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

two universal trains

Recommended Posts

Exactly, we dont know the 'fix'. All we have is the 'broke', so focusing on the 'broke' is the only position to have.

 

But perhaps it would be better said as the 'unfinished'?

 

Yes, I do think it is more productive to describe unfinished systems as "unfinished" rather than "broken" or "vanilla."


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. When we know more about what the skills actually do, and when we know more about what the pre-requisites will be for each node, the theory crafting will be more interesting.

 

Right now the skills seem to do very little, and if they do something we have to guess what it is. And right now the pre-reqs seem to be barely implemented, so we don't know how what kinds of build choices will even be possible.

 

Most skills seem required 100% of the prior node to be filled at minimum. That makes it look like you can't make many choices. I expect that will change, and that will do something about the issue.

When the guy in charge says "we intentionally made skill training involve no player choice," you don't need to wait to form an opinion as to whether you think that's a good idea.

 

You just dont. Could there be incredibly diverse vessel and discipline options? Sure. Does that in any way alter the above question?

 

No. It doesn't. Even with fantastic discipline/ vessel features, I'd argue strongly the system would be far more robust with player choices in all of this training. I'd feel that way whether vessels and disciplines are great or just a rehash of existing abilities (as they appear to be).

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the guy in charge says "we intentionally made skill training involve no player choice," you don't need to wait to form an opinion as to whether you think that's a good idea.

 

Hmm. I haven't seen that quote. Where is that?

 

If that was the goal, they failed. There are definitely choices that can be made right now with skill training.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. I haven't seen that quote. Where is that?

 

If that was the goal, they failed. There are definitely choices that can be made right now with skill training.

That is absolutely the gist of the quote. And there are multiple quotes.

 

The current training is intended to progress only and not to diversify at all. I think that's a bad plan.

 

Edit: I disagree with you that they failed too, unless you are implying that you get to make a choice about the order in which you all become the same.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is absolutely the gist of the quote. And there are multiple quotes.

 

The current training is intended to progress only and not to diversify at all. I think that's a bad plan.

 

Edit: I disagree with you that they failed too, unless you are implying that you get to make a choice about the order in which you all become the same.

 

I think you are distorting that "quote" a bit. But if you can find a link, perhaps I am wrong.

 

And yes, I do think choosing the order to train things in is a "choice", especially when it takes many years to train all things.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are distorting that "quote" a bit. But if you can find a link, perhaps I am wrong.

 

And yes, I do think choosing the order to train things in is a "choice", especially when it takes many years to train all things.

He(Blair) was talking about the archetype skill tree.

 

And not all choices are created equal Jah.

 

Coolwaters and i do not mean to imply there are no choices, it would be absurd to think we do. We are implying that there are no meaningful choices. 

 

Right now the choice is between two exact same type apples that came from two different trees. Obviously they are different choices, but not one that actually matters. You could argue that at least the type of apples are different since the skill tree branch from melee to ranged but i think that is a choice made for you based on the archetype you pick, right?

 

We are not asking to choose between apples and washing machines. 

 

We are asking to choose between apples and oranges.

 

And i guess we are also asking for the choice to not be made for us based on the archetype we choose. 

Edited by Vectious

CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coolwaters and i do not mean to imply there are no choices, it would be absurd to think we do. We are implying that there are no meaningful choices. 

 

Say what you mean, then. When people say "no player choice," I presume that is what they mean.

 

I guess I'm not a big fan of argument by hyperbole, or "no true Scotsman" type arguments.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what you mean, then. When people say "no player choice," I presume that is what they mean.

 

I guess I'm not a big fan of argument by hyperbole.

 

It isn't hyperbole at all. You can pretend that you don't understand what we're saying, but this isn't our first discussion on the topic and you know exactly my position.

 

The man said he didn't design the skill trains to diversify. He wasn't telling a fib.

 

There are two camps here:

 

(1) Within the skill training, players should be forced to make decisions that make their characters different.

(2) Within the skill training, players should not be forced to make decisions that make their characters different.

 

I get that you think having 2% more crit than the next guy for a few months is a decision.

 

I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man said he didn't design the skill trains to diversify. He wasn't telling a fib.

