View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0008752 | Valley 1 | Gameplay Idea | Jul 3, 2012 10:07 am | Jul 6, 2012 9:36 am | |
| Reporter | lavacamorada | Assigned To | |||
| Status | considering | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 1.108 | ||||
| Summary | 0008752: Revamp the spell crafting system (again) | ||||
| Description | There are several issues with the current spell system. When I reach a new level, all of my old offensive spells are effectively obsolete; even one with a lot of modifiers isn't likely to be competitive with 50% more damage. This means that I'm going to start by doing missions to grab whatever spells I can (unless I feel like spamming Sunrise/Nightfall or searching old continents to get the spells I want). I'm very comfortable with some spells, such as Ball Lightning, but I'll take another spell - say Fireball - of the new level and replace my old Ball Lightning. Within a few missions, I've typically replaced all of my spells with new ones; I might not have any of the spells with which I'm comfortable. However, if I later see a mission that offers Ball Lightning as a reward, I want to do that mission so that I can use Ball Lightning again, even if I already have a bar full of new spells. I might even just craft a Ball Lightning before fighting the lieutenant. This isn't really very satisfying. I don't really feel like I'm being encouraged to vary my build as much as I'm being encouraged to temporarily use a different set of spells while I look for the ones I want. Even if I keep a different set of spells and use them against a lieutenant, I'll almost surely get a completely different set of spells next level. It's unlikely that I'll keep another set of spells long enough to really get a feel for using them. It's as if someone is trying to encourage me to learn to eat with chopsticks by sometimes putting them in a drawer that's slightly closer to me than the one with the forks. Then there are the crafting orbs. When am I supposed to use them? Uncommon orbs are easy enough to come by, so I usually use one when I decide to craft a spell. I've used one epic orb just to see how good they are; I'm not sure when, or if, I'll ever use another orb higher than uncommon quality. I can't use one at the start of every level, because I don't find them that often. I tend to view consumable items with the mindset of holding onto them until I really need them, and it's unclear when I'll need rare/epic/legendary orbs. Perhaps they might help me against a particularly difficult lieutenant or overlord, but it isn't clear when that will be, especially since I don't know what benefits the orbs will give me until I use them. Like the old "continent-wide buff" guardian power scrolls, these orbs give a fairly short-term benefit, and they have many of the same issues. Also, if I do use orbs, I'm going to use them to make my favorite spells, so they're further encouraging me to stick with the same build. To remedy these problems, I propose a change to the way the orbs work: * All orbs have a level. This level is equal to the chunk level where they are found plus a value depending on the orb's quality: 2 for uncommon, 3 for rare, 4 for epic, and 5 for legendary. - These numbers could be adjusted if they're too high. - Because of this, it would no longer be necessary to restrict orbs to dropping only in chunks at or above the world level. * When you craft a spell using an orb, you get a spellgem of the same level as the orb. - If you have a spellgem that is more than 1 level above your level, it behaves as though it were 1 level above your level. This means that your level 11 spellgem from the first overlord doesn't completely overpower level 6 enemies right away, but remains useful from levels 6-10. * Anywhere an orb drops right now, it has a chance to be one of the following: - A prismatic orb (e. g., Epic Prismatic Orb L12) that can be used to craft any spell. - An elemental orb (e. g., Epic Fire Orb L12) that can be used to craft any spell of a particular element. - A random spellgem of the same level and quality (e. g., an epic Fireball L12 spellgem). * When crafting a spellgem, instead of just being able to choose the quality, you can choose any compatible orb in your inventory to use on it. * The idea of these changes is that, if you get a powerful spell, then you're encouraged to make it part of your build for the next few levels. Having a more powerful spell (which might not be a spell you would otherwise use) is a much better incentive to try a new build than having a common spell that happens to be easier to get at the moment. * Also, while some of your spells would still change with every level, some of them would still remain the same, making the transition less jarring. * Finally, since you would have to use orbs soon after acquiring them in order to benefit from them, this would prevent situations similar to those with the guardian power buffs. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | Feature Suggestion | ||||
|
|
