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

Pazaak: How I want crafting to work [AKA Skill-based crafting system]

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Dondagora said:

Agreed, the whack-a-mole idea is silly.

 

However, I have issue with the examples you used. Namely, that they offer no "real" control to the player in that it is all, in the end, RNG. To give example, the deal-no-deal game is a game of a player making decisions with little to no information. It does not involve much skill [intellectual, not mechanical] as it merely becomes a matter of raw statistics [10-10% becomes 10-20% becomes 10-30%, and so forth]. In the end, even a bot can be a better Crafter than a full-time Crafter. The reason I used Pazaak specifically as an example is because a game of numbers interracting with one another, with some level of known RNG, gives the player more control approaching the game.

Essentially, my point is that your examples do not require any real "skill" from the crafter's part and will end up having a very simple chart to determine what to do at any point. It is, in the end, raw RNG with barely any control to the player and more of what I'd like to avoid with this suggestion.

 

Of course, Pazaak is no perfect solution, but I use it because I'd prefer the minigame require intellectual skill of some degree. Pazaak, as one person pointed out, is RNG and minor card-counting skill. This, I feel, is alright, because it means that the player has influence over what would otherwise be an RNG guaranteed result, now making the abilities of the crafter to reduce RNG with their intellectual skillfulness valuable.

Thus, the minigame should be partly RNG, as is its nature such that it does not become so predictable that bots might easily pilot it, but give the player a semblance of control over the result such that "luck" will not be the only factor to play in the process ["Oh, I happened to pick the right option." "Oh, I happened to switch to the right option."]. 

 

To the point, the game mustn't be thematically using cards, but the player should A) not have to rely on their mechanical skills, AKA no whack-a-mole, and B ) require more than 2 neurons activating to do, AKA not a game of overly predictable stats.

You are not entirely wrong about having no "real" control, that was the point of the game. You don't ever ever ever want a skill game to be able to "pay out", unless you don't mind paying out every time someone skilled plays. I am sure that ACE doesn't want every craft to result in the best results possible, so a skill game does not work here. Carnival games make money because of two reasons, they are actually hard, and they have the right to limit prizes when a "skilled" player shows up and beats the game.

Besides, your game, and any other choice based game of chance, has the exact same "problem", in that there is an ideal way of playing any given hand situation. Adding complexity does not change that fact. If you are not playing against a real human player, there is always a best play scenario.

Believe me, I know.  I consulted on trying to fix a casino table game called "Pick one 21" also based on black jack, that was paying out way too low. The game cleared several rounds of professional examination, and was on the floor in a couple of casinos, before they contacted me to see what I thought. After about 20 million simulated plays I found that the reason it was not working as expected, was the calculated "best play" cards they were handing out to "help" people, were way off on what best play actually was, and that when "best play" was actually played, the game would pay out over 100%, and I demonstrated how I could beat the game over an evening with only a 200$ stake, by betting against what the card told me the best play was.  It got pulled almost immediately, much to the dismay of the many people who had backed it.

Deal No Deal does have some choice skill involved, as well as some very random elements that would make creating an ideal play algorithm that produced the desired "Amazing Success", very difficult. They could also add an element of Monty Hall Problem by letting players switch choices at some point in the game.

Let's say you selected 5 pips worth of experimentation, so you had five "cases", and in those cases were 

Critical Failure: Success: Success: Moderate Success: Amazing Success.

Another time the cases might be 

Critical Failure: Critical Failure: Moderate Success: Amazing Success: Amazing Success.

Every pip you add, you add another set of probabilities to the mix.  The ideal play tables will be so vast I would love to see someone actually make a program that could bot play it "better" than a human.

Besides, the point is to make people FEEL like they made a choice, like if they had picked something else they COULD have won, without upsetting the carefully crafted economic requirements. Play on the gambler's fallacy, and show how close the wins were, that's how you make a pure RNG game engaging.  Skill games are very dangerous, because someone can skew the economic outcome. The ONLY way to deal with that, is to assume everyone will play the game with 100% skill, otherwise you end up in the situation Casinos are with trying to catch card counters. 

Casinos get to kick those players out when they catch them, even though they are not doing anything technically "illegal". 

