theTrav wrote:Sounds like there's still no deliberate thought being put towards encouraging / forcing players to hunt in groups (there may be benefits from doing so, but nothing in your post says "I want that to be the way it happens")
It is obviously not the case that you strictly speaking need a group to hunt IRL. It just helps. I think we can all agree that hunting could probably be rendered as a more immersive experience in many ways -- by the addition of things like tracking animals, driving them off cliffs maybe, trapping and shit like that -- but at the moment it's not entirely obvious how we would go about some of the cooler things, and nor is it a priority. Hunting in groups, sure, that's cool, but not as a strictly enforced behavior. I like playing the game more or less single player, and I think that should be possible. The important thing here is that -- per my suggested design -- we can both have the cake and eat it. We can have meaningful and good PvE, leading into PvP, while still retaining elements of realistic hunting. That is pretty cool, imho.
Another thing that bothers me is that IRL furs are expensive things, and one of the things I dislike about the current implementation is that fur is bitch ass cheap, not to say worthless. More good fur produce is definitely needed, but that needs to come in tandem with some changes to reduce availability of -- at least the better types of -- fur.
At first glance hearing you talk about just upping the damage from archery and letting a noob with only 50 skill kill bears sounds pretty damned awful to me for several reasons
1 - 50 skill isn't noob, it's a reasonable time investment for a new player (I don't need to hear from you old timers who can grind up 500k in a day, how long did it take you your first time)
2 - Having stats that affect ability to hunt just seems like it's going to be a grinding engine, especially as a barrier for entry (make 100 kuska's before you ride the bear hunt)
3 - If you can solo hunt then why would you bother hunting in a group?
It's definitely not the case that we're just upping damage. See loftar's more detailed post on the subject.
1) Good. Bears should be an investment of time and effort spent. My point was that 50 is not nearly enough to play with the big boys as the situation in game is right now.
2) I'm getting the vibe that you don't like character stats at all, and I'll address that further down.
3) Yes, why would you? You're the social type and like going hunting with a friend, maybe? Grouping will allow you to take on creatures that otherwise would be beyond your range, if nothing else. Like I said above: hunting can become more immersive, but that's not really the point here.
The talk about climbing the ladder of beasties is also something that I find pretty distasteful and gamey. Why do you need a linear progression of animal opponents? Why do you need to divide content into low level content and high level content?
If we have character skills that increase over time spent playing we obviously need to also have challenges to match the entire spectra of possible character levels. We might, perhaps not, need a linear progression of creatures, but we definitely need one for challenges in a more general sense. The fun of "Oooh, now I can take on boars, oooh now I can take on bears", that comes from a serious effort invested in a character is fun. Challenge and Reward, basic Csikszentmihalyi, right? You seem to be of the mind that we shouldn't have character stats, and that I simply don't agree with. Some bromides are bromides because they, fundamentally, represent fairly sound mechanics. Also, character stats are essential to the present quality system.
Bleeding and tracking of animals sounds good, it would be nice if you could have the animals slowed by their wounds as well.
You can do a lot with hunting.
As with everyone else it seems I dislike the ivy idea... Maybe you should only be able to attack them with your wind blades, and perhaps you could collect sun beams to forge into a shield of light which protects you from the living plants... (sarcasm alert)
No need to be snide. We're building one of the least magic-tripping games out there. But considering that the ivy was mentioned as an aside to a major policy statement, I suppose I should be satisfied that people take issue with the ivy.
I like the idea of crafting and civilization being worth more, I dislike the idea of troll hunting being only high level content and yielding massive LP bonus. Primarily because it means you're still focusing on LP as the reward mechanic and not thinking about real gameplay/environment impacting changes, which are harder to implement but far more fun.
I agree that the learning rate part is the weakest part of the schemata, but I want players to feel that they have clear incentives to bring civilization to new lands, and as it stands I haven't been able to think of a better motivator. It is worth noting, though, that even though I use the term LP here, we still have every intention of getting rid of LP. The new system will however, most likely, be able to support a learning rate, as per the present system, per some mechanic, and that's really the point here.
Jackard wrote:poison ivy would be more interesting as walkable plant clusters that you either avoid or take a debuff
more undergrowth in general for forests would be cool - you could do the same sort of debuff with brambles, or have thickets forming weak natural walls that you can hack apart
Yes. There is legitimate concern about draw rates and shit, but yes.
prey should be weaker than predators but aside from that animals should be made different by behavior and weaknesses not simple stat boosts. like how you would hunt boar/bear with spears or chase them down with dogs
Oh, yes. Obviously. (?) -- But... I mean... a bear is still a bear, right? As in stronger?
also just setting all predators to level 10 sounds dubious - shunting people into archery, grinding up melee, trivial/impossible combat
I think it could be a good base line to start experimenting from, at least.