Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to TerraFirmaCraft Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Dries007

      ATTENTION Forum Database Breach   03/04/2019

      There has been a breach of our database. Please make sure you change your password (use a password manager, like Lastpass).
      If you used this password anywhere else, change that too! The passwords themselves are stored hashed, but may old accounts still had old, insecure (by today's standards) hashes from back when they where created. This means they can be "cracked" more easily. Other leaked information includes: email, IP, account name.
      I'm trying my best to find out more and keep everyone up to date. Discord (http://invite.gg/TerraFirmaCraft) is the best option for up to date news and questions. I'm sorry for this, but the damage has been done. All I can do is try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
    • Claycorp

      This forum is now READ ONLY!   01/20/2020

      As of this post and forever into the future this forum has been put into READ ONLY MODE. There will be no new posts! A replacement is coming SoonTM . If you wish to stay up-to-date on whats going on or post your content. Please use the Discord or Sub-Reddit until the new forums are running.

      Any questions or comments can be directed to Claycorp on either platform.
Darmo

Stat Points & Trade Friction

13 posts in this topic

Have you read, understood, and followed all of the rules listed in large text at the top of the suggestions forum?(Yes/No): YES
 

So, this thought largely came about as I was thinking about how one might limit the number of skills a player can reasonably pursue, per the Exclusivity of Trades Post I made awhile back.   It involves a couple possible different ways to limit the number of trades a player could pursue with a given character.  I searched the old TFC suggestion forums and found no discussion of this in the first few pages, but even if it had been, TFC2 right?

 

STAT POINTS


The player could have stats.   Could be full-on D&D-style Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma.  Could be different.   But the idea would be that different trades require different stats to be good at, or maybe even have flat-out stat-gates.

GAINING POINTS
The player might start with 1 in all stats, and then they get a stat point for every X levels they attain.  I'll use 5 as an example.  So when the player *first* reaches level 5, they get a stat point, which they apply to the stat of their choice in the appropriate tab of the inventory/skill/etc screen.   THIS ONLY HAPPENS ONCE.  If they die and attain level 5 again, they do not get another point (but they do keep points already earned, maybe).  They get their second stat point at level 10, and so forth.  This makes experience levels very important, as opposed to how they are now, just a kind of nice hp bonus.  I'm not sure what the hard/practical level limit is.  Some googling turned up a lot of answers, but it seemed like many felt the practical limit is about 50.  Players may not like being limited by level advancement though.


STAT GATES

Stats *could* come into play via 'hard' gates.  So a smith for instance, can work copper (tier 1) with 1 or 2 strength, depending on the desired balance.  Tier 2 metals require another point of strength.  Tier 3 another, etc.  If the player does not have sufficient strength, they just can't work the metal period.  This can probably be applied to other trades as well, such as magic, but perhaps using intelligence in that case, for example.


STAT SLOPES

Stats could also be a 'soft' limiting factor, if the systems inherent in each trade become more difficult with lower stats.  So in the case of smithing, perhaps the unseen target numbers for each tier of metal get higher and higher.  A copper pick might have a target (in a specific seed) of 50.  A bronze pick 250.  Iron 500, steel 1000.  But the amount that the smithing buttons moves the pointer also changes depending on the player's strength.  A weak player will have to spend more and more hits to work higher tier metals, as their strength lags behind 'the slope'.  While a player that keeps their strength in line with the tier slope, has to expend much fewer hits.   So weak players will spend more hammers, and more time just getting up the vicinity of the target, leaving less time to find the sweet spot before cooling.   If a system such as exhaustion came into play, the weak player would also become exhausted sooner, as each hit would reduce that meter (Increasing constitution would increase the player's exhaustion meter, obviously).  In this way, a player *could* still smith metals without pumping STR, but they will pay a price in efficiency.



Other major trades - magic for instance - can have similar things.  But minor crafts could also be affected.   For instance if gemology became a fairly complicated craft, it could play off of dexterity.  There could be an entirely separate branch of smithing for jewelry (mainly for enchantment) that relies on dexterity rather than strength.  If there were perhaps different branches of magic, some might play off wisdom instead.   The agriculture skill could involve wisdom (bonus seeds only with high skill+wisdom).  Looms could use dexterity (introduce a chance to fail and lose half the thread).  Butchering could have reduced yield for low dexterity.  Scraping the hide has a chance to reduce leather yield by 1, or ruin it entirely, with low dexterity.   Arrows could have some random error introduced, reduced by higher dexterity.  There's a lot of minor ways to influence these non-trade tasks.


