@noaani I always distinguish the gathering from the crafting.
Except you didn't.
Your suggestion in the OP necessitates two items be identical. That means the same growth time, the same accessability, the same abundance, the same everything. This already makes for a bland system, before you even create that system.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
the problem with that is its impossible unless we get new content every day
Why does it have to be new content every day?
New content and resources appear/disappear as Nodes rise and fall and as we develop specific types of structures in the cities and metros. To some degree, there will be a considerable amount of new content every week, but also some old content/resources can become scarce every week.
Just because everyone knows the recipes for the Alchemical potions, doesn't mean everyone will have access to the resources/reagents to craft those potions every week.
@noaani I always distinguish the gathering from the crafting.
Except you didn't.
Maybe I used wrong word. I meant that there is a separate gathering system and there is a separate crafting system. The crafters do not have to gather, they can buy from the market. Gatherers not necessary craft things they can just sell their material on the market. Even if the gathering is very simple(like Neverwinter online) or not exists at all (buy material from shops), but the crafting is the best what we can imagine we still 'distinguished' them.
"That means the same growth time, the same accessability, the same abundance, the same everything."
Within same category! This does not mean that everything will be the same. This exists in each game I played. In Archeage there are many material what has same growth time (barley, carrot, onion same seed price, same growth time, same climate necessary). In other games the different price in same category is caused by the fact that the community do not use each final product equally. So the demand is different.
I do not understand why it cause bland system.
We can set:
-just need to pick up material
-need to growth in farm
-need to kill mob
-need to kill mob special way (for example: no overdamage more than 1-2%)
-need to farm, but need luck
-need a minigame to climb up on a tree
-need to aim to hit a mob or object at a point. (For example hit the tail of a bird to drop a perfect tail feather)
-etc
Each of these examples can exist together and it is easy to set that the 'produced' material has same accessibility/abundance etc in same category, but the gathering is not bland.
Within same category! This does not mean that everything will be the same.
No, but your system requires every material that is used as a possible ingredient in a recipe to be the same as every other item that could be used instead of that ingredient.
The reason it would cause a bland system (or redundant system) is because of that list of ways you wrote out of acquiring materials. If there is to be randomness in acquiring materials, but those materials are to be completely equal, then killing a specific mob to get one item for a potion needs to result in getting both possible items for that potion, not just the one item.
The more interesting the method for acquiring the item, the more important it becomes that you get all possible items the recipe could ask for from the same activity.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Maybe I used wrong word. I meant that there is a separate gathering system and there is a separate crafting system. The crafters do not have to gather, they can buy from the market. Gatherers not necessary craft things they can just sell their material on the market. Even if the gathering is very simple(like Neverwinter online) or not exists at all (buy material from shops), but the crafting is the best what we can imagine we still 'distinguished' them.
Just keep in mind that in Ashes, Gatherer is a type of Crafter. A character can become a Master Gatherer, making it possible to harvest higher quality resources, so this will add to some of the uniqueness as well and makes gathering resources less boring. This is another reason why knowing the recipe from Google doesn't mean that every Alchemist player who knows the recipe will be able to craft the potion. Also doesn't mean everyone will be able to purchase every resource from a vendor.
"That means the same growth time, the same accessibility, the same abundance, the same everything."
Pretty sure that same growth time, same accessibility and same abundance won't really be a thing in Ashes.
Which is why crafting probably won't be as boring as you think. Seems likely that Master Farmers will be able to increase growth time and abundance. Master Farmers will probably also have an effect on accessibility.
Also, since Animal Husbandry and breeding is a type of Crafting in Ashes, that should also affect growth time, accessibility and abundance of the resources and reagents harvested from animals.
There may even be racial differences associated with the results - Niküa grown barley may have somewhat different properties than Empyrean grown barley.
For all we know, biome may also add somewhat different properties.
Here are some examples from KOA: Reckoning --
2x Tindertwig + 1x Scarwood Bark = Minor Blazing Salve: + Fire Damage
1x Tindertwig + 1x Sky Blossom = Minor Blacksmith's Craft: +1 Blacksmith Skill
1x Tindertwig + 1x Ysa's Breath = Minor Flameguard: +10% Fire Resistance
2x White Flake + 1x Scarwood Bark = Minor Frostbite: + Ice Damage
1x White Flake + 1x Ysa's Breath = Minor Frostguard: +10% Ice Resistance
What's nice about this design is that, even without relying on Google, we begin to be able to learn the properties of the reagents and predict likely recipes and potions:
Tindertwig should result in a potion related to Fire.
White Flake should result in a potion related to Ice.
Scarwood Bark should result in a potion related to damage.
Ysa's Breath should result in a potion related to resistance.
That consistency is part of what makes Alchemy fun. It's not fun if Tindertwig is related to Fire for some characters, but then is related to resistance for other characters. Especially should never be the case that Tindertwig is related to Ice for some characters. RNG per character for recipes doesn't feel like Alchemy.
