| Author | Thread: spell system | 1 | Page 2 |
| Vanishing Posts: 76
Location: Rimesvin
Magus Age: 124 years old
| Message #15249 Posted: Oct 22, 2008, 4:44 am |
At this point i suppose it depends on how powerful the spells are, compared to items/weapons/etc.
A monster golem stacked out with multiple boosts could be too much. but i do think that spells need to be on an equal footing with other paths.
So as a weapon gives a boost to both accuracy and damage (and often) this needs to be addressed in line with either what a spell does or by being able to have at least 2 spells active.
If Kep was really sneaky he'd have a way to let you cast as many spells as you wanted, but only certain ones would have an effect. like it is reported of equipping multiple swords in one hand...
I do like the idea of having some low (motivation) cost spells and some high cost ones. Adds a little strategy to the casting system.
I really don't know how i feel about 'fireball' type spells atm either, unless it is done more like a golem with a hand grenade... oooh, explosive resources... the possibilities.... :-) |
|
| Boss Posts: 132
Location: Zion's Reach
Magus Age: 115 years old
| Message #15258 Posted: Oct 22, 2008, 8:18 am |
Well that's a roundabout way of saying nothing. ;P
I have to at least ask: you don't intend to discuss the inner workings of a golem, do you?
No? Good.
Let's talk paths then.
You compared spells to the other paths. There are five other paths, weapons to increase attack, armor to increase defense, items to counter abnormal conditions, and alchemy to create hybrid golems. "Attack" was complicated enough that improving it had to be split into two paths, melee and ranged. But "spells" are so complicated that to properly catalog them would require more paths than all the original paths combined. "Spell" is merely a blanket term, so it cannot be compared to the other paths.
I'd say that among the first, low-motivation spells would probably be "illusion," except it would be hard to implement. You'd have to do a check each time you clicked someone's profile to tell if you saw a flesh golem or an iron golem. Online status, items carried, motivation, it would only affect the profile page of course, but wouldn't you say getting the right information is an essential part of strategy? Its still a pain to implement because every person would need 3 profile pages; one when you clicked their name that asked you how much motivation you wanted to spend to "break" the illusion and then made the check, one fake page they configured with the spell, and their real page. No page to tell you about success though >D
Now when I say "low-motivation," there's several things I can mean by that. There's low motivation drained each hour the spell's in effect, low motivation cost that can have motivation added to it to increase the effectiveness, or both, etc. These are, again, a pain to implement, so we're going for one-shot, motivaton(-), golem stat(+) spells in the early release. In this case, spells can do everything the other paths do, without using up equipment slots.
So if the spells stack, its like having an infinite armor cheat. The only way it isn't infinite is by raising the cost per unit useful, so spells cost a lot more motivation unless he limits the numbers of spells on a golem. In either case, the spell becomes most useful for the fact that you can't drop them. They wear off, but the enemy golem can't pick them up. And they don't necessarily appear on the profile page either.
If the spells are set to infinite, its not worth the trouble to list them. So you can't be sure if they're working. I mean you as the owner.
I'm pretty sure there will be a set number of spots on a list, each with a timer. Messing with this timer is, you guessed it, a pain to do in real-time, but the number of slots can be filled by both owner, clan, and enemy spells. If you have three slots and cast three, low-motivation spells on a golem, its temporarily immune to any spells.
Including cure spells and better spells you'd only cast in an emergency. Later on, there might be code that lets the highest level spell take the slot, but that works both ways. Unless the three slots are specifically "owner," "clan," and "enemy" in purpose. But that's a pain to implement.
The strategy in most of these cases is to wait for an opening, hit them with a bad spell, and send in a golem. Even if "clear" spells are implemented, they cost motivation, and its tricky to make an opening and fill it at the same time. And if they time it so the golem arrives just as they spell is wearing off, even if they don't use a negative spell, the golem still won't be stacked as high.
Now lets say, for the sake of argument, that a golem's "effective level" was the number of spell slots it had. Your level-1 fleshy takes two buffs and its protected on all fronts. Your iron golem is potentially an unholy beast of magical power, but its not nearly as well protected as it used to be.
