Goblin Squad Member
|
Scrap metal can be added to blades.So, remove the pommel handle, and hilt, add some 'scrap metal' to the blade, hammer it back into a blade shape, then put it back through heat treatment and make the parts you took off fit again.
There's a fine line between adding metal to an existing blade and using an existing blade as scrap.
Like I said, not really practical in real life. But if you're dealing with a powerful enchantment on said blade then it's a whole other matter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Scrap metal can be added to blades. In real life it's not really practical, more sense in just creating something new, but in a fantasy setting where it's cheaper than the whole enchantment process, adding on some scrap metal certainly makes more sense.
I suppose this would be similar to reforging Narsil. It never really occurred to me before, mostly because, as you said, it would be utterly impractical in the real world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Scrap metal can be added to blades. In real life it's not really practical, more sense in just creating something new, but in a fantasy setting where it's cheaper than the whole enchantment process, adding on some scrap metal certainly makes more sense.I suppose this would be similar to reforging Narsil. It never really occurred to me before, mostly because, as you said, it would be utterly impractical in the real world.
Although interesting to note that Narsil upon reforging became Anduril ;)
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I'm pretty sure DeciusBrutus is right, though I'm going off of a quick read on Wikipedia about forge welding, since there really was no other type of welding until the industrial revolution. Do we have an expert?
Tolkien took some artistic license with metallurgy because it fit the epic myth he was telling as well as Aragorn's parallel to Arthur (Tolkien was British, after all). I'd not stress realism since we can handwave a cool trope with magic - as could Tolkien. The player economy issues are more important than realism, but I'm not convinced naysayers have proven it couldn't work, even if it has to be handled carefully.
The naysayer's objections in the real world would fall under the Parable of the Broken Window. If the character with the legacy weapon saves 100 gold (arbitrary amount) repairing it instead of replacing it, he still will go and buy something with that - maybe two potions from the alchemist, who then buys a new chain shirt from the smith, who then continues the chain. Avoiding destruction makes the economy richer, not poorer; the smith loses the immediate sale, but someone else makes a new one. The player population, as a whole, would be richer by 100 gold coins.
So it wouldn't sink a player economy, but just move some of the purchases from one sector to another. That could be bad if it makes the poor craftspeople irrelevant, making the game unfun for those players (like a SWG entertainer), or if it makes the players "too rich." If the craftspeople handle repairs as well as replacements and only a small number of characters take legacy weapon over some other perk, then they still have work to do, which should handle the first objection. Also, when markets adjust, people get different jobs. There are a lot more computer programmers and a lot less chimney sweeps nowadays.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
SWTOR's big mistake, in my mind, was that making new Guns was not the same Craft as making the things that made Legacy Guns better - and you were not allowed to choose two Craft skills (or am I mistaken?)
Translating that to this discussion about PFO, that would mean one Craft makes swords and another Craft repairs them. But even if they did that, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as SWTOR, because a single character would still be able to advance in both of those Craft skills.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I could see three different types of craft skill: One to create new gear, one to maintain existing gear (remove nicks, polish rust, and otherwise keep gear in serviceable condition longer), and one to repair or recycle broken equipment (the blade might be cracked, but some other parts are still good enough to be used in making a new sword, or the hilt is broken, but everything else is in perfect condition.)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Translating that to this discussion about PFO, that would mean one Craft makes swords and another Craft repairs them. But even if they did that, it wouldn't be nearly as bad as SWTOR, because a single character would still be able to advance in both of those Craft skills.
This makes me wonder how grainy the skill system should be. For example, The Elder Scroll series collapses into one skill everything from forging armor and arms, repairing them (in games with repair, which Skyrim lacks), making bows, and even making jewelry.
The ultimate in graininess has to be EVE, where I see four separate skills just for controlling probes. That seems...excessive. The least grainy game I can think of would be Unknown Armies. That's a game where you make up a skill which identifies a whole aspect of what you know. For example, your Boxing: 70% skill could be used to fight, to know boxing trivia, to treat minor injuries like those someone sustains in a fight, to intimidate someone, etc. A computer could not handle that system, obviously.
