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

panpear

Testers
  • Content Count

    180
  • Joined

  • Last visited


Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    panpear reacted to Eldreth in Combat: Finding the fun - Official discussion thread   
    Scrum for game design? I'm intrigued. 
     
    Does this make Tully the Scrum master? All Hail the Dread Scrum Lord Tully.
     
    Speaking of the game of rampant speculation, I can't help but be intrigued by the scale in the images at the bottom. One tile = one player?
  2. Like
    panpear reacted to Tyrant in no subscription fee how will the game progress?   
    This isn't really an answerable question.  We've laid out our plans pretty clearly but only time will tell if we are on target.  The current crowdfunding population is somewhere between 1% (awesome beyond our dreams) and 5%+ (still really good for a healthy/profitable Crowfall) of the potential audience, so the extras early backers get should not be that material to the long term health of the game.  No game survives that can't attract new players is our starting point, so we have to be somewhere between a great and awesome quality level to attract a good chunk of PvP-oriented players.
  3. Like
    panpear got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Archetype update: The Centaur - Official discussion thread   
    I know the feeling on the alts. I already want sooo many! Guinea Pig guy is a close second on my list, but I definitely plan on making a Centaur my main. Here's to hoping I don't completely suck at their playstyle! I must do well for the Empire!
  4. Like
    panpear got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Archetype update: The Centaur - Official discussion thread   
    Love it! This really helps solidify some personality traits I was considering for my own Centaur lady. Centaur are better than you!
     
    In that last armor, I really hope he finds someone to undo it before he has to use the bathroom. Otherwise it could get... messy. (Unless the strap thing in the back goes around each leg instead of all around the back). I am probably over-thinking this.
     
    Styling looks great though! I can definitely imagine lots of centaurs talking about how cool their empires were and how they have to hang out with this uncivilized lot.
  5. Like
    panpear reacted to oridi in Archetype update: The Centaur - Official discussion thread   
    I think that's going to be an ACE decision.  I'm finding most references using between the front legs as the location but there are a few placing it in behind the sternum in the upper body. 
     

  6. Like
    panpear reacted to flightsaber in Archetype update: The Centaur - Official discussion thread   
    I enjoyed the lore update. I plan on rolling a female centaur, and if possible taking any disadvantages needed to go ranged (javelin or magic or bow). After reading, though...if that isn't possible, I'll take up a lance and won't look back.
     
  7. Like
    panpear reacted to jtoddcoleman in Archetype update: The Centaur - Official discussion thread   
    Haven't started working on it yet.  We've been pushing on things that are blocking other areas of production; we need to lock down environment scale for characters, buildings and parcels (for both CW and EK, same assets) to free up Jon so he can build the environments for the combat deliverable, and we need to flesh out some of the armor and customization options to keep the 3D character pipeline moving forward.
     
    We won't forget about them, promise!
     
    Todd
    ACE
     
  8. Like
    panpear got a reaction from HermaeusMora in Archetype update: The Centaur - Official discussion thread   
    I know the feeling on the alts. I already want sooo many! Guinea Pig guy is a close second on my list, but I definitely plan on making a Centaur my main. Here's to hoping I don't completely suck at their playstyle! I must do well for the Empire!
  9. Like
    panpear reacted to Waikikamukau in Archetype update: The Centaur - Official discussion thread   
    I really hate you guys right now.  I already want to play my Guinea Pig and Murder Deer...now I'm leaning towards the Centaurs as well.  I don't want too many alts in this game. 
     
    You really need to cut back on that quality.
     

  10. Like
    panpear got a reaction from HermaeusMora in Archetype update: The Centaur - Official discussion thread   
    Love it! This really helps solidify some personality traits I was considering for my own Centaur lady. Centaur are better than you!
     
    In that last armor, I really hope he finds someone to undo it before he has to use the bathroom. Otherwise it could get... messy. (Unless the strap thing in the back goes around each leg instead of all around the back). I am probably over-thinking this.
     