The properties of the reagents need to remain consistent for the purposes of lore.
Racial/cultural differences or tools might effect potency of the final product - it might be that Niküa are able to bump Fire Resistance potions up to 15% Resistance while Empyreans are able to bump Ice Resistance up to 15% Resistance. Or maybe Empryeans are able to make Fire Resistance potions last slightly longer than Niküa Fire Resistance potions.
Or maybe those differences are caused by the biomes from which the resources were harvested.
There are a variety of ways to tweak the basic recipe in a consistent, reasonably predictable manner to prevent the gameplay from being boring.
The other part of the fun of Alchemy is experimenting with reagents.
What happens with 2x Tindertwig + 1x Sky Blossom? Explosion!!!
What happens with 1x Tindertwig + 1x White Flake?? Explosion!!!
@noaani "No, but your system requires every material that is used as a possible ingredient in a recipe to be the same as every other item that could be used instead of that ingredient.
The reason it would cause a bland system (or redundant system) is because of that list of ways you wrote out of acquiring materials."
Till that point I agree with you, there have to be some level of redundancy. I do not see any issue with it.
" If there is to be randomness in acquiring materials, but those materials are to be completely equal, then killing a specific mob to get one item for a potion needs to result in getting both possible items for that potion, not just the one item."
But it is not a must. We can put mobs to the forest with same TTK in equal number. One mob drops one of the same type material, the other one drops the other same type material. So if you know that you need only 'bear ear', you keep alive the wolves, because you do not need 'wolf ear'. Somebody else who need only 'wolf ear' will kill only the wolves. In personal level, for the person who insist to gather all material by himself it could cause a minor difference in allowance. The people who need only 1 type of material need to spend a little more time with the gathering, because need to walk a little bit more to the next target, but in long term in global level this should not have effect on the profitability of the final product.
-If the crafter buy the material from the gatherers this minor difference will not exist at all, because the gatherer will kill both for ears and the demand is same for both ear.
-If we use the mentioned option that the recipe always require different component from the same type we eliminate this issue everybody need to hunt for different creatures for their ears.
-Even if we integrate the randomness so the crafter will receive material what he does not need, he still can barter/sell the surplus. (Mabye we can support that with a building for material bartering purpose.) So the handicap is minimal.
Without a proper test I can't tell for sure all side-effect, but I do not see that this recipe collecting system cause bland gathering system. Some redundancy yes for sure.
@Dygz
Thank you for the information about the planned system, and about KOA. But we are talking about a theoretic system not what Intrepid planning. Maybe the conclusion will be that it is shitty and cannot even work properly.
"Just keep in mind that in Ashes, Gatherer is a type of Crafter."
This is semantics. We can name anyhow. I make an indirect but clear definition what I meant when I talk about crafter and what I mean when I talk about gatherer.
"A character can become a Master Gatherer, making it possible to harvest higher quality resources, so this will add to some of the uniqueness as well and makes gathering resources less boring."
This exactly what I am talking about when I talk about distinguish gatherer and crafter. The gatherer is good in gathering, the crafter is good in final product making. Anything what you told about the gathering process can be part of my system, they making it better, not change it. What a farmer can do with one material can do with the other material as well just question of decision.
Except the racial affect. If we really want to involve racial affect to the material, it can be solved, but the solution is too complicated even for me, so I would say it can't be implement properly into my system.
"The properties of the reagents need to remain consistent for the purposes of lore."
Yes, this is a weak-spot of my idea, but this can be solved. Just need to crate other type of experiment. So we do not have 'basic experiment', we have 'hot potion experiment' and the result can be fire resistant potion, bonus fire damage etc. All same category material will be consistent to the lore.
"The other part of the fun of Alchemy is experimenting with reagents.
What happens with 2x Tindertwig + 1x Sky Blossom? Explosion!!!
What happens with 1x Tindertwig + 1x White Flake?? Explosion!!!"
That is what you will not do if you want to be alchemist for profit. Especially if one of the material is expensive. It is better to check Google.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This is semantics. We can name anyhow. I make an indirect but clear definition what I meant when I talk about crafter and what I mean when I talk about gatherer.
This is not semantics. In Ashes, Gatherer is a subset of Crafter: A character can become a Master Gatherer, making it possible to harvest higher quality resources.
This exactly what I am talking about when I talk about distinguish gatherer and crafter. The gatherer is good in gathering, the crafter is good in final product making. Anything what you told about the gathering process can be part of my system, they making it better, not change it. What a farmer can do with one material can do with the other material as well just question of decision.
In Ashes, Gatherer and Farmer are both subsets of Crafter.
I don't know what you mean by what a Farmer can do with one material can do with another material is supposed to mean.
