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

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Now that the initial Factory implementaiton should all be on Live, we are looking for feedback from everyone who has used them.

Factories should be a high level building/table in a ranked up keep/castle. We need reasons to build up and invest time in strongholds, so using factories (amongst other things) would definitely fit t

Eventually there will be a time when there are more people that want a keep/castle than there are keep/castles. I don't think this should be kept away from anyone.

Love the factories! I do have one small suggestion though.. 
Can we get some kind of symbol or boarder put on the copy ones so it's easier to tell the difference when it's in your bank? 
Having to mouse over every item to find the original copy is annoying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback in here! Some things will be tweaked because of it.

First on the stop is a tweaking of resource costs. We are shooting for the baseline cost to be what the template item is + normal additives +- a few resources. In the case of armor, it is baselined at the resource cost of the armor + treated steel + specialty seals. What is currently on Live, most recipes are short about 14 dust and a Billet or Two.

We are still figuring out how we can bake in the polish costs to the recipes. More than likely we will put a cost multiplier on the dust cost based on the rarity of the template being copied. The logic being if you are using blue, purple, orange resources, the odds are really high you polished every stage.

A request is in to keep the name of the Crafter from the item template on the copies, and UI is figuring something out so you can see if an item is a copy from the account vault without needing to tooltip each item.

Where we put the number of copies is still up for debate, currently in the 15-20 range and there is lots of feedback that is a tad too high.

Keep the feedback coming!

Thomas Blair
ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.
Follow us on Twitter 
@CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once the resource costs are balanced properly, I think the 15 copy range is good. I want it to be enough mass production to help ease guild supply and logistics, and make maintaining a stocked vendor feasible for merchant/crafters.

tiPrpwh.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fix the access to tables so you can put them in keeps/EK and its pretty good as is IMO.

Stuff costs too much as is, and the logic "if mass production makes crafting cheaper there will be less farming" framed as a negative doesn't make sense to me. Farming is already overtuned for people not regularly benefitting from passive resource income streams so encouraging people to use a system that strikes a better balance between time spent farming and using items to unseat them is a good thing.

Factories should be at-or-less the cost of rolling the initial item. You're already in the hole for the template item. The focus of this system should be a net increase in faster production of more competitive items, not simply less clicking for people that already finished farming.

Rolling is an important part of mass production, and ultimately a well considered system in a bubble. As such the system requiring frequent template item re-rolls down after a small batch feels good. 15-20 items is about perfect. That's enough items to kit out a solid fort or keep squad, or a small pvp group (who will generally experience elevated gear churn due to losses) with enough replacements to last them a bit. That should really be your metric here. What's the use case for mass production? More often than not it is exactly that, replacements for somewhere between 5 and 20 players so they can switch from farming to fighting. Not upgrades. Replacements.

If you end up with a system where mass production is a net increase in farming time or click through time you've cut the entire system off at the knees. Crafting's problems are all about the "dead zone" of either going through progression or clicking through menus after your progression and farming is done. The space in which your goal is to be able to compete but you can't because you need the resources to replace your gear or finish your crafters. There is no intrinsic risk based value or gameplay in the act of crafting, only the decisions made while doing so and the act of acquiring the required materials and, for a few months as a new player, the discs.

I fear that this narrative that "crafters need to maintain their niche" simply doesn't recognize how the game works now and why. Crafters do not have a niche. They stopped having a niche when passive training was removed. This was the point of removing that system. So that players can easily and quickly pool efforts to finish progression and play the game as a system of gear expenditures and acquisitions. So that the game need not be balanced around a moving target of wildly different levels of crafting training and require a small number of niche players to supply a larger number of otherwise specialized players. This is why we were told we went with the system we have now.

The game assumes and requires access to a certain tier of quality for anyone competing, and all of its systems are built around competing with other players. The game as is expects players to have access to crafted items near or above the quality level of their opponents in a given world band or to be farming resources to replace that level of equipment. Getting access to equipment is not how the game loop is designed. Maintaining your currently level of equipment and using it to win fights is. Progression is a temporary system and repacement is the meat of it and so this whole thing needs to be built with that focus in mind. Yes factories should give discs. The focus of the game is not getting discs. It is using them to replace equipment.

