensive that we hardly ever need it in a 3-rune game)
4. RIng of flames (expensive and doesn't deal enough damage, and of course no OHKO-ing either)

Shoals Surfer

Posts: 268

Joined: Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 09:32

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 16:40

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Inner flame/Cflame is almost strictly better in any situation I would want this.

The joke behind ignition is that more damage is the last thing fire needs as a spellschool.
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1850

Joined: Monday, 20th December 2010, 04:22

Location: Surabaya, Indonesia

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 17:25

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

NhorianScum wrote:Inner flame/Cflame is almost strictly better in any situation I would want this.

The joke behind ignition is that more damage is the last thing fire needs as a spellschool.

If you actually read the thread properly, you'd know that it was basically about a fire-elemental scattershot, and scattershot is not just "more damage" (though, yeah, OHKO-ing a hydra or whatever with it feels good).

Now whether duplicating scattershot and making the duplicate fire-elemental and a level 7 fire spell is a good idea... is another question entirely.

Anyway, the motivation behind this proposal was to bridge the gap in fire magic between bolt of fire and the expensive bad boys (firestorm, etc). If duvessa's idea to lower Ignition to level 7 ever gets implemented, then I won't care that much about this proposal anymore, lol.

Shoals Surfer

Posts: 268

Joined: Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 09:32

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 17:45

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

pratamawirya wrote:
NhorianScum wrote:Inner flame/Cflame is almost strictly better in any situation I would want this.

The joke behind ignition is that more damage is the last thing fire needs as a spellschool.

If you actually read the thread properly, you'd know that it was basically about a fire-elemental scattershot, and scattershot is not just "more damage" (though, yeah, OHKO-ing a hydra or whatever with it feels good).

Now whether duplicating scattershot and making the duplicate fire-elemental and a level 7 fire spell is a good idea... is another question entirely.

Anyway, the motivation behind this proposal was to bridge the gap in fire magic between bolt of fire and the expensive bad boys (firestorm, etc). If duvessa's idea to lower Ignition to level 7 ever gets implemented, then I won't care that much about this proposal anymore, lol.


I read the thread. The response was in context.

Ignition at level 7 would be efficient. I still hate it on every possible level.
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1850

Joined: Monday, 20th December 2010, 04:22

Location: Surabaya, Indonesia

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 18:00

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Ignition is kind of dumb (why doesn't the caster get hit by the explosion? I really dislike special cases like that) and not very flavorful, yes. I thought and still think that "flame thrower" is cooler, lol.

Shoals Surfer

Posts: 268

Joined: Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 09:32

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 18:04

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Dfireball Self, Fireball Self also worked in this context. I'm sure someone will rag on this "suboptimal" play but it's FE, you're rocking RF++ minimum because you're playing FE.

Ice needs the midgame fluidity buff far more than fire ever will since optimal skilling involves capping ice invest at... #### freeze before glaciate.

Edit: By glaciate I mean firestorm.
Last edited by NhorianScum on Saturday, 18th February 2017, 20:28, edited 1 time in total.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8670

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 19:34

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

There are a lot of area spells that don't affect the caster. Ignite Poison, Olgreb's, Mass Confusion, Ring of Flames while active, Shatter, Tornado...

The explosions are shaped around the caster because otherwise it would be annoying to use, and I refuse to add spells that are annoying to use. Unspoiled players would also likely kill themselves by casting it while surrounded.
The explosions are shaped around allies (and the spell doesn't explode allies) to prevent possible abuses with summoning spells. You could prevent it from working on summons at all but that makes the spell even worse (it loses almost all of its utility in places like Tomb) and is, if anything, an uglier special case. There's also weird stuff that could happen with effects like death channel and infestation if shaping around allies is removed.

Imo the big design problem with ignition is that it sucks against single monsters, which in Crawl means that it sucks, period.

Shoals Surfer

Posts: 268

Joined: Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 09:32

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 20:17

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Well, the rest of the school is based around frying off your own eyebrows and indiscriminately blowing up everything on screen flavor wise, and rewards you for doing so mechanically.

Ignition is almost almost as silly and redundant as adding a spell to fire that amounts to "so it's Iron shot/LRD, but does none of the things you learn Iron shot/LRD for".

