On Mon, 14 Oct 2002, Mark Wedel wrote: > ... > But when I thought about this, I thought about refining alchemy more. So here > is my idea: > > Instead of the 'recipe' structure, put the formula into an object structure. > Some fields may need to get overloaded (or additional ones added to the object > structure) - fields I see (parens are current name in recipe file) > > other_arch (arch): was this formula creates > nrof (yield): max number this can create > recipe treasurelist (chance) - likelihood of formula appearing in books - > basically, make a treasurelist of all the recipes that you want to randomly > appear, and when a recipe book is made, it uses that to choose one > msg (ingred): Recipe (ingredients) for this. > is_used_up (trans): Converts an existing object as the base object > slaying (keycode): player must have force with matching slaying field to make > this recipe > > New fields as far as recipes: > exp: How much exp you get for making this item > > level: 'level' of the recipe - basic value to determine probability of making > this recipe. Eg, when you make it, it rolls a d20 and adds your alchemy level - > this has to be higher than the level of the recipe for you to succeed. In this > way, you could set up recipes that require a reasonable amount of exp to make. > > ... I'd like to have an additional value defining the minimum amount of items. Thus we could give a range for the yield. If i want a formula for e.g. arrows of something to produce 20 on average, i would rather have a range of 15-25 then 1-40. I think, getting only one potion/arrow out of a recipe is as frustating as a spell that backfires. You go hunting/questing for that rare ingredient and finally you get it but you only find 3 arrows in your cauldron. If you can cange the odds in you favour with a high alchemy skill, then forget what i said. (Last time i checked, it did not.) So a minimum amount would make alchemy more reliable/useful imho. Bernd Edler ---- "This is supposed to be fun."