ACE won't have or use that option.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Your not wrong about repetitive and boring,  but unfortunately they are building unnecessary delays into the interface itself, as part of the plan. They are purposefully dragging out the combine results, because they think it's a positive experience.

"...so we want to build anticipation for those moments...".

The absolute crushing irony here, is that because of failure to combine mechanic, the anticipation is more fear and anxiety, not excitement and anticipation. I know, I ground out enough gear in testing, and felt the weight of losing hours of harvesting work in a single failure, to know and understand just how damaging of an experience it is.

^^^ This.  My anxiety level still jumps outrageously when I go to combine a 'bound chapters', and not just due to the 'take bug', though that certainly did not help.  The fail rate "seems" abnormally high, and it represents the bulk of the time/materials.  Regardless of take bug or just failure, when you've lost hours, days, or several weekends worth of 'work' in a single button click you have no control over, it's not "anticipation", it's "anxiety", and to think or label it in reverse is a cruel irony.

 

But as to the original post: The very first thing I thought when I read it last week was "No, this will take far too much time". 

 

The crafting system is already unduly burdened (IMO), and crafting doesn't really offer 'complexity' or 'depth', it requires understanding the stat combines (which are static mostly; mostly because they change them every so often, but they don't change on a per-combine basis), and what those stats do (which is why we don't actually "test", we just attempt  "bug find"). 

What I feel players want is a measure of control over their craft, without feeling that your 'enemy' is RNG that will literally destroy your item(s) (which is a literal impossibility in a real craft).  Unfortunately, all signs point to ACE preferring negative reinforcement as a primary motivator in ALL aspects of the game, and as such would also appear never to be something they change unless a fundamental shift occurs internally that they make the conscious choice to overcome.  Until that choice is made and conveyed, I won't even offer solutions that could give players that feeling of control, as it will be a waste of my time and effort typing it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mivius said:

Unfortunately, all signs point to ACE preferring negative reinforcement as a primary motivator in ALL aspects of the game, and as such would also appear never to be something they change unless a fundamental shift occurs internally that they make the conscious choice to overcome.

Arriving at this conclusion was immensely depressing for me, but I really can't see any explanation other than that at core they believe it is good game design. Given what they've worked on, how they pitched, and who they have consulting, I really never would've expected this to be the case. But more and more it seems to be, and custard if that doesn't get me down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 8:41 PM, Colest said:

Alright since people don't seem to grasp this concept or they want to overlook it in place of making crafting easier for themselves I'll spell it out. The random roll crafting failure and experimentation system is meant to serve as a resource sink, thus keeping high end resources valuable and ensuring they remain a point worth contesting, and a way to keep certain effects/stats rare. This isn't about skill but keeping the economy in-check. Risk mitigation in this system is to mine more. Now stop making these stupid threads about how it feels bad to lose your pixels.

I feel the discussion is worthwhile, at the high level anyway.  My .02:

I don't feel injecting out-of-context "mini-games", simply to satisfy some isolated belief system of "skill" makes sense for crafting.  It feels dis-associative for lack of a better way to say it.  If we look at the Fishing dynamics/mini-games found in Vanguard and Archeage, those FIT perfectly with actual Fishing, architected in balanced fashion and fitting natural human expectations.

However, this approach isn't always portable to every facet of a Crafting / Industry system given a whole lot about Building and Creating is, frankly, brutal, unforgiving, T's & C's and hard work, and due diligence prior to realizing the end result.

RNG isn't bad for crafting, per say, for the reasons you've mentioned above, but also as a reasonable way to simulate "skill" in an MMO crafting system:  A Master craftsman is going to have a higher rate of success versus an Apprentice.  OVERDONE RNG, not calibrated properly, indeed can cause everything to be a mess.  Sort of like blood-pressure. :D

It's not necessarily unreasonable to "feel bad about losing your pixels" if we take into account the principle reason people might "get mad" over excessive failures:  It's not the Pixels, it's the TIME / Effort lost, IRL.

