Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You will need to keep stacks of all kind of items you want to use stashed in a bank.
After every death, some items will disappear. You can't thread all your equipped items. This is nothing new. So you will need to go back to your stash to get replacements after death anyhow. Having your stash very close to your bindpoint (where you end up after death) is a good idea.
Now about repairs:
You won't need as large a stash of items of the kind you have threaded as the unthreaded ones. You will be guaranteed to have the threaded items remain with you for somewhere around 10 deaths. It won't hurt to have a small stack of those items either, so you can spend more time adventuring and less at the auction house.
If you are used to MMORPGs where you keep an item forever after purchasing/looting it it may seem like a huge throwback to lose some of your gear. Please note that items won't be that hard to come by in this game. Adventurers, soldiers etc. will have large stacks of replacement items in their banks. When you go shopping for gear, you don't buy one of each type. You buy ten or more.
The only thing that changes with item durability is that you can't have anything lasting forever. Since people would obviously thread their most valuable items, having no item decay would mean that crafters providing those valuable items (like weapons) would lose a lot of business.
The new item durability system is most welcome.
Partial durability repairs could be scaled interestingly if it was done logarithmically... That would make it cheaper per death to keep high-durability items in good shape than to let them be worn down and repair them from a low-quality state.
Any system needs to be calibrated so the actual 'average' price paid per death equals the full item price divided by it's full durability rating (# of deaths before broken), right? It seems like there is too many complications with a variable/logarhythmic price per death, once you factor in player reactions shifting the average point of repair, that seems like it would invalidate the equation of (total average) repair price per durability unit to new crafting price per durability unit...
A linear scaling model seems to achieve the goal just fine without introducing further complications. There would still be market effects like when repair prices are high, due to labor or material shortages, people will tend to get smaller repairs or delay their repairs, when prices are low people will do the opposite... And if people delay too much it will come back to bite them either in Broken items or paying thru their nose in a seller's market.As Ryan mentioned, some items effectively are worth more than their 'vanilla' purchase price, e.g. Spellbooks.
The market price for repairs of these should end up accounting not just for the price per durability rating of the Spellbook itself, but the perceived value of the customizations that go into it, e.g. the spells themselves. As far as adding those spells has a direct cost, that is obvious enough (even if it wouldn't be the same person crafting all the components to re-create an equivalent from scratch), but there may als be non-cost gameplay factors which carry perceived value that the market can take into account. Beyond Spellbooks, there could be items which are simply rare enough, e.g. Artifacts created via special catalysts/one-time crafting tools from Escalations, that they simply can't be easily replaced on the spot, so their repairs may very well have a higher material cost per death/durability rating than crafting one of them new from scratch (with the initial crafting having an additional implicit value thru a non-material rarity factor).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You will need to keep stacks of all kind of items you want to use stashed in a bank.
After every death, some items will disappear. You can't thread all your equipped items. This is nothing new. So you will need to go back to your stash to get replacements after death anyhow. Having your stash very close to your bindpoint (where you end up after death) is a good idea.
Excellent point, sir. And reminiscent of a lot of things Ryan has said about wanting to have a Bind Point nearby whatever it is you're doing.
The only counterpoint I would make to anything in your post is that, hopefully, the economy is stable and vibrant enough that you won't need to have stacks of everything in your bank, but that you'll be able to buy pretty much whatever you might need pretty much wherever you might need it. There will probably still be value in buying in bulk if you have the encumbrance and time to transport it to your bank, but hopefully it won't be necessary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, but you'll hopefully be traveling in good company :)
Oh, great. I'm one of the big proponents of friendly fire (or fiendly fire, as I've heard it called), and you've just reminded me I'll find some way, in the confusion of battle, to put a sword in the eye of the Great and Powerful Nihimon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You will need to keep stacks of all kind of items you want to use stashed in a bank.
After every death, some items will disappear. You can't thread all your equipped items. This is nothing new. So you will need to go back to your stash to get replacements after death anyhow. Having your stash very close to your bindpoint (where you end up after death) is a good idea.
Excellent point, sir. And reminiscent of a lot of things Ryan has said about wanting to have a Bind Point nearby whatever it is you're doing.
The only counterpoint I would make to anything in your post is that, hopefully, the economy is stable and vibrant enough that you won't need to have stacks of everything in your bank, but that you'll be able to buy pretty much whatever you might need pretty much wherever you might need it. There will probably still be value in buying in bulk if you have the encumbrance and time to transport it to your bank, but hopefully it won't be necessary.
