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

Alternative system to replace Combine Fails


Recommended Posts

After much testing and deliberation it is becoming apparent that Crowfall is a crafting game (sorry PvPers but this game is all about gathering mats to supply crafters whos’ ultimate goal is to craft the ultimate doodad).

Crafters will be spending a great deal of real time doing combines. A lot of the thrill comes when experimenting and getting that “amazing” result. While a crit fail during experimentation is disappointing it is not wasted time spent it’s just a part of the risk/reward design concept that is implemented quite well here.

However! Every time a crafter hits the key to Assemble a part there is simply a cringe factor. At best you may get a high quality item when combining mixed quality mats, at worst  all the real time you have spent sitting at your keyboard building your doodad has just been completely wasted along with all the mats used in the combine; This is a terrible implementation of risk/reward

A single crit fail on combine is too much, returning a portion of mats on crit fail is salt on a wound. Neither are going to be acceptable top crafters in the long run.

I can’t quite get a grasp on what the intention of the game designers is for crit fails on combine. There seems to be a mindless insistence that total destruction of item and time spent playing the game is acceptable (it is not)

So here is an alternative suggestion:

Have the assembly skill determine what quality of mats can be exploited while combining.

So with no assembly skill the highest output during a combine would be a grey item (regardless of the quality mats that went into making the item)

As your assembly skill increases so does the max quality of the item being crafted.

Pros:

The assembly skill becomes more attractive and not just a necessary evil

The assembly skill trees remain intact.

Skilled crafters become more attractive while unskilled crafters now must rely on other crafters for quality subcomponents. Ie: I am a skilled blacksmith making a sword and I need a sword grip (leatherworking or wood working mats) I will need the purple stitched leather to come from a master leather crafter. I won’t be able to simply craft stitched leather with my crappy leatherworking skills and achieve a high quality product.

Unskilled crafters can still make basic items.

Crafters no longer dread every freeking combine they make

Crafters may actual keep playing this game.

Cons:

I leave that to the reader to let me know as I am sure they will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lordemil said:

After much testing and deliberation it is becoming apparent that Crowfall is a crafting game (sorry PvPers but this game is all about gathering mats to supply crafters whos’ ultimate goal is to craft the ultimate doodad).

I'm glad you determined exactly what the game is from a pre-alpha test where most of the features aren't implemented.

Quote

A single crit fail on combine is too much, returning a portion of mats on crit fail is salt on a wound. Neither are going to be acceptable top crafters in the long run.

I can’t quite get a grasp on what the intention of the game designers is for crit fails on combine. There seems to be a mindless insistence that total destruction of item and time spent playing the game is acceptable (it is not)

100% disagree. Crit fails are an integral part of the system. There needs to be these failures otherwise the top gear becomes too easy to get and anything that's not the top becomes worthless.

Total destruction of an item is completely acceptable, and in fact necessary.

Guild Leader of Seeds of War

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Svenn said:

I'm glad you determined exactly what the game is from a pre-alpha test where most of the features aren't implemented.

100% disagree. Crit fails are an integral part of the system. There needs to be these failures otherwise the top gear becomes too easy to get and anything that's not the top becomes worthless.

Total destruction of an item is completely acceptable, and in fact necessary.

Your arguments are easily contradicted:

The game is pretty much defined already (EKs to house crafters, Economy based on crafting goods, PvP zones based on acquiring mats for crafters, crafted vessels, crafted armor, crafted weapons, the list goes on and on). You can continue to think this is not a crafting game but unless their overall view/concept takes a dramatic turn it is at its heart a crafting game. There will be very few people with a single PvP account, Most will have some sort of crafting account that their PvPer  supplies with goods.

In fact I would say that due to so many folks getting multiple accounts to cover crafting there will be less need to have premium accounts because the different classes can be trained on the multiple accounts. This will not go unnoticed by ACE and they will probably move (or add) multiple none class training to premium accounts which further shows this to be a crafting game.

I am not advocating removal of all crit fails ( I like the experimentation system a lot) just for combines/assembles

Crit combine fails have absolutely no impact on availability of top gear. Availability is based on access to the mats and that is where rarity should be managed ( not a fixed RNG role on combines/assembles)

Total destruction of an item happens during regular use of that item via the durability mechanic. Crit combine fails will have no impact on that aspect.

 

Edited by Lordemil
additional information
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Lordemil said:

EKs to house crafters

This is false...   with import limitations in the "serious" CWs most hardcore guilds will not be crafting in EKs.   Given a single import event or none at all, completed crafted PvP gear is the least valuable piece to bring.   Crafting alts will be imported into the CW and will come into play once the guild has built safe space for buildings with benches and thralls.   The whole purpose of a siege is to destroy the other teams crafting setup inside the CW environment.  The real race is not for mats and gear, it is for walls and safe space to drop factories.  PLAY TO CRUSH

With a CW win or high place in ranking, exported materials to the EK will be crafted to sell to the plebs to build up the guild coffers, some being kept for EK arena play between CWs or to twink out a crew for import into less hardcore CWs and wreck havoc on rivals.

 

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Frykka said:

This is false...   with import limitations in the "serious" CWs most hardcore guilds will not be crafting in EKs.   Given a single import event or none at all, completed crafted PvP gear is the least valuable piece to bring.   Crafting alts will be imported into the CW and will come into play once the guild has built safe space for buildings with benches and thralls.   The whole purpose of a siege is to destroy the other teams crafting setup inside the CW environment.  The real race is not for mats and gear, it is for walls and safe space to drop factories.  PLAY TO CRUSH

I'll buy that. (and sounds like fun)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Lordemil said:

Have the assembly skill determine what quality of mats can be exploited while combining.

