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

Crafting Dependencies

Recommended Posts

I know not everyone here keeps up with Twitter or some of the other sub-forums so I'm going to cross-post this time because I like supporting the crafting brothers and sisters here. Made a chart I think you might enjoy looking over.

CraftingInterdependencies.jpg

I think it does an excellent job highlighting an important aspect of Crowfall's crafting system. That being of course, that crafter's can NOT do things all on their own lonesome. It is going to be highly important for guilds to recruit and maintain their crafter "stable" to ensure success in a campaign. Not only that but I think this has positive ramifications on the games social-aspects as well, even if they aren't immediately recognizable.

For further reading; https://stealthed.blog/social-interaction-tradeskills-expectations-crowfall/

Thoughts?


Obsidian-ForumSignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the linked blog post, and I have a couple thoughts.  Because I have strong opinions on this, I apologize if my rhetoric is 'aggressive' in areas.

First, the chart.  I like the chart, but something feels 'off'.  In testing (as this will not translate to actual launch) I am a wood worker, I have invested a considerable amount of my UT training here, and am fairly 'skilled' by that measure.  When I look at the chart it feels like there should be arrows rather than the gaps for clarity (or however you would like), because it looks like Blacksmithing and Wood Working are 'close' in terms of dependencies and inter-dependencies, but nothing could be further from the actual truth.

But from the blog:

" The most difficult tradeskill in Crowfall right now is Runemaking, by a landslide. Not only does it tie Blacksmithing for the number of other tradeskills it requires to fully operate "

These statements are simply untrue.  Wood working is far and away the 'most difficult' tradeskill. Blacksmithing is actually the easiest, and most valuable, and  Runemaking will likely be the most profitable (this may be rivaled by Necromancy only, but that will depend on how final systems flush out, IMO). 

Intentionally ignoring gathering dependencies for these, Runemaking requires only the dependency of wood worker for paper unless specifically making components for the Wood worker for either the book or staff.  As this is a component, and not a finished product, this 'feels' like a commissioned item if you are not getting it from a guild/friend/partner/collective/etc...IE, you're not trying to buy 4 chapters on the open market (but hey, maybe?), or just the life or death rune...

Wood worker requires the same dependency for it's most basic advanced item (arrows, blacksmith) as any other craft needs for the entirety of any one item, one. (Caveat: I am not 100% sure about jeweler in this assertion, or the new geomancer, but holds true otherwise) .  A blacksmith can make an entire suit of armor with only ever having to contract one other tradeskill...leatherworker...and for weapons, they get to choose leather or wood for the one non-blacksmith component.  So when the simplest weapon a wood worker can throw together, the bow, requires both a leather worker and a blacksmith, and then the books and staves also require a runemaker on top of that...no other crafting class has such a convoluted dependency interaction table.

I can go on and on about this, and have in other threads.  Runemaking pales in comparison to the 'difficulty' faced by a wood worker to make anything (beyond arrows, in which case, they are roughly equal), all of the 'base' (dunno what else to call the not-recently-added tradeskills, so, there..) tradeskills actually fall into that category as well, but the assertion that runemaking was somehow 'difficult' beyond what is required to make wood worker subs is greatly askew.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So perhaps "difficulty" was a poor choice of words, maybe "inexorably intertwined with more tradeskills then any other" ? Regardless you are looking at the degree of complication in the recipes required of each dependent tradeskill and thats certainly valid. The problem is its way overboard and subjective. Is one recipe depth more difficult then two recipes deep? Especially if we are referring to components being crafted, I'd say none of them are inherently difficult to manufacture for another crafter. The level of "difficulty" is subjective. I try to avoid subjective arguments and specifically stick to factual numerical ones.

In the case of dependencies, I simply put a 1 or 0 if a tradeskill required another (or in programming terms; true or false). I could have tried to numerically assign recipe depth to the chart, but that depiction is beyond the scope of the point of the argument. The point, which you largely glossed over, is that all tradeskills rely on one another... in fact I stated: 

Quote

The biggest take-away you should have from this visual, however, is not that most of these tradeskills seem to be evenly balanced in their need to work with others. No, the biggest take-away is that you need to work with others!

