Original Message |
RE: my idea:
>Basically, keep what we have in place except: > >1. Create some number of vendor mobs that sell/create sleek >a/s/b wands. Put them in the sort of magical places mentioned >elsewhere in this thread. Tower of Sorcery, Consortium, >Thar-Acacia, etc. Maybe put some in harder to reach places >and have them charge less because they're so hard to reach.
I'll be honest, when people say put something in the Tower of Sorcery, I just assume we may as well put it in Galadon. There is no risk, no difficulty at all with that.
>2. Optionally add a minimum exploration and/or observation >requirement in order for these vendor mobs to do business with >a given mage. > >3. Fix the prices so that gathering the coin necessary to >purchase a wand of type X requires "slightly" more effort than >what is needed to gather that wand using the current >exploration-based sleek system. (discussion below)
So it enables a second system based on gathering coin instead of exploring areas (which I'd argue, gathering coin is really easy).
>4. Each time a character buys a sleek wand, regardless of the >type, he has to wait a set amount of time before buying >another sleek wand. (discussion below) > >5. If you want to encourage character longevity (which may not >be a goal) then optionally allow the haggle skill to affect >how much purchased wands cost.
How exactly does this encourage character longevity?
>Point of #3: > >This makes it so that the purchase-based system is actually >utilized, but is not utilized to the exclusion of the current >exploration-based system. It retains the property that >"player knowledge" still gives an advantage, since a player >with "perfect" knowledge would be better served by not >purchasing his wands. > >However it does limit the advantage a player derives >from having "perfect knowledge", since even a 100% ignorant >player can purchase sleeks as long as he knows how to generate >gold. > >It would be essential to set the prices and "waiting period" >correctly, since if the prices are too high then this system >morphs into exactly what we have today. But if the prices are >too low and/or the waiting period too short then it becomes >"every mage has a/s/b all the time".
Honestly I think that if these things were going to be for sale, it wouldn't be all of them, and the prices would be fairly prohibitive. I think a new player who struggles searching through areas is going to have the same troubles gathering enough coins. I do think this makes the serial thief/empire player who wants to try a mage a lot easier.
>Point of #4: > >I think this one is especially interesting. At first glance >you might think that since purchasing any wand type >imposes the same waiting period, one would always want to >purchase barrier. But if a mage is only using the "purchase" >system and is always purchasing barrier then he will never >have aura or shield. Thus, the guy using the purchase >system as his only source for all three types must use them at >1/3 the rate of the guy who only wants to keep barrier on tap. > Goal: If you want the "full wand package" then you have to >use your wands sparingly. > >This "dual" system would also let mages who've found only >certain sleeks to "make up" for that by purchasing those types >they can't get via the exploration-based system.
This exists a bit, though not exactly as you describe in the current system (sleek wands reset completely different than anything else in the game). What do you think these waiting periods are?
>Some thoughts: > >1. This proposal retains the property that "player knowledge >counts for something". A player with perfect knowledge of >existing sleek locations could continue to use those locations >and ignore the purchase system entirely. He would, however, >only get a "relatively small" benefit from doing so. Also, >the ability to generate gold becomes more important. > >2. This proposal retains the property that "getting your wands >should incur some risk". Not only do you have to visit one of >a small set of wand mobs, where an enemy could lay in wait, >you also have to gather the coins or items necessary to >exchange for a wand.
I honestly don't really see a ton of risk in gathering coins, and the biggest risk is going to the purchase point. Though if I was a smart battlerager, I'd just whack the merchant so nobody could buy them (and likely I'd make the resets on the merchant a bit different, so that was a viable tactic).
>3. This proposal provides an option for veteran players who >don't want to "pore over a bunch of areas I've already been >through a thousand times". Such a player could ignore the >exploration-based sleek system entirely and just purchase his >wands. By doing so, however, he would be tying himself to a >slightly less efficient system of wand delivery (i.e. more >effort per charge). > >4. This proposal provides an option for novice players who >feel intimidated by the current exploration-based sleek >system. Such a player could just buy all his wands, assuming >he knows how to generate the necessary coin.
And that's where I see one of the problems. I think assuming they know how to generate the necessary coin.
>Potential problems: > >1. Outlander mages are screwed since they can't use coins. >One solution would be to have certain vendors accept powerful >magic items in lieu of coins. However, this creates a >perverse incentive for Outlanders to loot powerful magic items >from Pkills. It also opens the door for players to exploit >"pathological items" that happen to be high-level and >magic-flagged but are not especially hard to obtain. >Requested items would obviously be excluded from consideration >entirely.
I agree that allowing bartering for wands is going to encourage more looting. I'm curious what your definition of "powerful magic item" is.
>2. Pathological means of generating gold now become "a big >deal". If a mage figures out how to generate gold at a >pathological rate, i.e. in an exploitative way, then he >essentially has "a/s/b on a stick". This is mitigated, >however, by the fact that each wand purchase comes with a >fixed "waiting period". It would basically mean that such a >mage would buy all his barrier wands, since they require the >most effort to obtain from the exploration-based sytem and >because gold is meaningless to him, while using the >exploration-based system to get aura and shield. But...as >these gold exploits are removed, this becomes less of a >problem.
Overall, this boils down to trading exploration for coin-gathering, and I honestly don't know that it's that much better than what exists today.
|
|