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

Harvesting Passives ... Why they hurt gatherers

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

 

Did you happen to catch the answer to my question about what "season" we are in resource wise.

"The resource nodes, the stone and the ore doesn't change".

Since the bulk of a runes cost is ore, and the wood bootstrap numbers are 5/1 I don't see the seasons affecting things that much.

If you watch the entire video, you should be aware that they are just about to do a skill pass with the 1-5 change, so NOW is exactly the right time to point out concerns with the training progress system and how it feels. I am pretty sure/hope once they are done we will get a skill reset to go along with it, so we can really test out the new numbers. 

Since you don't do these things, have little experience with the problem, and really don't care to do it in the future, I don't understand your goal in jumping into this thread to be honest. 

The only reason I jumped into the thread is the same reason I jump into most threads - I read them to learn things I didn't know, and occasionally when I see discussions that don't make sense to me or seem to be drifting far off-topic, I say so. You generally do a good job of justifying why your complaints are valid and on-topic to me, but even with the majority of the requisite knowledge required to be on the same page as you, I'm often initially confused as to how things you take for granted are connected.

Since these forums are the entry point for many people who haven't been here for two years, I figure it's worth a couple minutes of my time a couple times a week to try and make sure that reading the forums provides enough information for someone who doesn't understand everything being discussed to leave knowing more than they did when they arrived.

Sometimes I fail spectacularly, of course. But that's my goal.

Edit: Also, I follow your posts because you are in a very general sense much more knowledgeable about the game's systems and follow updates more closely than I do, so just by checking my email to see what you've posted I learn a lot. Doesn't mean I always agree with you, though. :P

Edited by goose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


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

The only reason I jumped into the thread is the same reason I jump into most threads - I read them to learn things I didn't know, and occasionally when I see discussions that don't make sense to me or seem to be drifting far off-topic, I say so. You generally do a good job of justifying why your complaints are valid and on-topic to me, but even with the majority of the requisite knowledge required to be on the same page as you, I'm often initially confused as to how things you take for granted are connected.

Since these forums are the entry point for many people who haven't been here for two years, I figure it's worth a couple minutes of my time a couple times a week to try and make sure that reading the forums provides enough information for someone who doesn't understand everything being discussed to leave knowing more than they did when they arrived.

Sometimes I fail spectacularly, of course. But that's my goal.

I wasn't trying to jump on you too badly.  I just saw your arguments devolving to the "it's not done", and "trust them to get it right" variety. 

I would rather people stop saying those sorts of things, it seem dismissive of concerns that quite frankly, TBlair seems to also dismiss or pass off as us all not understanding what the final goal or systems will be in place are. He's a systems guy, he loves to theorycraft, and the intellectual stimulation of imagining how everything will work together and be spectacular. (Damb I would love to have beers with him sometime)  I get that, and he has this finished vision in his head that is often hard to communicate.

The problem is, I have seen other system/vision guys (myself included), get so hung up on the goals, objectives and intention of the system, so entrenched in the fantasy endgame they are trying to create, that they miss the fundamental points where what they are building is just not fun. It's "interesting" but not really fun or emotionally stimulating.

Quote

Lesson #5: Don't confuse "interesting" with "fun"

This is a concept we talk about a lot in R&D. It turns out that there are two different kinds of stimulation—intellectual stimulation and emotional stimulation. The first is about stimulating the ways in which you think. ("Hmm, that's very interesting.") The second is about generating an emotional response. ("Ooh, that's fun!") In Magic, looking at a card file is intellectual stimulation. Playing with the cards is more of an emotional stimulation.

The lesson here is that, in general, we humans like to think of ourselves as intellectual creatures. But interestingly, when scientists study how we make most of our decisions, it's not based on facts. Humans are much more motivated in their decision-making by emotions rather than thoughts. This means when making a game, you can have it speak to your audience on an intellectual level or an emotional one. Both are valuable, but when you speak to a player on an emotional level, you're more likely to create player satisfaction because for most people, emotional satisfaction runs deeper and is more core to how they respond.

Often when we are playing around with new ideas in R&D, we ask ourselves, "Is this interesting or is this fun?" Is this a card that's neat to read and think about or is this a card that's enjoyable to play? Because the latter is going to get you closer to creating the emotional response you're trying to build with your game.

I personally try VERY HARD to envision what he is thinking from what I have seen and heard from them as a final goal, and then adjust my concerns and comments based on available data and limit my comments to those areas where I think their assumptions are off.

As far as harvesting passives bypassing the majority of the value of 150 days of training goes, they are currently way off, and shallow curve passive harvester training in neither interesting or fun.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

I wasn't trying to jump on you too badly.  I just saw your arguments devolving to the "it's not done", and "trust them to get it right" variety. 