Whether stat 'gates', or 'slopes', or a combination, I think this system would allow the player to customize their character to a degree.  Maybe they spread out their points so they can do some low-tier smithing, and also low-tier magic.  Or they go all-out on constitution and strength and become a smithing machine.  The hard part is making sure all stats have a good amount uses (charisma may not make the cut)

TRADE FRICTION


Trade Friction is the concept that some trades could conflict with others directly, discouraging or preventing the player from pursuing multiple trades.   I suggested this in my nature magic post, in the magic thread.  In that case, pursuing blacksmithing a lot 'contaminates' the player with pollution, bumping up a hidden meter that, if it goes to high, starts to interfere with or prevent certain nature magics.  If nature magic and arcane magic both existed, arcane magic could also have a similar taint, to discourage a player doing both kinds of magic.   So a player smith would have a harder and harder time, the further they try to go in nature magic.

The problem with this is it might be hard to rationalize a reason in some cases, and the more trades there are, the harder it becomes.  

So why would magic interfere with the smithing trade?  It could be that the magic of TFC2 is heavily earth/magnetism based, and that all this messing with geomantic forces gives them a personal quasi-magnetic field.  This field alters smithing, such that rather than the target number being consistent for the mage for any given product, it has a chance to be different sometimes.  And if the mage delves too far, eventually the smithing target is different every single time, for the same product.  Maybe some move buttons will even start to randomize.  Eventually it would become prohibitively difficult for the mage to do smithing.   

But if alchemy became a full-on profession separate from magic, what then? It could probably be argued to still pollute vs nature magic.  Maybe even have contaminating effects on arcane magic.  But why would it impede smithing?  So that's kind of an issue with the trade friction concept.

There could also be trade completion order issues, which must be watched for.  The friction would need to be constant, in everyday use of the trade.  Otherwise, if there were for instance just gates where a druid can't progress if they're polluted too much, but otherwise pollution has no other effects, the player could complete the druid ladder first and then start smithing, with no issues, having passed all the druid 'friction gates'.  By incorporating pollution checks into every spell use and item creation, the player cannot continue to be a great druid if they then contaminate themselves.   Yet, if nature magic did not have a static effect vs arcane magic, the player could complete the nature magic tree, and then do all the arcane tree.  Losing their powerful nature magics, but doing all the arcane, effectively completing two full trees in one playthrough.  This may or may not be a concern, but an LPer could complete both tracks in one LP.



So those were my thoughts on this so far.  I don't know if any of this is of interest to the devs, but to do it right, it would probably need to be planned from the start across many areas, so I wanted to get the thought out there.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the idea of establishing a barrier between professions, and I think you have a good idea with the Trade Friction, especially when it comes to the magic aspects, though I agree it would be a pain to logically explain each one (though if one goes with the five trade system championed by earthboundflyer, it would be easier, as there are only five to really dabble with).

 

As for the stat points, I like the idea, but I feel as if there would a limit for players who do not kill mobs. Also, having skill points in each "Stat" instead of just wholesome stat bonuses could be a way to develop a deeper distinction between two trades, so while you may have 50 points in the Dexterity heading, it could be 30 points in Stealth and the other 20 in Handiwork (for Lock-picking or Gemology). Again, I see this could go way out of balance, but I'm sure if the TFC2 team was going to do this, they would work hard to balance it as much as possible.     

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for the stat points, I like the idea, but I feel as if there would a limit for players who do not kill mobs.

That's true. Perhaps there would have to be other ways to gain xp, similar to how smelting gives xp in vanilla.  This could play out as 'special' xp tracks for each stat.  So you have your player levels, which can be used for any stat.  But separately each stat has an xp track that the player improves by doing things involving that stat.  So just by doing tons of smithing they can gain enough xp to level their STR or CON, but *only* those two.  This skill-specific tracking kind of already happens with skills, and maybe it's just the skill.  So once you get your blacksmithing to adept, you can raise your str/con again, without having to grind mobs.  But this also uses the next player xp step at level 5, so you're not 'doubling up' on points.  You'll either have to get to player xp level 10 (at which point you can pick any stat), or get to the expert level of blacksmithing.  You could also do other skills to raise their stats, but you would have to get them up to expert as well.  You wouldn't get a stat point for them at adept, because you already took your adept point at blacksmithing.

