ti-legacy.com

On the save or lose point - what do you call regular combat? Or the restrain command that lawful types get? Knights have these tools at their disposal - what's missing is the other side of the equation. - Geras.

I really don't understand how either restrain or regular combat are save or lose for mages. Restrain by a knight on anyone is not automatic, they have to submit. The exception to this is if the person is incapacitated. As far as combat, mages will have mattack (which sounds like it will be very good, possibly/probably too good at first, but eh) so I still don't see the point about the save or lose toward combat in general..? And there isn't really, IMO, anything missing on the other side of the equation. Mages/thieves/whatever are just as able to attack and incapacitate or kill someone, restrain them with rope and cart them off as it currently stands. Whether or not they're -capable- of doing this depends on the attacker(s) and their victim(s).

In regards to the twinking thing, I'd rather we just address prisoners (lawfully taken prisoners or unlawfully taken prisoners) as a collected group rather than splitting them depending on who they're prisoners of. To be more direct, if a person is being a dumbass/twink while being a prisoner, they should be punished accordingly, especially if they're blatantly abusing code to do so.

As far as the point about it being harder for a mage/thief to struggle off through the city with someone they captured than a knight would... I really don't even understand why this is a point, actually. Knights/Reeves can haul a prisoner away because they -are- peacekeepers. Any criminal, mage or thief doing the same thing through crowded streets has basically botched the kidnapping from the beginning, if you ask me. If your first thought of your 'plan' is that you shouldn't have trouble kidnapping people from crowded areas(bars, squares, arguably the cathedral, etc) and then hauling them through the city to get back to your lair.. then I think your plan is flawed from the very beginning.

That being said, rather than having a spell that 'restrains' a character without their permission, why not have a spell that allows you to teleport or something back to your lair after you've restrained them through current, more balanced means? A few mages who walk in, beat someone unconscious and bind them in rope and then group-teleport back to wherever sounds much more cool and in theme to me than a mage who appears and insta-polymorphs a person into a doll and walks away back to their lair. It means the mages actually have to work for the kidnapping and the victim at least has some chance of calling for help, running, something, and thus allows mages to do more kidnappings if they want without grossly unbalancing things. But that's just my opinion, I'd like if more people discussed this.

Hmm, think Jei has some good points there about kidnapping being fairly open to anyone all over. There's no difference to a knight with manacles or a mugger with a rope in the chances or ability to take someone hostage. It just comes down to that the knights are probably more practiced OOCly at doing it.

There is already a travel spell in game that facilitates shortening distances, even dragging prisoners.

Not sure I agree about the middle section about it being flawed to kidnap someone in public. It's a great place for the info to get out ICly that someone did it, so I wouldn't punish people too harshly for choosing those means and ends.

Actually, I'll back out slightly on my earlier statement in that I think magic should make some things easier, and non-lethal for other parties things seem the ideal place to take it.

The magic revamp is, well, stuck on several points amongst the staff, albeit we have some phenominally cool ideas to implement.

We've wavered through adding bits and pieces to the existing systems to going through and realising that any real in-depth additions, and even just some code fixes, will require an actual rewrite of most/all of magic. So, then we got into arguing about paradigms and theme and all of that, which means we're not at the stage of just patching things up, but a fundamental rewrite. Our analysis of this goes something like this:

Across all of the magical elements, we have 69 spells. Eighteen of them are either flat broken or extremely limited in use. That's 26% of spells are broken. Some of those spells, to fix, would require some extensive rewrites of fundamentals in the game that may impact other items.

So, the long story short is that we cannot improve on magic very much the way it is. Though we have some undeniably cool things in there, we think we might be better retaining them and rewriting the magic system.

This analysis saddens us deeply. Still, it does provide massive opportunity... and we have some gorgeous things to leverage off.

==================================
We have a list of things that players have requested over here.
==================================

So, onto new and better things!

Right now, we're looking at a topic that players have discussed with us that forums a fundamental basis for magic:

1) we like the system of balancing moons/elements or SOMETHING, then evoking a spell and holding it, then casting it at an eventual time. This, to us, makes magic more than just the D&D system insta-cast, introduces the element of planning, and really, it's pretty essential to our theme. Moving away from that would be a major change to something for no real purpose other than change, so we're planning to keep this.

