I'm glade that this summary is faithful enough to allow for a new brainstorming, but be fair enough and recognize that one sentence sometimes summarizes a whole post!
Anyways, I think that you guys have now two options: either
- Remove critical Disjunct or even both criticals; or
- Think about how each critical may harm or hinder MP game, and the resulting modifications that may be done to the Disjunct mechanic, even up to the point of designing a new mechanic.
Other said, should Disjunct have a prohibitive cost in CP? Should have chained Disjunct be even more costly? OR should Disjunct be limited to 1 per battle?
Should Disjunct have offensive capacities as when a critical success, or only do the job, at best?
Should Disjunct (and triffling with others' magic) be at a risk of a backfire, and not only at a cost?
Also, I read some arguments a bit differently:
- Criticals are required to keep the "balance of terror": critical success may lead the party with more CP to refrain from spamming spells almost carelessly, while critical failure may encourage the party with less CP to dare casting a costly spell that won't be 100% disjuncted in two tries by whoever have the CP to spend. --> Weird thoughts. If I have much more CP than my opponent than I am spamming spells or untis, right. There is no risk having a critical failure while casting because it only occurs when disjuncting. So obviously when I have a lot more CP than my opponent I won't take the risk of a critical failure and will keep spamming spells and units.
===> Perhaps I forgot to add this argument I read in a post: "Don't play with players who abuse game mechanics, because you can't win against abused random mechanics". Poster meant that suffering from spammed Disjunct (and subsequent criticals) was a strong hint that the adversary was not a "fair" player, nor a player to play with at all. "Balance of terror" would be there to ward off against such players. If a "fair" player only uses Disjunct from time to time, when in dire need, and thus doesn't take the risk of a critical (both way) each time the adversary cast a spell, then the issue of overpowered criticals is moot, perhaps.
- Cosmic events come with the same concept: they both lead to abstract uncontrollable factors wich your strategy MUST take into account in order to be successful. --> Different mechanics. If a cosmic event breaks your strategy you can retreat for 4 turns and avoid battles. If you leader is stunned in due to critical failure you can't do anything.
===> ... if your leader is stunned, you do retreat into the void for 3 turns and avoid battles.
- There should be a backfire in case of failure anyway, otherwise it would just be: Disjunct until I succeed. --> I don't see a problem there. Disjuncting costs more CP and the chance of a failure is an advantage for the enemy. I played a lot of games and havn't seen any casting-disjuncting-casting-action...
===> against the AI in SP, it happens anytimes I or the AI cast a battlefield enchantment: casting-disjuncting-casting again-disjuncting again... until either I stop or the AI exhausted its CPs.
- This mechanic is balanced, and useful precisely so that Sorcerers don't become OP in late game if they are played carelessly. --> Sorcerers are OP in late game? I don't think so.
===> As I understand, poster said that Sorcerers _without_ critical Disjunct would become OP in late game, while they are not with current Disjunct.
Also,
@Hiliadan , in case you didn't read:
- Btw, is it moddable to add the button "Don't cast spells." [in auto-combats against humans] like in auto-combats against AI?