Action stances

[Roccandil 959]

Might be interesting if we could have action stances they way we have fight stances: "quick and dirty" for quick action completion but lower QL/success, "normal" for what we have now, and "slow and careful" for slower action completion but higher QL/success.

 

(I realize the skillgain system probably messes this up, but it might work on Epic.)

[JakeRivers 2,921]

-1

[Flubb 773]

If anything it should affect the success chance only, it makes somewhat more sense this way and by influencing the difficulty easier products can be made more quickly by a skilled artisan. The QL should be a reflection of the artisan's skill in first line (And of course the time they invest, but imping something to 70QL alone can take enough time already, so the game already sufficiently accounts for the time spent in a certain quality level, imho)

 

But there's the problem with the minimum action timer around 4s, enchantments and runes reducing those timers and skill already shortening timers of affected actions(Which means a skilled artisan actually does produce more quickly already...). Does "quick and dirty" go lower than that? Even if it doesn't, it may make those things obsolete, and I won't touch messing with that with a 10 foot pole right now.

 

Going slower for higher success might be worth thinking about so that someone just shy of a creation difficulty threshold may be able to build something a bit earlier, but with more effort. But the skill gain should still correspond the original difficulty, in order to not incentivise going beyond your skill regularly. Also, if you're just about to be able to build something...you can and honestly should just get these last few skill points, possibly by using better QL materials. I'm sure we all built our first knarrs with keel sections we had to imp manually before that, and I kinda appreciated the game giving me this possibility, delaying the gratification a bit and being more organic. Wether I need to get better materials, possibly improve them, or just flip a switch, I need more time effort to reduce the difficulty to a level to be able to work with it. And flipping a switch doesn't sound very immersive or engaging for that, nor as organic in gameplay as preparing properly for the task at hand.

 

To summarize: -1 because:

No to going faster, too much of a rat's tail attached to yet another way to reduce action timers that aren't even accounted for in the OP, and given it would increase difficulty it would be used by people with higher skill, who are already faster, making this a tad redundant.

No to going slower, because the scenarios I can see it being useful are covered by more immersive, engaging and interesting mechanisms already. Probably more room to discuss here than the other option, but I'm not awfully convinced of either when thinknig about it.

[Roccandil 959]

Quote

 

To summarize: -1 because:

No to going faster, too much of a rat's tail attached to yet another way to reduce action timers that aren't even accounted for in the OP, and given it would increase difficulty it would be used by people with higher skill, who are already faster, making this a tad redundant.

No to going slower, because the scenarios I can see it being useful are covered by more immersive, engaging and interesting mechanisms already. Probably more room to discuss here than the other option, but I'm not awfully convinced of either when thinknig about it.

 

 

You could also argue that aggressive/normal/defensive fight stances are already accounted for by player combat decisions (weapon, movement, choice to engage), and are thus a tad redundant. Not buying it.  For instance, I was especially thinking of mining: fast actions for quick tunneling, slow actions to maximize ore QL.

 

(I'll grant the need to go faster may be more of a thing on Epic, but on the other hand, if implemented on both Epic and Freedom, an action system like this could potentially replace the 2x action timer thing on Epic, bringing it more in sync with Freedom.)

 

Your immersive/engaging comment seems odd to me. If I'm at a 1% create chance, and by "flipping a switch" I improve my chance to 2%, how exactly have I nullified all the systems you describe?

 

The very idea that I shouldn't be able to decide how I work is itself more of an immersion-killer.

[Flubb 773]

58 minutes ago, Roccandil said:

 

You could also argue that aggressive/normal/defensive fight stances are already accounted for by player combat decisions (weapon, movement, choice to engage), and are thus a tad redundant. Not buying it.  For instance, I was especially thinking of mining: fast actions for quick tunneling, slow actions to maximize ore QL.

 

(I'll grant the need to go faster may be more of a thing on Epic, but on the other hand, if implemented on both Epic and Freedom, an action system like this could potentially replace the 2x action timer thing on Epic, bringing it more in sync with Freedom.)

 

Your immersive/engaging comment seems odd to me. If I'm at a 1% create chance, and by "flipping a switch" I improve my chance to 2%, how exactly have I nullified all the systems you describe?

 

The very idea that I shouldn't be able to decide how I work is itself more of an immersion-killer.

 

1. You don't get to "not buy it" because you discard half of my arguments. Redundacy was one point, and it was rather off-hand aswell. I'm also not very convinced of the combat stances either, as anything but aggressive doesn't appear very viable, at least in PvE, so...strawman much?

2. You're right, it doesn't make a dent. Now you're basically confirming how useless it would be by throwing convenient numbers at me.

3.I'd argue you are trying to decide how the game works, not the other way around.

 

I think we're also partly talking beside eachother because I opened that I'd take the stance that this mechanism shouldn't affect QL to begin with. But that's a problem with the suggestion overall, it's very vague and some points need to be pinned down first so it can be productively discussed.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Flubb

[Roccandil 959]

4 hours ago, Flubb said:

 

1. You don't get to "not buy it" because you discard half of my arguments. Redundacy was one point, and it was rather off-hand aswell. I'm also not very convinced of the combat stances either, as anything but aggressive doesn't appear very viable, at least in PvE, so...strawman much?

2. You're right, it doesn't make a dent. Now you're basically confirming how useless it would be by throwing convenient numbers at me.

3.I'd argue you are trying to decide how the game works, not the other way around.

 

I think we're also partly talking beside eachother because I opened that I'd take the stance that this mechanism shouldn't affect QL to begin with. But that's a problem with the suggestion overall, it's very vague and some points need to be pinned down first so it can be productively discussed.

 

We have a saying where I work (and no doubt it's more common that that), we can do the job well, cheap, or quickly. Pick two out of three.

 

And that's very real. One thing I like about Wurm is that it can be real enough that I feel it when something real like the above is missing. That's why I made the suggestion in the first place. (I get a similar odd feeling when I'm being chased by something nasty like a spirit, but I can't command my horse to gallop, and it decides to plod sedately along. That simply isn't real, and yeah, there's another suggestion. )

 

Anyhow, I'm not stuck on the suggestion, and I do appreciate that you took the time to detail why you didn't like it.