Sign in to follow this  
Titanius

No more "X" when crafting

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Seriphina said:

-1

No. I'm not a veteran player by any stretch but I would absolutely hate long timers that guarantee success. For one, barely passing a threshold to create something and just giving it a long timer doesn't equate to trying and failing to attach a piece.  Given enough time with two boards doesn't make someone's bad attempt at making a shelf suddenly successful. It's a trial and error until they figure out how to do it right.  Sometimes in that failure you need a new board or five, and you bend all of the nails you tried using.

 

That's Real Life, and that's why we play games. :) Nevertheless, the frustration of RL can be abstracted: hence my suggestions about providing creation/imping capabilities at predetermined skill hardpoints.

 

18 hours ago, Seriphina said:

Second, long action timers are exactly why I hate certain skills, like meditation and the old fishing. AFK skilling is boring AF, and long timers make me want to just go AFK or play something else.

 

I hear this. What's worse, though, is to start a long timer like meditation, and then have RNG take any success from it. :(

 

18 hours ago, Seriphina said:

Third, you take away the thrill of success at a low threshold. Maybe I shouldn't be able to build a larder with low skill, but when I do, I'm proud of that accomplishment. Now you're hoping to take that away because a red X hurts your feelings? No thanks.

 

I see this as just the thrill of gambling and hitting the jackpot. It's real, but not something I'd want to support.

 

Also, allowing high-end results with low skills diminishes the value of high-end skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*goes to post... reads Roccandil's post... Runs away in a fit of ptsd...*

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Roccandil said:

That's Real Life, and that's why we play games. :) Nevertheless, the frustration of RL can be abstracted: hence my suggestions about providing creation/imping capabilities at predetermined skill hardpoints.

There are already hard points at which you can even think about crafting specific items.

15 hours ago, Roccandil said:

I hear this. What's worse, though, is to start a long timer like meditation, and then have RNG take any success from it. :(


The success or failure of mediation ticks wasn't a part of my statement, but way to move the goal posts. The long timers, exactly what the OP is suggesting, is what I said I don't like.

 

15 hours ago, Roccandil said:

I see this as just the thrill of gambling and hitting the jackpot. It's real, but not something I'd want to support.

 

Also, allowing high-end results with low skills diminishes the value of high-end skills.

No, this isn't about the thrill of gambling. If I wanted that I'd head to the casino down the road. It's about dedication in the face of adversity. Maybe someone shouldn't be able to run a marathon because they only have one leg, or shouldn't be able to lose 30 pounds in a month, or shouldn't be able to afford a house by 20 but work their butt off and get that down payment. It's about tenacity.

And it's not a high - end result. The game is set to say that it is POSSIBLE for someone with that skill is able to do this, it's just DIFFICULT.

 

So no, regardless of how many times you decide to attack other people's opinions, this is not a good idea and I'm allowed to not be a sheeple that goes along with something just because you want it.

-1

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Roccandil said:

Also, allowing high-end results with low skills diminishes the value of high-end skills. 

 

You go ahead and imp a weapon to 90QL with 10WS despite overwhelming odds and tell me again that 90WS wouldn't have been tremendously helpful, if you even get there. It's practically impossible for low skills to feasibly reproduce the results of high skill strictly because of the increasing failure rate.

 

As a matter of fact, the suggestion in the OP would make it way more realistically achievable to reproduce those results with low end skills, as long as you don't mind running your computer to "watch a timer inch to completion", 1 pixel per minute. Remember this wording? It's the exact one you used earlier to criticise the current system.

 

Your hate boner for any RNG causes you to argue in bad faith, or you're just becoming incoherent over it. You're rhetorically flailing around and hurting yourself in the process as your own arguments turn against you. It's time to count your losses and move on, buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Seriphina said:

There are already hard points at which you can even think about crafting specific items.

 

Creation RNG is a lot fuzzier/mushy/nebulous, however. Hard goals, like 90 prospecting, provide more incentive to play.

 

8 hours ago, Seriphina said:

The success or failure of mediation ticks wasn't a part of my statement, but way to move the goal posts. The long timers, exactly what the OP is suggesting, is what I said I don't like.

 

Long timers may be boring, but long timers that fail are maddening.

 

8 hours ago, Seriphina said:

No, this isn't about the thrill of gambling. If I wanted that I'd head to the casino down the road. It's about dedication in the face of adversity. Maybe someone shouldn't be able to run a marathon because they only have one leg, or shouldn't be able to lose 30 pounds in a month, or shouldn't be able to afford a house by 20 but work their butt off and get that down payment. It's about tenacity.

And it's not a high - end result. The game is set to say that it is POSSIBLE for someone with that skill is able to do this, it's just DIFFICULT.

 

- Mindless repetition is not difficult. Chess is difficult.

- As a developer, I'd rather my players spent their tenacity building cool stuff, not clicking a button over and over again hoping for a different result.

- Allowing a player with low locksmithing/metallurgy/foraging/etc. to get high-end QL via RNG is, well, a high-end result.

 

8 hours ago, Seriphina said:

So no, regardless of how many times you decide to attack other people's opinions, this is not a good idea and I'm allowed to not be a sheeple that goes along with something just because you want it.

