Does the affinity chosen affect anything other than:

1) Speed of learning
2) Available edges
3) Mana cost per casting


I am wondering specifically, if having a higher affinity in an element would give a spell more damage output or make it harder to make a saving throw???

Thanks

Spam up some spells.

Affinity default.

24 int.

I gotta say... Never going anything other than Default again.

Didn't see anything better or worse than my 4 path svirfs or humans except some time.

But yeah, damage did appear to be the same and I liked the versatility.

Aside from some edges, time and dispelling shields which would leave the match a wash, why bother having anything but default?

>Aside from some edges, time and dispelling shields which would
>leave the match a wash, why bother having anything but
>default?

I'm not even keen on the practicing time of a four-pather. I think practicing is the single worst aspect of CF, and I rarely do it, and when I do I feel like an idiot. So yeah, unless I'm going to bot the heck out of it, four or five path is the way to go for me. Without botting, practically the only way I could be an invoker.

>Does the affinity chosen affect anything other than:
>
>1) Speed of learning
>2) Available edges
>3) Mana cost per casting

Yes; an affinity advantage in dispelling shields and having your own dispelled.

>I am wondering specifically, if having a higher affinity in an
>element would give a spell more damage output or make it
>harder to make a saving throw???

No and no.

>Yes; an affinity advantage in dispelling shields and having
>your own dispelled.
>
>>I am wondering specifically, if having a higher affinity in
>an
>>element would give a spell more damage output or make it
>>harder to make a saving throw???
>
>No and no.

Arguing over whether affinity actually effects spell level/damage aside, I'll side w/ the coder people. However, that leads me to the question of why doesn't it have said effect? It seems an area that would make a 4 or 5 path invoker feel much different than a 7-path invoker.

Instead of bland "all my spells work the same either way", you'd have the option of power versus versatility. Then depending on which one you'd like to favor more, you could tweak the power balance whichever direction you like. Want 4- or 5-paths to be more popular? Tweak it so that you so the top end of the power is a little "more-than-linear" on top, so they have an "overall" better casting power, even if it's only in 1 or 2 areas. Want the 7-paths to have a bit more umph than the others? Tweak it so the top-end is slightly less-than-linear.

Other random affinity-style idea I'd always loved was if invokers had perhaps a dozen spells that could only be learned w/ mastery and an appropriately high affinity in the proper elements. As a random made-up example, maybe conglaciation is an ice + air spell, where you need 8+ affinity in ice, air, or both to receive.

Finally, as two random asides...
1) I <3 special echoes. Always makes me feel uber for once! It's why I always pick the edges that have a visible "extra" thing. Makes me feel cool!

2) Why is it that invokers get power-ups for lower spells by mastering higher ones? You already are mastering them to get your next HIGHER spell, so it kinda feels like a double bonus going on knowing about that. I'd always previously assumed any random spell that was performing better was just due to having been levelling up more. Seems like if you wanted to "encourage" perfecting things, then to do an assassin-style levelling where you GET your next spell sub-100%, but you get improved other spells for perfecting it, so then I'd try for more.

I asked the second question on the newbie channel and an immortal did report that affinity does effect available edges.. also played recently a voker and it seemed to confirm that information.. can you check?

I read his answer as "Yes, affinity has an effect on the above three things, and the dispelling part."

.

So, spellcraft randomly raises the level you cast at, but there's a cap of something like 9 levels over your current level. The cap stays the same, I think, no matter what your affinity is, but high affinity gets a bonus to the roll. So, high affinity means you're harder to save against and do more damage just because you're casting closer to the cap more often.

.

The post I mean.

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=18831&mesg_id=18833&page=

I must have been talking out of my ass there, sorry. I thought that when we put affinity in, that was one of the things we talked about making it do, but that must have never gotten implemented. Sorry!

Kastellyn the Devourer of Magic, Lord of Legends

Not trying to sound snarky here. Just very curious as I always thought it raise the level or raised the range the damage occured in or something.

