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

Is crowfall fundamentally boring?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Helix said:

I guess the question is how "hard" should people have to work for it?

I think a better question is for how "long" should people have to work for it?

I find no part of crafting or harvesting difficult. It's tedious more than anything. Putting higher level nodes within adventure zones will make getting high quality items harder but it does nothing for the lengthy amount of time that first set of advanced gear takes. 

I think that armor should be "easy come, easy go" where the current crafting/harvesting time/requirements should be cut in half or even to one third of current levels. To keep the economy flowing items/weapons should take durability hits on use (so when you take damage your armor decays, when you do damage your weapon decays). 

That way gearing up isn't such a long task but it also doesn't harm the economy. If material costs are decreased then durability loss (aka gear churn) must increase. 

Outside of death, armor/weapons don't really decay. The in combat decay is not even noticeable. I used the same mail chest piece on my myrmidon/champion from the start of 5.4 all the way through and it had 40% durability on it left when they wiped. 

 

Share this post


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

Then why did Blair and JTodd sit down a year+ ago talking about how you could either make really powerful character or even break your character? 

 

 

That was with disciplines, and now vessel leveling via sacrifice XP, not permanent to account skills training.

Characters are not accounts, and skill training is locked to account, and a metric crap ton of time.  If that can be broken, the only solution for a player would be to stop playing the game.

Hardly a desirable outcome.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


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

I think a better question is for how "long" should people have to work for it?

I find no part of crafting or harvesting difficult. It's tedious more than anything. Putting higher level nodes within adventure zones will make getting high quality items harder but it does nothing for the lengthy amount of time that first set of advanced gear takes. 

I think that armor should be "easy come, easy go" where the current crafting/harvesting time/requirements should be cut in half or even to one third of current levels. To keep the economy flowing items/weapons should take durability hits on use (so when you take damage your armor decays, when you do damage your weapon decays). 

That way gearing up isn't such a long task but it also doesn't harm the economy. If material costs are decreased then durability loss (aka gear churn) must increase. 

Outside of death, armor/weapons don't really decay. The in combat decay is not even noticeable. I used the same mail chest piece on my myrmidon/champion from the start of 5.4 all the way through and it had 40% durability on it left when they wiped. 

 

I would rather they adjust the volumes harvested over changing all the crafting recipes.  That sort of thing seems like an easier solution, and from an emotional level I believe getting more material would feel much better, especially at the start when you can knock down two whole nodes and get literally nothing.

Share this post


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

I would rather they adjust the volumes harvested over changing all the crafting recipes.  That sort of thing seems like an easier solution, and from an emotional level I believe getting more material would feel much better, especially at the start when you can knock down two whole nodes and get literally nothing.

I took over 30 minutes to craft a set of mail in 5.4. That's with 1 second craft times on many things, good knowledge of the interface and max skill training.

Without changing the recipes it can't be easy come, easy go because it literally takes over 30 minutes of clicking to make a set of armor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, blazzen said:

I took over 30 minutes to craft a set of mail in 5.4. That's with 1 second craft times on many things, good knowledge of the interface and max skill training.

Without changing the recipes it can't be easy come, easy go because it literally takes over 30 minutes of clicking to make a set of armor. 

That's a crafting time/complexity/interface issue then, not harvesting resources issue then.  Cutting the recipes in half would not fix the time/complexity/interface issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be flamed, but could we try slashing the costs for planks, bars, and armor components to 3 per plank/bar? I am a primarily PvP focused player who has uncommon/rare advanced gear on Live currently.

Some may say this will make gatherers useless....but does it really?

1)If PvP gets to the point where it is constant and widespread(which it should be for this game to be fun imo) people will be burning through gear.
2) The best farming areas should be PvP hotspots, which will further increase the time to gather.
3) Even with cutting bar/planks to 3 per item, epic and legendary still requires a decent grind. The gatherers can still put massive time in to gather and come out with better equipment in.
4) Mass production is another reason why gatherers can still gather for long periods of time with decreased equipment costs. People will want to min/max their equipment.
5) The special drops that only gatherers can get are also significant and worth gathering for

Benefits of lower armor/weapon costs:
1) People aren't afraid to fight with mid tier advanced gear(rare).
2) Killing gatherers is even more rewarding because you need less materials to create gear.
3) Both sides having similar gear = fun fights. When the losing side can re-equip with ease = more fun.
4) Gatherers can gather less if they want to...but gathering more still has significant benefits.
 