Your system seems to say that one player can make popcorn by cooking corn while another player makes popcorn by cooking carrots and another player makes popcorn by cooking lettuce.
Except the racial affect. If we really want to involve racial affect to the material, it can be solved, but the solution is too complicated even for me, so I would say it can't be implement properly into my system.
I don't think you have a good system, so I am OK with that.
So we do not have 'basic experiment', we have 'hot potion experiment' and the result can be fire resistant potion, bonus fire damage etc. All same category material will be consistent to the lore.
That is what you will not do if you want to be alchemist for profit. Especially if one of the material is expensive. It is better to check Google.
That is what good Alchemists do when they want to discover brand new recipes: experiment to learn what the results might be. That's part of what makes Alchemy fun rather than boring... reagents having consistent properties so we can anticipate what the results should be...although, sometimes the experiments go boom.
That's part of risk v reward.
What you're proposing -some players cooking carrots to make popcorn via Popcorn Experiment- just doesn't make any sense.
But it is not a must. We can put mobs to the forest with same TTK in equal number. One mob drops one of the same type material, the other one drops the other same type material. So if you know that you need only 'bear ear', you keep alive the wolves, because you do not need 'wolf ear'. Somebody else who need only 'wolf ear' will kill only the wolves.
But that means the person that gets the recipe that uses one of each ear can just go in, kill everything and get materials twice as fast as anyone else - which to be fair is also an issue if one encounter drops both items.
And what if someone just went through and killed all the bears, and that is what you need? You are now left in a wolf infested area waiting for the occasional bear to respawn, whereas if you needed wolf ears, you'd have a much easier time.
This just highlights how it is not really possible to have a balanced system where two different ingredients can be randomly assigned to players for the same function. And balance needs to happen on the micro level, not just the macro level - because the game is played on the micro level.
@noaani "But that means the person that gets the recipe that uses one of each ear can just go in, kill everything and get materials twice as fast as anyone else - which to be fair is also an issue if one encounter drops both items."
According to my experience when a quest required a specific mob to kill, it is definitely not twice as fast. Just a minor difference. If you read the whole comment, I mentioned that in this case. I also wrote a solution for that if we must handle it. So I was aware of it, but I do not find it game-breaking issue.
"And what if someone just went through and killed all the bears, and that is what you need? You are now left in a wolf infested area waiting for the occasional bear to respawn, whereas if you needed wolf ears, you'd have a much easier time."
This is sucks, but same sucks if we use any kind of system where my material is depend on the bears.
"And balance needs to happen on the micro level, not just the macro level - because the game is played on the micro level."
It is good if we have, but on micro level the perfect balance is not mandatory. There can be minor unbalances it does not ruin the gameplay.
@Dygz If I tell a definition to a word, and I use accordingly, but somebody else use different word for the same definition that is semantics.
"I don't know what you mean by what a Farmer can do with one material can do with another material is supposed to mean."
You said that the master farmer can change growth time, can harvest same material in higher quality etc.
"Your system seems to say that one player can make popcorn by cooking corn while another player makes popcorn by cooking carrots and another player makes popcorn by cooking lettuce."
It sounds stupid, because you use it for a real existing 1-1 connection. But nobody can tell you how can we make a healing potions. Nobody can tell you that it has only 1 way. Yes, it is a little bit strange, but this issue can be find in the OP.
You do not have to tell me how exciting can be the experiment, because I started this thread with it. But I already wrote more times that in an MMORPG you have to think twice if it worth to not read the databases on internet.
0
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
the problem with that is its impossible unless we get new content every day
Why does it have to be new content every day?
New content and resources appear/disappear as Nodes rise and fall and as we develop specific types of structures in the cities and metros. To some degree, there will be a considerable amount of new content every week, but also some old content/resources can become scarce every week.
Just because everyone knows the recipes for the Alchemical potions, doesn't mean everyone will have access to the resources/reagents to craft those potions every week.
while that is true its does have a limit unlike our world that changes every hour
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I fail to see the relevance.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@Dygz If I tell a definition to a word, and I use accordingly, but somebody else use different word for the same definition that is semantics.
No, it’s not semantics. Semantics is if we simply disagree on the label. We disagree on the mechanics of a Gatherer v the mechanics of a Crafter. It’s not just a disagreement about labels.
"I don't know what you mean by what a Farmer can do with one material can do with another material is supposed to mean."
You said that the master farmer can change growth time, can harvest same material in higher quality etc.
That did not help me understand what you are trying to say.
A Master Farmer might be able to grow carrots as fast as they can grow corn or might not be able to.
We would need to know the details of the Ashes design...but we don’t.
It sounds stupid, because you use it for a real existing 1-1 connection. But nobody can tell you how can we make a healing potions. Nobody can tell you that it has only 1 way. Yes, it is a little bit strange, but this issue can be find in the OP.
