[RFE] Allow Teleportation in wilderness
issueid=3939 10-19-2015 08:28 AM
Junior Member
Number of reported issues by emilus: 48
[RFE] Allow Teleportation in wilderness

IMHO trained teleportation spell (not casted from wand / scroll) should work in wilderness on explored areas.

Like 2 level teleportation allow to teleport only 2 squares in wilderness, level 3 - 3 squares etc.

Whaddya think ?
Issue Details
Issue Number 3939
Issue Type Feature
Project ADOM (Ancient Domains Of Mystery)
Category All
Status Suggested
Priority 5 - Medium
Suggested Version ADOM r61
Implemented Version (none)
Milestone (none)
Votes for this feature 4
Votes against this feature 11
Assigned Users (none)
Tags (none)




10-19-2015 12:56 PM
Member
Wizards get another advantage once they train Teleportation. No more climbing sets if they can see past the mountain and have cast the spell at least 3 times.

No, but this was clever, I see the idea behind this, but climbing kits (and the climbing skill, for that matter) should be the sole deciders in bypassing mountains.

10-19-2015 01:20 PM
Ancient Member
Yes with the caveat of being very expensive in PP, like half the cost of wish expensive.

Although it does present the question of why you can't teleport to other levels inside a dungeon if you can do this. :)

10-19-2015 02:16 PM
ixi ixi is offline
Junior Member
That's a nice idea but Teleportation is already ridiculously overpovered. As well as spellcasters that are able to learn it.

Why do you want this change? To bypass mountains and river, to save in-game time, to avoid boring travelling through the wilderness or you just think having teleportation in wilderness would be nice?

10-19-2015 03:44 PM
Junior Member
Very powerful, I'd make it hard to obtain.

Like, for example having the spell at (+40 effectivity), increasing 1 square every (+10 effectivity). And requiring 45+ Mana and Willpower.

10-19-2015 04:52 PM
ixi ixi is offline
Junior Member
Quote Originally Posted by Tree Of Life
Very powerful, I'd make it hard to obtain.

Like, for example having the spell at (+40 effectivity), increasing 1 square every (+10 effectivity). And requiring 45+ Mana and Willpower.
Then only ones who specifically grinds for it would be able to use it. Just to teleport through the mountains and rivers likely.
Another unspoiled players would miss it and never aknowledge this spell could work in wilderness.

Worst of all that mindcrafters won't be able to use it at all despite they're focusing on teleportation from the early level 1 but wizards and other spellcasters would be able to freely use it at some point.

10-19-2015 06:39 PM
Ancient Member
Moar powah to telepower!

On a serious note, it's not really needed as I can't imagine that traveling through wilderness in this fashion would be more comfortable than the normal way.
Instead of one button, you'd have to press several to get to the same destination and possibly lose more real life time (those precious seconds).
The point about this replacing climbing sets is kinda moot since with a controlled teleportation, you can easily obtain one of the guaranteed climbing sets without any risk at all.

10-19-2015 06:45 PM
Junior Member
My point is that NOW increasing teleportation spell level does not make this spell any more potent...
I see no difference between 1lvl Teleportation and 30 level teleportation (maybe slightly different mana cost)

I see no logic that very powerfull wizards and mages can teleport themselves freely only in specific wilderness square but cannot do the same on fully explored map.

My proposition is:
- 4 Efectivity points allow to travel 2 square , 6 -> 3 squares, 8 => 4... etc. (30 lvl => max 15 squares)
-works only on explored areas
-teleportation on map should cost twice mana Points while casting in wilderness
-for low level wizards make it impossible to teleport to library and high mountain village areas (the mountains are too high to be scaled without magic)
Suggested Requirements for passing high mountains: (Teleportation Spell Effectivity: >=30 and WI >=30)

10-19-2015 06:48 PM
ixi ixi is offline
Junior Member
Ok, teleporting to HMV bypassing SMC?... ... ...

Oh wait, SMC isn't an issue for the one who can teleport. A lot of challenges prepared to PC can be ignored by one who knows how to teleport and is able to control it... So why not extend it's power even further?