I would rather people stop saying those sorts of things, it seem dismissive of concerns that quite frankly, TBlair seems to also dismiss or pass off as us all not understanding what the final goal or systems will be in place are. He's a systems guy, he loves to theorycraft, and the intellectual stimulation of imagining how everything will work together and be spectacular. I get that, and he has this finished vision in his head that is often hard to communicate.

The problem is, I have seen other system/vision guys (myself included), get so hung up on the goals, objectives and intention of the system, so entrenched in the fantasy endgame they are trying to create, that they miss the fundamental points where what they are building is just not fun. It's "interesting" but not really fun or emotionally stimulating.

I personally try VERY HARD to envision what he is thinking from what I have seen and heard from them as a final goal, and then adjust my concerns and comments based on available data and limit my comments to those areas where I think their assumptions are off.

As far as harvesting passives bypassing the majority of the value of 150 days of training goes, they are currently way off, and shallow curve passive harvester training in neither interesting or fun.

The thing I probably don't do a very good job of elucidating is that while I agree with you that the problems you described here can POTENTIALLY exist, I don't see a compelling case that they DO exist. That is more a matter of there not being a way to definitively prove it one way or the other without explicit developer input than of you not doing a good job of thinking through the issue or explaining your thought process.

I also get how that can often seem like I'm defending them blindly because the game isn't done, but that isn't what I'm aiming for. Rather, I'm trying to get people who are on the opposite side of the spectrum to rein their rhetoric in more toward the center. I maintain a healthy skepticism for any game still in development, but I also wouldn't have backed them if I didn't have some degree of faith in their ability to deliver on their promises. I'm also much more interested in hard numbers than I am in hypotheticals, so when I see criticisms of half-finished systems, I tend to try and get people to remember that those systems are half-finished. When you see a problem with a system that isn't fully implemented, make a note of it and point it out, then move on. If you keep banging your head against it, you run the risk of biasing yourself against future iterations or reworks, making your opinions potentially worthless later on. When we have sort of open-ended test environments where we don't know what they actually need data on and what's going to change from iteration to iteration, it can be impossible to gauge what matters and what doesn't, so I'm probably just as likely to be wrong as right, but what I'm trying to preach isn't about being on one side or the other, but about moderating expectations. The fact that this almost always comes in the form of a crackdown on people who are more critical of the devs than on people who are more forgiving is just one of population size. Almost nobody on these forums actually says "No, guys, it'll be totally fine, everything is going exactly to plan and nothing needs fixing." If I see someone making an argument like that, I give them poorly made socks from the other side, too. It's just only happened once.

At this point it seems like I see two or three arguments repeated ad infinitum without any new ideas for how to fix them in three new threads each week, and all that does is over-represent the problem to new or prospective players and make up-to-date information harder to find. Personally, I'd like to see some stickies in these forums.

Edit: man, speaking of staying on-topic, though, I am not doing that anymore. lol Case in point: we are all human.

Edited by goose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


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

The thing I probably don't do a very good job of elucidating is that while I agree with you that the problems you described here can POTENTIALLY exist, I don't see a compelling case that they DO exist. That is more a matter of there not being a way to definitively prove it one way or the other without explicit developer input than of you not doing a good job of thinking through the issue or explaining your thought process.

I also get how that can often seem like I'm defending them blindly because the game isn't done, but that isn't what I'm aiming for. Rather, I'm trying to get people who are on the opposite side of the spectrum to rein their rhetoric in more toward the center. I maintain a healthy skepticism for any game still in development, but I also wouldn't have backed them if I didn't have some degree of faith in their ability to deliver on their promises. I'm also much more interested in hard numbers than I am in hypotheticals, so when I see criticisms of half-finished systems, I tend to try and get people to remember that those systems are half-finished. When you see a problem with a system that isn't fully implemented, make a note of it and point it out, then move on. If you keep banging your head against it, you run the risk of biasing yourself against future iterations or reworks, making your opinions potentially worthless later on. When we have sort of open-ended test environments where we don't know what they actually need data on and what's going to change from iteration to iteration, it can be impossible to gauge what matters and what doesn't, so I'm probably just as likely to be wrong as right, but what I'm trying to preach isn't about being on one side or the other, but about moderating expectations. The fact that this almost always comes in the form of a crackdown on people who are more critical of the devs than on people who are more forgiving is just one of population size. Almost nobody on these forums actually says "No, guys, it'll be totally fine, everything is going exactly to plan and nothing needs fixing." If I see someone making an argument like that, I give them poorly made socks from the other side, too. It's just only happened once.

