Other > General Game Discussion
Is this it?
Ari Lazarus:
I'd say increasing the number of item sinks might help with the issue of flooding finished products.
Right now we got
- Critical misses
- Deterioration and subsequent dumping of item
- Disassembly / Upgrading
- Dying in a random encounter
- Selling to Merchants
As the main item inputs are pretty damn big (Crafters and Encounters), a multi-pronged approach should be taken so that item influx is at a steadily growing rate, to match player populations. Aside from selling to merchants and dying with equipment (which is itself usually avoided), most of the sinks are too small to make any significant impact. From what I can currently see Devs restrict crafting heavily but the role Encounters play should also be given attention. Tweaking the amount of loot in Random Encounters would also affect the speed of items being introduced.
One way to beef up disassembly would be to make it so that only certain transitory items (products like gunpowder, alloy, metal parts) are obtained from disassembly. For example, I might need a '10mm Gun Barrel' to produce a 10mm SMG. This can only be acquired from... you guessed it, 10mm Pistols. This system is already in place (i.e. requiring a gun to make another gun), but having it be a chance-based result from disassembly will further reduce the number of extra 10mms in the game.
Come to think of it, a chance-based EVERYTHING would be preferable to cool downs.
--- Quote ---Want to gather?
Chance to find the resource area. Based on Outdoorsman already.
Chance to fail to mine. Based on STR and / or Melee.
Critical Luck Fail! You hit the stones and unearth a family of angry molerats!
Critical Luck Win! You discover a discarded Material / random amount of caps hidden in the ore!
Variable amount of resource gathered: 1-6 Ore / Minerals, 1-10 Fruits, 2-5 Fibres, etc.
One-off gathering so only gathered once before node disappears.
TIE random encounters to the world map triangle so if people don't move they will end up in the same place (the area without a node)
Allow entering an 'empty' map to actually be a Random Encounter, based on Luck and Outdoorsman. So much for mining naked!
Want to distill stuff?
Chance of explosion in your face from poor handling of dangerous materials.
Chance of unintentionally making the BEST BOOZE EVAR... +2 CHA when drunk, addictive!
Require variable wood: 1-5, and variable fruit: 5-10
Create random amount of random alcohol based on number of fruits, amount of wood, and heck, Luck.
Want to craft?
Chance to fail creation. Based on Profession Level, Science / Repair Average and Luck.
Chance to create a poor item that starts deteriorated.
Chance to create an epic version of the same item. If perkless, given random weapon perk!
Want to disassemble?
Chance for disassemble-exclusive items. Based on Science and Luck.
Ultrafail! You totally destroy the item, salvaging nothing.
--- End quote ---
There. Removing cooldowns then including all these chance-based situations will lead to a HARDER yet more ACTIVE and EXCITING crafting cycle, one which requires more player interaction and supervision.
P.S. To head off any idea that this will lead to a slew of 'powerlevelling' alts to 21, I'd say if your faction (yes, you would need one to pull this off) can amass the huge amounts of material required at the abovementioned difficulty and scarcity, you bloody well deserve it.
FischiPiSti:
--- Quote from: Solar on February 19, 2010, 05:35:16 pm ---That would be fine, to stop botting, but pointless to control the economy for normal players when you can just go and instantly find another it makes it pointless.
Unless you then somehow control the "respawning" of these nodes, which of course must be per player as otherwise they will just be camped. At which point you just have a personal timeout in exactly the same way.
As for crafting, it was never meant to be a "big" gameplay element, its just one of the easiest to do game play elements to get working.
--- End quote ---
Yes, one of the problems is that ore/minerals are waaaay too common... I dont know if the engine lets you, but can you control the encounter areas? For example every square on the worldmap would have 1 specific layout, not allways changing when you enter it like it does now. This way you could setup a few nodes around the world that would control the economy perfectly because it limits total resources. Ofc this also raises other problems like gangs camping the node. Note that they cannot benefit from this because for them, the node is depleted, so they cant gather resources from it, just to bug others. Actually when i think about it, no change there since i get PK-ed anyway while farming the same node over and over again :D
Or even better! Remove resources from REs alltogether, and setup small custom areas like the ares military base, that contain nodes, and name them mines, woods, junkpiles, mutated..corn...like..plant...fields, etc. A player needs to travel from mine to mine to gather resources.
Again, this would be quite fatal to the averega miner, but think about the gang wars. Gangs fighting for control of mines.... If you think about it, it makes sense, the great war started because of low resources anyway.. I dont think any country would invade others and start a nuclear war that exterminates 90% of humanity if they could just go into the wilderness 1 "square away" and find ore, minerals, wood, fruit, etc to make miniguns, ammo, even fuel...
A grand example is the ghost farm... A whole field of fruit and you cant gather them?? Why??
Summary of my pov: Limit the resources the world has to offer, Not the players. Needless to say this also limits crafting in general, as no resources means no end product for the crowd either. Even better: Low amounts of goods on the market(game badly needs an AH.) means higher prices, high amount of goods, low prices. You, the devs would have TOTAL controll over the ENTIRE economy, by limiting the resources. No alts would solve the gangs problems. No Bots could automate the gathering.
I seriously cant think of a counter argument, other then implementing all this is hard, but i think its possible.
Ari Lazarus:
Alliances would fight over these all the time.
The average gatherer / crafter would be shot on sight.
Prices would be pretty interesting to watch as alliances exerted their influence on the market. It MAY tank.
Small factions would have to be friendly to the controlling alliance.
Perhaps some might charge caps to allow others to mine.
Either way, putting all of a particular resource into the hands of a certain few would be... unconventional.
The winner of these wars would become pretty much the player version of either the Brotherhood of Steel, or the Enclave.
Solar:
--- Quote ---
There. Removing cooldowns then including all these chance-based situations will lead to a HARDER yet more ACTIVE and EXCITING crafting cycle, one which requires more player interaction and supervision.
P.S. To head off any idea that this will lead to a slew of 'powerlevelling' alts to 21, I'd say if your faction (yes, you would need one to pull this off) can amass the huge amounts of material required at the abovementioned difficulty and scarcity, you bloody well deserve it.
--- End quote ---
We can rig chances to mirror timeouts, we can make people gatherer 10 times more and only have a 10% success rate. Make it depend on skills so new characters are at an even worse disadvantage, or any number of things to mirror the function of the simple timeout.
Basically its taking the free time afforded by a timeout and filling it with mindless extra work. People could already be out there running about doing whatever they liked, but they choose to sit and stare at a timeout.
Would make players have to talk to two NPC's on opposite ends of the WM for a more "active" crafting too, then we could remove timeouts altogether.
FischiPiSti:
--- Quote from: Ari Lazarus on February 19, 2010, 06:34:13 pm ---Alliances would fight over these all the time.
The average gatherer / crafter would be shot on sight.
Prices would be pretty interesting to watch as alliances exerted their influence on the market. It MAY tank.
Small factions would have to be friendly to the controlling alliance.
Perhaps some might charge caps to allow others to mine.
Either way, putting all of a particular resource into the hands of a certain few would be... unconventional.
The winner of these wars would become pretty much the player version of either the Brotherhood of Steel, or the Enclave.
--- End quote ---
Yes, but no faction could afford to guard it 24/7. There should be many mines, in which are only a few resources. The factions cant control every one of them. Anyhow this was A suggestion -which can also be tweaked so that 1 or 2 faction cant dominate the world-, 1 from the many possible solutions, but tweaking cds without a major overhaul just wont fix the issues of alts/bots.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version