TIME, as the principle commodity each of us is concerned with when we log in to a game, is really the issue IMO.  There isn't a normalized perception of value player to player.  The VALUE of TIME is different for each of us . . . influenced by the amount of available game time each day/week that can be sunk (time sink) into the game.  Thus, someone playing 40+ hours a week, perhaps with the assist of friends running toons when the real owner is elsewhere for a bit, doesn't feel the loss of a Tier 99999 Breastplate as much as the player who only has 8 to 15 hours a week.  Even though the in-game market-place value is the same for that item, even though it might take (for example) a flat 10 hours to grind up the item, the perceived LOSS is felt much harder by the player with fewer hours per week in time-sink (game play).  Because it ties in with progression, staying current with their Guild and friends, etc.  

The shorter Version:  It's not "stupid" to discuss item loss issues as relates to incentive vs disincentive vs morale vs risk vs reward, etc.

At a bump up another couple of thousand feet, any form of "mini-game" injected into Crafting (if at all), should be creatively architected with the Creator / Builder / Crafter mindset in mind, and not blindly take "competitive examples of mechanics/dynamics" out of the twitch based Combat / Destruction / Death domain.  Those two philosophies, IMO, are dissimilar enough you need to be careful about what you think "makes sense".

Edited by Bramble
spelling

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately a mini-game doesn't take the chore away from crafting. It just makes the chore a mini-game to grind. 

Other games that have little mini-games for a prize are fun for the first 5 minutes then its just grinding to get the prize so you don't ever, ever, ever have to do it again. Except with this, you are forced to do it, indefinitely. Thats a crap shoot.


CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Vectious said:

Unfortunately a mini-game doesn't take the chore away from crafting. It just makes the chore a mini-game to grind. 

Other games that have little mini-games for a prize are fun for the first 5 minutes then its just grinding to get the prize so you don't ever, ever, ever have to do it again. Except with this, you are forced to do it, indefinitely. Thats a crap shoot.

It was on of my goals with this mini game, that you could simply ignore it and take your chances just as you are now, without altering the raw odds.  Sort of like always picking double zero on roulette, and letting it spin a hundred times, rather than trying to guess where the ball is going to land.  

The second is fun for a certain type of person, but if you don't find that fun, then just skip it. I think that is a critical part of any mini game introduced, that you can elect to not participate in it, and still have a chance of the same results as if you had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I large part of the issue we are feeling now is trust in the calculations and mechanics of the crafting system and that mitigations of risk actually work.  Another is basing your experiences on individual small scale crafting exercises rather than the combined force of a skilled crafting team.   This game has group requirements and a long slow skill gain, these are good things over all because the struggles, the failures, and the amazing successes all become experience and form a past that we can reminisce about, be it good or bad.

Consider that potions gave us a boost but not a full push to the elite crafting level.   Also consider that the blueprint process will take the best results we achieve and dupe it so many times it completely erases failures or comes close when we achieve that top skill level.   My crafting crew expects to get continuing increased successes as we all work together as a team.  We have to cover all the bases including completed skill lines in our individual crafting piece, our blueprinting skills, our workstation and thrall quality, have a crafting leadership player available when using our best resources, making top quality crafting gear, disciplines, and vessels.   These are lengthy and lofty goals and may take upwards of a year.  In this time we will experience thousands of fails, and for a crafter this is the game equivalent to a player death, a setback and a material sink.  How many PvP players here have a fear or have anxiety about dying in the game?   None, you just will not survive an open world full PvP game if you aren't prepared for that inevitable death and the durability losses to your gear that come with it.   After a 100 deaths you are in fact numb...  and so it goes with my crafting crew, we will be numb to failure after hundreds of fails.   For a player who collects just enough high end materials to make himself a single nice piece or set, yes the failures are brutal, but making single pieces with limited coordination and effort by an individual amplifies the risk by 100 fold and the devastation of failure by as much.  My crafters will have a constant supply of large quantities of materials and if we don't have the skills yet to guarantee a return rate for the value of the materials we will use for a certain production run, we will let them continue to stack up in the guild coffers, the risk isn't worth it...   and I will make that management call.  Believe me, our crafters will not be one bit discouraged by a failure result after a short time...  trash it, run the next one, amazing, BP it.  We don't have time to waste on mini-games, we only have time to play-to-crush.

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Frykka said:

I large part of the issue we are feeling now is trust in the calculations and mechanics of the crafting system and that mitigations of risk actually work.  Another is basing your experiences on individual small scale crafting exercises rather than the combined force of a skilled crafting team.   This game has group requirements and a long slow skill gain, these are good things over all because the struggles, the failures, and the amazing successes all become experience and form a past that we can reminisce about, be it good or bad.