Oh, certainly you don't need to buy plenty of equipment in advance. However, if you want to be able to 'get back out there' without much hassle, it can be as easy as ressing up back in town, picking up a set of replacement gear from your bank and you're good to go.
It really needn't be any worse than that. How often to go shopping is up for everyone to decide for themselves but by buying in bulk, death, item degradation and item loss needn't necessarily be as much of a hassle as some might believe.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Chaotic Evil settlements will be severely gimped and not be able to support advanced training...I'm not certain it's a prohibition; I thought it was going to be a "it can be done, but it'll be DAMNED expensive to build" kind of thing. Even if it is prohibited, I think you'd have a pretty reasonable chance of finding a Lawful Evil settlement who'll sell you a training slot...even if you won't like the price they'll know they can charge you.
I turn out to have been completely wrong in my supposition. In the MMORPG Q&A Ryan said, in response to exactly the question about whether Chaotic Evil characters with low rep can get high-level training in a settlement they can bribe adequately:
"The design of the game punishes you for acting in anti-social ways purely to the detriment of the community. Those kinds of actions push your character towards Chaotic Evil. Chaotic Evil characters will find that the Settlements that they can access tend to have lower quality and less powerful character development options and facilities.
If you could "talk your way" out of that problem, then people would just play CE characters without making meaningful choices, and that system would cease to be useful.
So no."
When he says Chaotic Evil will suck, their settlements will suck, and those characters will suck, he seems utterly consistent...he means it, a lot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yay for item de-cay!Just give me my mending spell and I will be good :)A mending spell could work, no problem.
...as long as the spell components used up in the process make the magical repair process more expensive than a 'normal' repair.
Ouch! hehe Quicker and possible in the field, more expensive. I like it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Granted most people will not like that idea...
This alone should be a waving red flag that perhaps the idea you speak of is not a good idea from the perspective of maintaining a game with an active audience.
The game's development is not a democracy. This is understood, at least I hope. However, as a game that was financially back in part by we the future players (some of us doing so twice), the weight of the majority should be given stronger consideration than the weight of the minority as more funding has probably come from said majority and said majority will provide more post-launch revenue from subscriptions and training time purchases.
This game is nowhere near trending towards a PvE Theme Park. The lack of desire to go Full No-Consequence PvP simply is not in the spirit of the game. The spirit of the game is that actions have consequences.
Travelling unprotected - you are likely to get robbed.
Refusing a SAD - you are likely to get killed. And then robbed.
Robbing others - folks aren't going to like you so much.
Killing others - he who lives by the sword, dies by the sword (or dagger).
As for training... Chaotic Evil can belong to Neutral Evil, Chaotic Evil, or Chaotic Neutral settlements. You still have choices.
It makes complete sense that Lawful settlements will be easier to build out. Order and structure allows a populace to be more productive, as they fall into routines. For the community is the way of Law, whether that community is structured to reward power (Evil) or to benefit the general public (Good) or merely to maintain order somewhere in between (Neutral)
On the other hand, Chaotic settlements are filled with folks who do not care to work together. Large projects like building construction can only be done through coin or bullying. Focus on the individual is the way of chaos, whether that individual espouses freedom and happiness for all (Good) or is willing to harm and stifle those around them for personal gain (Evil) or simply wishes to live free for themselves and doesn't really take an interest in helping others attain freedom though do not necessarily wish to harm others directly (Neutral).
Good = Helping
Evil = Harming
Chaos = Individual-Focus
Law = Community-Focus
Also, do not forget, that whereas it will be more difficult to build out Chaotic settlements it is likely going to be easier/cheaper to place trainers for Stealth, Sleight of Hand (Pickpocket) - if it exists, Poisons, and other skills that cater to the typical activities that drive a character towards chaos.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Frankly, I think it would be boring if each point of durability except the last one had similar cost and value, and there's no reason it has to be that way.Alternatively, make every point of durability have the same cost and value: 0 durability items are unusable, but are not destroyed; repairs require linear amounts of resources.
Linear costs of repairs give every point of durability the same cost, but only the last one has value it a durability 1/20 item works as well as a durability 20/20 one.
I agree - it would also end up being a PITA for the crafter when players come back every 15 minutes expecting service.
