Why is transmutation so horrible?

[ChampagneDragon 971]

20 hours ago, Roccandil said:

 

The game (and devs) are insulting me, and not only me. This is simply one instance. Perhaps the quintessential example is newbies failing to make kindling and start a campfire.

 

Punishing players for playing is horrible game design. You can blame the players if you want, but if a game isn't fun, it isn't a good game. I get the impression Notch understood this. Compare Minecraft's playerbase with Wurm's.

 

I get the impression that all I'm doing is standing up and saying what many people who have left silently have felt.

 

To be honest, and I am in no way associated with the game except as a player, I read your complaint and thought "oh gee, another complaint from him". 

 

I created a new character yesterday. Logged it into Haven and went through the tutorial (awesome job btw devs!!) I was able to chop a tree, make kindling, make a fire, mine ore, and make nails, without too much headache. In fact, felt like I was in a new world, trying to find my footing.  I cut enough trees and planks to build a small 1x1 house before I was summoned to my village. Compared to when I started 3 years ago it was a huge improvement. And if a newbie fails to make kindling and a campfire and rage quits, then Wurm probably isn't the game for them.

 

if the game isn't fun quit. It's simple. Nobody is forcing you to play. I mean, I could be wrong. Someone could be holding a gun to your head saying you have to log into Wurm, but I doubt it.

 

[Roccandil 959]

20 hours ago, armyskin said:

Children vs adults. Sounds like Minecraft is calling for you.

 

Children?

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

 

Children may play it, and the graphics may be cartoony, but the freedom of building clearly appeals to more.

[Roccandil 959]

17 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

You seem to misunderstand me. RNG on a MUD is not something you just take away and tweak. RNG is inherent in a MUD game. Think back to the early stages of games such as Dungeon's and Dragons. That's the birthplace of MUD games. MUD games are simply a step ahead - they are played on computers instead of pen and paper.

 

If you take D&D and remove the dice rolling, then you are left with storytelling: A group of people sit around a table and tell interactive stories. There's currently a game style that exemplifies that: Telltale Games. Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with that, but in essence, by that point it stops being a MUD game.

 

You need to understand what the developers are trying to accomplish when they develop their game. A game won't do a 180 and stop being what it is in favor of something else. Wurm developers carter to the genere and thus is why everything is RNG based. RNG is part of the MUD genere, and thus part of Wurm. 

Why? Have you ever tried to make kindling with a knife in real life? How about started a fire with it? Maybe the player is using the bark of a live and wet log with sap instead of drywood to make his kindling. Maybe he can't get the spark to light because they don't know how to use the flint and steel. I still remember trying to light my first cigar with a zippo lighter. It wasn't easy. I didn't know how to use it until I was thaught by my friend. These are the things RNG and skill represent in the game.

 

Try looking at it from a different perspective.

 

 

Dude, the wild RNG is a veneer; it's fundamentally unnecessary. And RL is frustrating enough: it's a big reason why people like to play games. If the frustration of reality is carried into a game, it should come as no surprise that most people will choose to play something else.

 

If Wurm were mine, I'd simply make kindling created by a newbie require more time and materials, but the action would never fail. I don't want to push a newcomer away; I want them to feel that their time is well spent.

 

Oh, and I've played quite a few games based on D&D. While I enjoyed the atmosphere, the dice rolls were annoying, and I consider reliance on them to be lazy design. if I had to use them in a game I was designing, I'd consider it a last resort, and something of a failure.

 

At any rate, I think the small and dwindling Wurm playerbase speaks for itself.

[Roccandil 959]

10 hours ago, ChampagneDragon said:

To be honest, and I am in no way associated with the game except as a player, I read your complaint and thought "oh gee, another complaint from him". 

 

So be it. I feel like an outsider here, and probably always will. That is, I suspect my complaints represent a pool of people who would play Wurm if it were more respectful of player's time.

 

I simply may be the only one vocal on the forums, who's willing to persist against the inner circle of players content with Things As They Are.

 

10 hours ago, ChampagneDragon said:

I created a new character yesterday. Logged it into Haven and went through the tutorial (awesome job btw devs!!) I was able to chop a tree, make kindling, make a fire, mine ore, and make nails, without too much headache. In fact, felt like I was in a new world, trying to find my footing.  I cut enough trees and planks to build a small 1x1 house before I was summoned to my village. Compared to when I started 3 years ago it was a huge improvement. And if a newbie fails to make kindling and a campfire and rage quits, then Wurm probably isn't the game for them.