If it’s Alchemy, the recipe should be consistent rather than significantly different for each character. Same for Cooking or Blacksmithing, or Animal Husbandry.
You do not have to tell me how exciting can be the experiment, because I started this thread with it. But I already wrote more times that in an MMORPG you have to think twice if it worth to not read the databases on internet.
Um. I was talking about experimenting to discover recipes that haven’t made it to Google yet.
0
Options
NagashMember, Leader of Men, Kickstarter, Alpha One
well in-game content will run out at some point so its impossible to make a truly dynamic world thats what I meant ^^
The dead do not squabble as this land’s rulers do. The dead have no desires, petty jealousies or ambitions. A world of the dead is a world at peace
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited December 2019
I ask why there needs to be new content every day - there will be new content every week.
And your response is there won't be new content every hour?
In-game content doesn't necessarily have to run out - that's the whole point of the Nodes system and the rise and fall of Nodes. But, we have to see how well the concept is actually implemented. And we also have to see how often the devs drop in new content.
Easier said than done. Yes.
"Semantics is if we simply disagree on the label."
You are funny. You wrote that: "Just keep in mind that in Ashes, Gatherer is a type of Crafter."
So you labeled that the people who gather as a kind of Crafter. I labeled that he is not a crafter he is only gatherer. So our disagreement is simple on labels.
As I did not mention how I imagine the gathering mechanism, we can't have disagreement on it. (While I talk with Noaani about it I just brought up some simple mechanism to show it is possible to handle, but I never told that this should be the main mechanism of gathering or I am not open any kind of gathering mechanism.)
"If it’s Alchemy, the recipe should be consistent rather than significantly different for each character."
This is personal preferences not a mandatory thing. I accept that you like that way, but as it was mentioned earlier that existing a game where the mechanics is randomized by characters.
"Um. I was talking about experimenting to discover recipes that haven’t made it to Google yet."
Only a few person has chance for that. I am sure that at most in 3 month all recipes will be discovered.
"A Master Farmer might be able to grow carrots as fast as they can grow corn or might not be able to.
We would need to know the details of the Ashes design...but we don’t."
Yes, maybe in Ashes it will work that way. I just told that a Farming system can support the redundancy what need of my system, if the developers want to support it. I would be surprised if Intrepid copy my system especially when almost all comment is about critics. So I accept that people do not like it, but I do not accept that it can't be implemented properly if somebody wish.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited December 2019
No. In Ashes, people who gather are not labeled Gatherer. That's the whole point.
In Ashes, Crafters who progress in the Gathering skill are labeled Gatherer. They gain specific abilities that are different from generic people who gather.
Which is why I capitalize those terms.
In Ashes, if your group kills a boss monster, anyone in the group can gather the loot.
But, to get the best quality items and the most amount of items, you need to have a Master Gatherer loot that boss monster.
This is personal preferences not a mandatory thing. I accept that you like that way, but as it was mentioned earlier that existing a game where the mechanics is randomized by characters.
Randomized by character is objectively bad game design.
Only a few person has chance for that. I am sure that at most in 3 month all recipes will be discovered.
We don't know what system Ashes will actually implement for recipes, but if it's like the KOA: Reckoning design, experiments combining the new reagent with all the old reagents would need to be made anytime new resources/reagents are discovered. We will not have discovered every reagent in 3 months.
So, it would not be only a few people who have that chance.
This is sucks, but same sucks if we use any kind of system where my material is depend on the bears.
Not really.
If the game didn't need both wolf and bear ears, then that area could just be populated with bears. That means there are more bears for all, and those bears will respawn faster after being killed (due to being killed faster as the person killing them wasn't having to avoid the wolves).
@noaani Usually, I like your comments, but now I feel that you are too pugnacious (I hope this is proper English word for what I meant.).
Technically you are right, but have you ever played with a game where a territory was populated with only one type of mob? I did not and I would not like it, independently from the thing that I need to kill them or not. I feel better if I look around and I can see multiple type of mobs.
@noaani Usually, I like your comments, but now I feel that you are too pugnacious (I hope this is proper English word for what I meant.).
Technically you are right, but have you ever played with a game where a territory was populated with only one type of mob? I did not and I would not like it, independently from the thing that I need to kill them or not. I feel better if I look around and I can see multiple type of mobs.
A whole territory? No.
A large area, big enough for several small groups to farm that same type of mob? Almost all MMO's.
If you needlessly double the number of different materials you need for crafting, then unless you also double the size or density those materials are available you are halving how much of each material a player can be expected to gather in a specific amount of time.
It's just math.
Doubling the density is not a good idea, generally speaking. That massively favors the person that got the RNG where they need both items (this person will ALWAYS be at an advantage if there is any kind of attempt to keep both materials equal).
Doubling the area the materials are available means using up world space that could be used for other content - or creating a larger world which is already usually the most expensive part of an MMO.