The point should be to make outputting quality items easier and more reliable so people actually have and are encouraged to use them. Using them, not getting them, is the focus of the game. This is the thing that its systems are set up to reward. The increased usage of said items in itself cycles those items out of the economy faster as people farming resources are not sinking resources out of the economy, but people who are already geared actually going out and getting in to fights is. In short, the longer you expect people to farm items, the less items are actually leaving the economy because farmers and crafters are not suffering notable durability loss on crafted items. Combat against other players is the primary resource sink for crafted items.

Its why you hear certain guilds talking about "getting an item and using it forever" and others saying "it takes forever to get an item only to lose it in a few days." The amount of farming required when you're old/winning and when you're new/losing are two very different things. More people with higher quality items ultimately results in more competition and item churn that drives farming at competitive high end deposits, forts, and pigs. More people in garbage hitting rocks just results in the winners staying logged out until timers and the losers only beating up mob drops anyway.

PopeSigGIF.gif

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 things

1. make it easier to make the copies. Like for example 5 of the same item, and it takes the same crafting disc to make it.

2. lower the dura per copy, make it some sort of an even number as well for easy math.

 

The original already took way too much time from the player to make it...multiple crafting discs, combinations, food, potions etc. It's good to have options when crafting, but at some point it's tedious. If I need to make like 5 completely different type of weapons it will take me like 1 hour for the whole process, maybe more if mats are spread out. When do I get to play the game?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes little effort to make a piece as a template.  Cost vs Durability should be balanced on one piece being crafted as the template, not making 5 or 6 pieces in hopes for an awesome one then recouping the cost through mass production of the good one.  If you want to go for that masterpiece, that cost input is on you, the system shouldn't be made around your personal choice.  Choosing proper difficulties for your skill will in most cases net you a decent a piece to use for the factory.  Seeing people ask for such high numbers when its already too much baffles me.  Gear doesn't break quickly, and you aren't running around with 25 people using the same weapon/armour nightly.  Pick who gets the good items in your guild for what they actively play, vs flood the market and make things worthless.  Even when DIS was active with 80ish people who played (40-45 would show up for an all call), we didn't see that many of the same type of items being needed.

20 hours ago, PopeUrban said:

I fear that this narrative that "crafters need to maintain their niche" simply doesn't recognize how the game works now and why. Crafters do not have a niche. They stopped having a niche when passive training was removed. This was the point of removing that system. So that players can easily and quickly pool efforts to finish progression and play the game as a system of gear expenditures and acquisitions. So that the game need not be balanced around a moving target of wildly different levels of crafting training and require a small number of niche players to supply a larger number of otherwise specialized players. This is why we were told we went with the system we have now.

I personally disagree with this, Crafting is an element of this game regardless of the passive system being here or not.  I don't know where you got this idea that there is a narrative that the crafters want their exclusive niche.  Most of the ones I know love the removal of passives, and found it much quicker and easier to ramp up with the current system.  Its open and accessible now, so if people don't want to do it or are inexperienced That is their issue.  A factory shouldn't be the solution to people being lazy, it should be a tool to enable guilds/people a bit more flexibility gearing and helping balance the RNG that exists in the crafting.  It still needs respect the time input someone puts into their craft and the time input someone puts into harvesting.  By time input i mean spending the time actually making/gathering things, not their discipline grind.

This game's economic cycle is what has kept me around playing.  The vision was everything drives PvP, and lately, their balancing on loot protection, material input, factories have been doing just that.   You have more material drain, more gold sinks, and a means now to remove excess materials via factories.  Couple this with equipped only imports, there's definately been more activity both inside and outside of fort/siege windows.  Those who don't see this activity are either hiding in EU playing NA hours or not logging in.  We have people actually liking to harvest due to the pvp it generates, that didn't happen a few patches ago.

So my concern on durability hit being too low per copy, as is my view, is because of the above balance being put at risk, not my supremacy of a "niche crafter."  Aside from a few of the massive guilds, I've seen mostly agreement that in its current form, its tuned too high, both in dust and durability.  I'm still firmly in the 4-5 per copy camp, but i doubt it will ever go that low.  Regardless if its where i want it or not, i'll still be heavily using the factories to provide for my guild and my vendors.

 

Edited by neven
Because im Long-winded
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, neven said:

It still needs respect the time input someone puts into their craft and the time input someone puts into harvesting.  By time input i mean spending the time actually making/gathering things, not their discipline grind

 

I know that we have vast differences of opinion on this subject and I'm not going to attempt to appeal to any authority here. I'll simply expand my reasoning for my stated opinions and leave it at that.

