Why Triple Quality was bad. Discussion.

[Jalpha]

It's not inherantly a bad system, quite the opposite. I am sure the devs will return to it.

The issue seemed to be that it sits on top of other systems. These other systems are still too unstable to further complicate with trivariance at this stage.

Additionally there was insufficient support architecture in place for trivariance from the perspective of the player. I mean insufficient ability to manipulate the values.

I like trivariance and I'm sure the devs do too. I'm just parroting my recollection of their past statements mixed with opinions of mine. There's a lot of potential in it.

[Granger]

It's not inherantly a bad system, quite the opposite. I am sure the devs will return to it.

IMHO it was neither good nor fun, should not make a return. Too convoluted to be fun, item stacking was a nightmare.

[Zentetsuken]

It's not inherantly a bad system, quite the opposite. I am sure the devs will return to it.

IMHO it was neither good nor fun, should not make a return. Too convoluted to be fun, item stacking was a nightmare.

Item stacking was definitely an issue but I'll give the general player base the benefit of the doubt and assume that adding 2 additional qualities to each item wasn't the tipping point that simply made the game too convoluted to be enjoyable. I think that having so many additional defendable and claimable resources spread through out the world made the game more fun for more people and added a lot of needed strategy in the very simple spiraling of qualities AND trading AND the idea of where people should be building and what they should be fighting for. Instead of the 3-4 points on the map for best clay and water being known and dominated by their respective empires by mid-world there might be 20+ points of interest across the world that are worthwhile for different reasons.

[MightySheep]

It's not inherantly a bad system, quite the opposite. I am sure the devs will return to it.

IMHO it was neither good nor fun, should not make a return. Too convoluted to be fun, item stacking was a nightmare.

I agree it was convoluted; added complexity for no reason.

i don't mind a complex system if it's interesting but this was simply dull and unnecessary.

[MadNomad]

because my mind Isn't able to find out what the fuck these weird numbers mean

[shubla]

Triple quality had no point. In some items, some quality aspects were useles, and some op. The quality system is already quite complicated. Adding three different numbers does not help!

[Scilly_guy]

I was excited by the prospect of TriQ but felt the devs had let themselves down as it hadn't been well implemented. As others say, it wasn't balanced and wasn't meaningful enough.

I would certainly like to see some more experiments with quality of varying aspects. For example seeds/crops could have a growth speed "quality" where lower is better (perhaps meaning grows twice as fast, the fact lower is better is a clear representation that the stat is capped, at least capped in how good it can be but not how bad). As well as the crop having a quality like normal, and perhaps a quantity "quality" which results in increased chances of getting a bonus yield.

[Kaios]

If my recollection serves me well there were at least three main reasons for doing away with tri-quality, the first being that only the average of all 3 qualities had any impact in crafting and I believe attempts to change the "average" method in terms of crafting did not go over well. Second, trying to locate any resource node of decent quality was made significantly more difficult because of the fact that most high level quality nodes ended up with something like 20/80/20 which is still no better than an average quality 40 node. And third it was just confusing especially with regards to animal breeding, there appeared to be very little rhyme or reason behind the qualities of animals being bred and the qualities produced or at the very least this only served to prolong the breeding and farming processes.

Those are the main reasons in my opinion but certainly there are some others that I just can't think of at the moment.

[banok]

complex? niggas pls it was bad because it was too simple. higher numbers was always better.

if higher value meant either a negative or positive effect depending on say industry or crop type, then shit would get complex and mean something,

for example your soil is 15, 45, 30. each number has a positive or negative effect changing from crop to crop, with lower number being more neutral. lets say for carrots the first number is neg, the second is positive, the third is neutral, then this soil is ideal for carrots. but if for barley the first is positive the second is neutral and the third is negative then your barely shrivels up and dies.

instantly no soil is the same, no soil is inherently better than another. it would require serious testing to figure whats best.

it may be a terrible suggestion but sadomasochist J&L are getting a semi reading this post.

[jorb]

I agree it was convoluted; added complexity for no reason.

i don't mind a complex system if it's interesting but this was simply dull and unnecessary.

Pretty much.