Enchantment system

[bsb23 303]

The jet comment was referring to the forge. And whats up with the cross-out should argue that or ignore it?

Edit: Decided to argue it anyways. I meant broken up by the fact that experience would only work in one area. The achievements would work fine as the experience still works for everything. As for a broken up mining experience I'm not sure what you meant there. The achievement encourage people to try everything rather than specification happening where its only possible to do one thing. Still don't like the RPG mentality.

Double Edit: Sorry if I look like a jerk for arguing something that doesn't need arguing.

[Lumireaver 101]

The jet comment was referring to the forge. And whats up with the cross-out should argue that or ignore it?

Huh, I don't know what you're talking about. :U

I'm just curious as to why what I've suggested is being criticized for being too complicated when I feel it actually converts a random system into one that is simple--that rewards practice and skill logically, and increases the penalty of loss _{(primarily by increasing the required time investment-- which is also intended to make your tools something you value, and not meaningless trash),}and it takes advantage of game mechanics that are already, or will be in place. Heating things up and cooling things with water (or primordial ooze, or whatever, it doesn't matter what it's called...) I just struck-through it because it didn't seem worth saying but I have a big mouth so I said it anyway.

[SeanyGlass 14]

Huh, I don't know what you're talking about. :U

He was comparing the forging system in TFC to a jet and the vanilla forging system to the wheel.

[EternalUndeath 1,208]

Huh, I don't know what you're talking about. :U

I'm just curious as to why what I've suggested is being criticized for being too complicated when I feel it actually converts a random system into one that is simple--that rewards practice and skill logically, and increases the penalty of loss _{(primarily by increasing the required time investment-- which is also intended to make your tools something you value, and not meaningless trash),}and it takes advantage of game mechanics that are already, or will be in place. Heating things up and cooling things with water (or primordial ooze, or whatever, it doesn't matter what it's called...) I just struck-through it because it didn't seem worth saying but I have a big mouth so I said it anyway.

And now you know how I feel lol

[Peffern 94]

Ok how about gem mines in the nether. that would make going to the nether worthwhile in and of it's own right, because you could get more/better/exclusive gems. maybe the gems could even grow like thaumcraft crystals. And maybe, for the soul powder idea, how about a shrine where you could leave enchanted but unbound gems along with magicky items to have them get better. So I could use my brand new enchanted emerald, or I could let it steep in some glowstone for a while. Obviously maybe building one of these in primordial ooze would have benefit...

There. a wonderful compromise. Who's with me?

OFFTOPIC EDIT: how do i bump a thread?

[EternalUndeath 1,208]

lol I doubt Azanor would take kindly to Bioxx suddenly adding growing crystalline structures used in magic.

OFFTOPIC ANSWER: open the thread and lightly tap your monitor

[Lumireaver 101]

He was comparing the forging system in TFC to a jet and the vanilla forging system to the wheel.

Actually I got that part, I was just being cute.

And now you know how I feel lol

Holy crap, I remember you saying the exact same thing. High five! :U

I still say your 'shroom rune pattern thing's biggest flaw is the looking-things-up issue. I know tool schematics have a similar problem, and I'll give you that it may well be that the only reason people (myself included) aren't buying it is because it's something that wasn't there to begin with... However(!), adding to the list of things people have to look up in order to use something isn't a good idea in general. To put it another way, people don't really have a fair shot when it comes to guessing runes, but with the tools, the shapes are at least a good clue.

As a corollary, if all of TFC's gems were, for example, birthstones (and birthstones were universally agreed upon, totally standard, and not a silly idea), and the 'runes' for each gem were the appropriate astrological signs, then I'd be less adverse to it...because there would be some logic to it...but that's a totally bad example, because birthstones aren't...good. You see where I'm coming from...?

As for me, specifically, I don't like the idea of any magical elements significantly affecting terrain generation. This isn't an argument, but an opinion. I just want to keep the magical stuff tucked under the rug. Or deep under TerraFirma's crust. Like all the way down in hell. Kind of like Lord of the Rings(only less), where magic and monsters exist, but none of it is in your face.

[EternalUndeath 1,208]

I just want to keep the magical stuff tucked under the rug. Or deep under TerraFirma's crust. Like all the way down in hell.

...

ADD GENERATED RUNE STRUCTURES ONLY TO HELL. BAM.

Doesn't change the overworld generation

Adds a good reason to keep going back to hell (if you wanna stay legit)

Keeps enchants fairly mid-endgame

Keeps magic fairly out of the way for people that don't want it

*plays I'm Sexy And I know It while doing hipthrusts and pumping fists*

[Lumireaver 101]

[img snip]

Good lord. Arpeggio~!