@noaani Let's see the classic wow barrens. If you just stay at a place and turn around, you will see giraffes, boars, zebra like creatures, prawlers, running birds, raptors mabye I do not remember everything. Most of these do not drop anything, just same leather if you are skinner.
Yesterday, I did a quest in Pandria. There were a lake. In the lake there were 1 kind of crocs, 2 kind of big fish, on the shore there were 2 kind of lizards. This territory is very small with a flying mount it takes 5-6 second to fly from one edge to another. I will not go back, again, because they do not drop anything, only one of them is skinnable. If I would start to collect I would find lot of same examples.
Yes the redundancy need more possibilities to gather, but my experience is that there are lot of 'empty' space where you can put these possibilities.
"That massively favors the person that got the RNG where they need both items"
If the tests show that this favor is really massive (I believe it is just minor.), we can restrict that for a recipe you always need different material from same category.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@Dygz Ventharien mentioned in the first page. It is Life Is Feudal.
"In Life Is Feudal, each player spawns into the game world with a personalized set of alchemy effects. In other words, every ingredient does something different for you than it does for someone else."
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
@noaani Let's see the classic wow barrens. If you just stay at a place and turn around, you will see giraffes, boars, zebra like creatures, prawlers, running birds, raptors mabye I do not remember everything. Most of these do not drop anything, just same leather if you are skinner.
If those encounters are not used for quests at some point, then that is bad game design - every encounter should have a purpose (it's WoW, I generally assume bad game design in WoW).
On the other hand, if those encounters are used in quests, it would be bad game design for them to also be a valuable source of crafting materials - if it were a good source of leather, then players trying to do the quest would end up competing for kills with players wanting to skin.
An area where the idea is to collect crafting materials is usually an area that is set aside specifically for that purpose. If you have to double the size of that area in order to allow for an equal number of two encounter types rather than one, then you are eating in to the parts of the world that would otherwise be used to house those encounters for quests.
If the tests show that this favor is really massive (I believe it is just minor.), we can restrict that for a recipe you always need different material from same category.
Now you are expanding the number of materials needed, compounding the issues with the system.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Those animals in WoW are typically just generic fodder not intended for kill quests.
They herald back to the fodder in Warcraft 2, possibly earlier.
"Hey, Dygz! Step on that snake and kill it?"
"Why? It's not going to attack me. Am I going to get something from it?"
"No. It's just funny."
They just help the world feel alive.
I don't know that we will have those in Ashes, but I would expect the quality of leather you can get from those to be at the lowest end.
Yesterday, I did a quest in Pandaria. There were a lake. In the lake there were 1 kind of crocs, 2 kind of big fish, on the shore there were 2 kind of lizards. This territory is very small with a flying mount it takes 5-6 second to fly from one edge to another. I will not go back, again, because they do not drop anything, only one of them is skinnable. If I would start to collect I would find lot of same examples.
Whitepetal Lake??
I think what you're complaining about here is a 15 year-old themepark design.
I don't think the Ashes design has the issues you describe.
Comments
the problem with that is its impossible unless we get new content every day
Your suggestion in the OP necessitates two items be identical. That means the same growth time, the same accessability, the same abundance, the same everything. This already makes for a bland system, before you even create that system.
New content and resources appear/disappear as Nodes rise and fall and as we develop specific types of structures in the cities and metros. To some degree, there will be a considerable amount of new content every week, but also some old content/resources can become scarce every week.
Just because everyone knows the recipes for the Alchemical potions, doesn't mean everyone will have access to the resources/reagents to craft those potions every week.
Maybe I used wrong word. I meant that there is a separate gathering system and there is a separate crafting system. The crafters do not have to gather, they can buy from the market. Gatherers not necessary craft things they can just sell their material on the market. Even if the gathering is very simple(like Neverwinter online) or not exists at all (buy material from shops), but the crafting is the best what we can imagine we still 'distinguished' them.
"That means the same growth time, the same accessability, the same abundance, the same everything."
Within same category! This does not mean that everything will be the same. This exists in each game I played. In Archeage there are many material what has same growth time (barley, carrot, onion same seed price, same growth time, same climate necessary). In other games the different price in same category is caused by the fact that the community do not use each final product equally. So the demand is different.
I do not understand why it cause bland system.
We can set:
-just need to pick up material
-need to growth in farm
-need to kill mob
-need to kill mob special way (for example: no overdamage more than 1-2%)
-need to farm, but need luck
-need a minigame to climb up on a tree
-need to aim to hit a mob or object at a point. (For example hit the tail of a bird to drop a perfect tail feather)
-etc
Each of these examples can exist together and it is easy to set that the 'produced' material has same accessibility/abundance etc in same category, but the gathering is not bland.
The reason it would cause a bland system (or redundant system) is because of that list of ways you wrote out of acquiring materials. If there is to be randomness in acquiring materials, but those materials are to be completely equal, then killing a specific mob to get one item for a potion needs to result in getting both possible items for that potion, not just the one item.
