Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Fabulex

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Language
  • Interests
    Gaming, Reading, Travelling, History and culture
  • Gender
  • Location
    Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  1. I have no idea if this has already been discussed. Couldn’t find anything so figured I’d risk it! I called the thread resource consolidation because it sounded better than “put thing in pot gets better” but that’s basically the premise. TLDR preamble Ive recently returned to the game with fortunes of war and I’ve found that after you get your first sets of armour crafted and you’re looking towards your green doobers you’re missing a trick a bit. My inventory is now full of, apart from maybe crafting new spectral tools, ostensibly useless common materials. I know they CAN be sacrificed but let’s be real who’s actually doing that as a play style. I know from some of your Q&As that you’re always on the look out for more for crafters and gatherers to be able to do, looking at you here Blair. The actual idea It would be great if there was a way to turn all the white resources we will inevitably get into green doobers and so on and so forth. So why not consider making a kind of mini game, in the same way gathering with pips and crafting with exp points are? For example have a magic puddle or some such lore rubbish where you can put in, say 10 white, resources at a time and then you ‘roll’ and there a chance to either: a) get 1 green doober, 2) get some pish sacrifice rubbish or 3) you get nothing, unlucky! It would be a way for us industry guys to kill some solo time, would add to our fun and ultimately the economy. Im not saying make it such good returns that it’s a viable full time playstyle, because we still need to get guys out in the world. But it would be a good way to transform some vendor trash into useable goods and add some content. And psychologically that would feel SO much better than wading through white mats, which feel like useless drops now, to get to them tasty coloured drops. It would make them feel like “okay they’re not great but I can whack them in Todd’s magic puddle (yes I went there ;P) later” (Constructive) thoughts anyone?
  2. *waves gayly* shocking I know sign me up
  3. I think you raised some very interesting points Scree. Artificial caps I agree with you on this I think that there no way an arbitrary cap on things like guild or party size will work because as you say players will just group up to maximise their efficiency. Any issues around camping and zerging have to be addressed elsewhere. Supply chain Certainly food is going to play a big part in guild/alliance/group strategy. I recall Todd saying in multiple live streams that i've followed that they intend to have farms be a target for players to attack in order to cut off an enemy's supply chain. After all an army marches on its stomach as they say. We just have to wait and see how effective this will become as a form of gameplay once more balancing is achieved. I've noted from my experience in 5.7 and from following discussion that the chicken ticker can feel very punitive at times. So there may end up being a need to balance making it harsh enough to matter as a form of war planning but still not making it so cumbersome as to make the whole game feel unreasonably punitive re food consumption. For example starting to lose 50% of your chicken ticker bar after 30 mins of harvesting work isn't going to feel enjoyable. Let alone starving after 5 mins of combat activity. Scaling/AoE tuning First of all (I'm asking this because I have limited technical know how) how resource intensive is scaling tech? Do ArtCraft already have scaling tech that they can call on or would this be a new tech they'd have to develop? I understand what you're saying in regards to trying to keep things fun and competitive for players who might not be able to call upon 500+ players. It's never going to be fun if people just get rolled over by any group which is a requisite % larger than them. The danger in tuning AoE to scale based on how many people are around is that you kind of remove an element of skill do you not think? I know that ArtCraft have said that they want there to be an element of skill to victory. That you should practice and learn from your experiences campaign to campaign. Would simply having to manage where best to place your AoE reticle not rather remove an element of skill if players know that a high density of players will get rekt if they co-ordinate the AoE with their pals? Or do we think that AoE management like this is a form of skill in of itself and should be catered for rather than discouraged? Camping vs zerging Practically speaking you're absolutely right, camping probably won't be too much of a problem given the reasons you state above. Since it's random spawn it would be like trying to catch rain with a colander. Full coverage would require too many players too much time. So the issue moved to zerging and as you rightly infer it's a balancing act between catering to strategic gameplay around building and maintaining alliances for strength in numbers vs how will ArtCraft offset 1v1 balancing against group v group balancing. This is why I was asking about the technical cost/feasability above as I just don't know how possible/expensive it would be. I look forward to hearing your/everyones thoughts. Thanks, Fabulex