2) However, we recognize a call for players to be able to be more than one 'flavor' of mage. Not missing paths precisely, but mostly just feeling a bit constrained that being a mage is in a way almost sympathetic simply because 'mages are born that way'. We'd made a commitment to introduce new types of magic as well as the possibility that, through deliberate means, non-mages may seek to become mages. Thus far, the mage types we can think of are: 1) inborn mages/elementalists - natural feel for magic and probably elementally attuned as this is what 'natural' magic looks like, 2) arcanists - magic that is gained through things like the use of experimentation and objects to create magic, but the arcanist themselves aren't using natural ability to do so, and 3) blood mages - essentially people who unlock some real nastiness through doing real nasty things. These are the 'collect bits of people to target them with curses, hexes, and stuff'

Can you think of any more "types" of mage people could want to play that we haven't thought of? Note: the battlemage of old TI's Path of Steel and the idea of the Bardic mage we have decided to remove. The first for issues around mages being combative and how we'd like to design against that and the second because of the intrinsic 'painting a guilty sign on a guild/set of players just because a certain genre of magic exists'

3) We are committed to allowing players to play any of the above types of mage or even a combination, provided they ICly unlock each type of magic. The idea is that, for example, blood magic might require a human sacrifice, arcanists may have to create a grimoire, and elementalists may have to purchase latency/be awakened by another elementalist to change their underlying psyiology or something.

Anyway, we're looking for thoughts and reactions to this at this time so we can get an idea of what excites people, anything really off-putting about what we're suggesting, etc. Thanks for your time!

Here's a suggestion:

For each "arcana" skill, have different abilities/advantages that get unlocked at rank 25, 41 and 61. As it is, pretty much anyone I know who spends learn master points on arcana skills comes to regret it. If the specialization you're talking about leverages those skills, that'd kill to birds with one stone.

BTW, one archetype that seems to have gone missing is the forage one. It'd be nice if that could be reincorporated somehow.

Scattered thoughts:

Elementalists learn through meditation and exploration of the Astral. Arcanists learn by careful study and research. Blood mages make pacts with demons and are rewarded with knowledge of their craft through sacrifice. There may be some interplay between each path of magic and each path of learning, but the most clear-cut benefits ought to come from the above.


Alchemy. This may not necessarily be outright magic, as it were, but the effects it produces could be mistaken for such. This could provide another crux for roleplay wherein the opinion of alchemists may wax and wane, with the Church unsure of what precisely to label alchemists as. Alchemists would need to learn through experimentation, another path of learning.


As Geras suggested, provide benefits for 'learn master'ing a path of learning. These need not be anything particularly amazing, but they ought to be unique and desirable, something that would make people actually want to use the master slot for the skill. I, too, agree that as they are now, there is no reason to take meditation or research past 25.

Oh... I like the alchemy!

I think all might help give more depth to magic and help mages diversify a little...

I was actually thinking, about a revamp to whisperreap.

Would it be possible to code it, so that whisperreap is linked with attunement? Meaning, lets say to attune an item to someone, then you cast whisperreap on them. You would be able to actually listen in on whatever conversation is happening in that room. Just an idea! Or perhaps something similar to this would be pretty cool.

Census reveals that ~1/10th of the current server population is active/latent mage; bare in mind the ration of vNPC mage population to PC is undoubtedly lower than other segments of the population so this represents a significant minority and a very small population group.

Magic functions by observable laws, similiar to physics. These laws will be consistent over disicpline (source) of magic. Already we narrow the true variety of magic down to a bare handful. Inherent magic (elementalism) being the natural potential of matter (body). Extraplanar/Voodoo (blood magic) being the manipulation of intangible energy (spirit). And vancian study (arcane magic) as harnessing the potential of perception and awareness (mind). Any single method of magic outlined could easilly provide enough diversity for the 10 or so PC and perhaps another 10 vNPC mages.

With that in mind, the following possibilities are also candidates: Alchemy, as mentioned above, is a form of artificial, inherent magic. Taking advantage of the natural potential of matter by methods outside of typical magecraft. Artificial methods of the other magics might include demon binding (spirit) and divination/fortune-telling (mind.)

Creation/Destruction or Life/Death is another possible theme. In accordance with the above themes (mind, body, spirit) this one is 'motion.' If you like I can expand on the philosophy/implementation of this concept. The artificial method might be golemsmithing.

Theurgy (faith) is implied in various aspects of the lore already, though I suspect its implementation as executable magecraft is unlikely. This is, in a basic form, already implemented in 'piety.' Other passive theurgy may also be implemented without damaging the world's theme. Artifical theurgy may be represented already by preaching.

So, we have Body (five disciplines), Spirit (~two disciplines), Mind (~one discipline), Motion (~three disciplines [motion, balance, entropy]), and Faith (~one discipline). That's 12 disciplines before taking into account the artificial implementation of each theme. So, that's approx. enough for each active mage to have two unique disciplines. ;)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coded implementation of magic should not involve several reskinned spells available redundantly in different ideations to several disciplines. One Code spell should be plenty to represent every disciplines 'travel' spell, for instance. Then allow a method similiar to restringing items for spells to create an individual flavor for each mage's spells. The relevant recho information can be appended to an index attached to each mage's pfile.

Thank you all for the ideas and feedback. :) I'm still churning things around in my mind, I must admit. :)