Hrm...I'm not as bothered by this at all. What about the actual enchantments though?

[EternalUndeath 1,208]

Good lord. Arpeggio~!

Hrm...I'm not as bothered by this at all. What about the actual enchantments though?

What about them? It's just like everyone's been saying - rubies can host fire-based enchants like fire aspect for a sword, auto smelting for a pick (you'd have to have empty molds in your inv tho), carbonization for an axe (making shit up at this point). You'd choose which enchant you wanted (by picking out the rune to use, same way you'd pick which plan you were making on a scribing table), and pick which gem you wanted to enchant. There would be overlap for a few gems obviously, so say that beryls have - not fire enchants, but sword specific enchants. Well if you wanted fire aspect II, you would have to put in either a ruby or a beryl (not much luck of getting aspect II tho. Use flawless for a better chance, or exquisite for guaranteed), and get a ruby of fire aspect II. However if you wanted an axe of carbonization, you couldn't put that enchant on a beryl because it can't hold it (each gem type would have the list of possible enchants they can accept hard-coded into their class). And say you're enchanting a flawless beryl with sharpness - well each gem level would have a 50% chance of getting the appropriate enchant level, 25% chance of getting the level below it, and 25% chance of the level above. The aforementioned flawless beryl would then come out with sharpness IV half the time, sharpness III a quarter of the time, and sharpness V the other quarter. If you're at the top or bottom level, it counts as its own higher or lower level respectively, so enchanting chipped beryl has a 75% chance of sharpness I while an exquisite beryl will give sharpness V 3 out of every 4 tries

Boiling it down; different gems can hold different enchants, with some overlap. Gem type determines the variety of enchant, and gem quality determines strength (with slight randomization). Rune type determines specific enchant. The limited-quantity catalyst usually required (such as EXP in vanilla) is in this case the difficult-to-obtain specialized markings.

[EDIT:]

Perhaps it could also be possible to enchant WITHOUT a rune as an option, but then you get a random enchantment suitable for the type and quality of gem inserted. This process would also use up experience or some other valued thing as a catalyst in lieu of the special markings. Random lightning strikes on your table could provide a rare but welcome surprise, allowing you to make a random enchant without using up any of your materials other than the gem. That way you don't HAVE to find (read: 'look up') the runes, they just make things way easier on you.

Also, kudos for not only guessing the reference but actually remembering his name lol. I miss Dexter's Lab. Omlet du fromage.

[Peffern 94]

great! I love everything about it except the rune structures. Your wonderful inspiration is wonderful except for one problem: rune structures, no matter where/how they exist, are pointless. Everyone will find one or two, and then look them up. Waste of space. Everything needs to be totally possible without runes. That's why I liked the idea of instead of finding rune structures, finding "magic essences" which you could get. These would let you boost your enchants (so a flawless would be almost as good as exquisite) . That way the runes are not required/encouraged. Your way, while the runes are technically "optional" enchanting is basically useless without them. If they were for boosting, use them to compensate for your low gem quality.

Sorry in advance for double post.

Also, what about things with only one enchantment level like silk touch. I get that with more levels, a higher gem has a higher chance of a higher level. But with only one? Maybe a chance of destruction that decreases with gem tier.

[EternalUndeath 1,208]

great! I love everything about it except the rune structures. Your wonderful inspiration is wonderful except for one problem: rune structures, no matter where/how they exist, are pointless. Everyone will find one or two, and then look them up. Waste of space. Everything needs to be totally possible without runes. That's why I liked the idea of instead of finding rune structures, finding "magic essences" which you could get. These would let you boost your enchants (so a flawless would be almost as good as exquisite) . That way the runes are not required/encouraged. Your way, while the runes are technically "optional" enchanting is basically useless without them. If they were for boosting, use them to compensate for your low gem quality.

Sorry in advance for double post.

Also, what about things with only one enchantment level like silk touch. I get that with more levels, a higher gem has a higher chance of a higher level. But with only one? Maybe a chance of destruction that decreases with gem tier.

Um... I'll agree to disagree with you on the runes thing. I think that making them optional but incredibly useful is enough.

For the single-level enchants... you do bring up a very valid and concerning point. Thinking out loud here... perhaps increase durability of the enchant with higher levels?

...No, that's stupid... either it undermines the unbreaking enchant, makes it OP, or requires a whole new system for separate enchantment durability...

