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

Choices No Longer Have Consequences

Recommended Posts

 

23 minutes ago, Soulreaver said:

Double skilling is a problem.

 

Be it Combat -> Armor + Damage

or

Crafting + Exploration / Combat + Crafting / Combat + Exploration

 

Whilst on the same character - If people want to multi train they should suffer in other areas, not be rewarded for it.  If you want to be the -best- fighter you shouldn't get it by getting the chance to also harvest, you should be required to make that choice and also that sacrifice.  You -choose- to fokus purely on fighting, so why should you be also rewarded with being a good explorer/crafter?  If you focus all your time at crafting why would it make sense you're the best harvester?  You made a choice...

So while I'm leaning towards what is logical and how things are RL - and I know that is illogical when speaking about a fantasy game.. the lack of rationale in saying : We should all be the -best- at 66% of the game .. eludes me.  33% is imo enough by far, and it entise you and force you to relate to others.  To get a network.  To be part of a guild or faction. 
 

If I was to forced look at these changes and suggest something.. this is what I would suggest :

- Primary and Secondary General training.  Primary trains at 100% speed as always, secondary trains at 10%.    That would even make me swallow this camel and test it with a comfort at heart....

 

-BUT-

I would much rather stick with the -old- system entirely.

 

Note : % estimates are purely done from the amount of general basic trees and my spelling sucks as I'm not native English speaking  please excuse that.

Ok let me try this again. It isnt letting you do combat > Armor + dmg its letting you pick 2 types of armor, or 2 types of weapons to spec into

They have to share a parent tree, there are main trees parent trees then baby trees. So Combat is main tree, armor and weapons are "parent trees" once those are maxed you can pick 2 siblings trees from there, for example mail armor and plate armor, or under weapon "baby tree" you can pick swords and axes. Make sense? You are still forced to spec into a parent tree you cant mix Armor and weapon training with the 2 you are allowed. This is the same for crafting I just dont have a good copy of the crafting updated skill tree to explain with. Its all about more options for how you build. IE the class build if i go into fighter, i dont just have to pick knight/templar build under the fighter i can also get the champion etc. This gives me more choices and something you have to do. What if they change knight and a player no longer likes it? Are you going to force them to lose months or years of progress? I would hope not both as a gamer and a backer. This way you have chamption etc to fall back on under the "fighter" parent tree. 

Share this post


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

It's not by node, it's by tree. (link to part of live stream)

 

Roger that, thanks for the link too. This is very interesting, though, because it would seem then that a 72 hour tome is the largest you can get (since that is the max you can get in a time bank)? If that is true, then I suspect there are training nodes which exceed the maximum of the largest tome you can get (the right-most training nodes on screen).


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


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

Roger that, thanks for the link too. This is very interesting, though, because it would seem then that a 72 hour tome is the largest you can get (since that is the max you can get in a time bank)? If that is true, then I suspect there are training nodes which exceed the maximum of the largest tome you can get (the right-most training nodes on screen).

I would say that it can be bigger for VIPs since our time bank goes 30 days! But that will remain to be seen based on how they balance it at release 6 months after soft launch! But 72 hour max would make sense and lets hope for a material cost as well, the higher the tree the more mats from in game professions you need! Or Hunger shards from PvP etc. That way even the catch up drives pvp and content for the rest of us and this will stop someone from having 20 "feeder" accounts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mctan said:

Roger that, thanks for the link too. This is very interesting, though, because it would seem then that a 72 hour tome is the largest you can get (since that is the max you can get in a time bank)? If that is true, then I suspect there are training nodes which exceed the maximum of the largest tome you can get (the right-most training nodes on screen).

I think they picked 72 hours, because that represents a tier one skill node to completion.  By breaking it down that way, you can not simply bank an entire 30 days of training and then dump it as one action onto another account, bypassing the diminishing returns limitations.  

EDIT:I also think there is nothing stopping them from making "catch up" tomes of greater value for new accounts that will bypass the diminishing returns limitations. They may actually have to do that because of the way limitations and prerequisites work. Right now VIP is useless for training advancement until after you have the first "Basic" node in the tree. 

They touched the topic/question, but didn't clear it up.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

I think they picked 72 hours, because that represents a tier one skill node to completion.  By breaking it down that way, you can not simply bank an entire 30 days of training and then dump it as one action onto another account, bypassing the diminishing returns limitations.  

