I felt really bad today when I discovered a sleek amber rod.

It was in a place that I have discovered at least 5 years ago, in a thematic settings, after reading the description of the room (and the entire area) and thought to myself:

"Hm, it would be cool if one found one of those aura or shield wands here".

Periodically, over the course of years, I revisited the area. I made the effort to go to that one room where I thought the wand should be found and I would always, year after year, walk away empty handed.

Today I was forced to quaff a potion of transportation that teleported me pretty near the area. I wanted to rest in the civilized area, not wilderness, so I walked to that place, out of habit checked out the location and almost fell of my chair: there was a wand there.

Then I did some arithmetics and realized that it was 5 bloody years ago that I suspected the first time the wand was there. This just blows.

Why is this? No one can dispute that I did my exploration, reading the descriptions, looking in all directions, trying to open them (that one wouldn't work now) and generally, did my time -- and kept redoing it over and over and over again. No one can dispute that the time and effort were put in. But there was no carrot at the end of that stick.



+ + +


Now, in order to actually reward the players who put the time in, would it not be better to have something like a "dead wand" system that Daurwyn says he proposed earlier?

You examine the spot. If the wand is not there (or if not worn by a mob), you get the following message (change appropriately):

Mystical energies swirl around the corpse of MOB, only to disappear immediately.

Small cloud of dancing lights briefly flashes in CONTAINER, vanishing in discord of magic.


This would let me know that I found a location of a wand and that I was just unlucky since someone else got it first. After putting the time to research entire area, I would not have to go back over the course of years to this one area, hoping that maybe I was wrong and the wand was actually there.

Also, this would free me up to try and have a little bit more fun, through either more RP, more PK, or even more exploration.


Thoughts appreciated. Especially if someone could explain, within allowed epistemological limits, how the wand system actually works.

I think the only people that don't currently hate the system are :

People like Cerunnir and Xanthrailles who know tons of wand locations.

People who don't play mages.

Most of the rest of us that fall into the latter group are in that group because of wands. I don't play mages because of wands.

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=9905&mesg_id=9968&page=

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Would it really be that big of a deal to explain how the current system work? I've got a pretty good guess and I think it would help the newbies out, but I've never posted it because I figured it would piss some off.

Which is why I refuse to play a mage above 30th level with the exception of a defense shifter. Without damage reduction, you are toast. My last invoker had all the shields and still died all the time to non-ragers. Conjurers? I can't seem to get one to archons before losing 3 con and deleting. Transmuters? Can't get to duo before losing too much con and deleting. Necro's and a-p's? They are more powerful at low levels, so why go above 30th?

I don't have the time or OOC connections to find obscure items that will change locations shortly after I discover them, I just don't see the benefit as balancing out the hours of boring treasure hunting to find them. Personally, I would rather just have a battle rager and have the damage reduction given to me upon induction.

Maybe someday I'll have lots of extra time like when I was in college, but nowadays, if I can find enough time to mud and not have my limited items poof on login, I am happy.

There's a number of reasons why you could have checked a spot for years, not found a wand, then found one later. I don't really care to explain the system in detail other than to say most people mischaracterize it, and that you should go by observation and not rumor.

There are also many more potential 'locations' than wands. When some putz posts a list or it becomes obvious that certain locations are being spread around, we usually leave the empty containers in, and just create new ones. Also, a lot of areas have empty (or non-empty, but filled with less consequential stuff) containers built into them when they are written because it makes it easier to run quests, move treasures, etc. Occasionally, we even re-activate old containers.

As for altering the existing system, I don't think it's broken. There are always a lot of wands in. More total wands (both on players and out in the "wild") are in the game right now than there have been since the introduction of the system. We've gradually revamped the system to make the locations more sensible, and it's definitely not the case that you have to check "every room".

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Are there any downsides to this:



You examine the spot. If the wand is not there (or if not worn by a mob), you get the following message (change appropriately):

Mystical energies swirl around the corpse of MOB, only to disappear immediately.

Small cloud of dancing lights briefly flashes in CONTAINER, vanishing in discord of magic.




I see nothing wrong with this and it would help out immensely for every wand user/explorer.

This is a rehash of something already posted if I'm not mistaken. Dig up the original if you want a longer discussion, but I don't like spending time on rehashes.

Briefly:
1) I don't see a reason to make the system easier.
2) It doesn't work with some aspects of the existing system.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

Recently someone expressed a concern on an unofficial board that the wands system, in its current form, very nearly encourages the sharing of information among small groups of friends OOC, rather than actually preventing it.

I'd like to hear your point of view on this, if possible.

My point of view is that the person using that tactic doesn't understand the system very well. My other point of view is that we've had this conversation before enough that I don't care to elaborate.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

(n/t)

In that I often seem to come across as cynical when trying to convey a message in this English language. Even if it is not at all so intented.

Then again, you're quite likely to survive.

Here's my view, for kicks.

The staff has repeatedly said that the current sytem, black box though it is, discourages information sharing. Altogether. When I try to imagine how such a system might work, the idea that comes to mind is that wand locations have a fixed capacity. When that fixed number of wands has been retrieved, that location stops producing for some period of time. So when you find a wand location and share it with someone, you shorten the amount of time that location will continue to produce before going dry.