It's hard to call keystrokes tedious when they result in fire. (Seriously has anyone actually complained about Dfireball, ever)

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8670

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 20:52

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

NhorianScum wrote:"so it's Iron shot/LRD, but does none of the things you learn Iron shot/LRD for".
who leaked the force lance design documents
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1750

Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05

Post Saturday, 18th February 2017, 22:19

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

How is the rest of the school based around "frying off your own eyebrows and indiscriminately blowing up everything on screen"? I don't know about you but I don't ever normally hurt myself with my own fire magic spells(or usually affect that much of the screen), even fireball can be used safely with an enemy right next to you...
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1850

Joined: Monday, 20th December 2010, 04:22

Location: Surabaya, Indonesia

Post Sunday, 19th February 2017, 01:46

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

I knew the motivation behind ignition's blasts not hurting the caster and their allies and I support it. Though, to players, it's still a potentially-confusing special case since the spell is obviously based on fireball, and fireball hurts you.

Regarding the "sucks against single monsters" bit... you're right. Fire is outclassed by air and earth in this context; they have chain lightning and lcs. A fire elementalist needs to branch out to use iood or something to OHKO a single nasty target. Considering that fire magic is the only elemental school focused on damage, I find that to be uncool. That's one part of why I proposed a fire-elemental scattershot.

Shoals Surfer

Posts: 268

Joined: Tuesday, 4th October 2016, 09:32

Post Sunday, 19th February 2017, 09:21

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Shard1697 wrote:How is the rest of the school based around "frying off your own eyebrows and indiscriminately blowing up everything on screen"? I don't know about you but I don't ever normally hurt myself with my own fire magic spells(or usually affect that much of the screen), even fireball can be used safely with an enemy right next to you...


Playing optimaly generates a large number of player deaths via cntrlQ.

Fireball is loud.

You will likely reach a situation where blowing yourself up will deal less damage than not blowing yourself up quite often when playing suboptimaly in the sort of enemy dense area you encounter when Rf++ can be safely assumed.

@ OP. BoF and to a lesser extent fireball with enhancers are on par with Iron shot for single targets because fire realisticly stacks more enhancers than earth and int is limited in a 3 rune. Unless you're hitting 50 int on a game-to-game basis not only is there never a reason to branch out for single target damage on non-Rf+ targets there is no reason to ever learn LCS over Iron Shot. This is less optimal play (boring) and more optimal skilling. For similar reasons you never actually were encoraged to cast DFireball via wiz swapping long term (DFireball at 1% without wiz was a breakpoint for max spellpower at 3-4 enhancer spellpower which is highly relevant for anyone casting fireball).

Abyss Ambulator

Posts: 1221

Joined: Thursday, 10th March 2011, 19:45

Post Sunday, 19th February 2017, 16:54

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

What about a version of Ignition, that instead of putting a fireball on every visible monster, creates a number of fireballs determined by spellpower then divides them between monsters in LOS?
So if there is only one monster on screen, all fireballs hit it, but if there are lots of monsters they get spread around.

bel

Dis Charger

Posts: 2100

Joined: Tuesday, 3rd February 2015, 22:05

Post Sunday, 19th February 2017, 17:24

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Sounds similar to conjure ball lightning, except with fire instead of lightning.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 6224

Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06

Post Sunday, 19th February 2017, 22:36

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Jeremiah wrote:What about a version of Ignition, that instead of putting a fireball on every visible monster, creates a number of fireballs determined by spellpower then divides them between monsters in LOS?
So if there is only one monster on screen, all fireballs hit it, but if there are lots of monsters they get spread around.

That is exactly the original version i wrote for glaciate, the devs liked the name, but not the mechanic, so it was scrapped
Edit: well, actually, it was targeted like dazzling spray, so maybe that was the problem with it.
Spoiler: show
This high quality signature has been hidden for your protection. To unlock it's secret, send 3 easy payments of $9.99 to me, by way of your nearest theta band or ley line. Complete your transmission by midnight tonight for a special free gift!

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1737

Joined: Tuesday, 13th March 2012, 02:48

Post Monday, 20th February 2017, 05:33

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Jeremiah wrote:What about a version of Ignition, that instead of putting a fireball on every visible monster, creates a number of fireballs determined by spellpower then divides them between monsters in LOS?
So if there is only one monster on screen, all fireballs hit it, but if there are lots of monsters they get spread around.


