Game Development: Inbetween

[jorb]

you only ever listen to one section of the player base and ignore everyone else which is why the game never grows into it's full potential.

I think that is a very unfair accusation. I read every damn C&I thread I get. Half of our development posts are nothing but player suggestions from all kinds of people.

Do feel free to point out a couple of posts that I have willfully ignored, and which, if implemented, would indeed allow the game to grow into it's full potential.

[Burinn]

you only ever listen to one section of the player base and ignore everyone else which is why the game never grows into it's full potential.

I read every damn C&I thread I get.

Duly noted.

[Amanda44]

you only ever listen to one section of the player base and ignore everyone else which is why the game never grows into it's full potential.

I think that is a very unfair accusation. I read every damn C&I thread I get. Half of our development posts are nothing but player suggestions from all kinds of people.

I'm talking about the major game changing mechanics, not adding new items or fixing up existing mechanics.

[Burinn]

you only ever listen to one section of the player base and ignore everyone else which is why the game never grows into it's full potential.

I think that is a very unfair accusation. I read every damn C&I thread I get. Half of our development posts are nothing but player suggestions from all kinds of people.

I'm talking about the major game changing mechanics, not adding new items or fixing up existing mechanics.

Having been around for almost half a decade on and off on this shitcan of a game (jesus), I think that's patently false. At the very least that's a totally subjective observation. I agree with Jorb, the Devs have done a good job of taking C&I from the player base.

[Amanda44]

I think that is a very unfair accusation. I read every damn C&I thread I get. Half of our development posts are nothing but player suggestions from all kinds of people.

I'm talking about the major game changing mechanics, not adding new items or fixing up existing mechanics.

Having been around for almost half a decade on and off on this shitcan of a game (jesus), I think that's patently false. At the very least that's a totally subjective observation. I agree with Jorb, the Devs have done a good job of taking C&I from the player base.

I'm not saying they don't read it and reply and take things from it.
In fact I've even used that before as an encouragement to leaving players or new players who are quitting.

[Potjeh]

If you have a better fail state to replace RNG with, I'm all ears.

A system with guaranteed outcomes removes the entire problem of prioritization. Under a system like that you are more or less back in the situation where there is an optimal gear setup, and where acquiring that is simply a matter of getting the resources.

Why does there have to be a fail state? Why not multiple success states? What I'm thinking of is different tiers of equipment, and all equipment in the same tier is equally good for gilding. That way you can have multiple viable options when choosing gear to gild, but that doesn't mean they're all the same because they take different resources to craft.

Speaking of those resources, it's not like people sit around on tons of clothing ingredients. Pretty much all of them have other good uses, so there's really no need for a huge resource sink for them. As for the clothing itself the quality progression is sufficient incentive to keep making it.

And if you really want to have a more substantial difference in clothing as they pertain to gilding, how about having them give a multiplier to the total gilding bonus? For example, a lynx cape could give +10% to agi bonus from all equiped gildings. That way you can still get a general idea of what to expect, which IIRC you said before is desired, but if there's a couple of equal choices for each bonus/slot there's still room for fashion.

[Juanito]

So, rather than just remove gilding which the majority of players hate, just make more of it and make it complicated ... lol, how to make awesome games and then slowly ruin them with each passing month.

I'm trying to advance the game, and make it better.

I want an equipment system that does not force players into wearing too much of a particular look in order to accomplish certain goals.

I, for example, didn't like how everyone in Legacy -- and here as well -- above scrub-tier, always wore more or less the exact same outfit.

Even though it has flaws -- RNG admittedly being one of them -- this system accomplishes that, and also introduces some distinction and depth to the various pieces of gear. It allows for the creation of rare pieces of equipment which are not unconditionally available to anyone.

Under the old system, there was no point in adding more shirts, pants, &c to the game, because no one worth his salt would ever wear them, as they could not compete with anything that gave a stat bonus, i.e. ranger's pants. This is no longer the case.

