Goblin Squad Member
|
I suspect player crafting will come before player settlements. There will be the NPC settlements at the very start to be sure, but it will likely require some sort of player-economy in motion before starting a settlement can be afforded.
~~edit~~ ah, you were talking about the sequence of the blogs. My bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
running a settlement will require constant inputs of a wide variety of materials.
Will that "input" include refined materials and crafted items as well as raw materials?
Like, do you have to produce a large number of weapons and armor items in order to keep the city guard up to standards?
Might be a good way to get excess crafted items out of circulation and to keep crafters busy even if demand dwindles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...but there is always going to be a way to make some income by harvesting even the lowest-level resources. We want the lowest-level resources to be a major part of the economy so that they are always valuable.
We want players to have to make trades to create many of the processed components and finished crafted items. We want to avoid situations where settlements are self-sufficient, able to harvest all the resources they need in the local area. Instead, we want to create a situation where processing and crafting involve resources that come from many different regions, so that trade is required for the economy to function.
Cool, it's been mentioned that the lowest-level is very important to keep in economy eg EVE Online Tri-something-or-another. Yes to settlements having/requiring extensive trade networks all over the map.
...presenting a "State of the Game" message on Saturday at noon at the convention. We'll likely have some or all of that presentation formatted for replay soon after the event.
Very soon!
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
but we will make that information available for those who want to eke out the maximum possible advantage!
Thanks.
And we are aware of the danger of a powerful settlement "cornering the market" on a part of the economy critical for the health of the other settlements. We will be watchful for such outcomes, and will be prepared to take action to resolve them for the good of the game if necessary.
I would feel better if you implied that the courses of action you are considering are closer to "create a new source for whatever product is being monopolized" than to "nerf the offending players".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
but we will make that information available for those who want to eke out the maximum possible advantage!Thanks.
And we are aware of the danger of a powerful settlement "cornering the market" on a part of the economy critical for the health of the other settlements. We will be watchful for such outcomes, and will be prepared to take action to resolve them for the good of the game if necessary.I would feel better if you implied that the courses of action you are considering are closer to "create a new source for whatever product is being monopolized" than to "nerf the offending players".
Unleash the Dragon, invasion, plague maybe?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Connecting the features of a role/archetype with the features of crafted items via keywords? Very clever! I wonder if any of the devs have checked out Neal Stephensons book REAMDE? The virtual world in that regulates resource scarcity based on real-world mineral flow modeling. So, just hire a geologist who's good at algorithims-problem solved!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Alexander Damocles
I don't think the quote picked out by bluddwolf and yourself has the implication you think.
To my mind it is recommending what to select from the random loot you can take if you cannot carry it all. I base this on Ryan confirming loot would be a random selection of what was carried. You can then select to take only what you want from that
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I notice that the processing and crafting appear to be very much 'give it to the factory and receive the finished result'.
I'm not sure I really like that way of doing things. If the game is PC-led then I would have preferred the PC to be able to set up a workshop, even use a communal one as I know GW are leery of letting individual player characters have their own buildings.
As I read it, the proposed system will see the PC as little more than a delivery agent - someone to pass the materials on to the factory and collect them. I realise that the PC skill affects the final outcome, but I would prefer to have the PC actually make things. A GW2-style crafting action at a suitable workstation, where the PC is the one turning iron and coal into steel and not a faceless NPC factory.
For positives - I love the idea of %-quality raw materials. You have to decide whether or not given raw material sources are worth exploiting, and the lower quality might only be worthwhile in extremis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can you be sure to include a reputation system for vendors/merchants/crafters? So we can sort by/show preferential treatment to PCs that we like? (e.g. have their good shown higher on a sorted list) Or show preferential treatment to our nation/guild/race/affiliation/etc.?
"Buy Local."
Well, "buy local" is both an issue of "always" and "not likely".
