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

More on Action Harvesting - Official discussion thread

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Lephys said:

....Again, it's basically what's already in for combat, only reversing the damage....

As a developer, it's this kind of talk that makes my head explode. Anytime you say "only", and have an easy visual in your head of how it works, odds are really good if you're not a developer, you just asked for about half a dozen algorithms to be messed with in very unpleasant ways.

Too much Star Trek "reverse the polarity" BS has been tossed around over the years, and don't even get me started on hackers in movies.

For example.  Suppose you have a simple "how much do I improve the damage" formula attached to crafting an item.  That could look like this.

itemDamage = (itemDamage * (1+experimentRoll));

Now you want to "just reverse the damage" when making it, so you can put a sane tool tip and stat panel together.

You can either 

A) Change every location that has a tool tip, stat panel, and interaction with the tool.

B) Change the formula so that it make the item actually do less damage on a successful roll.

Humm, ok B sounds easier.

So now your crafting code looks like (PHP used in example, I don't know the unity equivalent.)

Swtich (itemType) {

 Case "Tool" :

itemDamage = itemDamage+(itemDamage-(itemDamage*1+expermentRoll)));  (I had to pull out my spreadsheet to make sure this worked.)

break;

case "weapon":

itemDamage = (itemDamage * (1+experimentRoll));

break;

default :

itemDamage = (itemDamage * (1+experimentRoll));

break;

And that still leaves having to crawl back through every piece of code that any "tool" touches, to make sure it deal with the results of that change correctly. That makes the problem that much more complex, and that much more prone to error.

Quote

In combat, it's super intuitive to kill stuff as quickly as possible, because if you don't, you'll die. In harvesting, nothing is attacking you, so it's purely a matter of maximizing the node's doober-giving lifespan. That makes perfect sense to my brain, and I would think the brains of many others, but I guess I can't really assume that.

It's not intuitive at all to me.  That's like saying if I take longer to grind my coffee, I can make 5 cups out of it instead of 1.  A node is a node, and has so much material.  If you don't get the as much as the next guy, it's because you ruined the end product, not because there was more in it.  Lifespan has nothing to do with it.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

It's not intuitive at all to me.  That's like saying if I take longer to grind my coffee, I can make 5 cups out of it instead of 1.  A node is a node, and has so much material.  If you don't get the as much as the next guy, it's because you ruined the end product, not because there was more in it.  Lifespan has nothing to do with it.

 

I think what he is saying is:

If there is a chance of item drop on each hit, plus some guaranteed drop when the node breaks, it makes most sense to get as many hits as possible in, trying to take advantage of the chance to drop per hit.

Share this post


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

As a developer, it's this kind of talk that makes my head explode. Anytime you say "only", and have an easy visual in your head of how it works, odds are really good if you're not a developer, you just asked for about half a dozen algorithms to be messed with in very unpleasant ways.Too much Star Trek "reverse the polarity" BS has been tossed around over the years, and don't even get me started on hackers in movies.

*Sigh*... I understand where this is coming from, as you're "detecting" a pattern based on many previous experiences you've had with other humans online. I truly do.

However, I am not those people, and you are arbitrarily applying a tone and meaning to my text that simply is not there. It COULD be there, potentially, if I were the right person trying to say it the right way, but text only states what text states, which is one of the reasons I use as much of it as I do. I cannot tonally describe to you what my words mean, exactly, so I have to syntax out the meaning to the best of my ability, just like code. "EVERYONE knows that. Okay, wait, no, not everyone, but a large number of people. I didn't literally mean all of the people."

I realize that it might be a great deal of work. I even said that. I feel as though you might have missed that part, or perhaps I did not convey it as well as I could have, and I'm simply "remembering" having stated it more clearly without actually going back and reading it. Let me be clear: I am in no way demanding that something be changed to a certain system, or inherently EXPECTING it of the dev team, much less for the reason that I am somehow assuming it will be super easy to do and simply should be done. I don't know how to make that any clearer, so please waste not your words on trying to convince me of how little I know of game development and how difficult changing the harvesting is. For what it's worth, you know no more than I do about the exact difficulty of making a given change to Crowfall's system, specifically, because you're not handling the code. Even if I was a master programmer, I would still have no idea how they've programmed it, exactly, as I don't work on the team.