10-19-2015 06:59 PM
Senior Member
A few things:
- IIRC wilderness is DL1 so it would need a fixed cost like 100PP. Doubling DL1 isn't a particularly severe penalty.
- From a practicality/math standpoint, consider that Teleport 1 lets you teleport across 1 dungeon level's width as a max range. So maybe Teleport 30 would let you teleport cross 30 dungeon level's width. I think it takes about 1 hour minutes to cross a single, flat wilderness square... and unfortunately I don't have the game right now to see how long it takes to take a step in a dungeon, but you could extrapolate approximately how wide a single wilderness tile is to see if the range is feasible.
- I don't think I can be in favor of something allowing access to the library without falling through the rift, so I think that would need special handling

10-19-2015 07:03 PM
Junior Member
Quote Originally Posted by ixi
That's a nice idea but Teleportation is already ridiculously overpovered. As well as spellcasters that are able to learn it.

Why do you want this change? To bypass mountains and river, to save in-game time, to avoid boring travelling through the wilderness or you just think having teleportation in wilderness would be nice?
To be able to bypass high mountains and to save time.
When you try to pass high mountains the game already suggest you to use magic to scale them.
The point is that teleportation range should be dependant on Spell Efectivity :) So we dont have uber overpowered spell on start.

10-19-2015 08:26 PM
Ancient Member
Quote Originally Posted by emilus
My point is that NOW increasing teleportation spell level does not make this spell any more potent...
I see no difference between 1lvl Teleportation and 30 level teleportation (maybe slightly different mana cost)
It makes a difference why you try to teleport monsters, IIRC.

My proposition is:
- 4 Efectivity points allow to travel 2 square , 6 -> 3 squares, 8 => 4... etc. (30 lvl => max 15 squares)
-works only on explored areas
-teleportation on map should cost twice mana Points while casting in wilderness
-for low level wizards make it impossible to teleport to library and high mountain village areas (the mountains are too high to be scaled without magic)
Suggested Requirements for passing high mountains: (Teleportation Spell Effectivity: >=30 and WI >=30)
One problem with this proposition is that PP is basically irrelevant in the wilderness because you regenerate so efficiently there. And realistically, there's only maybe 3 places you'd actually do this. The big problem I see with this is that you could potentially access the Library without visiting the Rift...

The point is that teleportation range should be dependant on Spell Efectivity :) So we dont have uber overpowered spell on start.
It would make more sense to do this within dungeon levels if that's what you were going for. This is just making teleport more powerful. I'm also unsure of why this wouldn't apply to wands/scrolls/teleportitis/mindcraft.

10-20-2015 01:00 AM
Senior Member
No, no, no.

One of the main points of travelling through the wilderness is that you waste time and move closer to the background corruption increase. Yes, I know seven league boots mitigate that and I'd honestly like to see that part removed too. I honestly see no point in making late game even easier.

However if you really, really want to do it, make it a spell and a wand so it's available for everyone but at a high cost, something like 1d4 stat drain on 1d3 random stats. Or maybe skill drain, 3d10 on 1d3 random skills. Or weapon skill/spell knowledge drain. You know, something to discourage from carelessly hopping around the map. I'm against implementing this at all but if someone decides to do so, let there be a consideration of risk vs reward at the very least.

10-20-2015 02:52 AM
Senior Member
Quote Originally Posted by Scooter Fox
No, no, no.

One of the main points of travelling through the wilderness is that you waste time and move closer to the background corruption increase. Yes, I know seven league boots mitigate that and I'd honestly like to see that part removed too. I honestly see no point in making late game even easier.
Oh come on, it's obvious this wasn't thought out that way. These two systems (wilderness travel and background corruption) were not implemented with some sort of carefully calculated interplay in mind, they are two separate things that TB thought would be interesting. It's not like the game is somehow consciously balanced around the time you spend in the wilderness.

We need waypoints and town portals. We absolutely do. Otherwise we are clinging to an archaic style of design. It would help solve the problems with inventory sprawl also.

As far as making the game "even easier" do you already play on hard with low drop rates?

10-20-2015 08:12 AM
Senior Member
Wait, what archaic style of design? It's literally a one screen map. Do you need waypoints and portals for every dungeon level too? Or is your point to remove the in-game time needed to travel between locations? I thought that's the point of the corruption clock - don't wander too much around or you'll suffer, plan your travels instead. If that's gone, you can remove the whole background corruption increase completely since you won't be able to pass 90 days ever unless you explicitly want to pass it or you do some extreme challenge game.