-1

 

I'm not interested in changing your mind; you're welcome to your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Flubb said:

 

You go ahead and imp a weapon to 90QL with 10WS despite overwhelming odds and tell me again that 90WS wouldn't have been tremendously helpful, if you even get there. It's practically impossible for low skills to feasibly reproduce the results of high skill strictly because of the increasing failure rate.

 

In imping, sure, but there are a significant number of creation skills where high-end QL is possible with low skill (locksmithing, metallurgy, etc.).

 

8 hours ago, Flubb said:

As a matter of fact, the suggestion in the OP would make it way more realistically achievable to reproduce those results with low end skills, as long as you don't mind running your computer to "watch a timer inch to completion", 1 pixel per minute. Remember this wording? It's the exact one you used earlier to criticise the current system.

 

I like the direction of the OP, but I'd modify it to make crafting high-end stuff impossible at low skill, and instead provide a lore message to say "increase your skill to X before trying this".

 

That would take care of absurdly long timers.

 

8 hours ago, Flubb said:

Your hate boner for any RNG causes you to argue in bad faith, or you're just becoming incoherent over it. You're rhetorically flailing around and hurting yourself in the process as your own arguments turn against you. It's time to count your losses and move on, buddy.

 

I do believe you are projecting. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Roccandil said:

I do believe you are projecting. :)

 

And there's the "no u" response I knew you'd deflect with. What am I projecting? I neither hate nor love the RNG. It's a crutch for sure, but it can model things nicely and immersively if done right. Wurm has examples of both bad and good RNG.

 

For instance, I do agree that the wild RNG in locksmithing and metallurgy would substantiate the point you were trying to make just now, if that was on the table at all, but that's a different subject because its machinations are wholly different. The context was clearly about imping and creating things that are continued, like starting a knarr, which by no means is high end just because you can do it at low skill.

 

You're quickly moving the goalpost again when backed in a corner. I don't know if this is some sort of sophistry or if your argumentation is just that all over the place that keeping up with the changes of pace is such a headache. You're not pulling an ace from your sleeve, you're changing the subject. You're smart, and you often scratch deeper than the surface in these discussions and I appreciate that, but we aren't fools either. Stay on topic, please.

 

Thanks to this diversion, we now have hard limits on improving actions on hand to discuss, a hamfisted solution to fix the problem you cause by replacing a system that is basically fine. Because what is good about that RNG is that the combination of item difficulty, materials and tools used create an organic system that doesn't hold your hands and lends itself to actually being reflected about. That's what I meant with the explorative aspect I mentioned in the first post. Yes, there are hard fixtures like "50 FC for bulk storage bins", but those "precedents" are imho just inconsistencies, which Wurm is unfortunately riddled with to such a degree that I'm sure we can go over a list of them and alternatingly agree and disagree on them. As outliers in an otherwise well etstablished system, they make a poor base to move the whole system in their direction though.

 

On the contrary, I'd rather see these hard restrictions be removed wherever possible, because the blend of material QL and skill gives some wriggle room for the player to explore in and take some agency over the crafting process, rather than a prescriptive list given by the devs to work off. It might be illusory in a mathematical sense, but I don't find it to be meaningless because it makes me engage with it just a tad deeper than thinking what singular action to take next, but which kind of preparation steps might be neccessary.

 

For example, you typically don't make your first knarr by just being told "Now you can", click a button and go make coffee for the next minute - you create some keel sections and see what the odds are. If they are bad, you improve the keel sections first to the best of your ability; that's the wiggle room given to give you agency and deeper engagement over a system that is as terribly prescriptive and confiding as the one you propose. And if the odds remain too bad to work with, then you ought to back off or grit through it.

 

To simply equate this to "gambling" is not only reductive but also testifies your lack of understanding why people appreciate the system. Despite them repeatedly telling you. It's about overcoming the adversity, and the very point of that is to get to a point where it is reasonably reliable to improve to a certain point.. So, basically to get past the point of gambling. I can see where you're coming from but I think you're looking at it in a very simplistic and kind of cynical way.

 

We just don't like being held by our hands and waved through a predetermined path of "milestones" set by someone else. It's what makes WO's crafting system unique over the elaborated bullet point lists given by other MMOs.

Edited by Flubb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Flubb said:

And there's the "no u" response I knew you'd deflect with. What am I projecting? I neither hate nor love the RNG. It's a crutch for sure, but it can model things nicely and immersively if done right. Wurm has examples of both bad and good RNG.

 

Well, to adjust slightly:

 

Quote

Your hate boner for anything Roccandil says causes you to argue in bad faith, or you're just becoming incoherent over it. You're rhetorically flailing around and hurting yourself in the process as your own arguments turn against you. It's time to count your losses and move on, buddy.

 

;)

 

20 hours ago, Flubb said:

For instance, I do agree that the wild RNG in locksmithing and metallurgy would substantiate the point you were trying to make just now, if that was on the table at all, but that's a different subject because its machinations are wholly different. The context was clearly about imping and creating things that are continued, like starting a knarr, which by no means is high end just because you can do it at low skill.