Repairers are free to set the price of any repair job wherever they want. They can set it at a flat cost for their hassle, plus the market price of the cost, plus profit. A crafter who isn't ecstatic when people come in repeatedly for low-cost jobs isn't charging enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Chaos = Individual-Focus
Law = Community-Focus
I very much liked your post, and strongly agree with virtually all of it. I would just take issue with these characterizations.
There is a very compelling argument that the Law is there to protect the Individual from the ravages of the "Community" (read: Mob). The Law is defined in terms of how it prohibits certain actions that violate another's rights (life, liberty, property).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Any system needs to be calibrated so the actual 'average' price paid per death equals the full item price divided by it's full durability rating (# of deaths before broken), right?
Why? Unthreaded items are expected to lose 25% of their value every death, but have an individual variance of +75% or -25% each death; 3/4 of the time they are there. and the other 1/4 of the time they aren't. Threaded items are for the risk-adverse, since they have no variance.
As Ryan mentioned, some items effectively are worth more than their 'vanilla' purchase price, e.g. Spellbooks.
The market price for repairs of these should end up accounting not just for the price per durability rating of the Spellbook itself, but the perceived value of the customizations that go into it, e.g. the spells themselves. As far as adding those spells has a direct cost, that is obvious enough (even if it wouldn't be the same person crafting all the components to re-create an equivalent from scratch), but there may als be non-cost gameplay factors which carry perceived value that the market can take into account. Beyond Spellbooks, there could be items which are simply rare enough, e.g. Artifacts created via special catalysts/one-time crafting tools from Escalations, that they simply can't be easily replaced on the spot, so their repairs may very well have a higher material cost per death/durability rating than crafting one of them new from scratch (with the initial crafting having an additional implicit value thru a non-material rarity factor).
I'm not sure where you are addressing price or market price (the coin value on the repair bid or contract) and where you are addressing cost (the smithy time, materials, and coin drain of the repair).
I wouldn't have a problem if some things simply couldn't be repaired, or if repairing them required the same type of escalation reward that was used to create them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wouldn't have a problem if some things simply couldn't be repaired, or if repairing them required the same type of escalation reward that was used to create them.
I thought that repairs requiring the same materials needed to create them was already a given. Any other method of repair is just going to turn into a coin sink, not a substantive penalty for death.
Linear costs of repairs give every point of durability the same cost, but only the last one has value it a durability 1/20 item works as well as a durability 20/20 one.
The value of points 2-20 is the convenience of not having to go out of your way to get an item repaired the next time you die. They're an insurance policy on not having to disrupt whatever you're doing to go get repairs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is a very compelling argument that the Law is there to protect the Individual from the ravages of the "Community" (read: Mob). The Law is defined in terms of how it prohibits certain actions that violate another's rights (life, liberty, property).
This is true to a degree. I did stretch to extremes in my characterizations but I still feel that they are true in general. Law does not respect those traits fully. The proof is that the degree in which one might claim they respect those traits can be heavily influenced by standing on the Good/Evil scale. A Good nation will protect Life, Liberty, Property of all citizens. An Evil nation will put the Life, Liberty, and Property of a corrupt Noble or Royal class above those of the common citizenry. These examples can be taken from a lawful society as a more Lawful Neutral stance (in my opinion)...
Enforced Mandatory Military Service (Or the Draft) - You are expected to willingly sacrifice your life and your liberty for the greater community.
Imminent Domain / Comandeering by Officials - You are expected to willingly sacrifice your property for the greater community.
Censorship / Propaganda - You are expected to willing sacrifice your liberty via freedom of expression for the greater community.
Of course, Law and Chaos are certainly somewhat abstract concepts in our real-life world that we are attempting to give concrete definitions to in a constructed world. That act is by its very nature going to cause some disagreements on where boundaries lay. (Much like the old Good/Evil argument of taking life by alignment)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nearly forgot! The situation of having Laws to protect the Freedoms of Individuals from the Community probably fills the middle-ground between Law/Chaos. As it is Law creating room for Chaotic Principles to exist within a community, but not being crushed by said community. The Centrist position if you would.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lifedragon, my actual views are probably not compatible with Pathfinder's definitions. I think Law represents Natural Law (property rights, etc.) rather than Legislation. In fact, I would probably be inclined to argue that Lawful Good = respect for Natural Law, while Lawful Evil = obeisance to Legislation. Yeah, I like that... and it's probably compatible after all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon - You have the spirit of my handle correct, but there is no 'o' :) I do not point it out to nag, but in the spirit of uniqueness in the identifier as I use it in many public forums.