The more interesting the method for acquiring the item, the more important it becomes that you get all possible items the recipe could ask for from the same activity.
Pretty sure that same growth time, same accessibility and same abundance won't really be a thing in Ashes.
Which is why crafting probably won't be as boring as you think. Seems likely that Master Farmers will be able to increase growth time and abundance. Master Farmers will probably also have an effect on accessibility.
Also, since Animal Husbandry and breeding is a type of Crafting in Ashes, that should also affect growth time, accessibility and abundance of the resources and reagents harvested from animals.
There may even be racial differences associated with the results - Niküa grown barley may have somewhat different properties than Empyrean grown barley.
For all we know, biome may also add somewhat different properties.
Here are some examples from KOA: Reckoning --
2x Tindertwig + 1x Scarwood Bark = Minor Blazing Salve: + Fire Damage
1x Tindertwig + 1x Sky Blossom = Minor Blacksmith's Craft: +1 Blacksmith Skill
1x Tindertwig + 1x Ysa's Breath = Minor Flameguard: +10% Fire Resistance
2x White Flake + 1x Scarwood Bark = Minor Frostbite: + Ice Damage
1x White Flake + 1x Ysa's Breath = Minor Frostguard: +10% Ice Resistance
What's nice about this design is that, even without relying on Google, we begin to be able to learn the properties of the reagents and predict likely recipes and potions:
Tindertwig should result in a potion related to Fire.
White Flake should result in a potion related to Ice.
Scarwood Bark should result in a potion related to damage.
Ysa's Breath should result in a potion related to resistance.
That consistency is part of what makes Alchemy fun. It's not fun if Tindertwig is related to Fire for some characters, but then is related to resistance for other characters. Especially should never be the case that Tindertwig is related to Ice for some characters. RNG per character for recipes doesn't feel like Alchemy.
The properties of the reagents need to remain consistent for the purposes of lore.
Racial/cultural differences or tools might effect potency of the final product - it might be that Niküa are able to bump Fire Resistance potions up to 15% Resistance while Empyreans are able to bump Ice Resistance up to 15% Resistance. Or maybe Empryeans are able to make Fire Resistance potions last slightly longer than Niküa Fire Resistance potions.
Or maybe those differences are caused by the biomes from which the resources were harvested.
There are a variety of ways to tweak the basic recipe in a consistent, reasonably predictable manner to prevent the gameplay from being boring.
The other part of the fun of Alchemy is experimenting with reagents.
What happens with 2x Tindertwig + 1x Sky Blossom? Explosion!!!
What happens with 1x Tindertwig + 1x White Flake?? Explosion!!!
"No, but your system requires every material that is used as a possible ingredient in a recipe to be the same as every other item that could be used instead of that ingredient.
The reason it would cause a bland system (or redundant system) is because of that list of ways you wrote out of acquiring materials."
Till that point I agree with you, there have to be some level of redundancy. I do not see any issue with it.
" If there is to be randomness in acquiring materials, but those materials are to be completely equal, then killing a specific mob to get one item for a potion needs to result in getting both possible items for that potion, not just the one item."
But it is not a must. We can put mobs to the forest with same TTK in equal number. One mob drops one of the same type material, the other one drops the other same type material. So if you know that you need only 'bear ear', you keep alive the wolves, because you do not need 'wolf ear'. Somebody else who need only 'wolf ear' will kill only the wolves. In personal level, for the person who insist to gather all material by himself it could cause a minor difference in allowance. The people who need only 1 type of material need to spend a little more time with the gathering, because need to walk a little bit more to the next target, but in long term in global level this should not have effect on the profitability of the final product.
-If the crafter buy the material from the gatherers this minor difference will not exist at all, because the gatherer will kill both for ears and the demand is same for both ear.
-If we use the mentioned option that the recipe always require different component from the same type we eliminate this issue everybody need to hunt for different creatures for their ears.
-Even if we integrate the randomness so the crafter will receive material what he does not need, he still can barter/sell the surplus. (Mabye we can support that with a building for material bartering purpose.) So the handicap is minimal.
Without a proper test I can't tell for sure all side-effect, but I do not see that this recipe collecting system cause bland gathering system. Some redundancy yes for sure.
Thank you for the information about the planned system, and about KOA. But we are talking about a theoretic system not what Intrepid planning. Maybe the conclusion will be that it is shitty and cannot even work properly.
"Just keep in mind that in Ashes, Gatherer is a type of Crafter."
This is semantics. We can name anyhow. I make an indirect but clear definition what I meant when I talk about crafter and what I mean when I talk about gatherer.
"A character can become a Master Gatherer, making it possible to harvest higher quality resources, so this will add to some of the uniqueness as well and makes gathering resources less boring."