"Do you play with a feature attempting to mitigate the low level of challenge late game offers through means of artificial limitations that's not available to the public in the first place?"
No, I don't, because it's not available to the public. By the way, low drop rates, if they function the way I think they do, only mean more grinding and THAT is an archaic style of design.

10-20-2015 09:32 AM
ixi ixi is offline
Junior Member
I feel like Town Portal could be very dangerous and hard to balance spell indeed. Anyway sounds better the allowing any teleportation in wilderness if this would be considered for implementation.

It shouldn't allow to escape dangerous places, shouldn't work while PC is about to die, etc.

10-20-2015 04:54 PM
Ancient Member
Unconsidered possibility for balancing it: add a whole extra dimension to spellcasting by having personal cooldowns for each spell on top of the pp requirement (and perhaps unique-to-spell restoration intervals). I can see making even spells like wish much more castable if this were a feature (say if it were only castable every 90 days).

Or:
ditch the above idea and adopt an alternative: when you cast a spell the pp cost swells to possibly uncastable levels, and then gradually cools down, at a rate defined by each spell.

Then in the case of wilderness teleport, the swelling rate is much larger than casting it in a dungeon. Is it worth crossing from terinyo to CoC if you don't get to use teleport inside the CoC for several days? Decisions decisions....

10-20-2015 07:03 PM
ixi ixi is offline
Junior Member
Quote Originally Posted by auricbond
I can see making even spells like wish much more castable if this were a feature (say if it were only castable every 90 days).
Please don't kill archmage... It's exceptionally hard to set up but please don't make it impossible. TB already made a change for wishing which everyone regrets now. Don't wanna another one.

10-20-2015 07:10 PM
Ancient Member
Quote Originally Posted by ixi
Please don't kill archmage... It's exceptionally hard to set up but please don't make it impossible. TB already made a change for wishing which everyone regrets now. Don't wanna another one.
If my change was accepted, I'd propose old spell behaviour as a deluxe/steam mod.

Arch-mage is esoteric in the extreme for most people. Heck, few even read the book and learn the spell successfully, never mind get beyond that. It's a grassroots hardcore endevour only performed by the most skilled/bored/boring players. I'm not anxious to preserve it at the cost of what is a good idea in so many other respects.

10-20-2015 08:38 PM
Senior Member
Quote Originally Posted by Scooter Fox
Wait, what archaic style of design? It's literally a one screen map. Do you need waypoints and portals for every dungeon level too?
I think we should take out the shortcut from the wilderness to the HMV. being able to skip SMC every time you go there makes things too easy. It's only a one screen map, why oversimplify the system with short cuts. We should take out the shortcut to darkforge also for the same reasons.

Quote Originally Posted by Scooter Fox
Or is your point to remove the in-game time needed to travel between locations? I thought that's the point of the corruption clock - don't wander too much around or you'll suffer, plan your travels instead. If that's gone, you can remove the whole background corruption increase completely since you won't be able to pass 90 days ever unless you explicitly want to pass it or you do some extreme challenge game?
The point is that we can update the game with a mechanic that has been widely in use since at least 15 years ago in Diablo II. Making players walk back and forth across a map multiple times to multiple places they have already been with zero chance of failure is not a good design choice. It's totally arbitrary. Yes, some difficulty does come from the relationship between elapsed time and corruption levels, but *that difficulty could come from somewhere else*.

You are basically saying that we cannot change the game because if we did the game would be different. That is not a bad thing. That is entirely the point. If the game is going to get better it cannot be exactly the same as it is now. We might need new ideas about how and why corruption rates would increase if this change was implemented. That is okay. The game will be *more fun* with less time consuming back tracking.

Quote Originally Posted by Scooter Fox
No, I don't, because it's not available to the public. By the way, low drop rates, if they function the way I think they do, only mean more grinding and THAT is an archaic style of design.
So does a harder difficulty setting, for that matter. What you are saying is that you don't want to use a lower drop setting because you would voluntarily circumvent it. That makes as much sense as saying "No, I wouldn't play with low drop rates, because I would turn normal drop rates back on later."

10-20-2015 09:29 PM
Senior Member
Just implement Crawl's Ctrl+G (interlevel travel) and call it a day. No need to change the fundamentals of the game for something like this.

+ Reply