I guess our difference is going to lay in the what defines Lawful Neutral. In my mind, Lawful Neutral defines what it is to be Lawful. Good and Evil determine in which ways the traits of Lawful are applied. "Desire for rules and structure" is probably the better definition than simply community.
As to our personal views being compatible with Pathfinder's definition, that is what I am trying to abstract from. I'm hoping to express what I feel Pathfinder's definition of Law is. Not my own, which I have difficulty even listing out as I see way too many variables in play to nail down hard categories. I would certainly be hesitant to place Property Rights as Lawful Good. Certainly lawful, but I do not see anything inherently Good nor Evil about them. They can be beneficial or abusive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yay for item de-cay!Just give me my mending spell and I will be good :)A mending spell could work, no problem.
...as long as the spell components used up in the process make the magical repair process more expensive than a 'normal' repair.
So the focus is a set of tools appropriate to the construction of the item, and the consumed components are a pile of resources that the item uses. It looks indistinguishable from a crafter's normal repair action, and can be cast within an anti-magic zone.
If they're going to render a spell pointless, they may as well leave it out.
@Keovar
I think the point was not that the components were the same but that the mending spell shouldn't be a cheap work around necessarily.
ie fixing longsword by mundane skills = 1 iron bar + cost of smiths time = 2g
cost of component for mending is a garnet worth 2g
If you think about it is in a mages interest that it not be too cheap unless you wish to spend most of your in town time being spammed by people asking if you could just mend their item :)
I was merely clarifying a point I thought had been misread and have no objection to more expensive
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they're going to render a spell pointless...Why do you say it's "pointless"?
Isn't there value in being able to repair an item without requiring access to the appropriate Crafting Facilities?
Repairing stuff is likely to come earlier in the skill chain than crafting it new, so there will be a lot more people available to repair. I think it's likely that many will pick up enough crafting to repair their own stuff.
Access to crafting facilities isn't really more onerous than access to a bank with a spellbook, and since we only get to carry a few spells per book and it would be stupid to travel with a pile of unthreaded books, a mending spell is unlikely to make it out in the field anyway.@Keovar
I think the point was not that the components were the same but that the mending spell shouldn't be a cheap work around necessarily.
ie fixing longsword by mundane skills = 1 iron bar + cost of smiths time = 2g
cost of component for mending is a garnet worth 2g
If you think about it is in a mages interest that it not be too cheap unless you wish to spend most of your in town time being spammed by people asking if you could just mend their item :)
As if it would be better to get spammed with repair demands outside of town, especially if the mending spell is the only way to repair outside of a settlement? With guards around, you can reduce the demand by raising your price, but outside of guarded areas you'll just be extorted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Repairing stuff is likely to come earlier in the skill chain than crafting it new...
I don't think so.
If you want to repair your item, you'll have to take it back to the same kind of crafter that made it in the first place, he or she will need to know the recipe for that item, and repairing it will take a proportional fraction of the original materials for making the item.
... since we only get to carry a few spells per book and it would be stupid to travel with a pile of unthreaded books, a mending spell is unlikely to make it out in the field anyway.
I'm not so sure about that. I have every intention of having lots of very nice gear on me pretty much all the time, and I clearly won't be able to thread it all. Carrying some "utility" spell books seems perfectly reasonable to me.
As if the mending spell is the only way to repair outside of a settlement? With guards around, you can reduce the demand by raising your price, but outside of guarded areas you'll just be extorted.
This actually makes sense to me, but it doesn't really bother me that much - I learned to be assertive and say "No" without feeling like a jerk quite some time ago :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yay for item de-cay!Just give me my mending spell and I will be good :)A mending spell could work, no problem.
...as long as the spell components used up in the process make the magical repair process more expensive than a 'normal' repair.
What I was trying to convey is that a free-to-cast mending spell would bypass the game's economy. I tried to do this with a tongue-in-cheek post since I thought that Sunwader's post was also made, at least partly, jokingly.
Magical means of repairs may or may not fit in the game depending on how they are done. Do we really want an alternative route? I think crafters wouldn't be to happy about it.