That would make sense for 72 hours being the "hard cap" to avoid being able to exploit it.

Share this post


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

I would say that it can be bigger for VIPs since our time bank goes 30 days! But that will remain to be seen based on how they balance it at release 6 months after soft launch! But 72 hour max would make sense and lets hope for a material cost as well, the higher the tree the more mats from in game professions you need! Or Hunger shards from PvP etc. That way even the catch up drives pvp and content for the rest of us and this will stop someone from having 20 "feeder" accounts. 

Of course, yeah, I mis-remembered: so 24 hours non-VIP, 30 days VIP. I am pretty confident that they will tweak how the Tomes function, with either hard caps, usage limits, or some combo.


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


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

Of course, yeah, I mis-remembered: so 24 hours non-VIP, 30 days VIP. I am pretty confident that they will tweak how the Tomes function, with either hard caps, usage limits, or some combo.

That seems to be how this looks, they know what they are doing. I trust them to balance it, they arent doing this to enable pay to win. That would be far easier than this system :). I have trust in ACE, it will turn out well. The fact they are letting us see this now and not 6 months after launch shows us how open they are about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2017 at 0:13 AM, AetherKnight said:

 

Ok let me try this again. It isnt letting you do combat > Armor + dmg its letting you pick 2 types of armor, or 2 types of weapons to spec into

They have to share a parent tree, there are main trees parent trees then baby trees. So Combat is main tree, armor and weapons are "parent trees" once those are maxed you can pick 2 siblings trees from there, for example mail armor and plate armor, or under weapon "baby tree" you can pick swords and axes. Make sense? You are still forced to spec into a parent tree you cant mix Armor and weapon training with the 2 you are allowed. This is the same for crafting I just dont have a good copy of the crafting updated skill tree to explain with. Its all about more options for how you build. IE the class build if i go into fighter, i dont just have to pick knight/templar build under the fighter i can also get the champion etc. This gives me more choices and something you have to do. What if they change knight and a player no longer likes it? Are you going to force them to lose months or years of progress? I would hope not both as a gamer and a backer. This way you have chamption etc to fall back on under the "fighter" parent tree. 

Watch the stream again you CAN do armor+weapons (the 2 slots just have to be in 2 different TREES, and armor and weapons are that), sure as you start combat only "basic combat" is available so can only do one training there, but once you got "Basic combat done" you can spend one slot in "basic armor" and the other slot in "Basic weapon", (and then go down to the specific weapons with each point once those 2 are both done (like mail+greathammer or something like that). They even actually acknowledged that as a problem they would have to look at when it was asked in the stream.

 

Is this a good or a bad thing though? I am not sure tbh. A LOT of the concerns in this thread is about that you can be both an effective crafter and an effective combatant at the same time with 2 slots. But when you think about it between ppl that do have the the VIP that gives to slots a guy going 1crafter/combat would only be effective at either the offensive OR the defensive part of combat (so do a lot of dmg, or absorb a lot of dmg), but not both, or maybe being halfway affect at both offence and defence. Now the guy that use both slots in combat would be fully effective at BOTH offence and defence, so he would be a superior fighter to the guy doing combat+crafting.

 

Hmm... this does make me think what about classes that dualwield they would actually need 2 offensive tree at the very top lvl weapon specific trees now that they gonna separate it out to actually be 2 different weapons, so if you go dagger+sword you would need both the dagger and the sword tree to be fully effective, or how that gonna work?

 

Ofc this still begs the question of what about VIP vs non-VIP, and well yeah this is where the problem lies, and so yeah like many others I dont think that VIP should give another slot for professions, and if they do absolutely want it to it should be 2 completely separate parts of the professions, so one could be in combat and the other in exploration, but not both in combat. I wouldn't mind giving 2 professions slots to everyone VIP and non-VIP though, and then MAYBE a potential 3rd slot for VIP in professions, with the caveat that only 2 of those slots could ever be used in the same branch of profession (combat, exploration, crafting), but if you so desire you could use one in each., though I would prefer that VIP dont alter professions slots at all. No matter how they do with professions slots, I am 100% fine with 1 slots for each race and class for non-VIP and 2 for each race and class for VIP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TL;DR - Allowing players to double dip a profession solves the dependency issue and is no more P2W than forcing players to pick 2 of the 3 professions. It solves the funding problem for ACE by providing players a limited/expiring incentive which keeps the continual development/maintenance costs covered.

