[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Adonthell-devel] On combinations

From: Mike Avery
Subject: Re: [Adonthell-devel] On combinations
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:18:23 -0500

> 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 :).

I'll play with it and let you know how it goes. :)

> > 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'.

OK, good.

> 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.

Having multi-attributed foci would complicate things slightly, but it is 
doable.  We could just run each foci individually through the general recipe 
calculations before the final recipe based on all the foci is determined.

> 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, but the more I think about it, the answer to that question can simply be 
determined.  It would be possible for a foci in a secondary position to be 
the primary influence over a spell's properties.  Let's say I have that 
strong fire foci in a secondary position, and a weak area foci in the primary 
position.  The caster has decided to focus more on the area aspect of the 
spell, thereby diminishing the potency of the fire foci.  That weakened fire 
property may well still be the primary force even though it is diminished.  
We can just weight the foci in all positions and come up with a raw potency 
for each foci based on their current arrangement, and by comparison, 
determine which foci is predominant.

> 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?

Exactly!  Essentially the same spell, but each force used can be emphasized 
or de-emphasized based on the foci positions, causing different in-game 


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]