I apologize if this has been posted already.
I know that it may be slightly less immersive, but I would like to see roman numerals used when replacing a previous spell belonging to the same spell line.
For example:
Level 3: Flame Shield
Level 12: Flame Shield II
Level 21: Flame Shield III
etc.
A complaint that I had with early EQ1 was needing to very carefully read over spell descriptions or to use external sites when trying to figure out if a spell is replacing a previous spell or is the start of a new spell line.
Also, I'd like to see in the spell description any spell lines that it does not stack with.
I would prefer for this type of spell system not be implemented at all.
Rather than getting an Improved version of a spell every 6 levels, I'd like to see your spells/abilities effectiveness increase as your skill levels and stats increase.
So you wont get:
Shiled Bash
Shield Bash II
Shield Bash III
all you get is Shield Bash, and the effectiveness of that ability (damage/stun duration) increases as your stats (Str/dex) increase as well as your skill (You have become better at Bash <25>) increases.
I think this was discussed somewhere else, but I like to have unique names. I'm not a fan of adding numbers to spells.
I suppose you could just have one spell like stinging swarm instead of string swarm and drones of doom, but that would cheapen a few things.
One is that it's really neat to have an upgraded version with a name that sounds more imposing.
The other is that you can sometimes be creative and utilize a combination of higher and lower level version at the same time.
Homercles said:I would prefer for this type of spell system not be implemented at all.
Rather than getting an Improved version of a spell every 6 levels, I'd like to see your spells/abilities effectiveness increase as your skill levels and stats increase.
So you wont get:
Shiled Bash
Shield Bash II
Shield Bash III
all you get is Shield Bash, and the effectiveness of that ability (damage/stun duration) increases as your stats (Str/dex) increase as well as your skill (You have become better at Bash <25>) increases.
This is interesting, but I would assume that the developers would want us to need to acquire the better version at certain levels. They have already commented that they want spells to drop from encounters and for us to travel around to get all the spells.
UnknownQuantity said:I think this was discussed somewhere else, but I like to have unique names. I'm not a fan of adding numbers to spells.
I suppose you could just have one spell like stinging swarm instead of string swarm and drones of doom, but that would cheapen a few things.
One is that it's really neat to have an upgraded version with a name that sounds more imposing.
The other is that you can sometimes be creative and utilize a combination of higher and lower level version at the same time.
I had thought that most spells/dots did not stack if they were from the same spell line.
Would you be opposed to the spell description text listing a spell line it belongs to?
Level 5 Flame Lick -- Spell Line: Flame Lick
Level 10 Roaring Flames -- Spell Line: Flame Lick
etc.
excalibur100 said:I had thought that most spells/dots did not stack if they were from the same spell line.
Would you be opposed to the spell description text listing a spell line it belongs to?
Level 5 Flame Lick -- Spell Line: Flame Lick
Level 10 Roaring Flames -- Spell Line: Flame Lick
etc.
That seems fine with me, as long as the spell line bit is tucked away in an inspect/hover window. I much prefer unique spell names for each new spell, I thought that was one of cooler things about spellcasters in EQ that really added to the lore. Almost every MMO i've played since does generic Fireball 1,2,3 which is such a bore.
excalibur100 said:I had thought that most spells/dots did not stack if they were from the same spell line.
Would you be opposed to the spell description text listing a spell line it belongs to?
Level 5 Flame Lick -- Spell Line: Flame Lick
Level 10 Roaring Flames -- Spell Line: Flame Lick
etc.
DoTs that were from the same line and only had damage components could stack in EverQuest, I believe. When they had debuff components, though, things would overwrite each other. You also couldn't have like five different people put their own copy of a DoT spell on a mob like you can in some other games.
I also prefer unique names for spells. It's definitely more immersive for me. If the spells are going to just be Fireball 1, Fireball 2, Fireball 3, etc., I think they might as well just improve automatically.
excalibur100 said:Homercles said:I would prefer for this type of spell system not be implemented at all.
Rather than getting an Improved version of a spell every 6 levels, I'd like to see your spells/abilities effectiveness increase as your skill levels and stats increase.
So you wont get:
Shield Bash
Shield Bash II
Shield Bash III
all you get is Shield Bash, and the effectiveness of that ability (damage/stun duration) increases as your stats (Str/dex) increase as well as your skill (You have become better at Bash <25>) increases.
This is interesting, but I would assume that the developers would want us to need to acquire the better version at certain levels. They have already commented that they want spells to drop from encounters and for us to travel around to get all the spells.