Then it becomes ridiculous 1v1

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 4341

Joined: Friday, 8th May 2015, 17:51

Post Monday, 20th February 2017, 06:05

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Rast wrote:Then it becomes ridiculous 1v1


Yes, we need quite the opposite spells, i.e. spells which encourage fighting big groups. For example, a spell which is single target but deals varied damage depending on number of hostile monsters in view: more monsters result in greater damage. But then it leads to luring :(
Underestimated: cleaving, Deep Elf, Formicid, Vehumet, EV
Overestimated: AC, GDS
Twin account of Sandman25
User avatar

Abyss Ambulator

Posts: 1111

Joined: Monday, 18th March 2013, 23:23

Post Wednesday, 22nd February 2017, 08:24

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

duvessa wrote:There are a lot of area spells that don't affect the caster. Ignite Poison, Olgreb's, Mass Confusion, Ring of Flames while active, Shatter, Tornado...

The explosions are shaped around the caster because otherwise it would be annoying to use, and I refuse to add spells that are annoying to use. Unspoiled players would also likely kill themselves by casting it while surrounded.
The explosions are shaped around allies (and the spell doesn't explode allies) to prevent possible abuses with summoning spells. You could prevent it from working on summons at all but that makes the spell even worse (it loses almost all of its utility in places like Tomb) and is, if anything, an uglier special case. There's also weird stuff that could happen with effects like death channel and infestation if shaping around allies is removed.

Imo the big design problem with ignition is that it sucks against single monsters, which in Crawl means that it sucks, period.


Damn straight. Conjure Ball LIghtning should be the only spell that you routinely kill yourself with while learning how to use it properly!
User avatar

Tartarus Sorceror

Posts: 1750

Joined: Monday, 14th October 2013, 01:05

Post Wednesday, 22nd February 2017, 10:24

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

In my experience the way to use Conjure Ball Lightning properly is "don't memorize Conjure Ball Lightning"

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 6224

Joined: Tuesday, 30th October 2012, 19:06

Post Wednesday, 22nd February 2017, 16:02

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

Shard1697 wrote:In my experience the way to use Conjure Ball Lightning properly is "don't memorize Conjure Ball Lightning"

If you never memorize it, then how will you ever get the experience to use it properly? ;)
Spoiler: show
This high quality signature has been hidden for your protection. To unlock it's secret, send 3 easy payments of $9.99 to me, by way of your nearest theta band or ley line. Complete your transmission by midnight tonight for a special free gift!

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 8670

Joined: Sunday, 5th May 2013, 08:25

Post Wednesday, 22nd February 2017, 19:52

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

In my opinion, CBL is currently the game's best conjuration spell above level 4. Of course, that's because it's a summoning spell in disguise. You cast it and then you walk away and then the enemy dies.

Ziggurat Zagger

Posts: 5300

Joined: Friday, 25th November 2011, 07:36

Post Wednesday, 22nd February 2017, 20:42

Re: Proposal: lv. 7 Pure Fire Spell, Iskenderun's Flamethrow

How about a somewhat more positioning dependant spell? Flame Circle - creates a circle of flames at range 3 from your position - these move with you, so if you step forward, they move forward (instantly) as well. Whether they fill the entire range 3 square around your character or only some of that square could depend on balance/spellpower, if they filled every square it might be too easy to kite backwards and keep monsters in the effect. Another 'fix' for that issue could be to only allow it to hit each monster once, in that version it'd be a "softening" spell before you finish them with other spells.

It's somewhat similar to ring of flames now, just by making it higher range it's usable before things are meleeing you, and also doesn't have as much of a "shield me from bolts of cold" sort of effect.

The other obvious design is a flame nova which hits in all directions, but similar to the scattershot idea, it is most useful when you've messed up and the optimal strategy would be to never use it. And depending on range - is it full LOS, only up to range 4 or 5, etc - you'd probably have to keep the damage pretty low otherwise it's going to be broken.

I think a flame circle that only hits each monster once could work. The flavor of only hitting once and then being immune to the flames is kind of weird, though.

Return to Game Design Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tealizard and 8 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software for PTF.