    Styling looks great though! I can definitely imagine lots of centaurs talking about how cool their empires were and how they have to hang out with this uncivilized lot.
  11. Like
    panpear reacted to EDM in Archetype update: The Centaur - Official discussion thread   
    Love the design, staying classic yet detailed to textures. I also love how you put in the possibilities for role-play by creating a Roman culture-based armour.
  12. Like
    panpear reacted to keiotyk in Coin of the realm - Official discussion thread   
    Money makes the world go round...
     
    A lot of people seem to think that item for item barter would be the common standard. Ergo, here's a sword, give me a shield. While this would and still can occur, what's more likely is that the most functional crafting component would become the defacto in-game currency. All item values would be calculated by people around this.
     
    In other words, the ore for crafting would probably be your defacto currency anyway, purely because fulfills all the requirements of being as functional at as many levels as possible. All other ores would be calculated in relation to it.
    E.g.: Iron is used in nearly every weapon and piece of armour, even if only minimally. This degree of necessity/functionality gives it 'real' value, even if it is also relatively common and easily obtained.
     
    So, why use 'coins', instead of 'bars of ore'?
     
    When you barter with something of large value, you would need to trade a huge amount of barely valuable items to match the value of your ore. Then you need to find people who want these items AND who have something you want. Now, what if those items are bulky too? This is a serious source of frustration for anybody who is not interested in engaging in any sort of mercantilism. It also slows the movement of resources and goods for those that DO want to focus on crafts and trade.
     
    By splitting our bar of metal into smaller pieces we can trade bits of our bar for these various small items that may be worth MUCH less than a whole bar, but are not worthless. And equally important, I can trade with MANY people to get the best prices possible.
     
    And we just so happen to call those bits of metal, 'coins'.

    ------------------
    I think the dev's intended method of implentation is good. I look forward to the next update.
  13. Like
    panpear reacted to Nait551 in Coin of the realm - Official discussion thread   
    This also brings up more questions in my mind, about banditry, caravans, transportation and the like.  If there is no fast travel or we can't fast travel with pack animals this would force the creation of trade routes between cities and/or guilds.  Trade routes would be targeted by bandits, forcing traders to develop defensive strategies, like travelling in groups or hiring body guards. bandits would then get stronger and/or craftier and... I'm going off on a tangent.
     
    Anyways, this whole concept just fascinates me but it all depends on how/if fast travel is implemented and relations between cities/guilds. Just a thought.
  14. Like
    panpear got a reaction from HermaeusMora in Coin of the realm - Official discussion thread   
    I can see why it's hard to implement the barter system, though. Players would eventually settle on something(s) that would represent that base currency (otherwise you don't know what you should bring to the market to trade, and it's a hassle to find another player that wants That Thing in trade for This Thing when they have listed This Thing for Those Things in the vendor they set up.) This is just taking that step and adding some ease to it. Now we know that the thing you will likely trade is converted ore.
     
    Considering that ore is also used to craft things, this also gives everyone a nice base value to work from for most armor types.
     
    This also allows easy selling of land and other EK goodies for coins (giving you in-game means of acquiring those items) without the system having to 'guess' at what the market value is; and also easily solves the taxes issue. With coins as taxes, it isn't 'weird'. Otherwise you might've had to hunt down specific items to be tax items (depending on what the system set) and if those were static, they would sorta be the defacto currency anyway. Solves a lot of design issues.
     
    With players populating the items for sale in vendors, there is still a lot of interesting things to do for spending gold and having the economy be player driven. The only static coin sinks would be for EK items that players cannot make, perhaps? Everything else would be made or sold by players.
     
    An interesting thought is that some crafters can take the very money they earn from selling items and turn that into materials to make more things! And since ore can be armor/weapons, and those are destroyed in battle, it really acts as a money sink. I'm sure there are quite a few balancing factors needed (depending on how lossy various conversions are) but definitely something that can be tweaked, even when the game is live.
  15. Like
    panpear got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Coin of the realm - Official discussion thread   
    I plan on doing EK things at this point, and I feel like this is a good middle-ground for the economic parts of it. I'm already used to coin systems from other games, so that's fine by me. A more 'pure' barter system would have been fun, but their stated goals of also collecting taxes from players and allowing land to be bought from them does not really work with a completely barter system.
     