Always: Unlike most MMOs, GW has said that they wish to make the AHs local. In other words, items have to be brought to that market, have to be bought from that market and obviously, are picked up at that market.
"Only what you see on the shelf, Sir". So, as you can see, always local.
Not Likely: According to the most recent Blog, settlements or their surrounding areas will not be self sufficient. Raw materials, and potentially items, will have to be imported from other regions. So as you can see, "Buying Local" is not likely a possibility.
Travel, and a lot of it, is required in this economic system. I like travel, the more merchants on the road, the merrier my troupes of bandits will be.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I read it, the proposed system will see the PC as little more than a delivery agent - someone to pass the materials on to the factory and collect them. I realise that the PC skill affects the final outcome, but I would prefer to have the PC actually make things. A GW2-style crafting action at a suitable workstation, where the PC is the one turning iron and coal into steel and not a faceless NPC factory.
Honestly, the system is likely to be loosely sketched enough that it's up to you to decide whether you're overseeing a bunch of apprentices and other workers, or whether you're spending all your offline time doing it mostly by yourself. The important considerations are:
- Creating things takes "realistic" amounts of time, as opposed to instantaneously combining items (or having a nominal seconds-long crafting bar). A major benefit of higher skill is turning out items faster. This makes it harder to flood the market with something without lots of advance preparation. Settlements in particular will need to make sure they're not taking for granted that they can just keep raw materials in storage and have their crafters turn them into goods as needed without significant lead time.
- We're not going to make you stand there and watch a really long crafting progress bar. Once you've got something queued up, you can then do other things. As noted, it's likely to be up to you how you want to roleplay it; are you just checking in to oversee your employees or when you're logged out is your character in the workshop with sleeves rolled up churning out items? Fully dedicated crafters will use this time to keep different queues running and topped up, track down new materials, and sell finished goods. Players for whom crafting is a sideline will set up a project and then go adventure or do whatever else is their primary activity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Sepherum: REAMDE also casts an interesting light on the alignment debates. And is heck of a book even for those not interested in MMOs.
@Buying local: Bluddwolf is right. The combo of local markets without local self-sufficiency (and no item teleportation) makes this a highly interesting game for traders and thus for bandits, caravan guards, smugglers, etc...
@Stephen: roleplaying "overseeing" our employees gives potentially disturbing ideas: any further word on how slavery will work?
I guess environmental resource depletion and degredation is simulating a step too far? Ie managing the sustainability environment as a skill - maybe a druid skill?
Resource gathering can spawn monsters. Perhaps not Toxic Waste Elementals and Balrogs, but mother nature at least gets to fight back. Being may also be there to protest. "Managing the sustainability environment" means hiring adventurers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And we are aware of the danger of a powerful settlement "cornering the market" on a part of the economy critical for the health of the other settlements. We will be watchful for such outcomes, and will be prepared to take action to resolve them for the good of the game if necessary.
The "...if necessary." portion should be in big, flashing letters with arrows pointing at it. A faction or network of factions monopolizing a critical resource is the perfect opportunity for player-conflict of the most dramatic proportions.
An intervention by GW for anything less than "oh gods everything is falling apart" will likely run counter to the game design principles.
Yeah, I hope they don't step in either. That should be sort of the goal of many organizations.
If it happens, maybe everybody else bands together to deny the faction other resources it needs.
Or changes their tactics to use different types of gear with different resource requirements.
Or the monopolist faction becomes all powerful, expanding their 'nation' against weakened foes,
until they are so big that internal strife is more important than external, and the faction turns on itself/secedes/etc,
adding chaos back into the world, and things develop from there...
Of course, I also expect GW to periodically expand the map, and that also expands resource opportunities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
buildings.
As I read it, the proposed system will see the PC as little more than a delivery agent - someone to pass the materials on to the factory and collect them. I realise that the PC skill affects the final outcome, but I would prefer to have the PC actually make things. A GW2-style crafting action at a suitable workstation, where the PC is the one turning iron and coal into steel and not a faceless NPC factory.