If we have it, it needs to be in a way that it doesn't render crafter repairs useless. This can be done by making it more expensive than normal repairs. Magical repairs may or may not also require a certain workbench. It may require a lot of training (how can you repair a masterwork sword if you don't know what makes a sword 'masterwork'?).
In the end, I just don't think it's a good idea that adds something meaningful to the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Speculative consequences you personally don't like is not a reason to leave out anything.
But thw speculative benefits of a speculative spell are totally reasonable?
... it needs to be in a way that it doesn't render crafter repairs useless.Good point.
Yet it's totally okay for crafters to make magic items without input from spellcasters.
Whatever, don't bother.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Magical Repairs might only last for so long. IE, they are a temporary fix with a costly material component AND take up a valuable spell-slot.
Let's say you cast 'Mending' on a broken Longsword. Okay, fine, it's now useable again and has a smaller-than-normal 'durability' bar ... but if it's not repaired properly soon, it will revert to being broken, or worse still, if the 'Mended' item loses all durability again it will earn the 'destroyed' status and need to be completely reforged/re-enchanted again.
That would make Mending a useful utility spell to slap into a Wand and take out into the field with you for emergency repairs, but it's not exactly something you want to rely upon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Magical Repairs might only last for so long. IE, they are a temporary fix with a costly material component AND take up a valuable spell-slot.
Let's say you cast 'Mending' on a broken Longsword. Okay, fine, it's now useable again and has a smaller-than-normal 'durability' bar ... but if it's not repaired properly soon, it will revert to being broken, or worse still, if the 'Mended' item loses all durability again it will earn the 'destroyed' status and need to be completely reforged/re-enchanted again.
That would make Mending a useful utility spell to slap into a Wand and take out into the field with you for emergency repairs, but it's not exactly something you want to rely upon.
I could see some practicality in a way to make mending work along those lines,
First and foremost, it needs a stacked property on the item that stays until it is repaired for real. IE under no circumstance should a weapon be able to keep and use indefinently via the mending spell. A stacking extra debuff, say first time the mending spell is casted, item is made functioning with 10% durability for up to 2 hours and gains 1 stacking of "mended" until repaired, second time 5% durability for up to 1 hour, after 2 stackings of mending, it cannot be re-mended.
One thing IMO needs to be avoided, is if say we are talking a weapon, designed for extreme difficulty in crafting, IE rediculously over elaborate weapon designed to bankrupt almost anyone, made of parts that are extremely rare and hard to buy, this should not be plausible to keep remending via either some way to cast while holding, or worse a multibox mending mule.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with the stacking-debuff for Mending and similar spells. They're emergency stop-measures in this case, a way to keep up the fight even under extreme conditions, not a loop-hole to abuse to avoid contact with the Crafters.
In regards to the 'Extreme Crafting', I'd argue that, towards the 'higher levels' of the game, when players may be looking for something unique and powerful to really stamp their mark into the game with, any item that is incredibly difficult to gather, refine and produce should have an equally rewarding effect once finished.
They should also be relatively unique, insofar as that the ability to actually 'LEARN' the crafting pattern/enchanting formula require deep focus within a specific branch of a crafting/enchanting skill and hundreds of hours of experimentation over the course of the 2-2.5 years.
An example would be a suit of Fullplate Armor crafted from Adamantite at a mystical Forge to actually be able to work the Adamantite properly. Hellishly expensive and requiring a lot of training to even think of attempting, yet on it's own, the Fullplate-type suit is one of the best sources of armor in the game, combined with the properties of Adamantite effectively make you as close to invulnerable as non-magical can get.
Of course, the very nature of the materials involved in the making of the armor means you're tied to whichever Blacksmith is skilled enough to repair said suit of armor, and thus might have to leave your beloved Fullplate at home if you need to go further than your suit's durability will safely allow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I read something on another game forum (Firefall) on the subject of repairing crafted equipment, which I think is relevant:
[Suppose] resources take the place of [currency] in terms of repairs. This creates a sort of weird meta-economy, where the value of the things that are used to make items has more value than the item created (You can ask anyone who made “Ornate Mithril” gear during their Mithril Order questline in WoW about how this feels). We definitely want to avoid solutions that create these problems.