What we all need to realize is that the cat is out of the bag as soon as you allow VIP to train 2 professions and non-vip to only train one. However, players seem to be split on what offends them the most about the 2/2/2 vs 1/1/1 VIP benefits now.

1. P2W purists don't want any type of multiple profession trains, because it advantages VIP over non-vip.

2. Dependency purists don't want VIP to be good at any two things, they must pick one profession and be dependent on others to support them in the other 2 professions.

3. Players are OK with 2/2/2 as long as you can't double dip a single profession. i.e Combat  training in both Armor and Weapons at the same time because it provides a "vertical" power progression.

There are players who share a mix of arguments 1-3 but I'll address each argument separately. 

I'll do my best to recap why IMO I think ACE did a great job with the new VIP model AND should allow double dipping in a single profession as long as its not in the same tree. When I say not in the same tree I'm not talking about training the Great Axe Tree and the Pole Mace tree at the same time, I mean being able to train Great Axe and Heavy Armor at the same time. The restriction would be that you can't train 2 nodes in Great Axe at the same time.

#1

The group of players from argument #1 IMO have the best ground to stand on. While I don't personally share their opinion on the matter, there is nothing wrong with having a principled stand on P2W. Allowing VIP to train 2 profession be it with or without double dipping a single profession provides a power advantage to the VIP player over the non-vip player. I won't argue that it does not, because I believe under the new model VIP represents a power advantage. With that being said, this form of P2W is very benign as it is capped at $15 per month, provides for continual funding of the game, and is still available to those players who have the time but not the money to trade in game resources for VIP which will put them on equal footing. The only players truly left out are those who have neither the time nor the money to earn/buy VIP, and to be honest these players were almost always going to be disadvantaged in the game. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with argument #1 its just a matter of opinion.

#2

The group of players from argument #2 are on less steady ground compared to argument #1. This group of players want a strict separation of labor/specialty in the game because of the bonds they see it will form between players. If you allow players to specialize in 2 professions, they feel that it swings the pendulum to players being an island unto themselves. Now the player who was going to be a crafter specialist does not feel he offers the same niche service that he did before because with 2 professions he has to compete with all the original harvesters that now decide to go harvest/craft who previously would not have been able to convert the raw materials efficiently into high quality gear. This is where double dipping a single profession would be a good solution. @jtoddcoleman explained his thoughts, saying that the pendulum was too far in the direction of forcing that dependence on other players. I agree with jtc, but at this point the argument is just a matter of opinion. The solution to this problem is to allow double dipping. From a P2W perspective if you were OK with 2/2/2 but only had a problem with the dependency issues, then allowing double dipping should not be a concern as both represent a power advantage for the VIP player. Double dipping solves the specialist argument because now true crafters can train 2 lines of specialty, which perhaps eliminates some very niche markets, i.e. I'm the only dagger specialist, it solves the logistics issues for a lot of players. Now you are the dagger/sword specialist or dagger/leather specialist. Double dipping allows far more specialized training than forcing people to pick 2 different professions. Some will double dip, some will be hybrids, double dipping provides way more options.

#3

The group of players from argument #3 are basically drowning. While I can't specify the power curve of each profession, the moment you allow VIP to train 2 professions you give them a force multiplier that is not available to non-vip. It does not matter if you can't double dip, being able to train combat/harvesting will still swing the power curve in favor of VIP over non-vip. At this point the argument is both hypocritical and illogical as they are OK with P2W under one scenario but not the other. The 2nd issue that pops up when you force the splitting of professions is that you limit the VIP incentive for those players who only ever wanted to be specialists to begin with. A combat player who had no desire to break rocks or craft gear does not see any benefit in the VIP incentive for 2 professions and now the only benefit is the Time Bank. 

Edited by Verot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I like the tomes, but timebanks with 1d/1m time are a really good change. This is, what I hoped for from the beginning.

However... It shouldnt be possible to buy tomes or whatever to reach more training than would have been possible normally.

Like If I buy 2 tomes of 1 month combat training 1 month after game release, I would be better in combat than any legit player... this shouldnt be possible and encourages alt accounts to gather training time for the main account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎9‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 1:42 PM, scree said:

I'd be fine with this system if they had imposed a restriction; that as the game ages a timer goes up with it. The max effective threshhold. 

