Unique Summons

[Dragonslayer]

Hello! I've never made one of these before, so let me preface by saying this server is wonderful, and it is by far the most developed community in terms of scripting, maps, and general development in general making it closer to PnP in many ways, which I enjoy.

Ok, buttering up done.

The named summons system should be changed. I understand at it's inception the idea was to provide a neat and unique reward for players who were lucky to find a Name, skilled enough to bargain with it, and rich enough to bind it. All which resulted in a Named Summon, which is incredibly cool and a great reward.

The problem, now that it's been a decade or so since it was introduced, is that many players over the course of many years have access to these names. This means, of course, that the cooldown time for said summons (over a week) locks out the vast majority of people who may want to summon those creatures or perhaps use them in RP.

My suggestion is that this system be changed, as the circumstances of their introduction have changed significantly.

First, my suggestion would be to drastically reduce the cooldown time. This would serve the meta purpose of allowing people to summon them more often, and the RP aspect; namely that there is no way on Ao's green Toril that these PCs are running around with bound summons for over a real time week at a time. The vast majority of players use them as a summon in a dungeon, and then that's it. They are not running back into town with an angel on their literal shoulder.

Second, in the alternative, would be to restrict one unique summon to a PC at a time, with that summon being guaranteed with no cool down time. The only circumstance where a PC couldn't summon it would be if it was an active summon somewhere else on the server. Then, any other summon would be subject to the cooldown time that's normal.

I'm certainly open to other suggestions, but because the lore is so unique to these creatures, it's a shame that one person can log on, summon them all, then have them locked for anyone else who might know the Names for such a long time.

Thanks for reading!

[selhan]

Think this was brought up before if I recall, but I agree this does need change somewhat. I got my own rare summons and its quite a pain when I need it, I cant use it cause someone else got it locked out.

[wangxiuming]

It would be nice if the summons were more accessible. FInding a name in a dusty tome is rare enough, but if you actually do uncover a name, it's a big bummer to find out the summon has been locked down (and apparently can be locked down perpetually?).

[Snarfy]

Second, in the alternative, would be to restrict one unique summon to a PC at a time, with that summon being guaranteed with no cool down time. The only circumstance where a PC couldn't summon it would be if it was an active summon somewhere else on the server. Then, any other summon would be subject to the cooldown time that's normal.

I would prefer to lean towards something like this, although modified: One unique summon per character, meaning you get locked out from summoning other ones, but with a shorter duration on the timer that prevents others from summoning them... say 5 days, or something. I forget what the actual lockout timer is, I thought it was closer to one and a half to two weeks, which is perhaps a little too much.

That being said, as a player who has two characters that regularly utilize a single unique summon each(I have about 4 other names, but I don't use them), I would likely be miffed if I couldn't summon them because I was unable to log on due to RL circumstances. Not to mention the sometimes rather outrageous gold cost and skill roll required to summon them in the first place.

I'm probably in the minority, being the type of player who uses them as an RP device, rather than a grinding tool. I've drummed up some additional(however innocuous) background for them, and a reasoning for them to be so familiar with my characters. If I run into other players on either of these characters while my summons are present, I will, 99% of the time, utilize them in RP. So, while losing them wouldn't be the end of the world, as my characters aren't dependent on them mechanically, it would likely be a bit discouraging to suddenly see one of them used as a grinding tool, or worse, a pet/prop in some guild hall(which one of them [a tiger] literally was before I snagged it)...

*Late thought* - ... perhaps they could require a re-binding of some sort every now and then, with a reagent cost, or the like. Maybe a regular diamond, nothing too rare, every 5 to 10 summons, or something. Anything that isn't gold, as that would just incentivize players to grind more to keep them(plus, everyone who owns them is probably already a multi-millionaire, like me >.>)

[Steve]

Or, remove the static unique name aspect, allow unlimited versions of the 50 or so Named Summons currently programmed, and allow Players to uniquely name their Summons. Confirming to Server Naming Rules of course.

Still keep IG some cost for binding and summoning. And allow 2 uniques per PC to be bound up at any one time (even if not really really unique any longer).

[Lockonnow]

I can tell that you can find the name in many books but what is the differnce the text so who need the book i have 3 books text but with the same name how bad is that

[Louvaine]

Wouldn't the issue be resolved by just adding more names? Anyway, I'm all for making the system more approachable. On that note, it's probably worth looking at some of the stats. I once had a DEX-based summon who lacked Weapon Finesse.

[Dragonslayer]

Wouldn't the issue be resolved by just adding more names? Anyway, I'm all for making the system more approachable. On that note, it's probably worth looking at some of the stats. I once had a DEX-based summon who lacked Weapon Finesse.

I mean, going forward maybe. But all of those names over the years that people have access to would still have the same problem.

[Steve]

Wouldn't the issue be resolved by just adding more names? Anyway, I'm all for making the system more approachable. On that note, it's probably worth looking at some of the stats. I once had a DEX-based summon who lacked Weapon Finesse.

