The Mana World Forums

Due to recent discussions I added a new low cost spell to war magic.

It requires level 2 War Magic and an Acorn. It's currently called #acornshot.

Have fun testing. It is up on both testing servers.

regards

This new spell looks very useful for low level mages, its hard for them to collect items or iron ores.
But the attack even with 99 int is a bit low, why not upgrading it to 100-150 and lowering the times it lasts?

If we'd increase it that much it would be as strong as #flar. and flar is far more expensive. This wouldn't be right IMO

tux9th wrote:If we'd increase it that much it would be as strong as #flar. and flar is far more expensive. This wouldn't be right IMO

That's probably because #flar is too expensive. Do people even use #flar?

I agree this would be nice for lower lvl's. Is there any reason that you can't make it war magic lvl 1? Also acorns are easy to come by and I was getting 47 shots per cast. To me that seems like an awful lot of shots per cast specially with how easy the acorns are to get. It does work nice for like smaller monsters and I even almost got a skelton with it.

Quinny wrote:Also acorns are easy to come by and I was getting 47 shots per cast. To me that seems like an awful lot of shots per cast specially with how easy the acorns are to get.

Which level did you try?
I'm asking because 47 shots per cast sounds like very high level

I tried level 40, 60, 85 (level to get Sorcerer Robe) and 99 (with Lazurite Robe etc.) and I think it works very well at all levels:
-> Lvl85 & 99: of course very low cost, but I need to cast it three times (lvl85 more) and wait ages to kill a skull which is very boring and therefore IMO perfect (this spell is for low levels or weak mobs, high levels shall stay at #ingrav), weak mobs are easy to kill with it.
-> Lvl40 & 60: especially at level 40 the spell is nice, but you still need to cast it several times to kill a few mobs. Since the costs are very cheap, this seems well balanced to me.

This is a level 2 spell because it doesn't fit into level 1 spells. Those are much weaker (like chiza)

Flar is used but not very often. It's not as expensive as #ingrav but deals quite some damage as it's really fast.

I would maybe increase the speed of the new acorn spell to adjust damage per second.
I intentionally made it with high charges because no lvl 90 will actually use this but it is very annoying if you are lvl 30 and have to recharge every other hit. 1 Acorn as cost is just there so that it costs something other than mana. But 1 acorn isn't hard to get for any player at lvl 30. Doesn't matter if you have 100 charges or 2 on the spell.

Thanks for the reviews keep on testing

best regards
tux9th

ftr tux flar is only war level 1 as is. a spell of this nature should also be war level 1 as with chiza itd be a decent way for young mages to reach magic 2 as sulpher is too expensive for most newbies.

tux9th wrote:1 Acorn as cost is just there so that it costs something other than mana.

I am not an active player, so I don't want to claim that I know much about the game. But why exactly is it necessary that every spell costs something?

What If we fixed the number of Charges to be a fixed amount regardless of INT or Astral Magic.
I like this idea with Magic. I'd suggest possibly adding an even lower level spell. Something that uses a cactus potion. Maybe a weaker betsanc or weaker heal.
As I remember one of the hurdles was getting #inma and trying to find things to cast, but at lower levels the material costs are high.
As I like the concept of magic being functional from as close to the beginning as we can get.

I also totally vote for a downgrade to level 1. That could be the occasion to move #flar to lvl 2.

tux9th wrote:If we'd increase it that much it would be as strong as #flar. and flar is far more expensive. This wouldn't be right IMO

In fact flar is probably underpowered. Or whatever. You see, no matter what, mages cant grind, say, yellow or red slimes at rates anyhow comparable to decent warrior or archer of similar level. Bolt is too slow. Flar is too weak. Granted that magic attacks are also not free, mages both have to spend GPs on it and unable to recover GPs by grinding. This makes this class a real trouble for anyone but some few high-levelers who can kill more stuff than spending on attacks or old-time players with alts of other class for grinding. For these reasons its nearly impossible to be mage below level 70 at the moment. Ok, some hardcore hardship-lovers can try it at about lvl 60. Everything below this feels unpleasant to say the least and generally pointless. Free or cheap attacks, even weak, could adjust this a bit i guess.

A very basic estimation makes me to think that flar in general seems to be more expensive than standard and maybe even iron arrows shot by archers while it seems to deal less damage and quite slow compared to archers or warriors of same level. In fact it only makes any sense at levels above 80 or so with good items. Low level mages usually resort to bow for this reason. Just because they cant do it as mage and their stats are even worse at melee.

Crush wrote:

tux9th wrote:1 Acorn as cost is just there so that it costs something other than mana.

I am not an active player, so I don't want to claim that I know much about the game. But why exactly is it necessary that every spell costs something?

I fail to understand it as well. Many games have "free" spells (in terms of items consumed). Though it requires some changes: slower but more gradual mana regeneration and probably larger mana storage, so mage rather cares about "mana management". This approach exists, works in many games and isnt anyhow bad on its own. But I guess it could require some differences in balancing things, though.

t3st3r wrote:A very basic estimation makes me to think that flar in general seems to be more expensive than standard and maybe even iron arrows shot by archers while it seems to deal less damage and quite slow compared to archers or warriors of same level. In fact it only makes any sense at levels above 80 or so with good items. Low level mages usually resort to bow for this reason. Just because they cant do it as mage and their stats are even worse at melee.

From levels 60 to 70, i personally level up my chars playing as a mage. You deal pretty much more damages than any warrior or archer with equivalent level if you set proper stats.
Of course, at these levels, to up efficiently your exp/min, you've to sacrify protection... But that's the case for any style and any way of playing. Unless you would have way more stat points than needed, you can't expect to have the highest exp/min and to be as shielded as a rock ! You have to make a compromise of course.

It has always been intended that high-level mages can cast low-level spells for free.

Specifically:

• In order to cast a level N spell, you need level N+1 in general magic.
• In order to cast a level N spell, you need its components UNLESS you have level N+2 in the school.
• In order to gain magic xp from a spell, you must NOT have level N+3 in general magic.
• The "spellpower" of a spell (if applicable) is matk1 + your skill level in general magic + 10 * your skill level in the school.
• matk2 is unused by the current system. In eA, it was the lower bound of the random range of magic attack power.

Oddly, you don't actually need any level in the school to cast spells. Note also that the level of a spell has absolutely no effect on its effects, assuming you meet the requirements.

In war magic, #chiza and #flar are level 0 spells, #ingrav, #frillyar, and #upmarmu are level 1 spell, and #flar-fol is a level 2 spell (so it can't be used yet).

I think that this is a good addition, it would be nice if this was one of the first spells that was learned, maybe add it so that the manaseed teaches it to the player.

I see no real need to move #flar up to lvl two magic, this is a cheaper and less effective spell, and will work great as that.

Will this be giving out magic xp? Because it consumes an ingredient and i think it will probably make leveling up to magic 2 a bit overly easy imo.