...hmm... maybe your solution is best... Make lower tier gems more likely to be destroyed in the enchanting process. Perhaps along the lines of: Exquisite = 0.1%, flawless = 2.2%, [] = 15.8%, flawed = 49.9%, chipped = 84%?

[Peffern 94]

Here, I would like to make a list of all the enchants available, which gems get them, etc.

Gems: Type/Class: Enchants available:

Ruby Fire Fire aspect, fire resistance, autosmelting, carbonization

Sapphire Water Aqua affinity, respiration, feather falling, venom aspect

Emerald Earth Efficiency, carbonization, venom aspect, protection, looting

Topaz Air Respiration, Blast protection, smite, bane of arthropods

Beryl Sword Sharpness, fire aspect, venom aspect, knockback

Agate Pickaxe Efficiency, autosmelting, unbreaking, fortune

Amethyst Tools General Efficiency, unbreaking, projectile protection, aqua affinity

Diamond Special Silk touch, fortune, looting, infinity

Garnet Bows Power, flame, punch, projectile protection

Jade Protection Fire resistance, blast resistance, projectile protection, protection

Jasper Processing Autosmelting, carbonization, looting, respiration

Opal Damage Power, sharpness, knockback, punch

Tourmaline Rescue feather falling, respiration, aqua affinity, fire resistance

For an enchantment that goes up to level 5, the 5 classes of gems would correspond to the five levels (with a 10% chance of going up a level and a 5% chance of going down a level)(level one gems cannot reach level 0 and level 5 gems cannot reach level 6)

For enchants with 4 levels, chipped gems are level 0 and everything is moved down (level 0 gems, if they do not hit the up or down chance, nothing happens, and they can be enchanted again, if they hit the down chance, they break)

For enchants with 3 levels, chipped gems are level 0 and exquisite gems are level MAX (level MAX gems have a 90% chance of giving the top level, a 5% chance of giving the second highest and a 5% chance or simply nothing happening)

For enchants with 2 levels, flawed gems are level 0, chipped gems are level 0 but they have double the down chance, and exquisite gems are level MAX.

For enchants with 1 level, flawed gems are level 0, chipped gems are level 0 but they have double the down chance, flawless gems are level MAX but they have a 5% chance of breaking, and exquisite gems are level MAX

This way, you will want all kinds of gems, not just exquisites. Yes I made up venom aspect, carbonization, and autosmelting. Venom aspect has 2 levels, and your hits have a chance of inflicting poison (50% at level I, 80% at level II) and they do half a heart of poison damage per poison hit. Autosmelting has 3 levels. smelts any ore you pick up into molds that you have in your inventory. It always gives the lowest metal:ore ratio at level I, a 50% chance of lowest ratio and a 50% chance to do normal (random) amount at level II, and a 25% chance of lowest and 75% chance of normal at level III. If you have no molds in your inventory, the ore is wasted. The metals are always liquid at first. Carbonization has one level. When you cut down a tree, 3/4 of the dropped wood will be replaced by charcoal. This will be 40% of the charcoal yielded by that amount of wood in a normal charcoal pit.

Sorry. Making them optional but incredibly useful is what I want too. What I don't want is to have a token enchanting system that serves only to make you yearn for runes. A random enchant system is stupid, notch gave us that. I want this to be possible, just with runes, much, much easier.

I leave how the runes affect this up to you to decide. Apologies in advance for triple post but this is getting long.

[Peffern 94]

How about this as a way to make it so runes can't be looked up: Make each world generate rune patterns based on the seed. So you would have to find a rune or guess to use the runes. However, they should be fairly commonish.

[EternalUndeath 1,208]

Here, I would like to make a list of all the enchants available, which gems get them, etc.

wordswordswords

that was... very detailed. Shame none of your formatting made it into the post...

[Peffern 94]

how do i do formatting better?

[EternalUndeath 1,208]

how do i do formatting better?

Honestly no clue. The formatting is terrible on this board. I end up using the ` character most of the time (tilda w/o holding shift. I forget what it's called), because it's small and unobtrusive.

[Lumireaver 101]

Try the [ code ] tag.

It's monospaced, so you can add spaces between your words.

+-------------------------------+

|You can even draw silly tables.|

+-------------------------------+

[EternalUndeath 1,208]

Try the [ code ] tag.It's monospaced, so you can		add spaces between your words.+-------------------------------+|You can even draw silly tables.|+-------------------------------+

...Brofist.

