Dismiss Notice
This Section is READ ONLY - All Posts Are Archived

Lets Talk about Reagents for Magic

Discussion in 'Release 21 Feedback' started by Cryodacry, Aug 31, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cryodacry

    Cryodacry Avatar

    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    63
    @Chris,

    The magic system with reagents need a bit of an update. I would like to propose the following system.

    As of right now, as you know, Spells have a fizzle % chance. I think this is a great concept and a wonderful way to implement a balance between armors. I would like to take this a step further. In addition i would also like to comment that the Price of reagents is set at a perfect place if you implement the following system.

    Spells when they are casted are basically doing a /random 1000 when they cast. There are varying degree's of success that the Player just does not see. Currently These spells with reagents will consume 1 of each applicable reagent even if it is not required due to player success. I propose that the system takes this a step further than a pass fail check. Lets instead use the full range of the 1000 roll to determine how many reagents are consumed on varying degree's of success / failure. For this we will take Spell A ... It has a 30 % fizel rate with current armor and skills. Cloth users will generally take 30 % as an acceptable failure for spells that have reagents and continue to cast them anyways. This spell it has 5 reagents. On the 1-1000 roll 1-700 will be consuming no reagents. This would be a pure caster success. 701-800 will consume 1 reagent. 801-900 will consume 2 reagents. 901-1000 consume 3 reagents. So this 1-1000 is divided into 4 possible successes with reagents. 70 % of the time the spell will consume no reagents, 10% 3 Reagents, 10 % 2 Reagents, 10% 1 Reagent. Here is a better Visualization.

    (1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1000)
    (----------------------------------Total Success---------------------------------------)(--1 Reg--)(--2 Reg--)(--3 Reg--)

    Now lets take this model and say the user puts on heavier armor that gives them 25% more fizzel. 1-450 = total success 451-550 = 1 reagent 551-650 = 2 reagents 651-750 = 3 reagents 751=850 = 4 reagents 851-950 = 5 Reagents 951 - 1000 = total failure and consumption of all reagents. Here is a better visualization.

    (1--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1000)
    (----------------------Total Success------------------)(--1 Reg--)(--2 Reg--)(--3 Reg--)(--4 Reg--)(--5 Reg--)(Fail)

    The real benefit of this model is that it makes magic economical. In addition it will properly penalize Heavy Armor with drastically increased costs.
     
  2. Magnnus

    Magnnus Avatar

    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Yes please! This is much better than the current system. Why should I use a reagent when I have a 100% chance to cast the spell without a reagent?
     
    losludvig, FrostII and Sara Dreygon like this.
  3. Helseth

    Helseth Avatar

    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    196
    Trophy Points:
    8
    This sounds good to me. I'd be happy, since I'll be the mage not needing many reagents.

    Punish those tank mages!
     
    Sara Dreygon likes this.
  4. SmokerKGB

    SmokerKGB Avatar

    Messages:
    2,199
    Likes Received:
    2,766
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pittsburg, CA
    I think it will depend on "How much Power" is added to the spell... It's my understanding that you don't need reagents (or not the full amount of them) to cast reagent spells, but they will be weaker, the fewer you have... How would this figure into your "success" formula?
     
    Doom Angel likes this.
  5. Abydos

    Abydos Avatar

    Messages:
    1,873
    Likes Received:
    3,977
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Qu├ębec, CAN
    The current system is bad.

    +1
     
    losludvig, vallo and Sara Dreygon like this.
  6. Cryodacry

    Cryodacry Avatar

    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    63
    nope.... spell strength is not tied to reagents.... magic just doesn't do dmg in this game.
     
    losludvig and Lord Baldrith like this.
  7. Cryodacry

    Cryodacry Avatar

    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yes i would have to agree with you, With out the implimentation of something like this ... or atleast something along the lines of increasing the power of the spells by having all of the reagents.... actually you guy's just gave me some inspiration ... I'll make a write up of it tomorrow.
     
    Sara Dreygon and Lord Baldrith like this.
  8. Kosomok

    Kosomok Avatar

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I agree that the current system is not very good. Reagents for casting are either expensive (at least at the start of the leveling process) or time-consuming to harvest.

    A tier 2 spell (the first tier that uses components) should have only 1 reagent, not the multiple ones currently needed.
    The reagent is required to cast the spell but provides a hefty reduction to fizzle chance. Ideally, as caster skill improves, that reduction in fizzle (particularly for a cloth wearer) becomes less important. What this means is that the caster now has a (for example) 110% chance to cast the spell--so maybe that extra 10% could go towards increasing the damage or reducing cast time (either of which are a net DPS increase)
    A tier 3 spell should have 2 reagents (1 of them REQUIRED to cast at all, the second provides the same basic operating effects as the reagent for the Tier 2 spell)... and so on for however many tiers of spells you want to have.