I'd agree there is a problem, but there are some things in this that don't quite work. Firstly, I'd be opposed to specific spellgems and the elemental orbs, since forcing players to use other spells really isn't a good thing; I'll use other spellgems if I have incentive to, but simply forcing me to use something else isn't fun. (I'd view getting a spellgem or elemental orb as /not/ getting the orb-that-can-make-anything, and so it would be a bad thing, not a good one; I suspect others would also end up feeling that way.) Secondly, how would this work with the random modifiers? I'd suggest getting one per extra level when the gem is used, and then losing one randomly selected modifier from spells on level up. That said, the level method sounds good (if a little unclear at first - the tutorial would need to be clear about how it works). As for incentivising using different spells, a lot of the reason for using certain spells is personal preference; as long as the spells are mechanically balanced with each other, I don't see a problem in people preferring to use certain spells (since different spells would then be used by different players since they have different preferred playstyles.) |
|
|
What first struck me about this report, is that you seem to be pointing out that AVWW has traded one kind of repetitive grinding for another: We no longer have to start over on a brand-new continent...but in another way, we start over every time we gain a level. What about if the penalty for using spells from an old level wasn't quite so severe? Imagine if spell levels were like...buying a computer. Getting a spell of "world level + 1" is like getting a brand-new computer. Keeping that same spell when you advance to the next level, is like having a slightly older-model computer: it's not quite on par with the newest stuff, but it can still do a respectable job.Every subsequent world level is like having your brand-new computer get a year older; 5 years/levels down the line, your computer/spell is going to seem rather worn out, and you'll be hankering to update to the latest model. On the other hand, preferably your spells shouldn't remain so powerful that you can literally go from one lieutenant to the next without breaking a sweat. So as I think about it, the emerging question seems to be: How do you prolong the time between each lieutenant fight (and in the longer-term, prolong the time before the player fights another overlord), without making the player have to pseudo-grind through repetitive activities? |
|
|
I agree on the nature of the problem, but can't say I agree on the solution at this time. I definitely feel any sense of designing a build is out the window, as I simply fill my bar with whatever highest-tier spells I happen to find (or find materials to craft). I don't have a solution, as this is a sticky problem. But I do feel something will need to be done sooner or later. |
|
|
@BenMiff: You wouldn't be "forced" to use anything. It would still be possible to progress through the game using the same common spellgems from missions or crafting that you can use now - the game shouldn't be impossible for the lack of a couple modifiers on one spellgem. Additionally, right now you aren't guaranteed an orb drop anywhere (the description of legendary orbs says they always drop from overlords, but that isn't actually the case), and getting something is preferable to getting nothing. As for the random modifiers, I was thinking they wouldn't change at all; they don't depend on the level, only on the quality. |
|
|
I do believe there's at least a problem with the legendary orbs; unless there's a way to level a spellgem, instead of just replacing it, you're using this precious item you only get once per continent on a spell that will be obsolete within a few hours of play. |
|
|
@lavacamorada: The problem is that there's only a limited number of items you can get per stash, so the presence of spellgems and elemental orbs means you are much less likely to be able to craft (or obtain via spellgem drop) a spell you want for the same amount of time looking through stashes. (I'm aware you're never guaranteed a drop, but this would lower the chances of getting a drop you are willing to use; I can see elemental orbs and spellgems getting discarded as unwanted a lot rather than being used.) As to quality drops, I got the impression from reading the suggestion that the levels would replace quality, not be in addition to it; since that's been clarified, what I said about losing modifier's doesn't apply. |
|
|
Even if you're determined to use a particular build at all costs, it wouldn't involve much more farming than it does now. If there's a 33% chance (times the chance of getting a drop at all) of a prismatic orb and 33% chance of an elemental orb, and your build involves spells of two elements, then you have a 44% chance, plus a little bit from the individual spellgems, of getting something useful to you. However, if that something is an uncommon orb, then it lasts twice as long as it does now, so the net value of what you find is reduced by less than 12%. If it's a rare orb, then it lasts three times as long as it does now, so the net value of what you find is actually increased significantly. For the epic and legendary orbs (which you can't count on having anyway under the current system), the average value is increased even more. If your build involves three elements, then the average value is increased even for uncommon orbs. In addition, chances are something that can always be adjusted. The current ones are far from 100% anyway, and even if 100% is too low (which it probably isn't), there could be multiple drops. There could even be a random elemental orb or spellgem in addition to a prismatic orb, although this would probably only make sense in the case of the overlord. |