This exactly what I am talking about when I talk about distinguish gatherer and crafter. The gatherer is good in gathering, the crafter is good in final product making. Anything what you told about the gathering process can be part of my system, they making it better, not change it. What a farmer can do with one material can do with the other material as well just question of decision.
Except the racial affect. If we really want to involve racial affect to the material, it can be solved, but the solution is too complicated even for me, so I would say it can't be implement properly into my system.
"The properties of the reagents need to remain consistent for the purposes of lore."
Yes, this is a weak-spot of my idea, but this can be solved. Just need to crate other type of experiment. So we do not have 'basic experiment', we have 'hot potion experiment' and the result can be fire resistant potion, bonus fire damage etc. All same category material will be consistent to the lore.
"The other part of the fun of Alchemy is experimenting with reagents.
What happens with 2x Tindertwig + 1x Sky Blossom? Explosion!!!
What happens with 1x Tindertwig + 1x White Flake?? Explosion!!!"
That is what you will not do if you want to be alchemist for profit. Especially if one of the material is expensive. It is better to check Google.
In Ashes, Gatherer and Farmer are both subsets of Crafter.
I don't know what you mean by what a Farmer can do with one material can do with another material is supposed to mean.
Your system seems to say that one player can make popcorn by cooking corn while another player makes popcorn by cooking carrots and another player makes popcorn by cooking lettuce.
I don't think you have a good system, so I am OK with that.
That does not sound like a good system.
That is what good Alchemists do when they want to discover brand new recipes: experiment to learn what the results might be. That's part of what makes Alchemy fun rather than boring... reagents having consistent properties so we can anticipate what the results should be...although, sometimes the experiments go boom.
That's part of risk v reward.
What you're proposing -some players cooking carrots to make popcorn via Popcorn Experiment- just doesn't make any sense.
And what if someone just went through and killed all the bears, and that is what you need? You are now left in a wolf infested area waiting for the occasional bear to respawn, whereas if you needed wolf ears, you'd have a much easier time.
This just highlights how it is not really possible to have a balanced system where two different ingredients can be randomly assigned to players for the same function. And balance needs to happen on the micro level, not just the macro level - because the game is played on the micro level.
"But that means the person that gets the recipe that uses one of each ear can just go in, kill everything and get materials twice as fast as anyone else - which to be fair is also an issue if one encounter drops both items."
According to my experience when a quest required a specific mob to kill, it is definitely not twice as fast. Just a minor difference. If you read the whole comment, I mentioned that in this case. I also wrote a solution for that if we must handle it. So I was aware of it, but I do not find it game-breaking issue.
"And what if someone just went through and killed all the bears, and that is what you need? You are now left in a wolf infested area waiting for the occasional bear to respawn, whereas if you needed wolf ears, you'd have a much easier time."
This is sucks, but same sucks if we use any kind of system where my material is depend on the bears.
"And balance needs to happen on the micro level, not just the macro level - because the game is played on the micro level."
It is good if we have, but on micro level the perfect balance is not mandatory. There can be minor unbalances it does not ruin the gameplay.
"I don't know what you mean by what a Farmer can do with one material can do with another material is supposed to mean."
You said that the master farmer can change growth time, can harvest same material in higher quality etc.
"Your system seems to say that one player can make popcorn by cooking corn while another player makes popcorn by cooking carrots and another player makes popcorn by cooking lettuce."
It sounds stupid, because you use it for a real existing 1-1 connection. But nobody can tell you how can we make a healing potions. Nobody can tell you that it has only 1 way. Yes, it is a little bit strange, but this issue can be find in the OP.
You do not have to tell me how exciting can be the experiment, because I started this thread with it. But I already wrote more times that in an MMORPG you have to think twice if it worth to not read the databases on internet.
while that is true its does have a limit unlike our world that changes every hour
That did not help me understand what you are trying to say.
A Master Farmer might be able to grow carrots as fast as they can grow corn or might not be able to.
We would need to know the details of the Ashes design...but we don’t.
If it’s Alchemy, the recipe should be consistent rather than significantly different for each character. Same for Cooking or Blacksmithing, or Animal Husbandry.
Um. I was talking about experimenting to discover recipes that haven’t made it to Google yet.
well in-game content will run out at some point so its impossible to make a truly dynamic world thats what I meant ^^
And your response is there won't be new content every hour?
In-game content doesn't necessarily have to run out - that's the whole point of the Nodes system and the rise and fall of Nodes. But, we have to see how well the concept is actually implemented. And we also have to see how often the devs drop in new content.
Easier said than done. Yes.
"Semantics is if we simply disagree on the label."
You are funny. You wrote that: "Just keep in mind that in Ashes, Gatherer is a type of Crafter."
So you labeled that the people who gather as a kind of Crafter. I labeled that he is not a crafter he is only gatherer. So our disagreement is simple on labels.