I think he makes a good point. If the demand for resources is a lot higher than the demand for crafted gear (because both crafting gear and repairing existing gear takes resources), the prices will be skewed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First of he jumps to a conclusion that is a) false and b) not in the slightest explained. Secondly his points of reference are WoW, the themeparkiest of them all and Firefall, a MMO first person shooter with no economy what so ever.
So at first glance, I respectfully disagree, this statement is of no relevance to this context.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One major, major difference is that training crafting shouldn't require a metric boatload of metal of various types to craft crappy daggers no one will use. So what resources we do have will be turned into things we need, including repairs.
I expect the chokepoint in crafting might be the forge queues, or at least the crafting time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First of he jumps to a conclusion that is a) false and b) not in the slightest explained. Secondly his points of reference are WoW, the themeparkiest of them all and Firefall, a MMO first person shooter with no economy what so ever.
So at first glance, I respectfully disagree, this statement is of no relevance to this context.
I have to agree, his conclusion just makes no sense. WoW had the problem worse than any game I played, and it fully had gold only repairs.
The reason why WoW's model created resources cost 3x more than the finished product stemmed from several huge issues.
1. The crafted products were generally subpar. With the exception of a handful of items at cap that involved a 1% drop from a raid boss. The finished product of crafted gear, was in fact pretty mediocre gear. usually half as good as your typical boss drops.
2. As urman mentioned, regardless of the lack of demand, Even having a chance at getting the best item meant crafting hundreds of items regardless of any intent of whether they could plausibly be sold to anything other than an NPC.
3. Crafting itself was a why not skill. WoW kind of put players in a position where they generally felt like they should have a crafting skill regardless of the demand, or desire. Namely due to the lack of other interests at cap, plus the limit of 2 craftings that you get and it not costing XP, Just about everyone took a crafting skill, which meant even more people were burning resources as factor 2 mentions.
PFO's system will not lead to the materials costing more than the crafted item, because 1. the limited quantity of crafters. Being a crafter quite clearly means sacrificing XP that otherwise would go to your adventuring 2. If the items value somehow does drop below the value of the materials, people will have no reason to craft it, thus supply drops demand goes back up, and 3. There will be no better alternatives to crafted gear. If you don't like the current prices of crafted gear, you will not be able to just farm bosses until one of them drops that epic sword. The bosses are going to be dropping a material which you can give to a crafter to make something of worth, not fully completed projects that is better than anything a crafter can make.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First of he jumps to a conclusion that is a) false and b) not in the slightest explained. Secondly his points of reference are WoW, the themeparkiest of them all and Firefall, a MMO first person shooter with no economy what so ever.
So at first glance, I respectfully disagree, this statement is of no relevance to this context.
I was thinking it over last night , and while I don't agree with you that the conclusion is false, I do agree that it doesn't apply to PFO, because in PFO the *only* source of gear is crafting (unlike WoW and Firefall). Because of that, in PFO if the cost of resources goes up, so will the cost of gear.
Thanks for making me think harder on it :)
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is one of my pet issues for MMO systems. The core problems (I believe) are really that anyone can have at least one crafting skill with no impact on their other abilities, and that raising those skills requires making a lot of items where the real benefit to you is the skillup (the actual item created is incidental).
So you wind up with a system where everyone wants raw materials to transform into increased crafting skill, and everyone is producing lots of items that they'll throw up on the market for a loss because the item itself was just a weird byproduct of turning raw materials into higher skill.
You also get the followon problem of:
- 1. Low level raw materials are too expensive on the market for low level players to buy them.
2. In fact, they're so expensive that it really makes more sense for low level players to just learn gathering skills and sell what they've gathered on the market, rather than trying to improve crafting skills.
3. Eventually, the player gets to be rich and high level, and decides it's time to actually raise a crafting skill.
4. Suddenly all the overpriced low level materials on the market are incredibly affordable; the player can buy them up in huge numbers to quickly raise the new craft skill.
5. Go to 1.
We're hopefully avoiding all this by:
- Making buying craft skills a tradeoff with other things you might want to buy, so achievers don't feel like there's a big hole on their character sheets if they don't also raise those skills.
- Eliminating the item creation skill grind. We may still require you to craft a few items in pursuit of an achievement necessary for the next level, but it shouldn't be anything like "make all the orange recipes, then look for higher level recipes once those go yellow." This should mean most items are entering the economy because a player actually wanted to make them for profit (or at least for a friend), rather than just making them to make a skill bar go up.