I don't think it'll gain us AP, I think it'll save us AP. Specifically, because it's more of a tool than a research goal of its own. It opens up a ton of new doors for research, but those doors are almost all new ways of approaching something else we want to do - we already want to invent new Ulgu spells, we already want to spend time enchanting neat stuff, we already want to build certain tools like the Cartography Project or the Sevirscope.Btw, @everyone going for Gehenna in hopes of getting more AP somewhere down the line: I am pretty sure that this is not in the cards for OOC reasons alone. Turns already often take 4+ chapters now and iirc BoneyM has expressed in the past that he doesn't really want to push it further.
We essentially get 2 for 1 when we apply these insights to any of those tasks by both researching thinking magic and working on developing another of our interests, IMO.
I think you're unnecessarily conflating "create a standardized perception" with "can be produced to show identical results in each and every case".First of all, we have explicit WoG confirmation that Ulgu AI is not a dead end. Second, there's no way in hell that a sevirscope would provide any kind of standardized perception because wizards are all very different people and therefore enchant differently. Any AI created by one wizard is going to have very different windsight than an AI created by a different one because magic works for them differently.
Any kind of standardized high def sevirscope would basically depend on someone with Mathilde-gradd windsight doing nothing but churning the things out which is a frankly terrible use of your (extremely skilled) enchanter's time when they could be doing basically anything else.
We know for a fact that Master/Apprentice pairs often share a lot of their perspectives on magic, and it's very likely that sevirscopes would enable something similar on a more widespread scale - after all, the very first thing someone tasked with producing additional sevirscopes is going to do is take a look at the original one (both to see how it's done as well as to get an idea of what's being asked for). So even if not identical sevirscopes are highly likely to give very similar results in many cases due to that spreading perspective, which would be good enough in terms of being a common point of reference that calling it a Colleges-wide standard isn't too far off.
Last edited: