Let us know what you think of the Buffing Improvements [Archive]

Davidge

03-25-2004, 06:27 PM

IRT Self buffing Life and Creature spells and reducing the wind up time: I love it!

I also understand and appreciate the reasons for not changing the wind up time on casting Other variants of these spells.

Even though my clan provides buff bots, I really want to see an incentive for folks to learn their self buffs and be self-sufficient. Having Other spells cost more, in time and possibly comps, might be one way to do that. Why cost more in comps?

It's because of what happens with group quests involving patrons and vassals. Players will adapt to this dynamic by prebuffing the lower level vassals first, then having them log out to save buffs. Given this natural player workaround, I would suggest reducing the wind up time for Other variants as well, but make them more expensive to cast to keep the incentive strong for patrons to help guide vassals towards self buffing status.

Lastly, we are considering the option to allow Item Enchantment to spread to all valid targets on a player. This would mean you could target yourself, cast Impenetrability and it would spread to all of the possible targets on your character. This would cut the spell count down to eight, sixteen with a shield, and really speed the process along.

Of the options you mentioned for baning, this is my favorite. But, it will still be exploited. Players that need their armor baned will trade it to a trusted mage, who will wear it and bane it. It will also expose players to thieves that will capitalize on the desire for fast banes but whom might make off with the armor.

As a suggestion, and I am sure I might be flamed for this, you might think of ways to "Bond" the banes cast in this manner to the person that cast the banes instead of the armor. When the armor is dropped on death, or given to another player, the banes should be lost instantly. I don't know if you have the tech to do that, but that would solve the majority of issues I predict would happen.

Paraduck

03-25-2004, 06:28 PM

Yeah, option three would be excellent for item buffs.

One thing I'm concerned with is that the current setup of self multi-stat spells will be useless, unless the wind-up is that of a level one spell. I think many players will just use the quicker single spells rather than go through the process of getting multi-buff scrolls. There benefit (if there is any) seems that it will be pretty negligible for self spells... but that all depends on the casting time.

Good article, other than that.

MaddyFF

03-25-2004, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Theran_Bakagin
I would recommend a combination spell for the item enchantment.. as a "all available targets" doesn't make much sense from a lore perspective...

This is magic we are taling about :)

Plus, we can target a person, cast Blood Drinker, and the spell goes to their weapon. Kind of the same concept: Target yourself, cast Impent, and the spell goes to the armor you are wearing.

Karem Darsun

03-25-2004, 06:30 PM

This looks great.

For the Item buffs, i gotta go with the consensus and say option 3 is the best, it both will work the easiest, and might promote a little more armour variation. If any suit takes 8 spells to full bane, maybe we wont see so many people defaulting to Amuli.

Only thing i would like to see more about is the throwaway comment on players crafting their own multi-spells...

heh guess i might actualy have to raise Item enchantment as well.

Surfal

03-25-2004, 06:32 PM

Well, in general I support changes to the buffing system.

I am disappointed, however, at the intended limitation to self spells.

I want to be a tank melee. I don't want to have magic schools. If I could get portal spells some other reasonable way, I would drop item magic.

I've been very happy over the years as improvements were made to make magic less *must-have*, but this is a step backwards, if you don't include a way for the tank melee to benefit from these improvements.

The proper way, imo, is to start putting 7's on items, if you are insistent on keeping the other spells slow and painful. I don't like using a buffbot, but to compete against the mobs, as you state so clearly at the beginning of the article, it is sometimes necessary.

Daveda

03-25-2004, 06:35 PM

Very nice ideas... I like the item buffs for all items you are wearing. While it might seem too easy... hunting and questing is much better.

I look forward to the new fellowship spells. It will be nice to have a mage that plays support in healing and the other back row type activities while the melees and archer pound away.

I hope you can make the release of the spells a balance of quests and hunts to allow for solo finds and for group hunts and quests.

The fact that you have to have the school to cast the buff is incentive enough ... number of pieces of armor to buff is a factor now... I think if you make the armor changes attractive you can give incentive for more and less pieces of armor and blend it with the buffing changes.

Perhaps a multi-spell per piece of armor is the way to go as a disincentive to wear more armor pieces. But make the additional pieces of armor more attractive some how... hire AL. Perhaps the fact that you can wear more cantrips potentially is enough balance.

Thanks for the update.

Maxium

03-25-2004, 06:35 PM

only problem with option 3 is youll have to buff yourself then your shield. But other then that its a great idea. When you buff with option 3 will they also bane your clothing under your armor also?

Theran_Bakagin

03-25-2004, 06:37 PM

Maddy.. Yes.. this is MAGIC.. but I suspend my disbelief with firing a lightning bolt from my fingertips...

I spent WAY too many hours back in 99 and 00 teaching people about the REASON their spells cast the way they did... Magic 101 classes at the Cragstone Mage Shop....when we were all researching our spells...

The magic Theory I see in targeting a person and casting blood loather going to the weapon involves the Talisman assignment...

Unless the Talisman involved is Oak (I think that was the Talisman for Blast/Volleys.. or perhaps (memory leak) whichever one casts rings/walls .. for a multiple target spell.... I believe that combining the elements together is better...

There HAS to be a penalty involved in wearing 9 pieces of armor as opposed to wearing 1... I wear 9 part armor.. as for lore.. I WANT the penalty.. I chose to wear lots of little parts.. I should have to bane lots of little parts.. just combine the AMOUNT of spells I cast and I'll be a happy little caster!!

Lance

03-25-2004, 06:40 PM

Definantly like the idea about casting one spell and having it affect all valid targets. Means people might start wearing armor cause they accually like the look (and the defence) than taking a two or three piece because of convience.

Also have no complaints with the increased speed. Means I should be able to hunt least 55+ minutes of a cycle instead of 45-50 (due to fizzles and other circumstances). Aye I must say things are looking good for us.

HeXt

03-25-2004, 06:41 PM

No matter how easy you guys make it to buff people will always complain it's too hard.

One thing to keep in mind, devs.

Some People wear cantrips (diff from their combat armor) when buffing their armor. So I would hope it would buff armor you're not wearing, but then this would benifit the buffbots. :(

One thing also to keep in mind, fellowship spells will start getting to the point like AC2 where they'll have buffbots cast them. I hope you're ready to step in and stop them when this happens.

sylphia

03-25-2004, 06:45 PM

Insta-cast on Self Only: All for it. It gives players a reason to train the skills themselves, as opposed to relying on someon else, and it WILL drastically reduce the buff time.

Fellowship spells: I am split on this one. I like the idea of questing for these particular types of spells, since they ARE intended for groups, so it makes sense to need a group to get them. However, the disturbing trend lately is for you guys to create a dungeon with lots of dispel or drain traps or hollow mobs, or some combination of them all. As a mage, I am frankly sick of this silliness, and it keeps me away from new content just on principle. Give us puzzles and stuff that DOES require group interaction, and I will be all for a quest to get the spells. Also, dont give us some silly timer that will require me to wait a week in between each spell; at that rate, I MIGHT get all of the spells in about 2 years; its simply not worth it. Keep it smooth and dynamic, where I CAN get all or most of my spells in a few days with some serious power-gaming, and its good to go. If you cant do that, then just put the things in the loot-o-matic and let us go back to endless random pulls and the same old boring chest camping we have come to expect from spell researching.

Edit: For fellow heals, make them unusuable by/on PK(L)s until you are sure they wont throw off the balance. Then those of us who DONT PK(L) can stilluse them.

Multi-Stat Spells: The weapon-class buffs should be a pretty easy thing: they should all be the wepon + the "support" attributes that make it up (IE: Sword+Str+Coord, Dagger+Coord+Quick, Bow+Coord). Just make the Attributes spell all 6 and be done with it. There wil be a slight bit of overlap when used with wepon buffs, but it eliminates the need for a bunch of different spell combos, some of which players would prefer to be different. There shold be logical "groupings" of all other spells as well. All defense spells should come in 2 varieties: the skill + support attributes (just like wepons), and all 3 defenses as one spell. Likewise, Similar groupings for all tradeskills (LP, Alchy, Cook, Fletching), (All four tinkers) and of course each of those tradeskills with its requisite attributes. All four magic schools gropued as one spell, and each school grouped individually with its base attributes. This allows plenty of variety for the player to customize their spell books as they desire, without having to allow for every possible combination. And frankly, it makes sense to do it this way. As for distribution of them, put them on both mobs and in chests. For mobs, they should drop on the ones near the "top" of the level range for which the mobs are designed. For chests, have them replace some of the trash that currently spawns in them. Basically, players should have just as much chance of finding these useful spells as they do of finding a good srod or piece of armor for thier level. The increased difficulty and mana cost of the spells themselves serve as enough of a balance to their use; they dont also need to be as rare as a snowflake in summer.

Or scrub ALL of that, and let us have a tool of some kind that we can take current scrolls and combine them however we like, in groups of 2 and 3. This would mean we would have to invest in each new scroll we want by HAVING the base scrolls. And yes, do this for 7s as well, because we would still need the lvl 7 scrolls to make the new scrolls.

Edit: For that matter, perhaps the quest for fellowship spells could use the same tool (or could also involve GETTING the tool) and aquiring some item through the quest that yu can use to "imbue" current scrolls with the "fellow" property, such that when you learn that spell, it is the fellow version of it instead of the single-target version.

Baning: Change the spell system so that when we target the paper doll, it casts the item spell on ALL legal targets. Give us multi-spells that can only be cast on shields, and ones that can only be cast on weapons (since we wont be able to receive the multi-cast benefit, as they wont be able to be wielded when casting). Reduce the timers for your own gear and equipment in your inventory, as you will be doing for self-cast creature and life spells. Yes, some folks will get around the timers by handing their gear over to someone else, but so what. The idea is to speed up the process and make it less tedious, so bugger worrying about that. EVERYONE will be able to do it, so any PKs that cry abotu it can go train the skills themselves and not worry about it.

The proposed difficulty levels are fine; if you can cast a debuff in that school, you can cast a group/fellow buff, for the most part. Its worth it. Mana cost might need to be adjusted if you go with my suggestions :)

And please for the love of god DO NOT let issues with PK prevent or delay these changes. If its going to be an issue, then make them uncastable/invalid targets for PK(L), and if someone GOES PK(L) with any of these buffs on them already, they are dispeled. I am tired of having things back-burnered just because of PK concerns, when they are only a fraction of the populace. If its goign to be an issue, institute the chanegs I just sugegsted, and add them to PK when you can figure out hwo to achieve the proper balance; meanwhile, let the other 90% of the population enjoy them.

wizard_redwolf

03-25-2004, 06:46 PM

NICE!!!

Davidge

03-25-2004, 06:49 PM

Sylphia said:

Or scrub ALL of that, and let us have a tool of some kind that we can take current scrolls and combine them however we like, in groups of 2 and 3. This would mean we would have to invest in each new scroll we want by HAVING the base scrolls. And yes, do this for 7s as well, because we would still need the lvl 7 scrolls to make the new scrolls.

Ooooh. I wonder how hard that would be to implement? The concept is way cool. I esp like what it would do to the scroll economy. :)

Catkicker

03-25-2004, 06:51 PM

i just see a problem for those of us that are not mages with how high the req's are for triple spells. i'm in my 130's and am an archer with a 50/10 start. its taken me years to get my critter/item to 330's and life is only 360 with cantrips. i really like the idea of targeting self for spreading item banes although it wont help me with my bows, since i wont have those wielded and normally buff 7 bows.

what i'd like to see, but know we wont have:

one spell to rule them all, one spell to bane them
one spell to bring them all and in the game buff them

Shaolin

03-25-2004, 06:51 PM

Very nice turbine,

however, i would prefer the option to 'bind' scrolls ourselves
in other words, custom make our own combos of up to 3.

this way you add choice and not just a set in stone combo from a short list per scroll/spell.

i would love to be able to choose 3 of my own spells and have to bind them in some fashion (craft love),
although the sik love sounds just as good.

Luminescent

03-25-2004, 06:52 PM

seriously now - no one cares about life/critter cast time

its item we have had trouble with all along

change them first, not life and critter

Either make item spells with a lvl 1 cast time, or make it so when u cast imp/bane it effects all the armor u are wearing.

Honestly - they are buff changes - they can not make the game BAD - so pick one and just do it, dont make us wait forever!

- by the way - i love what is going on but this is BUFFING - u dont have to be soo careful about this, it effects everyone IN A GOOD WAY - it has no negative effect so why the long wait?

Dargo

03-25-2004, 06:52 PM

While some of your concepts are sound, I question why you must increase the difficulty in these multi spell spells.

Ok, first off, *most* melees have at least 2 schools of magic trained, and we struggle to cast VII's in those schools as it is. This means fizzles. This means longer casting times. So, you jack those difficulties up, then only the 126++++++++ crowd can use them, or they are limited to pure mages, not just the half mages most of us are.

The spell speed up is nice, otherwise, your melee/archer types that are *ONLY* level 100 will not have any use of these new spells at all. We don't have the skill to cast without high fizzles (not to mention plat burn), you jacked the mana that we struggle with as it is (see H2M 1, nerf), nor high enough mana conversion to help with the mana costs. Oh, and we typically cannot use a wand with a high MC bonus because we are using the focusing stone so that we can cast the VII's.

This will speed up mage buffing, and is a step in the right direction. As it is now, the archers and melee's in our group wait for the mages to tell us they are *starting* on their banes before we begin to buff and then we still usually finish before them (we don't bane a lot).

The *real* slow downs once you get past all the item banes is fizzles and mana regeneration.

ash firewalker

03-25-2004, 06:53 PM

well im concerned about the grouping of item spells, its not the number of spells cast that needs to change but the benefits of having to bane everything that needs to.

AlphaSwift

03-25-2004, 06:58 PM

Nice. For baning, targeting the paper doll and having all legal targets accept the bane spell would be great.

Of course, this implies that 3 sets of banes/buffs would be required, since you can't wield a shield and sword while casting a spell. They would still have to be done separately.

Now if you only said "We have heard Asheron is doing new spell research and it looks like it will go one of these ways....."

Myk

03-25-2004, 07:03 PM

The life and creature spells idea looks great. My only question is will it work for stam to mana and revite?

for item spells option 3 is the one I like best. This would make baning not so bad and increase hunting/questing time.

AC_Guy

03-25-2004, 07:04 PM

Question:

Once the Multi- Spells are in are there any plans to extend these to loot Items ?

GKusnick

03-25-2004, 07:04 PM

On the whole it sounds good. My main concern is with the multi-stat spell idea, which sounds like it will require the devs to introduce a huge number of new spells to cover all the useful combinations. Even the idea of player-crafted multispells still requires that the target spell and its effects be defined by the system before the player can craft it. I'm worried that having all these combo spells in the game will just make the problems of spelltab management and spellbook info overload much worse than they already are.

What I'd rather see is some scheme for casting several single-stat spells simultaneously. This could be done using some sort of multi-select UI on the spellbars, so that instead of selecting just one spell to cast, I can select two or three from the same spellbar, or maybe even the entire spellbar, and cast them all in one windup, with appropriate mana and difficulty surcharges.

Something like this may require more new tech but seems like a better solution to me than overloading the game with hundreds of new combo spells.

Gaelen

03-25-2004, 07:05 PM

I love the idea of self spells being quicker to cast. I believe the reason for this is to encourage people to self buff. I'm all for it. However, I feel that you should address the spell duration as well.

If your group of friends is going out on a hunt, and they all cast level VII's on themselves, but maybe you can only cast VI's. Do you A) self-buff and leave the group 15 minutes early because your spells ran out, B) force the entire group recall and rebuff when your spells drop, or C) go queue up at the nearest buffbot because you don't want to inconvenience everyone else?

I think that all spells from level I to level VII (and beyond) should last the same amount of time, 60 minutes. Or, if that is too painful make 1-4 , and 5-7 have the same durations. The goal is less downtime, not more.

-G

Korrigan

03-25-2004, 07:07 PM

I absolutely love all the suggestions except making banes apply on all valid targets. This would basically reduce baning a full set of armor to casting 8 spells.
This would make baning too easy, basically everybody would run around 100% baned 24/7/365.

I would say make multiple banes, yes, that's a good idea. But casting only 8 spells to bane a full armor is just dumbing down baning too much. Why not simply make every armor with 2.0 mods in all elements, it would be easier.

sedge86

03-25-2004, 07:11 PM

OMG AWESOME. I left AC not to long ago because I just got plain fed up with being a mage pk. Baning, buffing, ect. But with the multi spells, and lvl 7 spells going incredibly quick this will be a VERY interesting AC experience. I guess AC will be going to college with me after all :D

Theran_Bakagin

03-25-2004, 07:13 PM

I am probably alone on my soapbox suggesting that we not get all worn targets at once...but hear me out, please

If we get the item spells combined into a "bane set" for lack of better term... casting all the banes (or even 1/2 the banes) it becomes a moot issue if the item is a shield or a helmet.. you still target the item...

I am going to stick to the idea of 2 spells.. one physical.. one elemental..

While a person wearing the smallest breakdown of armor pieces and a shield will be buffing 12 parts (if doing 2 part underclothes)

yes that is 24 potential spells.. still a lot! but FAR less than hitting each item with 8 spells each... (96 spells) it also doesn't call for duplicating when people are wearing their "buff suit" replete with magic casting cantrips....

If a person is wearing Amuli and a Raiment.. fairly common suit still... that is 6 items (7 if shield) .. we talk 14 spells as opposed to 56 spells...

Give that person no Item target grouped spell and the person is already going to cast 9 spells if he removes ONE item for buffing with... (a shield perhaps) so... 5 more spells and you don't have to worry about needing to rebuff some item you swapped out...

JJC

03-25-2004, 07:18 PM

Multi effect and multi item spells will only increase the need to mage yourself up to play the game at the highest levels. It will also increase the number of hollow, shield hollow, and undefined damage creatures that will have to be put into the game to defeat all the magic protections.

If you make it so that people can fully buff in almost no time why not just remove the spell timers? The effective difference wont change.

JJC

Korrigan

03-25-2004, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by JJC
Multi effect and multi item spells will only increase the need to mage yourself up to play the game at the highest levels. It will also increase the number of hollow, shield hollow, and undefined damage creatures that will have to be put into the game to defeat all the magic protections.

If you make it so that people can fully buff in almost no time why not just remove the spell timers? The effective difference wont change.

JJC

Thanks JJC, you explained my point much better than me a few posts above :)

8 spells to full bane armor is no good.

Gouru

03-25-2004, 07:31 PM

Baning is where I see the problem child. All of your potential solutions in critter/life work for me (though please don't forget regens in the multi-spells).

Whether a Bane is Prismatic bane I cast on each piece of armor, or a Single Bane that affects all pieces doesn't make a lot of difference to me, though I lean slightly towards the Single Bane that affects all pieces. When fighting a bug dungeon, imp, pierce and slash are all I care about. 3 spells. A prismatic bane would need to be applied to all pieces of armor, potential 8 spells. By making it a single bane affecting all armor you keep the dynamic of choosing what banes you want to apply and tailoring them for how you are going to fight. Which I vastly prefer.

With this change, you don't need to speed up spellcasting times at all. I would add one wrinkle if possible, the new bane spells can only be cast on items that you are wearing/wielding. People could use a buffbot IF they trusted that bot with all their armor, but otherwise could get buffs just as they do today, with the same time requirements.

This would be strong incentive I believe to learn to buff yourself, and will keep much of the current buff dynamic interest while greatly decreasing the tedium.

TalentScam

03-25-2004, 07:31 PM

Very cool. I would go with option 3 on the Item Multi-Cast. What about a spell for the 3 school mages (Life, Item, Creature) and then one a general "Lore" spell (Mana C and Arcane Lore).

What about the ability to make your own scrolls? Make Arcane Lore a tradeskill!! (Stay with me here). Instead of looting one scroll that has three spells on it, one loots a piece of a scroll that has one spell on it. So, if I want to make a spell that has Coordination, Quickness, and Melee Defense on it for a quick Melee D buff, I can. If I want to have Strength, Loyalty, and Leadership for my mules, I just get the three pieces and combine! Need to do a quick dye job? Coordination and Focus then Alchemy and Cooking! The possibilities are endless making the scrolls have a player-economy life longer than just learning the spells you need for that character. Just like a suit of armor, people could/would be constantly trying to get the perfect set of spells.

Here's where the tradeskill part comes in. The pieces are giveable, and you must have Lore trained to combine them. Something like 250 Lore for 50/50 on a Dual Scroll, 300 for a Triple Scroll. This way any player can have whatever spell they want, and it's a reward for people with Lore trained or specialized. If not Lore, use one of the tinker skills.

Also, would the item spells go for weapons too? Blood Drinker and Heart Seeker then Defender and Swift Killer? BD, Def, and SK for Archers? Defender and Hermetic Link for mages?

Needless to say, this, and a lot of the other news and events of today are HUGE steps in the right direction. Kudos to the Devs. :)

Uk_Sarah

03-25-2004, 07:32 PM

Great News!

Cuttler

03-25-2004, 07:36 PM

Instant-Cast Self Buffs

Great first start. Though I am a bit confused on why you would put item in a catagory to have this occur to later in the game plan. Though I will state again that AC started, and should continue, to be a game where people lend there strenghts to a fellowship. That strength might just be high defences and low magics. Insisting that everyone have to have all 3 schools trained themselves, and not receive buffs from a friend is dishearting. It is sad that you are not making other buffs cast fast to help the entire fellowship, including the individuals who still need help buffing, get back into the battlefield. Yes, in affect decreasing the buffing time of some members but not all members will decrease the total time, but the change does further take AC away from the possiblity of having diversity without penilty to just another game of cookie cutter charaters.

Fellowship Spells

Nice idea but, if these spells stack over the current spells in the system it will be a strike to the solo hunter.