As I did not mention how I imagine the gathering mechanism, we can't have disagreement on it. (While I talk with Noaani about it I just brought up some simple mechanism to show it is possible to handle, but I never told that this should be the main mechanism of gathering or I am not open any kind of gathering mechanism.)
"If it’s Alchemy, the recipe should be consistent rather than significantly different for each character."
This is personal preferences not a mandatory thing. I accept that you like that way, but as it was mentioned earlier that existing a game where the mechanics is randomized by characters.
"Um. I was talking about experimenting to discover recipes that haven’t made it to Google yet."
Only a few person has chance for that. I am sure that at most in 3 month all recipes will be discovered.
"A Master Farmer might be able to grow carrots as fast as they can grow corn or might not be able to.
We would need to know the details of the Ashes design...but we don’t."
Yes, maybe in Ashes it will work that way. I just told that a Farming system can support the redundancy what need of my system, if the developers want to support it. I would be surprised if Intrepid copy my system especially when almost all comment is about critics. So I accept that people do not like it, but I do not accept that it can't be implemented properly if somebody wish.
In Ashes, Crafters who progress in the Gathering skill are labeled Gatherer. They gain specific abilities that are different from generic people who gather.
Which is why I capitalize those terms.
In Ashes, if your group kills a boss monster, anyone in the group can gather the loot.
But, to get the best quality items and the most amount of items, you need to have a Master Gatherer loot that boss monster.
Randomized by character is objectively bad game design.
We don't know what system Ashes will actually implement for recipes, but if it's like the KOA: Reckoning design, experiments combining the new reagent with all the old reagents would need to be made anytime new resources/reagents are discovered. We will not have discovered every reagent in 3 months.
So, it would not be only a few people who have that chance.
It's an objectively poor design. Experienced game devs would not implement your proposed system.
I would like it additionally there is a developer team who already released a game with a randomized design. So the objective part is confuted.
If the game didn't need both wolf and bear ears, then that area could just be populated with bears. That means there are more bears for all, and those bears will respawn faster after being killed (due to being killed faster as the person killing them wasn't having to avoid the wolves).
Technically you are right, but have you ever played with a game where a territory was populated with only one type of mob? I did not and I would not like it, independently from the thing that I need to kill them or not. I feel better if I look around and I can see multiple type of mobs.
A whole territory? No.
A large area, big enough for several small groups to farm that same type of mob? Almost all MMO's.
If you needlessly double the number of different materials you need for crafting, then unless you also double the size or density those materials are available you are halving how much of each material a player can be expected to gather in a specific amount of time.
It's just math.
Doubling the density is not a good idea, generally speaking. That massively favors the person that got the RNG where they need both items (this person will ALWAYS be at an advantage if there is any kind of attempt to keep both materials equal).
Doubling the area the materials are available means using up world space that could be used for other content - or creating a larger world which is already usually the most expensive part of an MMO.
Yesterday, I did a quest in Pandria. There were a lake. In the lake there were 1 kind of crocs, 2 kind of big fish, on the shore there were 2 kind of lizards. This territory is very small with a flying mount it takes 5-6 second to fly from one edge to another. I will not go back, again, because they do not drop anything, only one of them is skinnable. If I would start to collect I would find lot of same examples.
Yes the redundancy need more possibilities to gather, but my experience is that there are lot of 'empty' space where you can put these possibilities.
"That massively favors the person that got the RNG where they need both items"
If the tests show that this favor is really massive (I believe it is just minor.), we can restrict that for a recipe you always need different material from same category.
"In Life Is Feudal, each player spawns into the game world with a personalized set of alchemy effects. In other words, every ingredient does something different for you than it does for someone else."
Herbs have different properties (the most valued of them being Flux, Naphtha and Flavour) and they differ for each player.
Yep. I see it. Thanks!
Somebody actually put this in a game, so...
What about the Life is Feudal design are hoping to change and why?
On the other hand, if those encounters are used in quests, it would be bad game design for them to also be a valuable source of crafting materials - if it were a good source of leather, then players trying to do the quest would end up competing for kills with players wanting to skin.
An area where the idea is to collect crafting materials is usually an area that is set aside specifically for that purpose. If you have to double the size of that area in order to allow for an equal number of two encounter types rather than one, then you are eating in to the parts of the world that would otherwise be used to house those encounters for quests. Now you are expanding the number of materials needed, compounding the issues with the system.
They herald back to the fodder in Warcraft 2, possibly earlier.
"Hey, Dygz! Step on that snake and kill it?"
"Why? It's not going to attack me. Am I going to get something from it?"
"No. It's just funny."
They just help the world feel alive.
I don't know that we will have those in Ashes, but I would expect the quality of leather you can get from those to be at the lowest end.
Whitepetal Lake??
I think what you're complaining about here is a 15 year-old themepark design.
I don't think the Ashes design has the issues you describe.