Consider that potions gave us a boost but not a full push to the elite crafting level.   Also consider that the blueprint process will take the best results we achieve and dupe it so many times it completely erases failures or comes close when we achieve that top skill level.   My crafting crew expects to get continuing increased successes as we all work together as a team.  We have to cover all the bases including completed skill lines in our individual crafting piece, our blueprinting skills, our workstation and thrall quality, have a crafting leadership player available when using our best resources, making top quality crafting gear, disciplines, and vessels.   These are lengthy and lofty goals and may take upwards of a year.  In this time we will experience thousands of fails, and for a crafter this is the game equivalent to a player death, a setback and a material sink.  How many PvP players hear fear or have anxiety about dying in the game?   no many, you just will not survive an open world full PvP game if you aren't prepared for that.   After a 100 deaths you are in fact numb...  and so it goes with my crafting crew, we will be numb to failure after hundreds of fails.   For a player who collects just enough high end materials to make himself a single nice piece or set, yes the failures are brutal, but making single pieces with limited coordination and effort by an individual amplifies the risk by 100 fold and the devastation of failure by as much.  My crafters will have a constant supply of large quantities of materials and if we don't have the skills yet to guarantee a return rate for the value of the materials we will use for a certain production run, we will let them continue to stack up in the guild coffers, the risk isn't worth it...   Believe me, our crafters will not be one bit discouraged by a failure result after a short time...  trash it, run the next one, amazing, BP it.

If you are numb to the experience, and the BP's and production you just describe largely dilute raw material cost in mass production, what does it add to the end game that is worth the price of giving more casual players a "brutal" experience?

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

If you are numb to the experience, and the BP's and production you just describe largely dilute raw material cost in mass production, what does it add to the end game that is worth the price of giving more casual players a "brutal" experience?

We won't be competing with casual players at all.   Casual players and newer players will have outer ring campaigns while large highly competitive organized guilds will be competing against each other in Shadows and Dregs campaigns. 

The early game fail rate of crafting keeps the economy intact and possibly in a scarcity mode giving players choosing specific economic skill lines a winning edge, choices matter.   It also creates gated access to certain game functions like structure building and siege equipment and a race for those abilities and being first to plant (or claim) fortifications and factories.  It also gates these functions in terms of group coordination and organization.   If I screw up in decisions I make about how many of certain types of gatherers and certain types of crafters that I need to win that race as well as the availability and even the quality of people I have lead certain crafting crews then I will lose my job and possibly my head (it's a feudal thing).   The depth of a games interconnected crafting needs creates the need for greater management and coordination and for solid planning.   Why does it need to be brutal?  Because those of us in the back of the house need our goals, our objectives, and our "deaths" just as much as motivation to play just as much as our PvP specialists need to capture POI's, interrupt enemy supply, and win battles.  The goals of casual players are different than mine.   That is not to say a casual player will not have a place in the game or that a solid crew of casual players may not attempt to find a competitive place in the deeper campaign worlds, they simply will have it harder and probably end up "cupping up" as we say to a larger entity to survive.  If a small guerilla crew has successes in the dregs, it will be noticed and they will be used in some fashion by the major players in that world.   Politics and player created content ensue.


6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Frykka said:

We won't be competing with casual players at all.   Casual players and newer players will have outer ring campaigns while large highly competitive organized guilds will be competing against each other in Shadows and Dregs campaigns. 

The early game fail rate of crafting keeps the economy intact and possibly in a scarcity mode giving players choosing specific economic skill lines a winning edge, choices matter.   It also creates gated access to certain game functions like structure building and siege equipment and a race for those abilities and being first to plant (or claim) fortifications and factories.  It also gates these functions in terms of group coordination and organization.   If I screw up in decisions I make about how many of certain types of gatherers and certain types of crafters that I need to win that race as well as the availability and even the quality of people I have lead certain crafting crews then I will lose my job and possibly my head (it's a feudal thing).   The depth of a games interconnected crafting needs creates the need for greater management and coordination and for solid planning.   Why does it need to be brutal?  Because those of us in the back of the house need our goals, our objectives, and our "deaths" just as much as motivation to play just as much as our PvP specialists need to capture POI's, interrupt enemy supply, and win battles.  The goals of casual players are different than mine.   That is not to say a casual player will not have a place in the game or that a solid crew of casual players may not attempt to find a competitive place in the deeper campaign worlds, they simply will have it harder and probably end up "cupping up" as we say to a larger entity to survive.  If a small guerilla crew has successes in the dregs, it will be noticed and they will be used in some fashion by the major players in that world.   Politics and player created content ensue.