At this point it seems like I see two or three arguments repeated ad infinitum without any new ideas for how to fix them in three new threads each week, and all that does is over-represent the problem to new or prospective players and make up-to-date information harder to find. Personally, I'd like to see some stickies in these forums.

I tend given the current stage of development and how all numbers are placeholders, to try to put things into how systems make me feel, rather than hard numbers. The exception being when I'm rather certain it's the numbers that are triggering the negative emotion or frustration.

For example, harvesting passives made me feel like I wasted 150 days of training. I then attempted to dig into that feeling to see if it was realistic. Turns out, at least from my point of view, the current numbers support that feeling.

If there are two or three arguments repeated ad infinitum, especially if new threads on the issue are started by people not in the usual suspects list, (myself included), then I don't think they can be over-represented.  That sort of thing points to a problem of bad experiance that new testers/players are experiencing, and for every poster saying something on the forums, there are dozens or more that don't bother to post. Frankly new tester experience is often much better gauge than those of us with a well developed sense of confirmation bias.

 

Share this post


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

I tend given the current stage of development and how all numbers are placeholders, to try to put things into how systems make me feel, rather than hard numbers. The exception being when I'm rather certain it's the numbers that are triggering the negative emotion or frustration.

For example, harvesting passives made me feel like I wasted 150 days of training. I then attempted to dig into that feeling to see if it was realistic. Turns out, at least from my point of view, the current numbers support that feeling.

This is all true, and you'll find that I never have anything but likes to offer any post you have that only cites hard numbers, because you also tend to explain why they matter in layperson-English and your logic is generally easy to follow when you speculate. That's exactly why I speak up when I disagree with you.

16 minutes ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

If there are two or three arguments repeated ad infinitum, especially if new threads on the issue are started by people not in the usual suspects list, (myself included), then I don't think they can be over-represented.  That sort of thing points to a problem of bad experiance that new testers/players are experiencing, and for every poster saying something on the forums, there are dozens or more that don't bother to post. Frankly new tester experience is often much better gauge than those of us with a well developed sense of confirmation bias.

This may be more fair even than I gave it credit for initially, because whether the threads are started by new players or not, they are almost always taken over by the usual suspects, and as a result the name of the OP will often get lost in the shuffle. At least in my memory. But whether this is accurate one way or the other, if there were stickies about it, everyone would win. We'd have fewer new posts on the subject and a more consolidated database for what feels good and what feels bad without it clogging up the search function.

But that said, none of this negates your impressions about or your testing of harvest passives versus skill training. I just think the conversation needs to shift more toward how to fix the problem by adding new content than proposing a total overhaul, because the fact is that the game is too far into development to completely rework that system. It would add probably at least a year to the launch timeline, and that isn't time ACE can afford to spend, so proposals for how to bridge this gap should probably be things that can be added onto existing systems.

Edited by goose
grammar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


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

 

So yea, a great deal of understanding goes into these statements when I say simply equipping a passive gathering discipline does not a gatherer make you. But you guys keep beating that war drum when there are better issues to be raising a fuss over.

I will disagree with Scree here .....

Better issues to raise a fuss over?  ... Players raise a fuss over what draws them to the game, what they are interested in and passionate about. This thread has talked issues, has talked suggestions, there are people agreeing and disagreeing but most if not all are talking about how they perceive gathering in its current iteration will impact the overall game and their game play. I find it a great use of community time and effort, and I am hopeful the devs do also. 

We all should talk about the concerns we have before they go way past the point of ... well this is not fun to me. We may not see how the pieces all fit together but still we can leverage all of our past experiences to make assumptions and talk them out. 

 

 

Edited by anhrezcf

Don't forget, the one EK that no one will judge you for looting your guilds treasury is Anhrez's Doober Shack. Where you can take those long con gains and 'simplify' them to more easily fit in your inventory. While you are unloading your hard earned winnings, swing by the Bazaar and pick up something to celebrate your genius.

LR0tCJt.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@anhrezcf What I meant to point out is that gathering passives aren't the problem. The skill tree is. Clearly, there is not a sufficient differentiation between what the passive provides and what you can get through training. The fact that the developers thought passively increasing "Plentiful" was the stat that would impact gathering the most, clearly, shows how important it is (and this is the same reason it should never be awarded via a passive/minor rune in the first place!).

I would rather any passive stats intended for non-gatherers, instead, go towards optimizing the efficiency aspect of gathering. That is to say that if you are a combat expert and you equip a passive gathering rune, instead of producing MORE you'll just be able to be more efficient when you do gather (read: won't consume as many tools).