WHYYYY??!!! WHYYYYYYYYYY???!!! WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY-eeee...
This game is already a wet dream for crafters where crafters are the biggest heroes and everyone will have take part of the system to be useful to their settlement. Please do not request hours and hours of "crafting emotes". It bores many of us to tears.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Of course, I also expect GW to periodically expand the map, and that also expands resource opportunities.
Or expanding on what Decius mentioned above, altering the frequency, quality, and locations materials are generated in the world. Although I'm not a hundred percent comfortable with the idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or expanding on what Decius mentioned above, altering the frequency, quality, and locations materials are generated in the world. Although I'm not a hundred percent comfortable with the idea.
Well, this seems tied into a similar thing with the Monster Spawn Hexes, which are fixed, except GW mentions they MIGHT change things if and when somebody really makes the most of the situation (monster hexes could be monopolized by a settlement/nation surrounding them to monopolize access to the NPC loot/artifacts they provide). For both of these things, I am 100% fine with harvesting and monster hexes periodically shifting around according to some sort of timeline (possibly randomized to some extent), because that establishes that NOBODY can long-term rely on controlling certain hexes to control certain features. But saying that only when you leverage your control of a feature to become very successful, will GW shift things around so you no longer benefit from what you worked for, seems like a let-down. It is even possible to tweak the algorhythms controlling the location and duration of new/replacement resource/monster hexes, new ones don't have any expectation or 'investment' on them working like the old ones, where people already fought many battles over controlling them. I simply think that starting out from the beginning with some sort of long-term algorhytm that will eventually swap around these resources (possibly with some mechanism to warn the owner, perhaps a smooth decline in production before failing) is a better approach than a vague warning that if you get too successful GW will change the rules to penalize you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or expanding on what Decius mentioned above, altering the frequency, quality, and locations materials are generated in the world. Although I'm not a hundred percent comfortable with the idea.
Of course, I also expect GW to periodically expand the map, and that also expands resource opportunities.
This just means the possibility that as the map expands, what might have been a great location for a settlement, becomes a not so great location. Kind if like the "boom towns" during the silver and gold rushes in the Old West.
How does a settlement respond, is the big question?
1. Trade across longer distances
2. Expand their territory, risking war or at least extending their supply lines.
3. Wither on the vine and become a ghost town.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, Good point.
I am 100% fine with harvesting and monster hexes periodically shifting around according to some sort of timeline (possibly randomized to some extent), because that establishes that NOBODY can long-term rely on controlling certain hexes to control certain features. But saying that only when you leverage your control of a feature to become very successful, will GW shift things around so you no longer benefit from what you worked for, seems like a let-down.
Agreed, you put it better than I could articulate at the moment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see alot of people upset that they "wont be able to craft myself".
This shouldn't upset you, first of all you get control over what is crafted and the processing, you have control in every step, you also have skill input.
Let me propose a question, which system is more immersion breaking?
1. WoW style where I amazingly have the ability to craft entire sets of armor within a 30sec craft timer.
This would allow us to craft hordes of equipment to flood a market or to instantly mount an assault.
2. The proposed queue system where you go to a factory, set up a job and off screen that armor is being forged and worked on a more lore friendly time-scale.
this would prevent a flood of equipment but allow for a steady trade-line. and would require the armament of an army to be a more time invested effort.
Alternatively if players really want to craft things themselves maybe GW could add a toggleable feature to allow your character to be rooted at a forge for hours on end to forge equipment, but that seems terrible IMO.
and stream History Channel documentary footage of medieval crafting to visualize yourself making the gear.
if you log out, or don't click a button on the screen every thirty seconds, the gear is ruined of course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or expanding on what Decius mentioned above, altering the frequency, quality, and locations materials are generated in the world. Although I'm not a hundred percent comfortable with the idea.