I don't disagree with anything you said here, I just don't see how the total loss on crafting failures adds anything meaningful to the equation that can't, and isn't already, being gated in other ways.

  • Game functions like building and siege equipment can be gated through recipie access. 
  • Gathering in it's current form gated through POI access, not as much volume of actual harvester, but rather total size of harvester teams.
  • It has negligible impact on number of crafters, because any crafter in the correct field can eventually create the BP that is needed given enough materials. There is also the more important gate of quantity of PIP's available to the crafter. It is not so much about the one or two failures, and there is no need to destroy work to prevent proliferation of unskilled BP's. 

For someone trying to create a good BP, a single PIP experiment failure or even result below good success, is enough to call that a "Death" or "Failure". Having an even worse degree of failure, one that impacts the experience of fledgling crafters far more that assembly line professionals, is not in my option worth the impact that could just as easily be covered by increasing the frequency of experimentation failures. 

In the end the actual odds of getting an "Amazing" finished product would not change, only the method of the delivery of the experience would improve.

They have more than enough balance leavers in place within crafting already that makes item destruction failure simply redundant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

I don't disagree with anything you said here, I just don't see how the total loss on crafting failures adds anything meaningful to the equation that can't, and isn't already, being gated in other ways.

  • Game functions like building and siege equipment can be gated through recipie access. 
  • Gathering in it's current form gated through POI access, not as much volume of actual harvester, but rather total size of harvester teams.
  • It has negligible impact on number of crafters, because any crafter in the correct field can eventually create the BP that is needed given enough materials. There is also the more important gate of quantity of PIP's available to the crafter. It is not so much about the one or two failures, and there is no need to destroy work to prevent proliferation of unskilled BP's. 

For someone trying to create a good BP, a single PIP experiment failure or even result below good success, is enough to call that a "Death" or "Failure". Having an even worse degree of failure, one that impacts the experience of fledgling crafters far more that assembly line professionals, is not in my option worth the impact that could just as easily be covered by increasing the frequency of experimentation failures. 

In the end the actual odds of getting an "Amazing" finished product would not change, only the method of the delivery of the experience would improve.

They have more than enough balance leavers in place within crafting already that makes item destruction failure simply redundant.

It (full combine fails) is simply an economic sink deemed necessary to maintain price value...  it may need adjustment if rarity causes super high prices or the market gets flooded with high end gear too early in the game cycle.   These are things we will test when we get vendor thralls and economic players that manipulate and change market forces.

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Frykka said:

It (full combine fails) is simply an economic sink deemed necessary to maintain price value...  it may need adjustment if rarity causes super high prices or the market gets flooded with high end gear too early in the game cycle.   These are things we will test when we get vendor thralls and economic players that manipulate and change market forces.

But the math just does not make sense for it as an economic sink, at any tolerable failure rate.

If you get 100 copies out of a BP, lets take Bars for example, at 9 ore per, that's 900 ore for a run.

If it takes you 10 tries to get an amazing success (10%) and then a combine failure rate of 10%, it will take you on average 20 (EST) tries to make your perfect BP.

That adds 360 ore to the start of your production (1260 total), you have 18 substandard bars, and you have lost two combine failures a total of 18 ore and two bars.

That represents less than 1.5% of your total ore costs lost to combine failures, while 28% of your failure costs were lost to experimentation failure.

I contend that 1.5% is not even close enough of a reasonable resource sink to justify it's emotional and psychological impact. Especially if instead of a 10% amazing success rate all you had to do was make it 5% and get the same effective results, with two extra sub quality bars in the run.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

But the math just does not make sense for it as an economic sink, at any tolerable failure rate.