For hardcore players, playing right from launch, they could never train beyond that timer. If you played from day 1, minute 0 you could never get ahead of that curve. That at least removes the ability for players to "correct" mistakes they've made. It would also stop people from using alts to funnel into a primary account.

Diminishing Returns is daring whales to spend more money, to get around the limitation.

If a new player joins after the games been out for exactly 1 year. He shouldn't be allowed to train more than 2 years worth of skills (assuming VIP subscription the whole time).

If they made these changes, then existing players could never correct mistakes they've made. They haven't stated this is a restriction. They just keep citing DR as a solution and its not.

I definitely hope they implement a "max effective threshold " beyond just the soft cap of the diminishing returns. I however, want them to atleast play with that threshold, so that it brings a balance to both the game and artcraft's cash reserves. Maybe something like twice the current max play time. This would allow even players from the beginning to utilize these new aspects of the game every month, but still have a hard cap in place for everyone.

I'm sure this would open up the debate for another lvl of VIP access ($30 Gold VIP) that allow you to both put time towards your branches and its respective time bank at the same time without having to buy another separate VIP account. It may keep the account side of things a little cleaner for both ArtCraft and the players but it may also be completely unnecessary and be confusing/difficult to newer players.

Regardless, I know I will maintain atleast two accounts because I know I don't want to fall behind the combat curve on my main but I 100% want to be able to experiment with the crafting and exploration side of things on my alt.

And I'm pretty sure they already know that they are going to implement some of these things, just like they know they are only going to allow VIP players to create skill tomes. They just like to give us the information for us to draw our own conclusions and provide the feedback, and they can then respond quickly with the fix followed by *see we listen.

I do love their marketing minds though :)


Eat or be eaten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Verot said:

TL;DR - Allowing players to double dip a profession solves the dependency issue and is no more P2W than forcing players to pick 2 of the 3 professions. It solves the funding problem for ACE by providing players a limited/expiring incentive which keeps the continual development/maintenance costs covered.

What we all need to realize is that the cat is out of the bag as soon as you allow VIP to train 2 professions and non-vip to only train one. However, players seem to be split on what offends them the most about the 2/2/2 vs 1/1/1 VIP benefits now.

1. P2W purists don't want any type of multiple profession trains, because it advantages VIP over non-vip.

2. Dependency purists don't want VIP to be good at any two things, they must pick one profession and be dependent on others to support them in the other 2 professions.

3. Players are OK with 2/2/2 as long as you can't double dip a single profession. i.e Combat  training in both Armor and Weapons at the same time because it provides a "vertical" power progression.

There are players who share a mix of arguments 1-3 but I'll address each argument separately. 

I'll do my best to recap why IMO I think ACE did a great job with the new VIP model AND should allow double dipping in a single profession as long as its not in the same tree. When I say not in the same tree I'm not talking about training the Great Axe Tree and the Pole Mace tree at the same time, I mean being able to train Great Axe and Heavy Armor at the same time. The restriction would be that you can't train 2 nodes in Great Axe at the same time.

#1

The group of players from argument #1 IMO have the best ground to stand on. While I don't personally share their opinion on the matter, there is nothing wrong with having a principled stand on P2W. Allowing VIP to train 2 profession be it with or without double dipping a single profession provides a power advantage to the VIP player over the non-vip player. I won't argue that it does not, because I believe under the new model VIP represents a power advantage. With that being said, this form of P2W is very benign as it is capped at $15 per month, provides for continual funding of the game, and is still available to those players who have the time but not the money to trade in game resources for VIP which will put them on equal footing. The only players truly left out are those who have neither the time nor the money to earn/buy VIP, and to be honest these players were almost always going to be disadvantaged in the game. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with argument #1 its just a matter of opinion.

#2

The group of players from argument #2 are on less steady ground compared to argument #1. This group of players want a strict separation of labor/specialty in the game because of the bonds they see it will form between players. If you allow players to specialize in 2 professions, they feel that it swings the pendulum to players being an island unto themselves. Now the player who was going to be a crafter specialist does not feel he offers the same niche service that he did before because with 2 professions he has to compete with all the original harvesters that now decide to go harvest/craft who previously would not have been able to convert the raw materials efficiently into high quality gear. This is where double dipping a single profession would be a good solution. @jtoddcoleman explained his thoughts, saying that the pendulum was too far in the direction of forcing that dependence on other players. I agree with jtc, but at this point the argument is just a matter of opinion. The solution to this problem is to allow double dipping. From a P2W perspective if you were OK with 2/2/2 but only had a problem with the dependency issues, then allowing double dipping should not be a concern as both represent a power advantage for the VIP player. Double dipping solves the specialist argument because now true crafters can train 2 lines of specialty, which perhaps eliminates some very niche markets, i.e. I'm the only dagger specialist, it solves the logistics issues for a lot of players. Now you are the dagger/sword specialist or dagger/leather specialist. Double dipping allows far more specialized training than forcing people to pick 2 different professions. Some will double dip, some will be hybrids, double dipping provides way more options.