 

You're quickly moving the goalpost again when backed in a corner. I don't know if this is some sort of sophistry or if your argumentation is just that all over the place that keeping up with the changes of pace is such a headache. You're not pulling an ace from your sleeve, you're changing the subject. You're smart, and you often scratch deeper than the surface in these discussions and I appreciate that, but we aren't fools either. Stay on topic, please.

 

Action failure -is- all one subject: creation, imping, bad QL results, failure to channel, shattering; it's all RNG failure mechanics, and it has much the same effect on potential players.

 

We may certainly enter the subject at different points, but it's the same subject.

 

20 hours ago, Flubb said:

Thanks to this diversion, we now have hard limits on improving actions on hand to discuss, a hamfisted solution to fix the problem you cause by replacing a system that is basically fine. Because what is good about that RNG is that the combination of item difficulty, materials and tools used create an organic system that doesn't hold your hands and lends itself to actually being reflected about. That's what I meant with the explorative aspect I mentioned in the first post. Yes, there are hard fixtures like "50 FC for bulk storage bins", but those "precedents" are imho just inconsistencies, which Wurm is unfortunately riddled with to such a degree that I'm sure we can go over a list of them and alternatingly agree and disagree on them. As outliers in an otherwise well etstablished system, they make a poor base to move the whole system in their direction though.

 

On the contrary, I'd rather see these hard restrictions be removed wherever possible, because the blend of material QL and skill gives some wriggle room for the player to explore in and take some agency over the crafting process, rather than a prescriptive list given by the devs to work off. It might be illusory in a mathematical sense, but I don't find it to be meaningless because it makes me engage with it just a tad deeper than thinking what singular action to take next, but which kind of preparation steps might be neccessary.

 

That's your preference. What you call a prescriptive list, however, is simply a recipe that also requires a hard level of skill: and recipe-based crafting works. (See Minecraft.)

 

20 hours ago, Flubb said:

For example, you typically don't make your first knarr by just being told "Now you can", click a button and go make coffee for the next minute - you create some keel sections and see what the odds are. If they are bad, you improve the keel sections first to the best of your ability; that's the wiggle room given to give you agency and deeper engagement over a system that is as terribly prescriptive and confiding as the one you propose. And if the odds remain too bad to work with, then you ought to back off or grit through it.

 

I see no engagement or exploring in your example: just encouragement to mindless repetition. For instance, in building my tarwall, I had to plot and plan what skills and materials I needed, and the requirements were massive. Plotting and planting a cherry forest was engaging. Figuring out how to get high QL cherry juice, and tracking down a rare fruit press was engaging. Protecting my stockpile on a PvP server was engaging. All that took months. (And yes, that took tenacity, and adversity was overcome. :) )

 

What was -not- engaging was finally mixing the fluid and watching RNG make hay with all that prep work. That was extremely insulting, off-putting, and rage-inducing, but I had no choice but to waste my time if I wanted to complete the project. That kind of "adversity" is superficial, confining, (and from a business perspective, downright stupid).

 

Recipe-based crafting, on the other hand, is not confining. Rather, it provides clear goals to consider and shoot for, and those incentives draw people in, rather than pushing them away. Perhaps most precisely, the best kind of recipe-based crafting encourages emergent complexity. (Again, see Minecraft. :) )

 

Oh, and digging is perhaps the best Wurm example of what I mean: you dig, you lower a corner. No RNG, just simple rules. And those simple rules let you do amazing things, if you're willing to think, figure out a plan, and stick to it. That's the best kind of overcoming adversity. :)

 

20 hours ago, Flubb said:

To simply equate this to "gambling" is not only reductive but also testifies your lack of understanding why people appreciate the system. Despite them repeatedly telling you. It's about overcoming the adversity, and the very point of that is to get to a point where it is reasonably reliable to improve to a certain point.. So, basically to get past the point of gambling. I can see where you're coming from but I think you're looking at it in a very simplistic and kind of cynical way.

 

No matter how you dress the RNG, it's still gambling, especially for the new player. And that's a critical point.

 

I do find it ironic that you claim the point of the gambling is to figure out how to gamble less. :P

 

20 hours ago, Flubb said:

We just don't like being held by our hands and waved through a predetermined path of "milestones" set by someone else. It's what makes WO's crafting system unique over the elaborated bullet point lists given by other MMOs.

 

Unique? Oh, my. :P RNG is -lazy-, the crutch of the unimaginative developer! It's noise masquerading as content, and it's completely unnecessary. From my perspective, you're arguing that chess should have RNG governing things like combat outcome and move chances.

 

The sad thing is that, like chess, Wurm doesn't need RNG. :( Wurm is this wonderful, huge world that's been gated to the small number of people who can stand or even enjoy the needless, noisy frustrations that mask the true game.

 

And, yeah, you "veterans" are the players who tried Wurm, actually liked the insanity, and stayed. Naturally, any outsiders who point that out will get jumped on, and most people won't even try.

 

But games like Minecraft prove there's a market for a Wurm that isn't off-putting, and topics like this one are simply more evidence that a much larger potential population base exists for Wurm, if it could relinquish the insanity.

 

If you're content with Wurm population levels as they are, so be it, but there really aren't many of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K, I'll (try) cutting this short in favor of not derailing this into another off-topic debate and dig a bit int othe roots here.

