Talk:Spellweaver - Revision history

Brazil: /* boost */

2010-01-29T18:31:24Z

boost

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:31, 29 January 2010
Line 134:		Line 134:


	We can have their invoker level determine how many boosts they can have.		We can have their invoker level determine how many boosts they can have. but they could mix them...

	i.e. ~~boost~~		for example... at level 1

	~~balance wise we can control it better with multiple~~ boost ~~words, but I don~~'~~t know if it'll get confusing to have "boost fire" "damage fire" "production fire" words all different.~~		invoke 'boost heal'

	~~boss alert!~~		at level 20

			invoke 'boost fire heal heal'

			balance wise we can control it better with multiple boost words, but I don't know if it'll get confusing to have "boost fire" "damage fire" "production fire" words all different. I'm inclined to want one fire word, with other modifier words

			I think boost becomes a base word at this point, heh

Brazil: /* boost */ new section

2010-01-29T16:19:26Z

boost: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 29 January 2010
Line 130:		Line 130:

	With regard to the words themselves ... one thing to consider would be to try to use words that already exist or are used in the game. Things like Boost, Resist, Enhance, Damage. That way, if we use words/concepts that are already familiar, it'll be easier to identify (on the front end) potential bugs/exploits. For example, if my sorceror can get 25% resist blunt with eq already, and can then stack a couple of well worded spells, that could easily accomplish 100% resistance - which would be problematic. normally the resist type spells are non-stackable. but the +maxhit ones usually stack (like the various paladin spells). Now I'm starting to ramble... Let me know what you think about the Wiz/Priest concept ... -G		With regard to the words themselves ... one thing to consider would be to try to use words that already exist or are used in the game. Things like Boost, Resist, Enhance, Damage. That way, if we use words/concepts that are already familiar, it'll be easier to identify (on the front end) potential bugs/exploits. For example, if my sorceror can get 25% resist blunt with eq already, and can then stack a couple of well worded spells, that could easily accomplish 100% resistance - which would be problematic. normally the resist type spells are non-stackable. but the +maxhit ones usually stack (like the various paladin spells). Now I'm starting to ramble... Let me know what you think about the Wiz/Priest concept ... -G

			== boost ==


			We can have their invoker level determine how many boosts they can have.

			i.e. boost

			balance wise we can control it better with multiple boost words, but I don't know if it'll get confusing to have "boost fire" "damage fire" "production fire" words all different.

			boss alert!

Gargamel: /* invoke! */

2010-01-25T19:48:30Z

invoke!

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:48, 25 January 2010
Line 116:		Line 116:

	--[[User:Brazil\|Brazil]] 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:Brazil\|Brazil]] 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)



			Wow. This looks really cool, now that I've got a chance to read it over. One thing to think about is how much AC really matters in-game. I think in theory AC is cool, but I don't know if in the actual in-game mechanics, it works properly. I know pretty much no mort players really care about it .. and most people cast the AC buff spells as a matter of habit than of use. Maybe "pain" would work better as adding/subtracting to maxHP?

			Now you've gotten me to thinking. Originally this started out as a macro-subclass (like darkknight). What if ''this'' became the replacement/solution for Wizard and Priest? Wizard benefiting from the offensive words of the spells, and Priest benefiting from the healing/buffing words?

			Which would leave memorize/pray gone by the wayside.

			UNLESS!!!

			We created subclasses for Cleric/Sorc/Necro(? - necro always seems to be the redheaded stepkid in these conversations) - that would allow for memorize/pray (and therefore scribe, etc).

			With regard to the words themselves ... one thing to consider would be to try to use words that already exist or are used in the game. Things like Boost, Resist, Enhance, Damage. That way, if we use words/concepts that are already familiar, it'll be easier to identify (on the front end) potential bugs/exploits. For example, if my sorceror can get 25% resist blunt with eq already, and can then stack a couple of well worded spells, that could easily accomplish 100% resistance - which would be problematic. normally the resist type spells are non-stackable. but the +maxhit ones usually stack (like the various paladin spells). Now I'm starting to ramble... Let me know what you think about the Wiz/Priest concept ... -G

Gargamel: /* control words */

2010-01-25T19:38:45Z

control words

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:38, 25 January 2010
Line 39:		Line 39:

	i'm really thinking on the generic system... I'm dreaming of having a list of words... and each word of the spell adds to the mana cost... like 'harm damage fire' could be 10+10+15 mana... then if you add "greater" in there to get 'harm damage fire greater' you get 10+10+15+30 mana cost...		i'm really thinking on the generic system... I'm dreaming of having a list of words... and each word of the spell adds to the mana cost... like 'harm damage fire' could be 10+10+15 mana... then if you add "greater" in there to get 'harm damage fire greater' you get 10+10+15+30 mana cost...