|
|
What if it was a combination of both ideas - higher level orbs, and reduction in damage loss with lower spells to enemy levels. I thought the 50% dmg loss only started on spells that are LOWER than the enemies (if the world level is 10, you can craft up to 11, but the dmg loss only appears on lvl 9 spells?) But if not, the dmg loss could be growing loss. Lvl 9 is 1 level beneath, so 10% less dmg. 2 levels beneath would then be increased by 1.5x the previous, so 10 + 15, 25% loss. 3 levels would then be 25 + 25 + 13 (12.5 rounded), for 63% loss. 4 levels below (a level 6, ie an un-upgraded spell from as soon as you reached the continent) would be over 100% dmg loss, and unfortunately, deal no dmg until it was properly upgraded. Perhaps the numbers start at the same level as enemies (so world lvl 10 is spells lvl 10 start getting weakened), but in 4 strength losses, it would still be a lvl 7, which is un-upgraded since you got to the continent. Edit: forgot to mention the orbs. Uncommon and Rare could stay at the +1, and Epic and Legendary could be +2, and perhaps remain "+1/+2" until used, at which point they become spells +1/+2 levels higher than the world, and the epics and legendaries keep their increased power to them for being 2 higher than enemies of the same. So if you get a legendary from an overlord, you can use it right away to take on the new common enemies of the next continent, or you could save it for the next overlord, and get a power advantage over him. But of course, as soon as he's defeated, the world level will go up for the next continent, and it would have the same strength as any other regular spell, just with some bonuses for being legendary. But that makes it like invoking a legendary power to strike down the toughest of foes. Almost one-time-use. |
|
|
@Kio: I *like* your proposed system for how quickly spells lose power: Start off with just a minor damage reduction, but have it increase semi-quickly, as it lags in more and more levels. Even the specific rates that you suggested (10% -> 25% -> 63% -> 100% less damage) seem pretty good. I would suggest making the second penalty 40%, though - since 40% can be easily overcome by equipping the right element-boosting enchant. re lavacamorada, Benmiff: I'm starting to like most of lavacamorada's suggestion. That said, I agree with BenMiff that elemental orbs aren't a good idea. I think a player should be able to upgrade any of their spells; let players' experiences fighting enemies be the driving force behind what spells they upgrade (eg, if I'm going to attempt a rescue mission where most enemies are weak to fire, and my fire spells aren't upgraded...then I'll be encouraged to first go and upgrade my fire spells). Here is my slightly-adapted version of lavacamorada's ideas: Players would have the following options when it comes to spells: (1)Crafting them, (2)Questing for them, (3)Leveling them, and (4)Boosting them. (1)Crafting: Collect the necessary crafting materials (gems, etc) in order to create a spellgem. A crafted spellgem's initial level will be whatever the world level was when it was created. This is almost identical to questing for a spellgem: instead of completing a quest to get spell X, you're using up certain crafting materials to get spell X. The only difference is that when crafting, you don't know what random positive enchant the spell will have. --- (2)Questing: Just like it is now. Complete a quest on the world map, get a spellgem. The spell's level will be the same as the current world level (although I like the idea of capping the levels of spells that you get from older continents, forcing you to level them. More on leveling below.) --- (3)Leveling: Prismatic orbs don't create a new spell, but instead raise its level. I'll call them "Leveling orbs". Using a leveling orb raises any spell you're holding to the current world level (in effect, making them 'leveling orbs'). This way, if you have a spellgem with enchants that you really like, you can literally hold on to that spellgem forever, upgrading its level as you & the world increase in level. Note that this is the only way to increase the level of a spellgem: if you don't increase its level, it will stay at whatever level it last reached. This makes leveling spells feel a lot like leveling skills in complex RPGs: You'll probably focus on keeping a handful of your favorite spells at the latest level, while other spells remain unused and thereby don't become any more powerful. If you find yourself wanting to use fireball when you haven't leveled it since 3 lieutenants ago, you'll need to find a leveling-orb and spend it on