It is my personal opinion that requiring people to template items more often at a higher cost directly devalues the time spent harvesting and crafting. It devalues crafting by effectively requiring more chaff to exit the table because good rolls generate less items, and devalues the time spent harvesting by consuming the results of that harvesting to create that chaff. I love crafting. I do it a lot. I love figuring out what I need to get and I love providing people with the items they want. I can't speak to how DIS operates but when we are equipping people, the logistics chain starts at gathering and ends at fight readiness. Builds are selected and players are equipped based both around how effective the group comps are and how efficiently the resources can be gathered. We know what we need, how much, and people generally select builds based upon efficient gathering paradigms to limit the spread of harvesting required. For example, if I have a 5 man of people, and they usually play together, the number of types of material required to make the comp work is usually a big part of the builds they decide to play. When people can eliminate a single type of ore or wood or leather or whatever from a camp they typically err on the side of doing so in order to limit farming time and maximize combat time. We are not commonly sitting on unused resources and do not spend time farming when there is not an immediate need for replacement gear to do so unless we managed to steal it from someone or generated it at random from pig turn ins. In situations where we do have a bunch of unused resources that don't factor in to our current build logistics, those usually go to the "extras" box to be processed in to tools.

I'm not suggesting that every guild's logistics chain works the same way, but I am suggesting that assuming that all or even most crafting in the game works around a paradigm of gear sales or reacting to builds planned in a bubble outside of logistics concerns is a very arrow perspective.

I am however suggesting that guilds that currently benefit from being consistently on or near the top of the pile which currently only includes the dregs gametype tend to have a skewed view of the push and pull of gear churn. I am also suggesting that this has resulted in economics that are extremely hostile to competitive play due to those systems being increasingly constructed around play patterns of a minority of players that will not and can not translate to the engagement of low and mid tier players needed to keep that system competitive.

Simply put, the economics of crowfall are designed around an assumption that players need the results of a win to remain combat viable for future wins, and this paradigm has led to an economy that makes disrupting the status quo unnecessarily grindy and time consuming. This paradigm has led to stagnation as the same handful of alliances are the only one capable of playing the game as designed and the game finding it extremely difficult to hold on to new players.

This is why, again, you see some players saying "this is too easy" and other players saying "this grind is too much" Its too easy when your farm is supplemented by combat related rewards and too grindy when they are not. My position is, simply, that winners are going to define the ceiling of the economy through brute force. Make the game 20% grindier and it will not change that ceiling because of the dynamics of a large number of players making a concerted effort to bypass that grind. A minor inconvenience for a guild of 200 translates to what can effectively be a brick wall for a guild of 15. That's just the nature of labor scales. It is for this reason I am unconcerned if larger organizations find a system too easy. It doesn't really matter because at a certain number of players all coordinating toward a common goal anything is going to feel too easy. What matters is that guild of 15 that simply needs the ability to make and replace gear to challenge them and feel that their time was well spent even if they lose.

The question of "value" is a relative one and for the reasons listed above ultimately an unimportant metric above a certain player count. The question of trade prices is of no importance because crafting and its progression has been so heavily democratized. If your guild, no matter its size, does not in house all of its crafting as its first priority, you have failed as a pvp guild in a pvp game, and crowfall is an unambigously pvp game. It is not designed to foster or reward neutral war profiteering, and it does not provide spaces outside of PvP contested terrain that can effectively function as economic enclaves which are attractive trade partners for strong military organizations.

What I am suggesting is that the game merely needs to be honest with itself.

The game assumes at a basic design level that every player is a member of a guild attempting to win pvp in a pvp strategy game. Not every player, but every guild. No part of its design is built to encourage third party trading empires. The problem is that its economy is built as if third party trades are an expected reality without creating any incentives to fill that role.

It expects 15 person guilds to both want to win pvp for rewards and be able to do so. That is where the campaign systems lead players and that's what the entire design is built to encourage players to do. The only way that happens is if they can meet or exceed the balance of farming versus combat experienced by the larger more experienced guilds they face. Under the current systems this is simply not the case.

Leave the rewards for winning alone and stop worrying if the economy is too easy for winners. In a relative sense this will always be the case. Worry about if it is too hard for losers, as these are the players that are going to create content to keep them around and they can't do that if they get frustrated and log out because their grind is effectively 40 times harder because you wanted to constrain an economic dynamic that is effectively impossible to constrain due to the scale of player organizations that are an inevitability in this type of competitive game.