Of course, I also expect GW to periodically expand the map, and that also expands resource opportunities.This just means the possibility that as the map expands, what might have been a great location for a settlement, becomes a not so great location. Kind if like the "boom towns" during the silver and gold rushes in the Old West.
How does a settlement respond, is the big question?
1. Trade across longer distances
2. Expand their territory, risking war or at least extending their supply lines.
3. Wither on the vine and become a ghost town.
You are going to get inner trade hubs with market speculators and large quantities of stuff traded and those hubs will gain an inertia of their own. The "inner" hubs close to civilization will be expensive for raw materials and cheap for finished goods. The settlements on the "fringe" will tend to be the opposite.
The inner hubs will not be necessarily safe as the profit to be made suiciding against a big caravan may make losing your characters current gear worth it if your cohorts can loot and run with what is left.
Naturally there will also be smaller but still viable "hubs" develop in the wilderness areas frequented by people whose status keeps them out of the main hubs. Of course traders who have the right security/status to enter the main hubs but who have also made "protection deals" to gain entry to the outlaw ones will make much money.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Neadenil Edam,
Yes, I believe that is GW's intent. It is very EvE-esque, with major trade hubs forming, within the more powerful and expansive kingdoms.
Only difference is the main trade hubs in EVE are NPC hubs, and con not be conquered. In PFO, those trade hubs will be vulnerable to war and ultimately one will eventually get sacked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I'm boycotting EVE due to consumer dissatisfaction...
Remember GW's folk come with plenty of direct EVE experience. They're explicitly and deliberately "cleaning up" the part of EVE that have too much anarchy (and/or cruelty) attached.
They're also showing that they want to keep parts of EVE that make sense, in this case not having weapons, for example, come out of the forge magically ready to go 12 seconds after production begins. I've no trouble at all with the idea of crafters not being made to suffer the boring stupidities of crafting sequences in previous games; has anyone ever thought those fun?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Thanks for this blog - I've been waiting excitedly for crafting to come round. I don't think I see any dramatic differences from my expectations, and it's good to see that the systems are becoming more real.
Questions:
Last time I read about crafting, quality was expressed as a number between 0 to 300. How does that relate to the +1, +2, etc. Is this an additional indicator, or a replacement, or something new? How does this relate to tiers?
I imagine that most recipes will come from crafting trainers initially. Are you planning to introduce player tradeable schematics? I like the idea of collecting, copying and selling advanced designs for the best equipment.
I don't know... Sounds like a good opportunity for Kinect PC tie-in, there...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like that crafting is hands off. I know some folks wont like it but I do.
I also like that crafting will have lead times. meaning if you are going to war you have to be prepared to replace loses. On the other hand a settlement needs to have a replacement stock on hand at all times. If you are attacked and you dont have replacements your defenders are SOL until you finally manage to catch up.
The other reason I like this is that a logical step is that lower quality items are faster to make than higher quality items. A high end item requiring really high tier mats should take a long time to actually craft. this adds value to an item. it also allows for strats so not everyone is walking around in all +100 gear. Sure you may have an uber weapon/armor/misc gear, you wont be able to thread all of it, which means if you die you lose all your best gear.
Also replacing that gear is a bit more difficult given the lead time to actually craft it.
I also like the fact that they want to make sure that all materials will be in demand at all points in the game. I hate crafting games where one material is only useful to level your skill to a higher skill and then once you get to the top skill you only ever use a couple materials out of everything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I'm boycotting EVE due to consumer dissatisfaction...Remember GW's folk come with plenty of direct EVE experience. They're explicitly and deliberately "cleaning up" the part of EVE that have too much anarchy (and/or cruelty)
Yeah, for example by taking away economic warfare. I still think that if someone manages to corner the local or global market on something it should be resolved in game and not by the devs. Otherwise keep it fair and if a player kingdom becomes too powerfull take away 1-2 years worth or their skill points from their members.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, for example by taking away economic warfare. I still think that if someone manages to corner the local or global market on something it should be resolved in game and not by the devs. Otherwise keep it fair and if a player kingdom becomes too powerfull take away 1-2 years worth or their skill points from their members.