"Better Versions" of a spell doesnt necessarly mean a "stronger version" of the same spell. There are many variables that can make each new spell unique, rather than just a stronger version of an already known spell. Fireball I, II, III, IV, where the only thing that changes is the damage dealt, is just lazy development.
Why not do something like this:
Flame Touch (level 1): 12hps DD (fire based). As your stats and skill level (evocation?) improve, the damage will also improve.
Flame Shock (level 11) 45hps DD (fire based) + stun. Damage and Stun duration increase as stats/skills improve.
Flame Force (level 21) 121 DD (fire based) + knockback. Damage increases as stats/skills improve. Knockback becomes less resistable
Fireball (level 31) 198 DD (fire based) + DOT ....etc. etc. you get the idea.
These simple spell variations could allow for varied playstyles and provide the devs with the ability to create unique encounters that these specialized spells may be best suited for. Whereas Fireball I, II, III, IV just render the lesser spells irrelevant.
This has been brought up many times before the and the overall concensus was this: Don't be lazy, put in the effort to create unique spell names. After all, you've put forth all this effort to create a world of incredible breadth and depth, why would you then top it off with Fireball 1, Fireball 2 and Fireball 3? Where is Steel Shortsword 1, Steel Shortsword 2? Or Chestplate 1, Chestplate 2? You give all those unique names, don't cop out on the spells.
+1 to unique names, i;'d love the cool descriptions they used in eq when a spell lands like...
In Game Description: Strikes your target with a chaotic burst of mental energy, causing 387 damage.
Land on you: You feel part of your mind melt away.
Land on other: Target's brain begins to melt.
I like having spells with the same name. I tend to play many alts, and some casters can have hundreds of spells. Having to sort through a 30 page spellbook with all different named spells searching for a situational spell I rarely use would be frustrating. If 1/2 have similiar names it makes it easier. Especially since my memory is not as good as it was 10 years ago.
Gragorie said:I like having spells with the same name. I tend to play many alts, and some casters can have hundreds of spells. Having to sort through a 30 page spellbook with all different named spells searching for a situational spell I rarely use would be frustrating. If 1/2 have similiar names it makes it easier. Especially since my memory is not as good as it was 10 years ago.
They could just have a much easier to manage spellbook instead.
It'll probably be a mix of both. The spells will scale for a few levels but then you'll need to actively seek out (either through buying a new spell scroll or finding it as loot) the next tier of the spell. EQ had a mix of the naming conventions mentioned here. Like the Monster Summoning spells were just Monster Summoning I, Monster Summoning II etc, but the main Magician pets had new names each tier; ElementalKin:Earth, Minor Summoning: Earth, Greater Vocaration Earth, etc. I would be ok with a mix.
I would prefer names over numbers, but the occasional numbered as ArchMageSalamar pointed out is no big deal. As for them indicating what spells line they're from so we know what stacks or not...
I'm here supporting Pantheon becouse all the fun, all the challenge, all the mystery, the adventure, the Role Playing is gone from today's games. Building, learning, teaching a character has turned into Choosing a pre made pre named and patting yourself on the back for it. People ask for this mini game, and that mini game and then they ask for something like this to be added... I just don't understand this.
ME learning what spells don't stack and what spells Do IS a mini game to me. IS something to do in the downtime waiting for a boat or for sombody to arrive that needs to travel to get to group... asking to take that away (have it easy to see on the spell discription) is to take away Charrictor creating and turn it into barbie dress up. IF a person needs to learn this about Wizard spells and does learn this about wizard spells then that person well be a good Wizard.
I'm totally against that.... Origanal EQ gave a hint, by the spell icon... that I think a reasonable compromise, but I hope not to see anything more than that.
I WANT a reason for my lvl 20 necro to go see how many dots I can stack on an Orc Pawn
excalibur100 said:UnknownQuantity said:I think this was discussed somewhere else, but I like to have unique names. I'm not a fan of adding numbers to spells.
I suppose you could just have one spell like stinging swarm instead of string swarm and drones of doom, but that would cheapen a few things.
One is that it's really neat to have an upgraded version with a name that sounds more imposing.
The other is that you can sometimes be creative and utilize a combination of higher and lower level version at the same time.
I had thought that most spells/dots did not stack if they were from the same spell line.
Would you be opposed to the spell description text listing a spell line it belongs to?
Level 5 Flame Lick -- Spell Line: Flame Lick
Level 10 Roaring Flames -- Spell Line: Flame Lick
etc.
I think that would be fine.
It will be interesting to see what they decide to use in the game. It sounds like each class might have to go through certain things to get certain spells.
Zorkon said:I would prefer names over numbers, but the occasional numbered as ArchMageSalamar pointed out is no big deal. As for them indicating what spells line they're from so we know what stacks or not...
