Change Spell Cost Formula ( Equalize Int & Cost %, Fix Raw Cost ) [100% Of 70] (50+ Supporters)

From some testing, it seems like the new formula for spell cost has been found. It’s as follows:

finalCost = floor(ceil(spellBaseMana * (1 - intPct / 100) + idSpellCostRaw) * (1 + idSpellCostPct / 100));
if (finalCost < 1)
finalCost = 1;


Which, broken down, means that it’s calculated by:
1. Taking the base mana cost of the spell and then multiplying it by the intelligence modifier
2. Adding the raw spell cost on top of it
3. Rounding that off to the highest nearest whole number
4. Applying the spell cost % multiplier
5. Rounding that down to the nearest whole number
6. Putting the number to 1 if the outcome would be lower than it.

From this, we can gather a few things: spell cost % weighs more than intelligence, and raw spell cost can have increasingly more effect whenever spell cost % is also in play. I would like this to change. First off, intelligence and spell cost % working differently is simply confusing. I think that from a player and balancing standpoint, just make them equal would solve the confusion and allow for easier balancing, since you don’t need to worry about raw spell costs floating around; which is very common since the addition of mainly the Order of the Grook rewards and Anima-Infused Cuirass. That part of the formula would then become something like this:

(spellBaseMana * (1 – intPct / 100) * (1 + idSpellCostPct / 100))

And as you can see, I left the raw spell costs out of it since I would also like to see a change there: in order to fit nearly all other raw ids, they should be calculated after percentages. It would make spell cost % equal to intelligence in power, and clear up quite some confusion. So the updated formula would be:

((spellBaseMana * (1 – intPct / 100) * (1 + idSpellCostPct / 100)) + idSpellCostRaw)

and after that I’d give the intelligence modifier a ceiling (always round upwards), like how it has always had and floor the spell cost % modifier as it gets added from base so you'd have tiers, just like the current int does, to keep the both of them equal. So, the whole formula for spell costs in full:

finalCost = (floor(ceil(spellBaseMana * (1 – intPct / 100)) * (1 + idSpellCostPct / 100)) + idSpellCostRaw) + repeatCost)


To give an example (one that inspired me to make this suggestion, actually):
This is Orange Lily.

Spoiler

As you can see, it has -3 3rd spell cost, and 200% 4th spell cost.
This is Draoi Fair.

Spoiler

It has -1 1st spell cost and -4 4th spell cost.

With the current formula, at 129 intelligence and using 2 Draoi Fairs (because you can, and you should), the spell costs would be
4 = floor(ceil(6 * (1 - 75 / 100) + -2) * (1 + 0 / 100))
1 = floor(ceil(3 * (1 - 75 / 100) + 0) * (1 + 0 / 100))
5 = floor(ceil(8 * (1 - 75 / 100) + -3) * (1 + 0 / 100))
3 = floor(ceil(10 * (1 - 75/ 100) + -2) * (1 + 200/ 100))

Whereas my proposed formula gives:
0 = (floor(ceil(6 * (1 – 75 / 100)) * (1 + 0 / 100)) + -2)
1 = (floor(ceil(3 * (1 – 75 / 100)) * (1 + 0 / 100)) + 0)
-1 = (floor(ceil(8 * (1 – 75 / 100)) * (1 + 0 / 100)) + -3)
7 = (floor(ceil(10 * (1 – 75 / 100)) * (1 + 200 / 100)) + -2)

Which, well, when looking at the build as whole, seems much more obvious than the first result.

tl;dr spell cost % is more effective than intelligence with negative raw spell costs and worse when having positive raw spell costs and affects raw spell cost for some reason, let’s clear that one up with a slightly changed formula that makes it much easier to understand and build around

If you have anything to add (or correct), please do!

 

I would still ceiling after Int and floor after spell costs to prevent situations where spell costs end up being negligible, but aside from that I agree. Basically, shift raw cost modification to after percent cost modification.

 

Oh, my bad. You're right: intelligence modifier detracts and spell cost modifier adds up- that way, were they to become equal, spell cost % would have to get a ceiling. Thanks, I'll fix it in the post along with the poll I somehow forgot to add.

 

BUMPBUMPBUMP

 

I don't think that's what I meant - I do think spell cost percent should round down. I think Int should remain as it is, being rounded up (before applying spell cost percent).

 

whats floor()?

________________________________

and ceil()

 

I like how it is now...but I can't help but agree because this would make spell cost items more balanced.

 

floor() is a function?(idk proper term) that rounds down what's inside to nearest lower whole number, eg floor(4.5)=4
ceiling () is exactly opposite, it rounds up whatever's inside to nearest higher whole number, eg ceil(6.3)=7

 

Thanks

________________________________

So the main difference is that raw spell cost is moved to the end?

I like this idea, +1

 

As of right now, you physically cannot cast spells with Silent Ballet, as the double negatives make a massive positive. Please help Silent Ballets all over the world, vote yes.

 

Wait that actually happens? Ye the formula definitely needs some looking at.

 

Actually good f ormula but to be honest i think

ceil(((spellBaseMana+idSpellCostRaw)*((abs(-intPct+idSpellCostPct))/100%) + (repeatCost*(1-(abs(-intPct+idSpellCostPct))/100%)))

would be infinitely better thank you bart very cool


+1

 

bump10cost

 

Bumping to remind myself to take a good look at how exactly this works again, and hopefully this'll become much easier to understand in the future.

 

Seems legit. I'll use this formula in Systematic Recreation.

 

Had to explain spell cost formula to someone yesterday, still hope it could be changed.

 

typo

 

bump time once again

 

Emergency anti-lock bump. Had to explain to someone why their Silent Ballet got 9 cost auras with a Slayer build today, this issue still exists even if I've accepted that this formula really isn't going to be changed.