  4. Do you not think the tokens are a wee bit punative? Being a die hard lover of world building ability I just want ALLLLL of the tokens Thanks, Fabulex
  5. I think this is a brilliant idea pal! It would save the map from being just this chequered mess of different towers banners. The only reservation with this though is that it will detract from their whole reason for existing. They are meant to be accessible content for 1-3 players ArtCraft have said. So makimg them a frontier may detract from this because of population density. So for example if there are always 10-30 players pottering around the towers then the small group content is estopped. Perhaps apply your model to only the very highest rank towers and leave the outposts and smaller towers as they are? Certainly a well thought out concept though well done! Thanks, Fabulex
  6. I think the issue that the developers want to prevent is giving campers unfair advantage owing to the incoming players having a handicap from the likes of loading screens/loss of momentum. I agree with you that choke points are a storied and material part of strategic warfare. However it’s frustrating when the campers can appear to have an advantage granted by the mechanics of the game. However I’d be interested to hear why you then seem to abhor players taking a strength in numbers approach. Often battles are fought and won on numbers. So why does camping not strike you as an issue while zerging does? Also what would the possible solution to zerging be in your mind? Thanks, Fabulex
  7. I personally like the way that the passive training works in general terms. I know that a lot of the skill trees are objectively quite arbitrary advances to stats but there’s are some tangible benefits/choices in there as well. Crafters specifically will have to look ahead after basic training and see where they’d like to specialise because going down a certain path will unlocks more craftable items for you and (in practice if not in game mechanic) lock off other avenues (assuming you want to master one profession). I haven’t done that much research into the combat trees but I don’t think the higher end things give you any new abilities? (Please correct me if I’m wrong guys) So it may be that the hardcore PvPers are more concerned with getting gear appropriate to their play style and equipping some disciples (after they stop being so lacklustre (sorry ACE they are a bit)) to help add some variety and utility to their build. Its not a BAD system. It may not be what you want 100% of the time but you can’t please everyone so you have to just make your best guess and roll the dice. Heavy is the head that wears the crown (and I think ACE have some pretty buff necks now haha). It does help take some of the hated ‘grind’ gameplay away from PvP whinebags who like to complain so cant be all bad? Thanks, Fabulex
  8. Looks to be a great tool good job! Will certainly be interesting to see the different ways this tool, and consequentially this tech, will be used in the future. For now all I’ll say is make an island just big enough to fit a massive fortress on and call it Aincrad. Go on.... indulge a fan boy Thanks, Fabulex
  9. These could be super fun! It will be great to see the landscape change as well when we get new art assets in! #Nathari4Lyf. It could be cool if these gave passive buffs as others have said. Would love to see the likes of say +1 apple drop chance or +5% tasty tasty pig bacon with x meters. Also when ArtCraft sort out the tech to dig into terrain we could see the likes of capturable bunkers which come equipped with NPCs that passively harvest resources and despposit then in the bunker. Say you’re starving in winter and you come across a bunker full to the brim with delicious cake (Cake better be a recipe)! Aha but I’m rambling now! Best wishes, Fabulex
  10. Thank you @Jah and @Gorantu I appreciate you guys getting me up to speed. I think maybe I just got my wires crossed with 1 years worth of mental note taking rattling around in my head!
  11. That would make sense. After all variety is the spice of life. That and ArtCraft aren't stupid they ken what they're doing