I'm here supporting Pantheon becouse all the fun, all the challenge, all the mystery, the adventure, the Role Playing is gone from today's games. Building, learning, teaching a character has turned into Choosing a pre made pre named and patting yourself on the back for it. People ask for this mini game, and that mini game and then they ask for something like this to be added... I just don't understand this.
ME learning what spells don't stack and what spells Do IS a mini game to me. IS something to do in the downtime waiting for a boat or for sombody to arrive that needs to travel to get to group... asking to take that away (have it easy to see on the spell discription) is to take away Charrictor creating and turn it into barbie dress up. IF a person needs to learn this about Wizard spells and does learn this about wizard spells then that person well be a good Wizard.
I'm totally against that.... Origanal EQ gave a hint, by the spell icon... that I think a reasonable compromise, but I hope not to see anything more than that.
I WANT a reason for my lvl 20 necro to go see how many dots I can stack on an Orc Pawn
I generally agree with this, but it would be a bit immersion breaking for me to see spells with numbers even in a small quantity. I really like the idea of unique spells and having to earn them in ways that relate to the what the spell does.
Zorkon said:I would prefer names over numbers, but the occasional numbered as ArchMageSalamar pointed out is no big deal. As for them indicating what spells line they're from so we know what stacks or not...
I'm here supporting Pantheon becouse all the fun, all the challenge, all the mystery, the adventure, the Role Playing is gone from today's games. Building, learning, teaching a character has turned into Choosing a pre made pre named and patting yourself on the back for it. People ask for this mini game, and that mini game and then they ask for something like this to be added... I just don't understand this.
ME learning what spells don't stack and what spells Do IS a mini game to me. IS something to do in the downtime waiting for a boat or for sombody to arrive that needs to travel to get to group... asking to take that away (have it easy to see on the spell discription) is to take away Charrictor creating and turn it into barbie dress up. IF a person needs to learn this about Wizard spells and does learn this about wizard spells then that person well be a good Wizard.
I'm totally against that.... Origanal EQ gave a hint, by the spell icon... that I think a reasonable compromise, but I hope not to see anything more than that.
I WANT a reason for my lvl 20 necro to go see how many dots I can stack on an Orc Pawn
^I agree with most of this. I think a lot of the fun of a caster class is having so many spells, knowing what they do, and knowing when to use them. Hell, I even loved organizing my spellbook in EverQuest and would spend way too much time flipping everything around the way I wanted it. I really hope this is something we can do in PRF. I also agree that it's easy enough to figure out what stacks with what, and which spell is part of which line. I don't think we need that indicated.
excalibur100 said:I guess none of you have ever owned an iPhone or Samsung phone? They number their units to tell the consumer which is the newer version. I don't find that to be real life immersion breaking and I don't understand how it can be in a game either.
Newer doesn't mean better across the board. My GS5 has a removable battery, but the GS6 and 7 don't. To me, that's a downgrade. Same with spells. As someone said earlier, you may have upgraded spells which also add additional components, such DD+stun, then the next level up is DD+DoT... But maybe you don't want to use the "newer" spell because you're in a situation where DoT's are a no-no. Different naming conventions can help give the player a clue as to what specifically a spell does. Just going hmmm... 4>3, I'll use 4 is stupid and lazy in my opinion. Think "horizontal progression"
excalibur100 said:I guess none of you have ever owned an iPhone or Samsung phone? They number their units to tell the consumer which is the newer version. I don't find that to be real life immersion breaking and I don't understand how it can be in a game either.
You can't really compare the two, as you can't break immersion in real life without perhaps use of psychedelics. Who knows how it goes in this game world but I always imagined that spells come about like this: Ancient wizard discovers the means to cast a small fire spell, so you have McQuaid's Lick of Flame. After some time of that spell being known in the wizard community a new wizard comes along and after practice/research/mistakes discovers a way to make the spell more potent and dubs the new version Kilsin's Bolt of Fire. More time, you have Joppa's Gift of Immolation. And so on and so forth.
Fulton said:I like the unique names, just hated trying to remember what names were what lines.
If there was an easier way to identfy the spell family that spells belonged to. Icons are a good way to do this, but EQ often used the same icon across similar spell families.
Just throwing this out here, I don't know how I feel about this idea myself, but for the sake of discussion, here it is: Allow a little additional customization in your spell book i.e. allow the player to type in headings, e.g. Immolation Line - will not stack with other spells of ths line. Then you move all spells of that line under that section of your spellbook. I hope the spellbook can be organized the same way EQ1 was