Annnywho... 

Quote

It's not intuitive at all to me.  That's like saying if I take longer to grind my coffee, I can make 5 cups out of it instead of 1.  A node is a node, and has so much material.  If you don't get the as much as the next guy, it's because you ruined the end product, not because there was more in it.  Lifespan has nothing to do with it.

Well, I'm sorry that it isn't intuitive to you. Again, I'm not arguing that it should be. Honestly, without polling the general populous with both models, I have no idea how much of the player base finds my notions intuitive, and how many don't. So... *shrug*. They're free to check out this thread and let us know. I can't really go forcibly collect that info, and I can't in any way tell you what you should and should not find easy to process. I can't even fathom the thoughts that went through Mozart's head when he composed music, but he probably wouldn't be able to follow certain things my brain does, because brains are like a billion different manufacturers of CPUs with no industry standard. :)

But, let me make one more example, to see if perhaps I'm just coming across as describing something more complex than it actually is: When you play Mario (if you've played Mario... many people have, but not all), and you see a ? block, do you inherently think "I'd better figure out the optimal way in which to deal the most jump damage to that block as possible, as obviously that will give me the best stuff out of that block!", or is it extremely easy for your brain to figure out "Hey, those give me stuff. There's an indefinite amount of stuff in them, hence the '?' symbol on the block. I'd better jump and hit it, and see how many times I can hit it to get a coin out!"

The latter makes sense, does it not? If it does, then simply take that idea, and add in the ability for Mario to affect whatever determines when the block dies. You want to hit the block. At some point it will die and it cannot give you any more stuff. After X amount of hits. What is X? Dunno. Hit the block. Oh, okay. It's health went down by like a tenth. So, something like 10 hits. Oh look... I have a buff that makes me only take its health down by 5 instead of 10 per hit, for 5 seconds. Okay, I'll use that, then hit it as much as I can. Yay, now I get more hits because I didn't kill it as hard, and hits = chances for stuff. The more hits, the more stuff. The less death, the more hits.

Without doing any math whatsoever, you can have an exact idea of the impact of your decisions upon hitting the block. Does that not at all seem intuitive to you? Not even a little bit? Not even in a way? Again, please do not read some kind of hostile/mocking tone into this. Imagine I am an android. I am literally trying to ensure that I have presented my case as clearly as possible, and gather information on exactly what is unclear or unintuitive to you, and what is not. If ANY of it is intuitive in any way, please let me know, as that helps me better understand what ideas are worthwhile to others in this community, and I can better craft them in the future.

Lastly, to re-iterate, they could do something COMPLETELY different from this system I have described, in the way that it actually works. However, it was a huge example on how the system could overcome its current problem, which I've seen a LOT of people describe, which is the convolution in how to effectively collaborate on nodes. You can literally produce a negative amount of effectiveness in a group if you don't team up on a node properly. That should not be possible. Even if it's relatively easy to avoid, it should be infinitely easy to avoid. It is unnecessary. Also, I don't find it unreasonable to posit potential, hypothetical changes to a system that is still in its adolescence, if not infancy (it's... toddling?), in a game that is still heavily undergoing development. It would be blatantly unreasonable for me to posit big changes to a fully-developed harvesting and crafting system, a month after the game has released. "Hey, just rewrite this real quick." It isn't insane for them to make large changes to the harvesting system as it currently stands. Even if they are difficult changes to make, if the system ends up gaining enough from it (which is for a LOT of people other than myself to decide), then it's much better to quit while they're ahead and re-do 30% of a system than 90% of one later on when they're almost finished. They've already abandoned/changed like 17 things in this game, many of them not at the behest of us forum-goers, but simply because they found problems and said "Hey, we'd better rework this to get a better foundation now than waste more time on it and wind up with a problematic system."

Just food for thought.

 

Also, I honestly cannot tell you the current system, off the top of my head. Like, there are 3 people, each with the same tool, and a node. I'm a newbie and have never played a video game before. Explain to me, please, in a simplistic fashion, how harvesting currently works, and what I want to do to maximize my gains, in the current system. I want to see if it can be done. The only reason I even thought of my idea is because it's extremely easy to explain. Hit nodes, get stuff. The longer a node lives, the more hits you get. Boom. It can always get more elaborate from there. The current system is only simple(ish) until you add in multiple people. At which point it becomes Engineering 101 homework. To me at least. Maybe I'm weird... well, I'm DEFINITELY weird. But... well, :)


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly think the harvesting needs more depth, I think adding abilities will help, but still just doing a single target rotation on a target dummy isn't that interesting.  I personally would like a system that keeps the doober spews at 25/50/75/100%, but gives you bonus doobers (both amount and quality) for the amount of overkill done at the 50% and 100% thresholds.  This would do several things.  It would force players to balance and time their damage output on the node.  You aren't just wanting to go all out, instead you want to get as close to 50/100% as you can, and then load up a big hit to get the maximum bonus.  It also gives players of different skill levels a role in group harvesting.  Say you have 3 people, you would want one player (dabbling veteran) to do consistent and moderate strikes to get you towards the 50/100% thresholds quickly, then you would want a player (newbie) to do smaller hits to get you to right to 51%/99%, then you would want a player (dedicated veteran) to be the big hitter and swing at 51%/99% to get maximum overkill.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lephys said:

<snip>

Also, I honestly cannot tell you the current system, off the top of my head. Like, there are 3 people, each with the same tool, and a node. I'm a newbie and have never played a video game before. Explain to me, please, in a simplistic fashion, how harvesting currently works, and what I want to do to maximize my gains, in the current system. I want to see if it can be done. The only reason I even thought of my idea is because it's extremely easy to explain. Hit nodes, get stuff. The longer a node lives, the more hits you get. Boom. It can always get more elaborate from there. The current system is only simple(ish) until you add in multiple people. At which point it becomes Engineering 101 homework. To me at least. Maybe I'm weird... well, I'm DEFINITELY weird. But... well, :)

I was just trying to get you to focus your efforts on suggestions that had a chance to be implemented. You obviously have a desire and mentality to design systems, but if you want to theorycraft things that can never be, go right ahead.

This is a simplistic explanation of the current system. A system that I think is flawed because it is totally without personal skill. Skill that could be added as it relates to social, multi participant management, without adding some daft mini game.

Quote

You use a tool to damage nodes. The more damage you do, the faster the node goes down and the more you can harvest from destroying nodes.  To get more material from a node, you will want to get buffs, train in plentiful harvest, and improve your chances for critical hits on the 25/50/75/100 portions of each node. You can do this with better equipment, disciplines, or through training the skills.

I have noticed where you make comments, about "managing" individual damage to get the right number.  That is impossible, short of switching tool quality mid harvest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/23/2017 at 6:36 PM, KrakkenSmacken said:

I was just trying to get you to focus your efforts on suggestions that had a chance to be implemented. You obviously have a desire and mentality to design systems, but if you want to theorycraft things that can never be, go right ahead.

Hey... I can appreciate your perspective on this. My way is not the only way to view it. And I appreciate your efforts to make sure I understand the possibility of my ideas being unrealistic in the scope of the game's current state. I do. I'm merely trying to collaborate on the brainstorm. I know I have a weird brain, and a very particular way of seeing things, and I know I have only a novice's understanding of programming at the moment, and not even that of game programming/engineering. The only thing I can say is, I can at least understand from updates that ACE has presented, that, when a system like Ammo for example gets implemented, it functions a certain way to gather, store, track, and re-use data in relation to other systems. So, for example, if you have Ammo in the game already, then, in crafting, you could feasibly utilize the Ammo system you've already coding to set up some kind of fuel system for crafting stations. The fact that ammo works with a weapon and fuel works with a device is fairly insignificant, since "weapon" and "device" are simply constructs that we use to identify things with our human brains. The computer doesn't care that much that it's actually a weapon or not, so it's not too hard to repurpose such a system for a secondary use. They've even pointed out examples of this with many of the subsystems as they've come online. "Now we can do THIS and THIS and THIS, all based on this one subsystem we've made."

So, in my mind, it's not completely ridiculous to think that, since the systems for damage and abilities and buffs (regarding damage) and healing and such are already in the game, they could simply repurpose things to build something akin to the system I described. Hypothetically. And when I say "simply," I mean that it would take work, but not "Oh crap, guys, we have to build a system that would track damage on a node and allow people to be buffed in order to deal different damages to the node in certain circumstances, etc." levels of work. It's like a resource. Once you've built class resources, you can make a new class, and a new resource. Is it Stamina? Or Mana? Well, they both function essentially the same way, but with different math. Maybe one regens and one doesn't. Maybe one only goes up when you attack. They aren't two completely different systems. They're variants of the same system.

So, that is my understanding... merely that it probably isn't impossible or insane to think to utilize existing systems in the way that I've described (or a similar way, at least). Again, maybe it's not the best idea, but that isn't for me to decide or worry about, even. I only present ideas I believe have some kind of merit in the grand scheme of things. It's not like you've got to use 100% of my idea, or none at all. Maybe 5% of my idea is helpful in overcoming some shortcoming or problem the current system encounters. Who knows. It's a collaborative effort, not a competition. :)

Quote

This is a simplistic explanation of the current system. A system that I think is flawed because it is totally without personal skill. Skill that could be added as it relates to social, multi participant management, without adding some daft mini game.

*sigh*... I've been over this same thing before, but "mini game" is far too broad a term. The system I described is LITERALLY just combat in its function, only I think an exact replica of combat against an inanimate object would be, understandably, somewhat less interesting or engaging than combat against things that are reciprocating the combat. Thus, I tried to make something different. The main point of my entire idea is that there be actually an interesting/dynamic goal to ANYTHING that's going to take a while to do. Basically, if you're not going to just instantaneously go out and gather lots of stuff, or just set up machines that collect stuff while you're not actively spending time collecting it, then you want that to be interesting. That's basically gameplay 101. Do you know the definition of "grind" within gaming? It's an activity in which you must engage as part of the core goals of the game, but that is wholly uninteresting or engaging. Something that requires time and effort you have no desire to put into it is a grind. Well, I guess objectively that statistically "no one" wants to put into it. "You" could have no desire to do it, but that doesn't make it a grind. I don't want to play Fighting games, but that doesn't mean they're "a grind" and shouldn't be produced. If I want resources, but have no interest in collecting resources, then the game provides me with ways to acquire them from other people who did the harvesting for me, so it really can't be considered "a grind" unless even the people who love harvesting have trouble finding a reason to actually DO the harvesting.

The current system has all the statistical logistics of a good resources system, but barely any substance to make it a good harvesting system. And I know it's still a young system, but the goal from the get-go should be how to make it engaging. The sheer fact that we now actionly "attack" nodes is not really, in-and-of-itself, a positive thing. It allows for people to actively engage nodes, rather than standing around watching their characters harvest, but it still doesn't really give them a reason to actively engage then nodes. It's the same as a difference between a system in which things have health bars and you have attacks that deal damage, and combat. This is why even combat systems can become grinds, when the amount of combat one needs to complete in order to continue character progression or to acquire certain materials only found through drops EXCEEDS the engagement or interestingness of that combat. i.e. "go kill 73 wild boars, which present no challenge whatsoever, so you can get these boar hides or complete this quest."

I don't expect something to NEVER become boring. If you do something for a long enough consecutive number of hours, you're going to burn out on it. But, tomorrow, or 3 days from now, you should want to do it again if the system is designed correctly. The goal is to make sure it doesn't lend itself to become quickly boring, or worse, boring from the get-go.

What I'm after is not a mini game. It's a mega game. :)


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


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

 

*sigh*... I've been over this same thing before, but "mini game" is far too broad a term. The system I described is LITERALLY just combat in its function, only I think an exact replica of combat against an inanimate object would be, understandably, somewhat less interesting or engaging than combat against things that are reciprocating the combat. Thus, I tried to make something different.

I was talking about ACE's current system lacking anything at related to personal skill, not yours. If you're going to build a system that the skill is about math, then that math should line up with the same goals all other similar systems in the game have. In the case of whacking things to deliver damage and get positive results, those systems are always more damage is better.

I just don't think anything related to trying to do less damage rather than more, is at all intuitive or a good idea.

Different is not always better.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies. I clearly misunderstood.

I understand, and I respect that you don't really like that idea. One more thing (and I promise this is the last thing) that I'll say regarding it -- a comparison that for some reason I couldn't think of before -- is that the idea I had going into it was that of durability on weapons. You essentially have two things you're dealing with:

1) The health of your enemy (you want to maximize damage)
2) The health of your weapon (you want to minimize damage)

Those get paired pretty easily in the context of combat, so my brain was just pairing them in the context of harvesting. I guess really it's the same idea as a harvesting tool has while you're harvesting, so I realize that could be seen as redundant. In general, I just thought having abilities that could essentially boost the durability of the node, and/or otherwise affect the actual lifespan of the node, would expand the possibilities within the harvesting mechanic, rather than simply doing maximum damage. Kind of like in combat, you have damage, and you have healing.

I was also trying to think of ways in which to support action harvesting "attacks." If you're going to be clicking to do things to a node, then it'd be advantageous to focus on the effects of each swing (again, much like combat, in the sense of the significance of your individual decisions). For example, you wouldn't want combat in which you simply have buffs, auto attack, and maybe stances. You want to move around (placement is a factor), and make different kinds of attacks that do different things (rather than purely dish out damage), etc.

So, yeah... thinking "action harvesting" in lieu of the new system, but trying to figure out what works with harvesting as opposed to combat (until they announce moving golems that try to kill you whilst you try to mine their backs, which honestly sounds kind of fun, but... *shrug*) and what does not. I guess I'm just hoping for responses that can correct my ideas, rather than discard them. I.e. "that would be more intuitive if you did X."

Granted, I'm not saying you, personally, should have responses that correct my ideas. Hence the "hoping for" rather than "expecting." :)

I appreciate your responses and apologize for any misunderstanding, lack of clarity, or longwindedness on my part (especially the longwindedness.)


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


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

Apologies. I clearly misunderstood.

I understand, and I respect that you don't really like that idea. One more thing (and I promise this is the last thing) that I'll say regarding it -- a comparison that for some reason I couldn't think of before -- is that the idea I had going into it was that of durability on weapons. You essentially have two things you're dealing with:

1) The health of your enemy (you want to maximize damage)
2) The health of your weapon (you want to minimize damage)

Those get paired pretty easily in the context of combat, so my brain was just pairing them in the context of harvesting. I guess really it's the same idea as a harvesting tool has while you're harvesting, so I realize that could be seen as redundant. In general, I just thought having abilities that could essentially boost the durability of the node, and/or otherwise affect the actual lifespan of the node, would expand the possibilities within the harvesting mechanic, rather than simply doing maximum damage. Kind of like in combat, you have damage, and you have healing.

I was also trying to think of ways in which to support action harvesting "attacks." If you're going to be clicking to do things to a node, then it'd be advantageous to focus on the effects of each swing (again, much like combat, in the sense of the significance of your individual decisions). For example, you wouldn't want combat in which you simply have buffs, auto attack, and maybe stances. You want to move around (placement is a factor), and make different kinds of attacks that do different things (rather than purely dish out damage), etc.

So, yeah... thinking "action harvesting" in lieu of the new system, but trying to figure out what works with harvesting as opposed to combat (until they announce moving golems that try to kill you whilst you try to mine their backs, which honestly sounds kind of fun, but... *shrug*) and what does not. I guess I'm just hoping for responses that can correct my ideas, rather than discard them. I.e. "that would be more intuitive if you did X."

Granted, I'm not saying you, personally, should have responses that correct my ideas. Hence the "hoping for" rather than "expecting." :)

I appreciate your responses and apologize for any misunderstanding, lack of clarity, or longwindedness on my part (especially the longwindedness.)

They have already built that into the baseline node types.  Tier 1 nodes are weaker (have less armor) and are easier to take down than Tier 9.  You do more damage per swing with the same gear and skill against a tier 1 node than a tier 9.

Again, there is no choice or personal skill on the part of the player.  

If you want to push a trained skill that does that, then some sort of ability to temporarily bump a node up in type would cover it off, without all the convolution.  

The key problem there is, that would have to be very tightly controlled, to the point of being useless, because each Nodes tier is tied to the parcel type it is on, and the band the campagin is in.  This is the material gate so that legendary materials NEVER drop in the outer bands.

Start adding things that can improve a nodes tier, and you start risking nodes distributing materials that should never be found in that band.

 Again, my suggestion of triggering more rolls on the resource tables, the less swings you took to break the node sections, keeps things along the natural line of "more damage = better results", which is what the entire system is based around already, without adding the risk of changing the quality tables in regions that should not have higher quality.

-----

Now if they replaced the parcel quality modifier completely with a harvester power, that could actually be interesting.  You enter campaigns where ALL nodes are the same, and the upper limits of resources can only be pulled by players who have trained the ability to upgrade the nodes they come across.

So a fully trained ore harvester for example could push a tier 1 node up to 6, making that the last node on each material type they could train, would greatly improve the importance of having dedicated harvesters, since the Labor disk has greatly diminished the importance of that role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the problem with simply changing the node tier, as it changes a lot more than just "durability." Also, your idea of "the fewer swings, the better" is a pretty good one. The general gameplay there is puzzley, but you could have time-sensitive stuff (not like "MILLISECONDS LEFT TO CLICK THIS!", but more... "you can't just take all day, as once you start hitting this node, every 10 seconds that passes, the roll chance count drops" or something), and/or just lots of room for collaborative combos, such that it's actually interesting and dynamic to use teamwork to break the nodes faster. And you get those really satistfying "YES! We just got 8 loot rolls on the first section instead of the usual 4 or so! That was AWESOME!". I definitely want it to be something you're actively do-ing as a team, rather than just "well, we all stand around thwacking this thing, but we get to click now, and a bunch of passive numbers change because of who's thwacking it and with what tool, and that's it. We just wait for the loots."

 

1 hour ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

Now if they replaced the parcel quality modifier completely with a harvester power, that could actually be interesting.  You enter campaigns where ALL nodes are the same, and the upper limits of resources can only be pulled by players who have trained the ability to upgrade the nodes they come across.

So a fully trained ore harvester for example could push a tier 1 node up to 6, making that the last node on each material type they could train, would greatly improve the importance of having dedicated harvesters, since the Labor disk has greatly diminished the importance of that role.

Indeed! Just... the idea that this stuff's out there in the ground, and both your trained skills and active efforts are producing better results for you and others nearby is great. Plus, it simplifies the currently-convoluted "whose bonus does what?" dilemma. If the best person involved in a given node, for example, is trained to Harvesting Power 6, then it's a Power 6 node.

This is kind of where I was going with the whole "different kind of damage/effectiveness bar" component of my previous idea. What if you had this clear indicator of your loot chances (relative to whatever baseline you want on a given node... I guess there's no reason a mega-awesome harvester should just get to run around mining Immaculate Dragonite out of every pebble he finds) that could be directly improved, as a part of the whole efficient node-breaking idea? Whether it's purely fewest swings, or a couple of factors, a higher-trained harvester would always contribute, in a clear proportional way, to improving those loot chances (filling that bar, if the points-buildup subsystem fits in anywhere) of that node at each stage of destruction.

I feel that there has to be some mix of the inherent limits of a node, and the limits of what kind of bonuses your character can produce. I keep mentioning the possibility of some kind of progress bar, though, for a bonus, because then EVERYONE can see what the current status of the harvesting bonus is on that node, and contribute accordingly. In the event some kind of buff can only be used once every 3 minutes or something (or anything else that was limited in use that would contribute to harvesting bonus), one could simply look at the bar and say "Oh, we're about to hit the maximum bonus for this section of node. I don't need to boost everyone's node damage right now." That sort of thing. And it's just a clear goal for collaborative effort.

I would love for everyone to be able to jump into harvesting and say "Here's how it works, here's what I can contribute to a given node, and now I have to do something engaging to try to maximize my bonus from this node." Then, just have it naturally stack the more people there are. Maybe even have different size nodes, instead of just "regular" and "motherlode"? Anywho... I tend to get logistical "on-paper" ideas much more easily than "Okay here's exactly how it would be designed in Crowfall" ideas, so please bear with me on the "what if it worked like THIS? Or maybe THIS?" stuff.


This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


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

Now if they replaced the parcel quality modifier completely with a harvester power, that could actually be interesting.  You enter campaigns where ALL nodes are the same, and the upper limits of resources can only be pulled by players who have trained the ability to upgrade the nodes they come across.

So a fully trained ore harvester for example could push a tier 1 node up to 6, making that the last node on each material type they could train, would greatly improve the importance of having dedicated harvesters, since the Labor disk has greatly diminished the importance of that role.

That is a really fantastic idea.  That's the first suggestion I've heard that would give me any clue as to why someone would actually WANT to train into harvesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pann I don't know if you've looked at/played Epic Game's Fortnite, but they did something really interesting with their "hold left click / action harvesting" that could work really well for Crowfall. 

When you begin harvesting it creates a small target spot randomly located on the harvestable. Striking that spot does double damage, then the target spot moves to another random location on the harvestable. It creates a rewarding game of "whack-a-mole" that you don't HAVE to participate in, but does greatly increase harvest speed for an engaged player. [Random Vids below to show it in action]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRevuTysdA0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW0J1QabMrA

Share this post


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

That is a really fantastic idea.  That's the first suggestion I've heard that would give me any clue as to why someone would actually WANT to train into harvesting.

What would make it more interesting, would be if nodes by default had one appearance, rather small and insignificant, and then the harvester essentially summoned up a larger node, in an awesome display of casting power.  Trees could blossom, and fallen critter could swell and grow in size, graves could bulge and the dead become partly exposed.

So maybe the role of a harvest leader could be to summon nodes up, while others knock them down with tools. Obviously a dedicated harvester would be wanted to knock them down faster as well, but perhaps the act of summoning up the node would permanently apply ALL the bonus values the harvester had to the node (Crit chance, amounts, etc), so they don't NEED to be the one to knock it down, making it finally a truly team activity.

Then the only thing that would improve the team's performance over and above the best harvester present, is high quality tools.

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While that's interesting, my concern would be that that would be too much passive effect. What I mean is, you're now the most awesome, maxed-at-255-skill Harvesting Leader there is, so the entirety of Harvesting is just your summoning up an abundance of boosted nodes, then everyone tediously chipping them all down into doobers. EDIT: That is not to say scrap the idea. Merely... I would want to make sure the balance was shifted more towards collaborative, in-the-moment effort, so that you could celebrate having actively affected the outcome of doober-looting to a significant extent DURING the harvesting, rather than passive training being responsible for 90+% of the outcome, if that makes sense.

The Fortnite thing mentioned by Quorumof4 is cool, although simplistic. But, I will say... there's a similar mechanic in Evolve, with the sniper-medic's sniper rifle. Where you shoot the creature puts a small weak spot on its hide, allowing others who shoot it right there to deal 2x damage. Now, that's more of a collaborative offensive use of the mechanic, but the effect of just that one simple thing is amazing on the "just shoot it 'til its health is gone" foundation of gameplay.

The general idea is definitely to make sure that HOW you're killing a node actually engages your mind. Again, falling back on the core idea that if it takes time and effort, make sure there's a reason for players to want to spend that time and effort (and not just in rewards, but in the actual enjoyment of the task at hand). Sure, people might get sick of a "hit it in the right spot" mechanic, but all the more reason to brainstorm until we find an even better idea that makes it harder to get sick of. Certain people are just going to subjectively get sick of it, which... there's not really much to do about that. Still, doing something engaging that you could get sick of after X amount of time is leagues better than the "watch your character and a bunch of passive numbers do all the stuff while you just literally wait on results but still spend time doing so" design.