Multi-Stat Spells
I've always thought this would be a great idea. It certainally would speed up buffing for the individuals who have the skill to cast them. And that fact is what is disheartening about what I read. I completly agree with the increased mana costs for each spell. Three level 7s cast together should cost more in mana. I do not agree with the increased difficulties, however. Three level 7s cast togther should be as difficult as 3 single level 7 spells. A 7 is a 7. The only people who are going to be able to cast these 3-combos on themselves at your proposed difficulties are high levels mages and uber level non-mages (those that macroed and chained to over 200). My level 145 melee's buffed magic skills are about 316. Begs the question why bother making the melee combos than if you are going to require godly mage skill levels to cast them. This, in the end, only affects the over all buff time of the fellowship. As it is now, it is a pain in the butt to be in a fellowship with someone who is just at the beginning stages of casting their 7s. This is because they fizzle a great deal. If you are going to do something to decrease the over all casting time you need to look at the FELLOWSHIP needs. Fellowships have players of different levels and different skills. If you shorten the casting time of some by adding combo spells that only some of the members have the skill to cast, but the other members have to resort to casting each and ever spell singlely because they cant reach your skill levels, than the fast members will have to stand around and wait for the slower members to finish. How is that helping anyone in the end?

Item Enchantment

I do like the idea of the spell affecting all buffable items on the target. This certainally would stop everyone from waring Amuli suits and might get people to pull out some nice Celdon. What I find intresting is that Item fast casting was put on the back burner.

sylphia

03-25-2004, 07:37 PM

So instead of being able to bane all of your armor with 8 spells by buffing all legal targets, you would have them add in a spell with all 8 banes? Cool then I could bane all of my armor in only FIVE spells. It doesnt hurt a thing to be able to bane all armor in a few spells. The whole point is to speed up the process and make it less tedious. having to hit the same keys dozens of times does nothing to "balance" anything in the game; it only serves to add more downtime and tedium.

And no you wont have to "mage yourself up" to play at high levels. You will still have access to the same spells as before these are added. You can still buff yourself the same as you did before multi-spells are added, and you will still receive the benefit of being able to quick-cast self-buffs. The multi=spells wont be giving you any kind of bonus to your stats over single spells; they simply will speed up casting, which when combined with quick-casting self buffs is goign to make no more real difference. Now when it comes to buffing OTHERS with multi-spells, then yes it will make a difference, since they arent going to make quick-cast other spells. But buffing other players is already the purvey of mage classes anyway, so I dont see how this is supposed to change anything other than to speed up the process. And it certainly doesnt require you to "mage up" your (presumably non-mage) toon in any way, since this is really the area of a mage. Now if you want to pretend to be a mage and take their traditional role as group buffer, etc, then yes it will require you to beef up your skills.

Granted, in order to use the multi self buffs, it will require a higher skill in each magic, but realistically, if you already have quick-casting self buffs, do you really need to worry about the few seconds that casting multi-buffs would have saved you?

Ldy_Amalthea

03-25-2004, 07:38 PM

I don't have time to read through all teh posts, so if this has already been sugested, please accept this as secconding the notion ;)

First, I think all of the ideas in the article are wonderfull, Fellow Recall spells would be awesome.

For the Multi-Attribute spells, you have designated Strength/ Endurance/Quickness and Coordination/Focus/Self

It seems to me that Endurance/Focus/Self and Strength/Coordination/Quickness would make more sence. It's great that you would only have to cast 2 spells to hit them all, but grouping them into a Mage (F/S/S) and Melee (S/C/Q) would give the option of only having to cast one if you want to do a minimal buff.

ayreon

03-25-2004, 07:41 PM

this is a great boon to my buffing times. woot for more time playing :). would be nice if these spells also used a comp other than plat. maybe a crafted one like diamond heart. with burn rate simalar to plats. would be yet another boon for the ac econemy :)

JeGwe

03-25-2004, 07:45 PM

Score: Turbine 1. Microsoft 0.

Ldy_Amalthea

03-25-2004, 07:45 PM

Another option I just thought of would be to make the multi-stat spells partial scrolls, like Ulgrim's Recall, or the attribute changing gems. This would allow the players to create the spell groups they want.

Myk

03-25-2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Korrigan
I absolutely love all the suggestions except making banes apply on all valid targets. This would basically reduce baning a full set of armor to casting 8 spells.
This would make baning too easy, basically everybody would run around 100% baned 24/7/365.

I would say make multiple banes, yes, that's a good idea. But casting only 8 spells to bane a full armor is just dumbing down baning too much. Why not simply make every armor with 2.0 mods in all elements, it would be easier.

There is noway to dumb down buffing anymore. You grab a scroll, learn the spell, cast the spell. Option 3 doesnt dumb down at all, what it does is cut the time for doing it. Cutting the time is a good thing. I hardle think long time = smart/short time = dumb.....

Ibn

03-25-2004, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by AC_Guy
Question:
Once the Multi- Spells are in are there any plans to extend these to loot Items ?

Interesting idea -- I'm not even sure if it's come up.

There's no specific reason I can think NOT to do this, it would just take some work in the treasure system.

Wait. Wouldn't adding a Strength/Coord spell to an item be exactly the same as adding Strength and Coord separately?

Phoenix Warrior

03-25-2004, 07:47 PM

:D This is great! I got really bored when I had to bane my armor, it took so long. And, while I was baneing, my buff timers were dropping. So, these changes should help alot. Thanks Turbine. ;)

Desert Jade

03-25-2004, 07:51 PM

I am all for Option 3. I love it. Make the difficulty high, make the mana cost high and give us a reason for having spent so many skill credits on magic.

Dom on TD

03-25-2004, 07:51 PM

Please make the item spells hit all armor pieces/underclothes. Some of us don't have magic levels high enough to use multi spells. Usually I'm the guy that complains about everything, but I like this.

Neku

03-25-2004, 07:54 PM

I love that you are making changes to buffing. Thank you. It sounds like you are off to a good start. My favorite idea is the grouping of spells, but don’t like the idea of having a higher skill to cast them. It would mean Melees would have to waist more points in magic that is already to expensive in my opinion. I would like to see less mana used for all buffing spells to cut back on S2M. When you get to the fellow buffs will the caster get buffed along with the fellows? That would be great to buff myself and anyone I’m helping at the same time. Thanks again for all your hard work, Neku

Jademoon

03-25-2004, 07:54 PM

Cant wait!

I like the fellowship buffing idea. Would certainly help on quests if ALL fellows are on the same timer.

sylphia

03-25-2004, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Ibn
Interesting idea -- I'm not even sure if it's come up.

There's no specific reason I can think NOT to do this, it would just take some work in the treasure system.

Wait. Wouldn't adding a Strength/Coord spell to an item be exactly the same as adding Strength and Coord separately?

That would depend on how the treaure system handles spell allocation in item creation. If the loot-o-matic decides to give 3 spells to an item, and it treats the multi-spells as ONE spell, and it comes up to be added to that item, then it would leave 2 spell "slots" on the item to be filled. If it treated the multi-spell as each of its component spells, then it would fill 2 or 3 of those alloted 3 spell slots on the item. Essentially, if multi-spells are treated as single spells by the loot generator, then when it comes time to actually assign spells, items would have the potential of spawning with more total spells--without the additional hit to arcane that current multi-spell items (jewelry and clothing) take. See the difference now? :)

Blau

03-25-2004, 08:02 PM

I like this with one exception...

The only way an archer gets kills these days is on someone that hasn't baned everything. This typically means that archers get their kills in dungeons where people buff only for the critters in the dungeon since they don't expect much PvP activity in there.

If you make Item baning easier (which I think is a good idea), you need to consider what you'll do for the poor archers who will never get a kill again if something isn't changed along with it because everyone will be baned for everything all the time.

po-dunk

03-25-2004, 08:08 PM

I would love to see the timers for level 6 SELF buffs increased to one hour. I think this would help players be more self suficient and less reliant on buff bots. It would also help when questing with others if you can self buff with 6's and not have them run out 15 minutes sooner than everone else. as it stands now and even with the upcoming changes, a player can self buff with 6's and get about 40 minutes of hunting or they can use a buffbot and get about 55 minutes of hunting

Dom on TD

03-25-2004, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by sylphia
.... Essentially, if multi-spells are treated as single spells by the loot generator, then when it comes time to actually assign spells, items would have the potential of spawning with more total spells--without the additional hit to arcane that current multi-spell items (jewelry and clothing) take.

Wouldn't that raise the arcane req out the roof? The diff for casting the multi-spells are going to be higher, so wouldn't the arcane diff be higher? I don't see a problem with the amount of spells on items now. With up to 10 armor pieces, underclothes, jewelry, and a weapon it shouldn't be hard to get all your arcane req spells the way things are now. But then again, I haven't tried because I like 3 school characters.

Raylin

03-25-2004, 08:10 PM

I'd have to say that overall I'm very pleased with these options.

The only thing I'm not pleased about is making the multi-stat spells available only through quests. For solo players like myself, especially those of us without Lockpick, questing can be near to impossible because we want to play the game our way, not have to search out a group. And since the majority of wuests these days require a group and/or Lockpick, you'd make it virtuall impossible for the solo player to get these spells.

Though I understand your reasoning behind it, I think you're being overly cautious. Everyone should have an equal chance of getting the spells without being forced to group. And forcing group play is something Turbine has always claimed they'd never do.

As for item spells, I think a combination of the two would be the ultimate choice. Increase the casting time and make them spread to all valid targets. But, barring that, the number one choice for me is to have one spell hit all valid targets. Just remember to have all valid targets include any clothing/rainments that the player is wearing under their armor.

Yusuki

03-25-2004, 08:11 PM

Nice writeup. Suggestion for the Critter triple-stat combos instead of the proposed:

1. Strength/Coord/Quick
2. Endurance/Focus/Self

Reasoning: More mages need Endurance than Coordination, and more melees need Coordination than Endurance.

Dom on TD

03-25-2004, 08:19 PM

This question has been posted already I'm sure, and I thought I read it right, but after reading posts, I don't know.

"Lastly, we are considering the option to allow Item Enchantment to spread to all valid targets on a player. "

This does include underwear, right?

sylphia

03-25-2004, 08:21 PM

Dom,
It wouldnt raise the arcane requirement if the Multi-spells are treated as ONE spell; thats the point :)

Think of it like this: If a shirt spawns with Armor 6 and Bludge Pro 6, currently the system would assign its diff for the first spell, then ADD some more for the second spell (lets leave rank, race, etc out of this for now). If, however, it were to add one multi-spell instead, it would add the armor/bludge spell, with only the original dif and no increase for a second spell. If the loot-o-matic DID assign a second spell, you would actually get THREE total spells for the dif of TWO.

Armor, wpns, etc are more or less immune to the raise in dif, so its moot for them; it would just result in more spells on the same items, IF multispells are treated just like single-spells for the purposes of assigning them to weapons.

rai_chiran

03-25-2004, 08:24 PM

First off all, I love all the ideas.

The fellowship buffs really make a non 3 schooler easier and more viable. It also makes the support mage more viable (if the difficulty is high enough so that not every lvl 80+ 3 schooler can cast it)

Some people here seem to think that casting item spells to every piece of armor that is worn is too powerfull.
Well first of all, amuli is still much easier to tinker. So you won't be doing it for the extra al that celdon gives over amuli.
Celdon is also still heavier the amuli, wich is still a problem for some mages.
So mages would still just wear their amulis/ and robes unless they find cantrips. Well not many mages can use most cantrips anyway. The acrtivation requirements are usually melee/ missile or just lore if they are lucky.
As it is now, if a mage finds that major war girth he can activate, he will still wear it and bane it anyway. Also majors still aren't easy to find and especially to match.

It would help melee more then it helps mages. and if the diff is high enough, it would mean spec item love.

Harzah

03-25-2004, 08:26 PM

Wow this sounds really awesome!

I'll be extremely happy with the instant cast self-spells.

Fellowship spells: I think this is an awesome idea. I think this will enhance fellowships for those that like to group.

Multi-Stat spells: I like the idea in theory, but perhaps I missed it - what school will be required? It looks like Critter but I'm not sure. As to where they should be found, I would say SIKs, runed chests (of some high level) and maybe a slight chance to drop as loot? But defintely in the SIK chests, give SIKs a new reason for being and make them useful.

Item and banes:

Option 1: If the object is simply to make banes 'easier' then great, this is it, although there is the keystroke problem. This option doesn't stop someone from handing their armor to someone else, letting them bane it and having it handed back. Of course that requires trust too so except in the case of patrons and vassals I doubt it would be used.

Option 2: Multi-stat spells

This is really interesting - especially if you actually put them in groups something like physical damages, elemental damages, a tusker 'package', an olthoi 'package', etc.

Option 3: Full coverage from one spell

I like this idea a lot as well, Option 2 and 3 are very similar, they're doing the same things just going about it different ways. Both will allow you to effectively cast more spells and thus press fewer keystrokes.

The only drawback I can see with this is it's a little more restrictive (what if you don't want to cast on your helmet because you know you won't be hit there? Presumably you could just take it off, I should hope.) Also are the mana costs going to be effectively X Armor Pieces times however much mana the spell costs? If so, it could be hard to have enough to cast over a full armor set.

Anyway those are just some of my thoughts - this is going to be some awesome changes. I don't really see any ideas I *don't* like =)

Dom on TD

03-25-2004, 08:26 PM

Sylphia

In the article, they state that the diff to cast a multi-stat level 7 spell is raised by 58. Since the arcane diff is affected by spell levels, wouldn't a mulit-stat spell do the same for an arcane diff? I dunno, maybe I'm still sleepy:o

Aaryna

03-25-2004, 08:29 PM

Before I begin my reply, I would like to make one single comment directed at my fellow posters on this thread: Please, stop making blanket statements about how the player base wants this and that and the Live Team is listening. None of you, not even Ibn himself as hard as he tries to, can claim to represent the entire player base, and I'm quite tired of being balled up into other people's ideas. I am a player of Asheron's Call, as unique and individual as any other. This is what I think:

First, the reduction in charge times from some, to none. I cannot voice how much I HATE this change. I have tried several times, and I still HATE this change. Knowing that this is comming is preventing me from enjoying the game, because I look at this world and I think, "Wow... this is all going to be a joke in April." Not to say that I don't like the concept of reducing charge time. I do, it makes sense... but ONLY if it is based on a SKILL CHECK, like Mana Conversion. If it's arbitrary like in this proposal, that's basically saying "Why can you do that?" "Because it's magic! It doesn't have to make sense, just as long as it works!"

The fellowship-wide spells, I like. I'd appreciate seeing portal recall spells in this group at some point, with no distance limit. That would be really fun... a little personal miniature Sundering. :) I think that both the difficulty and mana cost should be higher, but only slightly.

Multi-stat spells are very interesting, but I would rather see them grouped according to what makes sense. For example, Magic Defense has nothing to do with missile or melee defense, conceptually... it's an arcane skill, where those two are martial skills. The mental processes required would be wholly different. It would be better grouped with a similarly magic-oriented skill.

Item enchantment, option three, YES! GOOD! However, do the same thing with this that you do with fellowship spells. Add to the cost for every affected item. +10 would be good here.

In the cases of both of the new spells, you mention learning them. Of course, I would really love to see research come back, but since that won't happen, I'd like to know what the formulae will be for these? It's important to me that the formulae make sense based on previous examples, because if they don't, that's yet another immersion-breaker.

Daliaeod

03-25-2004, 08:30 PM

I love it, but instead of writing a lot here, let me write what I think would be the best possible buffs

6 Attribute Spell
Physical Protect Spell
Element Protect Spell
Specialized Skills Buff(Would Create Very High Demand)
Trained Skills Buff(Would Create Very High Demand)
Physical Banes Spell
Element Banes Spell
Weapon/Wand Spell

Each of these spells would have a +25 diff per school and cost 100 mana but wound as level 1's.

And the only way to make them fair to get is in SIK chests.

Any thoughts here, i know its a quick post

Straz Level 66 Mage HG

Weezly

03-25-2004, 08:37 PM

The second option is to place them in sturdy chests that currently have level seven spells. This option would give some value back to the Sturdy Iron Keys.

I vote for this one. What can I say, call me a sik packrat with over 700+ :p

YoshotheGrand

03-25-2004, 08:50 PM

To quote McDonalds,

"Im luvin it!"

Oscar

03-25-2004, 08:51 PM

Apoligize if this was already mentioned, but didnt read all the replies.

I can see great improvements with the Item baning options dicussed. The only confusion might be for certian times when a toon wears separate armor with cantrips to improve casting, then switches to Tinked armor for hunting. Would there be options similar to plugins, where u could remove 'buffing armor' from the baning, and subtitute hunting armor?

Hope someone can relate to what im trying to spit out :)

Dom on TD

03-25-2004, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by Aaryna

First, the reduction in charge times from some, to none. I cannot voice how much I HATE this change. I have tried several times, and I still HATE this change. Knowing that this is comming is preventing me from enjoying the game, because I look at this world and I think, "Wow... this is all going to be a joke in April." Not to say that I don't like the concept of reducing charge time. I do, it makes sense... but ONLY if it is based on a SKILL CHECK, like Mana Conversion. If it's arbitrary like in this proposal, that's basically saying "Why can you do that?" "Because it's magic! It doesn't have to make sense, just as long as it works!"

YEAH!! and we can call the new skill "Speed Buff" make it 64 credits to train, and have it based off of End+Coord/75 that way it would still take everyone a long time to buff.

/sarcasm off

We don't need another useless skill to waste credits on just to buff. I already got 3 schools + Mana Conversion just to buff my characters. I'd rather use my credits for other things besides buffing. I've already used 34 credits to be able to go out and hunt without a buffbot or looking for items to give me my buffs. I feel that should be more than enough of a price for faster buffs. Why base it off of Mana Conversion? I can't help it if you spec'd Mana Conversion and want it to be usefull.

EshuunDara

03-25-2004, 08:55 PM

I'm about to start a flame war here, but have you considered the following extra options:

1) Permabuff self spells? That's a massive benefit to self casters, and makes it so you only need to buff yourself once barring getting hit with a dispel trap. The buff bot babies would still have to scurry back to the marketplace/mansion once an hour.

2) Tinkers that use both a tinkering check and an item magic check to "permabuff" an item? It would have to add an item magic wield req to ensure that it doesn't fall into the "wrong" hands (no newbies wandering around in armor with permanent level 7 banes). Admittedly, this is somewhat a nerf to the other armor tinkers, but those became mostly worthless anyway after you capped banes. Why bother with +.4 to fire resistance if I toss a flame bane it it goes to 2.0? The +.4 doesn't stack, so the only situation where I'd want to consider that is if you ever decide to add hollow fire weapons to monsters (or players in the case of PvP), and thus far it's not a concern.

As to my feedback: I'd group endurance with quickness, str with coord, and focus with self. For the item banes, I have concerns about casting impen on yourself and having it effect everything you are wearing for the following reasons:

1) What you wear when you buff isn't neccessarily what you want to be buffing (you might toss on a major life helm or major focus tassets or something)
2) Why wear amuli any more if you can wear multiple pieces? You have better base AL on plate, celdon, yoroi; you can have more spells on the armor if it's multi-piece; and you can imbue the pieces which means that there is simply no advantage to amuli except for the fact you can get it to a higher overall AL with fewer bags of steel.

I'm not against the concept (well, as long as the buff bot babies don't benefit), but I do have some concerns about it's implementation.

As for fellowship spells: I understand you have PvP concerns about fellowship heals (which makes sense, even if that's probably the fellowship spell I wanted most). Any ruling on a fellowship revit or mana boost spell? What about fellowship debuff spells, and can those be made to apply to monsters in the field?

Weezly

03-25-2004, 09:00 PM

Not too sure about the fellowship spells

Just another exploit, rewrite buffbot code to implement fellowship buffs and heals and have buffbot in fellow when hunting.

Dom on TD

03-25-2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Oscar
Apoligize if this was already mentioned, but didnt read all the replies.

I can see great improvements with the Item baning options dicussed. The only confusion might be for certian times when a toon wears separate armor with cantrips to improve casting, then switches to Tinked armor for hunting. Would there be options similar to plugins, where u could remove 'buffing armor' from the baning, and subtitute hunting armor?

Hope someone can relate to what im trying to spit out :)

I understand what you're saying. none of those options would help you bane your armor since you wear "buffing armor" to buff and "hunting armor" to hunt in. Your skills are too low for multi-spells and your hunting armor won't be one of the "all valid targets on a player." The only thing I can suggest is raising your Item Enchantment skill.

-Kaxak-

03-25-2004, 09:02 PM

Lastly, we are considering the option to allow Item Enchantment to spread to all valid targets on a player. This would mean you could target yourself, cast Impenetrability and it would spread to all of the possible targets on your character. This would cut the spell count down to eight, sixteen with a shield, and really speed the process along.

This is the BEST IDEA I've seen you guys come up with, Only my friend and I thought of this idea years ago ( Pwnd ) Very Nice if this is the way it's gonna be :) I hope that it is .........

AriCat

03-25-2004, 09:04 PM

Sounds like some very exciting changes coming our way! All I ask is, please don't forget the SOLO players.

All the new "fellowship" stuff is awesome, but I would say 99% of my hunting is SOLO.

Thanks, Turbine! :)

Rauth

03-25-2004, 09:05 PM

Great presentation.

I like most of the ideas as presented. I like most the idea about targeting oneself for item magic buffs and affecting all viable targets for those spells. I think that in combination with a multi-spell for weapon-buffing (BD, SK, D, HS) would do wonders to enhance game play.

I have a question however - would the type of target item make more of a difference than it does now in the casting of certain types of item spells? That way you arent fully buffing your wand with armor buffs, for example.

Generally I like the grouping for the proposed multi-spells. I think some variants would be nice - so that some 3-spell multispells could be used with 2-spell multispells without much overlap and resulting in maximum buffage.

Additionally, I think quests to obtain these spells would be fantastic. Please don't just load the majority of them into the loot generator.