I'm guessing I'm reading into this differently than you intended, or at least I hope so.
If a Kingdom becomes too powerful, but within the "rules" of the game, then it is up to the rest of the community to take that kingdom down a few notches.
But, for the devs to take away a year or two worth of subscription based skill training ridiculous.
I think what the devs are talking about is tweaking the economy if needed, by controlling the resources at the point of entry into the player economy (ie resource nodes). They can change the quantity or nodes, the quality of the resources, the variety of resources, the location of resources, etc.. Without ever having to hit the player directly on the market side of the economy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no do not ever take away skill points from members.
fix the problem. If they cornered the market for stone that's required to build up settlements, then find out how they did it, then fix that problem.
Yes, This!! Fix the problem = Banditry, Murder or all out War!!
BTW, y'all folks at Goblinworks really need to get UNIQUE avatars (images), so you aren't confused for other 'civilian' posters with the same avatars. Paizo staff have avatars reserved for their usage, I'm sure they could set that up for you as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
BTW, y'all folks at Goblinworks really need to get UNIQUE avatars (images), so you aren't confused for other 'civilian' posters with the same avatars. Paizo staff have avatars reserved for their usage, I'm sure they could set that up for you as well.
Or their name tags should be a different and easily identifiable color. Isn't "Orange" the usual color for GMs?
Maybe GW could use "Rouge"?
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
Last time I read about crafting, quality was expressed as a number between 0 to 300. How does that relate to the +1, +2, etc. Is this an additional indicator, or a replacement, or something new? How does this relate to tiers?
The Quality rating still exists in the background. A "Steel Ingot +3" might map to Q180, for example, which is still the same as "the Quality of Steel Ingot necessary to make a +3 weapon" under the prior expression of the system. We've basically just simplified the numbers a little bit to make them a lot easier to search/filter, parse visually, and comprehend, without losing any of the system's depth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what the devs are talking about is tweaking the economy if needed, by controlling the resources at the point of entry into the player economy (ie resource nodes). They can change the quantity or nodes, the quality of the resources, the variety of resources, the location of resources, etc.. Without ever having to hit the player directly on the market side of the economy.
Every time the devs talk about intervening in case of someone cornering the market it sounded to me like they would take away the resources of said entity and redistribute them. If the solution is as you describe it then it's totally fine.
My example was hyperbole to show what i think of forcefully taking away the cornering of a market.
Also what about cornering the market within the rules of the game?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
Last time I read about crafting, quality was expressed as a number between 0 to 300. How does that relate to the +1, +2, etc. Is this an additional indicator, or a replacement, or something new? How does this relate to tiers?The Quality rating still exists in the background. A "Steel Ingot +3" might map to Q180, for example, which is still the same as "the Quality of Steel Ingot necessary to make a +3 weapon" under the prior expression of the system. We've basically just simplified the numbers a little bit to make them a lot easier to search/filter, parse visually, and comprehend, without losing any of the system's depth.
Thanks Stephen, that makes sense. So spreadsheet optimisers might care about the numerical quality rating, but for many casual users the +X terminology will be enough of a guide. And it provides a nice call out to PnP magic item rankings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who says its a problem if they corner the market? If a kingdom manages to dominate the market, that just means they have figured out how to do their jobs extremely well. That's like saying "find out how someone killed the dragon, and make sure it can't be done again." We *want* to see economic warfare occurring. If someone corners the market on, say, iron, then there will be bandits swarming for the chance to steal it, since the market value will be hugely high. Further, nigh every other kingdom will come racing in to try and secure their own supply. Finally, I would be highly surprised if someone can truly corner the market. Take a huge chunk of it, certainly, but all of it? I don't see it happening.