Thoughts on how crafting skills should be divided up and general skill "graininess?"
Edit: Decius beat me to the punch, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm hoping the "graininess" is something akin to a separate skill for each discrete action you can take.
If the Action is Repair Armor, then there should be a corresponding Skill. If the Action is instead Repair Plate Gloves, then there should be a Skill for that.
If the game breaks it up into separate Actions for Heat Metal, Hammer Metal, Temper Metal, then I would like to see a separate Skill for each of those Actions. If instead, there's a single Action to Forge Armor, with a selection for the Armor Type, then I would hope there is a Skill for Forge Armor, and another Skill for each Armor Type.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd caution against too much graininess, as that can both overwhelm the player, and slow down the process of training "value" skills. Quotes on that because different types of players will consider that differently, action players looking to dabble in crafting will consider combat skills "value", whereas a crafter looking to extend vertically through the Axe markets will think of the end product as "value" rather than the production skills.
if you have to train in Smelting Gloves, and then Tongs, and eventually Heat and Temper Metal... none of those individually makes any productive sense in crafting, and I think should be abstracted into a broader context of Forging <stuff> or Smelting <metals>, where each represents a type of item, or metal. I imagine there will be strong and well educated economic minds put to the task of how many "markets" (ergo skills) are acceptable to proliferate at launch, and further on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am someone who plans on really focusing on crafting. I will have some combat skills, but my true focus will be crafting.
I don't have an issue with the game getting 'grainy' on the skills, as long as there isn't a limit on skills, and preferably you can train more than one skill at a time. Although I don't believe you can (train more than one at time) from reading the blogs, but I am not sure.
I just don't want to be forced into going down one crafting route if there is a lot of grain. I am planning (hoping) on being flexible with my crafting skills. Armor, weapons, items, food and structures.
Maybe some will feel that is 'taking my cake and eating it', but I would think that more of someone who wants to be a high crafter AND a powerful fighter/caster.
If the Action is Repair Armor, then there should be a corresponding Skill. If the Action is instead Repair Plate Gloves, then there should be a Skill for that.If the game breaks it up into separate Actions for Heat Metal, Hammer Metal, Temper Metal, then I would like to see a separate Skill for each of those Actions. If instead, there's a single Action to Forge Armor, with a selection for the Armor Type, then I would hope there is a Skill for Forge Armor, and another Skill for each Armor Type.
May I ask why you feel this way? I'm not trying to be critical, I am truly curious why it is important to have a skill for each action? As a crafter, I am ok with combining several actions under one skill, as long as it's part of the same type of crafting. I.E. armorsmithing, tailoring, etc. I think seperating each action would end being way too much grain for people who want to go down multiple crafting routes (like myself).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobbun, it's mostly just a matter of taste. There's nothing that requires that each grainy Action Skill requires the same amount of time that a less grainy Category Skill would require, so whether the Skills are 1:1 with Actions or not shouldn't have any impact on the total time to get reasonably good in multiple types of crafting.
One advantage of the system I propose is that if you really only want to be able to Forge Armor, and you don't care about being able to Repair or Reforge it, then you can get up to that level more quickly if the Skills are granular down to Actions. However, if the Skills are all-encompassing, then you have to spend the extra time required to get the Repair and Reforge Skills that you don't want.
I've always hated it when games give me a handful of abilities at once, even though I never, ever want to use some of them. I'd much rather be able to pick and choose the exact abilities I want.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I do so love it when questions start discussions.
I warmed to the idea of something like Repair and Forge being different, though part of me still thinks an individual would learn to be an Armorer, which inherently includes both tasks. There is something to be said for packaging skills such as they represent what an individual knows by virtue of those skills being necessary to a trade.
So some thoughts to stir the pot.