 

First off though:

I don't hate you personally, that'd only serve your purpose as a dedicated forum contrarian. :P I am, however, more than mildly irritated by some lowkey hypocrisy like tactily denying you categorically hate RNG while proving just that point later on. At least it comes strongly off like that when you manipulate someone's quote to try and out one's words against themselves in a rather juveline and ironic way as the little edit you did there yet again amounts to nothing more than a longer version of "no u", without any substance behind it. It's poor rhetorical form. A lazy crutch for sophists and contrarians just like RNG is a lazy crutch for developers, if you wish. (There, this is how to pettily turn someone's gripes against themselves. At least try a little.)

 

Given the framework of your ideas, I actually find your position well argued and respectable as difference of opinions come about because of subtle differences in preconceptions.

That being said, the reason I disagree is that I find your overview over all action failures to be reductive and simplistic. For instance, wasn't the purpose of bringing up skills like locksmithing to make a point how outcome RNG hurts high skills, as low skills can produce high end results? You have yet again made the subtle shift from one idea, that of outcome QL, to another - the concept of action failure, to justify throwing everything into one basket. That seems argued in bad faith. (You try to bounce that phrase back at me but never say where and how, I wonder why that is.) Can you really not see why you seem all over the place? I'll give you a hint: Products of locksmithing, metallurgy and the likes are non-impable, making said problem irrelevant for conventional crafting skills when it comes to outcome QL. But that's besides the point, isn't it. It's not really about outcome QL. Which is why it was so dodgy of you to bring those skills up in the context you did in the first place. Or is it just too hard to follow the string of arguments?

 

Your idea of gambling is also ill-conceived. Gambling is a combination low effort, high risk and high reward. The low effort part is especially important, since that is what triggers those vulnerable grey cells that give unwarranted dopamine and are being exploited by actual gambling. And WO is anything but low effort, as you have learned yourself.

49 minutes ago, Roccandil said:

I do find it ironic that you claim the point of the gambling is to figure out how to gamble less.

For clarities sake, I should have said " So, basically to get past the point of "gambling"" - "gambling" being in quotes as I don't consider the mechanisms that are being discussed to be an equal to it for the reasons I described before, but this is going into a fruitless debate about semantics and hairsplitting. Point is, neither I nor anyone else in my impression likes the system just for "the thrill of the roll". And you might find my idea of gambling reductionist when I put it like that. I'm not denying that the system is related to it, though. Just that there's more to it than that, aspects that make it both more humane and give the manifest gameplay that emerges from it a little more depth, even if you can't see that for yourself (and on that I'm perfectly fine to agree to disagree.)

 

49 minutes ago, Roccandil said:

From my perspective, you're arguing that chess should have RNG governing things like combat outcome and move chances.

You like bringing up game design, yes? WO is a game based around characters with skill levels that intrinsicly influence all associated actions. We certainly disagree how to model these influences, but we can say for certain that is has to be done in some way, otherwise the RPG aspect is moot. Chess, on the other hand, does not require any mechanism to model influence of some latent stats in every move, the actual players bring their very own personal skills to the table (literally and figuratively). Same reason why FPS shooters have little more RNG than spread of weapons caused be recoil. There are no latent stats, only the players direct influence. WO/U doesn't have that for the large majority of gameplay. And that's where this debate begins. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I understand that the example is hyperbolic but it still comes off as a testament to a severe lack of understanding of the game design you pretend to be so proficient of.

 

Anyway, as a cliff note, this post is far longer than I wanted to entertain this any longer because we're getting in eachothers hair again and I actually don't like that. It's counterproductive. If I come off as unneccessarily abrasive, I apologize, but I'm pretty straightforward about the things that peeve me in this and it sometimes feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. No hate though. If I'm honest, I wouldn't entertain this conversation for as long as I do if you weren't one of the more interesting people on the forum to talk to.

Edited by Flubb
Always that ONE "gn" typo that I catch too late
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

re-add complete destruction of items upon failure to create

 

 

make shipbuilding great again!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2019 at 1:21 PM, Flubb said:

K, I'll (try) cutting this short in favor of not derailing this into another off-topic debate and dig a bit int othe roots here.

 

First off though:

I don't hate you personally, that'd only serve your purpose as a dedicated forum contrarian. :P I am, however, more than mildly irritated by some lowkey hypocrisy like tactily denying you categorically hate RNG while proving just that point later on. At least it comes strongly off like that when you manipulate someone's quote to try and out one's words against themselves in a rather juveline and ironic way as the little edit you did there yet again amounts to nothing more than a longer version of "no u", without any substance behind it. It's poor rhetorical form. A lazy crutch for sophists and contrarians just like RNG is a lazy crutch for developers, if you wish. (There, this is how to pettily turn someone's gripes against themselves. At least try a little.)

 

If you -are- projecting, there's really nothing I can do about it, except point it out. :)

 

On 3/20/2019 at 1:21 PM, Flubb said:

Given the framework of your ideas, I actually find your position well argued and respectable as difference of opinions come about because of subtle differences in preconceptions.

