• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ivellian

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

141 profile views
  1. I also recall some discussion of it being tied to the Skill Tree, but such specialization is lacking from the crafting skills at the moment. Currently, I just have "Blacksmithing" to train in support of my Metal Bar and Sword crafting pursuit, but it lacks the sub-component specialization I'd like to see (I understand ACE is planning to revise the skill trees, but, without any suggestions about how it will be revised, I'm working with what I have). I would very much appreciate that kind of specialization on the skill tree as it similarly expands the number of crows necessary to cover all the crafting bases (increasing diversity and other benefits). As you suggest, some kind of combination between skills, disciplines, and equipment probably makes the most sense because we already have some interaction between skills and equipment.
  2. I believe this falls under the trust of this topic, so I'll put this here. I generally like the concept of the crafting disciplines and am interested to seem some examples from ACE. One thing that has drawn my interest that was mentioned some number of months ago (by someone from ACE - my memory says Mr. Blair, but I could be wrong) was that a crafter might specialize in a sub-component of a final product. Say, for example, someone wants to make the best Rose Gold Metal Bars this side of the campaign worlds. Currently, the skill training system does not allow for such specialization and it might be ACE's intent to address this kind of specialization through the disciplines. For the above example, in order to craft the best Rose Gold Metal Bars might include a major discipline focused on creating Rose Gold Bars (say with a bonus to either sheen or durability), or, perhaps more interestingly, might require a major discipline in Metal Bar durability, a major discipline that enhances crafted items made from Gold or a Gold Alloy, a minor discipline that enhances the sheen of a Copper based metal bar, a minor discipline that adds some kind of special crafting statistic to a crafted metal bar (say 3% fire damage to use an off-shoot of Dondagora's suggestion), and another minor discipline that gives some other kind of bonus (say increased effect of experimentation by 10% so an Amazing success is actually a 8.855% stat boost instead of 8.05%). I haven't put much thought into which of those would be a "major" discipline and which would be a "minor" discipline, but you get my point. This kind of discipline based crafting of specialized sub-components adds another layer to differentiating crows and if supply is appropriately built in a roughly pyramidal fashion (roughly for every 1000 first stage (metal bar) crafting item, 100 second stage (cross-guard) crafting item, 10 third stage (hilt) crafting item, 1 fourth (final / sword) crafting item - or similarly linearly or exponentially scaling system of effective crafting discipline availability) allows a broad variety of basic components and a limited and specialized number of "master" crafters (the one's responsible for / focused on the final item). TL;DR I'm interested in seeing the crafting disciplines as they take shape, and I see sub-component specialization through disciplines as another way to differentiate crafting crows to expand the number of alt accounts necessary to do everything (crafting-wise) in Crowfall.
  3. I would personally commit to following and observing Boar and Cats on the Great Plains when they are re-introduced. As Chris describes, they should work well enough for our focus to be on other features on the game. Thank you for mentioning my animal friends - I've been missing them.
  4. Thank you for starting the discussion with the idea. I understand now and I tend to agree. With disciplines being a semi-permanent active game play choice, it definitely does feel like the correct area to provide statistical combat advantages (in the form of more abilities to cast or combat passives, not merely raw statistics necessarily). I believe a member of ACE (who, exactly, and where, exactly, I'd have to go searching some more) mentioned they tried to avoid raw stat boosts in the disciplines and more tried to make the disciplines situational. Along the same lines of thought, one could make skills similar (which is what I think this suggestion leans toward), but in my search for the above quote I came across this by jtoddcoleman from "On the Horizon: Combat disciplines - Official discussion thread" at 12:46 on March 3rd: This is a reasonable concern (and I'm focused on the sunk cost of passive skill training compared to the disciplines). I suppose the likely concern is by forcing passive training in order to play certain ways (like stealth or many of the other options we've mentioned), it forces a player to sink time in order to try a play style that might interest him or her. It would remove or limit the "cycle of experimentation and exploration." I wanted to hear your thoughts on this post relative to your suggestion - I'm still weighing it out, personally. Otherwise, I like your suggested skill benefits and (in view of the above) even if they do not make the skill cut, they should be disciplines in my opinion.