Nyxus

03-25-2004, 09:13 PM

how about a quest that allows us to tie multiple spells together? ones of our choice. like if i use UA, Melee buff, and coord, allow me to strap those into one spell. Lets us choose which multi spell options we have. have ones for 2 spells be semi easy to get, and ones for 4 spells damn near impossible, lol.

also kinda like the idea of semi-perma self buffs. only time you lose em is when you hit a dispel trap, dispeled by someone else (give monsters the dispel ability), when you log out, or when you die. maybe even make it as deep as when you portal. that way if you wanna chill in one dungeon, it could last a long time.

el_slacko

03-25-2004, 09:17 PM

I like the 3rd option for Item Banes, but not the second one so much. Having multi-spells will increase the players spellbook and put even more icons on his spellbar making navigation bit more difficult.

Another thing you could do, is have Complete Buff spells. You could have a Life Magic spell that casts all Protects and Armor on the caster at once. This could be a spell gotten from a quest and could have much higher skill reqs and mana costs. Doing the same for banes and adding the 3rd bane option would reduce banes to 1 spell (2 for shield).

Dom on TD

03-25-2004, 09:20 PM

If the item spells are distributed over a character's entire wardrobe, that will make the recent loot nerf easier to bear. Since I can use 20 item spells to fully bane, and buff a weapon, instead of the current 60. Less burned plats is always a +.

What will the comps formula be for the muli spells? Please, no more D scarabs.

Nemis

03-25-2004, 09:29 PM

I like the sound of the changes, except for the fact that the multi spells would require a higher skill level -- this will make them mage only. Most melee/archer types can barely squeeze out the spells at their level as it is. They won't be able to use the higher skill req multi spells.

I do want to suggest something a little different for the combo spells however....

How about adding a little button on the left side of each spellbar that would execute all the buffs on the bar in sequential order, stopping as mana gets low to cast your choice of s2m or h2m.

In other words....

Make a mini nerfus-buffus built-in, and you wouldn't have to go through all the work that the multi spells require ;) Wouldn't it be just as easy or even easier to make a built-in mini nerfus?

Regards,
Nemis

(currently inactive - in part due to the massive need for time-consuming buffing)

Danee of MT

03-25-2004, 09:33 PM

Ibn - Long time board reader, 2nd time poster, and I have to say - the plans you guys have here are excellent! I am immensely excited about the future of AC!!

And as nearly everyone else stated, please do option 3 for baning! Being able to bane all valid pieces at one time is a great idea!!

Keep up the great work!

Danee of MT

Pokuto

03-25-2004, 09:41 PM

I love the new proposals but I have some requests if they have not been mentioned before:

Multi-spell buffing:

Having an axe character, (or any melee for that matter), our main attributes that we care most about are Strength, Coordination, and Quickness. These attributes increase our weapon skill, Melee and Missile Defense, and our healing / run abilities. They are very beneficial, more than "Endurance"

In your diagram you include "Endurance" with the multiple spells. I think Endurance would best go with Focus and Self as a mage needs increased Mana and Health to do Stamina to Mana and Health to Mana conversions when casting spells.

Also, for magic multi spells, if you are fortunate to get both 3 spell Magic Creature attribute spells, you will be casting Mana Convertion twice. This defeats the purpose of speeding up buffing as you have to cast the same spell twice when doing a full mage buff-up.

And for the Item Magic Spells:

I love the third option and jumped out of my seat when I read it! to be able to target your character and cast 1 spell to affect all buffable armor on your character would be awesome!

ishy

03-25-2004, 09:45 PM

cant wait lol:D

Dj_Viper

03-25-2004, 09:56 PM

I also love the improvements. Just gonna put in my 2 cents:

I would love to see the item enchantment buffs that target every possible piece of armor at once. This would be 10x better than making elemental buffs and pierc/slash/bludg buffs. As a mellee, I would have no problem casting 16 items buffs instead of 80+ =).

Brody_WE

03-25-2004, 10:13 PM

Asaph

03-25-2004, 10:17 PM

Fellowship Buffs
The reason stated for the reduced self buffs casting time was to increase the value of having the magic school trained. I think that reasoning should be extended to the fellowship buffs. Making a fellowship spell as powerful as a self spell introduces a new form of dependency, similar to the buff bot problem, where characters did not learn how to survive on their own.

I would suggest that fellowship spells should operate one level lower in effect except for duration. for example, casting a fellowship Strength VII spell would act like a level VI spell for the fellow, but lasts for an hour or until the fellowship is broken. That would be a slightly diminished effect which would (1) work reliably for a party, (2) increase the value of having your own schools of magic and (3) encourage self development.

Multi-Stat Spells
I assume there is particular reason why up to three self spells were chosen. If there is a limitation then that cannot be helped, but if not then I would suggest allowing more to be grouped together. For example you could have "Swordman's Valor" which casts Strength, Endurance, Coordination, Quickness, Sword and Melee Defense spells all at once. Or "Wizard's Greater Endowment" which casts Focus, Self, War, Creature, Item and Life spells all at once. These packaged spells are only for self buffing which again encourages players to develop their own characters. If other versions are included then give a small limitation such as they operate at one level lower in power similar to what's mentioned above.

Item Enchantment
I like the idea of casting on self to hit each piece of armor worn as long as it only works for self buffing. That would encourage people to wear more armor types instead of just picking armor that has the least number of pieces. If the piece of armor is taken off then have the enchantment immediately fade. That would limit buffing a set of armor then giving it to another person to wear.

sursun

03-25-2004, 10:23 PM

I like the ideas for creature and life.

I have very mixed feeling on all of the item ideas. If you go with option 3 then armour with fewer parts has no advantage over armour with many parts. All of the ideas make the protection levels on armour much less important because people will always have everything baned with 7's.

There has to be a cost for using that much magic. Right now that cost is time just removing it without adding some other cost may not be a good idea. I hate to bane right now I only bane when I have to. If you make these changes I will bane all the time.

Right now mele d is tied with life magic as the secound most expensive skill in the game at 20 to spec. I paid those 20 credits because I did not want to bane on my sword char. I put points into quick because I needed to raise my mele d. When I bane everything and use a shield I tend to get hit for 0 or 1. That is not VOD but anywere else. If I can bane everything with ease I will have no reason to have mele d trained and will bring my starting quick down to 10. Many high magic meles do this now with these changes we all will. If you make baning easier I bet the only chars who will keep mele d will be a handfull of archers and a few chars people will keep as hollow hunters.

Make the changes to life and creature, but you need to really think about all the effects the item changes will have on this game.

Aghrim

03-25-2004, 10:30 PM

i agree with your post but they DO need to do something to speed up baning, like they said 80 spells is way too many spells, and thats not counting fizzles.

but i do love the ideas that you guys currently have. Maybe to make it easier you guys could add some sort of SELF buffing macro into your UI, so you can set up spells to cast and even save and load little templates. So you can just select it hit buff, and it runs them out for you. Now that would fix your problem with keystrokes :) and theres no way it could really cause problems because it would only macro self buffs and thats it, and only run it only run it once. its a decent idea that would get rid of some time tho

Daverost

03-25-2004, 10:41 PM

I only feel as if I should comment on the item buffs as I have no specific stance on the other school changes.

Please... please... PLEASE put the one in where you can buff all valid targets with one spell. Preferably in time for at latest the May patch ;) And seeing as you said you may implement multiple options at once, seeing it together with the fast cast would just make my lifetime. But if you're only going to do one just make it the third choice.

Ginn

03-25-2004, 10:48 PM

Oh, my Dear God.

I..Can't...Wait!!!

Wh00t!!

:) :) :)

arboc77

03-25-2004, 10:58 PM

I'm disapointed in the slant toward self-buffs.

Once again, the benefits of the changes go to mage-class characters.

Last year at this time, I re-rolled my 18-month-old crossbow character. The balancing changes at the time meant that the XP I'd invested in Life and Creature magic for self-buffing left his hunting (XP-getting) skill suddenly too limited to continue hunting at his "level". This was pretty much Orion's position at the time - you couldn't "waste" XP on non-essetial skills and remain competitive.

The re-roll was a crossbow specialist with only Item magic for portalling. This made for a competitive hunting character, but he was pretty much forced to rely on a buff bot for life protections and creature buffs.

Sooo...

...I built a PC and purchased a new account to support the buff bot, paying the monthly fees and providing buffing support for my new character and also for my very small (and largely mageless) allegiance.

Paying for the account and maintaining the PC for the past 16 months hasn't been TOO much of a burden (but checking the PC six-eight times a day on a 24/7 basis to log it back in after server drops and bot crashes certainly has been).

Now, some 300+ mostly magicless players rely on the bot to make their game play easy, convenient (or in some cases, possible).

The new buffing changes sound very interesting, but I guess our people will be on the outside looking in - noses pressed against the glass - as mages buff quickly and play, while we soldier on, regretting again the decision to invest in characters not in the mage class.

It seems like non-mage characters have always been on the short end. There are but a handful of places where Life protections aren't essential to survival, yet competitive melee and missile characters have few options to get them. It's either hamstring your XP-getting skill by dumping XP into attributes that support magic (and DON'T contribute to your fighting), or be too vulnerable to enter many (most?) areas where you ought to be hunting.

Don't think that the craftable gems and other hacks help much, either. They just divert play time and and other resources into obtaining the materials and skills necessary to craft items that give a temporary ability that is intrinsic to mage characters. mages can just cast a spell and have a protection that melees have to spend hours or days preparing to duplicate for a few minutes.

(Regretably, this is all due to a disasterous design decision. Linking the magic defense spells and skills to the same attributes and investment as the mage-class character's XP-getting ability is AC's principle design flaw. All the tinkering, adjustment and balancing that has gone into trying to ameliorate this fundamental problem has done little to solve the inevitable issues.)

Meanwhile, it seems every time we melee/missile guys do anything to try to get back in the game, there's a cry from those that have the magic defense skills that it's unfair, and that something should be done.

Believe me, people aren't using bots because it's fun - it's because game play demands and depends on it.

(BTW, because I reduce the number of armor pieces by using only Scalemail or Amuli, I only need 84 spells for a complete round of buffs. This takes about 10 minutes out of every hour I play, assuming nobody else is using the bot. If I hunt with a couple of my mates, we typically have only 30 minutes to play before somebody has to return. This isn't really a stellar gaming experience.)

I'd urge you to ignore the yelps of those who want to maintain their superiority, and consider those of us who're just trying to keep playing...

Eagle four

03-25-2004, 11:23 PM

Lets face it casting 25 life and critters is not too bad, particularly if they are moved from level 7 speed to level 1 cast speed.
If you combine that with banes that do all the armor at once, i think the savings would amount to a very worthwhile improvement.

It would save much time and as has already been said, tedium.

I've played several MMORPG where once the you buffed, they stayed on you until you logged off. This struck me as a good idea too.

Anyway anything that improves and streamlines the 100 plus spells I cast now, will be a improvement.

Kind regards to the Team, keep up the good work

Toxeus

03-25-2004, 11:29 PM

Great changes! Exactly what we need.

However, if the cost of casting the multi-stat spells, it really increases the use of buff bots as most (non-chained) melees won't ever have the effective skill to cast the higher difficulty spells. This might have the long-term consequence of making folks even more dependant on bots and even less likely to train the magic schools. For me, I will always opt to cast each spell individually on my melee as I just like to buff myself. The character at level 97 is buffing to 320 in all 3 schools, but one point per magic school costs over 12 million experience. Just a thought for you to consider when implementing the difficulty factor of these spells. Great for mages though.

Other than that, very nice!

TTF

03-25-2004, 11:46 PM

Re: Dual / Triple spells:
Please be carful how high you make the difficulty of casting the dual / trip spells. I can understand the increased mana burn, but too high a difficulty, and it will only benefit the mages on the high end- ya know, the ones that have the least trouble buffing now as it is. I don't play a mage, am 3 school, lvl 141, and w/ all the cantrips I have, I buff to 328ish- which, as a 'not a mage', is fine for my tank archer hunting.

Re: Fellowship spells:
Higher Difficulty and mana cost here- I can understand. That's where being w/ a mage w/ spec'd schools, and much better mana con (if not- spec'd.), will be most effective.

Otherwise, everything sounds great, keep up the good work.

Jet-eye-nite

03-25-2004, 11:50 PM

I like the idea that you are looking at removing a pure time wasting aspect of the game. I would like you to also understand no one uses lvl 1,2,3,4,5,6 spells or atleast the vast majority do not . But yet your whole concept is based on high lvl ability . As the world is now I myself wouldn't consider sending a toon out to fight w/o full 7's on ,so for now anyway I use Drake's dual log to bring one of my mages into play for just that reason ,buffing.
My point is under you scheme I will need to remove their fighting abilities to bolster their ability to cast these much improved buffing routines. I myself would much rather see a quest where an item is worn that allows for this advanced spell casting .Or some form of quest that gives my toon +200 to mana thru some form of jewelry or something . I am not a high lvl or a low lvl but a middle of the road player and with the changes to pass up will never reach 126 in my game play on one let alone multiple chars .I solo and do not like having to depend on others to leverage my game play .

Chrono

03-25-2004, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by Jet-eye-nite
As the world is now I myself wouldn't consider sending a toon out to fight w/o full 7's on ,so for now anyway I use Drake's dual log to bring one of my mages into play for just that reason ,buffing.
My point is under you scheme I will need to remove their fighting abilities to bolster their ability to cast these much improved buffing routines.

I never used a buff bot, I was fine. I didn't even have life magic til after 50. To say that having to dump XP into non combat skills or magic skills essentially inhibits your combat abilities in any significant way is simply untrue. Actually I would call it more balanced.

As for people asking for the ability to combine their own spells, I am no expert but I believe it would require they make a new item in the database for every possible combination of spell. That would be on par with trying to add a new dye color, maybe worse. I think dev time could be better spent on quicker, easier and still effective solutions.

reven

03-26-2004, 12:00 AM

I'm not sure that more spells is a good solution for the creature/life self buffs. That's going to be a lot of spells in the spellbook to organize, especially if you have dual stat and triple stat spells that overlap.

IMO, the player should get to customize their spells, and choose which spells to group together into double or triple casts. This would require some configuration by the player, but gets rid of having to deal with so many new spells. Perhaps there could be a different "magic adept" quest for each school in which players can learn this ability to multi-cast. Naturally mana cost and difficulty would also increase when attempting to multi-cast.

I like the idea of selecting the player and casting one spell which covers all equipped armor. Another option which I think would be extremely nice is combining all banes into a single spell, maybe even combine impenetrability as well.

sylphia

03-26-2004, 12:06 AM

Dom,
In truth, arcane and spell difs are independant anyway; they are approximate, but not the same. Turbine could set a lvl 7 item to a dif of 2 if they really wanted to, though it wouldnt be very well-balanced :D Multi-spells are no different in that respect.

The idea isnt even mine to begin with; I was just responding to a question Ibn asked about it :p

Gouru

03-26-2004, 12:06 AM

When fellowed with my wife, the ONLY reason she has me buff her with sevens rather than use the sixes she can cast is so that our timers are the same. As a melee, she doesn't need the seven, as a Mage I do.

I still would like to see changes where lower level spells last longer but are less powerful, so there is a choice to be made when selecting spells. As it stands, if you can cast sevens, there really is no other choice. Plat burn in NOT a deterrent.

On another note (darn 6 minute rule) I do admit I have trouble why understanding why Turbine is requiring people to train and spend experience in magic schools so that they can cast the new spells. Isn't it obvious that more powerful magic spells should only be able to be cast by those melees without magic trained? After all, those spells are for them! Actually, I think you ought to change it so that low levels can cast level 7 spells with ZERO mana, using nothing but a drudge charm for components (which never burn). They need the spells the most, give them the power!

And on yet another note...The multi-spells being described so far do NOT have overlap. A limited set of spells as described in the article sound great. It is NOT a huge number of spells, and if they are self only managing them will not be difficult.

It appears to me that people are reading too much into the proposals, assuming a lot of stuff they aren't saying.

Iceiss

03-26-2004, 12:16 AM

..we also know that players will want to craft their own spells for use...

Fragmented Scrolls, much like the Frore type notes, that could be spliced together by anyone to make their own 2-3 multi types of spells
Would have to make the type of scroll specific to how many pieces it is missing
Ex:
Title: Shredded scroll of (name of spell)
Description: A thin, crisp piece of torn parchment. You can make out several words of magic but it seems half/a few sections are missing.

Prehaps make the 2 multi capable scroll pieces available in S.Iron chests and the 3s say in S.Steel chests or Sing chests

My question would be..

They will all have unique names...

Are there any plans to having a player feedback type thing that was done for the names of the Level VII spells when they were newly released?

That was very fun and would like to see ideas from players again ;)

Furay

03-26-2004, 12:17 AM

One problem I see with the Item buffs by casting on yourself...

I wear different armor while buffing than I do when fighting (various minors). I'd like some way to Quick-cast on the armor I plan to equip, rather than on what I'm wearing.

Ganzor

03-26-2004, 12:25 AM

My only concern with option 3 is this...

How will it select which items to buff? Will you need to be wearing them? if so, they would be pretty useless on my melee because he uses different items to buff them he does to fight.

Chrono

03-26-2004, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by Furay
One problem I see with the Item buffs by casting on yourself...

I wear different armor while buffing than I do when fighting (various minors). I'd like some way to Quick-cast on the armor I plan to equip, rather than on what I'm wearing.

Raise your skills 7 points or so, problem solved.

Liaya

03-26-2004, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Chrono
Raise your skills 7 points or so, problem solved.

Hmm... moderate focus rainment, minor self bracers, major item enchant helm is what I use to buff for item spells... and then it's replaced by my regular armor/rainment for hunting.

That's more than 7 points...

Otherwise, I really like the proposed changes :). But I'm guessing if you go with option 3 on the item banes, myself and perhaps many others are gonna be left out of that aspect of it until we can raise item to cast without those cantrips... which would have the effect of making those cantrips on armor pretty useless.

Otherwise, though... great ideas :).

Gouru

03-26-2004, 12:47 AM

Of course you could buff MOST of your armor using the new spells and buff the other armor the old way. The savings will still be great, but not as great as if you were more skilled in magic.

Which makes sense. As your skill increases the number of 'other' pieces you need to buff goes down. A real benefit seen for raising that skill.

Also makes spending more points in Item Enchantment make sense beyond the current levels.

It is not the ideal solution for all players, but short of giving everybody everything for free, I don't think there is one.

Arkayas had a suggestion that came closest IMHO, but is totally new tech so probably out of question. That is to cast Impenetrability on yourself. Then any enchantable item you wore would have that spell as long as you wore it. You could use your special suit to buff yourself, then change to the other suit and be buffed.

BUT....TOTALLY NEW TECH! I'd MUCH rather see the changes they are talking about now than wait around to see if something like this would be feasable (or even a good idea....for example...how would debuffing shields in PvP work in this scenario)

Exay

03-26-2004, 12:54 AM

i LOVE the idea about targeting myself and the item spell goes to every piece of armor !!...did i say that i L O V E it :) ?
That would reduce the time it takes to bane all your armor a lot and it would give us a reason to use other armor pieces than a top+leggings.
I could finnally make an outfit with tassets/greaves/girth/bracers/pauldrons without having to worry that i will have to buff forever :) !!!

Please...PLEASE implement that!!!

Chrono

03-26-2004, 12:59 AM

Originally posted by Liaya
Hmm... moderate focus rainment, minor self bracers, major item enchant helm is what I use to buff for item spells... and then it's replaced by my regular armor/rainment for hunting.

That's more than 7 points...

I was speaking specifically to him, he said he used minors :)

gaandar

03-26-2004, 01:08 AM

I also like the idea of having the item spells spread to all appropriate items that you are wielding. I would expect that the mana cost would be increased based upon the number of items being buffed. Because of this, I think there should be 2 version of the item spells, the way they are now, and ones that spread.

Autumna Oakford

03-26-2004, 01:11 AM

Baning all available targets....

Not so nice if you wear different armor to buff than you do to hunt.

TO buff I put on my MAjor Creature, Life, Item , Willpower and Focus; but I would never ever hunt in them as my hunting suit is AL 640+ when buffed.

Not a complaint mind...the fact that this is being looked at is great and if I don't get the benefit on my main due to above then I will on my mage :)

Poly451

03-26-2004, 01:23 AM

JJC

03-26-2004, 01:27 AM

If you take the spell casting time down to 8 spells and be fully item buffed you might as well just make all armor 2.0 since that will be the effective armor level that everyone will be fighting at anways. You can even get rid of damage types since 2.0 times AL is the same for anything people will fight.

It's bad enough you have to mage yourself up now to play this game. With the proposed changed people will be more buffed now than ever. The concept of not buffing or low buffing will be gone since everything will be low buff. Not being a mage loses all sorts of playability since you will have to modify the content since everyone will be fully buffed as there is no reason not to anymore.

If you make it easier more people will do it. If you make it easy and assume everyone does it you force people to do it just to compete with the content. If this isn't the goal of these changes it's the undeniable and unavoidable outcome.

The problem isn't that buffing took too much time but that you need too many buffs to be competive against the game. Making it easier to buff doesn't address this problem at all and simply makes it worse for those who don't want to play a mage.

If this is still a roleplaying game then this overabundance of mages and magics should stand out as an issue. What happens to true melees who don't cast, are denied access to the highest level of spells, and then must attempt to compete against monsters designed for that reality? They go away. The effect will be to limit options on what skills you "need" to have to play the game. All templates will become markedly similiar and more cookie cutter since you forced magics upon them and skill points are limited.

You introduced hollows and undefined damage to counteract the overabudanced of fully buffed characters. You removed robes for the same reason, having someone running around with one armor level on the entire body. You've refused to add robes with armor level for the same reasons. A one buff full body system potentially is an AL 400 plate full body robe before buffs. So why were robes wrong and this suggestion right?

Once this gets ingame, all the super monster and boss level creatures will have to become hollow / shield hollow just to be able to damage player or do such obscene damage to make not buffing in impossibility. You will have to defeat this demon one day and it will make the loot changes seem minor.

JJC

Aghrim

03-26-2004, 01:35 AM

if this was still a roleplaying game, not many melee'rs WOULD use magic, and it wouldnt be right for them to use the best magic, why be a mage when you could just be a meleer and use the same exact spells?? (other than war)

Leibstandarte

03-26-2004, 01:53 AM

I would LOVE the 3rd option for item buffs. Having to only bane a total of 8 or 16 would be great!