That being said, the reason I disagree is that I find your overview over all action failures to be reductive and simplistic. For instance, wasn't the purpose of bringing up skills like locksmithing to make a point how outcome RNG hurts high skills, as low skills can produce high end results? You have yet again made the subtle shift from one idea, that of outcome QL, to another - the concept of action failure, to justify throwing everything into one basket. That seems argued in bad faith. (You try to bounce that phrase back at me but never say where and how, I wonder why that is.) Can you really not see why you seem all over the place? I'll give you a hint: Products of locksmithing, metallurgy and the likes are non-impable, making said problem irrelevant for conventional crafting skills when it comes to outcome QL. But that's besides the point, isn't it. It's not really about outcome QL. Which is why it was so dodgy of you to bring those skills up in the context you did in the first place. Or is it just too hard to follow the string of arguments?

 

I'm honestly not following your objection. Perhaps it's a failure of my own articulation, but I see all these as manifestations of the same thing:

 

- creation chance

- imping chance

- enchanting chance

- wild outcome QL ranges

- surface mining chance

 

And so on. Any differences between them are noise level to me, perhaps because in the context of the massive nature of the Wurm world, failure RNG simply feels like so much noise. Ultimately, I know it's primary effect is to push people away; Wurm doesn't need it (no matter how many people defend it).

 

On 3/20/2019 at 1:21 PM, Flubb said:

Your idea of gambling is also ill-conceived. Gambling is a combination low effort, high risk and high reward. The low effort part is especially important, since that is what triggers those vulnerable grey cells that give unwarranted dopamine and are being exploited by actual gambling. And WO is anything but low effort, as you have learned yourself.

 

This feels like quibbling. How many gamblers work hard to get the money to gamble? The "low effort" criteria merely exists at the moment of gambling.

 

So, in the case of enchanting, every cast on, say, a supreme weapon is a gamble: you -might- shatter it. And it's easy to gamble at that point: just do another cast. How hard it was to get the weapon in the first place is irrelevant.

 

Or, for another example, I decided to complete the "create gold altar" goal with my Vyn priest, who would never otherwise need jewelry-smithing. Getting her to 20 effective skill wasn't too bad via creation on Epic, and then I decided to gamble my gold on her fairly low creation chance.

 

Again, the gamble was easy, regardless of how hard it was to find/mine the gold. It wasn't a fun gameplay choice for me, but I wanted the goal.

 

On 3/20/2019 at 1:21 PM, Flubb said:

You like bringing up game design, yes? WO is a game based around characters with skill levels that intrinsicly influence all associated actions. We certainly disagree how to model these influences, but we can say for certain that is has to be done in some way, otherwise the RPG aspect is moot. Chess, on the other hand, does not require any mechanism to model influence of some latent stats in every move, the actual players bring their very own personal skills to the table (literally and figuratively). Same reason why FPS shooters have little more RNG than spread of weapons caused be recoil. There are no latent stats, only the players direct influence. WO/U doesn't have that for the large majority of gameplay. And that's where this debate begins. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I understand that the example is hyperbolic but it still comes off as a testament to a severe lack of understanding of the game design you pretend to be so proficient of.

 

Chess is an example of simple rules providing emergent complexity, just as the terraforming rules in Wurm are also simple, but again provide emergent complexity. When building my deed, I did a -lot- of slope calculations to get exactly the outcome I wanted, and RNG had nothing to do with it.

 

When I had to surface mine, however, the failure RNG was simply a frustrating layer of noise, but again, it had nothing to do with the slopes I could create.

 

RNG is not necessary for skill-based interactions, and it tends to mask them.

 

On 3/20/2019 at 1:21 PM, Flubb said:

Anyway, as a cliff note, this post is far longer than I wanted to entertain this any longer because we're getting in eachothers hair again and I actually don't like that. It's counterproductive. If I come off as unneccessarily abrasive, I apologize, but I'm pretty straightforward about the things that peeve me in this and it sometimes feels like I'm talking to a brick wall. No hate though. If I'm honest, I wouldn't entertain this conversation for as long as I do if you weren't one of the more interesting people on the forum to talk to.

 

Thanks for that! I appreciate a reasonable discussion. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Roccandil said:

If you -are- projecting, there's really nothing I can do about it, except point it out. :)

 

And if you assert things without evidence I can only ask for said evidence and otherwise have to dismiss it when it's not readily apparent to me. I'm not exactly asking for a case study or a scientific paper about the alleged contempt I hold for you but you aren't even hinting at anything. If you're just speaking out of gut feeling, I can't help it either except clarifying as I did.

 

3 hours ago, Roccandil said:

I'm honestly not following your objection.

(Just quoting this part for context/as an "anchor")

Okay, admittely this is very nitpicky. And it concerned a particular statement of yours, not exactly the gist of the OP. A quick rundown,paraphrasing only for brevities sake. Correct me if I'm wrong, if you even care to check.

Seriphina: I like having softer boundaries where someone can actually start a knarr on lower levels with some extra steps and dedication.

You: That hurts the value of high skills, because lower end skills can reproduce their results.[The statement in question.]

Me: No, they can't. If anything, 100% success creation and imp chance allows them to create a good knarr when they shouldn't.