As there is clearly a difference in the damage output between a 3 affin and a 9 affin in the same path.

>Not trying to sound snarky here. Just very curious as I
>always thought it raise the level or raised the range the
>damage occured in or something.

Everything I can think of that affinity changes is up-thread.

> As there is clearly a difference in the damage output between
>a 3 affin and a 9 affin in the same path.

I'm pretty sure there isn't.

What does elemental mastery do, by the way?

varies by spell.

Lot of them though is basically either a damage boost or a reduced chance of your foe making the savings throw.

Either way person with mastery does more damage and lands their spells more effectively then someone without the mastery.

We're sure about this? It's not like the whole "affinity affects damage" thing that was just dispelled in this thread?

...half-done. If that. Would be nice if it were more noticeable. Maybe cooler spell echoes or something.

I'm opposed to boosting the mastery bonuses significantly-- while I like that it creates an incentive for niche employment of lower-level spells, it's also a "rich get richer" mechanic. An invoker who has had the time to master the highest-level spells is already at a small advantage to one who hasn't (in that those spells fail less often), and there isn't much need to further incentivize things.

Cosmetics, however, are interesting. Functionally, it "marks" you as a veteran invoker (which plays well with our players' median ego), but it's really just giving information away to other parties.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

I understand and agree with what you said about the "rich getting richer" if elemental mastery gave more power than it does. That being said, I'd suggest that instead of some kind of blanket power-up to a mastered elemental path, mastery could provide completely different perks. For instance, if you are a master of fire perhaps the very essence of fire becomes a part of your being...sort of the concept behind Demielemental Transcendence, but with differing abilities. Maybe you are able to use the energy of fire to heal yourself (if you have shield of flames up, or are in a place that is hot/on fire, you'd get this small perk). Perhaps your melee damage against beings made of an element you've mastered is significantly higher due to your understanding of the inherent weaknesses of it.

You're all super-creative, so I am sure some appropriate things could come up. Maybe spell-specific things too.

As to the cosmetics...I'm sure people would choose the cooler spell echoes if the only drawback was that people would know you were a master of that path.

It's one example of the general idea that sometimes having a higher path spell mastered sometimes makes a lower spell better.

Usually it's either a damage boost or casting level boost; in most cases, spells you would want to cast already get no/small bonuses.

For example, iceshards gets very little from 100 conglaciation but icicle gets a pretty big boost from one of the later ice spells (might also be conglaciation, I'm not sure offhand) at 100.

I've played a handfull of invokers into the 30's and 40's. My 9 and 10 affinity spells did way more damage.

Something's up. I suppose it could be a saving throw issue because despite what you say above, in the past you said higher affinity was harder to save against.

In light of this most recent posting, I don't see any real reason except time to do anything other than affinity default now.

The matter remains, if you inspect the code for invoker spells, or for saving throws, affinity is not checked.

And not for nothing, but you are the intersection of a low ability to accurately detect these kinds of effects, and extremely high confidence that you can accurately detect these kinds of effective.

This isn't rare in the slightest-- there's a large body of work (Dunning at Cornell, etc.) regarding how the kinds of skill deficiencies that correlate with poor quantitative analysis are also the kinds of skill deficiencies that cause people to misestimate their skills at quantitative analysis. In other words, if you're bad at it, you tend to be very confident in your guesses, whereas people with a knack for it tend to be more aware of how accurate they are (or aren't... which is also a valuable metacognitive skill). Related issues cause a lot of political problems (notably, voters with terrible understanding of a given issue tend to be very cemented in their ill-informed opinion on it), and it's something that comes up a lot if you do advocacy work in the sciences.

I point this out because it would be a courtesy to other forum readers if you would frame your posts with an awareness of the fact that you aren't exactly good at this particular facet of Carrion Fields.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

(*): In either direction-- see also minotaur Kick, which has a large bonus that you claim doesn't exist despite an unverified claim that you've played 15 minotaur characters.

go to Stanford and others elsewhere. Heh.