 

I don't know that I'd go the route of players spending multiple points on a skill.  I think it may be best from a player understanding perspective, to keep it as a skill web, with simply 1 point used for 1 skill on the web.   Although something similar to Fallout perk system might interesting, if the skill in question has enough depth to have multiple levels of benefit. 

 

I would consider Earthboundflyer's skill web system much harder to explain logically.  What logical reason could forester, smith, carpenter, adventurer and farmer have to conflicting?  They're all just manual labor.   I consider trade friction to be more about dissolving boundaries, allowing a player to pursue as many things as they want at the lower tiers.   EBF's system is more of hard division system, based on a skill web.  Simpler, but less believable imo.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's true. Perhaps there would have to be other ways to gain xp, similar to how smelting gives xp in vanilla.  This could play out as 'special' xp tracks for each stat.  So you have your player levels, which can be used for any stat.  But separately each stat has an xp track that the player improves by doing things involving that stat.  So just by doing tons of smithing they can gain enough xp to level their STR or CON, but *only* those two.  

 

Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking, and it's a good way to do it.

 

 

I don't know that I'd go the route of players spending multiple points on a skill.  I think it may be best from a player understanding perspective, to keep it as a skill web, with simply 1 point used for 1 skill on the web.   Although something similar to Fallout perk system might interesting, if the skill in question has enough depth to have multiple levels of benefit. 

 

I kind of felt it would be difficult to do this, as I even had difficulty coming up with ideas for the skill names. I haven't played any of the Fallout games, but from what I can understand, it is a slight combination of your system mixed and the one I suggested, which is more like D&D's.

 

 

I would consider Earthboundflyer's skill web system much harder to explain logically.  What logical reason could forester, smith, carpenter, adventurer and farmer have to conflicting?  They're all just manual labor.   I consider trade friction to be more about dissolving boundaries, allowing a player to pursue as many things as they want at the lower tiers.   EBF's system is more of hard division system, based on a skill web.  Simpler, but less believable imo.

 

I think there are a few problems with his system, and while you could argue that it doesn't have a logical explanation, the argument could be made that one has simply "run out of knowledge." I also agree that his system would be a better general system because of its simplicity. However, I like that there are fewer hard divisions in your system, which would help for the SSP players in particular. I think the next step for this idea is making some form of visual version of this idea. It will help you develop your idea more, and give it more clout. A visual version is one of the reasons I think earthboundflyer's idea has more discussion because it isn't just abstract conceptualization, it has a visual chart of what he means. Otherwise, great job.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a few problems with his system, and while you could argue that it doesn't have a logical explanation, the argument could be made that one has simply "run out of knowledge."

To be clear, I wasn't meaning to say it's a bad thing - skill webs don't have to be logical, they're just game progression devices.  Skill webs are simple to understand and balance, and that's not a bad thing.  It just depends on which direction the devs want to go.  Simple hard divisions, or softer but more complex, arguably more believable divisions.  Or a mixture. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's true. I guess more than the system itself, I was criticizing some points in his tech tree, and I made that unclear. But I agree, skill trees can be useful for building games, and in the end, it's up to the Devs how (and if) it will be implemented.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like stat points for minecraft. It doesn't work well unless there are other people to help fill in the gaps. Since minecraft can be played sp, and there just aren't tools for making good NPC's, there isn't a way to fill in the gaps without defeating the purpose of stats.

For minecraft I like skills. I like skills because it is a time investment rather than a bonus. For skills I like and exponential curve for gaining levels. I like skills successfully completed at higher levels giving more points and failed attempts giving you significantly less points. I also like games allowing you to waste materials. To clarify some games are nice and prevent you from doing something like smiting bronze because you don't have the skill. The games I like more allow you to smith the bronze and give the durability of the bronze your skill minus a value. So until your skill get to that value your going to waste the bronze in a failed attempt that will give you less point then if you work copper. Doesn't mean you can't skill up by failing a bunch, just makes it less efficient. 