Then there's adamantine golems, everyone's favorite money pit. It just seems to get worse as time goes by, but I have two words for you: "Regeneration Spells!" Oh, they take up extra slots from normal spells, but can you beat being able to "regrow" damaged material?! The increased slot cost means its only useful for expensive material golems, and guess who can equip the most? Climb on out of that money pit, its time to make some magic.
What's worrying about the spell system, though, is that it is by nature set against new players. With less motivation and spell slots, its likely to... I WILL NOT SAY BUFF OUT!
...okay, I'm going to sleep now. |
|
ShanPosts: 589 Location: Arzenbourg Magus Age: 127 years old Clan: ARROW | Message #15327 Posted: Oct 23, 2008, 1:39 am |
I'm not sure you really need to limit the number of spells on a specific golem, considering the limits of spellslots, motivation cost, and duration.
A magus' spell book is likely not going to be a massive tome of unknowable mystical power. You only get one spellslot every four levels, so I'd expect a lot of players would have less than half a dozen spells available to them. As far as I'm aware, even the highest level players currently in the game would have less than ten spells. I expect the number of options for spells will be much larger than that, similar to how there are several more golem types than anyone can fully research. As long as any one or two spells don't turn out to be gamebreakingly powerful, magi will probably choose to use a personalized but limited variety of spells. They won't be able to give a golem every possible enhancement.
An important question would be whether or not multiple castings of the same spell will stack. If you cast Bull's Strength on a golem once, then again right after, does it just replace the first casting, or does it double the effect? Even if the effects do stack, you still pay the motivation cost twice. If 5 motivation is a reasonable price for a temporary +10 strength, then 10 motivation for +20 strength probably isn't too unbalancing. The same idea can be used with different spells. You could greatly boost your golem's strength, speed, and defense, but it would cost most of your motivation to do. Then you can only send out your powered up golem a few times, until your motivation recharges. Then we have to consider the duration of the spells. I would expect the more powerful spells would have shorter durations, from ten or twenty minutes to only a few hours, maybe a full day. The motivation recharge over that time could be used for a few more attacks, but then you'd need to wait longer to recast.
Basically what I'm saying is that as long as the price is right, everything should even out.
Specifically addressing your "infinite armor" issue, compare the advantages and drawbacks of defensive spells versus actual armor. Armor is permanent and can be swapped among golems, while spells need to be recast periodically on every golem. Armor weighs down your golem and is limited by equipment slots, while spells aren't. Armor costs a one-time payment of resources, while spells require repeatedly spending motivation.
I think this might be what you just said, but I could be reading it wrong.
So if we consider some amount of motivation to be "equal" to some amount of resources, I think a spell would need to cost somewhat more than armor with the same benefit to be balanced. But this is only speculation.
I think it would probably also be reasonable to put some upper limit on each stat boost, like how a golem's natural strength can't go higher than 80. Maybe spells would be unable to raise a golem's strength over 100 or 120, whatever works.
All of this still adds up to higher level players having much more power than lower level players, with higher motivation and more spellslots, but that's kind of how it works. Stronger players already have an advantage over new players, but it doesn't cause too many problems. This should work out similarly. |
|
| Boss Posts: 132
Location: Zion's Reach
Magus Age: 115 years old
| Message #15334 Posted: Oct 23, 2008, 3:34 am |
It is indeed debatable whether the number of spells needs to be limited beyond those factors.
But there's one crucial question about one of those factors:
Do "spell slots" set the number of spells you can perform, or the number of spells you can learn, and once learned, can cast as many times as you have the motivation?
I hate these semantic arguments but its crucial to your point. I can't answer it for us, but I'd like to revisit "spell specialization" as a clan.
A "half a dozen spells available" to individuals in a clan of 20 is over 100 spells available to the clan, not to mentions a minimum of 1000 motivation to spend. "Infinite armor" is not so much a "cheat" as it is a "pyramid scheme" of convincing multiple users to buff a single golem.
Strength does not only affect the amount of damage a golem can do, but the amount of loot they can carry. A golem boosted by a group would likely be able to get enough to satisfy all members, if the target was big enough. And unless spells do something with a golem's effective level, its going to be tempting for each member to take turns sending a low-level, high-magic golems.