    Casting a Tier 2 or higher spell in anything other than (at most) leather, should be effectively impossible, regardless of whether you have reagents or not.
     
    Sara Dreygon and Lord Baldrith like this.
  9. Halvard

    Halvard Avatar

    Messages:
    1,206
    Likes Received:
    1,712
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Location:
    Sverige
    Better than what we have now, not as good as always consuming the ingredients listed.
    still +1
     
  10. Fister Magee

    Fister Magee Avatar

    Messages:
    2,577
    Likes Received:
    3,833
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spite
    Sometimes I don't want to use my reagents.. the spell will use them anyway. :( Putting them in a pouch or a backpack item should be used to specify use or non-use of reagents.. no point in gathering them otherwise
     
    mbomber, FrostII and KuBaTRiZeS like this.
  11. himmelweiss

    himmelweiss Avatar

    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    It's kinda sad that i can cast any spell without any reagents...
    Makes it easy to train mages.

    But that's just my opinion :p
     
  12. Fister Magee

    Fister Magee Avatar

    Messages:
    2,577
    Likes Received:
    3,833
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Spite
    It's not easy to train mages, with the low damage we output, it takes a lot longer to level up, at least that's my experience.. have you tried leveling up mage to a decent level? Blades was dead simple to level up.
     
  13. Cryodacry

    Cryodacry Avatar

    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    63
    As Promised here is the Inspiration that you guys invoked.

    Lets take this a bit further. Lets instead add in an "efficiency" Component. This will be a post spell amplification. This would be after any Masteries if they ever added one per a spell class. Like before you have your 1-1000 roll ... and just using the same model as before. But now we are going to add in the reagent modifier so it's now 1-1000+Reagents... This hypothetical spell has 5 regents like before. Now we are going to consider anything above 100% as a "Prestige" cast. Any score in the prestige does not consume the reagents. Instead it just amplifies the effect of the spell. This is a post score amplification. If it's a buff this would turn a 10 str buff into a 15 str buff with full prestige. If this was a damage spell and it did 100 dmg. It would be a 150 damage spell. Visualization below


    (1------------------------------------------------- Normal Cast ----------------------------------------------------)(------- Prestige ------)
    (1----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1000)(-- 25% --)(-- 50% --)
    (------------------------------Total Success----------------------------------)(--1 Reg--)(--2 Reg--)(--3 Reg--)(--4 Reg--)(--5 Reg--)

    This system of a Prestige cast would keep magic access able to everyone but reward people who practice the spell and carry the reagents. This would also help with late game scaling with magic. If your looking to perform at your best for a boss you would be able to bring reagents. If your looking for economical casting for hunting you can only bring the reagents for spells you have a hard time casting. I would say this layer on top of the other system would be almost perfect for magic.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2015
  14. himmelweiss

    himmelweiss Avatar

    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    479
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Germany
    Yes, damage currently totally sucks, which makes it hard to level em no doubt :p
     
    mbomber and losludvig like this.
  15. niteowl57

    niteowl57 Avatar

    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    477
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    Midwest U.S.
    I agree leveling using magic right now is difficult. Three Wolf Spiders can kill me; I need a skeleton or Lich just to take down a Large whatever. However, in the R21 Postmortem, they did acknowledge that magic did not get all the love it needed when the use-based system went in; I believe they indicated those things would make it in to R22.

    There are many good ideas here, such as the Prestige cast and not always consuming all the reagents just because you've gathered them.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2015
    mbomber and FrostII like this.
  16. Spoon

    Spoon Avatar

    Messages:
    8,439
    Likes Received:
    23,674
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sweden
    @Cryodacry

    I really like the basic premise of the proposal:
    That is not however what the effect would become with the system you propose. (Sorry to rain on your parade here). :oops:

    Instead beginners would be heavily penelized, since they fail a lot and in your system their failures would still cost more.
    So the highest cost would be incurred when you can the least afford it.
    Which means that to train as a mage you need a sponsor, or you have forced all mages to start out as melee (or merchants to earn gold).

    Then we have that the different magic trees have different multipliers on fizzle due to armor. Fire and Death has the most and Earth and Life the least.
    So you have just put a price tag on the magic schools where some will be much cheaper than others.

    Then the economy doesn't really gain something here. This since most players will spend most of their time in the game after reaching expert levels in skills and such. So in your system they will need less and less reagents as they progress even while the higher tier spells cost more reagents. So once you peak as grandmaster your costs will start falling again.
    Now when the age pyramid of SotA reverses after 6 months, the reagent economy would plummet.

    Lastly if I get rich enough not to care about such insignificant things as a mere couple of kilos of gold, then I could optimize my armor on a whim and get all the bonuses from your system and none of the drawbacks.