For example lets say each level takes 150% of previous level rounded up. We'll say you start at level 1 and it take 2 point to get to level 2. The durability of copper is your level minus 1 times 1/8 rounded up. Durability of Bronze is your level minus 15 times 1/4 rounded up. We'll say when ever you fail at making an item, which is at 0 or less durability, you get your level in experience. So to get to level 2 you have to fail twice with any ore, doesn't matter which. When you are level 2 it now takes 3 experience to get to level 3. You can either fail at bronze twice which gives you 4 experience or make 1 copper item with 1 durability which give you 10 experience. You get to level 3 it now takes 5 experience to get to level 4. You can do this by failing bronze twice more or craft another copper item with 1 durability. Continuing said pattern [level|xp to next level|# fails needed|# of copper needed]

[4|8|2|1] -> [5|12|3|2] -> [6|18|3|2] -> [7|27|4|3] -> [8|41|6|5] -> [9|62|7|7] -> [10|93|10|10} -> [11|140|13|14] -> [12|210|17.5|21] -----> [14|473|34|48]

Now remember this is an example but it illustrates what I'd like to show. until level 9 xp wise it is better to make copper items than fail at bronze. At level 11 you gain more xp but less product failing at bronze then you do making copper which gives less experience but more product. Also at level 16 when you can now succeed in making bronze it will give you more experience, but your items will have less durability than copper tools you make. Copper will have a durability of 2 at that point while bronze will have a durability of 1. This shows when you first succeed with making bronze weapons they will be worse than the copper ones you've made for some time. I like this type of progression. as it doesn't stop you from attempting to make something, actually benefits you to fail at a certain point to learn faster and make less product. Or make more product and learn slower. Risk vs reward.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the game is designed for it, I think stats can work.  But the game would definitely have to be designed and balanced around the notion.   I can't find the post it was discussed in now, but the idea was that Every class can do some basic things.  This includes magic users being able to smith metals up to bronze (or higher in the 'soft slope' scenario).  So the divergence doesn't take place immediately.  A mage can still smith lower tier tools.  They aren't dependent upon other players entirely for that.  And they'll be able to tan hides, make alcohol, basically all the stuff in the current version of TFC except high tier metal working. 

Beyond that, the notion of whether or not someone else is "required" depends on what one thinks the goal of the game is.  TFC2 ostensibly seems to have the goal of progressing east and west across the islands to access higher tier materials.  In general, all this requires is defeating higher tier mobs.  And so as long as a magic user can defeat those mobs, and obtain materials, they can progress.  So yes, the mage class does need to be balanced such that they can accomplish this alone.  If there is to be a goal beyond this, I've not picked up on it.  But even within this context, I think there could be some islands inhabited by mobs that are resistant to either magic or weapons.  Because the player has 9 different avenues to proceed in one direction.  So if one island is too hard, move north or south and try again.  The key is to make sure the player can progress.   If gemology became a significant side-trade, it would simply need to be arranged that it provides bonuses, not blockades.  So if higher quality gems were used to make magic wands with more durability/more charges, that's a bonus, but if a player is a mage and is not themselves, nor do they have access to a professional gemologist, they can still make wands and staves and such.  They'll just have to make more of them.  If a player is not a master level animal tamer, they may not be able to keep care of a huge menagerie of exotic animals in their home base (those tropical giraffes keep getting sick and dieing in the player's sub-arctic base) but they can still get the stuff they need with the animals native to the region, and maybe an occasional foray into the tropics.  The player might not be able to be a master horticulturalist and cultivate the rarest herbs, but they can buy them from npcs in far-off lands.

The key here is to differentiate between a full-on profession, and bonus trades.  I would define a profession as something that has an aggressive mode of operation allowing progress through he islands.  Weapons and magic are the two obvious ones, and should be relatively easy to balance.   More exotic professions would be alchemist, and engineer.   The alchemist would have a variety of potions and poisons, and maybe even crude guns.  The engineer mechanical weapons, and eventually automatons.  Perhaps an animal tamer can train super-strong animals to fight for them.  the more exotic the trade the harder to balance (and tons more work for devs obviously).  But each actual profession must have the ability to progress across the islands on their own, absolutely.