I'm pretty sure this is already one of their design goals, though I'm not certain it's represented in current testing.  From the Crafting Faq:

"In Crowfall, each crafter starts with the same set of key recipes; the challenge is going to be getting their hands on enough upper-quality resources for crafting. If they can get these resources, they CAN craft the item -- but the chances of success are very low.

Based on their skill, it becomes a judgment call for the crafter as to when they should start attempting to craft more difficult items, and a risk/reward calculation for how much loss (of reagents) they are willing to sacrifice."

Personally, I prefer the risky choice they've given us over the artificial limits you've suggested.  If a small chance of failure is all I have to pay for that flexibility, I'll be happy to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Hyriol said:

Based on their skill, it becomes a judgment call for the crafter as to when they should start attempting to craft more difficult items, and a risk/reward calculation for how much loss (of reagents) they are willing to sacrifice."

The risk is losing the ingredients, while the reward is simply a successful combine. Of course it is a matter of opinion but quit frankly this is simply a bad design philosophy. Why have a fail at combine when there are already so many ways (experimentation) to have an inferior product that will not last forever anyway.

 

26 minutes ago, Hyriol said:

Personally, I prefer the risky choice they've given us over the artificial limits you've suggested.  If a small chance of failure is all I have to pay for that flexibility, I'll be happy to do it.

I don't see where you get artificial limits? My method is much more realistic. A skilled crafter can make crap look good while an unskilled crafter can make gold look like crap. How is that artificial? The small chance of failure is not that small and on a final combine that has taken perhaps hours of game time to acquire and build is crushing. You may think crafter types will simply buy this aspect but eventually their frustration will get the better of them (I know I am fed up with it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Failure could just make Junk (similar to Gunk result in alchemy) that can be dissembled (a skill tree line) into lower quality materials (slag, knotwood) with RNG to get a small amount of your original mats back.   More diversity of training and decisions/roles to fill.

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lordemil said:

The risk is losing the ingredients, while the reward is simply a successful combine.

The reward is having the *possibility* to make a high-level item with low skill, where your opponents may have failed because they A ) weren't lucky enough, or B ) simply chose not to take that risk in the first place.  With this system, it's possible, though *extremely* unlikely, that you could make a perfect, orange-quality sword in the first day of the first campaign.  If you gate high-quality material use behind hard skill limits, you would have to train for months before even making an attempt at a orange-quality item.

Why would you advocate a system where it will be completely impossible to make better gear because the necessary two months of training haven't passed yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Frykka said:

Failure could just make Junk (similar to Gunk result in alchemy) that can be dissembled (a skill tree line) into lower quality materials (slag, knotwood) with RNG to get a small amount of your original mats back.   More diversity of training and decisions/roles to fill.

Yea, The devs have talked about implementing this but it is not just the mats but the time spent that is frustrating. I believe blacksmiths already have a "recycle" branch for goods that you want to retrieve mats from.

Well, Time will tell but most of the crafters I have spoken to are not happy with the combine fails and all (that I have spoken to) agree that this is a coffin nail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Hyriol said:

The reward is having the *possibility* to make a high-level item with low skill, where your opponents may have failed because they A ) weren't lucky enough, or B ) simply chose not to take that risk in the first place.  With this system, it's possible, though *extremely* unlikely, that you could make a perfect, orange-quality sword in the first day of the first campaign.  If you gate high-quality material use behind hard skill limits, you would have to train for months before even making an attempt at a orange-quality item.

Why would you advocate a system where it will be completely impossible to make better gear because the necessary two months of training haven't passed yet?

Yea, that is not really possible since only a skilled crafter will have the points to spend on experimentation (where the real value is determined). The item may be orange but it would still be crap. As for advocating a wait to build system, that is what it we currently have as the minimal gate for quality builds is in experimentation points and ability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/21/2017 at 3:44 PM, Lordemil said:

The risk is losing the ingredients, while the reward is simply a successful combine. Of course it is a matter of opinion but quit frankly this is simply a bad design philosophy. Why have a fail at combine when there are already so many ways (experimentation) to have an inferior product that will not last forever anyway.

 

I don't see where you get artificial limits? My method is much more realistic. A skilled crafter can make crap look good while an unskilled crafter can make gold look like crap. How is that artificial? The small chance of failure is not that small and on a final combine that has taken perhaps hours of game time to acquire and build is crushing. You may think crafter types will simply buy this aspect but eventually their frustration will get the better of them (I know I am fed up with it)

Been harping on this in numerous threads, and it keeps getting brought up almost daily in new threads, by new posters.

There is a definite psychological principle in play here, operant conditioning, and the total failure with removal of all assets is clearly a "punishment", which has  the below easily identifiable consequences.

Quote

Punishment (weakens behavior)

Punishment is defined as the opposite of reinforcement since it is designed to weaken or eliminate a response rather than increase it. It is an adversive event that decreases the behavior that it follows

Like reinforcement, punishment can work either by directly applying an unpleasant stimulus like a shock after a response or by removing a potentially rewarding stimulus, for instance, deducting someone’s pocket money to punish undesirable behavior.

Note: It is not always easy to distinguish between punishment and negative reinforcement.

There are many problems with using punishment, such as:

  • Punished behavior is not forgotten, it's suppressed - behavior returns when punishment is no longer present.

  • Causes increased aggression - shows that aggression is a way to cope with problems.

  • Creates fear that can generalize to undesirable behaviors, e.g., fear of school. (In our case crafting)

  • Does not necessarily guide toward desired behavior - reinforcement tells you what to do, punishment only tells you what not to do.

So the question is, with a failed combine, what do you think the punishment is telling your subconscious to not do anymore?

It's no wonder your "fed up with it". 

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...