>How much real effort are you putting in?

A lot. At the very least 100 hours of just searching over the past few years. The actual hours on those characters obviously are higher and I think 100 is probably an underestimate. Obviously I've been doing it wrong.


What is it you don't like about this change anyway? Will it make it too easy for other people to find wands that you know?

>Type area....start at the top. ...

This is basically what I do, though instead of killing just the mage mobs I try to kill every single unique mob in the area. Unless it's an extremely low-level area, then I only kill mobs that look promising somehow.

I also look at pretty every word (except articles, pronouns, etc) in the room's description, and also north, south, east, west, up and down. I'm not sure how to be more thorough than this. I suppose I should just spam-kill every mob and write a script to go through a dictionary searching in every room.

Anyway, I already posted a thread about how generally difficult it is for me to find wands, I wasn't trying to rehash the whole issue, just suggest one specific change.

>Wow I found a hidden drawer inside a desk with the
>archmage...nothing inside though...maybe I should check back
>later...move on.

This is what my suggestion is aimed at. What is it you like about making people write down every empty container they find and then check back repeatedly? Does this seem like fun to you, or is it just that you had to do it to get your infinite wand supplies and now you don't want it to be easier for anyone else?

>I can agree it is frustrating for newbie mages. They check a
>few places, figure this searching business is too much like
>work and give up.

I actually really like exploring an area for the first time in a reasonable manner. I will admit that I hate dumbly examining every possible word in the description and killing every mob just in case. And re-exploring an area is amazingly tedius.

>Keep looking and you will soon have more wands than you can
>even carry.

In my expeience this is simply false.