Edit:

'I wonder...'Dim intCode As integer()Dim strOut As stringDim strEnd As stringDim strCheck As string	  'basic declarations'intCode = 0strEnd = "[/Âcode]"strCheck = "[code]"			'initial constant declarations'	 If line.start = strCheck Then		  While press.keydown = 13		  Do intCode = intCode + 1 Loop Until line.stop = strEnd	'counter'		  strOut = "You have " + intCode + " lines of code typed."	 Else strOut = "That's not code"	 End IfPrint strOut

HA! It DOES recognize common scripting words! It even comments out when I use an apostrophe! <3

[bsb23 303]

Wow, I was gone for one football game and now i have a full page of posts I have to read and think about that's ridiculous.

To Lumireaver: What you described in your first post was an expanded version of the enchantment system. I like this I just don't like the experience in certain areas idea it seems unnecessary.

To Peffern: The idea of gems that are only found in the nether i like I was thinking either mythical gems, live gems or pre-enchanted gems. I guess it would make sense for enchants and bindings to take a while too if that's what you meant. Groupings = plus except for the specific ones (sword, pickaxe, tools, bow, protection) as these can only be used by one type and can't adapt to other tools. I think we are going to need some more ideas for enchantments so I like the additions keep them coming. As for the corrections to deal with non-multilevel enchantments. I would like to say that rather than each individual enchantment session providing one enchantment it would provide multiple some good and some terrible to compensate (burning handle in fire) the higher ones would provide more greats and less bad of course.

To EternalUndeath: The way you described runes near the end not being necesary but rather helpful instead. What if we used runes as specific catalysts during enchantments during binding. So if I had the "fire rune" I would place it on the shrine and it would boost all fire enchants. To make this catalyst system work we would need the enchant to stay as a group until it is actually bound to the tool. Ask for an explanation on this if you'd like it might take a while though. I also agree with Peffern rune structures would be far to space consuming so what about rune hieroglyphs it would show you how to make the rune on the top and then on the bottom it would show which rune it makes. The way its made would change based on world generation but should probably still have some organization, some how.

I've decided that as soon as we get a little more narrowed I'm going to make a full explanation of the system in an actual program then link it here.

[EternalUndeath 1,208]

To EternalUndeath: The way you described runes near the end not being necesary but rather helpful instead. What if we used runes as specific catalysts during enchantments during binding. So if I had the "fire rune" I would place it on the shrine and it would boost all fire enchants. To make this catalyst system work we would need the enchant to stay as a group until it is actually bound to the tool. Ask for an explanation on this if you'd like it might take a while though. I also agree with Peffern rune structures would be far to space consuming so what about rune hieroglyphs it would show you how to make the rune on the top and then on the bottom it would show which rune it makes. The way its made would change based on world generation but should probably still have some organization, some how.

...How would you place it on anything? It's just a shape, not an actual object...

And how on earth would you manage to make full on heiroglyphs less space consuming than a 5x5x1 mini-block structure?

[bsb23 303]

I don't know make it a block then or write it on wall or something as far as the heiroglyphs my first question is this would these runes be written in one ink or multiple. (I'm just trying to find a way your piece could fit in)

I would still like ideas on the catalysts idea if at all possible. Although I guess it's not really a catalyst most of the time as most of the items (runes excluded) would be consumed. Guess I'm also open to a new name for it.

[EternalUndeath 1,208]

I don't know make it a block then or write it on wall or something as far as the heiroglyphs my first question is this would these runes be written in one ink or multiple. (I'm just trying to find a way your piece could fit in)

I would still like ideas on the catalysts idea if at all possible. Although I guess it's not really a catalyst most of the time as most of the items (runes excluded) would be consumed. Guess I'm also open to a new name for it.

I guess you didn't really read my earlier posts then...

This would be nearly exactly the same as the scribing table, only you put gems in the slot where the paper would go. You use special markings to draw the shape just like you'd draw out your saw blade plan in regular ink, and then instead of pulling out a plan you'd pull out an enchanted gem

[bsb23 303]

Okay so what if instead of directly affecting the gem and enchanting it we make a plan out of it in the scribing table (writing on paper) these would be random-ized the glyphs would show them where to put the ink (dark being an ink spot) we could just use pixels on the one block glyph. Once more the random patterns should still make sense they just have a lot of variations.

[EternalUndeath 1,208]

Okay so what if instead of directly affecting the gem and enchanting it we make a plan out of it in the scribing table (writing on paper) these would be random-ized the glyphs would show them where to put the ink (dark being an ink spot) we could just use pixels on the one block glyph. Once more the random patterns should still make sense they just have a lot of variations.

...how can randomized patterns make even a remote amount of sense?