 

if the game isn't fun quit. It's simple. Nobody is forcing you to play. I mean, I could be wrong. Someone could be holding a gun to your head saying you have to log into Wurm, but I doubt it.

 

That argument would make sense to me if Wurm were thriving. But it's not. Businesses without customers aren't in a good position to be saying "if you don't like it, go somewhere else".

[Angelklaine 4,266]

44 minutes ago, Roccandil said:

 

So be it. I feel like an outsider here, and probably always will. That is, I suspect my complaints represent a pool of people who would play Wurm if it were more respectful of player's time.

 

I simply may be the only one vocal on the forums, who's willing to persist against the inner circle of players content with Things As They Are.

 

 

That argument would make sense to me if Wurm were thriving. But it's not. Businesses without customers aren't in a good position to be saying "if you don't like it, go somewhere else".

Perhaps, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Wurm is not dwindling because of RNG. Wurm is dwindling because its an aging game. Wurm reached its peak some time ago, with servers full to the brim with players, enough that new servers had to be made so people could find spots big enough to drop deeds. Certainly the players did not mind the rng then.

 

What I always try to beat into you during our chats on discord is not everyone dislikes the system like you do. Rng doesnt equal suckage and evil. If that was the case, there would be no casinos. Its just not your cup of tea!

[Roccandil 959]

On 2/28/2019 at 10:13 PM, Angelklaine said:

Perhaps, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Wurm is not dwindling because of RNG. Wurm is dwindling because its an aging game. Wurm reached its peak some time ago, with servers full to the brim with players, enough that new servers had to be made so people could find spots big enough to drop deeds. Certainly the players did not mind the rng then.

What I always try to beat into you during our chats on discord is not everyone dislikes the system like you do. Rng doesnt equal suckage and evil. If that was the case, there would be no casinos. Its just not your cup of tea!

 

You're simply describing the normal actions/reactions of the pool of people who didn't mind (or liked) the RNG. I get that there is such a pool. My point, however, is that there's a wider pool of potential customers that Wurm continues to push away.

 

It's like an onion: the (small) core remains here, but there are layers of people around the core who would have played if Wurm weren't so frustrating. (Again, I point to failing to make kindling/campfires.)

 

Minecraft stripped the sandbox world-building game to its essentials, took away the frustration, and look what happened.

[Chakron 1,025]

But I don't want to play Minecraft. I want to play Wurm. Why does Wurm have to have a large player base if it needs to destroy its original player base to do that? Who benefits?

[Flubb 773]

5 hours ago, Chakron said:

But I don't want to play Minecraft. I want to play Wurm. Why does Wurm have to have a large player base if it needs to destroy its original player base to do that? Who benefits?

 

Noone, because this kind of crap has been seen in the game (or any entertainment) industry time and time again; those who try to "reinvent themselves" just end up not attracting any new players (or consumers) because long established competitors do it better while losing their core audience at the same time.

 

I also find Roccandil's rhetoric rather hilarious. "I speak for a larger potential player base" you claim. Arguing against almost every single person present in the game right now. Where is that larger player base you speak of?

Right, they're playing Minecraft. That's where said potential players end up going anyway because why play the niche Minecraft clone when you can have the real deal.

 

Granted, there is merit to ideas that may attract more people without disgruntling the current player base, and I wouldn't leave the game without "muh precious RNG", I could (personally) do without it. Still, your claims to represent anyone but yourself are flimsy and unsubstantiated in the face of reality and it makes you look like the one crazy guy trying to convince everyone else they're crazy.

[Retrograde 12,013]

Wurm pushes away the battle royale pool too. Doesn't mean we'll be adding that either. 

 

It's a different game catering to a different market, not every game is designed to appeal to the casual market 

[Niki 2,278]

1 hour ago, Retrograde said:

Wurm pushes away the battle royale pool too. Doesn't mean we'll be adding that either. 

 

It's a different game catering to a different market, not every game is designed to appeal to the casual market 

you should add it to the pvp side of the game though.

[Roccandil 959]

20 hours ago, Chakron said:

But I don't want to play Minecraft. I want to play Wurm. Why does Wurm have to have a large player base if it needs to destroy its original player base to do that? Who benefits?