"Time spent crafting" is not a gameplay activity. You click a few buttons and it rolls some dice, you're not interacting with the world or other players. All of the valuable interaction has already been done by the time you open the crafting interface. You interacted with the world for progression and material acquisition, and you interacted with other players to figure out what to craft.

Asking people to spend more time at the table, as you would by knocking the system down to 5 copies, or asking them to simply spend more time farming dust, which has an attractive distribution rate regardless of what you're gathering and encourages risk averse play do not, in my opinion improve the experience for anyone involved. They result in encouraging more time spent staring at crafting windows or low-risk farms, both situations in which players are actively discouraged from interacting with other players or NPC elements, and leading directly to competitive stagnation and abysmal player retention for anyone not in the same stagnant handful of top tier organizations.

Edited by PopeUrban

PopeSigGIF.gif

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

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

and leading directly to competitive stagnation and abysmal player retention for anyone not in the same stagnant handful of top tier organizations.

Ace made their bed a long time ago modifying the game for a small groups' entertainment over the years. They picked the wrong horse so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for factories, less clicks were greatly needed.

 

If we’re going to have gear drop, we’ll need a lot more than 16 copies of an original before it breaks. Maybe as the quality tier increases, the copies take more durability to make.

Edited by Thon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Last night, we saw notes on a Test update that were later pulled. However the picture is clear that this is where you want to go with Factories. Why???

In the first iteration we saw of this, I literally couldn't believe it!! FINALLY, A REAL QUALITY OF LIFE FEATURE!!!! But no, ACE has to make this another f'ing pain point that has too much hand holding and too many hoops to jump through. Another goddamned time sink.

 Our guild had 4 crafters for our team and now we're down to one and he's practically burned out. Enough is enough. 

Crafting

  • Advanced/Runic Bow,Book, Staff recipes now require 20 Ethereal Dust
  • Advanced/Runic Shield recipes now require 10 Ethereal Dust
  • Factory Necklaces now require Chaos Embers
  • New Stonemasonry Recipe - Tumbling Grit used for Factory Jewelry recipes
  • New Vendor Item - Bottled Steam used for all Factory recipes
  • Tuned all Factory Recipes to get closer to the resource cost of the template versions. (Still working on a way to add in assumed polishing costs for the template!)
  • Wood plank recipe now requires 4 Sandpaper at the highest efficiency

UI

  • Fixed an issue where some objects were floating or rotating incorrectly
  • Mouse clicks are no longer blocked after the settings window is closed while a dropdown is expanded
     

Many here were even asking that you consider reducing the cost of durability. The bull$h!7 above isn't what we hoped for.

Edited by Banky
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/29/2021 at 1:00 AM, thomasblair said:

Where we put the number of copies is still up for debate, currently in the 15-20 range and there is lots of feedback that is a tad too high.

I feel the number of copies should be between 10-15. 15-20 seems excessive. Though, I mostly play dual-wielding classes and only craft for myself. Maybe I'd have a different opinion if there were 20 people in my guild who all ran the same build. As it stands now, 10-15 sounds like a decent balance.

KGV_sig.png

You Can't Be A Genius, If You Aren't The Slightest Bit Insane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/26/2021 at 6:39 PM, Coiote said:

Cost:

Its too low. It should require more resources while copying

Durability:

One item should be copied 3 or 4 times only.

With the low cost and low durability cost, you will lower the need for farming, what lead players to less roaming, less pvp.;..

It will not lower the need for farming. The resource cost is pretty much identical, or can be made so. It's not like making copies is free. 

If anything, with the total lack of rune drops from factories, MORE copies per good item will make the crafters more valuable. Remember they are burning resources that could result in disks if crafted the old way, in an activity that has no chance of producing them, thus reducing the volume of disks in circulation per resource gathered. 

 

Edited by KrakkenSmacken
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, KrakkenSmacken said:

It will not lower the need for farming. The resource cost is pretty much identical, or can be made so. It's not like making copies is free. 

There are always limited resource nodes available for certain ore/stone, and hide is pretty structured where you gain it.  Knowing what people are farming is a major driver of small scale pvp.  Iron maps tend to be the hotspots for instance.  People getting killed because they are hitting iron, are now able to go anywhere to farm for billet stock, but they still will need iron in the end to make their original pieces.  That iron is now needed in 1 piece out of 18 (original + 17), that's 6% of the iron that once was needed to craft that amount.  Kill a skinner, where will they go next? now they aren't tethered to the forest or spider camp they were hitting, they can hit any group of animals where they wont see a soul.  Many people seem more concerned with convenience over balancing the economics behind these changes and the pvp these changes will affect

Edited by neven
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, neven said:

Many people seem more concerned with convenience over balancing the economics behind these changes and the pvp these changes will affect

I can't speak for anyone else but as noted in the short novella I wrote on the subject above it is my honest belief that the excessive level of inconvenience is the glaring flaw in an otherwise engaging crafting-to-combat gameplay loop.

