Casting Spells without Reagents = GOOD

If they don't call you by name, don't take offense. I took that as a general comment, not as a comment aimed at a specific person. Lets keep the PvP in the game and off the forums.

 

I have to disagree. Just because the person called everyone on my side of the fence weak and lazy does not invalidate the insult. It was an insult: plain and simple. If a person cannot be civil, I will call them out. If they continue to be uncivil, I will report them.

I don't go around saying people who do want required-reagents are (insert insult here) and I expect the same.

Saying people are weak and lazy for not sharing your position is rude and insulting no matter how you couch it.

 

Before this gets any further off topic.

Personally, I think major magic (offensive, defensive and restorative) should require reagents. As suggested small cantrip spells, without any major game impact would be ok in my opinion.


To explain. Archers require arrows, which is a cost to playing that class. Melee characters will require more frequent item repair from durability loss. Not using reagents, leaves mages with little to no "upkeep."

Also, take away a melee characters weapon, or an archers arrows, they are left with nothing but an auto attack, (as currently there is no indication of unarmed skills.) However, a mage is still going to be effective if they do not require reagents, and able to continue to use their available skills they have invested in.

Having the spells at a "reduced" effect would only be fair, if it was to the equivalent of a unarmed melee attack, and archers were given a similar ranged style attack.

All just my opinion, and take on the matter.

Sent from my LG-P930 using Tapatalk

 

If you want to report them, report them, but I don't think it is your place to order someone to edit their comments.

Invidea (Envy), I think your comment is just fine. Leave it as it is until a moderator tells you differently.

 

I see your point. I was trying to avoid reporting posts, but the warning causes more trouble than it's worth and sends the wrong message. Consider it done.

 

Reporting costs nothing. It a moderator take action, then your complaint was justified. If not, your complaint is just another way to say "shut up", and I don't hold with that.

 

I understand the need to not run out of reagents and feel stuck, however I think the power of magic should be offset by the limiting factor reagents would impose. As a mage, nothing prevents you from carrying a sword.

 

We're not arguing anything different. Magic IS offset by the need for reagents. You can keep up on reagents and cast spells well, or run out and cast pathetic, weak spells. That is the limiting factor. Neither scenario invalidates mages with (or without) swords.

 

It's just not what I would want.

 

I say it's an ok idea if the spells only work at 10% of their actual value...fireballs doing 10 damage instead of 100(just an example).

Now, for non combat spells I am not sure how to balance it other then you must have the regeants....

 

That's a good point. I think minor spells (like light) could be reagent-less (like 0 circle spells in U7) and bigger stuff (like teleports or similar) would require reagents. How do you balance a partial power teleport or unlock magic?

 

I would like to see a cold-based DOT effect imposed on any player not wearing pants

 

so where others would use a shield I get to carry sword and staff sweeeet

 

I'd prefer a feature that allows mages to cast cantrips without reagents at little to no penalty & completely disable more powerful spells for lack of reagents...

I'd compromise, though. Higher-level spells being greatly diminished & highly unstable without reagents (as already suggested) would be fine.

In this case, however, I suppose 'Teleporting' would become 'Phasing' (random teleportation over a much shorter dostance).

'Unlock' without reagents could simply have a high, scaling rate of failure for anything more complex than the most basic locks, and likely completely fail against magic locks.

 

I'm gonna risk my neck out for an opinion and concern I personally have. I always play a pure mage. I LOVE magic. In many games, one problem I have is that magic skills have such a huge learning curve, I end up being a swordswoman just to survive. Magic sometimes is way too hard to learn to ever be effective.

Second thought is that I loved the reagent gathering in UO. But I HATED losing all those reagents when I died. I did like the lower reagent armor that we eventually got (this is probably where I need my flame retardant suit). So my strategy there is to wear a 100% lower reagent good suit but keep a few reagents in case a piece of my suit broke. I think they took it too far with the metal armor suits that were lower reagent AND medible.

The idea of being more powerful casting with reagents and less but still able without is interesting. I'll be curious how that all works out.

*back to wall-flower seat*

 

That is as it should be. Anyone can swing a hunk of iron, but mastering the cosmic forces of magic SHOULD be more difficult.

 

While I think this is funny because of the no pants, I like the dev's choice to put a slow effect in the place of a DoT. The slow effect may be just as bad as a DoT, and for some it may be even worse.

 

I would suspect the biggest balancing issue with reagents vs arrows would probably be in cost and/or ease of creation. If a "mage" runs out of reagents and can still shoot weak spells it seems unbalanced if the "archer" can't do anything at all if he runs out of arrows. If however 5 gold pieces gets you 5 mandrake vs 100 arrows then the balance starts to even out...

 

We can't all assume just one aspect of the game is balanced with one small aspect of another. Reagentless spells (reagent requiring spells, rather) aren't in the game yet. Magic will be balanced against a dozen things, only a few of which are mentioned here. It may turn out it's the perfect solution to make magic slightly more reliable.

Also, how does everyone feel about increased fizzle chance instead?

 

Devs are compromising on the magic side of the house rather then requiring reagents.

Because of that compromising fact players will complain and rather then saying they were "wrong" about it (pride issue)

We will end up with less powerful swords and special weak unlimited arrows to "balance" this compromise to their system.

economy issue by compromising you are cheapening the reagents by making them optional.

non-combat players are going to lean towards staying away from working with reagents.