Level 1 wind ups for self spells is also a great idea I look forward to.

Fellowship and multi-attribute/skill spells sound good but as a 3 school archer I will probably not get to high enough skill level to take full advantage of them. Which is how it probably should be. To take full advantage fo magic you should be a mage in my opinion.

But as I am not the quicker self spell casting coupled with hopefully option 3 on Item banes will cut down on a lot of time.

xarfet

03-26-2004, 02:14 AM

about adding the dual/multi-spells to items ... if the item is allowed to have double spells, it can choose from the double-spells list instead of selecting 2 separate spells? and similarly for triple-spell items, it could choose a triple spell, or a double+single, or 3 singles... probly a bit of work to make that happen tho ;) it would SAY one or 2 spells, but it still functions like a dual/triple. having them act as a 'single' spell could be going a bit far, unless the lore req were raised much like a current dual/triple item is

*option 2 might be best*
going with item's choice 3, would make all the current full (long) buffers become the 'short' buffers, leaving many (most?) current 'short' buffers actually become the long ones... not BAD, but perhaps going with option 2 would be more inline with keeping some resemblance to the way things are. to me, changing casting times to lvl1 speeds just doesnt seem enough. sure, it will save a min or so... but the MAIN problem is with the vast amount of time it takes to deal with item as compared to life and creature. thats why going with item option #2 seems best, imo... you still have to cast the spells on each item, but theres far less to cast (except for special cases). of course, id be interested in HOW youd intend to form the groupings (2 spells = [elemental banes + physical&impen]) is very appealing, but only doing 2-3 per spell is much less so)

should option 3 be chosen: *WARNING* new tech idea *WARNING* :p
one idea that i had while reading through everything (which would probly require a re-writing of how Item Enchantment works ... so msg for the devs: STOP LISTENING! ;) ) would be to make them much like life/creature currently is: once cast upon the player, they work until dispelled/wear off/death, no matter WHAT changes, put on/off, ect. this way, they could be added to the 'active spell list' on a player, and one would be able to tell how much time is left on them and all that, much like life/critter currently do.
hrm, not so nice for PK(L)s perhaps... also melee/missile damage calculations would have to refer to the item spells to calculate damage, since they wouldnt be applied directly TO the item. also, unless the 'target' would apply to ANYONE, a duplicate set would have to be made for the current round of buffs so there would now be the same self/other style as life/critter spells (since youre already adding a whole bunch of spells, why not another dozen or so? ;))
...ok, now im pretty sure everyone would hate me for that last part :p

Varadail

03-26-2004, 02:31 AM

All are nice ideas,

I like option 3 for item spells in first place.

Multispells are nice too, but i'd like to see something said many posts above by Sylphia:

Or scrub ALL of that, and let us have a tool of some kind that we can take current scrolls and combine them however we like, in groups of 2 and 3. This would mean we would have to invest in each new scroll we want by HAVING the base scrolls. And yes, do this for 7s as well, because we would still need the lvl 7 scrolls to make the new scrolls.

I like this idea. We could use arcane lore or the related magic school or some other skill to combine spells.

I also ask for a system that allow us to save pack space for all the scrolls. Since there are lots (and i mean LOTS) of spells already, and we are going to see even more with the new aditions, we need a bonded item (let's say a spellbook) of each magic school to keep all the scrolls of a given school grouped. Or make the scrolls stackable, or whatever you can think of. I have a mule just to keep scrolls. And Who likes to go shopping to the creature magic scriveners?? The scroll system needs to be better and easy to handle.

Vara.

yodha

03-26-2004, 02:32 AM

Instant-Cast Self Buffs

Perfect as stated.

Fellowship Spells

Do not insert heal spell. But can give a fellow revit spell. Also learn thru scrolls. Will get the scroll and SIK economy up again :)

Multi-Stat Spells

A new option. Instead of giving multi spell scrolls in the loot, introduce blank scroll paper which can carry 2 or 3 spells. On finding the paper, players can then from their spell book, add 2/3 spells depending on the papers strength in it. This would make writing the spell final and players will not be able to modify it. They can now learn this scroll and learn the new spell.

Item Enchantment

The third option is better. Will benefit people who are casting spells on themselves. Only items worn by them will get the enchantment. To prevent bots from buffing item for others, maybe introduce a tinker like leather. Only it would be reapplyable over and over. I will apply it to designate my items on each piece of armor. The item spell will then buff all items which i have wielded and designed by me as owner. If i sell the item to someone, they can reapply the salvage and be the owner of that item.

Nice changes. Pretty excited to see them in action :)

Bosscat

03-26-2004, 02:44 AM

Oh, PLEASE do that, PLEASE. I could drop the robe and go for Armor again!! PLEASE do that, all valid targets get the spel!! PLEASE!!!

glenonearth

03-26-2004, 02:50 AM

The multi spell spells should not overlap. ie mana c shouldn't appear on two 3spell spells! Multi-spell spells are great.

I think the fellowship spells as suggested would be pointless. Now if they were stackables with cantrip values, that would be useful and exciting. <OR> make the fellowship spell sameas normal spells but make them have a much longer duration. Care must be taken however so that they stay only active within a fellowship of x number of people to avoid a buffing fellow that goes solo after the spells are active.

Item spells that effect all viable targets on a player would be great!

Zestryl

03-26-2004, 03:02 AM

How about a one spell Vuln/War? Or Yeild/Vuln/War?

Will we get the Opposite Spells too?
Multi-spell Debuffs?
Fellow Debuffs? (MOB Debuffs?)
Multi-spell Inepts?

Will Monsters also get the spells?

Love the thought of going to VoD and casting a MOB Yeild and then a MOB Fire vuln and then going to work.

Or the Q Virindi Casting a Fellow Debuff on all of us.

Or the Plat King debuffing all the Fellow's Melee D.

Heck, as a mage, I would LOVE to one spell debuff my archer opponent in a PK duel. Two triple spells and a Yeild / Vuln / War and another war and you have a dead melee or archer.

gr8graphix

03-26-2004, 03:09 AM

My first post ever, although I been around since beta. I have seen your changes do good, and I have seen your changes destroy the game.

Think about this, what will it affect?

Speed up buffing animation - good, only thing it affects is how soon you go hunting. This must only apply to SELF and not OTHER or DISPELLS. That would affect PK.

Multi-Spells (Creature) - eeh... Sure it speeds up buffing, but that is not the only thing it does - at the time it creates more spells to learn, more scrolls to find and if someone in the hunting group has them but others don't you end up with people on different buff cycles. With the sped up animation and potenital other changes I don't think this is necessary.

Multi-Item Spells - no... One factor in determining what armor and forms of protection you wear is having to buff all those pieces. Take away that factor and you change game mechanics and players change style of how they protect themselves. Game mechanics change and value of items will be affected also (i.e. robes will lose some of their value). Too many things affected for just a "convenience" change.

Fellowship Life Spells - Life protection spells is the only place this makes sense. Protection spells affect everyone the same and it works logically. Fellowship healing would change game play too much. Half the fun in a group hunt is trying to keep everyone alive. Group heals would make the game play too easy and spoil some of the excitement.

Well, that is my two cents worth. Good luck in trying to increase gameplay while still maintaining balance.

xarfet

03-26-2004, 03:39 AM

**fellowship-spells**
these sound interesting, certinly. IF fellowship-portal spells are added (RE: 'sending' type spells mainly) it should be something each person would need to ACCEPT before the are sent off, or it would open up a means of griefing players

**multi-stat spells**
Multi-stat spells should be interesting, but seem best suited for magic-oriented players. the reduced oxerall mana cost is appealing, tho the increased difficulty would reduce the usefullness of the higher lvl spells significantly.
the 2-spell combos seem very good. the 3-spell combos dont generally mesh as well, however... but those might be better left up to each player to decide, if possible? dont leave out thr regen/rejuv spells also ;)

*getting the spells*
they SHOULD be available through the loot system, at the least. having them ONLY in Steel chests, while making SIKs usefull in the near term, only provides a greater frustration while attempting to collect scrolls. unless all non-special/quest spells can be found in loot, it just provides a greater frustration.
if they ARE added to steel chests, perhaps consider increasing the # of scrolls that will spawn? keeping the 1-2 mana charges, 1-3 scrolls per key means that you could be standing there for a LONG time, before you even find a new scroll (tho im sure there could be dozens found by the end of the hour, through out the population)

a different idea may be to add a (lvl-appropriate?) vendor at the end of a quest dungeon, similar to the 'Hollow Lair near Lehylthorpe' ... tho, maybe not quite the same markup ;) of course, keep it in line with the cost of other scrolls, or have these sell better than current scrolls...

{ off topic, but might it be possible to make scrolls stackable also? it could help those people that collect scrolls for others ;) }

Zestryl

03-26-2004, 03:46 AM

I have to agree with gr8graphix. A Mass heal spell, unless it is PROHIBITIVELY expensive, takes a lot of the skill of hunting in a fellowship.

But then, taking skill out of the game seems to be what this thread is all about.

What skill? All that we are talking about now is just removing the tedium, right? Wrong.

Currently there is a balance between buffing and wearing X type of armor. People wear Pauldrons or Greaves only if there is a Major on then or if they are No-Bane. Why else would you wear them? BUT, given the ability to bane everything at once, why wear Amuli (which was the armor of choice due to the few banes you had to do, but had the lowest AL).

For a little while, Celedon made a comeback, even with the added baning, when many players made Major Ward suits, but soon they went back to Tinkered Amuli.

My Buff Cycle, curtasy of NBII, is currently 110 spells. It takes me about 8 minutes. I wear Greaves and Tassets as my Greaves are Major War. Yes, this proposed change would benefit me greatly, but I think it will break the balance in the racial armors.

_AbBaNdOn

03-26-2004, 04:00 AM

Your proposals are rediculous. YET AGAIN you are not helping anyone out except for the people who choose to exploit the game and have 10 billion xp.

This is the way things need to be if u SERIOUSLY want to remove the aggrevation from buffing:

#1 NO CHANGE to other spells. If u want cool spells you should have the skills.

#2. NO INCREASE IN DIFFICULTY. I thought you were trying to help us??? Sure multispells should burn more mana and or comps but it should NOT be more difficult. That doesnt sound like you are refining the process it just sounds like you are adding to the problem.

#3. life magic will have 2 multi spells. The first one will cast all protections and impen. The second will cast all regens.

#4. Item will have 2 multi spells. The first will cast all 7 banes and impen. The second will cast all weapon modifying spells including the new magic and missle defense unless they were not getting spells.

#5. Creature will have lots of multispells... The first will hit all 6 attributes. Another one will cast all defense skills(melee.magic,missle). From here on its optional... One spell that casts every mastery spell on you from dagger to thrown weapons to healing or maybe just all offensive skills skills excluding magics. All 4 magic schools would cast as one spell. And then maybe you could have mutlispells for each tinker and tradeskill. OR after attributes and defense players just cast the remaining spells individually.

#6 Make the multispells suggested in this post burn a percent of your mana which can be reduced my manaC like 50-90% And/or throw in another scarab check into the process.

#7. Have item spells affect the person like a life spell. You said shield would be seperate. What if they were on the person and affected anything they equipped. That way if u pull out 5 different weapons they would all be buffed each time u pulled one out and and if u pull out a shield it would have the spells applied to it.

This is the make or break issue for me. I like the world of asherons call but i am not paying 13$ a month for frustration just to go play the game.

Heideggar

03-26-2004, 04:30 AM

While on the surface this seems like a great idea your letter to the players does not mention anything about balance issues involving arcane lore (and other skills used to equip items to make up for casting spells for protection), armor like covenant (non-baning armor), casting speed of "other" spells, buffbot issues with fellow spells, the buffing of a one-piece (or 3 aka robe + gaunts + helm) suit, and the balance between potential power of many pieces of armor and few pieces of armor.

Don't make this end up like housing. Housing was good on the surface too. Great idea in theory, but limited resources in housing, lag issues, and PvP balance were all but a few HUGE negative outcomes of that new game option.

Without addressing the above issues you'll fall into the seemingly continual fault of Turbine's past of making a quick fix that ends up bringing about more things to fix.

I'll comment first on the issues brought up in your letter, then about other issues not brought up in your letter.

As much as I could use the buff help, considering I buff 5 pieces of armor (all 8 banes), my rainment (all 8 banes), all lifes, and more creature spells than a melee OR mage (all-trained, melee, missle, staff, lockpick, etc. etc. It's a lot) and I'm doing it by hand, I would like you guys to spend some time on this aspect. It's not as easy as it sounds. While a lot of people can't standing waiting the 5-10 min for their decal program to buff them, and find these possible changes great, it _does_ effect very key aspects of this game.

JJC mentioned quite a few things that I have concerns about, but I will try to expand and/or compliment his writing.

*** NOTE ***
Casting spells and the amount of time it takes has never been an issue of mine, but the benefits for it is. I'm more than happy to spend more time buffing that other people if it gives me greater strength in a fight. Baning caps put a damper on this aspect. Why would someone choose an AL 200 A, A, A, P, P, P, P armor suit over an AL 200 Aa, A, A, A, A, A, Ba armor suit, when after baning they're both AL 420 U, U, U, U, U, U, U (Effective 840 AL in all protections)? Taking off the cap would at least give more of a reason to bane. If you have good armor, and you can get nearly 3.0 on some protections, maybe due to tinkering the protections too, why not bane and get that benefit towards certain creatures. It'd definetly make the treasure system's armor a bit more worth while. Could even have Major Banes stack too, because as they are now, they don't help any after you buff armor with regular spells.

No matter how fast you make buffing, people will use decal plugins for it, and still have to wait a whole 1-2 minutes for the buffing. A year or two from now, people will be like, "OMG 1-2 minutes to buff! help this Turbine, it's really not fun watching my player buff" Then someone else will respond, "Hey, remember when we had to wait 7-10 minutes to buff for a full hour? That was what us vets had to go through. You should be lucky". Not to mention buffing was even worse years before that. Buffing not only gave higher spells, but also a spell economy, which was a nice bonus. Perhaps incorporating some old ideas like spell economy into the spell system might not be a bad idea.

1) Instant-Cast Self Buffs

In theory, it's not a bad idea, but it gives rise to what I mentioned at the start of this paper (If it's more than 500 words it's a paper to me : ) ). That being the arcane lore balancing, PvP, etc. etc.

"While this change will decrease the overall time that it takes to prepare for hunting it does not address the need to go through the keystroke motions necessary to cast spells. Changes to reduce that tedium will continue to be worked towards for the future."

I'm assuming you mean with multi-spell spells being cast, but it sounds like pressing buttons to cast spells is too troublesome for people lol. I'd like to note that most people use decal plugins to buff anyways. So this "pressing buttons to buff" stuff doesn't really apply to that many people. Maybe a couple dozen? It's "Hit Start" and then alt-tab to complain on the boards that you had to wait a couple minutes for your buff program to get done. If buffing by hand is that big of a deal, then make it rewarding to do so, but to do that you'd have to get rid of 3rd party apps, and you don't intend to do that. Such is life, eh : )

2) Fellowship Spells

HUGE issues here. Does it concern you that lvl 50 characters can fellow with lvl 200+ characters? If you're a mage, and have put in a chunk of xp into magics, you can cast lvl 7's at 50, but if you're not, that ONE high level character could buff 7-8 low level characters in the fellow to go hunt. Those 7-8 characters don't have to be able to cast any sort of magic, not have any chance of being able to kill the things they fight. The time spent to buff all the individual people, who couldn't cast the spells themselves, to fight prevented this kind of exploit. Unless you decide to split up the fellows so that it's lvl 50-70 in a fellow, 71-90 in a fellow, and 91+ in a fellow, or something along those lines, you'll have problems putting this kind of a dynamic into the game while keeping it fair for all. I know you want to reward people to fellow and hunt together, and that's great, but you're pushing it into an exploitable area, and that's NOT good.

A solution I just thought of off the top of my head as I'm writing this, is to have a skill check to receive a spell. Ex. To cast Str other on the whole fellow of 8, you'd need a skill of 340, and it'd cost what... 350 mana?
Now, that's fine, but if someone doesn't have the corresponding skill AND the level to cast that same spell themselves, they don't receive that spell from the group buffings. So, if an archer in the group has a creature skill of 315 (able to cast str self 7), they wouldn't have to cast it, but they'd receive it. If another person didn't have creature, or it was below the skill check mark to cast str self 7, they would NOT get it.

The point of this is to decrease spell casting time. People who don't have that skill, nor having the skill high enough to cast a spell, isn't going to cast the spell, thus, they wouldn't be spending time casting in the first place.

If you can get that to work, your fellowship spells could work out just fine, and you wouldn't have to cut up fellows into level ranges. If someone doesn't spend the skill credits for a skill, and doesn't spend the xp, they don't get the faster buffings! I'm trying to find where you said it, but it was along the lines of, "We want to make the skills worth acquiring". That'd be one way of doing it.

I've got a bow/UA/melee character that has item and life trained. It costs a lot for his life and creature. I couldn't cast the multi-spell stuff, but I _can_ cast 7's with his 335'ish buffed skills (lvl 119 or so). Alone I would cast about what I normally do, but I have creature and life items for FAST no-buff hunting. If I wanted faster buffing, I'd enter a fellow and give the mage(s) some plats for their efforts. Low levels couldn't exploit this because they wouldn't have the skills to receive the spells, and would have to be buffed with the current system of "other" spells.

3) Multi-Stat Spells

I like this, but I also don't. This might be too much for PvP. Raiding has been a fun aspect of PvP, and allowing several spells to be cast at once could really put a damper on this. Surprising a high level character would be very tough. Coupled with your Item Baning ideas to hit ALL the pieces... this could really screw things up. A triple bane spell that hits all the pieces of armor? Another spell to cover protect? Then a couple more for the creature spells? Essentially in 4-5 casts you could be at a very high fighting capacity to PvP. Now, I didn't read anywhere, but what if these spells were on the lvl 1 time to cast...

I'd be careful about this. It looks good, but it could be really bad.

I should also mention, that with your numbers, please keep in mind the difficulty of reaching certain skill levels. While getting from 300 to 325 is not an easy task for a non-mage (mage-like stats: 100-focus/self, and maybe a spec'd skill like life and/or creature), it's even harder getting from 325-358. These numbers are linear, the xp increase to skills is NOT. I'm not sure if the benefits of casting 3 instead of say 2 spells at once is enough to merit the millions and millions of xp. Puts more emphasis on having mage-like abilities, as a couple people have mentioned already in this thread. Diversity of templates is one of the strong points of this game. Remember, buffing is a passive act. Most people, especially non-mages, take up magic skills as trained skills because of the skill costs for the benefits. From my experience, few use their trained skill offensively against content that their fighting skills can already handle. Spending 10 minutes trying to land an imperil on a drudge could be better well spent just spending the time shooting/swing at it with the rending weapon they have. I recommend that you curve the skill req. need to cast these spells, if implimented, to reflect trained skills as they reflect a much bigger base of players who buff with those skills.

I still don't like this mult-stat spell system with your fast casting buffs. I just wanna make myself clear : )

Heideggar

03-26-2004, 04:36 AM

4) Item Enchantment

Cast as fast as lvl 1's, or let people use multiple spells/cast.

Multiple spells puts an emphasis on item magic, and the need to put more xp into it if you want to buff faster. Your curve in your numbers, is again, more like spec'd skills or very high level characters, than people who have it trained for buffing purposes. I'd look into those numbers again.

Lastly, oof, to cast on all pieces with one spell.... No. Here's some reasons why. 1) gives unblance issues that you had before with the fast buffing robes 2) 9 pieces with magic are stronger than 3 pieces with magic, and obviously more than 5 pieces. You'd end up putting 9 piece suits on par with a just a few pieces that comprise a suit. Why would anyone want a suit of 3 when 9 pieces buff just as fast, and offers more magic to increase the player's skills? A couple have said that it's _heavy_ lol. Yeah, it can be, that's true, but the value of any pieces is a _fraction_ of any amuli or plate hauberk I've seen for a long time. I'd rather be burdened slightly than drop stuff on death. This might be rough for some of those people who started with 10 str, but hey, that's an aspect of that whole setup.

This also has a very bad impact on PvP. You couldn't surprise anyone with buffing like this. You go into a dungeon, and they cast their 3-4 banes to cover the creature damage, and in comes a PK. They can pretty much instantly be prepared against the attacker with one buff. I don't find this a good idea.

5) Some extra comments concerning what I layed out in the beginning:

First Arcane Lore. For a skill that costs 4 to train and 2 to specialize, it covers A LOT of protections and options. Life protects, Creature buffs, quest items, wielding weapons, wielding armor, etc. It's pretty awesome, but it's not an offensively capable skill. Life, creature, and item can be used offensively with harms, drains, life bolts, vulns, festers, creature debuffs, and lures (not all are mentioned sue me). Most people take up magic skills as trained for buffing, people specialize for offensive abilities. Yeah Yeah, this does not fit everyone, but it does fit a lot of the people I've come across. I mean, why have creature spec'd if you aren't going to use it in combat? You don't need the extra 20-28 points to cast a spell to buff, but those 28 points is _huge_ when getting through a creature's magic D. So, it's a comparison of lore's benefits as a passive skill to creature and life's trained skills. I'd say item too, but it doesn't have the same weight as life and creature, and have it left out doesn't really retract from anything I'm trying to point out. So, 4-6 credits for arcane lore vs the 12 for life and/or 8 for creature. In my opinion, lore can do a lot. Double and triple spell items allow people to have a very very low buff time at the cost of 4-6 credits, xp, and mana charges. Lore gets up to lvl 6 spells, and a few nice quest pieces, but does not get the lvl 7 abilities the other magic schools get, and a plat burnt in casting is like 15 High Mana charges (500 mana a pop). 15 mana charges is a lot considering in a just buffing people could burn 1-2+ plats. So, I think that the limitations of lore and its benefits are comparable to those of life and/or creature. Lore could cost more for what it does, but I don't want people to get mad about a nice skill : ) The thing is, by making life and creature spells buff as fast as lvl 1 spells, you are taking away a cost, that being time. When someone takes up lore for low-buff sessions, and know that they could spend a few more credits.. 16!? to have better protections (magicly and physicly), nearly the SAME buff time, and all the options of life and creature offensively.... why wouldn't they if they could. This persuades people into taking up similar schools/skills as many others.