  12. Maybe I've picked that up from a much earlier forum discussion I've read. Anyway I appreciate the clarification.
  13. Hey all, New to playing the game but not new to following its development. Looking for a EU guild where I can be involved in the crafting side of things that's where my strength will lie I reckon. Also a big fan of the Lore of the game so getting involved in some RP is something i'm passionate about. In terms of experience I play/have played many MMOs. Most notably WoW where I've off and on ran my own guilds, but also GW, GW2, SWTOR, Aion Online and I've even dabbled in Minecraft *flex* don't all swarm at once... In terms of a bit more info on me i'm 26 soon to be 27 (I know I don't want to be! Aha), I live and work in Scotland so my time zone is whatever the UK happens to be on at the time. I work full time but get my evenings and weekends free consistently. I'd prefer being involved on a more casual basis to begin just while I find my feet, we can always revisit this when you realise i'm far too keen with far too many ideas. My Discord is Fabulex#6694 feel free to drop me a message. Hope to hear from you soon
  14. I'll write my 2 penny's worth now that I can do that *squee* ooooh exciting times. So for the player economy to function there are two main areas that need to be considered. Those being Supply and Demand and Ease of use. I'll do my best to cover what i consider the existing issues here to be (specifically in the context of player economy and increasing footfall across EKs which I understand is a goal for ArtCraft) and some possible resolutions I see to these apparent issues. Supply and Demand The issue (As i see it) For there to be a player economy in the game there needs to be the cycle of supply and demand. More specifically there has to be a need for goods and crafters sitting around pumping out all those lovely goodies... like horrid underappreciated vending machines (not bitter). And there in lies the rub. As things stand at the moment it is relatively easy for every person and guild to get everything that they need to supply themselves. Every tom, hooligan and harry is a jack of all trades but a master of none. Now I know that this is a symptom of the accelerated skill training owing to the place we are in the testing cycle but i can only comment on what i see/read right now. There is a lack of specialisation. If everyone can craft (broadly speaking) everything they need then there is no (or little) "demand" and so consequentially it follows that there is little need for "supply". This is harmful to both parties in the transaction, a catch 22 situation. If there is no demand then why would a crafter waste their time trying to sell unneeded goods. If there is no supply then why bother trying to buy at all just go and make something yourself, after all you have everything you need available to you strictly speaking. People will inevitably opt for the path of least resistance and so it is imperative that we make this symbiotic supply and demand relationship necessary for the health of the economy and not just a "oh it would be nice if it worked like this" scenario. Possible remedies (As i see them) Create more demand for materials As i understand it, right now all different materials of all different ranks are dispersed throughout the map. There are no specific points which have anything resembling a unique resource, this needs to change. To create a demand for goods we need to create a degree of monopoly. To use a real world example oil is so expensive because you can only dig it out of so many places in the ground now. So we need to start seeing the likes of mines that now exclusively house ore nodes of rank 7-10, woods that now exclusively house tree nodes of rank 7-10, quarries that now exclusively house stone nodes of rank 7-10 etc etc wouldn't that be nice. That way there would be a need ("Demand") to trade with the party which now has access to that exclusive resource as it cannot be acquired elsewhere, thus creating a ("Supply") on the part of the vendors and fulfilling the cycle. It may also be interesting to make some resource nodes/hubs finite. As the campaigns will ultimately end if these were depleted early then it's not the end of the world (and more likely a learning curve for players). Also we could refine the amounts over time or alter them to vary campaign difficulty/strategy. Caveat: I spoke above about a degree of monopoly. This will need to be measured carefully to ensure that an absolute monopoly does not occur. Absolute monopolies are not fun (Who doesn't fondly remember the cigar smoking unassailable tyrant Blair... sorry "uncle bob"). Todd spoke about introducing a system whereby the more unique and desirable a resource node/hub is then the harder it should be to hold to ensure that an absolute monopoly is a fluke and not a given. I think this would be massively beneficial for the health of the game as it will prevent stagnation. Create more demand for specialised crafting To further proliferate the Supply and Demand relationship i think is so essential in the game i think we need to also create more specialisation in crafted goods. As all skills are tied to your immortal crow spirit and not to a character it is not prudent to gate specialisation behind a player themselves. Therefor it struck me that why not make the specialisation a World/EK/Zone/Hub ("Hub") mechanic. Allow me to expand on this. I believe that each hub should have a stated specialisation. By this i mean that advanced crafting recipes should only be available in certain hubs. You are in a campaign world and you arrive at Castle Smithy McSmith Face and think "this is grand" and you go away and you buy a nice set of armour and swords for example. But then you think "oh i need me some disciples" but ho now! You can only get those from Fort Nifty so off you pop there and get your Disciplines. Hmmm getting low on food? Better wander over to Munchy El Munch Town for any chance at a decent meal.... I'm sure you get the drift. Specialisation feeds Supply and Demand, whereas homogeny impairs