 

Are you all so attached to gambling-style RNG that its diminishment (on, say, Epic) would cause you to leave Wurm entirely?

 

I note that the skillgain change on Epic was a step toward exactly what I'm saying, and indeed, as I've said before, that change is the only reason I'm still here.

 

14 hours ago, Flubb said:

Noone, because this kind of crap has been seen in the game (or any entertainment) industry time and time again; those who try to "reinvent themselves" just end up not attracting any new players (or consumers) because long established competitors do it better while losing their core audience at the same time.

 

That's just it: what I'm saying isn't reinvention; RNG-resistant mechanics are already used in Wurm. A few examples:

 

- Digging (no RNG in whether or not your dig is successful)

- Using a fruit press (QL output is generally consistent with skill and QL of fruit, far more than metallurgy, locksmithing, or transmutation)

- Imping a building (imping success is dependent on mat QL and skill, and as far as I know, never fails due to RNG)

 

14 hours ago, Flubb said:

I also find Roccandil's rhetoric rather hilarious. "I speak for a larger potential player base" you claim. Arguing against almost every single person present in the game right now. Where is that larger player base you speak of?

Right, they're playing Minecraft. That's where said potential players end up going anyway because why play the niche Minecraft clone when you can have the real deal.

 

Since you've answered your playerbase question yourself, I'll simply add that one of Wurm's strengths is a massive, persistent, multiplayer world.

 

Does Minecraft have that?

[Angelklaine 4,266]

1 hour ago, Roccandil said:

Are you all so attached to gambling-style RNG that its diminishment (on, say, Epic) would cause you to leave Wurm entirely?

Yes.

 

1 hour ago, Roccandil said:

I note that the skillgain change on Epic was a step toward exactly what I'm saying, and indeed, as I've said before, that change is the only reason I'm still here.

If less RNG is the way to go, and Epic is a better representation of Utopia than Freedom, then why is Epic dead?

[Mataleao 104]

@RoccandilI'm curious about what you think of the casting system. Enjoyable or equally unbearable?

[Flubb 773]

6 hours ago, Roccandil said:

I'll simply add that one of Wurm's strengths is a massive, persistent, multiplayer world.

 

Does Minecraft have that?

 

No more or less than WU, basically. And that chunked out some players out of WO aswell, but that's because of the cost factor I believe. But the arguments to be considered become rather complex if we widen the scope to that. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore the persistent world.

 

True, there are RNG-less mechanisms, and it's wildly inconsistent- presumably not by design but by skill and mechniasms growing organically and not getting uniform attention by the developers. This doesn't neccessarily set a valid prescedent for whether removing RNG is a "reinvention" or not. Hence it comes down to subjective perceptions of RNG, and most people seem to come in being okay with it.

I for one like RNG for the world building implications to model your characters ability accumulated over time. Especially when you start overcoming it. I see people breaking a leg building a larder and I'm just there like "Hello there, Flubb, 99+ Freedom Fine Carpenter, just let me [makes a larder appear] there". It makes you feel accomplished looking back at the times you used to struggle with it.

 

On that note, to come back to the OP, transmutation liquids seems stupidly random to me aswell. But I'm just throwing random crap into my amphoras so I'm probably not even close to the level where the results become consistent, both in skill and modus operandi.

 

Point being, as it was mentioned many times, RNG isn't intrinsicly evil. It can be good, it can be bad, but I think it's a net gain to make the interaction with the game less predictable, and in turn, more interesting. "Interesting" not essentially being good or bad. It gives you up and downs, but over time the feeling of accomplishment becomes apparent in hindsight, and I think that's something a "completely streamlined" approach cannot model as well.

 

 

[GoldFever 299]

13 hours ago, Roccandil said:

 RNG-resistant mechanics are already used in Wurm. A few examples:

 

- Digging (no RNG in whether or not your dig is successful)

- Using a fruit press (QL output is generally consistent with skill and QL of fruit, far more than metallurgy, locksmithing, or transmutation)

- Imping a building (imping success is dependent on mat QL and skill, and as far as I know, never fails due to RNG)

 

 

I've resisted commenting till now, but couldn't let the mention of fruit press output go unremarked on.  I hate the current system with the lack of random output.  At one point in time, if you had say 90ql olives, you had a chance of getting some really nice olive oil and since not much was needed for compasses, you didn't need beverage making all that high really.  Now, if you want that high ql olive oil, you got to grind out the skill.  The very lack of randomness has seriously impacted the "fun" and "ability" of doing stuff in this case.