If you get 100 copies out of a BP, lets take Bars for example, at 9 ore per, that's 900 ore for a run.

If it takes you 10 tries to get an amazing success (10%) and then a combine failure rate of 10%, it will take you on average 20 tries to make your perfect BP.

That adds 180 ore to the start of your production (1080 total), you have 18 substandard bars, and you have lost to combine failures a total of 18 ore and two bars.

That represents less than 2% of your total ore costs lost to combine failures, while 15% of your costs were lost to experimentation failure.

I contend that 2% is not even close enough of a reasonable resource sink to justify it's emotional and psychological impact. Especially if instead of a 10% amazing success rate all you had to do was make it 5% and get the same effective results, with two extra sub quality bars in the run.

 

granted...   these are balance issues and not necessarily mechanics issues.   I would contend that you can get assembly failure rates down to 1% but asking for 16 or even 24 pips of all amazing experimentation success may require a hell of a lot more than 10 tries or 10%...   I would think we may settle for a couple great successes as best we can do with what we planned for experimentation, and we will set the bar of success based on the quality of materials we are working with.  If I have 3000 green base materials allocated for metal bars in a production run, I may give 500 or more to my BP Blacksmith for metal bars and not worry that we do not yet have a high end thrall on the workbench or a full trained leadership crafter buffing her but expect a full 8 pips of amazing success for the final BP (even if I have to give her more)... if I have 300 orange base materials I may only want her to experiment after we get our bench set up with a heroic level thrall and a fully trained craft leader present and accept the fact that even then she will BP the best she gets with 30 and make the run of bars.  It depends on a lot of factors including market value and our rate of gathering vs market value.  Not only that but the expediency of the needs of our PvP teams to have the edge of better gear than our opponents in the field.   Sometimes we won't have the luxury of waiting for absolute best outcomes because of events happening in the campaign world.

The parallel to crafting assembly fails is durability loss and being fully looted of your gear on PvP death...   the parallel for experimentation fails would be PvP durability loss over time regardless of death or a death where you keep your gear.   It may be reverse of this, that experimentation fails hurt just as much or more.   Both create a need for acquiring replacement gear and thus an economic driver.
 

As far a psychological aspect to fails...   go die in combat a few hundred times and tell me you are not numb to it (it still wrankles but you get over it).  The same applies to crafting fails...   I expect my crafting team to know this fact intimately and if it bothers them too much they may not be cut out for hard core.  This game is not for everyone.   As long as my people are feeling rewarded not just by the tasks but by the social interactions and my motivational skills to trudge on through failure I have done my part.

Edited by Frykka
grammer, spelling... what else?

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Frykka said:


 

As far a psychological aspect to fails...   go die in combat a few hundred times and tell me you are not numb to it (it still wrankles but you get over it).  The same applies to crafting fails...   I expect my crafting team to know this fact intimately and is it bothers them too much they may not be cut out for hard core.  This game is not for everyone.

Played League of Legends in ranked for over a year, every death stings, if it doesn't you're not really being competitive.

In combat I get to make the choice about getting into it and taking the risk. In crafting, at the combine point, I have no other choice but to press "combine".  I can't pick my fights, or weigh risk/reward, I am forced by the mechanics to either give up on crafting, or risk everything on a single roll of the dice.

Those have very different impacts on a person's psyche.  I can learn what not to do to prevent combat deaths, and take steps to avoid situations or players I know I can't handle, and have a sense that I personally did something wrong to get in over my head and get killed. Dying is the consequence for something I did wrong, or someone else did right to beat me.

In crafting, there is literally nothing to learn aside from more time gated passive training that I can to do prevent failures, and no action at the moment of decision that I can take to affect a particular outcome. The only action I can take, is to give up on crafting training, and pass/sell my materials to someone else.

It's just push a button, and hope it doesn't shock me, but instead gives me a candy. How is that fun?

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Played League of Legends in ranked for over a year, every death stings, if it doesn't you're not really being competitive.

In combat I get to make the choice about getting into it and taking the risk. In crafting, at the combine point, I have no other choice but to press "combine".  I can't pick my fights, or weigh risk/reward, I am forced by the mechanics to either give up on crafting, or risk everything on a single roll of the dice.