You are too intently focusing on the current state of crafting (woodworking specifically) as if these recipes aren't going to change. I'm sure we haven't seen half of the recipes even put into the game yet (we haven't even seen all of the tradeskills yet!). To make statements about what is the most difficult or not, was a snap look based on the chart. Based on the chart and the "true or false" aspect of dependency, Runemaking is the most interconnected and likely to be the highest demanded tradeskill in the game if nothing else changes.

Regardless, thank you for reading and your comment about the chart make up. I can address that next revision with arrows instead of subtle gaps like they exist right now.


Obsidian-ForumSignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the chart! It is a very great visual representation. :) 

However what interests me more about all these dependencies between the crafts is how basic economics is going to play out. (1) Because there is no auction house, and (2) because training skills takes so much time. So what will happen if a majority of crafters focus only on one side of the graph?

For example, you say (theoretically of course) that Runecrafting will be the most profitable. However in a game without an auction house what would happen if say 50% of all crafters were runemakers? Wouldn't the shortage of components from other crafts increase their price since they would take more effort to find in shops? And these shortages couldn't "quickly" be overcome necessarily because training takes so much time to do. 

Of course bigger guilds probably won't have to face the problem too much, however some of their crafters would probably be more "prized" then others due to lack of availability. But the real strain would hit smaller guilds and lone wolf players who don't have the same network bandwidth.

Anyway, the first few months (or even the 1st year) will be very interesting to see if overall there will be a natural balance of crafters (in terms of numbers) between all the professions. Or if we will see a huge inbalance that will throw certain archetypes and playstyles out of wack due to shortages.

Edited by kiarahakura

Only those who ask questions have all the answers. Thus only the foolish remain silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it would! If every player focused on Runecrafting because of a comment someone like me said; the other trade skills would obviously be more profitable. The problem with your logic, is you are thinking in a WoW-server type framework where multiple people contend for clients. In this game, your guild is likely to be the arbiter of who becomes what and if their are too many of X what happens to those people. Your clients are your guild, not the general population (typically).


Obsidian-ForumSignature.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, scree said:

Your clients are your guild, not the general population (typically).

Right here is where not allowing imports/exports between EKs and CWs breaks down.  If we want to have a game where crafters/merchants sell to more than their guilds, then we need the ability for goods to mean something outside of CWs.

I hope that a guild will have at least 1 person for each crafting profession, to help ease the burden, but a player that can source materials better than a guild can set up trade with said guild.  Why do those opportunities have to be limited to only the CWs; I say allow for imports/exports at x times during the campaign so a trade profession is possible.  We need emergent game play like Red Frog Freight in EvE.


lUvvzPy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere has it been said that there won't be import/exports between EK and CW? That is one of the core reasons to join the CWs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, kraege said:

Nowhere has it been said that there won't be import/exports between EK and CW? That is one of the core reasons to join the CWs.

Yup they have.

Quote

13. DOESN’T THAT CREATE BALANCE ISSUES? USING THE ANALOGY ABOVE, ISN’T THIS LIKE UNCLE BOB BRINGING A BUNCH OF TANKS INTO THE NEXT GAME OF RISK, AFTER THE BOARD RESET?

It could, except that everyone coming into a Campaign is dealing with the same Import rules. The key to the reset mechanic isn’t “the board must be clean,” the goal is “everyone needs to start on roughly equal footing, to make the game fun.”

If everyone is allowed to bring the same number of assets into a Campaign (i.e. if we can ALL bring in a few tanks) then the starting condition is still balanced.

Note the use of the term "needs to start".  That implies that the import of materials is going to be restricted to the start of each CW.  

Otherwise it's going to be a huge issue with ALT's as each account attempts to load in as many EK produced "tanks" as possible in order to leverage EK asset's to win worlds.

Actually, ALT's importing and exporting extra material are going to be a problem for this model regardless, but regular imports would exasperate the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, when you start a CW, there will be import rules and when the CW ends, there are export rules. My comment was in reference to the comment that there will be NO import/export.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kraege said:

Right, when you start a CW, there will be import rules and when the CW ends, there are export rules. My comment was in reference to the comment that there will be NO import/export.