fireball to bring it to the current world level, or else it'll be pretty weak. (That, or craft a new fireball spellgem, or find a fireball spellgem by questing; of course, a new fireball spellgem will probably have different bonuses attached to it. If you really like the bonuses on a specific spellgem, you'll have to hang onto it until you can upgrade that specific spellgem.) [As an aside, if players can level spellgems indefinitely, then it becomes a very feasible possibility that players will keep multiple versions of the same spell (for example, one fast creeping death to quickly snipe enemies, and a super-slow one to inflict max damage on big enemies). In a way, this is like adding new spells to the game, without having to actually add a single spell. The question "What spells will I use?", becomes "What spells with what modifiers will I use?"] Back to the specifics of leveling orbs - I would suggest that players get one free leveling orb when they beat a lieutenant, and other ones being found in stashes. Leveling orbs should probably be buyable from the opal stone as well, for a somewhat high price (as a quick but expensive way to level a spell). The uncommon versions of leveling orbs could even put spells at 1 level higher than the current world level. Even rarer leveling orbs could put spells at several levels higher than the current world level, but would have their power capped just as lavacamorada suggested: "If you have a spellgem that is more than 1 level above your level, it behaves as though it were 1 level above your level. This means that your level 11 spellgem from the first overlord doesn't completely overpower level 6 enemies right away, but remains useful from levels 6-10." --- (4)Boosting: Just like how orbs work currently: modifier-orbs would give any spellgem of your choice a random enchant. Spellgems could hold a maximum of two positive modifiers, or three positive modifiers and one negative modifier. Therefore, a spellgem with one positive modifier could perfectly accommodate another positive modifier, but trying to boost a spellgem that already has two positive modifiers (and zero negative ones) would make it lose one of its currently held positive modifiers. You could find single-modifier orbs (adding one random positive modifier to any spellgem), double-modifier orbs (two random positive modifiers), or mixed-modifier orbs (one positive and one negative modifier). --- I almost want to make this a separate suggestion, except that would split the discussion about revamping spell crafting onto two separate pages; keeping it here makes things simpler, I'm pretty sure. |
|
|
Just to be clear: Is it the elemental orbs in particular that all of you guys hate, or is it the idea of being encouraged to vary your builds? What if the elemental orbs were not replacing any existing orbs that currently drop, but instead added in as an occasional extra bonus? |
|
|
It's the replacement that I dislike rather than the idea of encouragement; it's a case of carrot-not-stick things. The problem with Elemental Orbs is that due to sharing the same space as the other orbs, they will look like a replacement (even if the drop rate rises), since you don't see the background droprates normally. I like the idea of Levelling and Boosting though (espescially since it makes mission rewards able to get the higher rarity things, so they're not "worse" than crafting.) |
|
|
Come to think of it, One downside to leveling that occurs to me, is that it could make the game feel really stagnant once you reached a really high level. Whereas new games would have this fresh sense of "Gosh, what spells am I going to get?", old games would feel like you've done it all, already got really powerful versions of all spells, and just have to keep collecting leveling orbs as your level goes up. Maybe there could be some kind of incentive for destroying powerful spells. Converting them into some kind of special thing, I imagine. --- I agree, elemental orbs would feel like you got unlucky, since prismatic orbs would always be preferable - and that they would feel like a replacement, even if in the background they were not so. I do like the idea of players varying their builds - but the elemental orb method seems like it'd make players unhappy. However players end up being encouraged to vary their builds (which ideally feels fresh and new, not to mention adding depth to the game), it shouldn't make players feel like they're being forced when they'd really rather not. Varying your build should be rewarded, but if you want to stick with your build, you shouldn't feel penalized. That said, your idea of players finding powerful spellgems of a random spell-type seems like it'd successfully encourage build-variety. Prismatic orbs are great, and finding spellgems is great - but elemental orbs, in my opinion, won't feel so good. |
|
|
Hrm... a thought on Levelling Orbs. Maybe make them Fusion Orbs, and have them require a "sacrifice" of a spellgem of equal or greater level than the spellgem you want to raise by 1 level? (That is, you take 2 lvl "x" spellgems and get out a lvl "x+1" spellgem.) I'd be inclined to make it so that you have to use a spellgem of equal or greater rarity as your sacrifice to keep the same modifiers; you can use a lesser rarity spellgem, but it "degrades" the rarity of the kept spellgem by 1 (and so removes a random modifier.) |