Those have very different impacts on a person's psyche.  I can learn what not to do to prevent combat deaths, and take steps to avoid situations or players I know I can't handle, and have a sense that I personally did something wrong to get in over my head and get killed. Dying is the consequence for something I did wrong, or someone else did right to beat me.

In crafting, there is literally nothing to learn aside from more time gated passive training that I can to do prevent failures, and no action at the moment of decision that I can take to affect a particular outcome. The only action I can take, is to give up on crafting training, and pass/sell my materials to someone else.

It's just push a button, and hope it doesn't shock me, but instead gives me a candy. How is that fun?

In LoL there are no consequences beyond losing ground in your ranking...  you build your progression in every match and you do it repetitively the same way or with slight adjustments and you do it all solo.   It just doesn't hold the same team effort value and interconnectivity for the entire meta of a game like Crowfall.

Why do we enjoy crafting in a game that beats on us for doing it with only those simplistic mitigations and no apparent fault for our own for failure? For this simple fact that we want to win and in order to do that we have to do our part better than our opponents.   I didn't say that every death doesn't matter, what I meant is that you cannot let it break you when it does break your gear.   The same exact mentality is required of gatherers and crafters, we don't get a pass on risk vs reward and we wouldn't want to.   In fact the only people that want no or lowered risk are those who feel forced to gather and craft in order to get out and PvP were they think the only "fun" exists.   It just isn't true, or I keep telling myself it isn't, over and over.

In Crowfall, you and your cohorts can be completely and utterly destroyed, your assets gone, your gear broken.  This is play to crush and not some rank on a ladder.  Harvesters and crafters are a vital part of the strategy and that is good motivation...   I want nice things and I want them to survive, to flourish, and be a part of something bigger than myself and my own skill set.   I am not in any way a bad PvPer, in fact in some situations I shine at it...  this does not detract from the fact that I know my best skills are in logistics and motivation of players to keep going.  These are valued skills only if the process is difficult.   How do I get my rewards and how do my crafting people feel valued...   By winning, by persevering, by recognition that it may seem like a thankless grind compared to videos of PvP greatness...   but whose gear is that great PvPer wearing and who made it matters.   We get gear too and a place in the world to call home.   We get to gather and stack up shiny materials and manipulate them into beautiful things that other players desire.  We get improvement over time and persistence not seen in a MOBA.  You did make choices that reflected in the prevention of failure...  how many pips at a time, what quality to use and any bootstrapping choices and more we have yet to learn.  These affect the failure rates certainly and they are choices that matter...   a player that expects only amazing success will fail more, perhaps even limiting the gear on their PvP teams in a way that causes more losses and an eventual loss of everything.   Preventing that takes a well oiled gathering and crafting machine...

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

But the math just does not make sense for it as an economic sink, at any tolerable failure rate.

If you get 100 copies out of a BP, lets take Bars for example, at 9 ore per, that's 900 ore for a run.

If it takes you 10 tries to get an amazing success (10%) and then a combine failure rate of 10%, it will take you on average 20 (EST) tries to make your perfect BP.

That adds 360 ore to the start of your production (1260 total), you have 18 substandard bars, and you have lost two combine failures a total of 18 ore and two bars.

That represents less than 1.5% of your total ore costs lost to combine failures, while 28% of your failure costs were lost to experimentation failure.

I contend that 1.5% is not even close enough of a reasonable resource sink to justify it's emotional and psychological impact. Especially if instead of a 10% amazing success rate all you had to do was make it 5% and get the same effective results, with two extra sub quality bars in the run.

 

the failed experiments may still be higher quality and put to good use for alt sets, crafting or gathering sets and as bootstrap components in single piece runs by our up and coming crafters...   not every one of my blacksmiths may be at the same level of skill...   these inferior mats still need to be, and can be made into something of value for newer members or to sell on the open market to other newer players...  an inferior blue piece is still blue and may in final assembly recover much of its potential.  I simply don't believe in waste and will have perhaps 100 players to gear up at some point and continue to gear beyond white...