Where do we distinguish between carpentry, masonry, engineering, and architecture? Do you need to know the "labor" side as a prerequisite to intelligently doing the "management" side? Can a carpenter, for example, build a siege engine just on his knowledge alone? (First thought: no.) Should you need some knowledge of carpentry and the like to become a siege engineer, since you need to know the properties of the materials involved and what techniques you could use to build in the field? (First thought...maybe?) What about a shipwright, architect, and other skills? Pre-reqs, or no?
Should skills which are related display some level of synergy, or at least help you raise related skills above base a bit? For example, if Forge and Repair armor are two separate skills, and you've learned Forge Armor, shouldn't Repair be no big deal to learn?
Could there be skill hierarchies? For example, "Armorer" is above "Forge Armor" which is above "Repair Armor" which is above "Maintain." A soldier in the field might be able to Maintain, then an apprentice smith could Repair, a journeyman Forge, while a full armorer who knows all things related to his trade could take up Armorer and be the man when it comes to all things armor-related. Does this work? If not, any other proposed ideas?
Should skills which are related help you learn skills more quickly? For example, after becoming a decent carpenter, should masonry and bowyer come a bit more easily?
Can multiple characters combine their skills to make an item? Can magic aid them? (Ex: making a ship requires many types of laborers, some engineers, a master shipwright, and even then the shipwright brings in a wizard to help enchant the hull. And am I right in guessing Andius would love to build himself some ships?)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobbun, it's mostly just a matter of taste. There's nothing that requires that each grainy Action Skill requires the same amount of time that a less grainy Category Skill would require, so whether the Skills are 1:1 with Actions or not shouldn't have any impact on the total time to get reasonably good in multiple types of crafting.
One advantage of the system I propose is that if you really only want to be able to Forge Armor, and you don't care about being able to Repair or Reforge it, then you can get up to that level more quickly if the Skills are granular down to Actions. However, if the Skills are all-encompassing, then you have to spend the extra time required to get the Repair and Reforge Skills that you don't want.
I've always hated it when games give me a handful of abilities at once, even though I never, ever want to use some of them. I'd much rather be able to pick and choose the exact abilities I want.
.
You bring up an excellent point, Nihimon. I was making the assumption all the skills would gain at the same rate.
The only other problem I could see is if GW put a limit on the number of crafting skills you could learn, or they put a lower cap on all but one like of craft skills (to show specialization).
For example, you are already able to make padded and leather armor, and have all the skills associated with it. However, you decide you want to be able to craft armor in all aspects. So you take “Heat Metal-Armor”, “Hammer Metal-Armor” and “Temper Metal-Armor”. But you also want to craft weapons, as well. So you would like to take the same craft skills (Heat, Hammer and Temper) for making weapons. But the problem is, you are limited to only 8 crafting skills, and to make the weapons also would, let’s say, put you at 10. I don’t want that limitation.
There is also that problem if GW decides that you can only truly specialize in one craft line (armor, weapons, items, etc). Where lets say you can go up to 150 for your weapon skill line, where the others are only 100.
I know that is something that can happen even with less ‘grainy’ skills, but GW may be more likely to put that cap on if they put in more skills. And I truly want to specialize in crafting overall, than specialize in just one line, or aspect, of crafting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only other problem I could see is if GW put a limit on the number of crafting skills you could learn, or they put a lower cap on all but one like of craft skills (to show specialization).
I think such a decision would be fundamentally at odds with what they've already described. One of the benefits of a skill-based system is that you can "show specialization" by how deeply you've trained a particular skill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hm, once again, good point.
It’s just I’ve seen it happen too often where you are railroaded to be specialized in one or two skill lines under a specific skill tree.
I know that some may say that is the whole point of ‘specialization’, but I feel specialization can be classified in the sense of “I’m specialized in dealing with product (crafting, gathering and selling)", compared to being a fighter, spellcaster or a sailor (if the game eventually employs the use of boats).
But I do hope you are right Nihimon and GW handles it how you have described.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In EVE many skills have a low (time) cost to entry, and as you rank up to each successive level (1-4 generally) each rank provides a bump and a commensurate increase in time spent training. More "advanced" skills are built on this bed of level 4 skills, and so on.