     
    I feel like there are still plenty of decisions to make with metals. As you say yourself, deciding whether to keep coin as coin or use it to make gear is still a pretty big decision.
     
    I do agree it does put even more value on mining that other crafts, but I assume that's why Alchemists (or other classes) could convert other materials into metal. That will keep them also somewhat in demand, though the reverse process would be harder. At least it would keep those materials from having prices sinking too low.
  16. Like
    panpear got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Coin of the realm - Official discussion thread   
    I meant 'easy' for a coding/ACE perspective, more so than a player perspective. Sure, it's easier for players, but designing a system that can tax players and offer players land for a set price that doesn't have currency? That's complicated to design; waaaay more effort than they should spend on that aspect of the economy. Coin abstracts those values enough, but I feel the system is still complex (due to the reasons others have stated, with the coins still not being safe and weighing the value of the coins versus the value of the armor).
  17. Like
    panpear got a reaction from JamesGoblin in Coin of the realm - Official discussion thread   
    I can see why it's hard to implement the barter system, though. Players would eventually settle on something(s) that would represent that base currency (otherwise you don't know what you should bring to the market to trade, and it's a hassle to find another player that wants That Thing in trade for This Thing when they have listed This Thing for Those Things in the vendor they set up.) This is just taking that step and adding some ease to it. Now we know that the thing you will likely trade is converted ore.
     
    Considering that ore is also used to craft things, this also gives everyone a nice base value to work from for most armor types.
     
    This also allows easy selling of land and other EK goodies for coins (giving you in-game means of acquiring those items) without the system having to 'guess' at what the market value is; and also easily solves the taxes issue. With coins as taxes, it isn't 'weird'. Otherwise you might've had to hunt down specific items to be tax items (depending on what the system set) and if those were static, they would sorta be the defacto currency anyway. Solves a lot of design issues.
     
    With players populating the items for sale in vendors, there is still a lot of interesting things to do for spending gold and having the economy be player driven. The only static coin sinks would be for EK items that players cannot make, perhaps? Everything else would be made or sold by players.
     
    An interesting thought is that some crafters can take the very money they earn from selling items and turn that into materials to make more things! And since ore can be armor/weapons, and those are destroyed in battle, it really acts as a money sink. I'm sure there are quite a few balancing factors needed (depending on how lossy various conversions are) but definitely something that can be tweaked, even when the game is live.
  18. Like
    panpear got a reaction from CopperStall in Coin of the realm - Official discussion thread   
    I can see why it's hard to implement the barter system, though. Players would eventually settle on something(s) that would represent that base currency (otherwise you don't know what you should bring to the market to trade, and it's a hassle to find another player that wants That Thing in trade for This Thing when they have listed This Thing for Those Things in the vendor they set up.) This is just taking that step and adding some ease to it. Now we know that the thing you will likely trade is converted ore.
     
    Considering that ore is also used to craft things, this also gives everyone a nice base value to work from for most armor types.
     
    This also allows easy selling of land and other EK goodies for coins (giving you in-game means of acquiring those items) without the system having to 'guess' at what the market value is; and also easily solves the taxes issue. With coins as taxes, it isn't 'weird'. Otherwise you might've had to hunt down specific items to be tax items (depending on what the system set) and if those were static, they would sorta be the defacto currency anyway. Solves a lot of design issues.
     
    With players populating the items for sale in vendors, there is still a lot of interesting things to do for spending gold and having the economy be player driven. The only static coin sinks would be for EK items that players cannot make, perhaps? Everything else would be made or sold by players.
     
    An interesting thought is that some crafters can take the very money they earn from selling items and turn that into materials to make more things! And since ore can be armor/weapons, and those are destroyed in battle, it really acts as a money sink. I'm sure there are quite a few balancing factors needed (depending on how lossy various conversions are) but definitely something that can be tweaked, even when the game is live.
  19. Like
    panpear reacted to Varaben in Coin of the realm - Official discussion thread   
    But doesn't carrying thousands of coins take up bag space? I'm all for things that "seem realistic" like this. It should be risky to carry your money around. I guess you can go deposit the coins into embargo or whatever if you don't want to lose it.
     