Edited by Frykka

6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Frykka said:

the failed experiments may still be higher quality and put to good use for alt sets, crafting or gathering sets and as bootstrap components in single piece runs by our up and coming crafters...   not every one of my blacksmiths may be at the same level of skill...   these inferior mats still need to be, and can be made into something of value for newer members or to sell on the open market to other newer players...  an inferior blue piece is still blue and may in final assembly recover much of its potential.  I simply don't believe in waste and will have perhaps 100 players to gear up at some point and continue to gear beyond white...

That does not address the issue of the value of the combine failure mechanic as a material sink.  Loss of less than 5% of all materials to combine failure does not make a viable resource sink, and even at it's low current rates, does not even compare in importance to the lesser results from experimentation numbers, especially when they introduce the salvage mechanic, and people recycle lesser results for a partial chance at a better result.

Grinding out lesser quality items back to resources to try again, and if you fail, grind back into another lesser chance, is the real material sink. In gambling it's called payout rate and churn, and you would be astonished at the impact on play and game experience enjoyment that even a 1% variance in rates apply. Experienced gamblers can sense the difference in 1% on a slot, and try to find and gravitate to the deliberately programmed "loose" slot banks in Casinos

There just is not enough compelling reason to keep it in, when producing a lower quality item would have the same economic impact, without the psychological punishment aspect  found in total item destruction.

I know you don't agree, and that I am banging my head against the wall with you on this, but believe it or not, it's very true. I had a decade of building games who's sole purpose was to make it fun while they took your money in dribs and drabs. 

The current crafting game is going against so many basic and fundamental principles of managing the failure experience that it's driving me a bit bonkers, especially when I see new thread pop up about it every other week by new posters.  The problem to me it's as plain as the nose on my face.

I have yet to hear one person defend the mechanic as adding fun to the game, or people claiming they love or even like it, only that they think it's "necessary" to balance production numbers, when clearly there are other ways to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

I know you don't agree, and that I am banging my head against the wall with you on this, but believe it or not, it's very true. I had a decade of building games who's sole purpose was to make it fun while they took your money in dribs and drabs. 

I am actually impartial on weather the assembly failure remains or not.  I never intended to defend it, only explain my indifference to it and possibly why it exists.  At least assembly failure happens before experimentation...   and consider the assembly failure as a piece of the design for the sink and that removing it would possibly increase failure and or critical failure of experimentation to make up the expected rate of sink by the devs.

My whole purpose in this thread was to show the silliness of an added mini-game but you changed the discourse back to fail rates, I did not.   No worry though Krakken, your point is taken and once again reiterated.  /fin


6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, skill based crafting would have been nice. However, it seems the only skills one needs for crafting is patience for passive skills to rise, luck for experimentation and some knowledge about which material gives which bonusses. Only the last point is interesting, I'd prefer to get rid of the first two.

Seems like waiting for CoE and what they do as they target skill based crafting.

Edited by Gromschlog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Frykka said:

I am actually impartial on weather the assembly failure remains or not.  I never intended to defend it, only explain my indifference to it and possibly why it exists.  At least assembly failure happens before experimentation...   and consider the assembly failure as a piece of the design for the sink and that removing it would possibly increase failure and or critical failure of experimentation to make up the expected rate of sink by the devs.

My whole purpose in this thread was to show the silliness of an added mini-game but you changed the discourse back to fail rates, I did not.   No worry though Krakken, your point is taken and once again reiterated.  /fin

I did didn't I? oops.

I don't mind the idea of the right mini game, the process itself is sort of a game. Select your experimentation "bet", roll the die, see what you got.  There is just soo much more they could do to make that entertaining without adding more time to the crafting process. or even making it required.

Even if all they did was have you lay out your pip selections on the table like a roulette grid, and then, activate the table and reveal the numbers (results) behind each square (all rolled individually, not one number for all),  and assign the best value as your result, that would be something. All that would require is rolling the RNG as many times as squares on the table.

At least then players would see that they were "close", or that a win really was on the table. Experimentation is supposed to only be done at the benches anyway, and that experience is still to be built, so they could add a selection process directly into the existing pip mechanics. Simply build the table grid out of all available pip squares, when you pick a pip it does not have to be in sequence in the string, and then reveal all the numbers the same way you reveal the results currently.

No more time in the process, and if your not into the game just pick like you do now, but you can add a sense that if you picked a different pip to select first, or included a pip from another line, your experiment would have turned out better. 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

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...