[crossfire] RFC: dynamic alchemy

[Wim Villerius]

> I should have explained this better in my previous message: the list
> of items that I get out of my script is sorted by "relative abundance".
> It counts the total number of objects of each type (or each name, in
> this case) found in the maps.  For the objects that have treasure lists
> or that are generators, it also takes into account the items that can
> be generated and their relative probability of being generated (so you
> can end up with fractional numbers, as I mentioned previously).
> Besides finding the hash collisions for shadow alchemy, you will also
> know how easy it is to find the ingredients.
coins, rubies, pearls, sapphires are all very easy to get (and since any
more or less experienced player is capable to collect a huge amount of
money, the availability of these items is not a question, it is a fact.
And I think these are sufficient to create any item.

> One thing that worries me a bit about dynamic alchemy (including the
> variant that you described) is that it could be used with almost any
> item.  Even if there are safeguards based for example on the highest
> level allowed and things like that, there is a risk that it could
> bring some imbalance in the game if some items with unusual properties
> go through the dynamic alchemy process.
I think one of the things that makes alchemy interesting is exactly the
possibility to create items with unusual properties. Perhaps it is a
good thing if the code prevents the creation of any item that has
resistances > 95 (except for those attack types that already have an
item that gives +100 resistance, such as slow, paralyse, fear, ...)
That might result in some items that grant +100 against a whole lot of
things (slow, fear, paralyse, drain, deplete, confusion, ghosthit,...)
but would that be a serious problem? The ingredients needed for such an
item are already quite excessive. It won't be the
alchemist-that-never-leaves-town that creates such items.

> I would prefer a system that is still based on some kind of template
> given in the formulae file.  For example, some "template formula"
> would only work for daggers, another one would only work for pieces
> of armour made of copper, etc.  Each template would have constraints
> on the kind of improvements that could be applied to the base item
> and the ingredients or class of ingredients required for these
> improvemens.
But that essentially cancells the idea of dynamic alchemy in which not a
formula but the ingredients alone define the result. (The ingredients
define what to add, depending either on a table, the arches or a biased
random roll)
I fail to see however why templates would be more secure than dynamic
alchemy as proposed. The constrains are either in a template or in
(assuming) the arches. So these constrains do exist this way or another.

> I would like to encourage the usage of
> alchemy by adding more valuable items that can only be created via
> alchemy.  These items would never be found in treasure lists.  Instead
> of adding more formulae, another option could be to remove some of the
> items that are currently found in treasure lists and in the formulae
> file so that they can only be created, not found.
There are a few, the Dragon Scale Mail of Ruggilli and the Elven Robe. I
don't know more. It's nice that these exists, but not many players are
aware that it is even possible to create these items.
So yes, it's a good idea to have more (or even a lot) alchemy only items
that are attractive (Elven robe is not), but somehow they should be
known by players. Otherwise they won't bother learning alchemy. One
thing that might help is not only to provide the receipe, but also
describe the object in the textbook that offers the formula. Thus:
The dragon scale mail of Ruggilli has incredible properties. It offers
+75 resistance to fire and as well 65 armour. It is made using a forge
and requires these ingredients: ...