Reagents

The place for suggestions more than one year old.
Locked

Would you want magic to use reagents?

Poll ended at Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:40 pm

Yes
9
64%
No
5
36%
 
Total votes: 14

User avatar
Syn
-=IMP=-
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:00 am
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Reagents

Post by Syn » Thu Jun 09, 2005 6:40 pm

Heya guys,
I've seen spell reagents proposed as a possible way of making magic spells more interesting, as well as an alternate method of balance.

Would you be in support of adding reagents? Note that I don't mean that every single spell should use reagents, neither that they will be cost-prohibitive.

The cool idea with this is that we can add some extremely powerful spells that wouldn't be add-able right now, as we only have the shard using spells and the non-shard using spells. Armageddon anyone? (Ultima reference, look it up) 8)

I posted this as a poll because I would like a quantative measurement of who would be up for this, from immortals and players both.

Any discussion or ideas on the issue. are welcome

Cheers,
S.

Angrothy
Player
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:00 am
Location: Northern Maine
Contact:

Re: Reagents

Post by Angrothy » Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:00 pm

i voted yes because there was no maybe, I feel it could both be a good thing or a bad thing..I have seen reagents in other muds and one in particular, im sure lots of us will know what im talking about, requires a ton of reagents and i just found it a pain to have to buy 100 of 6 different types of reagents just to be able to cast spells. On the other hand it could be a good thing for the mud, because it could bring in some more diversity to the mud.. Larger spells, smaller faster spells of course i assume would not require reagents for the simplicity of the spell, but larger spells like armageddon as you said, sounds pretty bad-ass.. It could also allow for some of the remort spells to become a little be more useful/powerful.

Are you planning on using 1 kind of reagent for all spells? or would have different kind of reagents that have different magical properties allowing to cast only certain spells. for instance needing a fire reagent for a fireball, would however not be good enough to cast lightning bolt.

All in all Reagents sounds like a good idea if done correctly. I would like to know a little bit more detail, how many different types of reagents there will be? are we still going to have the really powerful spells using moonstones?

User avatar
Syn
-=IMP=-
Posts: 236
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:00 am
Location: Austin, TX
Contact:

Re: Reagents

Post by Syn » Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:42 am

To clarify it wouldn't be a pain in the ass. I can envision seeing 4-7 types of reagents, plus the moonstone, and some other really powerful ones that couldn't be bought but had to be collected.

User avatar
Nopraptor
Player
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Reagents

Post by Nopraptor » Fri Jun 10, 2005 6:04 pm

I'm not particularly interested in adding spell reagents. I've never seen a situation where reagents haven't become a pain in the ass. In every MUD I've played on reagents always end up congesting and filling up one's inventory to the point where a person has to compensate by acquiring various reagent bags for the sole reason of avoiding hitting the reagent shop every 20 minutes. If the weight of the reagents alone does not consume your last carrying capacity point, the weight of the bags will thus limiting whatever else you might've been able to carry otherwise. Now where I'm an advocate of people having to put effort into their endevours, I cannot condone a course of actiont that will lead to added and unecessary steps in order to accomplish a simple task.

Before I can answer yes or no, I would have to inquire as to how they would Not be a pain in the ass. Unless you needed to carry only one of each type of reagent until it expires, wouldn't adding multiple reagent types make it necessary to carry multiple of each type, getting back to my point of an over croweded inventory? To that, I have a solution. If we had several types of reagents but only needed one of each type (earth water fire etc), that single reagent could have a power rating or amount of "charges" to be used until it became too weak to use, or vanish completely. Using a system like that would alleviate the need for multiple reagents while still requiring the character to renew the source of their power.

Example: 1 rock = earth reagent with 10 charges or power rating of 10.
That one rock would provide enough power to cast 10 spells that require 1 earth reagent.

To add to the roleplaying aspect, there could be other sub-types of each reagent with other power ratings that would be more difficult to acquire, thus rewarding the people who put suffecient effort into their characters, while not punishing those without the time required to accomplish more time consuming tasks.

Example: 1 rock = 10 charges. 1 piece of bark = 15 charges. 1 leaf from the Tree of Life Giving (or something) = 25 charges.

Although I've probably exceeded the requested response already, I'll throw in one last suggestion using Angrothy's post for the base of the idea. Each reagent with a different power rating could enhance a spell and/or its effects. The ideology behind this is The spell is only as powerful as the reagents used to cast it. Giving the reagents charges and a power rating would create a combination for players to solve that would best suit their playing style when casting and using magic. This way, reagents would exist at a reasonable, affordable and obtainable place, while more powerful reagents would be available to those who wish to expand their playing experience. Options are always a good idea and usually give people a sense of freedom while playing. I'd be happy to elaborate further on anything said. Ask, and ye shall receive.

