Goblin Squad Member
|
The ratio of consumption to availability should roughly equate.
I think it will be best if settlements do not select their settlement type (Wizard/Rogue, Fighter/Cleric, etc.)until they are confident they know what the initial mix of resources will be locally available. Later on there will be a system of supply between settlements/areas, but initially we should not pick what type of settlement we have based on what people want to play but on what will be supported by the local environment.
Where there is little pine or the components for bowstrings and varnish it doesn't make sense to count on longbows. Where the components for sepia crystals are scarce a cleric settlement will face difficult times.
I think, further, that the developer must make an effort to ensure that the rate of resource consumption will approximate the availability of those resources. That is, if it were pine that is scarce, setting the durability of weapons dependent on pine too low will create many avoidable problems.
Currently the availability (frequency) of for an example, esoteric essence nodes appears disproportionate. Granted, this observation is local and subjective, but only the developer has the means to objectively evaluate the relative frequency of 'junk' nodes and the anticipated consumption rate of leather armor.
Personally, I don't think a durability of '20' is going to cut it, given the frequency of character death.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Only commenting the last sentence
Personally, I don't think a durability of '20' is going to cut it, given the frequency of character death.
I think players will learn their limits quite quickly and not engage in fights they can't win - how careful they will be in this assessment can be affected by the number of durability counters, sure, but it can in any case balance itself so that the system doesn't degrade to everyone being naked and weaponless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of my party members wound up just like that. His peasant clothes were destroyed. Of course since this is a family game, his character's image didn't change so that he was running around in rags. I imagine that will be a future project, having clothes and armor visibly deteriorate as it gets damaged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I don't think a durability of '20' is going to cut it, given the frequency of character death.
I have a feeling the durability is right. My experience so far is that I go through a lot of the low level stuff, testing myself against the environment, but as I improve, and get better gear, I'm more cautious, and more accurate, about assessing my chances with a given target.
Burning through low-level gear rapidly doesn't bother me, yet. It encourages me to play smarter, and ensures that the market won't be awash with the products of beginner crafts-people. It also serves as a partial foil to "Death is meaningless (so I'm going to throw myself at everything until I get what I need)."
Death shouldn't be meaningless, and in a game whee everyone comes back all the time, we need other things to make us careful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of my party members wound up just like that. His peasant clothes were destroyed. Of course since this is a family game, his character's image didn't change so that he was running around in rags. I imagine that will be a future project, having clothes and armor visibly deteriorate as it gets damaged.
I don't think the decay is practical. It means several (possibly 20) times as much artwork for every conceivable situation. (this is character in rank 13/20 cloth armour walking up to a trainer)
I prefer to think of it as Pharasma's preoccupation with what matters, maybe a frustration with carelessness, or a laissez-faire connection to the merely material. After the 20th time, she just can't be bothered to bring that item with you any more and chooses to "lose it" to teach you a lesson for being so reckless with her gift.
Or, they could just do away with durability all-together, and give you a random 5% chance of her not bringing threaded gear along with you every time you die. That would add a little more intensity to the experience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the availability of resources is balanced well and the price of everything you are wearing and using is affordable, then sure, maybe 20 is about right.
Check back in with your evaluation when you have to replace everything upon your 20th death and some of those things are much more rare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Or, they could just do away with durability all-together, and give you a random 5% chance of her not bringing threaded gear along with you every time you die. That would add a little more intensity to the experience.
This would remove an interesting secondary market in almost-used-up good gear.
If the availability of resources is balanced well and the price of everything you are wearing and using is affordable, then sure, maybe 20 is about right.
Check back in with your evaluation when you have to replace everything upon your 20th death and some of those things are much more rare.
Big important to keep in mind here: The repair system isn't in place yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
True dat. I hadn't factored for that. Guurzak's point is well taken. I certainly think durability is better than loss.
I guess my sentiment is driven by a worry, now when the only weaponry are drops or gimmes and pelts are rare, that the characters I am building based on what can be scrounged up will be left without weapons or armor or the means to procure those, and I am forced to make use of skills I haven't trained with my scant xp.
Focusing on the situation down the road is fine and necessary but we have to arrive there before it will be immediately salient.
(3) The ratio of consumption to availability should roughly equate.
(1) I think it will be best if settlements do not select their settlement type (Wizard/Rogue, Fighter/Cleric, etc.)until they are confident they know what the initial mix of resources will be locally available. Later on there will be a system of supply between settlements/areas, but initially we should not pick what type of settlement we have based on what people want to play but on what will be supported by the local environment.
(2) Where there is little pine or the components for bowstrings and varnish it doesn't make sense to count on longbows. Where the components for sepia crystals are scarce a cleric settlement will face difficult times.
1. Not necessarily so. It looks like most towns on the map are within close proximity to a Crafting town. This means trade from farther flung places will be easier for most folks. It is the crafting towns that really needed to hold off. My settlement is fine- we will be exporting tons of iron and iron products. But if your crafting settlement doesn't have any really nice, local-only resources to capitalize on, then the settlement might not have the boon of having a specialty craft to offer. Although I actually don't think this will be an issue, either.
2. Similar to 1., but most folks will have access to a nearby Crafting settlement for acquiring harder-to-get things. Also, localized scarcity will be a big driver for some of the "meaningful human interactions" Ryan is going for- mostly in the form of trade but also in the form of Banditry.
3. We really won't know if this is working as intended until the game has 20,000 people in it. Right now, the biggest holdup is recipes. In particular, you can't make Armor Padding until level 7 Weaver! This kind of issue is supposed to be fixed in the next build, though. When they are, it will be a lot easier to make new bows, armor, etc. That done, I don't think the current supply-demand crunch will be as big of an issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...they could just do away with durability all-together, and give you a random 5% chance of her not bringing threaded gear along with you every time you die. That would add a little more intensity to the experience.
Oh, please keep durability. "Intensity" is not what everyone's looking for in a game (at least a few just the opposite), and some portion--perhaps a significant one--won't bother with the threading system at all if there's a chance of loss, but will always just use basic gear.
That way might lead to lack of success, boredom, and departure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The ratio of consumption to availability should roughly equate.
I think it will be best if settlements do not select their settlement type (Wizard/Rogue, Fighter/Cleric, etc.)until they are confident they know what the initial mix of resources will be locally available. Later on there will be a system of supply between settlements/areas, but initially we should not pick what type of settlement we have based on what people want to play but on what will be supported by the local environment.
Where there is little pine or the components for bowstrings and varnish it doesn't make sense to count on longbows. Where the components for sepia crystals are scarce a cleric settlement will face difficult times.
To some degree it balances out: you need pine for bows and yew for arrows. But yes, some town that is planning on going fighter/whatever because they are sited on a mountain may be in for a rude surprise when the find no iron, only copper. I'd offer that maybe non iron metal deposits could be smaller blobs than the iron, so iron is probably available within 5 hexes. Pine/Yew should be the same way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...they could just do away with durability all-together, and give you a random 5% chance of her not bringing threaded gear along with you every time you die. That would add a little more intensity to the experience.Oh, please keep durability. "Intensity" is not what everyone's looking for in a game (at least a few just the opposite)
That might have come across better if I had indicated [start dry amused tone][end dry....]
I have no issue with durability. I don't think it needs different art to indicate condition, and I wouldn't like to see that.