#3

The group of players from argument #3 are basically drowning. While I can't specify the power curve of each profession, the moment you allow VIP to train 2 professions you give them a force multiplier that is not available to non-vip. It does not matter if you can't double dip, being able to train combat/harvesting will still swing the power curve in favor of VIP over non-vip. At this point the argument is both hypocritical and illogical as they are OK with P2W under one scenario but not the other. The 2nd issue that pops up when you force the splitting of professions is that you limit the VIP incentive for those players who only ever wanted to be specialists to begin with. A combat player who had no desire to break rocks or craft gear does not see any benefit in the VIP incentive for 2 professions and now the only benefit is the Time Bank. 

Good summary. I guess I belong to #1 as I really hope ACE doesn't go down the slippery slope... there is of course a compromise, but the proposed 2-2-2 is too much (I have to admit dependence was always also one of the big draws for me).

If I suck I want it to be because of spent time and effort, not money - before launch even incremental changes towards p2p can result in a pr nightmare. Do be careful with what its advocates ask for, please:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like what is going on here.  I think they are on the right path.  This system will allow me to enjoy not being stressed out about my players skills.  The perspective they carry towards the tomes and the time investment for ripening an account is spot on.  Even if there are a few people who will do it more power to them.  I do not think it will be a deciding factor a year later in the whole scheme of thing because acquiring skill tomes can be done via the player economy.  Just another interesting dynamic an entrepreneur can diced to specialize in. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The average gamer wants to be completely self sufficient. That's why most MMO's these days are really single player games in a shared space. You cannot listen to the playerbase on this subject, because the majority will always try to eliminate interdependence.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Solex said:

The average gamer wants to be completely self sufficient. That's why most MMO's these days are really single player games in a shared space. You cannot listen to the playerbase on this subject, because the majority will always try to eliminate interdependence.

 

They do, and there is nothing wrong with that.

What those of us here who advocate strongly for interdependence are saying is that we just want one game that lets us live in and build a social universe.


Mic MWH, Member of Mithril Warhammers since 2003,


Hammers High! http://www.mithrilwarhammers.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Solex said:

The average gamer wants to be completely self sufficient. That's why most MMO's these days are really single player games in a shared space. You cannot listen to the playerbase on this subject, because the majority will always try to eliminate interdependence.

 

Those MMOs let you play the game as a solo because the tasks they require of you don't necessitate any social interaction in the form of grouping, etc. Crowfall is nothing like that. You need a group to play with, a guild to harvest resources, crafters to use those resources  and control territory. Crowfall is crazy high on interdependence no matter what anyone says, and the best crafters and harvesters will be those that know how to network, not somebody who clicked on a skill node. There is such a thing as too much interdependence, and that's where we were. Even the developers admitted it. That harvester or crafter that can't do anything till people log on or decide to buy a second account to enjoy the other parts of the game was a huge issue. 

Edited by izkimar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I haven’t seen touched on yet (sorry if I missed it) is who is going to be selling these tomes?

If I’ve been playing since day 1 or I’m deep in my tree, or even if I’m a fresh player trying to catch up to the current level, I’m not going to be willing to give up 24h or 72h of training unless there is large profit to be made. And since this is a player driven catch up mechanic in that a player can’t catch up unless another player intentionally puts themselves behind I think there may need to be another way or reason to get tomes into the marketplace.

It’s been brought up a few times that adding some kind of cap on total training available at any given time and increasing it over time could be a good solution to the catch up problem and the potential problem of someone having more training time than would be available for someone who hasn’t bought tomes. I think this is a great idea and would also help in actually getting tomes into the market place without requiring players to hinder their own progression, since I could hit the cap and then convert my excess time into tomes to trade.

My main question though is given the current state of this system, how many tomes do we really expect to be in the market and where are they coming from?

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...