...make this your forum icon:

Only two people ever escaped me and that was because of geography! MUAAHAHAHAHAHA!

And seriosuly, aside from the fact that you're a flipping a-hole, I'm basing what I wrote on something Daevryn himself wrote.

Got it? Daevryn himself in a post some time back tied saves into affinity.

Furthermore, the staff has been wrong about things that are or are not in the code before.

Exibit B:

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=16023&mesg_id=16023&listing_type=search

Sorry if my analysis of your personality is off.

I propose that Zulg, having not gotten involved in this, checks the code to see if affinity is checked in saves and damage, and if affinity is checked, then Valg/Daevryn apologize to Pro, but if Valg is right, then Pro gets site banned.

fair?

edit:added daev

I don't respond to Pro's posts. It makes my life easier.

nt

And it didn't require you to post. If Pro was wrong, siteban, no announcement, no muss, no fuss.

I suppose it's even more funny to think about his proposal knowing you don't respond to his posts though.

I have a theory that when Pro gets sitebanned from Dios, so do I. I will say no more. Did you get banned recently, Pro?

I haven't seen him post in Dio's for a long time. His account isn't banned, though.

dfvdsv

>Only two people ever escaped me and that was because of
>geography! MUAAHAHAHAHAHA!

Care to elaborate how mathematics and statistics helped you to achieve that outcome?

>And seriosuly, aside from the fact that you're a flipping
>a-hole, I'm basing what I wrote on something Daevryn himself
>wrote.

"Aside from the fact that you're a flipping a-hole." It's nice to know that you have good manners. It makes people to want to respond to your posts.

>Got it? Daevryn himself in a post some time back tied saves
>into affinity.

Care to link it?

>Furthermore, the staff has been wrong about things that are or
>are not in the code before.

Of course they have. They are still more reliable source of information than you are. Care to show the statistics you're basing your opinion on?

>Exibit B:
>
>http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=16023&mesg_id=16023&listing_type=search
>
>Sorry if my analysis of your personality is off.

"Exibit B" shows Daevryn, the Imm you're arguing against, being right about a code-related issue.

Everything in life devolves to mathematics.

Looked everywhere for the link. It was in 2009. I remember that much.

I did post a link showing Immortal error.

I'm not arguing against Daevryn.

>I did post a link showing Immortal error.

Of Zulgh going by memory/assumption. In this case, Valg checked the code (see his new post) so it's pretty reliable information.

>I'm not arguing against Daevryn.

DS: As there is clearly a difference in the damage output between a 3 affin and a 9 affin in the same path.

Daevryn:I'm pretty sure there isn't.

Pro:I don't buy this.

Valg:if you inspect the code for invoker spells, or for saving throws, affinity is not checked.

Well, you did argue against Daevryn, after which Valg checked the code and corrected you. As for his thoughts of low ability people and high confidence, here's one of the papers on that topic for you to read.

http://www.scirp.org/Journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=883&fileName=Psych.20090100004_39584049.pdf

Because I don't. I was corrected and that's that.

nt

What's remarkable is both how useful it is to be aware of, and how painful it is in practice.

As an example of utility, I deal with a lot of people who someone considers to be subject matter experts on various topics. Part of my job is providing assessments on claims made, courses of action, etc. I've been trained to look for absolute certainty on any topic that is mildly controversial as a sign of superficial understanding. If I ask "How likely is step G to succeed?", the last thing I want to hear is "100%". I'm much more comfortable with "We do this type of work routinely in this particular facility, and we're the country's second-leading supplier of that technology. I spoke with our lead scientist, and he considers the task proposed to entail only three modifications to an established procedure, which are...."

Could it fail? Sure. The machine could break. Your top experts could all quit. Your raw materials are coming in with contaminants or defects. Your company could go out of business tomorrow. Etc.