			'''This sounds really neat - I like the idea of the dynamic word combinations having dynamic mana totals - makes for very interesting potential spells - G'''

	And I want to be able to say in code... add "fire" to the mix, and just define, if it's offensive it does this to the spell... if it's defensive it does this...		And I want to be able to say in code... add "fire" to the mix, and just define, if it's offensive it does this to the spell... if it's defensive it does this...

			'''Hmm... would more than 1 fire word make sense then? Fire-offensive, Fire-defensive/protection? Or is that getting too complicated (not that complicated is bad .. just simple is sometimes better :P ) -G'''

	a system like this would be infinitely expandable... and I'm sure contain more than a surprises for us when people get creative. heh		a system like this would be infinitely expandable... and I'm sure contain more than a surprises for us when people get creative. heh

Brazil: /* invoke! */ new section

2010-01-24T00:45:26Z

invoke!: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 24 January 2010
Line 44:		Line 44:
	a system like this would be infinitely expandable... and I'm sure contain more than a surprises for us when people get creative. heh		a system like this would be infinitely expandable... and I'm sure contain more than a surprises for us when people get creative. heh
	--[[User:Brazil\|Brazil]] 21:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:Brazil\|Brazil]] 21:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

			== invoke! ==

			Ok, so I got a basic invoke command coded...

			It analyzes the words you've cast, to determine how to proceed. There's a few things to iron out, but right now it can do a basic heal.

			struct invoke_words_type invoke_list[] = {
			{ INV_TYPE_BASE , "create" , "create" , 10, INV_PWR_CREATE },
			{ INV_TYPE_BASE , "negate" , "negate" , 10, INV_PWR_NEGATE },
			{ INV_TYPE_POWER, "minor" , "minor" , 10, INV_WORD_MINOR },
			{ INV_TYPE_POWER, "major" , "major" , 30, INV_WORD_MAJOR },
			{ INV_TYPE_WORD , "life" , "life" , 10, INV_WORD_LIFE },
			{ INV_TYPE_WORD , "defense", "defense", 15, INV_WORD_DEFENSE },
			{ INV_TYPE_WORD , "pain" , "pain" , 10, INV_WORD_PAIN },
			{ INV_TYPE_WORD , "fire" , "fire" , 15, INV_WORD_FIRE },
			{ -1, "\n" , "\n" , -1, -1 }
			};

			The first column is the word type... you only get one "base" word, that determines the direction of the spell. I was originally thinking that would determine offensive / defensive, but negate and create can be used for both circumstances.

			You also only get one POWER word. That is the strength level of the spell. Right now, I've got it assuming that not using any power word equates to "minor". It'll be easy to add more power words as we go (or change their names... everything is abstract).

			Second is the word used in casting. The third is the more for our reference, it's a description of what the word is for.

			The number column is how much mana that word requires to use. More words used = more complex the spell = more mana to cast.

			Last column is for internal reference during calculations of what to do. Safe for anyone but me to ignore, but it's a straight copy / paste from code.

			We can reword this or rename words and their meanings, if you have different ideas. I just wanted to get something working.

			Right now this is what I have in place (with some debug output)... (order if invoked words is has no significance... we can change that if it makes sense later)

			1H 1900M 200V > invoke 'minor create life' me
			Mana cost: 30
			Words found: create minor life
			A warm feeling floods your body.
			Power level: 1
			Amt: 129

			130H 1900M 200V >

			131H 1900M 200V > invoke 'major create life' me
			Mana cost: 50
			Words found: create major life
			A warm feeling floods your body.
			Power level: 3
			Amt: 387

			518H 1900M 200V >

			Power words are coded as a multiplication factor. Minor = 1, so no change to the amount. Major = 3, so it does thrice what a Minor would do. If need be, we can change them to decimals, i.e. 2.5 or whatever. Just started with something.

			In that case, a minor resistance would be say... 3. A major resistance would become 9.

			My biggest stumbling block at the moment is affects. Right now I think they need to be tied to a spell, or things get unpredictable. It's going to take some tinkering to get it so they can't cast the same major resistance spell 10 times and wind up with 90% resistance, heh.