But SMP is where differentiated professions would shine I think.   Others will mumble in awe as you fly by one your magic carpet (mage only) pegasus/griffin/chimera/dragon (tamer only) or gyrocopter (engineer only).  Smiths would be the tank, and basically the default, least complicated class.  They might not be as flashy, but they would be in demand as all other classes would get bonuses from well smithed products.

Now if the goal is assumed to be to master everything, then yes obviously that's directly opposed to the notion of trade/profession divisions.  I might argue it's better to have the divisions baked into the game, because it'd be far easier to remove the barriers, for those who don't like them.   If stat points are involved, this would be as simple as removing the stat gates form certain skills, or pumping up the stat point gain rate in a 'soft division' scenario.  I think some separation would improve the SMP aspect.  The problem I've experienced in SMP is there's no economy.  Everyone can get/make everything.  The only things people trade in a meaningful way are difficult to get things like sequoia saplings or graphite.  And when I say trade I mean actually bartered trade.  Not just giving away stuff, which happens a lot.  I think it would be great if people could actually produce things that other players on the server simply cannot produce themselves, and hence have somewhat of an economy.  I think this would also help keep people interested.  Because right now you join a server, join a town, there's nothing you can do that everyone else can't.  If people had an actual role and felt like the town depended on them for things, maybe they'd be more prone to stay around. 

It all depends on the dev's goals, in the end.  They've expressed a desire in the past to focus on small-group multiplayer, and I think division of trades/professions would help this play style as well.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do like the idea of a minecraft economy. Funny enough servers with the best economy that I've seen were vanilla, which isn't saying much. I agree with that only really hard to get items seem to be traded which is why I propose for items you want to foster trade with be quite rare. I still don't like the concept of telling one person you can't make something because you didn't learn it and now that you learned to make this you can't learn to make that.

I do like the idea of skills degrading after a certain period of disuse. You can have this be done over time so someone either has to spend tons of time and materials working on all of them to keep them up though at high levels this would be nearly impossible because the time it would take to raise say 4 skills skills 1 point would be the same time it takes all the other skills to decrease 1 point. The down side to this approach is it require careful balancing between time and skills degrade rate. Wouldn't want to lose black smithing skill while out mining. It also means that if someone was really efficient with resource gathering, that they could raise all the skills as long as they did nothing but worked on skills the entire time, which is what you'd do in single player. Another effect is if you sit around afk, that your skills decrease while you are doing nothing. It also means if no one needs anything smithed you have to smith something once in awhile so the skill doesn't decrease.

Or when you work on another skill it decreases it's counterpart. For example say you are a smith and then you start leather working, as you gain skills in leather working your skills in black smithing decrease from more time being devoted to leather. Each "class" could then have their counterpart skill so lets say you have a warrior, mage, chemist. Their main professions could be black smithing, enchanting, and brewing. Say secondary would be prospecting, magic discerning, and essence extracting.  When ever you raise a main profession it decreases the other main professions, and when ever you raise a secondary profession it decreases the other secondary professions. This would discourage players from trying to pursue all the professions though they still could attain all to the level they want. Say you want all at 25. You could raise the first one to 100, then the second one to 50 putting both the first one and the second one at 50. Then raise the third to 25 which would put all three at 25 but it means you went from epic at your first skill to meh at all three so still not an ideal thing to do. Specially if you put hard caps on skills, then there is no way to be good at all of them at the same time. 

Both of these systems discourage people from doing everything. Though I hesitate on the use of classes because of their implied roles. The three I listed warrior, mage, chemist are combat focused but what if someone didn't like combat and wanted to farm and build. Are they both a farmer and a builder? What if they want to smith weapons and then enchant them so they can produce the best weapons for people on the server? Should we really prevent that? What if you are a smith and are defending yourself from creatures, should you be punished for killing the creature because it wasn't your occupation? That's why I like the first idea better. It allows you to do what you want to do but definitely benefits you if you don't have to. If you want to do it all you have to keep rotating what you do so no skill becomes disused. It also allows for config options so if you are in a small server you can lengthen the time for an ability to be considered in disuse and how quickly it degrades and if your in a big server that can support more specialization you can decrease the time and make it decay more rapidly. If you are in single player you can greatly relax so you can do it all. All of that done with two values though you might want to make those values for each skill as plants take a long time to grow.