it. Caveat: I understand that the concept of "Super EK's" is a contentious subject, with some in favour and some against. Personally am not opposed to the existence of these Super EK's as they will naturally occur in any MMO game. My belief is that they will have to be regulated to help encourage the flow of the game across different campaign worlds and EK's. My instinct is to put a "cap" (1-3) on how many advanced crafting tables can be placed in each EK to prevent homogeny in that kingdom and encourage trade with other EKs. This will not prevent the pop up of Super EKs but will necessitate the involvement of a much wider base of players and so serves to increase footfall across more EKs. Ease of use The issue (As i see it) Before I begin this section I want to make it clear that I think many of the obstacles listed here will be overcome simply as the game moves further on in it's iteration. ArtCraft have done a wonderful job of giving us a functional, if not refined, game world to get involved with. I suspect that many of the issues will be resolved as we move into true alpha and then beta and pick up some more quality of life additions as opposed to core features. The very first thing that I thought when joining the game is how the segregation between the campaign world and EKs breaks your immersion in the game. Thematically your EK is just a lovely safe world out of the fringe of the universe that Galactus *cough* sorry i mean the hunger, hasn't noticed yet. However functionally having to log out then into EK then out then into Campaign worlds ("CWs") breaks not only your immersion but also the flow of the game, momentum and interest wane. Hell if you're anything like me you'll forget why you went in the first place! It's clunky and cumbersome (Again though a symptom of function over refinement). The second thing is that buying and selling are still clunky and unrefined. Moreover there is an element of luck involved as well which I think should be iterated out as much as possible. We need to ideally aim for a system whereby players find the buying and selling of goods easy and efficient. There needs to be people to sell goods and people that need to buy them in enough volume and concentration to make it worthwhile. Lastly i get the impression that there is a concern going around that EKs and CWs will not interact with each other well. That the import/export limit will stifle the use of EKs as legitimate hubs of industry for CWs and that there is confusion on how import/export will work between EKs given their persistent nature. Possible remedies (As i see them) First and foremost make EKs more accessible in game. Being able to hop from CW to EK to CW by way of a moongate/portal/puff the magic dragon will improve the flow of the game tremendously. You can have your favourites saved as normal and be able to search for an EK if you need to. Secondly, I don't want to say take people by the hand more because that is condescending and not what I mean. But take people by the hand more. EKs can pretty much be left because accessibility is a matter for the owner of that EK and if the market area is laid out poorly.... well that's a choice *shrug*. I'm thinking more of the CWs and moving to a system of having pre-designed trade hubs. To prevent anyone and everyone just running around trying to flog their wares anywhere and everywhere move to a system where, say hubs of a certain size and above, there will be a selection of empty vendor slots that a player or guild can rent for a hour/day/week and flog all of their lovely goodies. This will serve to "herd" the player base into these hubs for trading in higher concentrations, which will hopefully increase the chance of someone finding what they need to buy or selling what they need to sell. Caveat: Again we need to prevent a monopoly so say only 1 vendor allowed per person/guild per hub. Also to prevent vendors being "hogged" after the current tenancy ends that person receives a de-buff or 1 hour(?) whereby they cannot rent another vendor. (This could lead to some interesting gameplay around selling on their slot to competing merchants, i.e. cancelling their tenancy early in co-operation with the winning merchants bid so that that merchant can secure the tenancy for themselves.) Lastly, perhaps change the import/export rules for the EKs into CWs and vice versa. I know that the function of the import/export rules are to provide a level playing field at the start of each new CW, with the aim of preventing any power imbalance from the get go. Perhaps to maintain this but to also ease the burden on the economy start "grading on a curve"? Allow me to explain what I mean by this. Say when importing and exporting you have a weight limit you an reach before you can no longer import or export. I would suggest considering making items of different nature count more or less of the weight limit depending on what they do. For example a sword is a tangible increase in your power (it stabs things and they die... yay!) and so i would say count 100% of its weight against the imp/exp limit. A component of an assembly (for example a metal billet) is not a tangible increase in power but could relatively easily go towards making an item that is, so count say 70% of its weight towards the imp/exp limit. Finally raw materials are as far away from useful as you can get and so only count 10% of their weight towards the imp/exp limit. Grading on a curve like this gives greater flexibility to crafters and the economy while still inhibiting any unfair advantage caused by way of imports. Caveat: This likely isn't a perfect solution but I think it is sound as a starter for 10. It can surely be improved upon if we see what works well and what end up being utter garbage. Summary TL:DR Don't let me write another post ever again... No for serious The above has very much been my observations and opinion on the matter. I'm sure it's likely not all perfect and I welcome any constructive feedback and collaboration. But otherwise yeah, Great job ArtCraft i'm a big fan <3. Best wishes, Fabulex
  • Create New...