Edited by Lephys
Extra thought in first paragraph

This post brought to you by...
Lephys. Because everything's better with a smile facepalm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lephys said:

The Fortnite thing mentioned by Quorumof4 is cool, although simplistic. But, I will say... there's a similar mechanic in Evolve, with the sniper-medic's sniper rifle. Where you shoot the creature puts a small weak spot on its hide, allowing others who shoot it right there to deal 2x damage. Now, that's more of a collaborative offensive use of the mechanic, but the effect of just that one simple thing is amazing on the "just shoot it 'til its health is gone" foundation of gameplay.

ohh yeah totally forgot about that similar though offensive use in evolve of such mechanic, but yeah maybe even have it so the higher lvl crafter then would be adding those weak spots for everyone, and the higher you lvl maybe the bigger (but never insane big so they cover the entire thing, but rather like as soon as you get it ppl have to be like pixel perfect, but at higher lvls they get a bit more room they can hit), and also increase the bonus dmg it would do to the node, should be pretty easy to fit into the skilltrees as nodes as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Suggestion for the Harvestingsystem would be to add the weakspot mechanic of the assassin in harvesting and let harvester move arround a note.
if the mechanic wouldnt fit, a cast of a aoe field, cursed by the Tree (based on the harvester lvl)(prog), that gives the player, who stays in the field, 100% crit for a short time, could fit aswell.

Its not that annoying to aim on a special point (Fortnite) everytime and also motivates harvesters to move and look arround.

so i would prefer the Buff on one reason that if u harvest with multiple ppl the crit place could be really full ;D

also with that mechanic u could prevent harvesters for chatting while harvesting :)

Edited by DravoiX

rUQlYHs.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like some of the ideas brought up here, but I think there's been a misconception on the utility of raising the skill in harvesting trees.

While we are spoiled in game now with the harvesting potions, those will go away when game goes live. 

Anyone can harvest nodes, but skilled harvesters for that node type will have the most success getting the resource from that node, including higher quality versions of that resource (purples).

It's here where the harvesters get their true benefit. Being able to get large amounts of higher quality resource vs non skilled harvestors.

Which will make training as a harvestor beneficial if you plan to have epic quality gear. 

 

Edited by Deernado

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still like the idea of mapping sweet spots on the node models themselves and having harvesting skills that give visual and audible queues that indicate to a skilled player that the spot you align with on the node is "sweeter" and gives a higher chance of quality and quantity.   This would make "active" mean more than damage but actual searching the node for its best harvest spot...   taking just a few more seconds to check various spots after getting passive skills that help you find them is real "action".


6FUI4Mk.jpg

                                                        Sugoi - Senpai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/3/2017 at 8:35 AM, Deernado said:

I like some of the ideas brought up here, but I think there's been a misconception on the utility of raising the skill in harvesting trees.

While we are spoiled in game now with the harvesting potions, those will go away when game goes live. 

Anyone can harvest nodes, but skilled harvesters for that node type will have the most success getting the resource from that node, including higher quality versions of that resource (purples).

It's here where the harvesters get their true benefit. Being able to get large amounts of higher quality resource vs non skilled harvestors.

Which will make training as a harvestor beneficial if you plan to have epic quality gear. 

 

I've done the testing, with and without the pots, with and without the training, and the training does not have the impact imagined.  Those damn pots are totally skewing the experience and productivity in a really bad way.

In short, you basically have to train for a year before your overcome the bonus applied by the labor rune, and never really come close to the bonus applied by the critical/beneficial harvest pots.

Harvesting needs a QA pass for numbers and experience after we have a chance test the tray model out.

Share this post


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

I still like the idea of mapping sweet spots on the node models themselves and having harvesting skills that give visual and audible queues that indicate to a skilled player that the spot you align with on the node is "sweeter" and gives a higher chance of quality and quantity.   This would make "active" mean more than damage but actual searching the node for its best harvest spot...   taking just a few more seconds to check various spots after getting passive skills that help you find them is real "action".

SInce they have opened up moving around while harvesting in 5.3, there are way more options now for this sort of thing.

If they did this, they could add a skill that offered additional sweet spots for each pip.  So each time you hit that specific spot you activate an additional roll of the plentiful harvest table, improve crit odds and crit amount when the node breaks. So to get the full value you have to hit a maximum of 5 different sweet spots on each node. These spots reset every 25/50/75. 

For group play, if there are less identified sweet spots than the highest trained harvester has when they swing, the number goes up, and all players get to see all the sweet spots, so each one could pick one to hit, and this would generate a reason for group play.

That would be pretty active, give you a good reward for taking the time to line each shot up and to take additional training.

If they add a mini game like this, they need to make playing that mini game worth while, more than just RNG improvements.  More materials for each target hit would be real reward.

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...