This makes more sense to me because gatherers themselves could benefit from this added stat. A trained gatherer with this passive would be ultra-efficient, barely denting his tool when he goes around while simultaneously having access to Plentiful that means he's bringing in higher quality materials than an untrained gatherer could.

Instead of discussing meaningful changes like this, I see complaints about the existence of the passive instead of modifying it ever so slightly to benefit both groups of players; the full-time master gatherer and the part-time schlub who needs some ore.

Edited by scree

Share this post


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

@anhrezcf What I meant to point out is that gathering passives aren't the problem. The skill tree is. Clearly, there is not a sufficient differentiation between what the passive provides and what you can get through training. The fact that the developers thought passively increasing "Plentiful" was the stat that would impact gathering the most, clearly, shows how important it is (and this is the same reason it should never be awarded via a passive/minor rune in the first place!).

I would rather any passive stats intended for non-gatherers, instead, go towards optimizing the efficiency aspect of gathering. That is to say that if you are a combat expert and you equip a passive gathering rune, instead of producing MORE you'll just be able to be more efficient when you do gather (read: won't consume as many tools).

This makes more sense to me because gatherers themselves could benefit from this added stat. A trained gatherer with this passive would be ultra-efficient, barely denting his tool when he goes around while simultaneously having access to Plentiful that means he's bringing in higher quality materials than an untrained gatherer could.

Instead of discussing meaningful changes like this, I see complaints about the existence of the passive instead of modifying it ever so slightly to benefit both groups of players; the full-time master gatherer and the part-time schlub who needs some ore.

The problem is that this would not do what the goal of the passives are, to allow all players a way to overcome the fact that without any training, you get zero volume from harvesting, and make the early game playable. Optimizing efficiency will not achieve that goal.  100% or 500% of zero is still zero.

They tied all of volume, quantity, and quality to that single baseline stat/table, and are now trying to pry it apart so that untrained only gets additional volume, enough to be personally self sufficient if needed, at the price of a passive slot.

The problem is that the passive, without stacking, completely stalls that core stat and makes the value of training it exactly zero.  If they expand the 5 pips to 25, then they could allow for stacking and meet the original goal of it being a temporary boost of volume at the cost of a passive slot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The training makes the value of training zero. Well not zero but damn close to it. Look at the damn numbers and the tree itself. 

I know goose is right about the time aspect changing when we can advance before taking all three nodes to 100% but for at least right now it is just stupid. 

In the excavation tree, You can see what you get for training all of the ore tree You get 20% to the damage of your picks. You get 10% chance for gems to drop, but only off motherlodes. You get 20 added to damage against mother lodes. and you get a whopping 0.10% added to your chance to get a beneficial harvest buff when you break a node.  One Tenth of one percent. I checked the [ key in game as well it is not some funny number or a mistranslation. 1/10th of 1% So basicly in 1000 nodes I will get one 40 second buff. 

Now I wouldn't worry much about that amazing buff because even though you have that whopping 1 in a 1000 chance it won't actually give you the buff yet. You still have to learn it from the next skill.

F it go look for yourselves if you care. This poorly made socks is wack.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, srathor said:

In the excavation tree, You can see what you get for training all of the ore tree You get 20% to the damage of your picks. You get 10% chance for gems to drop, but only off motherlodes. You get 20 added to damage against mother lodes. and you get a whopping 0.10% added to your chance to get a beneficial harvest buff when you break a node.  One Tenth of one percent. I checked the [ key in game as well it is not some funny number or a mistranslation. 1/10th of 1% So basicly in 1000 nodes I will get one 40 second buff. 

20% additional damage is HUGE

Think of what this means

  1. You clear nodes in 83% of the time 
  2. You only need to swing your picks 83% as often (this is on top of durability improvements)
  3. The more you swing, the more food that you consume  

 And oh, BTW, you get that 20% bonus after 54 days worth of training...

 

 

 

 

 

 


WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, srathor said:

You do not clear nodes in 83% of the time. 10 hits per node minimum no matter the damage. Used a +78 pick on slag to test. Same time as a +5 pick. Also tested on rank 5 10 hits.  You just get to use worse picks for the same amount of time.

 

Interesting.  Thanks for providing this information.

However, given that +78 picks aren't going to exist in game any time soon, I think that my point still stands...

(Or more, generally, how long until that 10 swing minimum becomes a binding constraint?)

 


WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm I don't know if you knew but..
 

 

These are the blue versions and only went to +69 due to cap. I had a purple great/Amazing go to +78ish and I know Tark had a Purple 1 roll Amazing go to +96ish.

This could be done pretty easily with the passives and the 30 minute alchemy potion.