From what I've read of clan wars, its actually 5-10 members of a clan that are responsible for most greivances. Imagine these warriors working in a coordinated barrage of spells and golems. The clan would provide a larger spellbook so each could choose a better spells for each of their spell slots, but none of them would be casting more than one spell at a time. They'd be using cheap golems, and the giant stack of reasources each golem could take would be immediately divided among its members. In order to reclaim it all, each individual member would have to be attacked. Hows that for motivation cost and duration?
Mankind's basic inability to cooperate makes this scenario unlikely, but its rampant ability to do evil makes it far from impossible. There is one thing that might balance this out, and that it its open ability to do good. People are more likely to be jerks the more annonymous they can be. Spell monitoring which includes spell name, caster name, and duration of all spells active on a golem would either allow us to keep track of who's doing this if implemented or at worst allow us to be intimidated by cheap yet mysteriously strong golems. I'm fighting the urge to make an altoid's joke, which itself is leading me to make a much worse joke about the word "altoid," so I think I'll leave the arguements stand for a moment. |
|
HalfteaPosts: 1307 Location: Darghelm Magus Age: 133 years old Clan: ADV | Message #15370 Posted: Oct 23, 2008, 1:18 pm |
A few semi-related thoughts...
Don't forget the nature of spellslots. Are they a one time thing like a quest slot? Or are they capable of being purged and replaced, like a library slot?
In which case, would you have a 'Mastery' tree say fire level 1, then fire level 2 et cetra up to maxing at fire 5, like the library researches? With only five slots currently available, that might limit becoming an uber-caster.
As for teh spellmonster golems, either a inability to place spells on non-personal golems or a max of 2 spells slots (includeing Clan spells), I think that would tend to limit it, especially if you are limited on what spells you can learn/cast.
Potentially, Kep could limit Clan Spells to applying only to golems in the Clan depot or on guard, once moved out of those positions, the spell comes off. So they may only be a factor for Clan Warfare (not Skirmishes) when that eventually happens.
From the roleplay perspective, will quests be required to 'master' an individual spell so you can have it in your spellbook? |
|
| Boss Posts: 132
Location: Zion's Reach
Magus Age: 115 years old
| Message #15771 Posted: Oct 26, 2008, 6:04 am |
Well the spellmonster golem uses the idea of "cursed with awesome."
Being able to reduce the power of enemy golems with spells is one important part of the concept.
If a player were abusing the power of a high-level golem, or if a clan was using expensive material golems to torment a new clan, then using this kind of "group working" can form a balance.
This is why I suggested basing the number of spells a golem could have cast on it be limited by its effective level. One reason the making "spellmonster" so effective was that the golems were cheap. If a spellflesh beat your clay, you wouldn't send a flesh or even another clay.
You'd send an iron, which could flatten an unspelled clay. And the clay wouldn't be spelled because the spells would wear off and the group only combined spells on the raiding golem. So the golem has to be sacrificed, and that isn't something you want to do to an expensive golem.
Beyond finding a group of players with high level golems, each golem represents a significant investment. So the question is, is it worth the risk? A flesh has an effective level of two, and possibly two spells. This isn't much of a buff, and if people in the group aren't casting spells, there isn't a reason to give them a cut of the loot.
A clay golem is effectively level-5 with five spells, which is the maximum you might expect a person to be able to cast. The target has to be high level in order to be worth raiding. However, clay golems are slow, so is the person sending the golem going to have the motivation left over to cast his spell? Only if the target is close by, which puts the person sending the golem at much more risk than the other members.
A hero might take such risks, but not a villian. A person who lives close to a griefer might have taken the worst damage, and be willing to sacrifice a clay golem to avenge his destroyed starter. And those others in the group might be willing to maintain their spells on his golem to ensure that their common enemy is kept in line.
Far from perfect, but its a world we might live in.
As for the idea of a "vision quest" I'm going to guess spells only require research in the new release, magical items would require quest items, and removing a semi-permanent spell early might be like "atonement" and require a quest. That or premium tickets. :) |
|
| |
| First | Page 2 |
|
