PDA

View Full Version : Noob question - scripting


Skinu
June 30th, 2009, 12:37 AM
Hello, thank you in advance for reading this.

Im test playing Mictlan LA, my priest king is 2b 2n, and ive researched blood 2 spells. I script him to cast - Hellpower, Reinvigoration, Blood burst. Something goes wrong.

Sometimes he will case hell power but get no bonus, but most of the time he just does whatever the hell he wants completely ignoring the script, I have abundant blood slaves for him to draw from.

Frozen Lama
June 30th, 2009, 12:42 AM
what kind of opposition is he facing? sometimes he decides its not worth the slaves

Dragar
June 30th, 2009, 01:59 AM
I've also had problems with hell power not giving a bonus before, never really investigated it. Does it work for most people?

Illuminated One
June 30th, 2009, 08:57 AM
Hellpower needs 3 slaves and can only be cast correctly by a b3 mage afaik.

Sombre
June 30th, 2009, 09:46 AM
Well he says he mages are casting it some of the time. I wonder what the difference is. Probably size of opposing army. Also possible it's due to enc from extreme heat or cold? It can't be cast underwater either.

Frozen Lama
June 30th, 2009, 09:48 AM
Hellpower needs 3 slaves and can only be cast correctly by a b3 mage afaik.

I'm assuming he's using a slave to increase his level right?

LumenPlacidum
June 30th, 2009, 10:12 AM
Wouldn't that go over the 1 "gem" per level limit on a spell cast? Or, does blood disobey that with slaughtering those slaves? If he's blood 2, he cannot spend 4 slaves to cast a blood 3 spell because it's using too many "gems"

Illuminated One
June 30th, 2009, 10:56 AM
Well, iirc I had a similar problem (trying to hellpower a vampire count) and he cast hellpower without getting anything out of it and imediately cast another spell (before the enemy cast his spells), which is buggy.
I've always supposed that a b2 mage could use 2 slaves max.
I think the AI doesn't get that during spell selection tries to cast the spell, generating "x has cast Hellpower", realizes that he can't cast it and tries to cast another spell instead ("x has cast spell y").

capnq
June 30th, 2009, 05:13 PM
Wouldn't that go over the 1 "gem" per level limit on a spell cast? Or, does blood disobey that with slaughtering those slaves? If he's blood 2, he cannot spend 4 slaves to cast a blood 3 spell because it's using too many "gems"That limit only apllies to how many gems/slaves the mage can spend for one level boost plus fatigue reduction, not to the casting cost of the spell.

thejeff
June 30th, 2009, 05:26 PM
False.
1 gem per level is a hard limit. Base spell cost, level raising, fatigue reduction, all of it.
The 2b priest king should not be able to cast it at all.

A 3B mage could cast it, but not use any extra slaves to reduce fatigue.

Frozen Lama
June 30th, 2009, 06:38 PM
False.
1 gem per level is a hard limit. Base spell cost, level raising, fatigue reduction, all of it.
The 2b priest king should not be able to cast it at all.

A 3B mage could cast it, but not use any extra slaves to reduce fatigue.

could you explain that? i know its possible to use 6 or more gems on a spell. i assumed he was saying 3 for the spell, 1 for the level, and 1 for fatigue right?

Skinu
June 30th, 2009, 11:17 PM
Thanks for the help.

MaxWilson
July 1st, 2009, 12:00 PM
False.
1 gem per level is a hard limit. Base spell cost, level raising, fatigue reduction, all of it.
The 2b priest king should not be able to cast it at all.

A 3B mage could cast it, but not use any extra slaves to reduce fatigue.

could you explain that? i know its possible to use 6 or more gems on a spell. i assumed he was saying 3 for the spell, 1 for the level, and 1 for fatigue right?

It is only possible to use 6 or more gems on a spell if you are level 6 or higher. Doesn't matter if they're for the spell, for level, or for fatigue reduction. A B3 spell that costs 400 fatigue can't actually be cast by a B3 caster, for example, because he can't use enough gems.

-Max

Ironhawk
July 1st, 2009, 12:48 PM
I dont think fatigue level impacts the ability to cast a spell, only the mages path level and the cost. If you cast a spell that would cost a mage more than 200 fatigue, they go all the way to 200 and the rest just vanishes.

Sombre
July 1st, 2009, 01:02 PM
It does impact whether the AI is willing to cast it or not,... but perhaps it doesn't consider current fatigue level in that calculation. Certainly I have seen fatigued mages fire off spells that knock them out entirely, once off their script.

thejeff
July 1st, 2009, 01:58 PM
I think you're missing the connection. Fatigue doesn't impact the ability to cast a spell, but the spell also costs a gem/slave for every 100 fatigue. That's how the gem cost is determined.
Thus "A B3 spell that costs 400 fatigue can't actually be cast by a B3 caster", not because he'll have too much fatigue, but because 400 fatigue means it costs 4 slaves and a B3 mage can only use 3.

Frozen Lama
July 1st, 2009, 08:05 PM
thanks, i never knew that

Sombre
July 2nd, 2009, 07:12 AM
I think you're missing the connection. Fatigue doesn't impact the ability to cast a spell, but the spell also costs a gem/slave for every 100 fatigue. That's how the gem cost is determined.
Thus "A B3 spell that costs 400 fatigue can't actually be cast by a B3 caster", not because he'll have too much fatigue, but because 400 fatigue means it costs 4 slaves and a B3 mage can only use 3.

Who me? No, I'm well aware of that.

Ironhawk
July 2nd, 2009, 01:14 PM
No I think he was talking to me Sombre. I was also aware of the connection b/w 100+ fatigue and gems, if not the specifics. However I opted to answer the question in what I felt would be the best way for a new player to look at it. After all, how many of them are going to mess with mod commands and need to know of the aforementioned connection.

thejeff
July 2nd, 2009, 01:51 PM
I wanted to be more explicit, since Ironhawk's response would imply to someone who didn't know the connection that Max was wrong and a B3 caster would be able to cast a 400 fatigue spell.
You were both right, and I figured you knew that, but in the context of the discussion it seemed misleading.
I probably should have said "leaving out the connection" instead of "missing".