			We need to come up with a list of words and define what each "word" means.

			pain = AC
			life = hit points
			fire = fire element to spell

			Another thing I'm having trouble with, is "pain resistance" could mean AC, or it could be made to mean weapon type resistance. Feels vague to me. Maybe "negate" is too broad. Maybe it should be "create", "destroy", "defend", "resist". "defend pain" could mean AC, "resist pain" could be a resistance. Or maybe "negate pain" should be AC, and "major negate pain" or "negate pain blade" would be a resistance.

			Ok, I'm starting to ramble, but I wanted to get these thoughts out before we head out on the town tonight. Read it over and let me know your thoughts. I got really into this, I'd love to see it go live. I've been wanting to do something similar to this for many years, and you got me motivated ;)

			--[[User:Brazil\|Brazil]] 00:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazil: /* control words */ new section

2010-01-22T21:04:12Z

control words: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 22 January 2010
Line 20:		Line 20:

	--[[User:Gargamel\|Gargamel]] 21:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:Gargamel\|Gargamel]] 21:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

			== control words ==

			I think we need base control words... to make an effective customizable system one these control words would be the first of every spell...

			Trying to think of the best way to phase them...

			* healing (heal, cure poison, etc)
			* harmful (damage spells, combined with element words for elemental attacks)
			* protective? (resistances?) 'protect fire greater' (+15 fire resistance)

			not happy with that list yet...

			* I'm thinking resistances and weaknesses need their own word somehow... but maybe they can be lumped with the other two words

			cast 'heal toxin'
			cast 'harm damage fire'

			i'm really thinking on the generic system... I'm dreaming of having a list of words... and each word of the spell adds to the mana cost... like 'harm damage fire' could be 10+10+15 mana... then if you add "greater" in there to get 'harm damage fire greater' you get 10+10+15+30 mana cost...

			And I want to be able to say in code... add "fire" to the mix, and just define, if it's offensive it does this to the spell... if it's defensive it does this...

			a system like this would be infinitely expandable... and I'm sure contain more than a surprises for us when people get creative. heh
			--[[User:Brazil\|Brazil]] 21:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Gargamel: some thoughts via Garg

2010-01-11T21:23:01Z

some thoughts via Garg

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 11 January 2010
Line 12:		Line 12:

	we could even create quests to earn words, and have rare words that were only available during a mud-wide quest or something... like getting a scroll that when recited will teach you the word...		we could even create quests to earn words, and have rare words that were only available during a mud-wide quest or something... like getting a scroll that when recited will teach you the word...

			----

			Well, if massive resistances are a concern - this type of class doesn't necessarily have to receive the words for resistance .. we could structure it so that it's damage/healing oriented (or just damage).

			If we wanted to get really wacky - we could allow for branches of weavers - damage OR heal (not both). OR OR OR - make the languages learned inherrantly tied to your underlying class. Sorcs/Wizards would have similar words to learn, Clerics/Priests would be similar - but unable to learn most of the Sor/Wiz words, and Necros would be their own beast...

			--[[User:Gargamel\|Gargamel]] 21:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazil: /* oooo */ new section

2010-01-09T21:16:30Z

oooo: new section

← Older revision	Revision as of 21:16, 9 January 2010
Line 1:	Line 1:
		== oooo ==

		I really like where you're going here...

		To build on that, we could have words for "greater" or "massive" to get larger heals / damage / resistance / weakness.

		My only concern with that would be that when they earn the "massive" word, they suddenly could have massive resistance / heal / damage all at once.

		I think it would result in some new spells, but only where we need to map word a combination to an affect. hmm... unless... I have thoughts forming for an abstracted magic system that could calculate how a spell works based on the word combination.

		"lower fire protection"

		we could even create quests to earn words, and have rare words that were only available during a mud-wide quest or something... like getting a scroll that when recited will teach you the word...

Brazil: Removing all content from page

2010-01-09T21:04:49Z

Removing all content from page

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 9 January 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~I really like where you're going here...~~

	~~To build on that, we could have words for "greater" or "massive" to get larger heals / damage / resistance / weakness.~~

	~~My only concern with that would be that when they earn the "massive" word, they suddenly could have massive resistance / heal / damage all at once.~~

Brazil: New page: I really like where you're going here... To build on that, we could have words for "greater" or "massive" to get larger heals / damage / resistance / weakness. My only concern with that ...

2010-01-09T21:04:09Z

New page: I really like where you're going here... To build on that, we could have words for "greater" or "massive" to get larger heals / damage / resistance / weakness. My only concern with that ...

New page

I really like where you're going here...

To build on that, we could have words for "greater" or "massive" to get larger heals / damage / resistance / weakness.

My only concern with that would be that when they earn the "massive" word, they suddenly could have massive resistance / heal / damage all at once.