This is another idea that I'm thinking of as I'm writing this. What if you were to add lvl 7 spells on items for protections, but put in a bonus for casting your own spells. Increase the lore/req on those items to reflect the difficulty/costs of casting, and be done with it. Dunno if this would work, but make lore like you did leadership and tweak the new stuff in accordance. It might make people with double and triple spell stuff mad though. Just a thought.

Second, covenant armor. One reason covenant armor was nice is because it wasn't buffable, but could reach a high AL with pretty good protects. With your proposed item buffing changes you'd make covenant worthless. Why use that what you can have other armor with higher effective AL, non melee/missle wield req., etc. when buff times would be so short it wouldn't matter much if you buffed or not?

Third, "other" spells. This was not mentioned in your article. I'm curious if you are going to leave "other" spells alone to give a reason for having the skills high enough yourself? This wasn't commented on, so I'm not sure what your stance is on this, or if there even is one. I'm sure people would like to know.

Fourth, buffbot issues with fellow spells. I commented on this earlier in my paper. I think I've come up with a pretty good way to combat the issue of exploiting fellow buffs. If you don't have the skill, or if you don't have the skill at a high enough level, you just plain don't receive the fellowship buffs. From my understanding, these changes are designed to decrease the buffing period for those who buff, not for those who can't buff. Done.

Fifth, the introduction of weapons to combat robes, or the effect that robes had, as well as the number of pieces of armor someone carries. I've commented already on the number of pieces issue, so I will not further blab on about that. I briefly commented on the robe issue, and that being, robes had a negative impact on PvP and PvM in that people could make a robe be just as powerful as any armor in the game. Tinkering helped alleviate that problem, as did hollows and other weapons introduced. By allowing people to buff all their pieces of armor at once, or making it so the time to buff is very minimal for a lot of pieces of armor or even very high level armor, brings back that aspect. People will have little down time/cost for running around nearly all the time in these super buffed suits. There was a reason they took out the perma-buff bug years ago, there's a reason they crapped on robes years ago, why bring that reason back with this? You'd end up making more problems than fixing, if not done right.

I think I've said quite a bit on this, AND I put forth the effort to give suggestions, which I don't have to do whatsoever. So Ibn, Srand, Zyrca, and the rest of you, I'll let you use my ideas for free..... this time. Next time, it's free mansion payments and accounts for 10 people : )

Lastly, you should really run these things by me first before you post them : )

Side Note:
Ibn, mind taking a look at my mansion some time you get a chance? I sent a message to an Envoy about this to put in their notebook or whatever they do. The problem is, I only have 2 chalkboards in my mansion, and can't put up a 3rd. The 3rd chalkboard used to be in the basement, and my basement was one of the few 6-7 mansions that had that oh-so-fun bug several months back. I'd rather not run into the same problem again, and we kinda use that chalkboard in the basement to leave messages of what's going to whom. Maybe I am drunk and have a 3rd chalkboard somewhere I don't know about...

Thanks

Lloth

03-26-2004, 04:40 AM

Not sure if I really care for the multi stat type spells. Sure they'd speed it up a little faster but if your going to make self spells insta-cast then I'm happy =D Option 3 for the item buffs also sounds like a wonderful idea.

Personally the tedium of spending 6 min and change to buff while hunting for the lame loots I find everywhere but Caul is bringing me down =P

One suggestion though is that you guys try and make sure not to alienate players with too low of a skill. Hmm my english isn't good enough to word this very well... Just make sure you don't have the skill check so high that people will be fizzling every other spell. What discourages me as a mage the most is a fizzle.

Lloth

03-26-2004, 04:50 AM

Just how often do you say "bah, forget the banes" when you go hunt? And if so how long do you live? Everyone banes their armor against whatever they will be fighting. So I don't see it as a big deal. Banes take longer than critter/life magics even if your wearing amuli.

If there are too many people worrying about what casting 1 spell for all pieces of armor is going to do, then just make them cast as lvl1 spells.

Personally the fun I have in-game is derived from the hunt... NOT sitting there buffing.

Zestryl

03-26-2004, 05:27 AM

Lloth, I understand your point about Hunt vs Buff, but even though we are in a fantasy world, there are balances that have to be considered.

Time Baning could be ignored completely if you wear Cov or Othoi armor. But most people who don't wear those armors don't for one of two reasons.

1.) They have tinkered armor - fine, tinker it and wait for the banes. That is what is called a Trade Off.

2.) They have armor with uber spells (Majors, Minors) - again, wear it and bane. This is another example of a Trade Off.

We (and Turbine) have to figure out where our BALANCE POINTS are. Do we dislike spending 8 minutes buffing and baning? Fine! Wear Cov Armor or Olthoi Armor and it drops your spells down to a 2.5 min buff! Or maybe wear Amuli (adds 40 banes). But there must be a Balance.

Ask a player from 2 years ago why he was wearing Shadow Amuli instead of Shadow Celdon. It was the Banes! Two peices (Coat and Leggings) instead of Celdon's four peices (Breastplate, Arms, Girth, Leggings), even though Celdon had a better AL.

By considering a change to the way Item Magic works, you [Turbine] are considering a fundamental change to armor. I hope that you can iron out a balanced way to do it. If you are not sure, if you have a shred of doubt, please don't do it.

*Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst*

Dark Essence

03-26-2004, 05:39 AM

I love all the plans you have.. Make it so! :)

"Lastly, we are considering the option to allow Item Enchantment to spread to all valid targets on a player. This would mean you could target yourself, cast Impenetrability and it would spread to all of the possible targets on your character. This would cut the spell count down to eight, sixteen with a shield, and really speed the process along."

That sounds the best option if they cast at lvl1 speed we could probably fully buff and bane in less than 1 min. wich is great

EvilElvis

03-26-2004, 05:41 AM

Lastly, we are considering the option to allow Item Enchantment to spread to all valid targets on a player. This would mean you could target yourself, cast Impenetrability and it would spread to all of the possible targets on your character. This would cut the spell count down to eight, sixteen with a shield, and really speed the process along.

This is the way I've been saying it should be done for the past 6 months, so I'm gonna say that's the way I'd like to see it done :)

sylphia

03-26-2004, 05:42 AM

Actually, the most common reasons I find why players dont wear covenant armor are that

(1) The wield requirements on meee/missile are too high for them to get into it (esp for mages)
(2) AL 500 armor isnt much good when it cant be buffed, and banes cant raise its EFFECTIVE AL in any category. Its nice for fighting hollow mobs (though Olthoi armor serves similar purpose, without the skill requirements), but when fighting mobs that hit you for 20+ through armor that has effective AL of 1320 (440 base tinkered + 220 IMP x 2.0 mod from baned prots), dropping down to armor with 500 effective AL doesnt make much sense.

Its not a trade off; its a no brainer. Even vs hollows, the tinkered suit is almost as effective as covenant, and it doesnt have wield reqs on it. The ACTUAL trade off is chancing blowing up your suit while tinkering it. There is just no real reason to where Covenant armor anymore, other than looks, or you just happen to pull one with a spell on it that you want. It certainly isnt the answer to the no-buff, no-bane toons. It never really has been, though Olthoi Armor does amuch better job at it :) Even that doesnt compare, though to a fully tinked, baned suit in most fights.

Inashadow

03-26-2004, 05:46 AM

What ever you do STOP considering PvP in every design change you make. It has gimped AC for 4+ years lets end this trend.

Make it so you start developing 2 sets of spells.

1 a PvP and the other normal.

Untill then you will constantly being gimped 85% or 15% of your player base.

Get it right do the -right- thing and begin dev on 2 separate systems.

You guys already know this Ibn...just do it.

if (player->GetPKStatus() != nonPK)
AllowSpell()
else
DisAllowSpell()

^^^
That would be a start...

Khael

03-26-2004, 05:58 AM

From an active DT'ers viewpoint.

I like these upcoming changes alot.

Anything that will shorten the boring buffing time is welcomed.

I was just thinking if this could lead to zerging like in AC2.

But i guess the current non-pk timer makes sure you cant enter combat again too soon after you die.

Is it 3 minutes now? Maybe, just maybe it should be 5 minutes with these faster buffs.

Nightmare-HG

03-26-2004, 06:20 AM

the diffs for multi-buff spells are buffed not base figures I presume, like the current system. I only have 360 base life on my lvl 140 BM and with no XP chains not a lot of new people will get that high.

The other thing about the suggested system is the impact on Mana C, as spell diff effects the chance to convert and amount of conversion (I think).

Zestryl

03-26-2004, 06:24 AM

but when fighting mobs that hit you for 20+ through armor that has effective AL of 1320 (440 base tinkered + 220 IMP x 2.0 mod from baned prots), dropping down to armor with 500 effective AL doesnt make much sense.

I am level 124 War spec mage with Melee D. None of my armor is max tinked, and, most would say, garbage except for the fact that each piece has a Major.

Except is Lacuna (when I am Vulned) and VoD (when I am debuffed all to ****), I can not remember getting regularly hit for that much. Critted for that and more, yes, but not consistantly.

I will also admit, I do not hunt Tusker Island contantly. I hunt in Caul mosty where I do get hit often for around 4-18 points, *after* I am vulned.

Where are you hunting?

Bardo

03-26-2004, 06:45 AM

Faster casting times I like all the way around.

Multi-spells sound great but with faster cast times its not as great. It might be easier to make a "Spell creation" system so people can make they're own multi-spells and maybe make it client side so that the server doesn't have to save the combination. You need to have the 2-3 spells you want to cast and a seperate spell to that allows you slots to cast them. This way there's 2 checks server side similar to whats in now thats hard to bypass, you could limit the server side memory required, makes it more personally worthwhile, and lets you create your own personal spells.

This would mean you wouldn't have to sort through endless possibilities and if you put them in SIK chests then you could keep them from low levels or only let low levels have them that can get them from somebody else like... a patron maybe? And you can't bypass getting the normal buff spells and get 2-3 spells you needed from 1 scroll.

I like the baning on everything at once but would that include clothes too?

Heironeus

03-26-2004, 06:56 AM

The grouping of Critter spells for Stats seems awesome and the mana cost works too. If they cast as a normal level 1 or as a 2 timewise they will officially rock.:D
As for the Item improvements only one word suffices (trust me, I studied nomenclature for one semester):
[]D [] []\/[] []D
Item options 2 and 3 are really good.
If you choose to implement 2 then the logical groupings are Elemental (4 rolled into one) and physical + impen (4 spells roled into one). This way players can choose elemental and still cast impen separatley and still save time.
If option 3 is chosen I have no problem with the spell costing 3-5 times the mana cost per spell. Let's face it, robe buffers only have a total of 4 items to bane/imp and small armor wearers have 9 so a base cost for the "full-on" imp or bane being 3 times the mana cost is still a good deal.

I would also like to say: now that AC is back with Turbine you guys have had some really good ideas (and some thatwere interesting even when I disagreed) so kudos to trying more than M$ did. You guys are all officially []D [] []\/[] []D.

Bunyun

03-26-2004, 06:59 AM

While these improvements will help all those with magic, it is just another nail in the melee coffin. One advantage of being item only (weapon buff/portaling only) is it takes me under a min to buff allowing me much more hunting time. Level VII protects (which rarely apply to item only characters) should come with a price, i.e. longer buff times.

I just feel AC is going further down the slippery slope of a mage only game. What is sorely needed is some love like this for the melee/item only characters.

Before you all start flaming, I do have a high level mage as well and firmly believe that the power one obtains from level VII spells should have some negative side.

Alystrial

03-26-2004, 07:09 AM

Very, very excited here! Group buffs, faster cast times, multi stat buffs...schaweet! And with a cherry on top! The ideas for item spells, overwhelming. Will be loving it when they are implemented. :p

Do agree with an earlier poster though...would also like to see some additions to lore for those that are muggles(non magic folk :) ). Addition of LvL 7 spells on items would be a nice gesture to those in the game who do not wish to have any magic abilities(used to be one of those folks long ago...but alas it was just not possible).
Many agree, they wish characters would not have to be magic based, but still get same benifits, or a near equivalent. Has been a long time, and advances are being made, but still have to have some magic skill to survive(usually item). Perhap in the future this will be revamped as well? ;)

Great work AC1 team!! Be it good or bad, the effort is what matters the most, always remember that. ;)

Kovich

03-26-2004, 07:29 AM

Re: Fellowship Spells: It would be a fantastic idea to only have these available as part of a group quest:that you club together as a fellowship to to do a quest to gain spells to benifit your fellowship is a lovely idea.
Maybe the quest would only get you one or two fellow spells and the reward be on a timer so they have a more rare feel?

Also re: Baning, option 3 is definately the best, but NOT having 'group' banes also (physical elemental..) and not reducing casting time to nothing would be best as being able to fully bane in 3 spells and 3 seconds is a bit much!

TY! :) :) :)

_DOT_1_2_3_4_5_

03-26-2004, 07:42 AM

Love the concept!! would put strength with coord and endurance with quickness though .. then in the 3 part add self to the strength/ coord and the focus with endurance /quickness

As basically melee or range weapon player this combination would help me most in self buffing and get me to train critter again instead of relying on finding jewlery at the proper level for protection.

As for future item...WOW.. would love the ability to bane all clothing at once .. make this a possibility please!! <smile>

Nauscicaa

03-26-2004, 07:47 AM

Great article and interesting proposals.

Fellowship buffs are ok but I won't need them and they will probably lead to more too low level characters in high level hunting areas.

Creature and life speed increases are nice, those are less than a third of the spells I cast if I do a full buff but still it will decrease my buffing time.

Item spells, I would suggest combination buffs for weapons, i.e. BD, SK, HS and DF in one cast. With the restriction that this combined spell cannot be cast on items that are not in your backpack, i.e. not on other people's weapons, for those people the old 4 spells will suffice.

The one buff buffs all option for armour is very interesting, they should however be limited, to say one buff does 5 pieces, the second buff does the rest of the pieces.
People mostly wear 9 piece suits for a reason: Majors and other spells having such a nine piece suit gives you a huge advantage over a 5 piece suit. If buffing a 9 piece suit will take as long as buffing a 5 piece in the future, there is, besides fashion, no reason to not wear a 9 piece suit.

Kyayote

03-26-2004, 08:12 AM

I really think it's great that you are going to make these changes. OMg faster buffing & new spells yayyyyy!
On the Item banning issue I'd like to see you implement the option that allows the one spell to spread to all of your items.
Thanks,
Kya

Yinchi

03-26-2004, 08:18 AM

Buffing..... actually baning is the bane of our existance. (pun)

We have always been penalized for wearing pauldrons, bracer type armor. To be able to bane our paperdoll would allow for more individuality in armor. As of now, everyone wants to wear two pieces because of banes, we could once again have varied looks in our armor. :D

Please go with option 3, it makes sense.

Less animation would go a long way to make buffing easier.

You are increasing mana use with the new spells to offset the cost of doing multiple spells, however, the one month when we did not use as much mana for spells was a godsend. I would rather use less mana than to be able to cast multiple spells with the same amount of mana cost.

sionwarwick

03-26-2004, 08:34 AM

Coming from someone with two main melee characters, one max-focus 3school and one item-only no-buff, here's my opinion:

Clicking on paperdoll and casting impen/bane on all equipment at once would rock. My only caveat to that, especially given the skill levels you are considering for the multi-spell critter/life is don't make the skill requirement insanely high. My base 10/10 focus/self guy who would benefit most by that would never be able to use it.

Reducing spell casting time on self buffs is the best approach for critter/life. Given the high req's you are looking at for mult-stat buffs, I doubt my 3 school melee would be able to use them (at least not without spending more on magics...and she'll already be buffing faster with the reduced times anyways). My mid level mage would be able to use the multi-stats, but she already buffs much faster due to fizzling less often.

Fellowship buffs. Just being able to provide lvl VII protects to a group would be a big step. It would make fellowing with a no-buff melee who only gets lvl VI protects (or has to rely on others/bots for VII protects) much nicer in VoD or Caul, where those VII protects are pretty much required. Otherwise I'd rather see the fellow buffs be more along the lines of cantrips, that provide a bit of a bonus for the group. I would rather not see the fellow buffs become a roving buff bot solution.

Stormy_Nightz

03-26-2004, 08:37 AM

This is sounding good, I've said all along that all-encompassing spells were needed. Mages have used 1/6 of their hunting time by the time they finish buffing/baning ~ and that's with minimal armor.

Keep working on it ~ it's sounding good!

Leelando

03-26-2004, 08:46 AM

With all of the great changes coming, in game time will be spent doing the things we love not the boring 100+ spells, and 10+ minutes of repetition, THANK YOU VERY MUCH !!!!.

On another note, for item enchantment spells I love option 3 for buffing. 8 spells for my armor... Is this a dream come true or what, come on now, we could be fully buffed up in 3 minutes or so.

Don't tease us, make it happen in like the May patch. Come on you can do it, you know you want to...

Just my 2 pyreals tho

smegit

03-26-2004, 09:02 AM

GREAT! :D

I see nothing wrong with any of the options listed.

Even have a reason to push magic skills even higher now rather than just breaking the fizzel barrier.

I even like the quest option for gaining the new spells. (just hope they are soloable;) )

Some of the multi spell combo's are pretty simple but others are more a matter of personal preferance, so do what you feel is best & we will adapt. :p

Thank you for listening to all of us out here.

Goragg

03-26-2004, 09:14 AM

I have to agree with the poster above. This is great for 3-schooler and they are the majority. The reason they are the majority because at one time it was necessary to play well.

Recent changes have made item only characters viable and competitive. The result has been more varied templates in Dereth. This change will return us to the 100/10/100/10/100/10 3-school melees we have come to hate.

UNLESS there are plans to give us item/lore only freaks a boost that compares to 3-schools of magic and easy buffing.

chakaal

03-26-2004, 09:26 AM

"Lastly, we are considering the option to allow Item Enchantment to spread to all valid targets on a player. "

That would be terriffic. Plus I actually like the 16 spell variation for shields.

I don't think this is a nerf to item-only casters. I have a mage and an item only, spec arcane archer.. People who train creature/life high enough to cast lvl 7s have already paid the price with skill credits and xp. My archer has skill credits I don't know what to do with anymore- and my mage is always thirsty for another skill credit.

And for the multiple spell issue: Would it be possible to create an imbue that creates a 2 or 3 spell scroll? For example, I try to combine scroll #1 & #2 with a 33% chance, then try to combine that scroll with another at a 33% chance, etc.. I don't know if this would be possible in the tech at all, I kind of doubt it- but it would be cool, and allow players to craft their own multiple spell combos :-)

Monteus

03-26-2004, 09:29 AM

Sweet, awesome, hallelujah!!! Implement all the changes...

especially the last one for banes.. to select my char and all my banable items would get targeted.. that alone would be worth my paying you a free months worth of pay.. !! :x

:]

Turbine you rule, keep up the good work, i look forward to all that you are doing!! 100% support from this guy :-)

:]

Boddhisatva

03-26-2004, 09:40 AM

Very interesting.

Instabuffs: Good deal. I like this a lot. Will cut down on my mage's buffing time a bit and give people a reason to train the skills rather than relying on buff bots.

Multi-spell buffs: All you 3 schoolers who are worried about not being able to hit the new difficulties can relax. There is absolutely no reason in the world for you to learn multi-spells. Why do a quest to learn Strength/Coord/End Self when you can cast the three spells individually in the time it takes to cast 3 level 1 spells?

It'll be support mages casting multi-spells on their low/no-magic fellows in the field. They will be able to hit the difficulties as real mages. Non-mages don't need to worry about this. Self spells are being sped up. Self multi-spells will be pointless after the Inst-buff changes.

On a side note, I'm glad to see that Turbine is looking for ways to give REAL mages and advantage over those who merely train their magic skills and have sub-optimal stats. Mages SHOULD be MUCH better at magic than a 3-school swordsman with 50/10 starting focus/self.

Item Buffs: I think I have to side here with people that say option 3 is too much. While I would enjoy being able to wear my 9 piece major suit and imp and bane it as fast as my tinked up plate berk and legs I think this would make armor choice a joke. As others have said, because of bane caps all armor WILL buff to U/U/U/U/U/U/U AL. Inate item spells and protections on the armor will be completely irrelevant. Everyone will bane completely all the time almost completely removing the entire melee damage type dynamic from the game.

Also, covenant armor will be worn by no one. Since it can't be baned and seeing how fast and easy baning will be you'd have to be a fool to handicap yourself with covenant armor.

EvilElvis

03-26-2004, 10:06 AM

How to do multi-cast ce/life spells:

In order to make a multi-cast spell, you need a blank spell scroll which is only availible from SIK chests.

Blank spell scrolls come in 4 flavors. Level 4, level 5, level 6, and level 7. A level 4 blank scroll can only have level 4 or lower spells added to it. Level 5 blank scroll can only have level 5 spells or lower added to it, etc, etc. The odds of a scroll being level 4 -7 is 25% each. The odds of finding a spell scroll in a chest would be determined by you.

So, maybe there's a 50% chance of getting a blank spell scroll from a SIK chest. If you get a scroll, there's then a 25% chance it will be of any given level.

Each blank spell scroll will be able to have X number of spells added to it. For the sake of argument, lets say we're going to limit it to 3 spells per blank spell scroll, as the original document has limited it to.

Now, in order to add spells to a blank spell scroll, you need a device (like an ust which can be bought at a town), and at least 2 spell scrolls of equal or lower level then the blank spell scroll. Any spells which are going to be added to the blank spell scroll must be put in the device now. Once combined, a final multi-spell spell scroll will be created, and no new spells can be added to it, nor can it be put into an ust to create a new multi-spell scroll.