Hell after the bank wipe I bootstrapped slag into a +45 blue pick with some blue paper. 

Share this post


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

Umm I don't know if you knew but..
 

 

These are the blue versions and only went to +69 due to cap. I had a purple great/Amazing go to +78ish and I know Tark had a Purple 1 roll Amazing go to +96ish.

This could be done pretty easily with the passives and the 30 minute alchemy potion.

Hell after the bank wipe I bootstrapped slag into a +45 blue pick with some blue paper. 

If it's supposed to be 1/3 passive skills, 1/3 gear, 1/3 personal skill, where is my +80% mining passive training skill?

Right now it feels like crafting and passives will build a better harvester than even years of training will.

Sigh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, srathor said:

These are the blue versions and only went to +69 due to cap. I had a purple great/Amazing go to +78ish and I know Tark had a Purple 1 roll Amazing go to +96ish.

This could be done pretty easily with the passives and the 30 minute alchemy potion.

Hell after the bank wipe I bootstrapped slag into a +45 blue pick with some blue paper. 

I am well aware that the pre-alpha allows one to get lucky with some blue or purple paper.  

With this said and done:

  1. If you don't have any blue / purple wood to begin with, where are you getting that piece of paper?  (My hope / expectation is that we aren't going to be seeing any significant amounts of blue / purple mats for several months into the game).  
  2. You can't spend pips that your crafters don't have.  Who cares if you crafted a purple pick if you only have three experimentation points to spend?  
  3. In a similar vein, your experimentation success chances are going to be much lower than there are right now.

Who knows, there might be some isolated "miracle pick" that gets produced during the early parts of the game.  I'd be surprised if it has an material impact.


WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Share this post


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

I am well aware that the pre-alpha allows one to get lucky with some blue or purple paper.  

With this said and done:

  1. If you don't have any blue / purple wood to begin with, where are you getting that piece of paper?  (My hope / expectation is that we aren't going to be seeing any significant amounts of blue / purple mats for several months into the game).  
  2. You can't spend pips that your crafters don't have.  Who cares if you crafted a purple pick if you only have three experimentation points to spend?  
  3. In a similar vein, your experimentation success chances are going to be much lower than there are right now.

Who knows, there might be some isolated "miracle pick" that gets produced during the early parts of the game.  I'd be surprised if it has an material impact.

You seem to think bootstrapping isn't intended functionality.  From the video interview with Markee Dragon, it clearly is.

I managed a single purple lucky mat on a tier 5 node without any pots running and substandard gear.  If there is any place in the system where the cost ratio of high quality mats bootstrapping for cheap will be a thing, it's going to be in the picks that need 1/5th of a log per.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KrakkenSmacken said:

You seem to think bootstrapping isn't intended functionality.  

You are completely wrong about this

 

 

 


WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Share this post


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

I managed a single purple lucky mat on a tier 5 node without any pots running and substandard gear.  If there is any place in the system where the cost ratio of high quality mats bootstrapping for cheap will be a thing, it's going to be in the picks that need 1/5th of a log per.

Good for you!

With this said and done, even if you are able to create a purple pick on day one, where are you getting the experimentation points necessary to generate +76 to mining?

 

 


WAZ6Fov.png

"The cinnabar is a lie"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, narsille said:

Good for you!

With this said and done, even if you are able to create a purple pick on day one, where are you getting the experimentation points necessary to generate +76 to mining?

 

 

Day one, not likely, but one of Tarks alts will be able to push at least green or blue in about 2 or three weeks with the more advanced crafting pots I suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, I know who to hunt.

Quote

The problem is that this would not do what the goal of the passives are, to allow all players a way to overcome the fact that without any training, you get zero volume from harvesting, and make the early game playable. Optimizing efficiency will not achieve that goal.  100% or 500% of zero is still zero.

 

Erm, you are totally wrong here. Let me paint this out in a verbal word picture for you.

Player A - No Training, No Passives: Mines 200 Ore, using 10 picks.

Player B - No Training, Passives: Mines 200 Ore, uses 5 picks.

Just for argument's sake, if picks cost 10 ore (it can be any number, the point is the same). Who harvested a larger volume of materials? You are wrong about efficiency not leading to more resources generated. Not sure how I can lay out this math any simpler for you.

Volume needs to be reserved for gatherers. It should be the benefit of extensive training, not efficiency like it is now. Tools have a cost, and organizations would heed well managing this just like any other resources they keep in their banks.

edit: I wanted to address your point that right now with zero training you get zero resources. That's clearly false. A poor premise to operate from. I can disprove this is 30 seconds on youtube if you'd really insist on persisting with that nonsense.

Edited by scree

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...