ti-legacy.com

Here are my notes from the discussion on OOC about magic. Please feel free to comment, add things, etc.

DISCUSSED

- Hallucination Hex
- Fecho loosened up as mattack comes in
- Ensuire mv drain on mattack is balanced
- Create 'eavesdroping' objects - testable in some manner
- More forging magical objects/enchanting
- Clothing nuke spell? ... not sure about this one, seems a bit comic for our theme, but definitely obj destroy - ableit i think this is in-game?
- Spells to lock notes/objs from being read except by a single person's name
- Create "knowledge' objects (that mages can reduce their own skill for?)
- A spell that nulls all affects
- Curse objects/clothing to be non-removable
- Hex someone to be able to know where they are at all times
- Mark some spells as hexes and make it so people can only be hexed once in awhile.
- copy existing objects (definitely an earth spell - material might be required)
- mimic spell to fake being someone else. Probably won't replace equipment, just intro, desc, and people's remember lists
---- Give this spell some sort of test people can do to penetrate it if being diligent
- magic to forge people's mail headers/signatures if the mage has a legit one on-hand
- spell objects should degenerate over time if informational, to eventually clue people in to its magic origin
- spell to "ride" NPCs and PCs/snoop
----- should leave some traces
- mage locks and mage keys (maybe name triggered too)
- using blood/hair/etc as a facilitator to magic
- a command like steal to take hair/nail clippings
- require objects like hair/nails for certain spells to target (or all?)
- perhaps certain actions taken by players can leave behind hair/nail, etc objs that people can forage/search for?
- creating effigies to be able to target people with magic
- spell traces - and a spell to backtrace
- add depth to a mage, giving them a flavor to their casting
- avatar short descriptions
- alternate endings to 'a mage getting caught and becoming unplayable'
---- identity theft (see above)
---- free "plastic surgery" spell (not easy to do ICly, but IC and not QP or staff fuelled)

REJECTED
- Combat Spells
- Damage Spells
- Anything that makes a mage, outside of normal combat and mattack, theoretically more powerful in a fight/arrest situation than a knight. No single spell to become a 'get out of jail free' card, as the knight arrest function must work in almost all cases for game balance and theme viability reasons

POLL
Abortion Spell

Suggestion:

A water spell that bathes you.

Or a spell that helps you drain your pool faster.

Just wondering if mattack is going to be the rocket launcher in the new rock, paper scissors combat system, or if they will be easier to defend against with some defense, harder with others, similar to how the weapons/defenses currently work?

Jei raises a good point on mattack (which may warrant its own thread and which I'll write more on later).

What should mattack be strong against? What should its weaknesses be?

My suggestions would be off the top of my head that it should be weaker against armoured opponents than your typical physical attacks, and that it should work less well if you ourself are wearing armour too.

Perhaps each element should have a specialty as well?

For example:

Fire
+10% against: Parry
-5% against: Shield

Void (void has lightning... right?)
+5%: Shield
Weak against none

Earth
-5% against dodge
Each attack adds a small amount to your defense value

I like the mattack having a strength and weakness, but I'd probably be inclined to program that being specific elements against one another.

To keep the system balanced, mattack uses magic skills instead of weapon skills and 'assumes' a weapon of below average to high quality (eg, an archmage is wielding the code equivalent of a "damascus sword"), depending on the mage's skill. This means that mattack is directly in line with the same amount of damage done by all other weapons. The difference is more in the flavor of RP and what is happening than anything.

There is one crux - mattack damage can bypass armor, to a degree. However, piety acts as "armor" against mattacks.

So what I've gathered is..

1) Mattack only considers other elements, not the current combat code defined defenses and weapons

2) Mattack completely/mostly bypasses armor, a luxury their hunters(the Knights, for those who don't know) often use.

3) Mattack's skill level also effectively gives them a free damascus class weapon as part of the skill levelling up.

I'm pretty much opposed entirely to 1 and 2. 3 I'm fine with, because I'd hope unarmed also increases in damage as skill increases. If not, then I have to wonder why mattack would. As for 1 and 2, I think the 2nd one makes it pretty moronic for knights to even use armor then.. which is iconically what they have worn, and the 1st one is just plain short-sighted and will, IMO, mean that mattack will be the new rocket launcher of the RPS combat system.

Now, if mattack is only going to be used against other mages, which seems to be about as far thought through as it is, then I guess that's all fine, but if it's something knights have to deal with, I hope you're a little more flexible about making changes to it before it is coded in completely.

Any other players who agree, or not, please raise your voices and be heard too.


EDIT:

Just thought of this, but is the piety going to be taken up to steel level armor, then? Because I'm foreseeing a shitload of steel-armored mages taking on armored(or not) Knights, and the Knights' weapons being less effective vs. the mages due to their armor, and the mages mattacks being.. well, cutting right through the steel armor of the knights, and potentially not super impeded by their piety, either.

Alternatively, is mattack's effectiveness going to be reduced by armor-wearing mages?

I would make mattack armor penetration a separate skill. I imagine it would work best at a % effectiveness about one-third to one-half your skill level, i.e. a skill level of 30 would only ignore 10%-15% of the opponent's armor.

I'd be cool with it being a mage-only technique, and I wouldn't even say it needs to be halved, in that case. Master slots are precious, if a mage chose to learn master 'armor penetration' then so be it, 75% armor piercing is good for mages, and not as horrible as the currently proposed 100% armor piercing just for having the skill, from a knight standpoint.

Yah, personally I don't see a need for mages to be especially geared to killing knights. I like the idea that mages can defend themselves competently against knights, and that a mage of equal skill is still a threat to a knight, but I'd prefer the true danger to come "tricks" that have to be prepared in advance, like blinding someone or binding them in vines.

I do think there's a big need for mattack in general though, both to terrorize the less armoured populace and do deal with fellow mages. Back when I was Rubeus on TI:A I ended up getting PKed by a certain Knight (<3). The reason I was caught thought wasn't because of the combat skills or armour of the Knights - it was because I was unable to deal with problem members in Manus who had twinked out their combat skills, and even though I was a much more powerful mage when push came to shove that didn't amount to nothing. I see this as going a long way to addressing it.

In terms of piety - I'd just beg that it's effectiveness is only marginal at best. It doesn't cost XP or a learn master slot, and IMHO having piety as a substantial force in the balance of the MUD robs things of a bit of the ambiguity of whether or not the Order (or any religion) is actually right or just full of crap. I feel that ambiguity is just as important to maintain as the ambiguity as to whether mages are really evil or not.

Rather than focus on armour penetration though, another player suggested something that I thought was a great idea. Why not make mattack ignore what range you're at. It makes sense IC that you can launch a fireball from across the room or use a flaming sword up close, and it helps differentiate magic attacks from regular ones in a way that's p useful and doesn't break the game so to speak.

And I love Kinky's suggestion of having the advantages/weaknesses be between elements. That's a great idea.