In order to create a multi-spell scroll, there will be an Arcane Lore check. The number of spells and the spells level will determine the arcane lore skill check. The level of the blank scroll also adds some difficulty to the creation as well.

So, a level 1 spell could be 10 diff, level 2 25 def, level 3 45 diff, level 4 70 diff, level 6 85 diff, level 7 100 diff. The same would go for each blank spell scroll. So, to add 3 level 7 spells to a level 7 blank would be (100x4), or 400 skill check. 3 level 1's on a level 4 blank would be (3x10 + 70) or 100 lore check. Failure would destory one of the spell scrolls. Critical failure would destroy one of the spell scrolls and the blank scroll.

The mana and spell difficulty would be determined based on the number and level of spells added. For mana cost, the spells actual mana cost would be taken, divided by the number of spells being added, and have 10 mana added for each spell added. For difficulty, the actually spell difficulty would be taken, divided by the number of spells being added, and have 10 difficulty addef for each spell added.

So, putting quick7+coord7+str7 into a blank would have a total difficulty of 330, and would cost 100 mana.

The blank spell scroll used would determine the type of scarab used, and there could be some other math function used to determine how many scarabs/tapers are used, and their burn rate.

Dukak

03-26-2004, 10:08 AM

I love it! It looks like these improvements are going to be great! I really like the suggestion of item spells effecting all valid targets on your character.

Something that I was thinking while I was reading the article was that I would like to see more multi-spell spells. Just image how wonderful it would be to fully buff with just 5 or 6 spells. Perhaps an Attribute Spell that covers all 6 Attributes. A Protection spell that covers ALL of the elemental protections. ... that kind of thing.

I'm sure some of you are already going WOAH, slow down! :) I understand that these would be powerful spells, but they would really cut down on the time to buff. And since they're powerful spells, make them hard to get. Heck, make the scrolls non-drop so that your character has to quest to get them.

If there were 6 or 7 Super Spells for each spell level (or just levels IV, V, VI, and VII)... they would be great rewards for some great quests!

Another idea that I had, was maybe you could look at creating some Super Buffing Gems! Not just buffing one skill or attribute, but a whole group of skills and attributes. For example, An UberArcher Gem could buff Endurance, Coord, Quickness, Bow Mastery, Melee Def, Missile Def, all 7 Elemental Protects, Heart Seeker, Swift Killer, Blood Drinker, an any other spells that you think would be useful. That way even non-magic using characters would have an option for self-buffs. Make them hard to get, expensive, non-drop, and maybe even level restricted. But I think it would be an interesting addition.

magicmage1

03-26-2004, 10:14 AM

I like most of these proposed changes, but these will not really help the low level or mid level toons.

If you have a toon that can only cast 6's, the multi-spells will not help. Adding a 25-38 skill increase means that I can cast a multi-level 5 spell OR 3 lvl 6's. Even if it saves time, no one will cast the multi-level 5's.. I agree that a penalty should be involved, but think the higher skill will make it only useful for high level toons, and only level 7's will be used. So, I guess just a mana penalty is not enough, but may make them unusable by anyone without 350+ skill.

Also, will the below level 7 multi spells be available from NPC vendors as they are now? It would be almost impossible for a low level to find and use a SIK chest, as they are always guarded by high level content. (And even getting SIK keys are hard for a low/mid level since loot changes).

And, on another note, I would like to see item spell timers before I see multi-level spells. The timer on item buffs is more important to me than multi spells, and is more useful to low as well as high level players.

However, I really like the changes, and am looking forward to seeing them, however they work.

archmagemalver

03-26-2004, 10:14 AM

good job turbine, keep up the good work

Trekman

03-26-2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Turbine
Lastly, we are considering the option to allow Item Enchantment to spread to all valid targets on a player. This would mean you could target yourself, cast Impenetrability and it would spread to all of the possible targets on your character.

Maybe this has been dealt with - if so I missed it........

What does "valid targets on a player" mean ?
Only the armor that I am wearing when buffing ?
Or all baneable armor items in my inventory ?

Currently I use a Major Item girth and a Minor Creature helmet when buffing. Option 1 would mean that I would bane those instead of my real armor....

sharpy-sc

03-26-2004, 10:35 AM

I actually like the spells left the way they are. I think you are gonna make a complete mess and mass confusion with the addition of multi stat spells.

But I definately would like to see self buff animations sped up significantly as you prospose. That accomplished getting us back into the fight faster which was your objective right? I feel the rest is overboard and destructive to AC fabric.

MHO....

Kestrel

03-26-2004, 10:35 AM

Pretty sure "all valid targets on a player" means exactly that--i.e., what you're wearing, not what you've got stashed in packs. Otherwise, every single buffable item--loot, e.g.--would be affected, and that could be unbalancing.

Ibn, these are great changes. No matter the final decisions, they will be a lot better than the status quo. (But of course you know there will be whining aplenty if someone's pet change(s) don't make it to the final cut.)

This is definitely a huge step in reducing "non-fun" time in AC!

Dr. McNasty

03-26-2004, 10:51 AM

Once again, I think you guys are taking a huge step in the right direction. The instant self buffs are something I've been pushing for for a long time. I think it's a great idea. I like the 3rd option for the item spells. It would give me a reason to wear something other than Amuli armor.

Something that has addressed in an earlier post that I think needs serious consideration is the duration of lower level spells. Most of my toons can cast 6's on there own and hunt fine, but I don't use them much because I often hunt in fellowships and I want to stay in synch with the rest of the fellow so that they don't have to wait on me to buff 15 minutes before they need to. I know that 7's are supposed to last longer as an incentive to train the skill's high enough to cast 7's, but the benefit is in the extra protection. The longer duration just penalizes people that don't use 7's. I would say that it is pretty safe to say that a good bit of the people using buffs would rather use a bot that cast 7's than to buff themselves with 6's. One of the main reason's is the duration. I don't even mention 5's or lower, because by the time I've buffed with those, it has taken me 15 minutes to do stam to mana 20 times and I only have 15 minutes to hunt.

I think all spell durations should be at least an hour. One possible exception would be to make level 4's and lower last 90 minutes to give people more of an incentive to be self suffecient at early levels.

One other thing, with all the new spells I think it would be great to upgrade the menu at the magic vendors. Making differant catagories once you open the trade window instead of having them all in the same catagory. It would be nice if you could scroll down to Defensive Other's to find the Strength other VI scroll you need, or the Offensive Other's to find Imperil Other V. This would make it so much easier to purchase scrolls and the tech for making different menu's is already in the game.

Thanks for listening to the players, and keep up the good work.

Strikefast

03-26-2004, 10:51 AM

I love the item change but I also carry 5 bow's and 4 UA weapons I buff due to the variety of monsters in the areas I hunt.

Allow me to buff them all too that would be sweet too.

I like all the changes, Ban the exploiters.

Gouru

03-26-2004, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by _AbBaNdOn
Your proposals are rediculous. YET AGAIN you are not helping anyone out except for the people who choose to exploit the game and have 10 billion xp.

...

This is the make or break issue for me. I like the world of asherons call but i am not paying 13$ a month for frustration just to go play the game.

Whew! I was worried we'd have a feedback thread without somebody threatening to quit in it. Glad to see world is spinning on the proper axis again.

Gordian

03-26-2004, 10:57 AM

How about this idea for obtaining the various scrolls.

Create a new skill "Scribe" that costs 4 credits to train and 6 or 8 to specialize. It's based off of (Focus+Self)/3.

A Scribe then uses this skill to create scrolls by combining them together.

I think this would be a great way to get a new trade skill in the game.

Silent_Echo

03-26-2004, 11:02 AM

I am loving the changes to buffing! All the recent and upcoming changes are a breath of fresh air! Keep up the great work!!

Dukak

03-26-2004, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by Dr. McNasty
I think all spell durations should be at least an hour. One possible exception would be to make level 4's and lower last 90 minutes to give people more of an incentive to be self suffecient at early levels.

Great point! You are very right. 1/2 hour buffs are worthless. There is no fun in buffing for 15 minutes and then only have 10 minutes to fight. I say 10 minutes, because everyone knows that if your character can only buff with spells that last for 1/2 hour, that you do NOT want to let your buffs run out while you're fighting. So you almost have to stop fighting with at least a couple of minutes left on your buffs. So that you don't have to worry about your buffs running out right in the middle of fighting something mean and hungry.

Nicadeimos

03-26-2004, 11:06 AM

Excellent ideas. I believe they will really add to the game.

I suggest making the multistat spells cover more than just 2 or 3 areas, even if this means bumping up the difficulty. This could be balanced out by increasing the duration of level 1 -5 spells to 45 minutes.

The item spells that effect all the armor that is worn would be a definate time saver. To balance this it might be worthwhile to take a look at robes and 2 piece armor sets (amuli). Since one of the main reasons people wear this type of armor is the fewer buffs that are needed.

Bob_Jones_LC

03-26-2004, 11:15 AM

Baning takes at least 60% of any buff cycle. I would first experiment Option 1 before trying anything else too fancy.

Option 3 would be my next choice, and I reallly like that idea, but I can see that posing a problem for people who have buffing armor vs. fighting armor.

One other solution might be to decrease mana cost of Item spells (banes, specifically), as well as reduce casting time.

Multiple-bane spells might be a nice compromise, but if you increase the difficulty and mana cost then they might end up chewing up just as much time with fizzles and recharging.

Multi-attribute buffs, overall, are overkill, and not terribly needed. I've never really been concerned with critter and life spells (though the insta-cast change sounds cool), as they are nothing compared to banes. The addition of a couple dozen new spells to learn doesn't thrill me much, and sounds more confusing than anything. If you do go with multi-stat spells, keep them simple and just make them cover all attributes, or a select group of like skills (i.e. Melee/Magic/Missile D, Cook/Fletch/Alch, All Assesses/Tinks, etc.) and have them be like 350 difficulty and cost 400 mana. I don't want to have to carry a spreadsheet to calculate my optimized buff cycle...

I'm of the same mind as concerns fellowship spells, though I am slightly biased as I solo quite frequently. I guess they're cool, but they should be slightly less powerful than self buffs, if possible. XP sharing for fellows is already a huge bonus. Top that with more powerful buffs and everybody who fellows a bunch will only rocket past the solo hunters that much faster (which they already do quite well).

Also, I don't know how this might effect PvP, but do we really need tinker/trade debuffs? I've used about a bajillion SIKs in my life, and while I'm STILL missing a few spells I could use, I've pulled in the neighborhood of 500 copies each of Challenger's Legacy, Jibril's Vitae, and Kwipetian Vision. I can't debuff my own run skill (say, if I want to keep pace with slower fellow members) as that's a deprecated spell, but I can debuff their Item Tink skills? Seems kinda silly.

TimTheFoolish

03-26-2004, 11:21 AM

All these changes are well and good, but they seem to be pushing everyone to become at least a melee/spellcaster. And I like playing a non-spell casting character.

Here are my suggestions on what could be done to equalize this.

1.) Increase the spell quality and quantity caps on items. Allow level 7 spells and allow more spells on items. This would allow a non- magic casting character to have items good enough to not require buffing. And increase the treasure quality.

2.)If a copy of a spell is cast on an item or person that already has a spell from an item on them, they will adversly affect each other. But, if both spells are from items (or spells), they would be additive since they are more similar. So if you have a Strength other (or self) cast on you from an item and a spell, it would lower the greater spell's affect by at least one spell step. But if two items (or two spells) cast Strength other on you, the affect would be additive. So if you have Strength other II cast on you from an item and Strength VI cast on you from a spell, the final result would be like Strength other V. But if you had Strength other I and Strength other V cast on you from items only, it would have the same affect as Strength other VI. This would make multple items with the same spell more useful, as well as items with no spells on them at all.

(This should be limited to beneficial spells only, but might be interesting for gameplay if it applied to all spells. So if you get multiple copies of a Vun spell cast on you, they would be additive to a degree. :) )

3.) The more inherent spells that are on an item, the more difficult it would for the user to cast spells. It could also be based on the strength of the spells also. This would be because the method of placing spells on an item causes extremely localized warping of the mana field. The only exception to this would be magic casting items, since they only have spell casting related spells on them and are assumably created in such a way that the warping is minimized. Once again, cantrips would be exempt from this since they are stackable with other spells. I think this would be a good way to balance between spell casting and non-spellcasting players.

4.) Expand the tinkering system so that items can be crafted that have similar capabilities to loot items. Require that the tinker know the spells that will be tinkered onto the armor, or make it a process like Nuhmudira's Gorget, with a potion that a spellcaster can imbue with a spell that can then be put onto an item. Maybe also have a way to remove all spells from an item as a tinker option.

5) Some way of putting some offensive based spells on weapons. The elemental imbues are a great start.

Jandar Sunstar

03-26-2004, 11:23 AM

Love the last banes idea, to target everything.
Great idea on the fellowship buffing spells.
look foreward to seeing it in game.

DeathBlow

03-26-2004, 11:23 AM

Great Ideas and can't wait to see them implimented but I do have some very pointed questions for you. In the grand scheme of casting creature buffs on one's self, it would seem to make more sense to change your idea for the triple spells slightly. Currently you have this in mind...

Here are some examples of our current design: (these currently only include Creature Enchantment spells)

Attributes
Multi-Stat Spell (2 spells):.............Multi-Stat Spell (3 Spells):
Strength and Endurance ...............Strength, Endurance and Quickness
Coordination and Quickness............Coordination, Focus and Self
Focus and Self

I think it would make life a little easier and make a little more sense if the spell groupings were as follows...

Attributes
Multi-Stat Spell (2 spells):.............Multi-Stat Spell (3 Spells):
Strength and Endurance................Strength, Quickness, Coordination
Coordination and Quickness............Endurance, Focus, Self
Focus and Self

Reasoning here is this. Although most people will eventually have all the triple casting spells learned the people who play a "Melee" character will benifit more from having Strength, Coord and Quickness buffed than with having Endurance in there. "Mages" also in turn rely more heavily on Endurance, Focus and Self for their main buffed skills than something like Coordination which does almost nothing to help mages.

Also, I have a question about Item magic. Currently the code in the game cannot distinguish between armor that your wearing and say, armor that someone else is wearing. It treats it all as just armor. In this regard is there going to be a way to keep the code from debuffing another persons armor totally? I guess one way would be to not include ANY debuffs in the multispelled casting of item magic but thus far EVERY spell in game has a counterpart.

I feel that Multispelled Item Debuffing would enrage the world of PK's (Which I can thankfully say I am no longer a part of). I do however, get tired of hearing them flamming you guys when a change like that occurs. It would also slow me down if I were running around Sing Caul and some little "Dragon" Brittlemail'd every piece of armor I was wearing with one shot.

Other than these two questions I am thankful for the new spells that are coming down the pipe and glad to see you are tacking the more serious problems with the game rather than trying to "Remove Housing Portals because they are Ugly." (ROFLMAO)

Tolliver

03-26-2004, 11:30 AM

For the multi-stat life, creature combinations I would like to see a system where the individual player could craft their own multi-stat spell. Everyone will have a different idea of what 2 or 3 spells they want and a single already made spell won't be applicable to all. Is it possible that we could collect the 2 or 3 spells that we want and either combined them ourselves or maybe bring them to a master mage NPC to have them crafted for us?

As for the item banes, the one spell covers all is the best idea. If you go with the multi-stat idea, how about setting them up for specific hunting conditions? Say a multi-stat for hunting Tuskers (Impenetrability and Bludgeoning) or one for Olthoi (Impenetrability and Bludgeoning and acid)?

sursun

03-26-2004, 11:32 AM

As I said about 5 pages ago I like the creature and life idea's but was not sure about the item changes. I have now given it more thought and would like to make a suggestion.

I think you would be better off to make armour able to spawn with a level 80 or so req and protecs that are all about 1.7 or 1.8. If you do this then banning will still give you slight advantage, but will become optional. People will still have to decide how to tinker the armour. They will still need to buff their clothes, and sheild, but that is only 2 or 3 items. If at some point you add 2 or 3 spell banes then that is almost nothing.

Most people will still train item for the portal spells, to bane clothes and cast IMP 7. You will be able to balance high level content based on the high AL. This will speed buffing because most people will skip baneing 95% of the time. Finally there will still be an advantage to fewer armour peices because you still need to cast the imp spells and might need to bane once in a long while.

Dukak

03-26-2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Gordian
How about this idea for obtaining the various scrolls.

Create a new skill "Scribe" that costs 4 credits to train and 6 or 8 to specialize. It's based off of (Focus+Self)/3.

A Scribe then uses this skill to create scrolls by combining them together.

I think this would be a great way to get a new trade skill in the game.

Awesome, this is probably one of the best ideas I've heard yet. Giving the players a hand in creating the scrolls would be nice.

Tolliver

03-26-2004, 11:49 AM

You know with all the possible permutations of spells that could occur with fellowship spells, and multi-stat spells I expect that you will not get it right the first time you introduce them into the game.

Rather than having to remove, add, change, or whatever to correct the situation; how about using a test server to let us test things out?

You could use Shadowbane and invite a select group of players to go there and test the spell combinations and provide feedback to both you and to the players. Selected groups of players could be changed for each iteration you want to test. This way everyone would get a chance to participate and broaden the feedback.

Zankov

03-26-2004, 11:53 AM

Seems like a pretty complex and chaotic response to a simple problem.

The main problem I have is the clicking part (drudgery) not the duration of buffing. I like the five minute break every hour or so I get from NB.

Suggest that a one click spell queue with a variable duration based on the number of spells in a profile be used instead the proposed approach.

Rafein

03-26-2004, 11:54 AM

option 3 for item changes would be best.

Along with the cutting down buffing times, we would also see different armors used more often. Instead of ust 2-piece suits, we will see more Celdon, more Yorri.

ash firewalker

03-26-2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by sursun
As I said about 5 pages ago I like the creature and life idea's but was not sure about the item changes. I have now given it more thought and would like to make a suggestion.

I think you would be better off to make armour able to spawn with a level 80 or so req and protecs that are all about 1.7 or 1.8. If you do this then banning will still give you slight advantage, but will become optional. People will still have to decide how to tinker the armour. They will still need to buff their clothes, and sheild, but that is only 2 or 3 items. If at some point you add 2 or 3 spell banes then that is almost nothing.

Most people will still train item for the portal spells, to bane clothes and cast IMP 7. You will be able to balance high level content based on the high AL. This will speed buffing because most people will skip baneing 95% of the time. Finally there will still be an advantage to fewer armour peices because you still need to cast the imp spells and might need to bane once in a long while.

thats a much better idea than multi baning spells- IMO those spells dumb down the game far too much

Daveda

03-26-2004, 12:02 PM

IMP is a critter spell not item right? See above post.

ouchthathurt

03-26-2004, 12:35 PM

There are two main issues involved when buffing oneself; time to complete and number of keyboard strokes. Most players, I believe, use Decal and a buffing plug in making keyboard strokes a non issue for them. One of the best things you could do for us is put in a native client capability similar to the buffing plug ins. The quickest way to help, however, is to make all Creature and Life self and positive Item spells use the level one windup. This would have the most helpful impact for self buffing people and the least helpful for those using bots. The spell speed up should be the easiest to implement and therefore should come first, while the inclusion of a client, change to add a buffing macro capability, would take more work, I would think.

As for the group/fellow spells, I think AC has gotten much too close in many respects to AC2 already. This would be another step along that road and I, for one, would not like to see it taken. It is, in essence, another way of encouraging grouping at the expense of solo hunting. Some seem to believe one of the reasons AC has not been more successful is because it hasn’t forced grouping as much as other MMORPGs. I believe this is false. AC’s solo friendly game play is one of its’ greatest strengths. Movement away from that strength is a mistake, even if it’s done unintentionally.

The multi-spell spells are an intriguing idea, but I would put them lower on the priority list than new monthly content. Buffing can be improved easier and quicker via other changes and new quests, updates to old quests and more live events are much more important to me than multi-spells.

You guys have some very good ideas here. Please don’t make the solution to the problem more complicated than it needs to be, however.

Oh and Ibn, I thought he had you there for a minute on the multiple spells on equipment post. :) :) :) :-)

The Darkness

03-26-2004, 12:35 PM

Only input is really on baneing.

I'd like to see some differentiation from wearing 2-8 piece armour. The one spell banes all dumbs it down a little too much for me, and I think there should be a balance. Someone mentioned two banes (physical and elemental) that needs to be cast on each piece of armour - that sounds like a nice idea.

It speeds up the process but also 'rewards' people who choose to wear less armour pieces.

Just my 2 pys,

Cheers

Akira Ran

03-26-2004, 12:58 PM

Agree with the last post:

Amuli v. many pieces was a dynamic involving both weight and utility: 6 piece body armor means 4 more pices that can carry majors/minors, but at two costs: weight (usually) and the difficulty of baning. A "target all" would make amuli a silly choice for other than looks or a slight weight savings.

I also have to agree with others above about caution and carry regarding imbalance. Sped up buffs are very very nice. But in streamlining the system, make sure you don't make it so that the only viable option is a three-school.

Having "optional" skills that are not optional in reality is nothing other than poor game design. While three schools of course will never be *technically* required, when in *reality* they are indispensible for reasonable play, then the game design suffers,a nd along with it flexibility, depth and variety.

And ask yourselves how shrinking the number of viable paths, narrowing the spectrum of possible game experiences, could possibly aid longevity? It is precisely variety itself that gives games long life.

bertman

03-26-2004, 01:08 PM

I like the idea of self buffs casting faster. I spent a lot of skill credits and XP on creature and life, and I should get something for it. I welcome this change. Leave the recovery spells S2m and the like as they are, it would be too much power in combat, and I don't think you can code for combat versus buffing.