  5. I am having a little trouble coming up with an adequate reply because I am not sure if you are referring to the new discipline system or the skill system. I think you are referring to the skill system but you mention Crafting and Harvesting Disciplines so I am not so sure. I will assume for purpose of this post that your comments are focused on the passive skill training system. I like the idea built into the suggestion. Replacing a raw stat benefit from more training time with technical combat specialization is definitely a more interesting and adaptive idea. I am concerned though that the current system of training for crafting and harvesting really only make those pursuits actually viable in a way the combat system might arguably do to a lesser degree. Currently, the harvesting system with 1 in plentiful harvesting yields a poultry amount of resources as discussed elsewhere on these forums. (See, e.g., Harvesting Passives ... Why they hurt gatherers under Crafting & Economy.) Similarly, crafting only becomes a successful and profitable endeavor (in my opinion, we will see the details as the systems become more interconnected) as one skills up and can obtain reasonable levels of success in the experimentation phase. So, combat training making the activity a viable long term activity is roughly parallel. It makes the activity something one can pursue as a "crow profession." Additionally, I am having some trouble seeing exactly how many ways combat can be "specialized" without it effectively being similar to what we have now. The examples you have are good - seige, stealth, stealing, and perhaps others are ways to play a combat character that give tactical position based advantages without statistical differences. The strength of sneaking up on someone is the opportunity to strike first and unexpectedly with the associated benefits for example. I suppose with some thought I could come up with ways to train in "defending a point" - i.e. raising ones defense when substantially immobile; "running away" - i.e. escapes or slows against pursuers; "chasing" - i.e. to combat escape; "Town Combat"; "Forest Combat"; "Mountain Combat" - i.e. benefits applied only when in those terrain types. Now that I have stammered through this post with the idea, those alternatives to strict statistical benefits (lower CC time, stronger raw defense or offense) definitely feel more interesting and something I would support. It also makes more sense when building a hybrid combat/gathering crow skill-wise (if I wanted a ranger who was good at cutting trees, I might also specialize their ability to fight in the forest for obvious reasons or maybe improve their stealth capability; if I wanted to build a town crafter, I might specialize in town combat or detecting theft to suit my environment). I do think some of this idea is already accounted for in the ideas of siege or stealth training that are currently in planning stages, but it would be nice to embrace those ideas more fully and avoid the raw stat benefits in the combat skills where possible.
  6. There's an easy fix for that, merely shifting around how the potion and passive interact. If the potion applies first before the passive, the passive will only get a player to a max of 3 plentiful harvest (as written in its description). E.g. If I have 2 plentiful harvest, take the potion, and equip the passive, I should still cap at 3 plentiful harvest because it checks the passive against the 3 total plentiful harvest I have from my skills and potions. This kind of interaction leaves the potion useful without utterly destroying the harvesting curve. It's probable, in my opinion, that the present interaction between the potion and passive is unintentional. You may wish to report what you found about the potion and passive as a potential bug. If it isn't a bug, it's quite worrying, I agree. Even if functioning as intended, the cost to make the potion might make it uncommon later down the line. I echo anhrezcf's statement and note that the passives we are currently discussing and seeking improvement around replaced the potion system which had similar (if not identical) effects but was more annoying forcing us to craft potions every 10 and then every 12 minutes. Overall, I'd say passives are an improvement over the potion system, just not far enough of an improvement. As Vikingnail suggests, there will be more iterations that follow and the hope is with testing and prompting, the harvesting system will move toward something that feels fun and rewarding for player's focusing on harvesting.
  7. Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying. As you were pointing out then, the passives being limited to Plentiful harvest is also an added benefit compared to the test potions which allowed everyone to get all the benefits of all the stats. I think these are both good points if the passives are to remain: However, do keep in mind, requiring the passive take up one of three passive slots adds an opportunity cost and might in some way justify the move not to just remove tier 1 and tier 2 plentiful harvest.