 

Edited by MJayed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cloudfly said:

Then why did Blair and JTodd sit down a year+ ago talking about how you could either make really powerful character or even break your character? 

 

 

You mean back when the entire training system was different, disciplines were a far off fantasy, and character builds were primarily a function of training promotion classes?

Back when locational damage, "everything is a projectile", and "all armor just has different resists on it" were concepts that failed in practice?

Before they switched to a system where characters builds are primarily a function of disciplines, vessels, race, class, and gear in stead of skill training?


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


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

I may be flamed, but could we try slashing the costs for planks, bars, and armor components to 3 per plank/bar? I am a primarily PvP focused player who has uncommon/rare advanced gear on Live currently.

Some may say this will make gatherers useless....but does it really?

1)If PvP gets to the point where it is constant and widespread(which it should be for this game to be fun imo) people will be burning through gear.
2) The best farming areas should be PvP hotspots, which will further increase the time to gather.
3) Even with cutting bar/planks to 3 per item, epic and legendary still requires a decent grind. The gatherers can still put massive time in to gather and come out with better equipment in.
4) Mass production is another reason why gatherers can still gather for long periods of time with decreased equipment costs. People will want to min/max their equipment.
5) The special drops that only gatherers can get are also significant and worth gathering for

Benefits of lower armor/weapon costs:
1) People aren't afraid to fight with mid tier advanced gear(rare).
2) Killing gatherers is even more rewarding because you need less materials to create gear.
3) Both sides having similar gear = fun fights. When the losing side can re-equip with ease = more fun.
4) Gatherers can gather less if they want to...but gathering more still has significant benefits.
 

 

Not flaming here, but you forgot the other side of this coin.

Pitfalls of lower cost armor/weapons:

People aren't afraid to lose gear, and thus engage in lots of pointless and suicidal action. The threat of defeat becomes an unusable political lever.

Killing gatherers is less rewarding because you can more easily supply yourself with less training, disciplines, and gear, thus, less actual opportunity cost and risk/reward for gathering.

When the losing side can re-equip with ease, nobody ever actually wins and nobody actually ever loses. Combat is without significant consequence to defend through implied violence. Implied violence is a necessary lever in MMOs because nobody's army is online 24/7. If it is not potentially devastating to my war chest to assault your fortress, I will simply assault your fortress literally every time I can, or I'll eventually log off because I have no operable economic options to improve my chances of a win by equipping my people better, or building better/more siege weaponry.

Gathering more has less benefits because people that can more easily provide for themselves without dedicated gatherers have no desire or need for gathering specs in their social circle. Nobody wants to buy your ore if they can easily get as much as they need themselves without having to give up combat utility for it. Your efforts are without implicit value as a gatherer when everyone can gather easily.

Breaking the basic fabric of player inter-reliance and eroding the importance of logistics, watering down the "throne war simulator" in to a "repetitive skirmish simulator" because half of war is and should be the economics of war. When amassing significant wealth is not a significant competitive advantage, wealth is meaningless, and thus your economy is a nonfactor. When being rich can not translate to being powerful, the rewards for winning, holding territory, and controlling resources are meaningless.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, blazzen said:

I took over 30 minutes to craft a set of mail in 5.4. That's with 1 second craft times on many things, good knowledge of the interface and max skill training.

Without changing the recipes it can't be easy come, easy go because it literally takes over 30 minutes of clicking to make a set of armor. 

Note that this is a problem that is largely mitigated with the SWG style mass production system they're planning on implementing. Do your armor rolls during some down time, blueprint them, and you're done clicking through crafting menus for a while as you've got a factory you can simply feed resources to in a few clicks to output copies of those rolls for a week/month.


PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They need to keep hand made stuff valuable and different than the mass produced. I would suggest making hand made gear get 3x the durability it has now. It would last a bit longer. but still be decaying with each death. Mass produced stuff should be using the same template but with 1/3rd the mats cost (Where possible, stuff like planks, bars and such where it is easily reduced. ) But have it also come out and around what the durability is at now. or 1/3 of the new hand made durability. 

Mass produced gear would last longer and be more valuable but the same strength could be had from converting it to a blueprint but it needs to be replaced 3x faster. But also costs 3x less. 

Share this post


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

Not flaming here, but you forgot the other side of this coin.

Pitfalls of lower cost armor/weapons:

People aren't afraid to lose gear, and thus engage in lots of pointless and suicidal action. The threat of defeat becomes an unusable political lever.

Killing gatherers is less rewarding because you can more easily supply yourself with less training, disciplines, and gear, thus, less actual opportunity cost and risk/reward for gathering.

When the losing side can re-equip with ease, nobody ever actually wins and nobody actually ever loses. Combat is without significant consequence to defend through implied violence. Implied violence is a necessary lever in MMOs because nobody's army is online 24/7. If it is not potentially devastating to my war chest to assault your fortress, I will simply assault your fortress literally every time I can, or I'll eventually log off because I have no operable economic options to improve my chances of a win by equipping my people better, or building better/more siege weaponry.

Gathering more has less benefits because people that can more easily provide for themselves without dedicated gatherers have no desire or need for gathering specs in their social circle. Nobody wants to buy your ore if they can easily get as much as they need themselves without having to give up combat utility for it. Your efforts are without implicit value as a gatherer when everyone can gather easily.

Breaking the basic fabric of player inter-reliance and eroding the importance of logistics, watering down the "throne war simulator" in to a "repetitive skirmish simulator" because half of war is and should be the economics of war. When amassing significant wealth is not a significant competitive advantage, wealth is meaningless, and thus your economy is a nonfactor. When being rich can not translate to being powerful, the rewards for winning, holding territory, and controlling resources are meaningless.

Yet Ultima Online was able to find the perfect balance when it came to keeping harvesters, crafters needed and not bogging the game down into unnecessary tedium. Right now the fear of losing gear is largely due to people not wanting to get throw back into the harvesting grind. That to me, from a player perspective, sounds terrible. Your players should never "dread" having to do something in the game.

The reality is that there really won't be a distinction between harvesters and fighters; with VIP they're one and the same. You have to harvest, there is no way to avoid it. Factories won't solve this problem; if anything they'll add to it. Unless of course the developers can find some way to make harvesting not such a grueling task.

I also believe that external guild trade will be very limited. I mean, you're not going to want to arm your enemies. Independent harvesters / crafters won't really exist, at least in any proficient way, not with the system as it is now.

Edited by Helix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Helix said:

You have to harvest, there is no way to avoid it.

Maybe if this was a solo game, with no looting and no trading, that would be true.

Edited by Jah

IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


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

Yet Ultima Online was able to find the perfect balance when it came to keeping harvesters, crafters needed and not bogging the game down into unnecessary tedium. Right now the fear of losing gear is largely due to people not wanting to get throw back into the harvesting grind. That to me, from a player perspective, sounds terrible. Your players should never "dread" having to do something in the game.

The reality is that there really won't be a distinction between harvesters and fighters; with VIP they're one and the same. You have to harvest, there is no way to avoid it. Factories won't solve this problem; if anything they'll add to it. Unless of course the developers can find some way to make harvesting not such a grueling task.

I also believe that external guild trade will be very limited. I mean, you're not going to want to arm your enemies. Independent harvesters / crafters won't really exist, at least in any proficient way, not with the system as it is now.

Ultima Online's primary design goal was not to create a systemic expression of war in which people actually won and lost. Ultima Online's primary design goal was to create a stable and persistent ecology that sustained both PvE and PvP play. It failed at doing so despite its best efforts simply because it didn't have the benefit of years of actual player behavior to reference. Players wrecked its ecology, consistently gamed its systems in ways that broke its design, and it was full of broken and annoying systems because it was the first of its kind. It was an important game, and it was a fun game, but UO didn't strike a "perfect balance" in any part of its design. Not even close. UO was a mess that was fun because it was a mess unlike anything else available at the time.

There won't be a distinction between harvesters and fighters in terms of training, but the harvester/fighter/crafter split isn't about the flawed perception that players only do one thing. Its the distinction between what that player is doing RIGHT NOW and how much time and effort is invested. Its helpful to talk about these things in terms of extremes because game design is general is a practice of placing limits based upon extremes. Extremes are what's going to break your design. When the extreme you're pushing for is "everybody should be able to pvp without consequences all the time because gathering and crafting is of minimal importance or time investment" you're building a game with an economy that doesn't work and there is no place for anyone other than combatants.

That's the shadowbane economy, which worked because the game was designed around that fact by removing player harvesting and crafting from the table and giving those jobs to NPCs. On the flip side, there was precious little to actually do in shadowbane outside of mine and bane windows other than farm mobs and kill people farming mobs. NPCs mined, and NPCs crafted, and players were simply expected to fight over control of NPCs. When you are creating systems in which you expect players to craft, and you expect players to gather, you must also expect that players can find gratifying permanent gameplay at the extremes of those spectrums and designs systems around those extremes. if you don't, you've wasted a lot of time on systems you don't need. Player harvesting exists, as a system, to require players to harvest in time increments that are significant otherwise there is no reason for that system to exist.

If you want to simply fight all the time, I highly reccommend Guild Wars 2. That's the entire "open PvP" portion of the game. It's fighting  24/7. It naturally rewards gear in token form, it is simple to reach caps, and losing objectives and dying has little actual consequence. I'm sure some people really dig it. I am not one of those people, and I don't want to play yet another "open PvP" game in which the focus is on creating as much combat as possible rather than ensuring that combat is meaningful and winning or losing has significant impact.

In my personal opinion allowing people to "fight more" and "farm less" is not a good design metric because it leads immediately to throwaway loot which leads to throwaway fights. That paradigm is adequately expressed across the MMO space. If I wanted that paradigm I could go play what passes for PvP in just about every other "mainstream" offering. I'm here because I don't find those experiences very compelling. While it is true that there is a delicate balance to strike for these systems, it is my honest opinion that the appropriate lever upon which to adjust that balance lies in expanding the consumption period for resources rather than shortening the production period.

In the end these are statements of player preference, which differ from person to person, and all opinions are valid. This simply happens to be my opinion.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


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

"everybody should be able to pvp without consequences all the time because gathering and crafting is of minimal importance or time investment" you're building a game with an economy that doesn't work and there is no place for anyone other than combatants.

Except that's not what I'm trying to purpose at all; consequences will still exist, especially when you consider full loot in the equation. I'm a firm believer of easy to acquire, easy to lose. Right now we have hard to acquire, easy to lose.  I have my doubts (partly confirmed by many peope I've talked to who have experience with playing within the game/test, and many who have an outside perspective) that having such a grueling and mind numbing game mechanic being so front and center (namely harvesting) will be able to retain players numbers of any financially sustainable possibility. Right now there is far too much stick, and not enough carrot, and that carrot is itself kinda wilting. If you want to see want a nonsensical grind does to games, head over to LiF: MMO.

Edited by Helix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my personal experience, easy to acquire and easy to lose leads to an economy in which good items are without value and ultimately undesirable, and dedicated harvesting and crafting playstyles simply do not exist. Your data here is predicated on a game state that isn't representitive of the intent of a finished product as it lacks operable currencies, operable mass production systems, and operable asynchronous trade.

Gold is not currently and operable currency as it lacks any utility to those not attempting to run a vendor.

Vendors are not currently an adequate system of asynchronous trade because of the missing intrinsic value of gold and the limitiations of the current EK permissions which prevent most players from actually keeping their vendors online 24/7, the requirement to spend limited import/export resources to shop, and the overall low desire to trade items of intrinsic value (materials and crafted items) for a currency with little to no intrinsic value (gold coins)

Crafting's time/effort investment is not adequately represented at the moment as every single item must be randomly rolled from start to finish in the absence of a functioning mass production system. The value of items in the only "real" MMO currency of time is drastically inflated for this reason.

On top of all that, we are lacking stable long term metrics because of repeated and frequent spirit bank wipes constantly resetting that entire economy to a zero supply extreme demand state.

"Harvesting takes too long" is not the cause of any of they economy's current issues. The economy's current issues have a lot more to do with its design as a passive and dectralized system that lacks the key mechanical components of a passive and decentralized system. This leads to the natural assumption that the game expects people to generalize rather than specialize in a skill system that isn't designed for it.

It is absolutely a problem viewed from that lens, and one ACE seems cognizant of. I hate to be that guy that's just like "Its pre-alpha your argument is invalid" because that's not always an operable excuse. I do believe that in the discussion about the crafting economy it is a significant part of the problem.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just want to play a PvP-focused game without ever having to touch any harvesting or crafting...  I wouldn't mind having to find some way to earn money to buy things from crafters, but I don't want any part of gathering or crafting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be awesome if players could hire NPCs to go harvest, and those NPCs could be killed by other players.  There could still be a benefit to player harvesting (higher chance of better quality doobers or whatever).  But outsourcing harvesting to NPCs would definitely help that aspect of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2018 at 7:36 AM, Jah said:

Aside from the mention of destroying what other have built/obtained it sounds like you'd prefer a battleground with short matches and nothing but pvp. How much do you want your opponents to care about what they built/obtained before you destroy it? Do you want them to have worked hard to get it, or would it be fine if they got it free at the start of a match?

You're not wrong, I like a variety of games. However, I also like what ACE is trying to do, not everything, but most of it.

People should care enough to defend their items/castles, but not care so much that losing results in them quitting, smashing their keyboard, or ultimately not enjoying themselves.

I want everyone to have a good time, winning or losing. Losing sucks, but it doesn't need to cross the line into unpleasant.

If people need to get satisfaction by knowing they've destroyed what took others days/months to build in likely a much smaller time frame, so be it, that's not me.

However, CF should have a lot of moving parts and it isn't easy to water it down to one aspect in this type of discussion. If players are having a great time all the time doing whatever random things and it takes a while to get to a point of siege or whatever, great. My concern is we'll end up with a lot of chore/tedious activities as a means to an end, where it ends up being unpleasant for those that "wasted" their time getting there and losing.

On 3/28/2018 at 8:16 AM, Helix said:

I don't want gear given away freely, but I also don't think harvesting should be the grueling grind it is now for the lower tiers. Right now it's a barrier to entry and a barrier to fun for many people. What would the down side be if white / green gear was significantly easier to craft, BUT broke fast and/or was susceptible to being looted on death, while the higher tier gear took longer and wasn't lootable?

I would like to see something like this but go along with campaign rulesets.

The harsher the CW, the better the rewards, more items that could be looted. Someone wanting to run around in their fancy duds on a "safer" CW wouldn't have a lot to show for their time.

Basically making CW into a Tiered system with better gear being needed for harsher CW with better rewards. Risk vs Reward...

But the gap between green and orange gear wouldn't be that great power wise.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2018 at 11:35 PM, PopeUrban said:

Honestly what you want out of the game is at odds with the game's stated design goals IMO. The survival elements have always been touted as a major feature, and that includes scarcity being debilitating in a combat capacity. "Stuff" isn't supposed to be easy or trivial. "Training" is supposed to be trivial. For the most part, it is.

I'm all for "survival elements" but that can look like many things. Most games labeled as Survival make it pretty easy to obtain things and lose them with a heavy in/out flow. Don't know of many that focus on higher and higher tiers/quality where the risk vs reward greatly sways one way or another, especially based on things like passive training and RNG which have rather low player skill requirements.

On 3/28/2018 at 3:10 PM, PopeUrban said:

People aren't afraid to lose gear, and thus engage in lots of pointless and suicidal action. The threat of defeat becomes an unusable political lever.

When the losing side can re-equip with ease, nobody ever actually wins and nobody actually ever loses.

I have no operable economic options to improve my chances of a win by equipping my people better, or building better/more siege weaponry.

Breaking the basic fabric of player inter-reliance and eroding the importance of logistics, watering down the "throne war simulator" in to a "repetitive skirmish simulator" because half of war is and should be the economics of war. When amassing significant wealth is not a significant competitive advantage, wealth is meaningless, and thus your economy is a nonfactor. When being rich can not translate to being powerful, the rewards for winning, holding territory, and controlling resources are meaningless.

Just as an example if it takes 20 min to farm resources then 5 min to craft items then 1 death to lose them, why would people be careless? Unless there are endless players willing to put in endless amounts of time gathering/crafting for knuckleheads to go throw it all away, I don't see how this would work. As campaigns end and someone loses/wins, doesn't matter what the item loop looks like.

As long as the risk/cost requirement is sufficient and balanced with the use time, shouldn't be an issue. Which I believe you agree with. I like your suggestions on durability with basic vs higher crafted gear.

For me, I bought in as ACE seemed against what they call "Uncle Bob." Amassing "wealth" and what not is fine, but there needs to be checks in place to keep the balance between new/old players. This can be done with campaign rulesets in multiple ways, but due to exporting goods and a low player skill based training system, those that came sooner or play longer will likely always have an advantage.

My concern is new or less organized players simply won't be able to compete ever if not for a long while in which they might just give up. Time restraints and heavy reliance on others are two huge obstacles for new "solo" players that can't do much a lone or offer others.

ACE needs to make new players welcome and reward them at least in the short term for not giving up. Maybe some only want "tough" "hardcore" video gamers that really really care about their pixels to play the game, but doesn't seem realistic to me.

4 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

In my personal experience, easy to acquire and easy to lose leads to an economy in which good items are without value and ultimately undesirable, and dedicated harvesting and crafting playstyles simply do not exist.