You: But locksmithing, metallurgy etc. can "randomly" roll high QL stuff! [<- You just switched from creation chance to outcome QL. At least you addressed the concern of reproducing high QL results with low skill by disallowing too long timers. A solution I disagree with but that'd require going into more detail and I'm going to have to postpone that.]

Me: Those are different kind of mechanisms at work though, the random outcome QL, which I agree should be toned down overall, is irrelevant to creation and imping successes.

You: Oh but it's really just about creation chance. [Another switch, but back on track at least.]

Me: wtf m8, your statement about low skills and high end results is moot then because creation/imping chance doesn't do that.

 

My gripe is basically that you were arguing for eliminating the RNG in one thing by showcasing the negative implications of RNG in another, although they are pratically unrelated: You could have 100% success chance for creation and imping as you request, but the negative implications in the outcome RNG of locksmithing etc. which is what you brought up to argue for the former change, still exists. I know I sound incredibly petty but that rhetoric just kind of peeved me.:P

 

The products of these skills have the problematic aspect of being a "one shot", they are non improvable, so they kinda have to be random (to some extent) to justify their ability of being created at their best quality upon creation.

I know you'd just remove the randomness from that altogether, too. But I don't want to digress, my criticism here was that's not on topic so we'll have to have a different conversation about that.

 

3 hours ago, Roccandil said:

This feels like quibbling.

(Again just an anchor)

You go into enchanting now, which is another one-shot. This may seem rude or deflective but again, different conversation.

I'll refer to this thread you are probably familiar with for that.

 

Bottom line is, we both don't like shattering, at least that stupid 1% flat chance. (I previously implied both bad and good RNG being present in Wurm. Enchanting is one of the bad ones. We don't need to debate that.)

Failing an improve action (that's kind of the topic after all) doesn't immediately destroy your 95QL pickaxe though. A single improve action is neither high risk, nor high reward.

 

You raise a good point about the emergence of when "low effort" kicks in. However, getting that tool to 95QL was pretty high effort, you'd need an incredibly short term memory to psychologically perceive this as the opposite...but now I'm talking perception and that's a dumpsterfire on broken tracks coming our way.

 

On the general note of gambling: I'm not saying WO's mechanisms are entirely unrelated to it. My previous statements are no denial of this, but this may not have been articulated explicitly enough. The reason why the (moral) equation to gambling didn't sit right with me is that I'd never play a stupid slot machine. If WO was that, I wouldn't bother. Let's go back to my initial statements where I said that gradually, the failures will diminish.

 

There's something important in there that distinguishes WO from "casino gambling". The latter is a zero sum, or even a negative sum game, designed to make you lose out over time. I find WO to be quite the opposite, at least for crafting, where successes become more and more available through your work and dedication. A more satisfactory form of gambling in which you can take some agency. I know this won't make you like it and that's fine, but the pearl clutching over CCAB running an online casino is rather exaggerated to me. Even for the mechanisms we agree should be more deterministic, but that's just my opinion.

 

On a different note: Creating gold altars with priests is truly whack. And I did it on Freedumb. But it seems the primary reason we both find it whack is that our priests have to grind out a useless skill for it. You suggested not allowing too long timers, so even in your system they'd have to have ground some JS before doing this...?

This is always assuming that you'd see the new system to be tweaked to adaequately reflect the possibilities and difficulties presented by the current system.

Just saying, it's examples like these that make me think you have a "hate boner for RNG", because you make it out to be the culprit even when practically it's not a discriminating factor between "WO status quo" and "WO a la Roccandil" - for all I can tell, I might be wrong because I'm going off assumptions about your idea of deterministic crafting that are based on slim implications in other posts.

I think it's just another stupid goal they put in the journal, not much to do with the shortcomings of the crafting process per se but just something that causes a weird detraction from the gameplay a priest would usually focus on.

 

4 hours ago, Roccandil said:

RNG is not necessary for skill-based interactions

 

Yeah, I get that. I'm not arguing with its neccessity, but its merits.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Flubb said:

 

And if you assert things without evidence I can only ask for said evidence and otherwise have to dismiss it when it's not readily apparent to me. I'm not exactly asking for a case study or a scientific paper about the alleged contempt I hold for you but you aren't even hinting at anything. If you're just speaking out of gut feeling, I can't help it either except clarifying as I did.

 

I know why I'm posting what I'm posting, and I know your descriptions of me are inaccurate. :) But, whatever you think of me is your business, and not only am I not interested in changing your mind, I think trying to tell you what I think I am is generally pretty silly (if only from the perspective of offering evidence).

 

18 hours ago, Flubb said:

 

(Just quoting this part for context/as an "anchor")

Okay, admittely this is very nitpicky. And it concerned a particular statement of yours, not exactly the gist of the OP. A quick rundown,paraphrasing only for brevities sake. Correct me if I'm wrong, if you even care to check.

Seriphina: I like having softer boundaries where someone can actually start a knarr on lower levels with some extra steps and dedication.

You: That hurts the value of high skills, because lower end skills can reproduce their results.[The statement in question.]

Me: No, they can't. If anything, 100% success creation and imp chance allows them to create a good knarr when they shouldn't.