|
|
It does seem like that "fusion orbs; equal rarity, else degradation" mechanic would help prevent spellgem-modifier stagnation (late in the game, players having lots of spellgems full of modifiers they like, giving them no incentive to acquire new spells, but instead simply leveling the spells they already have over and over, making the spell-management part of the game feel like a simple leveling-orb hunt, and not be all that fun). But "fusion orbs; equal rarity, else degradation", in my opinion, has some issues. If you have a spellgem with 3 modifiers, it'll probably be very difficult to upgrade its level with all 3 modifiers (assuming that you have to upgrade another spellgem all the way to 3 modifiers, for the sole purpose of leveling the first spellgem). Ideally, players would good-naturedly give up if keeping all 3 modifiers was too difficult, and settle for keeping 2 modifiers most of the time; trying to keep all 3 modifiers, only on rare occasions. But in practice, I think players would feel like keeping all 3 modifiers depended on them just trying hard enough (which is true - with a great deal of effort, it should be possible to make a brand-new 3-modifier spellgem every level, just to maintain another 3-modifier spellgem when leveling it). This could make the game feel really tedious and difficult, as players felt like they "had" to continually farm 3-modifier spellgems every time they leveled, simply to play the game the way they wanted. And for every 3-modifier spellgem they wanted to keep powerful, they'd have to farm yet another 3-modifier spellgem. I'm currently thinking that enchants could work like they currently do, in 1.109: as you progress in the game, the number of modifiers a spell has, increases. On continent 1, spells can only have 1 modifier; continents 2&3, 2 modifers; all the way to after winning continent 5, spellgems having 4 modifiers. (See the enchant reworking section, under http://arcengames.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=AVWW_-_Post-Launch_Series_2_Release_Notes#Beta_1.109_Of_A_Moody_Temperament ). On continent 1, where spellgems can only have 1 enchant, leveling a spellgem will keep its enchants exactly the same. However, once spellgems start having 2+ modifiers, *leveling a spellgem will make its "oldest" (topmost) enchant disappear, to be replaced by a new, random enchant at the bottom of the list; this causes all enchants to shift up one place in the list*. <-- This is essentially the idea I will be proposing, below. --- Example A: My Level 1 Fireball spellgem has a single "+20% projectile speed" modifier. If I level it, it will become a Level 2 Fireball spellgem, with the exact same "+20% projectile speed" modifier. If/When I level it to Level 3, again it'll keep the same "+20% projectile speed" modifier. --- Example B: My Level 7 Throw Rock spellgem has the following enchants: "-20% cooldown cost, -10% speed to enemy upon hit". When I level this spellgem to Level 8, its enchants will become "-10% speed to enemy upon hit," and some new, randomly generated modifier - let's say "40% extra vulnerability to air to enemy upon hit". Note that the "-20% cooldown" enchant was the first one on the list, meaning that it was scheduled to disappear with the level up. After leveling the spellgem, '-10% enemy speed upon hit', which was formerly the 2nd-topmost enchant, is now the topmost enchant; if I bring my Level 8 Throw Rock to Level 9, I know that it's going to lose its '-10% enemy speed' enchant, keep its '40% air' enchant, and gain a brand-new enchant. --- Example C: I'm currently level 9 (on continent 2), and I want to raise an old level 7 spell (which I found on the 2nd continent, giving it 2 modifiers) to level 9. For the purposes of modifier-rotation, this counts as having leveled the spell once: even though it's gaining 2 levels, it will still only lose its topmost modifier, and gain one new modifier at the bottom of the list. Every time I level a spell, no matter how many levels by which it may be increasing, only one modifier will vanish and only one new modifier will appear. --- The above system combines randomness with stability. After continent 1, leveling a spellgem will cause predictable results (you know which enchant is going to vanish and which will remain), but also unpreditable ones (you don't know what new enchant you'll receive). Note that the number of modifiers a spellgem had, would depend on what continent it was found on (although all spells from continents 6+ would have 4 modifiers). This means that if players really wanted to have a spell with consistent effects, they could acquire spells from the first continent, and use a leveling orb to bring it to the current world level; the obvious downside to this being that this spell would only have a single modifier. This wouldn't be a half-bad idea while you were on continents 2 and 3: I may want one consistent, very helpful modifier, instead of a 