If you want to take a completely reactionary view, and argue that we should never try anything new, anything controversial, anything that we don't get 100% right straight away, or generally anything that doesn't get the immediate blessings of the vox populi, well, that's cute and all, but it is also a sure-fire way to never-ever in a million years accomplish anything new with the game, and that is not a type of "development" I'm interested in, and nor is the game in a meaningful enough state to merit the sort of feature freeze you are, whether you realize it or not, asking for.

If you sincerely labour under some delusion that there was some magical time in the past when Haven was great in some spectacular way, and that we since have been ruining it, well, I can't help you except by pointing out how unconditionally wrong you are.

We have recently(ish) added mammoths, knarrs, trolls, and domesticated horses. There is simply no point in the past where the game, on the whole, has been better than it is now.

I suggest you adopt a more constructive attitude. I want diversity in equipment, looks, and gear. You give me better ideas on how to accomplish that if you don't like the ones I have, but these sour-grapes you can frankly leave at home, because I'm not buying.

i would like to address olympus
- while slotting is a good way to personalize your gear, all (or most) items should have some kind of base bonus
- also number of starting slots should be affected by q for example a 60q item has 2 slots a 120q item has 3 base slots.
- fep and lp gilding would be a nice way to fasttrack the early game making new people get to know more of the game in less time.

Fep and lp gilding would mean nothing to new players but just speed up and increase the amount of alts the botting factions can put into the table. So NO!

[Enjoyment]

you only ever listen to one section of the player base and ignore everyone else which is why the game never grows into it's full potential.

I think that is a very unfair accusation. I read every damn C&I thread I get. Half of our development posts are nothing but player suggestions from all kinds of people.

Do feel free to point out a couple of posts that I have willfully ignored, and which, if implemented, would indeed allow the game to grow into it's full potential.

Maybe the main problem is the community communications - we had to much shitpost in uped threads and 90% of *that* community never ever visited C&I thread of the forum. I've never seen such attitude even in indie game - Jorb literally answered on 99,99% of all post in "Bugs" and "C&I" thread - that's a huge work and a huge showing of his attitude to the community. But said community continue to shitpost of frucken US voting, some feets and faces, pics of other game and like shit... And when they got a new patch - they cry "WTF? Why did you do that, Jorb???". "Oh, guys, do you know what that blue words in patch-note means? They're links! Links to the threads where people, really involved in game development disscus some potential changes. Why didn't you involve? You don't care? Then shut ur mouth and stop complainig - u did nothing to this game. Why should I did something for u?" - that could be the answer of Dev, but he isn't so rude)
P.S. Sorry to Loftar for not mentioning him. His work is deeply honest by myself.

[Amanda44]

If you have a better fail state to replace RNG with, I'm all ears.

A system with guaranteed outcomes removes the entire problem of prioritization. Under a system like that you are more or less back in the situation where there is an optimal gear setup, and where acquiring that is simply a matter of getting the resources.

Why does there have to be a fail state? Why not multiple success states? What I'm thinking of is different tiers of equipment, and all equipment in the same tier is equally good for gilding. That way you can have multiple viable options when choosing gear to gild, but that doesn't mean they're all the same because they take different resources to craft.

Speaking of those resources, it's not like people sit around on tons of clothing ingredients. Pretty much all of them have other good uses, so there's really no need for a huge resource sink for them. As for the clothing itself the quality progression is sufficient incentive to keep making it.

And if you really want to have a more substantial difference in clothing as they pertain to gilding, how about having them give a multiplier to the total gilding bonus? For example, a lynx cape could give +10% to agi bonus from all equiped gildings. That way you can still get a general idea of what to expect, which IIRC you said before is desired, but if there's a couple of equal choices for each bonus/slot there's still room for fashion.

Ta da!

[Potjeh]

Also, it occurs to me that your attention might be to increase cost of equipment to bring some balance to the player-character-gear trinity. That's certainly a good goal, but this is a terrible way to do it. I'd simply go with making the gildings a lot more expensive.