User avatar
Ithilidin
Player
Posts: 229
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2004 3:00 am
Contact:

Re: Reagents

Post by Ithilidin » Sat Jun 11, 2005 12:58 am

I've never been fond of having reagents, to be honest. Sure, it looks nice on paper, but in practicality, it will become a pain, no matter how it is worked out. I barely even use the spells that require moonstones as it is because I really don't feel like always having to stop and restock my supply. In combat, it would make little difference except to the person who forgot to check the 10 bags to see if they have enough reagents (and yes, I would be one of those people who would have at least 1 bag per reagent because in all honestly, you'd have to). Right now, the only way that I could see this not being a pain in the ass is if there were an infinite source per reagent, save moonstone.
A line runs separating light from dark.
Another runs separating fantasy from reality.
It is where these two lines cross that I stand.
(/|)
Tá tír na n-óg ar chulan tí-tír álainn trina chéile.

User avatar
Pravus
Player
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 3:00 am
Location: Corvallis, OR
Contact:

Re: Reagents

Post by Pravus » Sun Jun 12, 2005 3:59 pm

I think reageants would be a fun part of the game if they 1)had a near negliable weight 2)took up space in the score menu instead of in a players inventory and 3)enhanced spells to make them more interesting, or as a balancing effort over spells(such as having a weak version of a spell take a common reagent, a more powerful version needing a better reagent, and maybe a remort version negating a reagent requirement).

Power levels on reagents sound great, as do a # of uses rating.

Ashlynn
Player
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:00 am
Location: NC baby!
Contact:

Re: Reagents

Post by Ashlynn » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:13 pm

[align=center]I think reagents is a cool idea and I do like Pravus' suggestion of having them in score instead of using the inventory. Since some reagents actually do weigh something though, and to keep inventory from being clogged up with items. use score to display how many and somehow fix it so it registers the weight of them too. Does that make any sense? Since all spells aren't going to require them, we shouldn't be weighted so bad.

User avatar
Nibelung
Immortal
Posts: 223
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:00 am
Location: The Furnace
Contact:

Re: Reagents

Post by Nibelung » Mon Jun 13, 2005 4:10 pm

Ok, even though I said Yes, I think reagents (or as I'd like to call them: catalysts) should be made so they aren't tiresome to carry around. As Nop pointed out, the game would likely become where players have to haul around an ample supply of catalysts to do certain spells. The charges idea is something I've suggested many times for the warp stone object (moonstone shards) to have instances of multiuse shards.

Well, in another mud I once played, they had an object used to carry around stacks (or as syn called them: bundles) of objects (those that are stackable anyways). Each of these caches as they were called could contain something on the order of 250+ DIFFERENT items. I could put things in there for druidic concoctions, herbs and even inks for making tattoos. Even the commodities could be placed into the cache, as they are stackable items. The cache could not be taken and it had no weight.

Back to Sentience, this could be translated over as a possible quest item, used to carry the catalysts, vials, scrolls, herbs, etc... but with restrictions on WHAT can be placed into them to keep the silky sack a viable container. This cache would merely be useful for certain classes of objects that can be bundled. I'd say limit the capacity on the number of type to something smallish, maybe 50? And the capacity on any given object to something similar. Make this akin to the keyring: the weight of the contents can be felt when in main inventory or the room (if droppable), but when placed into a container, the items are weightless. Or make the weight of the cache depend on the number of types in the cache, ie. 5 types weigh 5 units, even if there are 50 of each type. An idea could be to make the capacity of the cached items dependant on the level received. A level 100 cache would be able to hold twice as much of any kind compared to a level 50 cache. Quest renew in which the level is reduced would cap off the items in the various slots. Using the catalysts would be as automatic as they are now, where the shards can be in containers and still be used.

The fact these catalysts will generally be used for spells that would be WAY to abusive otherwise, many people would not be carrying too many of them, so the weight factor of them should not be an issue.

The power rating is another way to make catalysts where they can affect the spell's performance. Use one that is weak on a spell that requires one of sufficient strength, and you may expend several charges or whole catalysts just to satisfy the requirements of the spell. If you lack the required power, the spell could fail, using all the catalysts, backfire and do something nasty, or cast but severely weakened.

User avatar
Emtae
Player
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2005 2:00 am
Contact:

Re: Reagents

Post by Emtae » Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:43 pm

Could be bad, could be awesome. Who knows, test it, if it doesn't work, only time would be wasted. I would suggest making some test stuff first, to see how they would work with players.

Emtae

User avatar
llauf
Player
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:00 am
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Reagents

Post by llauf » Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:52 pm

I like the idea of more mini quests to create potions, wands, staves, scrolls, etc. And even a few ultra power spells that require a few items, but I do not think any of these spells should be pk spells. Maybe spells that do something cool for groups and such, defeating mobs, teleporting to an area, group resurrect, summoning a demon or other mob, etc etc...
I definately dont want to be required to tug regaents around though, I have to track enough inventory at work, I really dont see the need to do it on a mud too.

On a sidenote, I'd much rather see the game become more balanced, more items, and expanded in areas and quests rather than implement a whole new spell system.

Locked