  8. The passives do not look like they will stack or at least it is not ACE's intent that they stack with skills at this time: Passive Powers and you NEW TYPES OF PASSIVES Harvesting Passives "... Each of these passives will grant the player up to three “Plentiful Harvest” ranks in the associated profession: Mining, Logging, Quarrying and Skinning. A player who chooses to train in one or more of these associated skills will, in time, have no reason to use these passives. " The "up to three" language and the "no reason to use these passives" once trained suggests the passives will only provide a benefit if someone does not yet have Mining, Logging, Quarrying, or Skinning trained to three ranks in Plentiful Harvest. The second part of BarriaKarl's post seems to highlight the issue here - a focus on other stats (i.e. focus on training other skill trees) because these passives exist. I generally agree with anhrezcf that a substitute for the potion environment in the form of a passive is substantially less than ideal. The problem, as I see it, is ACE said they would not have the harvesting potions in the final build. If that philosophy holds, it seems to be an end run around to substantially change those potions into passives and then later say, "See! No harvesting potions in the final build." I am as concerned about these passives making the final build as I was with the potions. They lessen the overall merit of dabbling in a skill tree and not focusing on it. ACE's stated intention has been they want diversity created by their passive training system so no two crows (and I do mean crows and not vessels) will be the same. If these passive harvesting powers remain and are part of the final game, they will lessen the chance some crows will dabble in the harvesting tree when they might otherwise have done so because they already have the ability to dabble (through the passives) without investing valuable time. Overall, this will then likely lessen crow diversity (and of course there will be some but less than there would have been without the passives in play). Having said that, I envision these as temporary replacements for the harvesting potions and likely to be removed before a final build or soft launch of the game. Overall, I think they serve the function better than craft-able harvesting potions since they are not time limited and I had no problem with the harvesting potion because we are still testing. Therefore, I do not foresee a problem yet - ACE has not said these specific harvesting passives will be in the final build (I'm all for other discipline based harvesting and crafting passives, and these potion substitutes might just be easy ways to start testing that tech). Also, if these (I think) four passives make it into the final build, they still do not provide some of the more specific harvesting benefits for graveyards, minerals, or gems which would still be left entirely in the hands of the gatherer. While still a problem, this will still allow some space and need for specialized harvesting characters in the game environment and provide some return on a harvesting character's training time.
  9. It was refreshing to see a truly grand castle built from the player perspective. Thank you for all the hours you put into it.
  10. How long did it take you to create this masterpiece of a castle?
  11. It's not a contradiction or a change in terminology at all, technically. The original ACE video last year referred to Big World as "more test than playtest," but what else would one call testing a game besides play testing? Moreover, the "more" in that statement does not mean there is no play testing going on. I think the transition stage ACE is going for between the current version and more of a playtest (with less test and more play) is having an in-game objective to "justify" the sandbox activities we have currently experienced - i.e. a win condition for the campaigns or the ability to control POI. The technicality game was started and I sometimes I can't keep myself from playing. Edit to add citation: See around time stamp 1:50.
  12. I once knew of Love... With Gaea's fall, I know cold. You will join me soon.
  13. Thank you - rocks that no longer regenerate is appreciated. We will see how it works in practice, but the change away from regeneration is a great start in my opinion. Do mother lode nodes also have a max lifetime of 2 minutes or is that just for normal (non-mother lode) nodes? Harvest nodes seems to imply all but just checking. Depending on how the armor change balances, two minutes might be too little time for a mother lode node, we'll see.
  14. Solid article on the process. I have not yet experimented much with the alchemy side of the crafting system yet, but the statement that "[t]hese Philosopher Solutions are a crazy amount of effort, and the amount of trial and error I spent to determine them all was staggering" makes me want to dig into it next time I get the chance.
  15. I also agree. I have gone the extra step of training the first salvaging skill to 100 and I have not noticed any benefit. I will be ready when it gets implemented.