The problem is that it absolutely murders experts in the public arena. If you've ever seen a scientific expert give testimony in a court of law, unless they're very deliberately coached, they get picked apart. It's easy to get an expert to admit doubt-- it's been a tactic of the Creationist movement for decades to get scientists to admit that there are specific instances of biology where it's difficult to apply Darwinian theory because we don't have data. But if you ask someone with a little knowledge? They tend to come down as either "It's right." or "It's wrong.", and they're very hard to persuade otherwise.

So yeah, for this instance, I grepped the code. Affinity comes up for the reasons Daevryn mentioned, one invoker edge (doesn't impact damage dealt or saving throws.. extends the duration on a rare special effect), and the chance that powerful dragon breaths will blast straight through an elemental shield. I'd consider myself a "CF expert" on affinity, given that I suggested and designed the system and wrote a good portion of the code, but I was aware it's possible that code was added (e.g., that one Edge) since I last looked.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Its always annoyed me that you're supposed to actually (from a sales perspective) project certainty. I guess its not lying if you deflect but yeah, generally, there's always going to be questions where the answer is "well, that depends on a number of things".

>The problem is that it absolutely murders experts in the
>public arena. If you've ever seen a scientific expert give
>testimony in a court of law, unless they're very deliberately
>coached, they get picked apart. It's easy to get an expert to
>admit doubt--

I'm an attorney and, although I've never had to cross-examine an expert, I was always told that you never go toe-to-toe with an expert, you will get curbstomped and facefu**ed. I mean maybe you can get them to raise doubt but if you ask how or why then they'll bowl you over.

Other than that, neat post, never heard of that theory "effect" before.

Real lawyers do it because they want to discredit themselves and ruin their cases by showing the world that expert witnesses get ripped up, like on CSI!

It's cray-zay!

Oh wait..

I'm an attorney and, although I've never had to cross-examine an expert, I was always told that you never go toe-to-toe with an expert, you will get curbstomped and facefu**ed. I mean maybe you can get them to raise doubt but if you ask how or why then they'll bowl you over.

This is because the only experts you're likely to see in a court of law are (as I mentioned) very carefully coached and trained as expert witnesses. If you just hit the journals and pull the name of the guy publishing the most-cited articles, you're very likely to get a liability.

If you're ever put in the position of needing an expert, I'm betting they hand you a hand-picked list of people who do it regularly.

If you monitor the "debate" (*) on climate science, you'll see a similar effect in the public arena. Or watch a subject matter expert with an opposing viewpoint who is dumb enough to go on O'Reilly or whatever-- the hosts may be ignorant blowhards, but they're professional arguers. (Also, per the effect above-- they're extremely convinced they're informed.)

Also, you're right that you don't go toe-to-toe. Most subject matter experts (again, except the 'professionals') are very narrow-- you don't get to be a world expert on a topic by hopping around excessively. The standard tactic in a public forum is to move the goalposts-- make it a discussion about some other topic that you can win on. (The expert's job is to stay on target, but again, that must usually be coached in.)

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

(*): Strikingly similar to the "debate" on evolution.

Totally off topic for a Battlefield post, but...

> Strikingly similar to the "debate" on evolution.

I'd say anthropogenic global warming is substantially less agreed upon among earth scientists than, say, evolution is among biologists.

The number I've seen in various polls is approximately 85%, though its higher among earth scientists who've published on climate change, and even higher among earth scientists for whom more than 50% of their published material deals with climate change.

At my trial(s) each one they called in an "expert". All the experts in my trials were heavily coached with pre-chosen responses that they would use if they even though our question was in that neighborhood. Often times their answer was unrelated to the question. But even then, fact is fact and we used their experts to punch holes into their case cause it was water thin to begin with.

You can rough an expert up, but in the end, regular Joes and Janes see that as bullying. And the other side will wipe clean nearly all those supposed gains with a simple recitation of the witnesses credentials and urge the jury to consider how they'd feel if someone came in and told them they don't know how to do their job.

Jury trials are as much about showmanship as they are facts.

I live in courtrooms and I see expert witnesses get up lay out x y z and the opposing side can't do anything but make an emotional argument against it. I can't ever remember an "OH DAY-UM! Moment where one was discredited.