 

As as sidenote, that's simply dependent on balance. What's a good base skill for 100% knarr creation? 50 shipbuilding? 70? Varied dependent on keel QL? It doesn't have to be either low or high.

 

18 hours ago, Flubb said:

You: But locksmithing, metallurgy etc. can "randomly" roll high QL stuff! [<- You just switched from creation chance to outcome QL. At least you addressed the concern of reproducing high QL results with low skill by disallowing too long timers. A solution I disagree with but that'd require going into more detail and I'm going to have to postpone that.]

 

Allowing someone to create a knarr (or something simpler, like a gold altar) at 6% chance still means someone with low skill can randomly do something that really should be reserved for a higher skill.

 

More precisely, I dislike the idea of making it seem to a low-skilled player that they can short-circuit the real work required, in any way. I'd much rather say, "hey, a knarr is an advanced piece of gear that you need to be extremely proficient in shipbuilding to create, and here's what you need to shoot for".

 

18 hours ago, Flubb said:

Me: Those are different kind of mechanisms at work though, the random outcome QL, which I agree should be toned down overall, is irrelevant to creation and imping successes.

You: Oh but it's really just about creation chance. [Another switch, but back on track at least.]

Me: wtf m8, your statement about low skills and high end results is moot then because creation/imping chance doesn't do that.

 

I'd hard restrict creation, imping, outcome QL, etc. all to skill (and tool/mat QL, where relevant). I don't see that as a switch.

 

Still, I think it's silly to allow a player to think they can imp something if they really can't. It's like having options on a context-sensitive in-game menu that do nothing (hello, load cargo on a wagon while you're sitting in it!).

 

(I note, however, that I was able to imp past 99 on a toon with less than 90 effective skill, so yes, you -can- get high-end results with lower imping skill than really should be required.)

 

18 hours ago, Flubb said:

My gripe is basically that you were arguing for eliminating the RNG in one thing by showcasing the negative implications of RNG in another, although they are pratically unrelated: You could have 100% success chance for creation and imping as you request, but the negative implications in the outcome RNG of locksmithing etc. which is what you brought up to argue for the former change, still exists. I know I sound incredibly petty but that rhetoric just kind of peeved me.:P

 

I think failure RNG should be eliminated across the board; I see them all as the same thing: unnecessary, petty frustrations that poison an otherwise good game.

 

18 hours ago, Flubb said:

The products of these skills have the problematic aspect of being a "one shot", they are non improvable, so they kinda have to be random (to some extent) to justify their ability of being created at their best quality upon creation.

I know you'd just remove the randomness from that altogether, too. But I don't want to digress, my criticism here was that's not on topic so we'll have to have a different conversation about that.

 

(Again just an anchor)

You go into enchanting now, which is another one-shot. This may seem rude or deflective but again, different conversation.

I'll refer to this thread you are probably familiar with for that.

 

Bottom line is, we both don't like shattering, at least that stupid 1% flat chance. (I previously implied both bad and good RNG being present in Wurm. Enchanting is one of the bad ones. We don't need to debate that.)

Failing an improve action (that's kind of the topic after all) doesn't immediately destroy your 95QL pickaxe though. A single improve action is neither high risk, nor high reward.

 

Imping failures may be small, but they add up (for that reason alone, I hate doing it), and if imping with a scarce material (moonmetal), that does increase the risk.

 

18 hours ago, Flubb said:

You raise a good point about the emergence of when "low effort" kicks in. However, getting that tool to 95QL was pretty high effort, you'd need an incredibly short term memory to psychologically perceive this as the opposite...but now I'm talking perception and that's a dumpsterfire on broken tracks coming our way.

 

On the general note of gambling: I'm not saying WO's mechanisms are entirely unrelated to it. My previous statements are no denial of this, but this may not have been articulated explicitly enough. The reason why the (moral) equation to gambling didn't sit right with me is that I'd never play a stupid slot machine. If WO was that, I wouldn't bother. Let's go back to my initial statements where I said that gradually, the failures will diminish.

 

There's something important in there that distinguishes WO from "casino gambling". The latter is a zero sum, or even a negative sum game, designed to make you lose out over time. I find WO to be quite the opposite, at least for crafting, where successes become more and more available through your work and dedication. A more satisfactory form of gambling in which you can take some agency. I know this won't make you like it and that's fine, but the pearl clutching over CCAB running an online casino is rather exaggerated to me. Even for the mechanisms we agree should be more deterministic, but that's just my opinion.

 

One way or another, as a developer, I'd hate to rely on the RNG mechanics in Wurm to attract an audience (although, to be honest, I think they push away more people than they attract).

 

Nevertheless, it's the defense of gambling mechanics in Wurm I find peculiar. Again, you speak of reducing the gambling effects as your toon gets more skilled, which, to a certain extent, is true, but it never really goes away (I should know; I have effective 99+ in many skills).

 

That is, if reducing RNG failures is good, why not just eliminate them entirely?

 

18 hours ago, Flubb said:

On a different note: Creating gold altars with priests is truly whack. And I did it on Freedumb. But it seems the primary reason we both find it whack is that our priests have to grind out a useless skill for it. You suggested not allowing too long timers, so even in your system they'd have to have ground some JS before doing this...?