I hate to be that guy that's just like "Its pre-alpha your argument is invalid" because that's not always an operable excuse.

What games do you have as examples?

We are still in development for sure and much is missing. All we can do is assume, guess, play connect the dots with what we've experienced prior and with what is available currently.

For me it is about Risk/Cost vs Reward. If I'm putting in more than I'm getting back, why bother? Be it virtual goods or entertainment.

Share this post


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

What games do you have as examples?

UO and Mortal Online, both full loot systems in which one death basically meant bye bye to your gear, and you could theoretically get stupidly powerful gear if you bothered to farm rare resources sufficient to build it. In reality nobody built it Everybody made gear out of the best "common" stuff avaliable so they could go bash each other and pull replacements out of the bank.

Easy come easy go systems sound good in theory, but in practice they enforce a culture where there's no room for "legendary equipment" that takes any significant amount of time, effort, or skill/training to assemble because for anything to be usable it has to compete with "what can I reliably replace twelve times today"

In both of those systems you could theoretically build and acquire such items, but when you did, you put them in a bank and stared at them.

The current "rollover economy" isn't really showing off the campaign system's anti-stagnation design because for all intents and purposes everything that mattes is fully persistant and easily avaliable. Imports = exports at the moment, and when you're staring down 100+ imports/exports and have the ability to farm through multiple campaigns nothing is really being left behind.

There are a whole lot of levers that can be tweaked to aide the cost versus loss paradigm, but the entire "easy go" has always rubbed me the wrong way because it robs the player of any attachment to equipment, making systems like unique crafter skins, naming items, and other such things hollow. On top of that "easy go" systems also necessarily require lots and lots of bank space, and the more bank space you have, the less you can squeeze local banks as a mechanic to make people fight over maintining that bank space. Not only that, its irritating. Having one set of backup armor for when my current one breaks? Reasonable. A system in which I'm expected to have ten? Excessive and IMO pointless inventory tetris and logistical headaches. This was a huge problem in EVE online, and EVE had effectively infinite bank space. Those are systems that praise quantity over quality and sameness over uniqueness.

Compare that to the SWG crafting system (which crowfall uses a rarity-simplified version of with 6 rarity levels per material in stead of 999) in which items were complex, unique, and long lasting and you still had a really vibrant economy of people building brands and preferred shops, new players and veterans alike had few problems getting gear, and new crafters were encouraged to break in and destabalize markets not just by volume but cost and exploiting niche materials and markets.

When you can make armor in twenty minutes, you lose that. You aren't shopping or building with an eye for something special. You're shopping and building with an eye for scale because scale is all that matters. You can't run a boutique shop that outputs five really good items a month at really good items prices because its unsustainable. You have to run that operation like Wal-mart and compete solely against other operators of scale or you're out because nobody wants to buy one item, they want to buy twenty.

And those scale based businesses can and will exist in crowfall, but in an easy come easy go system those are the only viable ones. If the goal of faction servers is to let players use merchants rather than guildmates as the primary source of gear you need space for both new new crafter who can only string together an armor set or a handful of swords a day AND the guy with five accounts and three EKs worth of factories pumping out enough hardware to equip a whole guild for a week. When its cheap and disposable, the little guy simply can't compete, and all those weird little hole in the wall whitelist only limited edition shops simply can't exist.

Effort in terms of harvesting/crafting SHOULD absolutely correspond to overall lifespan of an item so that the crafter, guildmate, or buyer of the item is getting something representitive of the time, training, and gameplay risk required to create it. However when you're proposing that time to start crafting is an impediment to PvP and proposing the solution is to make crafting and gathering require less time and effort, you're proposing a permanent solution to a temporary problem of a barren marketplace.

Supply and demand is seriously out of whack and durability is a huge part of that, but encouraging a system in which people go through fifteen suits of armor in a week while mostly winning fights is just not something I can get behind when other solutions to the problem of cost/benefit exist.

Operating under the assumption that everyone is a gatherer or everyone is a crafter is a surefire way to make sure that nobody is a gatherer or a crafter. Operating under the assumption that a minority of individuals are gatherers or crafters and actually designing the system around that ensures that the profit potential for those roles is there, and the guild based need is there. The less often people actually need that stuff replaced, in general, the easier it is for those players to build stock, serve multiple customers, and respond to changing markets/metas.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

Rub rock on face and say "Yes food is eaten now time for fight"

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...