 

In general, I much prefer the thrill of a wonderful result, beyond all reasonable expectations, due to a really lucky roll rather than a bunch of consistent output--as long as the overall average of the output for both approaches remains more or less the same.

[Roccandil 959]

13 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

Yes.

 

Wow!

 

I'll say I have no desire to change Freedom: leave it as-is, but I'd like to see Epic continue down the path of moving away from RNG.

 

13 hours ago, Angelklaine said:

If less RNG is the way to go, and Epic is a better representation of Utopia than Freedom, then why is Epic dead?

 

1) Epic isn't dead.

2) If Epic -is- dead, it was already dead before the skill change.

3) Regarding deadness, the really big deal about the Epic update wasn't the skilling change, it was allowing Epic accounts to move to Freedom, skill there, and bring those skills back to Epic. Could any skill change on Epic have competed with that?

[Roccandil 959]

8 hours ago, Mataleao said:

@RoccandilI'm curious about what you think of the casting system. Enjoyable or equally unbearable?

 

Equally unbearable. If it were my system, I'd definitely change it, perhaps with one or more of the following:

 

- Remove shattering potential on all casts

- Tighten cast results to be more in line with your channeling

- Allowing imping casts, while preserving diminishing returns (imping to a top cast will take a -long- time and a lot of favor)

- Allow overcharging casts to risk shattering but also give more powerful results than otherwise possible

[Roccandil 959]

7 hours ago, Flubb said:

 

No more or less than WU, basically. And that chunked out some players out of WO aswell, but that's because of the cost factor I believe. But the arguments to be considered become rather complex if we widen the scope to that. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore the persistent world.

 

True, there are RNG-less mechanisms, and it's wildly inconsistent- presumably not by design but by skill and mechniasms growing organically and not getting uniform attention by the developers. This doesn't neccessarily set a valid prescedent for whether removing RNG is a "reinvention" or not. Hence it comes down to subjective perceptions of RNG, and most people seem to come in being okay with it.

I for one like RNG for the world building implications to model your characters ability accumulated over time. Especially when you start overcoming it. I see people breaking a leg building a larder and I'm just there like "Hello there, Flubb, 99+ Freedom Fine Carpenter, just let me [makes a larder appear] there". It makes you feel accomplished looking back at the times you used to struggle with it.

 

On that note, to come back to the OP, transmutation liquids seems stupidly random to me aswell. But I'm just throwing random crap into my amphoras so I'm probably not even close to the level where the results become consistent, both in skill and modus operandi.

 

Point being, as it was mentioned many times, RNG isn't intrinsicly evil. It can be good, it can be bad, but I think it's a net gain to make the interaction with the game less predictable, and in turn, more interesting. "Interesting" not essentially being good or bad. It gives you up and downs, but over time the feeling of accomplishment becomes apparent in hindsight, and I think that's something a "completely streamlined" approach cannot model as well.

 

RNG isn't necessary for accomplishment (and spoils it for me, to be honest). For example, I have effective 98 masonry: when I have effective 99, I'll be very happy, because I'll be able to build stone walls at 16 stories.

 

I could reconfigure creating a larder into a system like that: where the game takes into account your skill and tools, and says, "hey, you can't do that yet: try improving your skill to X or your tools to Y)." At that point, being able to create a larder would be a nice accomplishment.

 

The wild randomness of something like channeling or locksmithing, however, poisons the accomplishment, because I don't know if RNG is simply giving me an awesome result; my own efforts could be irrelevant. I'd much rather be able to channel or locksmith just to my skill: then the result, and thus the accomplishment, is all mine.

 

As to predictability, to me RNG is a crutch. I much prefer emergent unpredictability from non-RNG rulesets. Chess and Go are common examples.

 

I also wrote a gameplay prototype (in Unity) to model the old Boulder Dash monster rules: in an enclosed 2D environment with obstacles and open spaces, fireflies always move to their left, and butterflies always move to their right, along the available edge. Nothing random at all, but based on starting locations and obstacles (including each other), the monsters movements could form long, interesting, even beautiful patterns (and navigating them was very often the point of Boulder Dash).