 

The fib is paraphrasing that as "we intentionally made skill training involve no player choice."

 

It is simply not true. It is hyperbole to say there is no player choice. There is player choice.

 

I think what you mean to say is that some of the choices you want from the training system are planned for other systems instead.

 

It is fine to say you don't like the choices available, but it gets to be a bit of a no true Scotsman argument when you equate "i don't like these choices" with "there are no true choices at all."

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is absolutely the gist of the quote. And there are multiple quotes.

 

The current training is intended to progress only and not to diversify at all. I think that's a bad plan.

 

Edit: I disagree with you that they failed too, unless you are implying that you get to make a choice about the order in which you all become the same.

Probably this one

 

Here's some thought's.

 

The Archetype skills are not there as a means to customize a character, they are there to provide stats one would typically see via leveling up a character by delivering bear butts to some guy who really wants 6 bear butts for some reason. We are using a model where you gain those stats passively over time and will eventually get them all.

 

The Archetype skills by design try to avoid doing things with powers. If we put in (cause we forget), we tend to want to pull it out.

 

All of the Archetype customization is planned through systems that we haven't built yet. Disciplines, advantages, disadvantages, class promotions. I know it is easy to look at the 1 system you can play right now in Big World (skills) and think of ways to make it better. However the other systems are in the pipeline and should handle the desire to make 2 Knights feel different.

Right now the Archetype trees are functioning how they were envisioned. Progression skills which raise stats -> that level up over time ->given enough time the player can get them all.

 

Let's talk Universal skills!

These skill trees are far different. They have many nodes which grant unique pieces of gameplay or functionality. Yes over time the player could get them all, but we are looking at at least 10+ years time frame, so it is highly improbable especially as we add more content the amount of time will continue to rise.

 

Due of the extended time frame people will either focus on a sphere of gameplay (combat, crafting, exploration) or more than likely get a little bit of each. If I had to make a guess, getting some exploration/harvesting skills initially will be much more of a priority than combat stats. (Yeah you may hit 10 pts harder and have 2% more critical hit chance, but I can get wood grubs from trees and make campfires where ever which means I don't starve)

 

Within a social group of friends or guildmates people will focus. One of your friends will beeline for the leadership tree, another might beeline for the Survivalist tree, etc. Figure out how you can make yourself a unique piece of the social puzzle.

 

Catch up mechanics!

Yes people joining after 3 years of vets having played will be behind. (As Todd and I like to say these are problems for futureTodd and futureBlair. These btw are problems we love to have, it means we have been working on the game for 3 years after launching and folks still want more!) This will be the amount of time we spent building the entire project, I am sure we can have a model for latecomers to catch up to some degree. The archetype trees are easy, as the time to train them is months. (If you were to go into any MMO years later, you still have to level up) Universal trees are a bit more tricky but this isn't an entirely unknown problem. I am sure we will arrive at a good solution.

 

What you can do to help!

Suggest more STATs you would like to see for the Archetype trees.

Suggest more pieces of gameplay you would like to see for the Universal trees. (Or heck, even a mini skill tree)

 

Example. We didn't have a way to get food in early Big World testing. There were no NPCs to kill! So I created and added the pine nuts and wood grubs to the trees as an alternate loot table when you harvested trees. Later I turned nuts/grubs into scavenged ingredients which now required you to cook them. Even later I made them require campfires to cook and added craftable campfires. This led to a plan for a mini skill tree called "Survivalist" that will contain:

 

the ability for the bonus ingredient loot tables to trigger if you have the appropriate skills trained,

the ability to grant to cooking recipes,

the ability to grant the recipes for the campfires.

 

I am sure it will grow even bigger as we find other things that make sense to put in it.

 

Hope this helps clear up the purpose of the various trees and general thoughts behind them.

So it seems clear to me that there are in fact two goals here.

 

Non-diversity through Archetype and combat focused lines, (despite intent the current universal combat skill list provides zero diversity from archetype training), and diversity through universal and profession lines.

 

The diversity in universal does not come from individual choices within any given series, it comes from the sum total of the results of that series.

 

Every Blacksmith will have the same ideal skill path, and every ore harvester will have the same.  The choice isn't between details along those lines very much, it is more like "what do you want to do when you grow up", and "what options besides the core do you think are necessary/you would like",  then picking the line of things necessary to reach that goal.

 

Basically you could just select the end node, and wait out the six months as an algorithm fills out the most efficient route to it.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fib is paraphrasing that as "we intentionally made skill training involve no player choice."

 

It is simply not true. It is hyperbole to say there is no player choice. There is player choice.

 

I think what you mean to say is that some of the choices you want from the training system are planned for other systems instead.

 

It is fine to say you don't like the choices available, but it gets to be a bit of a no true Scotsman argument when you equate "i don't like these choices" with "there are no true choices at all."

So do you actually have a point?

 

So far all you have said is you prefer to call something unfinished instead of broken and you prefer someone to not 'hyperbole'.

 

Give me a list of everything that triggers you jah so i can be sure not to use it.

 

 

Probably this one

 

So it seems clear to me that there are in fact two goals here.

 

Non-diversity through Archetype and combat focused lines, (despite intent the current universal combat skill list provides zero diversity from archetype training), and diversity through universal and profession lines.

 

The diversity in universal does not come from individual choices within any given series, it comes from the sum total of the results of that series.

 

Every Blacksmith will have the same ideal skill path, and every ore harvester will have the same.  The choice isn't between details along those lines very much, it is more like "what do you want to do when you grow up", and "what options besides the core do you think are necessary/you would like",  then picking the line of things necessary to reach that goal.

 

Basically you could just select the end node, and wait out the six months as an algorithm fills out the most efficient route to it.

Indeed, it does indicate that he is referring to non-combat as enhancing gameplay and adding functionality.

 

To make it clear, there is choice and some of it has depth to non-combat, and as they add more things like siege and track it will add depth.

 

My argument is not for what will be added, my arguement is for whats in the combat skill tree and the lack of choices that matter.

 

As for suggestions, th3gatekeeper has made some great (if not wordy) suggestions in a number of threads of ways to enhance it. I have also made some of my own.

Edited by Vectious

CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So do you actually have a point?

 

I'm just trying to help you guys say what you mean because that will make your arguments more persuasive.  People have a tendency to pay less attention to arguments built on untrue statements.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fib is paraphrasing that as "we intentionally made skill training involve no player choice."

 

This is very clear:

 

 

 

The Archetype skills are not there as a means to customize a character

 

I say it's more than fair to paraphrase this from memory exactly as I have here. If that's a "fib" to you, then so be it Jah. Color me a liar.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Color me a liar.

 

I'd prefer to debate the facts and share opinions than to get into that sort of thing.

 

That said, I still don't think he was saying they "intentionally made skill training involve no player choice."

 

It can be useful to establish common ground in a debate. Can we agree that players make choices when training characters?

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer to debate the facts and share opinions than to get into that sort of thing.

 

That said, I still don't think he was saying they "intentionally made skill training involve no player choice."

 

It can be useful to establish common ground in a debate. Can we agree that players make choices when training characters?

Except you haven't shared a opinion, nor ever made a point.

 

Also, you cant debate a fact.

 

fact
fakt/
noun
 
  1. a thing that is indisputably the case.

CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd prefer to debate the facts and share opinions than to get into that sort of thing.

 

That said, I still don't think he was saying they "intentionally made skill training involve no player choice."

 

It can be useful to establish common ground in a debate. Can we agree that players make choices when training characters?

No, we can't.

 

When I say choice, I'm only referring to choices that meaningful differentiate your "character." I am not referring to the order you train the same things.

 

Maybe you will find someone who cares enough to parse words with you on that issue, but the rest of us are on the same parce as to what choice means.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except you haven't shared a opinion, nor ever made a point.

 

Also, you cant debate a fact.

 

fact
fakt/
noun
 
  1. a thing that is indisputably the case.

 

You can debate whether or not a claim is a fact.

 

For example, when someone says that the guy in charge says "we intentionally made skill training involve no player choice," you can debate whether or not that claim is a fact. In this case, I would argue it is not a factual claim.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is different then debating fact.

 

Say what you mean Jah, makes it easier for us to understand.

 

I can see I hurt your feelings. That was not my intent.


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...