But I do see your point.

As far as coaching goes, there is a video out there, check Youtube, where Nebraska pig farmers have an expert witness testify for them, and the dynamic is what you are describing.

It's a good video on animal cruelty. (I got a soft spot for my bacon and beef.)

>If you're ever put in the position of needing an expert, I'm
>betting they hand you a hand-picked list of people who do it
>regularly.
>

Well, if you're talking technical expert in the field testifying in something like a patent litigation (which I think you are), you're handed a list of people who (1) no one really "likes", and (2) don't have impressive qualifications for the patent's field of use. So really you do end up scouring the journals and publications and references to dig up someone you can talk to and evaluate. And during evaluation you're looking for how this person is going to "play" - you want someone that's charismatic and credible, but you don't want someone that's too willing to teach or explain answers to people (which is what I think you're getting at for why most scientists you know make terrible experts).

The thing to keep in mind for something like patent litigations is that although the technical witness is an expert in the field of use, they're not an expert in patent law or litigation - in general, they only know what you teach them. And when they're testifying about the meaning of a discrete equivocal word in a patent claim and/or a discrete equivocal issue re: how something operates, it's harder for them to be uncertain. I don't know if that falls under your definition of coaching, but I think it's more subtle and honest than simply putting words into someone's mouth for repetition.

Also, as a side note:
Is there an explanation/theory/study for why the "Pro" type generates so much discussion for his posts? It seems like his ideas/experience are generally discarded, and yet they've accumulated hours of intellectual manpower to discredit.

I study the social sciences myself (reading Phil, Politics and Econ, B.A.), and I am very pleased to have discovered this gem. Thanks Valg! Going to wikipedia it.

I support the posting of more intellectually edifying posts on officials or dio's.

You can find a link to Kruger & Dunning's paper there.

.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/the-anosognosics-dilemma-1/

The one thing I tell all new agents, "If you don't think you can't be conned in this business, you're going to fail."

It's in line with something that seems universally true in my field. People who are lying to me will continue to lie, even if I give them a step by step break down of how I know they are lying.

It's only after I have completely mapped out that lie for them, and sometimes two or three that they realize they can't lie to me and they cave and give me the information I need.

But I always assume that the information I have is flawed or partial. I've seen too many people get ####ed up or in hot water with the law because of blind trust to a cooperative informant.

I am loath to tell people how I catch them, so when asked, I always say, "Magic" and never reveal the process, but I a lot of the times on the ride to the jail me and my principle compare notes, and as often as not, our assumptions about each other are wrong.

For me to succeed, I have to be able out think someone and I'm just smart enough to know that some runners are smarter than me, but that I'm always going to smarter or have leverage over someone they know.

One of the wierdest things for me, is protecting informants from themselves. Otherwise bright people will blurt out the most damning #### about themselves to people who might very well injure or kill them.

A white trash whore knocks on the door and says, "Hey, is Tyrone here?"

A black chick says, "yeah whatchoo want?"

A white trash whore says, "Nothin, but I gotta go."

WTW calls me, we raid, we catch tyrone, yay for us, woe for the stupid white trash ho.

Some times it's the wierdest people. Cops will FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK UP an operation.

We'll be sitting on survellance and a board small town cop will drive by us way to many times, or decide to "show us how it's done" and go knock on the door, assuming a badge and uniform will solve the problem.

Yeah, good job sport, because these people obviously respect the blue.

Anyway, this is the probably reason people specialize.

You do realize that he is comparing you to the guy with lemon juice on his face, and pointing you at the article saying you are incompetent and unable to recognize your incompetence.... wait.... I guess you don't, or can't.

Tac

I was just saying it was topical, in that there was discussion about that concept and here was an interesting article from this weekend on that concept.

I confess, until now, I didn't realize there was a description of the phenom to describe what I saw in others on this board.

I don't want to ruin your fantasy, that I'm an ill educated hick with minimal exposure to the world and it's happenstances.

Carry on.