I don't care much for the idea of making multi-stat spells for self. I think the advantage to self buffing beng faster is sufficient. At any rate, the caster should have to know each current same-level spell that comprises the multi-stat buff. I would support multi-stat spells to cast on others, giving some advantage to the non-self-buffing character. Of course, make it use more mana, and require a higher skill, and please have it cast the 3 spells instead of a single spell that covers 3 attributes. I personally have no objection to buff bots having clusters of spells. The fact that buff bots are not 100% dependable is a disadvantyage to their use, and believe it or not, I like helping other players by buffing them, so I see it as somewhat of a plus to be able to buff others faster.

As far as item banes in groups or multi-target banes, I am opposed to them, because I would rather see an advantage to fewer pieces of armor as much as to more pieces of armor. If one can bane 9 pieces of armor at the same rate as 3 pieces of armor, that is, in my opinion, a nerf to robes.

Playing a mage 99% of the time, I wear a robe more of the time than armor. The advantage is less baning, more than less burden, and certainly, I have less armor protection, but it is made up for by convenience. Multi-target banes are convenient for players using many armor pieces, but then mages will be running around looking like warriors instead of mages. They already do that to a great extent. I think people should not have to ask, "are you a mage?"

Robes are already mostly useless, because they can't be tinkered, and they have no armor value to speak of. Why would a mage ever wear a robe if there is no reason to, other than looking like a mage? If you must make multi-target baning a part of the game, then I want some robe improvements. How about it? They could be tinkerable, and they should have spells on them like multiple wards and some other spells that can't be activated unless you have a magic school at some particular level. Archers should wear armor, not robes. And be easier to get than the reedshark robes, especially that plaguefang robe. And also, armor that covers larger areas, like amuli, should be able to have multiple cantrips, while smaller pieces should not.

----------------------------------------------------
One mage character, not named for any sort of digestive upset.

Ashbringer

03-26-2004, 01:15 PM

I'd like to read this article... I know Im a day later than CoD posted it.... but the link is already dead there, and under Ibn's post here.... what the heck... I wanna know what all the hooraying and yays are about!

Danilo Thann

03-26-2004, 01:26 PM

I agree that buffing is tedious but allowing everyone to be walking tanks is not going to be good for the game.

I whole-heartedly agree with the Life and Critter magic changes but disagree with the Item magic ones. There needs to be a down-side to baneing everything ( The soon to be old downside was time ).

My L97 Tank Archer/Dagger is virtually No-buff and has Item magic only. My Focus/Will is 20/10 so I really really suck at baneing and baneing everything means that I am expecting real trouble ( I don't full bane even for Bobo, the high level Olthoi hives, etc ). As a result I can hunt almost without stopping ever.

By making it easier for everyone to bane 100% that means that everyone will easily be walking tanks and you will need to make harder hitting critters as everyone is nearly impervious to the existing ones and we go in a downward spiral as you now need to make better protections.

There MUST be a down-side to full-banes to prevent this. If not time then I know not what.

Dedicatedplayer

03-26-2004, 01:42 PM

i agree with choice 3, yet i also agree with thann. there has to be a down side on item buffs to make the xtra damage reduction have a trade off.

but thats not why im posting, its in the concern of PvP in darktide.

one of the major issues are the recent spikes of people running around in fellowships, mainly because theres just so much more of a benefit of being in a group

i beleive you should rethink the affect the fellowship changes have on the pk world.

i beleive you should creat anouther dynamic(or change an existing one) that would make the addition of anouther pk worth less, making ganking less appealing.

just a suggestion;)

simply_zach

03-26-2004, 02:19 PM

However, since your goal is to get rid of tedium, placing higher difficulties on multi-spells is not the way to go. Since the ultimate goal is to decrease tedium, why not create spells that buff all attributes, at the same lvl 7 difficulty? This does not hurt anyone at all, and just makes buffing that much easier.

It makes sense, since melees like myself with lower magic skills will still be able to buff with lvl 7's no matter what. Why reserve the right to buff faster to mages?

Targeted baning is a great idea too, no need to make these into multi-spells, when it will just take 8 lvl 1 cast animations to completely bane.

Seun

03-26-2004, 02:23 PM

I have a feeling I'm not going to be popular after this :rolleyes:

I play 5 mages, 4 of them are 4 school with various magic skills specialized. One is a martyr mage. I hate 3rd party applications because they take up room on my screen, so I play manually all the time and therefore, I have always manually buffed. That being said, I really don't like most of these changes.

I don't mind the idea of Instant-Cast Self Buffs. Whether it's implemented or not doesn't really matter to me.

Fellowship Spells

I don't see how this change will benefit the people who have spent skill credits on Creature Enchantment and Life Magic. While I would have had no problem with fellowship healing and revitalizing spells, I do not think that it is appropriate to extend these spells to include all buffs. I would certainly hope that if this change is to be implemented, if a person leaves a fellowship, all their fellowship buffs are dispelled. In addition, to ensure that the fellowship does not leave the mage behind buffing them, the effective radius should be made quite small.

Multi-Stat Spells

I see this as dumbing down the buffing process. In all honesty, how hard is it to cast 6 spells for your attributes and a few more for your offensive and defensive skills? If these spells are implemented, please make the difficulty and mana requirements high enough that there is some benefit to having started with 100 Focus and Self and having mana conversion trained.

This idea also bothers me from a lore perspective. When we had to research our spells, there was a reason that we used different components for each spell. They helped us focus our energy in the right direction. Have we come so far that we can now concentrate on 2 or 3 things at a time?

Item Enchantment

Extending multi-stat spells to item enchantment is also dumbing down the buffing process. If a player doesn't know what type of damage he or she is likely to take from a particular monster, then the penalty should be a longer buffing cycle. I have never understood the thought that everything has to be fully baned in order to hunt.

Please either make item spells fast cast or extend to all valid targets on a player.

I'd be interested in hearing what some other mage only players have to say on this subject. Most of what I read before posting came from hybrid mage/melee players.

KirillHuntersun

03-26-2004, 02:29 PM

I scanned most of this thread looking for this suggestion, and didn't see it. I did skip the last few pages though, as it was getting tedious.

I personally love Option 3. I think that it would be ideal, and take care of the one truly critical slowdown in buffing; my mage has two profiles for buffing - Nobanes, with 31 spells, and Fullbuff, with 85 spells. And she wears Amuli and a Raiment, too, so her buffs aren't too bad.

That being said, however, I think there's a way to kill two birds with one stone (Leave no tern unstoned!) and reduce everything to quick buffs.

Introduce Item Self spells.

What this would do is effectively use a new set of 8 spells, Impenetrability Self, Flame Bane Self, Piercing Bane Self, etc. If I were to cast Impenetrability, I would still need an Item targeted that the spell would be cast upon. If I cast Impenetrability Self, it would cast on all armor I am currently wearing. (I personally see the buffing armor argument as a red herring; I don't personally know anyone that isn't using a Virindi Amulet to buff Item with if they're Item Only, and most folks who are using cantrips are going to be using the same. If you really need better than Mod Item and Minor Focus/Self from jewelery imbues, you should spend a bit more XP into Item.) Same difficulty and mana costs, or possibly higher mana costs (but same difficulty) as the individual item spells, but prevents someone from casting the same spells to someone else's armor. It would also allow you to set the Item Self spells to a Level 1 cast time, for the full speedup effect.

I'd also like to see a dual-spell option for the weapon buffs, preferably broken down as Blood Drinker & Defender for one, Heart Seeker and Swift Killer for the other. HS + Defender might be seen as a more logical option, but since archers have literally no use for a Heart Seeker spell, BD + Def would allow them to speed up their own buffs too, given the relative lack of effect of SK on bows.

I do like the buffing options for the rest of the schools, though I too would like to see Difficulty carefully metered out so that those who only use their magics to buff, and never bother with debuffs, won't have a fizzle fest when trying to use the new spells.

H0locron

03-26-2004, 02:36 PM

With the recent changes of H2M 1, those of us not of the Life magic persuasion are now forced to more down time. You do realize what happend here? I get that the changes were due for the xfer to health and balance issues in PVP, but the xfer from health to either stam or mana just doesn't make sense. How is that going to help anyone in a PVP situation?

What I'm getting to is this, now that I'm forced to cast H2M 1 3x's for the exact same effect I was getting from casting it only once before, it's added a huge downtime to any buffing/baning I might do.

With an option like #3 for baning it would cut this problem down in half if not more. There is no skill in sitting around mashing buttons or having a 3rd party app do the button mashing for you. I shouldn't want to stop to read a book, do whatever while I'm enduring the 7-8 mins of downtime my melee toon has to go through over the H2M 1 changes. Speeding up the critter changes will help some, but streamlining the banes to 1 over all makes much more sense in an RPing situation as well as a gamer side trying to expeditie the already tedious process of buffing.

We want to fight, not take X amount of mins out of every hour to mash on some keys.

Taker_AC

03-26-2004, 02:42 PM

I'm all for the third option for banes!

Hemorhage

03-26-2004, 02:47 PM

Now seeing that the increase of skill required to cast lvl 7 multi-spells is going to more difficult for players who don’t have 3 school specialized, and that arcane lore is a non-specialization skill because the highest level spell on jewelry is lvl 6 (wield ~250), I believe putting muilt-spell lvl 7s on jewelry and making the requirement like 350 arcane a specialized or trained skill. This will allow people who don’t have life, critter, and item specialized the ability to have the spells they can not cast, but only with the specialization of the arcane lore. Make it so that melee, don’t need to have the skills required to cast but still allow them to wield the spells they need. Oh and put a skill level requirement per the spells on the jewelry (i.e. Self + Focus 7 jewelry, lore req ~300 + with a random 300 magic skill. Or Quickness + Coord 7, req lore ~315 + 350 dagger skill or 375 melee def, ect ect ect). That way to get away from the Rank req that so many people don’t posess b/c they just don’t have that many vassles. But still allow toons to be competitive w/o needed the help of buff bots.

That’s the only input I have for this.

AWP

03-26-2004, 02:51 PM

My opinions after just reading the article:

1. Reducing casting time on self spells is a great idea

2. Fellowship Life and Creature spells are a great idea - when a quest is run, one mage can buff everyone at the same time, no waiting for fizzlers/stragglers, and no mis-matched spell timers

3. Making the spells rare is a bad idea. Let them be just as available as all the other spells are. Levels 1-6 can be bought and level 7s can be gotten in the same manner as current level 7 spells.

4. Buffing Stats: One spell should cover all stats. There is no need to group them in groups of two or three.

5. Buffing Skills: One spell should buff all weapon types, another all magic types, another all defense types, etc. You will end up buffing skills that you don't need, but who cares?

6. If #4 and #5 do not happen, then Multi-Stat and Multi-Skill buffs should be configurable. There should be generic two-spell and three-spell (maybe more) scrolls that, when learned, allow you to choose two, three (or more) stats or skills that will be grouped together when you cast. You "open" the scroll and see a list of all the spells in your spellbook, you check the boxes next to the ones you want the spell to cast (heck you can even name the spell yourself), and then you learn it. Of course, once the spell is "written" as in the spells are chosen and the spell is named, the scroll becomes no-drop.

7. Item Enchantment: One spell should affect all selected targets, similar to what you have proposed. However, it would be nicer if we could somehow select those targets (up to some maximum number) ourselves. Selecting all worn targets is a compromise I can live with, but I don't need the helmet I wear to give me Major Item Enchantment while buffing, buffed. I need the one that I will actually be wearing during battle buffed, even if it is sitting in my inventory because I have to wear the other to be able to cast the spell at all.

KF_AC

03-26-2004, 02:52 PM

The banes improvements made me think of when Amuli first came out.
I thought WOW who's gonna wear this goofy armor?
But then Amuli had a lot going for it, mainly that it had good AL and was only 2 pieces.
It became the most popular armor in AC.
Think about that when you want to change the baning scheme.
Not that we don't need help in that regard, baning is the most tedious of all buffs.

Jet-eye-nite

03-26-2004, 03:04 PM

How about increasing the cycle time on buffs also (how long they last )

hanyuning

03-26-2004, 03:10 PM

Amuli armor should NOT have more cantrips than armor like celdon. The benefit for wearing amuli is less to bane, and less weight, at the cost of less armor level and fewer spells on them. The benefit for armor like celdon that uses more pices is more spells because of more pieces, and higher AL, at the cost of weight and longer baning times.

I do agree with the robes. Please put robes in the loot, ranging up to maybe a max of 200 AL. I'd love to see cantrips on them. As a mage, I should be wearing robes. I'd love to see covenant robes as well, higher AL but no ability to bane. Can't wait to see Covenant Helms, robes and gauntlets with Magic Defense or a mana conversion requirment to wield!

Thanks,

Bromium

03-26-2004, 03:31 PM

How about making a quest item much like the SoCS where it is attuned and bonded to the user. "gems" of different types could be socketed into the item to allow for custom buffing.

It would be a mana charge hungry item, but it would also provide some nice questing to obtain the rare gems, much like SoCS does for axers.

make it bonded and attuned (is that the right term?) so that other's can't be tweeked by it.

all self spells of course, mana is derived from the item itself.

X amount of slots for the orb receptacle
X+1 for higher level version
X+2 etc...

gems could come in different spell level ratings as well.

with this method, you could cater to the users needs alot more. my "orb of the iron chef" could have dagger+cooking+focus+coord all in one. =)

I guess I liked the SoCS style of configurable weapon/item.

Signalerror

03-26-2004, 03:39 PM

Sizlunt DT

03-26-2004, 03:48 PM

The third option for banes I like the best. Baneing bores me to tears. Overall my reaction to that letter is: Awesome! I can see no reason not to be happy that these chages are coming, way to go Dev's!

Ashida Kim

03-26-2004, 05:58 PM

To me, the third options would make the most sense, as it would aleviate the need for yet another spell (spells) to be added.

I like the idea of buff times being dropped for self only as it encourages people to be more self sufficient, but I think there should be some additional changes made to other spells before the Mutli-Buff Other's come out, or you will end up with even more buff bot babies.

Really, to each their own, but I do like seeing people who do things for themselves.

Shao Majii

03-26-2004, 07:30 PM

I do like these changes, however, I have some comments. (made 5 pages, 14 is a bit more than I can read atm)

Casting time changes : coolness. I'll miss the look of charge-up but oh well. This is better.

Multi: ok... ummm.. sure. whatever.

Fellowship: See multi.

Item: while I do like the idea of 8 buffs and I'm done, that won't be true for everyone. I know many who need to equip items while they buff. This can mean armor. How will they cover the stuff they aren't wearing when they buff?

Also, this could mean a rebalance in robes. Currently, the biggest bonus for robes is the reduction in buff time. That's it. The drawbacks are a lack of cantrips, reduced armor levels, and a lack of the ability to tinker them. This removes the only bonus provided by robes. Perhaps (and IMO this needed to be done anyway) it's time to find some benefit to wearing robes. It doesn't have to mean a bigger AL or tinkering but something. And perhaps it shouldn't be AL. Some other bonus. Reduced buff times between a robe and amuli hasn't meant much. Now it will mean NOTHING. Robes will the realm of role-players alone.

Thurmin

03-26-2004, 07:51 PM

Well, I believe I am in the minority when I say I like the buffing experience. This is the reason I play a mage. To cast these massive magics, allowing me to go forth and slay great beasts.

Perhaps I am sick in the head. Regardless, the only time I feel the pressure of the buffing up process is when I'm in a hurry to meet people for a quest or just died in a fellowship and have to get back quickly. Even then, it's more of a minor inconveniance then annoyance.

Speeding up the buffing process for self only spells? Pure mana from heaven! Makes for a happy mage.

Fellowship spells....increased cost for each target...bit of a pill to swallow until you take into account the amount of time spent if you were the sole buffer...therefore KEEN!

Multi - Spell casting. Can't say I've read all the comments, just skimmed several pages before it felt like I was reading the same thing said, only in different variations. However it's set up, I'll like it, and most likely utilize it. Personally, I think a single creature spell for all stats, a single spell for H/S/M regen. After that, couldn't care less. While there are the cookie cutter templates, there are those that are quite individual. No use hamstringing the player base that likes to play something that isn't considered 'uber' in the way of templates.

Item Banes. Ahhhhh the 'bane' of my existance. hehe
I wear Amuli to save on time, but I've since switched to Celdon. Rather annoying the extra time taken to buff each item, but again, part of the cost of playing a mage. If it's a simple paper doll action, similiar to mana stones, praise be to the maker!

Heck, even read about type banes....target 1 item, and all physical banes are done, cast spell #2 and all elementals are done. I'd be wetting myself with excitement with that one as well.

Regardless, I like the direction you are taking in regards to the spells

Hindsight! Dispells. I realize there is some coding or whatever voodoo you programmers utilize in the applications towards this game can cause difficulties with how the awakener/gems work vs dispel potions/spells. I feel the power of the awakener is worthwhile. Perhaps the non creature specialized awakener work in the fashion you are stating and the spec'd creature awakener work with it's current setting?

Wolfton

03-26-2004, 07:51 PM

The instant-cast self spells are good, I think. I also think that other spells should be instant-cast too, as I don't have anyone that self buffs :p

I like the idea of fellowship spells because there are a lot of people that cannot buff themselves, like me. When I am on a long quest, or in a fellow that doesn't let you leave the dungeon and get buffed and still be in the fellow, I feel completely useless do to the fact that I have to ask for buffs every time mine wear off.

The multi-stat spells are a cool idea too, but I think there should be stats grouped together to better match a skill, such as strength coord and sword, coord and bow, quickness and dagger, ect...

I believe that the third option is the best idea, takes much less time and comps. I was wondering, would it be possible to bane the first item in your inventory if it is baneable? That way, you could put a shield in the first spot, if you use one, and only cast up to 8 spells instead of 16.

Frieze

03-26-2004, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Korrigan
This would make baning too easy, basically everybody would run around 100% baned 24/7/365. They already do. I mean... (On a mage) Do you hunt outside of Ayan missing even one bane? Do you PKL missing even one bane? Do you VoD missing even one bane? Do you hunt Tuskers without bludg bane on some of your armor pieces? Do you hunt Lugians missing slash bane? Do you hunt Olthoi missing acid bane?

Try not to forget, before tinked armor, robes were huge. 8 spells + 8 more spells for your gaunts = fully baned. Even 3 years ago, people ran around fully baned 24/7, and they obviously aren't stopping.

In fact, we're making it worse for ourselves. Very few robes worth using, and with majors on as many pieces as possible being the norm, casting 80+ banes isn't unheard of.

3 years ago, monsters were being balanced for fully baned characters. Today, they are still. This isn't stopping. To oppose truly fixing what we have only band-aided with decal plugins is simply silly.

Playing the game is supposed to be the challenging part, NOT preparing to play the game.

AC_Guy

03-26-2004, 08:04 PM

Aurora_of_DT

03-26-2004, 08:58 PM

"I can imagine VoD fellowships saying, "ok, I'll do creature buffs, mage2 do attributes, lifearcher do life prots, and tank melees glad you could finally join us here without leaving every hour!"

Awsome Idea

#3 on the item enchant list is a great Idea.

As for the life/creature multi spells, I think you should make them in some way customizable, so that that 1) players would be required to think about what they really want/need and they would have something to be proud of when they get their chars fine-tuned to that point thats just right for their individual playing style, and 2) this way all multi spells would be usefull to all chars. For instance, the missle, melee, magic D multi would be absolutely useless to me since I play a BM and casting missle or melee D on myself is a waste of perfectly good comps and mana.

_AbBaNdOn

03-26-2004, 09:13 PM

I love the fact that people will be able to wear other kinds of armor now besides amuli. And since NEW styles are being planned for i am even more excited.

weapon damage has gone up, monster damage has gone up, armor levels have gone up...

Banes will definately change the armor people wear. And that is gonna bring armor style balance into the forefront like never before. Things that should be looked at and considered are:

-Increased AL for the metal armors (most people with amuli aim for AL 400-450 base)
-Have all styles have the same AL's and same weight cost.
-Have all things weight the same but have higher AL armors have higher value so you have higher risk with use.

Please dont let one armor style dominate over all others.

Calli Briteyes

03-26-2004, 10:23 PM

I think the ability to cast a buff and it hit all available armor targets at once is a good idea.
I think these spells should be a separate spell from the standard buff/ bane spells and they could be used as quest rewards. I.E. Quest into a dungeon filled with bludgeon danger to get the buffall armor bludgeon bane spell. These spells should have higher mana cost and should not be quick cast timed. To get a full set of all elemental banes and physical banes and impreg and invuln for buffall armor spells would necessitate 9 quests. That would tie some lore and quest elements into the aquisition of the spells and make them more valuable and more desireable. Make the scrolls no drop and no give and
make them only work on armor you actually have equipped, not just selected.
That makes them truly a boon to the peeps that brave the dangers and get them and to where not just every one has them. Added content is always good, and if you can incorporate a change into the game and add content then so much the better.
My 2 cents.

kittens

03-26-2004, 11:05 PM

i don't think group buffs are a good idea also at the end of a buff recycle i need to restock so i would still have to leave it's bad enough at lower lvl's you have to have lockpick forced on you if you want to go to certain places

Atticus Finch

03-26-2004, 11:09 PM

TOALLY NEATO!

MissBusan

03-27-2004, 01:20 AM

i love the idea ! i just whish something like this was possible like 2 years ago =)

good work turbine ! keep it up whith good ideas ! :D

(edited spelling)

Kaniver

03-27-2004, 02:06 AM

I like where Turbine is going with this and improvements to buffs is long overdue.

My main concern lies with the tank warrior character. Early on in AC at the very beginning really I was astounded to discover that melee's where almost forced to aquire magic schools to be competitive. The Last Blademaster is a good example.

I came back to AC last Dec. in the hopes that Turbine would improve on the game physics and I haven't been disappointed. The pace of the changes is good and you guys have been workin your butts off and it shows. Back to the hard core melee. It is such a disadvantage to be corraled into taking magic schools on a melee and having to spend precious experience on magic schools and focus and self at the exspense of your bread and butter skills namely bashem and slashem and piercem.

I have manipulated my melee's to take on magic schools but I would rather of not felt the need. Please guys don't forget the melee that would just as soon leave the magic to the mages. Don't slant the improvements too much in one direction. Keep up the great work. I'm having more fun than ever!!