It should be pretty clear by now. The grind and complexity of the crafting systems is killing this game. Not the combat. Not the class design. Not the design of the specific crafting recipes.

Go read the feedback from beta wave invites, or simply watch how the player counts nosedive after the honeymoon period. Go watch any number of reviews of crowfall from people outside its fan bubble (I feel it is important to note for context I am firmly inside that fan bubble) Excluding the people that didn't get the memo and want it to be wow, or are dropping "my level 15 review" or are super critical of core combat mechanics not feeling like dark souls or whatever, the recurring theme is "this seems cool but I feel like I'm not getting anywhere and there is nothing meaningful I can do but grind to get better stuff"

The single most impactful change ACE could make to the long term viability of crowfall is remarkably reducing the gear grind and time spent crafting for players that aren't consistently winning at least a handful of pois. Reduce that grind, place combat front and center, encourage rather than discourage every single player to interact with the entire game, and you instantly have a product that is not only more enjoyable for new players but established ones as well. You generate more good fights over more inventory loads that actually represent significant amounts of value in things players actually care about, and as a result create a system in which they need those things more often because they are destroying them more often willingly.

What we have is a PvP game that seems to think it should have the item economy of a game with optional PvP. We need an item economy that correlates with the amount of PvP the rest of the design expects players to engage in.

PopeSigGIF.gif

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/3/2021 at 1:51 PM, Yoink said:

The ability to name the copies would be much welcomed. 

@Yoink Could you explain why you want this one? There is functionality you lose with with bypassing the take screen if we change this is why I ask. You also risk someone else making factory copies off of items you crafted and changing the name.

Thomas Blair
ArtCraft Entertainment, Inc.
Follow us on Twitter 
@CrowfallGame | Like us on Facebook
 

 

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

@Yoink Could you explain why you want this one? There is functionality you lose with with bypassing the take screen if we change this is why I ask. You also risk someone else making factory copies off of items you crafted and changing the name.

The reason I'd like this is mainly because when we're crafting items for specific people we put their name in the item's name.

For example, I may make a Heavy 1H Axe and call it "Heavy 1H Axe Template". 

But if I make copies for Todd, Blair and Halash I'll name the Axes Todd's Heavy Axe, Blair's Heavy Axe, Halash's Heavy Axe. That way when we put them in EK chests for pickup people don't grab someone else's gear. 

If we had a mail system where we could just mail people their items we probably wouldn't need this. Right now distributing the copied items to people has become the new pain point in the logistics chain.

Our choices are:

1) Put items in chests and hope that nobody "accidentally" grabs the wrong gear. 

2) Put items on vendors which then allows us to have a log of who is taking what but it needlessly burns gold doing so.

3) Hand out everything in person, by hand, which is hard to do sometimes and time consuming. 

Hope this clears it up. 

Blazzen <Lords of Death>

YouTube - Twitch - Website

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

@Yoink Could you explain why you want this one? There is functionality you lose with with bypassing the take screen if we change this is why I ask. You also risk someone else making factory copies off of items you crafted and changing the name.

Guild Logistics.

TBlair requests an item from the crafters in discord.

Crafter makes said item and puts Tblair's name on it. (usually with a ' . ' in front of it so that it sorts to the top of an inventory and does not share the same name as common wartribe gear, but that is a whole other issue.)

Crafter drops off item in EK chest for pickup later by TBlair. TBlair knows that is his item because it has his name on it.

This might not seem like much for one item, but when you get into dozens and dozens of item requests it is a nightmare to manage all of this.

 

Factories are awesome and now maybe I can just make 10x of everything ready to go and forget taking requests but I imagine it will work something like this.

 

Crafters make an awesome sword. I want to name this ' Awesome sword template' and sit on it.

Request comes in by Tblair for an awesome sword.

Crafter searches his bank for 'Awesome sword template', takes it out, makes a single copy for Tblair and puts the template back in his bank.

Now Tblair's sword is still named 'Awesome sword template'. I would like to be able to name it .Tblair

aeei5jG.png

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...