It isn't as simple as just adding names. I looked into it when Endelyon was still admining the Server, as they were "on board" for increasing the quantity of Named Summons, and I had worked with Dedude (the original scripter) on this project all those many years ago.

There is a database of Names, with associated Stats, plus custom text about background...a lot of custom text. Then, there is the text that is actually read in the Dusty Tomes, which is itself, and as you know, both granting names and just IC fluff text with no names. To make the system expand, you'd always have to produce 10x the fluff (no name) texts as those with Names.

What I'm saying is that is it is a big project, requires a lot of writing—and writing that is approved because it should be based in some kind of Canon—, approval of Stats, approval of X, Y, Z. While the result would be amazing and make a handful of people super happy, in the end, it wouldn't ever be truly custom. That is why I suggested earlier to allow Players to customize their Named Summons, based of the handful of already approved blueprints.

[Goat_gurl]

I think it is an interesting topic and there have been many interesting suggestions. However, I do think that there are some drawbacks to each. For example:

1) Limiting number of unique summons bound per person - that sounds like the most sensible and middle approach but there are sure to be those dissatisfied with that change.

2) Decreasing the cooldown (from 10 to 5 days) - that will make summon turnover higher but will result in more complaints from those who wish to retain their unique summons but can only find time to log in once or twice a week.

3) Adding new names - that, in my opinion wouldn't do anything in the short-term and in the long-term would be the repeat of the current situation as dusty tomes are not very common and require either buying them for high prices or dungeoneering to acquire. So new people would not be able to use new names immediately and nothing is stopping those who go to dungeons often to find dusty tomes and bind them to their chartacters as there is no limit currently. If it's to work it would need to be done along with limiting number of summons bound per person. It is also, as Steve mentioned, a lot of work to implement correctly. It can be time-consuming, especially given that you would need to approve every little thing, for an uncertain result.

4) Allow players to customize their summons by naming them. This sounds like a good solution but that largely depends on why people wish to use their unique summons. If the RP is their only motivation, it can be worth a shot. But people can also be after their power. Unique summons are generally not too different in power compared to their counterparts (a few more points in base stats and AC usually) but there are certainly some exceptions among the higher ranked summons, including larger bonus to base stats, more AC and even bonus feats compared to their common counterparts.

With all that said, I think that before implementing any changes, it would be better to get some more feedback from those who are either using or looking to use this system. From what I have seen IG, very few use unique named summons, given that it is a huge time and gold sink. I think it would be invaluable to hear whether they value their RP potential, IG power or both. Depending on the results of the survey, there can be talk of appropriate changes.

[DaloLorn]

One interesting option might be to reduce the bind period to a day, or half a day. Only one person would be able to keep the creature out at any given time, but there would be (nearly) no reservation period otherwise.

[Steve]

One interesting option might be to reduce the bind period to a day, or half a day. Only one person would be able to keep the creature out at any given time, but there would be (nearly) no reservation period otherwise.

As long as there would be no greater cost(s) beyond the initial binding Fee, this is a good proposal, for bound usage limited to 1/RL day. That would mean a Players would have to log in every 24 hours + 1 minute in order to consistently re-bind their Named Summons.

[selhan]

agree, sorta costly for something you cant even use when you need to use it lol

[DaloLorn]

One interesting option might be to reduce the bind period to a day, or half a day. Only one person would be able to keep the creature out at any given time, but there would be (nearly) no reservation period otherwise.

As long as there would be no greater cost(s) beyond the initial binding Fee, this is a good proposal, for bound usage limited to 1/RL day. That would mean a Players would have to log in every 24 hours + 1 minute in order to consistently re-bind their Named Summons.

AFAIK, you only pay the price once, even in the current system. It's just that you lose the ability to summon the silly thing for the next two weeks if someone steals it from you. (In the proposed new system, you'd only lose it for a day at a time, which is much less painful and would likely eliminate most of the hoarding behaviors we've observed in the database.)

[Dragonslayer]

One interesting option might be to reduce the bind period to a day, or half a day. Only one person would be able to keep the creature out at any given time, but there would be (nearly) no reservation period otherwise.

As long as there would be no greater cost(s) beyond the initial binding Fee, this is a good proposal, for bound usage limited to 1/RL day. That would mean a Players would have to log in every 24 hours + 1 minute in order to consistently re-bind their Named Summons.

AFAIK, you only pay the price once, even in the current system. It's just that you lose the ability to summon the silly thing for the next two weeks if someone steals it from you. (In the proposed new system, you'd only lose it for a day at a time, which is much less painful and would likely eliminate most of the hoarding behaviors we've observed in the database.)

That's far and above the best solution in my mind! I didn't want to suggest something as extreme in the fear that it'd be outright rejected, but if staff is amenable then I'd agree.