2-modifier spell that becomes 50% different every time I level it (and 100% different from how it was 2 levels ago, unless I get lucky and get the same modifier that I just lost). Once players reached continents 4+, they would probably prefer to have 3 (rotating) modifiers, instead of 1 constant modifier. (For a consistent-effect spellgem, players could also acquire an elite-enchant spellgem. More on that later.) One interesting result of this system would be that upon reaching continents 2, 4 and 6 (which is when the number of enchants increase), players would be strongly encouraged to get a new set of spells - simply because all of their old spells would have 1 less enchant than the latest ones. Players reaching continent 2 wouldn't be quite as motivated, since their continent 1 spells would have a consistent enchant (which is, as previously stated, arguably competitive with continent 2 & 3's spells which have 2 enchants, but none of the enchants being permanently consistent). Continent 1's spells being competitive with continent 2 & 3's spells also eases players into the game a bit, since they'll have a good reason to hang onto the spells they acquired after a single continent of gaming - versus players who upon reaching continents 4 and 6, already well into the game, having no real reason not to eventually replace all of their spells.) Note that this would have the (minor) side-effect of making players have no real incentive to acquire spells from continents 2&3 once they reached continent 4, nor continent 4 & 5's spells upon reaching continent 6. There could still be extra-powerful versions of spells, via making some generate with "elite" instead of normal enchants (as it already is in 1.109). Like the way any other enchant would behave (via this suggestion's proposed methods), perhaps elite enchants could also rotate upwards through the list and eventually leave the spell, in the spirit of "all good things must come to an end"; it'd probably be nice for elite enchants to initially be placed at the bottom of their spell's enchant-list though, so that players would have the elite enchant for the longest possible time. However, my preferred suggestion for dealing with elite enchants, would be to have them occupy a permanent, unchanging slot in the spell, while all of the other enchants gradually changed upon leveling. This would make elite continent 2&3 spells initially competitive with continent 4&5 spells (provided the elite enchant was a good one), and continent 4&5 spells initially competitive with continent 6+ spells - which makes its own kind of sense, and also eases players into continents 4 & 6. With this method though, I'd suggest that spells not be allowed to have more than 1 elite enchant. I say "initially" competitive, because while I would start with 0 new-continent spells, I should eventually find elite-enchant spells on the new continent - and a spell with a good elite enchant with 2 rotating enchants, would be better than a spell with the same elite enchant, but 3 rotating enchants. Note that Crafting and Questing would still work in the same way. I suppose Boosting could work by giving spells an elite enchant, and no spell that already had an elite enchant being Boostable. Finally, I suppose that spells with a negative modifier would give spells an extra positive modifier. The extra positive modifier would rotate, just like the other ones; thus, a continent 2&3 spell with a negative modifier would be just like a normal continent 4&5 spell, except with the penalty of having a negative modifier. The negative modifier, on the other hand, I think should stay constant. I suppose it could change upon leveling as well, but I don't see any real reason to force the player to adjust to a new negative modifier every time they leveled the spell. As always, feedback is welcome. |
|
|
Regardless of what else is implemented, if the developers still have the vision of wanting players to mix up their builds every now and then (which I like, because it increases replayability), there needs to be *some* incentive to use a spell that you don't normally use. If sometimes being offered a reward for using a different spell feels like you're being forced to use a different spell, then I don't see any way out of feeling like you're being forced to use a different spell (since the alternative is punishing you if you use the same spell, which is going to feel even more like being forced to use a different spell). |
|
|
Hmm. Well, another way to do it would be for there to *only* be elemental orbs, and no prismatic ones. We could say that elemental orbs craft (or in my system, level up) a spell /of its own element/ to Word Level +1, or they can craft/level a spell of any other element just to the World Level. This would encourage players to level spells of the orb's element, but if they really liked Throw Rock and they just weren't getting Earth Orbs, they could still keep it leveled (just not leveled +1) by using any other Elemental Orb on it; Throw Rock wouldn't sit in their inventory unleveled for 3 levels just because they couldn't find an Earth Orb. Elemental orbs would have even distribution, even in certain themed maps - meaning whether you were on a firey Lava Flats map, aquatic underwater map, or earthy grasslands map...there would always be an even 1/6 chance of of the orb you find being of whichever element. |
|
|
@Pyrrhic: I actually like that implementation a lot more, since you wouldn't feel like you're losing anything, plus it cuts down on item clutter (less items with more meaningful differences). It also means they're not useless to those who insist on sticking to a particular build, while still encouraging using them on particular spells. (-1 Level might be a bit harsh, though; maybe just have them get one less positive modifier instead.) However, I'm opposed to making them have even distribution; I would much, much prefer different elemental orbs to have different regions they are more likely in, since then you have some strategic control over what spells you're likely to develop via de-storming regions with more preferable orbs. |
|
|
Hmm. I guess either system could work; spells leveled with the "wrong" elemental orb could either just reach world level, or they could lose a modifier (spells from continent 1 always having a single modifier, no matter what orb is used to level with them). If it was modifiers, I think it would have to work like "using the 'correct' elemental orb gives you an /extra/ modifier", since otherwise, using the incorrect orb would make a spell have less modifiers (and therefore be weaker) than a version you might find randomly; something about "well, I used the incorrect orb, so I'll just replace it with this one I found from a mission" seems to defeat the purpose, somehow. One of my hesitations about the +1 modifier idea: at continents 6+, a spell with the correct leveling orb would have 4+1=5 modifiers. Would that be simply too many modifiers for players to keep straight? It might feel like the spell is just a big pile of positive effects, and just too complicated with all of its effects to really feel like a distinct spell with distinct effects that make it better at certain things. Heck, even 4 modifiers is a bit much, in my opinion. For that reason, I (currently) prefer the Leveling+1 system, although in the early continents, +1 spell effects would be kind of fun. --- I would prefer seeding elemental orbs slightly differently depending on region, except I'm not sure I can think of a way it could work. For example, let's say that every region had a type associated with it, that type having double elemental orb rates; so Grasslands would have a 2/7 chance of finding an earth orb, and a 1/7 chance of per element of finding one of the other five elements' orbs. This would be fine, but I worry that players would feel that the thematic element's orbs weren't dropping enough (after all, there's a 5/7 chance, over twice as likely, to find a non-thematic orb compared to a thematic one); and that they preferred the chance of finding a thematic orb to be at least half, maybe even 100%. But then, I don't think players would be encouraged to vary their builds: If they wanted to level their favorite Earth spell, they would grind in Grasslands, because it was the more likely place to find Earth Orbs. Finding any other kind of orb would be a disappointment. Even if the developers held firm and kept the drop rates at 2/7 thematic, a player might still consistently grind away in Grasslands, simply because they really wanted that Earth Orb, and this was the most likely place to find one. Now, if the drop rates were 100% tied to region (water orbs and none others in water regions, etc), that would reduce grinding, since you would know exactly what kind of orbs you'd find, and you'd know that to level your 3 water spells, you'd need 3 water orbs, and none more. But on the downside, it could really limit which maps the player felt like exploring. They may spend all of their time on water maps and grasslands, simply because their favorite spells were earth and water; so not only would players have little incentive to try different spells, they'd also have less incentive to try different map regions. On the other hand - spending a lot of time in a region (as players would be doing if they were always hunting for water gems in water areas) sort of encourages elemental diversification. If I'm always exploring water regions for water spells, I'll regularly be coming across enemies who are weak to light, fire, and air. This will make me want to level up my light, fire and water spells - and therefore go to regions with light, fire and air orbs. If I'm in regions with light, fire and air orbs a lot, I'll want spells the enemies there are weak to, right...? The idea is that eventually the player has a reason to explore everywhere, and they're no longer as focused on sticking to the water regions. So there's a reason to seed elemental orbs strictly by region. I think I may still prefer evenly distributing how orbs are seeded across all regions, but really I'm on the fence. Even-seeding might make hunting down elemental orbs feel aimless; but strict region-seeding might make players feel really obsessed about certain regions. I'm learning towards even seeding. If the elemental orb distribution