    If you instead tied it into crafting where one could increase the potency of spells using the crafting systems, then the low and poor could use cheaper stuff, while the high and rich would buy and use really expensive stuff. Now that drives the economy forward. If only someone could propose such a thing. ;)
    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/f...nd-alchemy-the-essence-of-a-compromise.14498/
     
    mbomber, Doom Angel and KuBaTRiZeS like this.
  17. Cryodacry

    Cryodacry Avatar

    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    810
    Trophy Points:
    63
    @Spoon , I understand where your going with your idea. While I will disagree. With Essence being required i would state that you are increasing the costs. with the systems i propose the costs are actually reduced until you start layering heavier armors on the system. When Casting in cloth your first levels spells would be on a prestige level of almost +100 % damage. I was just putting it on paper. I personally believe the Prestige casts should not have a cap... So the scaling comes from the perfection of the spell. Example below


    (--------------------------success---------------------) (---25%--)(---50%--)(---75%--)(---100%--)(---125%--)(---150%--)

    So starting off with flame fist as an example. You are actually starting the game in the +100% range with cloth. Once you start putting heavier armor like a plate breast plate on. Your Prestige would drop you down. I am also not suggesting that new players should be casting fireballs ... but flame fist / fire arrow are free / very cheep. Once you start tossing in larger more expensive spells you are no longer a new caster. You are now an Adept and the costs of casting should be starting to come into play. Also ... This system does not force any caster to bring reagents. You can still practice and learn the ability of the spell while suffering the 30 % fizzle. If your expecting Prestige casting dmg's ... i would say you need to pony up the reagents... but again prestige casts do not consume the reagents. Just having them amplifies the spells. So the incentive to bring full reagents is there, but not required.
     
  18. Spoon

    Spoon Avatar

    Messages:
    8,439
    Likes Received:
    23,674
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sweden
    Not really since the recipe you can use sets the numbers of essence gained. That means the devs can tweak it as they see fit and introduce several recipes to cater to different needs. Like we see with Arrows in R21.
    So a basic 'common essence' recipe could produce 40-100 essence from 10 reagents.
    While a 'potent essence' recipe could produce 5 'potent essence' from 10 reagents.
    Hence creating a layered economy which is so important to fight inflation.

    Again, this is hurting the gathering economy.

    So a system which promotes naked mages without reagents? And if you plan a sucker punch you could simply just have those 3 spells lined up with full set of reagents for an alpha strike.
    That isn't going to promote a balanced PvP.
     
    mbomber likes this.
  19. Kosomok

    Kosomok Avatar

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    3
    If you:

    1) Want to make the initial leveling of magic relatively cheap;
    2) Want to build that section of the economy based upon reagent consumption; and
    3) want the ability to boost casting using reagents

    Then I would suggest something like the following (ignoring the actual numbers for the moment because that is a balancing issue, not a mechanics issue):

    We have multiple levels (tiers) of spells, create an escalating required cost simply to cast the spell with a high success chance (using the something like the current armor fizzle modifiers):
    Cloth casters would essentially have 100% out of the box in Tier 1 (T1), while leather and plate would be significantly lower (plate essentially requiring a reagent until you have skilled the spell up significantly, essentially as it currently is).
    T1 has no required reagent (the reagent simply reduces fizzle)
    T2 has 1 required reagent
    T3 has 2 required reagents
    You could also institute additional types of reagents that would do things such as:
    Increase damage
    Decrease cast time
    Increase DoT duration

    Not sure how the mechanics for this would work.... but I am also not a programmer and I do not know the current code.
    Reagents

    Reagents are currently items that can either be gathered or bought (npcs)--the fact that they can be bought puts a cap on what you can charge
    Make reagents a crafted item via alchemy, using the currently foraged reagents, this would allow the expansion of reagent types while utilizing a smaller subset of components
    Making the reagents crafted preserves a market for the foraged components and allows the potential of value added due to processing--it also eliminates the issue of casting using up components you have in inventory because you were foraging them for another purpose.

    It does eliminate the ability to simply gather reagents on the fly... but then an archer can't gather arrows on the fly (other than by killing mobs and you could make reagents a caster mob loot drop to compensate)
    Just an idea that came to me that isn't really fully fleshed out.
     
    mbomber likes this.
  20. Ancev

    Ancev Bug Hunter

    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    1,841
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think it has to do with INT not modifying spell damage for most spells? If this is the case, a spell amplification modifier might be too much or would need to be balanced. It would be cool if there was a 'perfect' threshold for casting a spell. Logically, you would think consuming materials would add to the efficacy of the spell but perhaps during a perfect cast you tap into some arcane knowledge beyond the material world.

    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/int-only-modifying-certain-spells.37217/
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.