Kind of. The CAID model is fine* if CAID benefits are properly defined and align to the same measure. Where specials step outside the 'standardised' and well understood forms they do run the risk of 'creative accounting'. But that sort of benefit would be at the margins... not like the issue we had with the special attack formula, where 1 caid of white damage was being considered equal to 2x or 5x the equivalent caid. That is where the model stopped working as intended, and resulted in a hierarchy of guilds that got more real caid than others.Kvator wrote: ↑25 Mar 2021 15:18So basically this whole CAID model is like RL-life accounting. With more creative approach a particular wizard can squeeze way more out of it for his beloved guild than the other (more 'idealistic') one while at the end of the day the numbers in 'balance calculation' will match just fine and the guilds will be considered balanced.Arman wrote: ↑25 Mar 2021 15:07That's the core model. You can go over that 100 caid with equivalent negatives to balance it to 100 caid. For example, the Doomseekers branch of the Neidar can't wear most armours.. so have a big negative caid as they can't mitigate damage. Union and elven archers have disadvantages which give them benefits slightly over the 100 caid cap. And as stated previously, magic users who have the negative of no white damage can have their caid from their occupational guild essentially doubled.
And guild masters still need to clear any changes to their guild with the AoB and AoD. So there is a sanity check on whether the changes are appropriate not just from a global balance point of view but also a thematic point of view.
*The CAID model is not perfect. It probably needs to better incorporate the benefits of combat skills and guild versatility to truly reach a finer measure of guild balance. That is on the cards for review.