Even if you share with a small number of friends, thereby raising the expected number of locations you're likely to know about, you shorten the lifespan of these locations by approximately the same factor. So by sharing your info with three people you might find out about three additional locations, but now they'll last 1/3 as long since you have four people pumping each location for wands.

I see one big flaw with this, assuming I'm even remotely correct about how the system works. (Which is quite possibly not the case). Whereas sharing knowledge about currently producing locations does diminish that information's immediate utility, i.e. the locations dry up faster, it does nothing to diminish its long term value. If wand locations are eventually recycled then the more total locations I know about, the easier it is to find ones that might are producing at any given time. Basically it's a trade off. You sacrifice some short term gain (in the form of "wands in hand") to increase your overall knowledge. Once equipped with a sufficiently large index of possible locations, one could stop sharing information altogether and figure out on his own which ones happen to be in production mode.

Another flaw is that the people a player might share info with needn't actually have active characters at the time. So, in that sense, sharing doesn't even carry with it the immediate cost, since the person(s) with whom they shared the information may not actually make use of it until their character is dead and gone.

Just some thoughts.

Nothing we do can really prevent OOC information sharing. All we can do is try to come up with ways to make information sharing less profitable for those who engage in it. I can honestly say that information sharing really doesn't help anyone when it comes to wands, which is one of the reasons for the current system.

Understanding how the system works really doesn't help all that much, either, on an individual basis. If it were common knowledge, I'm sure OOC rings could come up with a few ways to skew the balance of power in their direction. That's how they roll.

It's been in place for a while now and (at least from my point of view), seems to be working fine. I'd prefer to keep it that way, so we can focus our efforts on creating new stuff rather than reworking this.

Kastellyn the Devourer of Magic, Lord of Legends

Valg, do you understand what he's saying? FIVE YEARS and a wand pops up?! This man has spent FIVE YEARS trying to find wands the way you all apparently want the players to find wands, yet it still basically comes down to sheer, dumb luck.

Do you guys even acknowledge the sheer frustration you set the players up for with these "systems"?


Why not for once, say.. "hey guys, let's try this other system for a month, and then decide which one is better?"

Do you guys really not consider persistent and consistent griping about your 'system' as a reason to consider making it easier? Why are you all so determined to lead with an iron fist instead of listening to the people who actually play the game? You just baffle me dude.

The spot could have also been empty for years because the wand was added recently...

And as far as I understand it, he's talking about an incredibly easy to get, as well as low-level wand, whose location has been known to some of us for just as many years. I found it the hard way too. But the truth is, if you know a low-level walk-in wand, and you tell anyone, don't expect it to be there. He said he told people. Other people tell people. This is why I don't tell people ####.

Not sure how did you conclude that I told anything about this location to anyone.

I never did, nor will I.

Sometimes, I'm just terrible at reading. I took:

"I passed that location countless times in my last few years of CF"

...and I interpreted it a bit incorrectly and unfairly. I apologize for that, do forgive me will you? It was an honest mistake.

I do, however, maintain what I said about it being an easy and effective low-level wand since I'm pretty sure I've pulled the same one you're talking about a few times in the last couple of years.

.

Just some thoughts on this thread though since I just started playing you may feel free to discount what I don't know of history.

Reading this thread makes me think the IMMS here are trying to deal with a very tough situation and can't give a full explanation of how things work because that would undermine whatever system they have in place to regulate wands. So their answers may sound less than satisfying.

Second point, if we give benefit of the doubt to the IMMS then chances are they have been telling the truth, but only as far as they are willing to, ie, the wands system isn't fully understood by the general public. Some more than others, but still its not understood.

I'd like to offer up a few purely speculative ideas on types of things that might be in place. They can be totally wrong or as close as you care to think to reality, but remember I am new here.

What if finding wands isn't just a matter of where but when? How often you visit a place or even series of places matters? What if "not killing" certain mobs in the area matters?

What if what matters is how much of the surrounding area you have explored or even ranked in to discourage people walking right to the hiding spots to find a wand?

What if code takes into account how often you explore "new to you" areas and rewards this behavior by having wands pop up later on as you search for wands? I know the game tracks where I go since I get mps and xp from time to time.

What if its none of these and has a very counter-intuitive system in place, again to reward certain behaviors they want, and punitive measures for those they do not?

So these thoughts mostly center on behaviors that might depend on timing, manner, or even behavior while you are not even looking for a wand. I offer these thoughts, again as pure speculation, so that perhaps Horatio, there are more things under heaven than dreamt of in your philosophy.

I think its much more possible that the system isn't understood and IMMS can't/are tired of/won't defend their reasoning since they don't wish to give people clues how to game the system.

1. I'm not sure entirely sure that a majority of the playerbase would agree with you that the current system desperately needs replacing.

2. If wands were suddenly made much more plentiful, I'm not sure that everyone who was calling for such a change would still like it after it was in effect for a while.