    They specifically said they want it to be risky to carry coins around, so they will be subject to loss. UO was like this, and it was a great system. 
     
    Honestly, I didn't see how they were going to get around a currency system. They want things like taxes or maintenance or player vendors...and those things don't work without a common currency ,whether it's gold coins or chickens or ore or whatever. What I don't want is a convoluted system where I have to bend over backwards to get coins out of ore. Can all players gather these resources, or will it take a discipline to gather? 
  20. Like
    panpear reacted to valor in Coin of the realm - Official discussion thread   
    I think I see where you are coming from with this.  You would find value in there being middle men who go out and effectively do the bartering for clients who need "x amount of this" and are willing to pay "y amount of this".
     
    This simplifies the trade system to some degree, but the availability of coins might also help sustain a barter system as will the lack of coins being tied to any "Gold Standard" as with the US currency.  It is all relative to what people are willing to accept as payment.  Coins might become worthless based off of their in game value to the player experience.
  21. Like
    panpear reacted to Elaithe in Coin of the realm - Official discussion thread   
    I'd rather play the game than play the economy anymore than I have too. I know some people live and die for playing the economy but the majority of people I feel would rather just play the game. A bartering system means that I could end up spending hours or even days looking for someone willing to trade some BS for another. 
     
    This system is also a bit of the best of both worlds. Currency isn't safe, it can be looted, caravans can be taken. You also need to make a choice with a material that can become scarce, do you turn it into currency or items? If you turn it into an item you can revert it back to raw ore and into currency BUT at a loss. 
  22. Like
    panpear reacted to corechamber in Coin of the realm - Official discussion thread   
    I think the idea is solid. I never understood how there could be no defined currency.  Gives a whole new value to gathering and prospect towns
  23. Like
    panpear reacted to jtoddcoleman in New Strongholds in Store   
    We got a lot of feedback from Guilds that they wanted to build together on a single Kingdom, from the beginning. For that reason, we moved away from an artificial "unlocking" mechanism on the cells -- instead, you just drop a parcel into a cell to change it from "wild" to useable space. That means a bunch of players can get together in the game, day one, and combine efforts to build a single Kingdom. You can get these parcels through the shop, or through use of in-game resources.
     
    This does mean that a player could fill a sprawling (cosmetically impressive) kingdom day one, but it wouldn't really do anything.  And they would be severly limited in their ability to upgrade the buildings to MAKE the land do anything, without materials from the Campaign Worlds.  I'm not sure why anyone would do that, but it's certainly possible.
     
    Todd
  24. Like
    panpear reacted to Lastgirl in Customizing your kingdom: Official discussion thread   
    I share your sentiment somewhat, macavity.
     
    I would like to approach my EK with bare necessities rather than a large sprawl. Would have to see how upkeep is like and the rate of decay etc for personal use..
     
    or you can just go visit an EK where people are managing it for you and all you have to be is a tenant and leave your EK void of anything and let those people manage the lot and all you have to do is pay a fee for living on it and you still have access to all the necessities. That's kinda what a tenant means, paying for rent and utility. I'm sure that option is viable for the completely PvP driven crowd.
     
    People will advertise their EKs to sublease and get rent money, that would be the interaction between the two crowds. Some EKs might have more benefit sharing a wealth of different players rather than guild-centric ones. The Monarch basically is a landlord and is betting on you to bring in the spoils of war to pay his upkeep and make his hub good, or he'll evict your bottom.
     
    Hope that's viable.
  25. Like
    panpear reacted to perfectdork in Customizing your kingdom: Official discussion thread   
    That's what I said!
     
    I think plenty of people will lose themselves in world building and hopefully really enjoy it. I am approaching the tools the way a DM or Terrain builder would in a table top game. It's super dense, but if we do it right, it will be easy to jump right in.
×
×
  • Create New...