Edited by Stroam
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of skill degradation.  I could see where that might be a soft system of specialization.  Sounds really hard to balance to me, but that's just me.

The give-and-take idea sounds a bit convoluted to me.  I'm not sure how that's better than a stat point system where you can choose to put all your points in one or two stats and super-specialize, or spread them across the board the be mediocre at many things.  I guess you get to be great for awhile and then mediocre, but that doesn't seem like a great progression arc imo.

As for the 'non-combat' roles, that stuff could either be somewhat related to the primary profession via commonality of stat points, or it could be entirely unrelated if progression were via skill web.  in a SMP environment, if someone wanted to focus on farming then that would be entirely doable.  They could have other people doing the risky combat stuff, and they focus on their farming.  SMP would be ideal for that.  In single player, you'd need to have at least some aggressive skills in order to progress down the island chain.  But that's SP.  It's known that you're on your own in that case.   The progression can be designed such that a player can progress in their primary profession, and also several trades.  They could even be entirely separated, so that professions use an entirely different set of points from trades.  So in a skill web scenario the player might gain a profession point every level, and also a trade point.  Profession points can only be used in the primary combative tracks - fighter, mage, etc.  Trade points are used for non-combative things.  Farming, animal husbandry, gemology, glassmaking, etc.  So then every player has a combat profession provided for, but also some 'hobbies', as it were.  They could be a focused fighter that dabbles in many hobbies, a fighter/mage/alchemist that is the best gemologist in the world, or anything in between. 

I don't see builder as a coded skill.  The game is basically about building and I don't think it's a good idea to prevent anyone from building.

I think it would be better if one person cannot make the very best weapons and enchant them with the very best magic.  I don't mind someone making mediocre weapons and enchanting the with mediocre magic.  But if the only way to get top notch weapons with top notch enchantments is via SMP, I'm ok with that.  It could get people out playing and trading in a community.   Forming adventuring bands of varied skills.  As long as the generalist can still progress in SP, I see no harm in their being limited.

To me smithing is part and parcel of a 'warrior' profession, so a smith would never be penalized for combat.  Smithing skills would be part of the profession progression.

I think skill degradation could run into issues with the fact that different people have different playstyles.  Some might go on long exploration trips, socialize a lot, spend a lot of time building (this would be the biggest problem I think), or just not generally be as 'on-point', and would suffer for it.  While the players who grind the most would see the benefit.  So it's got it's own problems imo.  But I do like the aspect of being the softest of the soft specialization systems.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know TFC is about believably not realism, but the skill degradation is kinda like real life. If you stop playing tennis for a week you really haven't lost that much skill but if you stop for a year and start playing again, you are not at the same skill level as when you stopped. People who aren't 'on-point' in real life do have consequences, and those who spend most their time on the ball do benefit. So it models that aspect really well, and with the two values per skill (time till degradation and rate of decay) balancing and customization shouldn't be an issue.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is those are universal values that don't account for different players.  And while it's a simulation of rl skill loss, it might be a poor game mechanic for player enjoyment.  When people work hard for something, especially something like building up a skill, I think they won't react favorably to losing it.  I've seen the strongest reactions to loss of skills, rather than loss of gear.  Personally I can go on a rl building spree for days.  I'd not appreciate losing hard-won skills just because I was trying to improve the atmosphere of the server, and I think it would tend to disincentivize such projects, unless the time cushion was extremely long.  That said, it does sound like it'd be easy-ish to add, and easy to get rid of with a couple configs.  It's definitely a viable option.  Plus - and this is I think the biggest bonus of this method - it allows a player to re-align if they find that one chosen 'career' path isn't actually all that much to their liking.  It's more adaptable.

Edited by Darmo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could be right about player enjoyment, the system that is closest to this is the hunger system and I am not sure how players feel about it. I know gregtech found that nerfing recipes was seen as less favorable than making recipes more expensive. As for building sprees, as long as you pause to go do something that raises the skills 1 point it resets the time till it degrades, which if you inform the player of this, then maybe it won't be such a big deal as the surprise is generally the worst part of it. The great deal of flexibility and being able to tune it to each servers liking is definitely it's biggest advantage. Wish more people would leave feedback though so we can get more than two perspectives.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites