Re: [Adonthell-devel] On combinations

[Kai Sterker]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:24:35 -0500 Mike Avery wrote
> Kai, have you coded this yet? :)  I'd like to see how I could incorporate
> this in with the melee stuff and form more generalized combat mechanics.
> One set of mechanics calculations that could handle all of this as well as
> melee would be cool indeed.

Yeah, I did some testing with the stuff. The tarball with the code should
be among your mails already. But I'll attach it again.

The problem with the formulas is that it is pretty hard, if not impossibly
to get results where one element is pretty strong. I never managed more
than 60-65%. But I never ran any lengthy tests either, so perhaps I just
used the wrong reagents ;).

If you can incorporate that into a single set of calculations, that would
be cool, yeah :).


> Is everyone in agreement that magic is to be handled through the use and
> combination of foci?

There were no complaints, so I'd say 'yes'.


> Let's assume that I have a very strong Fire foci, and a somewhat weaker
> "area" foci.  I want to make a spell which is useful primaily for its ability
> to effectively damage several enemies moreso than its ability to damage
> severely.  By placing the weaker Area foci in the primary position, the
> caster can emphasize concentration on that foci element, increasing the
> effective ability of the caster to damage multiple enemies.  The Fire foci
> then, placed in a secondary position, consumes less of the caster's mana or
> "concentration", and the effects of the fire damage are reduced.    We can
> sacrifice raw potency in favour of general effectiveness. We end up with a
> finer level of control over the recipe's outcome, and we add a third
> dimension to magic making:  The ability of the player to have direct control
> over the concentration of their casting character, and the ability to place
> direct control over a spell's intended purpose.  This would also alleviate
> the cut-and-dry search of players for a foci with a higher potency.
>
>
> What do you think about that?

That sounds good. Basically, it means that the same <n> foci always lead
to the same type of spell, but their arrangement will have an impact on
the effects, right? (Like in the example, either more enemies affected,
but less damage or the other way 'round.)

However, that does not place any requirements as to the nature of the
foci. Meaning, it does not matter whether we go for the "pure" foci, or
those that are a combination of the different elements. Still right?

In that case I think we should take latter. Seems to be easier to
implement a small number of elements a foci is composed of, instead of the
loooong list of single properties.

What we could do is to map element combinations to properties. Because
otherwise, it might be hard to specify what a certain combination of
foci will do. Meaning we could still make use of the list.



> This would mean that placing a Fire Gem in the primary position with other
> foci in secondary/tertiary positions would cause the Fire attribute to be the
> base modifier, and the primary spell attribute?

Yes, after reading the above, I would think so. But what is said above is
also true? That the same foci in a different arrangement lead to the same
effect, only with different weights on the modifiers?


Kai

enchant.tgz
Description: File attachment