I suspect this kind of tiered branching approach might be something like what we can expect for crafting skills at least.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sorry, I guess I should have worded that better.
Not the max number of skills, but the highest number you can achieve in a skill?
generally 4 ranks per skill, each applying some specific buff. So specialization is represented in a mechanical buff, without being technically called "specialization". I'm not sure if this system is going to be ported over, but i expect we'll see something similar, with ranks of skills tiered out to form some sort of vertical direction.
We seem to have veered well off from what kind of weapons in the game...
Awesome Chain based weapons with decent Physics! Nunchaku!! Mace n Chain with Spikes and More Skulls! everything needs more skulls right!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wow, only 4? I had anticipated there would be more.
Maybe it’s because of my EQ & EQ 2 playing days where skills were in the 100s. In a sense I don’t know if I like it that low, as it seems too easy to get to 4 ranks, even if it raises painfully slow. I hope PFO handles it differently.
And sorry for my contribution in veering off from the thread subject.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobbun, don't be fooled by the fact that there are only 4 ranks in a given skill. There are thousands of skills, many of which build on the prior skill. So, you get Rank 4 in Swords, then there's an Improved Swords Skill that has Swords Skill Rank 4 as a prerequisite, then it just keeps going up from there, with an Extra Improved Swords Skill that requires Improved Swords Skill Rank 4 as a prerequisite, etc.
This isn't the way it really works, but I think it's a useful way of explaining the general concept:
Tier 1 (Swords)
Rank 1 = 15 minutes
Rank 2 = 30 minutes
Rank 3 = 1 hour
Rank 4 = 2 hours
Rank 5 = 4 hours
Tier 2 (Improved Swords, requires Swords Rank 5)
Rank 1 = 8 hours
Rank 2 = 16 hours
Rank 3 = 32 hours (1 day + 8 hours)
Rank 4 = 64 hours (2 days + 16 hours)
Rank 5 = 128 hours (5 days + 8 hours)
Tier 3 (Extra Improved Swords, requires Improved Swords Rank 5)
Rank 1 = approx. 10 days
Rank 2 = approx. 20 days
Rank 3 = approx. 40 days
Rank 4 = approx. 3 months
Rank 5 = approx. 6 months
In this (totally made up) example, it would take about 1 year to get Extra Improved Swords Rank 5, and that's if you didn't do anything else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
just to extrapolate a bit more on Nihimon's post; in order to make it to Tier 2 swords, you might also need to have Melee Weapons 1 (rank 4) which maybe took twice as long to skill up. And each rank of Melee Weapons gives you +1% to hit (countering dodge/parry/etc), and for each rank of Swords you get +3% damage. Or something like this.
Maybe this system will be pretty intuitive when applied to a fantasy genre, but one of the difficulties I felt when starting EVE was the unknowable number of new skills, and how to go about even deciding which direction to go in. I imagine this was because of the Sci Fi genre, but this is one reason why i feel graininess should be kept a bit streamlined.
Again, purely theoretical applications, and a direct translation from EVE. This in no way is confirmed from the Developers, but its an existing skill -> time based system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, thanks Nihimon and Gruffling. That makes it a lot more clear.
I don't have an issue with that kind of leveling with the skills, with the exception maybe it taking too long. Of course, as Gruffling said, this is by no means how PFO will handle it. The only confirmation being is skills will level up on their own (even offline).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, thanks Nihimon and Gruffling. That makes it a lot more clear.
I don't have an issue with that kind of leveling with the skills, with the exception maybe it taking too long. Of course, as Gruffling said, this is by no means how PFO will handle it. The only confirmation being is skills will level up on their own (even offline).
Skill in this system don't take that long, at least, not to access the results. What takes a while is to gain the highest level of efficacy in a specific thing, which really is just a matter of balance, not that dissimilar to leveling in WoW or even the table top. You spend more time, you get more better.
but back on topic: If I don't get a Nodachi, I'll be a sad panda!