MeTaGarfield

03-27-2004, 02:42 AM

I'll just join the chorus with my feedback.

Allowing item spells to propagate is great, as baning is now "mandatory" to all characters at least casting time need to be reduced for those who chose (or need, as in the case of a high strength archer or mage) multipiece armour.

Fellowship spells are a very good idea for quests, not everyone has 3 schools of level VII self buffs and even those that do can help eachother out. (You do the life, I do the creature.)

Multiple stat spells gives buffing-only characters a real incentive to keep putting exp into their skills after a buffed skill of 325.

Now that ordinary level VII scrolls drop like crazy on monsters, putting these special scrolls in SIK chests (and perhaps in sing or higher chests as well) will create a new spell economy now that the old one died.

I can put together a full set of level VI life protections, but just barely and I have to sacrifice a lot of quest moderate cantrips including some 25 points of health. I have chosen to do without healing as well so for me more health is always better (I use elixirs).

So I am all for this.

micahNEO

03-27-2004, 07:28 AM

I like the idea of targeting your character and casting Item Enchantment buffs on all your valid pieces. Much better and would streamline the process :)

Elihu

03-27-2004, 07:34 AM

Awesome!!! I like the 3rd option best too for Items

Shiro_Okami

03-27-2004, 08:33 AM

This is Great!

All the dreams I've had of Hunting an HOUR instead of 45 mins before we head back to the buffing spot! =)

For Item buffs I really like the 3rd option.

Also, on a side note.. I'm really hoping to see a change in the graphics of spell casting.

Even if we can just remove the Pink Puffy Swirlly Cloud it would make it look better. We'd actually see MORE of the animation =)

Thanks Turbine! =)

Boddhisatva

03-27-2004, 09:17 AM

Frieze said:
They already do. I mean... (On a mage) Do you hunt outside of Ayan missing even one bane? Do you PKL missing even one bane? Do you VoD missing even one bane? Do you hunt Tuskers without bludg bane on some of your armor pieces? Do you hunt Lugians missing slash bane? Do you hunt Olthoi missing acid bane?

I know many people who do not run around fully baned all the time. Most anyone with melee d will skip banes much of the time. Melees with shields rarely need to bane their armor.

The problem with option 3 is that it will make baning so easy that even those with melee d and a shield will bane all the time. Such characters will be untouchable by melee damage all the time. Since a large segment of the population will now be immune to melee damage the Devs will need to make stuff hit even harder.

There's a reason mages run around fully baned. It's because everything hits them and it already hits them very hard. If the devs have to up damage to hurt fully baned melees with shields then mages will get stomped flat.

Much as I would like that faster buffing for my mage, I feel that option 3 is a game breaking idea.

torak101

03-27-2004, 09:58 AM

One note on Item (banes)
Why is it each item must be buffed individually? It would seem to me if casting time was kept the same (or even increased a bit), mana cost increased, why couldn't the spell effect every piece of worn armor?
I have almost never skipped a piece, I've always buffed every piece.
If you are looking to streamline, this would look like a reasonable option.
One question though, what if I dont want to train all of these schools of magic? What if I just want to swing a sword or axe? In AC you just about have to train all schools just to keep up.

Thats my one single bone with AC's mechanics. EVERYONE is a mage! Its just whether or not you are a primary or secondary mage.

knopp

03-27-2004, 10:24 AM

w00t! Fast casting spells!

Of course in todays world tho, everyone will get these speedy spells for their 8 credit schools, but guess what?

WAR MAGIC FOR 16 CREDITS STILL GETS NOTHING!

Good job guys, sometimes you guys show a real talent for not making any sense. War magic would need to be sped up to still be fair, or at least have the credits adjusted.

I am utterly sick of mage hate in AC.

Crone_MT

03-27-2004, 10:48 AM

Will there be Multi-Stat Fellowship spells?

Crone_MT

03-27-2004, 11:06 AM

Oh while you are working on the spells maybe you could give some Item Magic love in the form of new spells.

I would like to see a spell that would let me infues mana into thing so I don't need to carry mana stones. The cost would come in comps.

I would also like to see a spell that would reduce BU of items. This could be done by either % or a straight amount per level of spell. I think it would be fun to watch peoples buffs drop and they would go from 90% BU to 300% Bu in the middle of a fight.

Ice Guardian

03-27-2004, 12:02 PM

Good Job Turbine Keep up the good work

Mercadia

03-27-2004, 12:06 PM

I love option 3 for item buffing. The majority of players wear either amuli or a hauby/leggings combo due to easier buffing. If item buffs propagated to all worn armor, the playerbase might not resemble a sea of amuli.

Eruditus

03-27-2004, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Ibn
Interesting idea -- I'm not even sure if it's come up.

There's no specific reason I can think NOT to do this, it would just take some work in the treasure system.

Wait. Wouldn't adding a Strength/Coord spell to an item be exactly the same as adding Strength and Coord separately?

No it would not Ibn, with multi buff spells added into the loot gen for jewellry it gives people a far greater chance of finding a viable combination of spells.

Also since the single spells would remain it would also increase the probability of finding equivalent dual/triple spell items since they will both run in the loot gen.

Anhow I love the ideas for speeding up the buffing, my only concern being that melees will be spending quite some time buffing weapons long after the mages have finished. Since the addition of creatures who debuff pretty much every weapon a melee attacks them with I have found it necessary to buff 6+ weapon for Caul hunts.

How about making weapon/casting device buffs at lvl 1 speed too ?

knopp

03-27-2004, 01:13 PM

Or how about everyone quit whining over a system that has worked for the last 4 years?

It is things like this that have unbalanced everything in AC. I miss the days when

you know what, i dont care anymore.

Bhodi Amashi

03-27-2004, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by knopp
w00t! Fast casting spells!

Of course in todays world tho, everyone will get these speedy spells for their 8 credit schools, but guess what?

WAR MAGIC FOR 16 CREDITS STILL GETS NOTHING!

Good job guys, sometimes you guys show a real talent for not making any sense. War magic would need to be sped up to still be fair, or at least have the credits adjusted.

I am utterly sick of mage hate in AC.

What does buffing have to do with War Magic? I can only see +++'s for my Creature/Life/Mana C spec mage.

Myk

03-27-2004, 02:56 PM

Has anyone thought about making all spells one level and having the spell strength based on skill? That way a mage would get a slightly stronger version of spells. Have the spell strength cap at what ever the skill would be with starting 100/100 will/focus and at trained level. It would give everyojne a reason to raise magic beyound it buffing over 315ish.

Not Falling

03-27-2004, 03:10 PM

"Lastly, we are considering the option to allow Item Enchantment to spread to all valid targets on a player. This would mean you could target yourself, cast Impenetrability and it would spread to all of the possible targets on your character. This would cut the spell count down to eight, sixteen with a shield, and really speed the process along."

So this means if you target yourself and cast an item spell it will cast on all the armor/clothing you're wearing? I love this idea best of all. But I see one problem if this feature is implemented. I'll give you an example.

I have to unequip my kabuton to equip my Focus VI fez. If I target myself and cast Impenetrability then everything I'm wearing will be buffed with that spell. My fez will be buffed but not my kabuton! There needs to be a way to select each piece of armor you want buffed. But limit it so only one of each armor area can be buffed. So if you're buffing amuli leggings then make it so you can't buff a girth. Amuli covers the girth area so there's no reason for buffing a girth, unless you're buffing a friend's armor. This would be better than a "select up to X number of items to buff" option.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before but I really don't feel like reading through 16 pages of posts.

knopp

03-27-2004, 03:17 PM

The point i am making is that there is NO way you can change 1 part of the magic system without tackling all of it. THat is why there is so many broken mechanics in AC now adays. You cant change 3 tires on a car and expect it to drive correctly. You gotta change EVERYTHING.

It is all about BALANCE. And why should melees get the benefit of these buffing changes on TOP of their weapon changes, but War magic still be left out?

Doing the planned changes will OVERPOWER life/item/critter for their respective credit costs while leaving the most expensive magic skill in the WORST credit/power ratio.

If you are going to fix 1, you have to fix them all. if not, you are just going to have an even MORE unbalanced game that more ppl will whine and quit over, forcing MORE balancing that causes more of a problem in the long run.

I have played this game for 3 years, and that is exactly the trend most set by the Devs.

Myk

03-27-2004, 03:18 PM

do people who use "buffing armor" even think about how this could help them and not hurt them?????

Ok you wear 10 piece of armor to fight, to buff you swap out 4 of them

Now
10x8=80

with option 3
1x8 = 8
4x8 =32

8+ 32= 40

you have still CUT your banes in half!!!!!!!

knopp

03-27-2004, 03:30 PM

Im all for that as long everything is balanced, and I only see the melee schools of magic being touched by this.

That is my gripe. Fairness and balance. Without that you can never attain an honorable system.

Oh, and with these changes do we get a timer on PKL too? It is going to be GREAT watching ppl bounce of the LS, buff in 20 seconds, and be right back into the fight.

Turbo buffing is a gankers DREAM.

pacesetter

03-27-2004, 04:43 PM

ok,, this I like and don't like : P I guess I am torn by some of the changes.

before the flames begin, remember I play archers, swords, UA and mages so I am looking at this from 2 viewpoints, archer/melee and mage.

Decreased buff times are great and will benefit everyone. I have no qualms with this.

Fellowship and multiple spells should be a mage only thing. You are giving the power of the mage to everyone else. Why should we spend all the time, skill points and effort to be a mage when everyone can be a mage with all the powers and benefits there of.

If you are going to give our power away the least you can do is give us a quest where we can get binders and put what ever spells we want into them (say, up to 5 spells) then learn it as one distinct multiple spell.

I know people are going to say "I spent the skill points, too."

Well, that is where I am torn, I also spent those skill points. All my melee chars have three schools. But, even with this in mind, they are melee not mages!!

Even tho it would be great for my archer to cast multiple spells and fellow spells, I feel that should be left to the mages, where it belongs.

Lord-of-Light

03-27-2004, 04:48 PM

My initial focus is on the fellowship spells. On the one hand, I think that something like these has long been needed to make questing...and for that matter perhaps group hunting as well. On the other hand, unless the mechanics of these spells are tailored carefully, they could have unintended or unwanted effects.

1. First, I assume that the recipients of such buffs will have to be within a few 'yards' of the caster in order tp reveive them. "long distance" group buffing capability could be unbalancing.

2. Obviously, the caster of such group buffs must be a member of the fellow. Presumably, a buffbot routine could be scripted that would enable a buffbot to become a member of the fellow, or indeed form the fellow for the purpose of casting such buffs. I do not think it is a good idea for buffbots to be able to cast group buffs for convenience sake...i.e., for it to be a member of a temporary fellow created just for the purpose of group buffs. Thus, I think that -- in terms of mechanics -- if the caster of the group spells then leaves (or is dropped from) the fellow, the group buffs should "drop" as well...and probably ditto for the recipient of any such "fellow buffs", i.e., if they then leave the fellow they lose their buffs.

However, there are two problems with this kind of mechanic. First, if someone loses their connection to AC, they are invariably dropped from any fellow they are part of, aren't they? (and I don't see a ready solution to this problem) Second, if a buffbot instead remains a member of a fellow, it could then earn XP from the combat activities of other fellow members, even though it wasn't itself engaging in any combat. I still think that this puts a buffbot in the realm of being a UCM in this circumstance, at least UNLESS it is far enough removed from the combat activity area that it is outside the 'radius' in which fellow members can gain XP.

In any event, although I'm not anti-buffbot, I am against the inclusion of additional mechanics which further expand/enhance existing buffbot capabilities...such as the ability to give group buffs to "dummy" fellowships formed for just such purpose.

Not Falling

03-27-2004, 05:39 PM

Umm, Knopp, war magic is an offensive skill. Buffs are defensive. War is being left out because it isn't used for buffing.

Not just melees aren't getting the benefit. Everyone who has item/critter/life benefits from the faster buff times. This isn't hurting your character, dude. And it's not making other classes more powerful. The one type of character this will hurt is the item-only archer and melee. Their low-buff template won't seem so special anymore when everyone else only needs a couple minutes to buff.

"Turbo buffing is a gankers DREAM."

I actually think turbo buffing will make PK more fun. It will make defending towns on Darktide a lot easier. We all know about how the RPKs run into town and annihilate all the noobs. By the time their anti-PK friends buff up the RPKs will be long gone. With the new buff system all they gotta do is buff up for a couple of minutes and they're ready to hunt down the RPKs. This will definitely give Darktide more fast-paced action.

Frieze

03-27-2004, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Boddhisatva
I feel that option 3 is a game breaking idea. Because it's too fast? Er, if you read the rest of my post, and you obviously read my post because you quoted it, you'd have seen the references to when mages (and practically everyone) wore robes. It was 16 buffs then and believe me I always was fully baned and I *complained* about the 16 extra buffs at the time.

Though, at the time, VIIs only lasted 30 minutes.

It might be a good idea to lower the damage that monsters inflict, but the fact remains that players are going to bane if it makes them better. Save for banes being removed there's no way to balance for it universally.

Myk

03-27-2004, 06:35 PM

I would love to see banes removed and monster damage adjusted down to make up the diff. It would make buffing much easier.

Dom on TD

03-27-2004, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by pacesetter

Fellowship and multiple spells should be a mage only thing. You are giving the power of the mage to everyone else. Why should we spend all the time, skill points and effort to be a mage when everyone can be a mage with all the powers and benefits there of.

Did you read the diffs on the lvl 7 versions of these? I have a lvl 123 melee and he will never hit those diffs. He can cast 7's, but with a 58 point hike in the diff, he won't have the skill to cast them. Anyone that does, I consider a mage. Just because you don't have war, don't mean you aren't a mage. Remember FF II? Rosa was a white mage and she used a bow as a weapon. Of course Bows weren't totally overpowered in it.

And for all of you that think this is going to break the game... After all your flames have died out, we'll still be buffing faster and spending more time hunting. I'll love every minute of it. This is helping everyone that self buffs. How can THAT be bad?

Rott_Weiler

03-27-2004, 10:54 PM

great work

I'm more impressed with every new article that comes out.

bravo

torak101

03-28-2004, 01:05 AM

In the end I have agree with the crowd that says its a good thing. How could it not? Buffing is an activity no one really enjoys doing otherwise we wouldnt have buff -bots.
I cant speak for everyone but I would rather be out questing or hunting instead of buffing.

Heres a balance idea of those of you who feel its gonna ruin the game........bring back the comps lol. The time/space management of using all the comps again should balance it!

Just an idea. (I prefer to do as much as possible unbuffed because its a nuisence activity anyway, I usually just do it when I'm xp hunting or a quest mob/dungeon is to tough)

rathgryn

03-28-2004, 01:54 AM

Absolutely the best thing Turbine has done so far.

No other MMOG has anything as tedious as buffing and baning EVERY time you want to hunt. Let's make it less tedious.

And A huge *clap* to the item enchantment changes, i.e. buffing your whole suit of armor at once. Another change long overdue.

Bravo Turbine!

Yinchi

03-28-2004, 06:15 AM

This has been mentioned before but I will mention it again. I would like to see at least 6's increased to one hour. On every quest, we have a few who cast 6's in our level 50+ group, this means that everyone has to stop and wait for those with 6's to buff or everyone rebuffs together. This means that those with 7's buff as often as those with 6's (or the one's with 7's buff those with 6's).

For those with item, you have the best of both worlds. Item only templates have become the new uber toon. You can special melee def, magic defense or missile defense or a combination of both. You ONLY need to put xps into your melee skills, this makes you a tank and much more powerful than those with 2 and 3 school (without buffs). You can raise arcane lore to use 6's faster. BUT also, you have the option to use buff bots or (in the case of our clan, those with item only are buffed by other members). We paid dearly for our magic schools, to be able to buff faster in no way hurts item only people.

Boddhisatva

03-28-2004, 12:22 PM

Frieze,

You missed the point of my post.

I'm not talking about mages in robes. I'm talking about melees with shields and archers with astronomical melee d skills. What keeps such character from baning everything now is the fact that baning everything is a pain. Take away that pain and all such characters will be baned all the time.

Monster damage will not decrease it will increase in order to challenge such heavily protected characters. Mages will be at a greater disadvantage because they will still have the same banes they've always had but the critters will be hitting even harder than they do now.

In addition, everyone's armor will be U/U/U/U/U/U/U all the time. Damage type will become irrelevant. There will have to be more hollows and typeless damage in order to challenge all those baned melees and archers. Again, mages will be at a disadvantage because of the changes that will need to come as a result of option 3.

I would love for baning to become easier but the changes that will need to be made to rebalance after implementing option 3 will be a huge disadvantage to my mage characters. That's why I think it's a game breaker.

Peknanjo

03-28-2004, 12:55 PM

First, I'll throw my support behind people saying scribing should be made a trade skill. Probably arcane lore, though it would be neat for it to be a new skill. We could make a scroll of any spell we know (maybe a parchment + the relevant scarab or similar), then combine any two scrolls at increasing difficulty. Maybe 250 difficulty for a dual VII, increasing by 20 per added spell, or increasing at a curve. Something balanced. It could even use a new item, like the ust, so there could be more versatility. Maybe quest items could be tossed in the mix to make the scroll be for fellowships, or increase duration, or have area of effect, all at higher scribing difficulty and cost/difficulty to cast the spell. Scribing could maybe even also depend on your relevant spell skill, so you have to pass two checks to make a scroll. I think it would be quite awesome. There could however be severe implications for war spells. Obviously a fire VII+ blade VII+ acid VII spell wouldn't exactly be fair. But I don't think it would be terrible to have an increased damage/increased range war spell.

Alternatively, and simpler, isn't the code for spell researching still around? It could be the way to get multi spells, since that system allows for so much versatility.

On the item spells issue - I agree with many that 1 spell to hit all equipped armors would dumb down the process too much, unless critters start to cast lures. Then there'd suddenly be a reason to tink up banes on armor.

Heideggar

03-28-2004, 01:10 PM

Boddhisatva, give em hell. : )

I posted a two post detailed explanation of what you're trying to get across... on like... page 9 or 10?

These changes sound really great, and I'm sure a lot of you really really want to not buff as much, but I don't think you guys really truely understand the consequences.

It's like saying, "omg, let me smite creatures" Turbine lets you do that, and then you complain that some creature did it to you. If you want to have insta-buffs (practally, hell I can't spell lol) then don't complain when some creature insta-buffs infront of your eyes and starts whoopin you to hell with their type-less damage.

There are bits to their proposal that can work, and I'm glad they're trying, but they need to do this right. None of this half-*** **** anymore.

They need to take the time and make sure what they put in is very solid, doesn't have to be perfect, but very solid.

BeaverLover

03-28-2004, 01:14 PM

Increase all self/other positive buff spell durations by 150% and be done with it too.

Frieze

03-28-2004, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Boddhisatva
I'm not talking about mages in robes. I'm talking about melees with shields and archers with astronomical melee d skills. What keeps such character from baning everything now is the fact that baning everything is a pain. Take away that pain and all such characters will be baned all the time. To put it simply: The smart mages/archers always bane. In vod, the smart people always bane, ALL classes. When no banes = death, it becomes a pretty obvious separation. You want to live, you bane. There isn't a choice.

You are acting as though baning is a choice. It's not. Sorry. Maybe it's a choice if you're a level 115 melee hunting in the 60+ rampager dungeon, heck maybe it's ALWAYS a choice for a melee. But if you're a mage in that dungeon it is NOT a choice, it is JUST a drag. And if you're a mage in that dungeon and you don't bane, you are STUPID! You are going to DIE! lol.

Kala Bon

03-28-2004, 01:44 PM

All in all the changes look very very promising and a great idea.

Really, really great ideas. and many thanks

I believe that in order to help out the most players, that with a difficulty so high on the three-spell atta time option that this will be very very difficult to attain for a lot of melee types.

Even the 2-spell option is on the high side, but it attainable by most melee-ers.

Please use the two-spell only, or introduce this first, as this will be more helpful for us gimps... err melee types.

Thanks

Good Hunting

kala bon

Lord-of-Light

03-28-2004, 05:53 PM

Frieze, granting what you say, I still think many people 'overbane', and I'd be very reluctant to see any changes which further promote this rather than penalizing it in some way.

And, for example, a bane spell that simultaneously extends to all armor equipped would seem to me to do the former and not the latter. There are, of course, various reasons why someone may choose to wear more separate pieces of armor versus fewer poeces of armor: (i) they have one or more pieces with majors on them; (ii) item only chars have pieces with different significant crit magic boosts on them; and/or (iii) for looks, just to name three that come readily to mind. However, I don't think that someone who chooses to wear, say, nine separate pieces should be able to buff that armor as efficiently as someone who wears, say, five pieces of armor, much less someone who wears only two or three separate pieces...assuming they all have equal item casting abilities.

Many of my chars tend to wear either hauberks and legs, or ammy tops and legs, and thus are five piece users...in part because I like to only have to bane fewer pieces, in part because I don't like to have to pick and choose among the lvls/types of banes I select that much, and in part because any one or more of those fewer pieces are easier to temporar iy replace if I've lost one or more of them on death. And in other than specialized combat situations, I tend to only either IMP my peripheral pieces (headwear, handwear and footwear), or to just cast much lower lvl banes on them (say 3s). Moreover, I've found that most of my "two-piece" sets tend to hit unparalleled with only lvl 5 banes, so I almost never have to cast banes that are higher lvl than 5s (as compared to IMPs)...and obviously some types of armor either already offer unparalled prots in some categories or require much lower lvl banes to reach that state.

Of course, I realize that this attention to "detail" and "efficiencies" in a preparation for combat ritual equates to "tedium" for many of my fellow AC players but I do think that those who pay such attention to detail should be somehow rewarded/compensated for doing so, as compared to others being rewarded/compensated for their disinclination to do so.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that the latter was what you were advocating or supporting per se, but one of the things that I liked about the old spell economy was that you had to not only possess the skills to use magic but also had to exercise care/restraint in how/how much you used them.