They had initially discussed no imports into the dregs, and only exports at the end of the campaign.  If the dregs is a 12 month campaign (which it should be) then that's a long time to have no imports or exports.  A model more like EvE where goods are actually transferred back and forth (think Jita in hi-sec and 0.0 space) throughout all campaigns would help the long term growth of the economy.  For a 12 month campaign, having 11 other monthly import/export cycles would help bring stability to the market, and not just allow a few to control of the top tier resources.

My original response was to Scree's post about goods being sold within the guild.  No economy can survive if it is inbred; we need more movement of goods through all the player base, and that can only happen when goods are traded inter-guild.

Smaller guilds can specialize into various types of materials or primary goods, and then sell those off to a merchant for transport, or take those wares into the campaigns themselves.  Smallers guilds inside of campaigns would also be able to somewhat compete more efficiently compared to having to zerg it up.

4 hours ago, kraege said:

Nowhere has it been said that there won't be import/exports between EK and CW? That is one of the core reasons to join the CWs.

I should have stated, that they need to allow imports/exports between ALL campaigns and EKs.

If ACE were to allow only siege engines to be built in campaigns, but the parts brought in, then it would be like moving goods from hi-sec to 0.0.  They need to put more game play into the EKs though that make EKs more than just housing.

Edited by Teufel
grammar

lUvvzPy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's making more sense to me now.

However, I disagree in that there needs to be constant import/export from all of the CW. If that is done, the larger guilds will come in and take large quantities of goods while smaller guilds and solo players won't have much chance of gaining anything. With the partial import, everyone starts off on the same footing when it comes to gear. With export happening at the end of a campaign, the 'winning side' would get shares of everything collected. While I know this won't be the only way a CW will be run, I hope the dregs and such worlds where the best resources can be found are not some of the free exported ones.

Myself, I cannot see how that would benefit anyone except the largest guilds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I disagree with ....

On 5/1/2017 at 8:33 PM, Teufel said:

They had initially discussed no imports into the dregs, and only exports at the end of the campaign.  If the dregs is a 12 month campaign (which it should be) then that's a long time to have no imports or exports.  A model more like EvE where goods are actually transferred back and forth (think Jita in hi-sec and 0.0 space) throughout all campaigns would help the long term growth of the economy.  For a 12 month campaign, having 11 other monthly import/export cycles would help bring stability to the market, and not just allow a few to control of the top tier resources.

My original response was to Scree's post about goods being sold within the guild.  No economy can survive if it is inbred; we need more movement of goods through all the player base, and that can only happen when goods are traded inter-guild.

3
 
 
 
3

The "economy" in Crowfall is by its very nature going to be segmented. Goods in one campaign might have completely different values then goods in another. There are countless reasons for this, namely the rarity of materials in the Dregs versus Gods Reach. The markets were always going to be segmented. This prevents people from buying their way to victory through the process of exporting from Dregs and Importing into Gods Reach in the middle of a campaign (using VIP as the method of bartering for those rare materials). 

They never intended for the EK's to be used mid-campaign as a stocking up point. That's a purely safe way of restocking your supplies and carries with it, zero risk. There is nothing in Crowfall's campaigns that have zero risk. Everything carries a balancing act of risk vs reward and it is that driving behavior that dictated the design. I would add to this by implementing a mid-campaign or any-time export, you've effectively removed the reward for winning a campaign (which is supposed to be the driving reason why you'd want to win in the first place).

So, "no economy can survive if it is inbred" is false. I could cite numerous examples of economies that functioned to a degree without outside influence. Even in your original example of EVE, the players aren't responsible for the creation of ALL things within its universe. Their are numerous things provided by NPCs that help kick off the whole universe's economic model. In Crowfall its entirely possible for each Campaign to be self-sustained ecosystems because the resources that spawn are all that are needed to make every single item in the game. Their is no dependency on anyone but the players in that campaign to make anything they desire.

So, in response to your quote, you're wrong.

A better argument would be to allow movement of goods mid-campaign, at a hefty cost, to spur the EK economies which otherwise might need to wait months before seeing any goods coming out of the campaign worlds. However, even this argument is flawed, because ACE could simply spin up 10, 15, or 30-day campaigns just to spice things up. 