Edited March 3, 2019 by Roccandil

[Roccandil 959]

1 hour ago, GoldFever said:

 

I've resisted commenting till now, but couldn't let the mention of fruit press output go unremarked on.  I hate the current system with the lack of random output.  At one point in time, if you had say 90ql olives, you had a chance of getting some really nice olive oil and since not much was needed for compasses, you didn't need beverage making all that high really.  Now, if you want that high ql olive oil, you got to grind out the skill.  The very lack of randomness has seriously impacted the "fun" and "ability" of doing stuff in this case.

 

In general, I much prefer the thrill of a wonderful result, beyond all reasonable expectations, due to a really lucky roll rather than a bunch of consistent output--as long as the overall average of the output for both approaches remains more or less the same.

 

Interesting: I'm exactly the opposite. I had lot of fun grinding up to the output QL I wanted, and searching for ways to increase it (a rare fruitpress).

 

Granted, this is on Epic, where skilling is faster. Perhaps on Freedom I'd hate it.

 

One way or another, however, the idea that you should be able to get high QL output with low skill seems contrary to what I've been told about Wurm. Ideally (according to their rules), if you hated grinding beverages, you should be buying high QL oil from a fruit-pressing specialist, who did the work required to be able to produce it.

 

So, wild RNG output hurts the economy! And dare I use the phrase "instant gratification"?

[GoldFever 299]

56 minutes ago, Roccandil said:

 

Interesting: I'm exactly the opposite. I had lot of fun grinding up to the output QL I wanted, and searching for ways to increase it (a rare fruitpress).

 

Granted, this is on Epic, where skilling is faster. Perhaps on Freedom I'd hate it.

 

One way or another, however, the idea that you should be able to get high QL output with low skill seems contrary to what I've been told about Wurm. Ideally (according to their rules), if you hated grinding beverages, you should be buying high QL oil from a fruit-pressing specialist, who did the work required to be able to produce it.

 

So, wild RNG output hurts the economy! And dare I use the phrase "instant gratification"?

 

Must not feed the trolls.  Must not feed the trolls.  Must not...to heck with it!

 

I see you very smoothly shifted to plan B where all of a sudden what I like and prefer and find "fun" is suddenly bad game design.  You probably like brussel sprouts too though so I guess I got to make allowances in your case. Just don't try to make me eat the $#$#@$^## things.   

[NeeNee 855]

2 hours ago, GoldFever said:

 

I've resisted commenting till now, but couldn't let the mention of fruit press output go unremarked on.  I hate the current system with the lack of random output.  At one point in time, if you had say 90ql olives, you had a chance of getting some really nice olive oil and since not much was needed for compasses, you didn't need beverage making all that high really.  Now, if you want that high ql olive oil, you got to grind out the skill.  The very lack of randomness has seriously impacted the "fun" and "ability" of doing stuff in this case.

 

In general, I much prefer the thrill of a wonderful result, beyond all reasonable expectations, due to a really lucky roll rather than a bunch of consistent output--as long as the overall average of the output for both approaches remains more or less the same.

I've got to agree here. Not for fruit presses, but I enjoyed the RNG of bot/forage before it was changed to be based on skill. Sometimes garbage, sometimes 99 ql. That was fun and made it more interesting. So #teammoreRNG here!

[Roccandil 959]

4 hours ago, GoldFever said:

 

Must not feed the trolls.  Must not feed the trolls.  Must not...to heck with it!

 

I see you very smoothly shifted to plan B where all of a sudden what I like and prefer and find "fun" is suddenly bad game design.  You probably like brussel sprouts too though so I guess I got to make allowances in your case. Just don't try to make me eat the $#$#@$^## things.   

 

Me don't like bursel sprouts! Me bashum good!

[Roccandil 959]

3 hours ago, NeeNee said:

I've got to agree here. Not for fruit presses, but I enjoyed the RNG of bot/forage before it was changed to be based on skill. Sometimes garbage, sometimes 99 ql. That was fun and made it more interesting. So #teammoreRNG here!

 

That sounds a bit like what I enjoy about digging and mining: the chance to get special stuff, rare mats, gems, and even rare bones. I don't mind that kind of RNG: it's not affecting the fundamental work/output.

 

All the same, I'd much rather foraging QL output was skill-based than wild: gives me a good reason to grind up foraging. (Although, if we could have woad, nettles, nutmeg, etc. in planters: then I don't care a whit about QL from foraging!  )