rates are truly even across all regions, then I think players will feel free to adventure anywhere they wish - not feel "forced" to play in the grasslands every time they level, just to "feed" their Earth spell. Whatever orb they found would be luck of the draw, which they couldn't do anything about. As for tying region's themes to orb management: How about if the spell rewards for overland missions was tied to region "type"? At the expense of their modifiers being completely randomized (from acquiring a new spell, as opposed to leveling and therefore only somewhat randomizing their spell's modifiers), players would know exactly what regions to look in, in order to find certain spells. This would have the (fun?) effect of making certain-element spells more rare, if its corresponding region wasn't available: if entropy spell rewards are tied to 'The Deep' regions, and my latest continent has none of them - then I'll have to either forge or level up entropy spells. I suppose this also would encourage spell variety, since it'd effectively make which spells were easy to level up (because I had the option of finding a brand-new one in an overland mission) vary depending on the continent, in theory encouraging players to use different spell combinations on every continent. On the other hand, water spells would apparently be available on every continent (because every continent has water surrounding it, meaning water regions, meaning water spell rewards from missions), possibly making water spells feel really common. But maybe that's not too severe of a problem? The downside(s) to limiting the elemental type of spell-rewards by mission, mirrors the downside of seeding elemental orbs strictly by region. If players really liked a certain kind of spell, they'd often do missions in certain regions. However, preferring to do overland missions in specific regions, has an important difference versus adventuring in certain regions: missions usually take only a few minutes each, while adventuring easily takes hours. Furthermore, a player probably won't be able to find all of the spells that they want to find right away. If there's 5 overland missions available and none of them provide spells I want, I'll likely either start adventuring, or settle for getting a spell that's not my first choice (thereby giving me an up-to-date spell I rarely use, encouraging me to use it, and thereby encouraging me to vary my usual build). And like before, if players find themselves doing missions in certain regions repeatedly, they'll be encouraged to level the spells that monsters in those regions are weak to - encouraging them to do missions in other regions, etc, hopefully until they're fine with doing missions everywhere. Also as stated before, having certain spells only be available in certain missions, could make players feel kind of forced to take missions from the regions where their favorite spells were (even though they could also have current-level spells by forging or leveling). Oh, and I was thinking that elemental orbs could be found in stashes. How does that sound? PS: Some feedback from the powers-that-be (developers / admins) would be appreciated. Should we be discussing this so much, if (say) it's not something that will likely change anytime soon? That said, I would guess that the general opinion is "all discussion is encouraged, and if an idea seems good enough, we'll likely incorporate it at some point". |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2012 10:07 am | lavacamorada | New Issue | |
| Jul 3, 2012 10:50 am | tigersfan | Internal Weight | => Feature Suggestion |
| Jul 3, 2012 10:50 am | tigersfan | Status | new => considering |
| Jul 3, 2012 11:38 am | BenMiff | Note Added: 0026265 | |
| Jul 3, 2012 12:02 pm | Pyrrhic | Note Added: 0026266 | |
| Jul 3, 2012 3:08 pm | Brise Bonbons | Note Added: 0026269 | |
| Jul 3, 2012 5:06 pm | lavacamorada | Note Added: 0026273 | |
| Jul 3, 2012 6:20 pm | conductorbosh | Note Added: 0026275 | |
| Jul 3, 2012 6:43 pm | BenMiff | Note Added: 0026276 | |
| Jul 3, 2012 8:43 pm | lavacamorada | Note Added: 0026281 | |
| Jul 3, 2012 10:43 pm | Kio | Note Added: 0026284 | |
| Jul 3, 2012 10:47 pm | Kio | Note Edited: 0026284 | |
| Jul 3, 2012 10:48 pm | Kio | Note Edited: 0026284 | |
| Jul 4, 2012 1:49 am | Pyrrhic | Note Added: 0026286 | |
| Jul 4, 2012 1:58 am | Pyrrhic | Note Edited: 0026286 | |
| Jul 4, 2012 4:09 am | lavacamorada | Note Added: 0026288 | |
| Jul 4, 2012 5:23 am | BenMiff | Note Added: 0026291 | |
| Jul 4, 2012 7:44 am | Pyrrhic | Note Added: 0026299 | |
| Jul 4, 2012 2:35 pm | BenMiff | Note Added: 0026320 | |
| Jul 5, 2012 6:02 pm | Pyrrhic | Note Added: 0026339 | |
| Jul 5, 2012 6:03 pm | Pyrrhic | Note Edited: 0026339 | |
| Jul 5, 2012 6:03 pm | Pyrrhic | Note Edited: 0026339 | |
| Jul 5, 2012 11:48 pm | lavacamorada | Note Added: 0026364 | |
| Jul 6, 2012 3:52 am | Pyrrhic | Note Added: 0026369 | |
| Jul 6, 2012 6:21 am | BenMiff | Note Added: 0026371 | |
| Jul 6, 2012 9:36 am | Pyrrhic | Note Added: 0026380 | |
| Apr 14, 2014 9:30 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Category | Suggestion - Gameplay => Gameplay Idea |