This is always assuming that you'd see the new system to be tweaked to adaequately reflect the possibilities and difficulties presented by the current system.

Just saying, it's examples like these that make me think you have a "hate boner for RNG", because you make it out to be the culprit even when practically it's not a discriminating factor between "WO status quo" and "WO a la Roccandil" - for all I can tell, I might be wrong because I'm going off assumptions about your idea of deterministic crafting that are based on slim implications in other posts.

I think it's just another stupid goal they put in the journal, not much to do with the shortcomings of the crafting process per se but just something that causes a weird detraction from the gameplay a priest would usually focus on.

 

Yes, it doesn't make much sense for a priest to learn jewelry-smithing. :(

 

18 hours ago, Flubb said:

Yeah, I get that. I'm not arguing with its neccessity, but its merits.

 

Bottom line, I see no merit to RNG failure, in any form. Every benefit you all have argued seems noise-level to me, whereas every little random failure is a voice telling the player they're wasting their time and effort, and that they should be doing something other than playing Wurm. :(

 

Those voices add up, and I'm convinced they have contributed significantly to Wurm's low playerbase. (Again, I point to Minecraft.)

 

Wurm just doesn't need that kind of RNG. Wurm has something incredibly unique already: a massive, persistent world where you can alter anything in it over time. But, instead of drawing people into that gameplay, Wurm gates it behind frustrating, repetitive requirements. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Flubb said:

On a different note: Creating gold altars with priests is truly whack. And I did it on Freedumb. But it seems the primary reason we both find it whack is that our priests have to grind out a useless skill for it. You suggested not allowing too long timers, so even in your system they'd have to have ground some JS before doing this...?

 

To be honest, I'd implement a goal-based system for unlocking capabilities. You want to create a gold altar? You've got some goals to do. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RoccandilI think that's a good point to wrap it up and agree to disagree, unless there's something left you need to speak your piece of mind of. Just my closing notes:

I'm sorry that even small imping failures are such a pet peeve to you, I think you'd have a more positive outlook on it if you could see it all more in the long run instead of examining every single action. (And I know, that is basically blending out the noise that you talk of.) I can relate though, some thing just rub you the wrong way and you can't ignore it no matter how "beneficial" it would be. Sometimes one man's trash is another man's treasure, not much to do about it.

 

For what it's worth I wouldn't leave WO over the elimination of RNG in favor of pure determinism, because as you rightfully say, WO is far more than that. I could feasibly do without it, probably more than you cannot do with it. (Hope that makes sense.) I just actually slightly prefer some "noise" (for a lack of a better word, it makes it a bit more unpredictable - and by that more interesting, keeping you on your toes during the otherwise relatively dull periods of imping items. Just my gut feeling about it.).

That's why I wouldn't want to remove it entirely, and for other reasons in the earlier posts, but broken records and all. I hinted at something about high end imping but I think instead of postponing it, I'll just let it rest (at least here); we took enough screen time here and it'd get a little "academic" (AKA boring for everyone else who doesn't nerd out over abstract concepts in game design. Probably material for a private convo, if you're interested.)

 

I don't think the current system is going anywhere though, because that'd be a massive overhaul and requires a lot of retweaking and I'm not sure it'd be worth it and bring about the playerbase increase you prophecise. I have alleged in a similar, earlier conversation that I don't find that it followes that WO can just that easily tap into the Minecraft crowd (or other, more popular games.).

I can see why this is so divisive for people but even fresh blood is coming in -1ing this suggestion, so it might even have an adverse effect in the short term of people leaving, not knowing whether the long term effect of other people joining will take place.

That is a gamble that I truly wouldn't support, shaving off your current customers in hopes for new ones is a precarious business move that went wrong more often that it went right. They carefully need go gauge player opinion on that to justify this move.

 

On that note, I'd be interested in a poll about who would actually leave WO over the elimination of RNG though. Not a "Would you want that?" poll(Iirc you did one like that?), but "Would you leave over it?"

 

4 hours ago, Roccandil said:

 

To be honest, I'd implement a goal-based system for unlocking capabilities. You want to create a gold altar? You've got some goals to do. :)

You're still grinding a skill you don't need. :P I can see why it would alleviate some of the "pain" though. Work that idea out a bit more and drop another thread here?

Edited by Flubb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Flubb said:

I don't think the current system is going anywhere though, because that'd be a massive overhaul and requires a lot of retweaking and I'm not sure it'd be worth it and bring about the playerbase increase you prophecise.

 

Not on Freedom, no. Too much has been invested there to radically change it; I get that.

 

Epic, however, has already shifted in this direction with the skillgain update. Epic is designed for new people (at least, as I understand it), and it would make sense to try to attract brand-new players to Epic with big changes.

 

Even beyond Epic, I'd still love to see successive temporary challenge-like servers, each trying out some new bizarre mechanic, while giving everyone a chance to experience starting on equal footing on virgin terrain,  and providing a nice end-of-server bonus to take home to Freedom/Epic so folks don't think it's a waste of time to play on a temporary server.

 

Anyhow, thanks for the discussion! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this