Edited by scree

Obsidian-ForumSignature.jpg

Share this post


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

So, "no economy can survive if it is inbred" is false. I could cite numerous examples of economies that functioned to a degree without outside influence. Even in your original example of EVE, the players aren't responsible for the creation of ALL things within its universe.

While some goods are able to be purchased via NPC in EvE, there are many more that are specifically located in differing areas.  If there was trade within only that specific system, then you don't have the overall movement of all resources that are in the game.  Some systems don't have ice, and would never be able to run POS's unless they traded outside of their system.  It is the whole universe of trade that allows the greater economy to thrive.

More importantly I chose the word inbred, because your statement was about trade only happening within a guild; aka keeping it in the family.  I claim that there is NO economy in the dregs if trade between guilds doesn't happen.  I take this stance because I don't see the actions of guild members being "this gear will cost you x dust", rather I see the crafter saying "get me x resources and I can build you that gear".  When the crafter is able to go outside of his guild and sell a piece of gear, then you have an economy.

In a larger picture, I want to see resources from the dregs be used all across the game, from the outer bands of CWs to the EKs; and I want to see unique EK resources used within the CWs.  This is supposed to be an MMORPG, with a flavor of permanence.  While we have dying campaigns/worlds, we don't have an impermanent universe.


lUvvzPy.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2017 at 0:17 PM, scree said:

Of course it would! If every player focused on Runecrafting because of a comment someone like me said; the other trade skills would obviously be more profitable. The problem with your logic, is you are thinking in a WoW-server type framework where multiple people contend for clients. In this game, your guild is likely to be the arbiter of who becomes what and if their are too many of X what happens to those people. Your clients are your guild, not the general population (typically).

Of course as a crafter, your main priority will be supplying your guild. But there will be plenty of players in small guilds (or no guild) who will still need crafters. Thus I assume in the EKs when supplying up for a starting CW that these non-affiliates will flock to the more popular or well know EKs to shop?

1 hour ago, Teufel said:

More importantly I chose the word inbred, because your statement was about trade only happening within a guild; aka keeping it in the family.  I claim that there is NO economy in the dregs if trade between guilds doesn't happen.  I take this stance because I don't see the actions of guild members being "this gear will cost you x dust", rather I see the crafter saying "get me x resources and I can build you that gear".  When the crafter is able to go outside of his guild and sell a piece of gear, then you have an economy.

This ^

Guild crafters won't be charging members for gear most likely since the non-crafters will often be "paying" for it as bodyguards and other roles. So where does dust really come in? If crafters can't sell/trade outside their guild then what is the point of having the currency at all? :( 

 

Anyway, I guess my vision of the EKs is major shopping markets? I would think the bigger EKs would be home to dozens of crafters who would be buying/selling goods. Thus if a particular profession is hard to come by - that crafter may not even need a guild at all to be successful? Furthermore I would think that even crafters could become similar to mercenaries and just sell their services in the CW? That way smaller guilds or solo players could hire them.


Only those who ask questions have all the answers. Thus only the foolish remain silent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dust is meant as a way to pay upkeep without consuming base materials (now that the materials are all technically the same value). You'll use it to pay taxes on your EK parcels (and this makes it incredibly valuable outside of the campaign... or players won't be able to pay upkeep on elaborate EKs!). You'll also use it in-game to pay for factories and mass manufacturing.

The game will still largely use a bartering system. Due to the nature of how gathering is setup, you'll have people with skills to mine a specific type of ore, and no ability to harvest lumber. And some people with the ability to harvest wood, but not ore. Bartering is going to happen at the guild level and beyond. I wouldn't expect anyone to give away free resources unless it was for the guilds construction or upkeep of a city. 

Economies do not need external trading partners to function. It is not a requirement in itself. If you wanted to compare a guild inside a campaign who did have a trading partner to a guild that did not, you'd certainly have a very good argument. Nothing is stopping that from happening. Guilds are going to trade amongst each other, even in the Dregs. It's inevitable. Why you think that isn't going to happen as it stands, even without an EK middleman, is beyond me.

People who play to win will figure a way to make it happen. You will too.

Edited by scree

Obsidian-ForumSignature.jpg

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...