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

    • Crysyn

      Only help if you can be helpful

      Hey All, A topic has come up of late in the IRC channel in regards to the general feel of the forums and the community that supports them. Things have progressed further than I would have liked with out this being addressed more publicly because I would much rather have snubbed this out sooner rather than later.. but I have been busy. Here is the general rule I would like people to follow: Wheaton's Law "Don't be a dick." Those of you from the IRC channel know that this is the only rule I ask people in there to follow and we generally have a good and lively time chatting about all manner of things. This is basic rule that just about everyone understands and I am going to expand it to the forums from here moving forward. If you can not help people in a helpful and polite manner then I simply ask you to stop. Now I generally take a back seat to moderating the forums as I like to participate in the suggestions forum fairly heavily at times and would rather do so as a forums user than a moderator. But I am also fairly well known for being the person who constantly puts their foot down and so I am stepping up and doing so on here. If you find yourself unable to respond to a message politely then I ask that you do not respond. This mostly focuses on the increasing level of hostility found within the Suggestion forum as well as the Server forum. I do not care if this is the 30th some odd time you have seen someone make the same suggestion. Or even if the new post on an older topic is one entry above the old one. I expect the members of this forum to respond politely to the user, new or old, and point to the older topic if it applies and even go the extra step to suggest they either add in new information or to summarize the outcome of the previous discussion based upon the new post's entry into it. That is what we are here for, that is why I close most topics instead of deleting them, so that they can be found and referenced down the road. The next topic is the slew of derailment attempts I have seen as of late. If you want to have fun and joke around that is what the off topic forum is for and pretty much anything goes there. I do not expect to read a suggestion thread and have to go through 3 pages of image memes people have shot back and forth. Quite simply this is a waste of my time to read and then have to clean up. Now for the summary. I am going to start taking a more active role, especially in policing the suggestion forum, and handing out warn levels to people whom I see doing this. These will be indiscriminate and applied not to just the first person who derails or is impolite on a topic or response, but to everyone whom follows the lead of that person. As I do not like doing things with out giving you all warning this post shall serve as that warning. If you have a desire to bring this topic up with me then I invite you to do so on the IRC channel. Lets raise the level of quality and grow the community. Let us not descend into the quality often found on the minecraft or league of legend forums. There is simply no need for that here. Be passionate about things, just do not be abusive.
    • Kittychanley

      Offline Servers

      Recently I've seen a few server listings showing up on the first page of the Servers forum that have been closed for an extended period of time, but have recently gotten a reply from a new member who didn't realize the server is offline. To help prevent this from happening in the future, it would be greatly appreciated if you could use the report function on the original post of any servers that have been confirmed as offline, so that the topic may be locked. If you are the admin of a server and plan on taking the server offline, please use the report function on the original post of your topic to let the TFC Staff know that the topic should be locked. If you are the admin of a server that has a locked topic, and would wish to bring the server back online, please use the report function on the original post of the topic to let the TFC Staff know that the topic should be unlocked. As always, please remember to follow rule #3 of the servers forum and update your topic title to contain the version of TFC that the server is currently running. You can do so by editing the OP, and then clicking on "Use Full Editor."
chepelink

Magic: Research or Innate knowledge

16 posts in this topic

As far as I read in the Magic (link bellow) thread the consensus seems to be the idea of having to research for spells and magic techniques, but I haven't read any pro and con of each system (research and innate knowledge).  If magic is still on the table, what is the consensus from the developers about how we get it? Is it too soon to ask this? 

From my point of view, I see that the Innate knowledge is better than the research one, mainly because I feel that it is usually used to extend gameplay where is not needed. It is like wanting to research metallurgy before you start working with metals in TFC1. It makes that the progression stagnate and the actual usefulness of magic is diminished. For an example in the offensive side of magic, Thaumcraft, if my memory serves me right, you can start using "magic" as soon as you reach iron, but you can start to shoot fire after you reach and "beat" the Nether... where everything is immune to fire... where Ice magic would be an asset in dealing with the Nether (and you get Ice magic after you get fire, so). It feels like magic in Thaumcraft is a reward from defeating X objective instead of a tool to defeat X.

Don't get me wrong, I like Thaumcraft, it is an amazing mod, but not a useful mod. Not after a lot of time and research (golems, for example). In this regard, and with the island progression theme in TFC2, I would rather have magic from Island 1 that would help me in defeating Island 2 than as a reward that would had been useful to defeat Island 1 but kind of pointless in Island 2.

Therefore, I think that Innate magic knowledge  would be better for TFC2, or at most, a fast research system to encourage** the research of magic before dealing with the next Island/problem. What do you think?

 

** A system that encourage the use of it: As an example of a system that does not encourage the use of it would be World of Warcraft professions. At the moment, WoW has a professions system where you are encourage to train after you reach max level, rather than while you are leveling up. This is due the fact that in WoW, leveling is too fast for the profession to be useful at every level. In the similar fashion, thaumcraft magic system seems more like WoW profession, in which the progress is too fast for the research to be on par with it. As an example of encouragement, if thaumcraft had ice/water bases magic before reaching the Nether, it would encourage the research of Ice magic because, well, it would be useful. 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious, by 'innate' system, do you mean something like a skill web?  So the player gets skill points that they use to unlock a spell or item, and now they know it?  Presumably they would still need to expend materials to make said item or cast said spell?  Or kind of simple achievement system?

To me there's a strategic question to answer first, as to whether the devs see magic as a sort of add-on to smithing, that anyone can use?  Or if they like the idea of a distinct path for magic users, that discourages players from pursuing both?  This has significant implications for the design of the system.

It could be argued that if magic is an 'everyman' skill, it's easier to make it research and time intensive.  Because then it's optional.  The player can always just follow the tried and true weapons and armor to advance.   I would say this might be the most wide-open scenario in terms of system mechanics, and could even have a sort of mix-and-match feel, like how witchery has different elements that aren't necessarily totally intertwined.

On the other hand, if magic is a distinct path, then it could be argued that the method of gaining magic needs to be on par with smithing in terms of time and effort.  That is unless magic is meant to be considered a 'hard mode' that just takes more time, but with greater rewards in the end.  Even in a distinct path scenario, I think that both innate and research are valid methods.  Research could be made as hard or as easy as desired.  The Thaumcraft research method isn't particularly time-consuming.  Then there's my suggested research method in the other thread, which can be a bit more time intensive.  But even that can be adjusted to make it easy.

So ya, to me that's the most important initial question: everyman, or distinct path?   The rest is just details, imho.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no, an innate knowledge is a knowledge that you already know from birth (in Minecraft scenario, from spawn). For example, almost everything, if not everything, from TFC1 can be done if you have the tools and the material. You don't need to "waste" time researching it and/or finding the clues to begin the research. In TFC1 you know how to smelt, make alloys, tools, armors, etc the moment you spawn. The only thing that stop you to make colored steel armor from the get-go are tools and materials. In this perspective, your last question and mine is intertwined; you cannot have a distinct path if the know-how is innate.

4 hours ago, Darmo said:

So ya, to me that's the most important initial question: everyman, or distinct path?

My point of view in this is that, though TFC2 is being design as a multiplayer add-on, a good portion of the playerbase is single player. No matter the system chosen (research or innate), it should have in mind that "multiplayer" means from 2 players onward, and some people enjoy the difficulty of being a solo player in TFC1 (I'm one of them) . Therefore, at least the option of being an everyman should be a must, it does not matter if it is via more skill points per level, faster research time, or toggling off the research option.

5 hours ago, Darmo said:

To me there's a strategic question to answer first, as to whether the devs see magic as a sort of add-on to smithing, that anyone can use? 

If TFC2 is going to be more oriented toward a fantasy setting, magic should be essential, even if it is just a tiny bit. A farmer might want a rune of water to expand the fields, a rune of healthy earth to speed farm production, a rune of magic earth to infuse some plants with magic for medicinal and/or alchemy purposes. A warrior might want a potion  (and/or wand and/or gem) of invisibility, fast regeneration, fireproof, alchemical  silver (or a magical sword +1) for those pesky damage resistant critters, etc. We can have magic gems to enhance mana recovery for wizards, empower their spells, make them cheaper, etc. For smiths can be rune of melting fire to replace wood, a rune of warm metal to keep the metal "warm" enough to smith, infuse magic to make magical alloys and mystical metals. And that is just a small sample of things that can be done.

I don't think it should be an add-on to smithing, just an integral part of the gameplay, even if its simple and by any means complex. I mean, you can start using magic as a spell caster (simple mana bolts) to conquer the first island if you wish, later after conquering the second island, you can start making basic quality of life magic runes and gems, later more complex or magical intensive runes or rituals, and so on; the further you advance in the islands the better things you can make. In this last regard, I think that gating the progress of magic by resources found in more difficult island is a more natural and cohesive way and closer to TFC2 philosophy of progression than research or skill points (and for that mater, has the highest affinity with innate magic knowledge).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, I see.  Well that's definitely an option. And it'd probably be the easiest to set up, since balance wouldn't be as important an aspect, and any research or skill web coding would not be required. 

I don't know that it's clear that TFC2 is being designed as a 'multiplayer addon'.  The devs have in the past said that they were designing TFC1 for small group play, but I don't know if we ever saw that executed or not - it never was finished after all.  But I'd argue that if any one player can do everything in the game with relative ease, then it's fundamentally a single player game.  So for me, I'm still kind of wondering if TFC2 will be designed for multiplayer or not.  Because it's not clear to me yet.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Darmo said:

I don't know that it's clear that TFC2 is being designed as a 'multiplayer addon'.

Mmm, I was pretty sure that that was the objective, but searching the forums I could not find a clue. Anyway, "relative ease" depend on the player and skill level. I rarely reach colored steel because it is a lot of work, but if you have one or two friends, everything become incredible easy; exploration is faster, mining is faster, chopping wood is faster, getting food is faster. Dangerous mobs are not a problem in TFC1 for anyone with a bit of Minecraft experience, so you don't need to travel in packs or do the same thing together. In that regard, TFC1 is a bit more Multiplayer, not for how easy is to do things, but how fast you can do it. And grinding is a bit subjective, too.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, obviously things go faster with more people doing them.  In most cases speed = ease.  TFC has a few systems that transcend that equation currently - the smithing system being the main one, and the support mechanic being the another.  The smithing system, some people just don't think like that, and so they don't do well with it, and hence don't like it.   The support system is mainly a problem of world gen, and people misunderstanding how the cave-in mechanic actually works.  That and they're lazy.  Then there's propicking - some people, again, just have a hard time understanding how that works.  

Everything else about the game is just varying degrees of time sinks.  Charcoal making and mining are two of the largest ones.  They can be very grindy and some people just don't like doing those particular grinds.  But they're not difficult.  The entire game is basically a time sink, so who's to say where the correct amount of time for any task is?  You'd have dozens of answers for any given task. 

My own opinion, is that people like discovering or achieving things.  This gives those sudden thrills that make a game addicting, and also makes the player value the things.   That's why I think a research based magic system could enhance the multiplayer game a lot, but also provide another layer of discovery and surprise for single player, if done correctly.  And, if done correctly, it could be made adjustable such that those who don't like it can put it in easy-mode and not be overly bothered with it, while others could keep the difficulty of it, if they want to bring a bit more value to magic skills.  If the system is just easy-mode, and nothing else, then the latter case isn't even possible.

Edited by Darmo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Darmo said:

My own opinion, is that people like discovering or achieving things.  This gives those sudden thrills that make a game addicting, and also makes the player value the things.

I do agree with you on this. People like discovery and achievement. The thing is that magic research is not the only way to achieve this; the island progression is another way. And this is where my question about research or innate become relevant. How much the island progression is going to impact TFC2 gameplay and discoveries? If its is going to be a huge part of it, almost as if it is the core of the mod, how much research can you put into magic (and other things for that mater) that does not break the main goal? Is innate a better approach to not padding the game too much?

Another thing, if it is always "easy-mode" (or innate, too) the development time and resources can be focus on a much better experience of island progression. Almost as if saying; "Look, there is magic in this mod and you can use it from the get-go, but the progression is going to be linked to what islands you have conquered... like every thing else". The same goes with multiplayer, if the difficulty of the island progression can be adjusted to the number of players  (automatically or manual) it will also empower the multiplayer side. 

Nevertheless, there can always be a research method more akin to a mini game in which you have to discover (world seed dependent, maybe) the right amount of  magic elements for the greatest effect. In this regard, it does not break the innate knowledge; you know how to do it, but not in an efficient way (similar with food and flavors in TFC1, the need of looking for the best food for you while knowing how to make food from the start).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chepelink said:

I do agree with you on this. People like discovery and achievement. The thing is that magic research is not the only way to achieve this; the island progression is another way. ... how much research can you put into magic (and other things for that mater) that does not break the main goal? Is innate a better approach to not padding the game too much?

I don't see them as mutually exclusive.  It could be necessary to research a given spell, but then you also have to find the right materials to build the thing to cast said spell.

I think you're right about necessity of progression; I assume that magic would have an island-progression element as well.  If it didn't, you'd risk breaking  progression via magic. If there's a lot of damaging spells, and the player could just find everything for the most powerful spells in the first column of islands, they could easy-mode their way through the first tiers. 

So for an everyman strategy, there's a few scenarios I could forsee.  On the one hand, there's a good amount of damaging spells, that progress through the islands, not unlike weapons.   In this scenario one would kind of want a good balance, so that the spells are roughly as attractive as the weapons.  If they're not well balanced, a clear superior will emerge, and the other branch will get neglected This is undesirable.  Another strategy; magic is made more about effects and unusual stuff, less about damage.  Then there's not a need for a fine damage balance.  The magic side is buffs, debuffs, summoning, utility.  Damage is still mainly handled by weapons (and their enchantments).   And then a third way, it could be island-dependent.  So the denizens of some islands might be magic-resistant (fey, undead, demons, etc) while other islands might be inhabited by mobs resistant to weapon damage, but weak to magic (giants, ogres, orcs).  Then the player might be forced to change strategies depending on the island's inhabitants.  That or they look for an island with their preferred type of enemy.  Here again, balance between weapons and damaging magic would be less crucial.  They might be a bit unbalanced, but if certain mobs take 50% damage from one or the other, a slight unbalance won't be a big deal.

I would contrast those scenarios, with more restrictive strategies.  For instance an everyman research scenario.  Here it may be that anyone can use magic just fine at any time, but there is a steep research gate, that requires a lot of research grind on the player's part.  Some players just won't want to do it, so they stick with weapons.  The ones that do the research would have magic as well.  One could justify damaging magic being slightly better, in theory, due to the work required to get it.  But at the same time the others may feel left out if they can't hack magic, but some players get magic AND weapons.  And that's undesirable imho.

Then there's a divided path strategy, where the player is forced or strongly encouraged to choose.  This could occur with or without research.  But idea being, either the player is code-required to choose a path (via skill web, or enforced skill oppositions) or a mechanic is brought in whereby skills degrade over time, and it's just kind of very difficult to impossible for the player to maintain them all at high-functioning levels.  These strategies need some balance between the paths, but since they're divided to some degree, the balance doesn't have to be as tight, I think.  I've said a lot about those in other threads, so probably no need to re-hash them in detail here.

Honestly the innate strategy is, I would imagine, the easiest to code, and the easiest to balance.  It's the default mode of minecraft and every vanilla magic mod.  I imagine it's how things will end up for TFC most likely.  Which is why I try to present as many arguments as I can for the validity of more divided strategies.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you in your statements, ideas and positions in general.  Just a few things to consider... thinking just about weapons: how do you balance melee vs range? sword vs bow? If we think in real life, bow is by far a superior weapon in most situations. It has range, it has speed and its deadly. The downside? It has ammunition, and in TFC that means you have to make them. It still the same dilemma, how you balance a weapon that require ammunition vs one that does not (ignoring durability, obviously)? The answer applies to magic too, and there is more than one answers.

As you put it... it can be done by making magic  do weird things, more focus on quality life and things like that, or to make the mobs weak and strong against type of attacks. But here it is the deal, I think that what we should looking is more to fulfill a fantasy rather than to balance the game (though I don't  think that balance is not necessary). I've seen many players that just want to play a class that the enjoy, no mater how weak or strong it is... as long as the class fulfill the fantasy, though. Who does not want to be a knight? Or a Wizard? Or a wizard knight? Or an Arcane Archer? Or a thief? Or a bomber/grenadier?  Or a naked two-handed axe-wielding barbarian gnome? I think that as long as the disparity on damage of the options are not that big, players will find their niche.

For the research part. As long as is doable in single player (or toggleable) I think that research can be an interesting part of the mod, not only for magic, but for some other things. The thing with coding is that, once you have a piece of working code, changing a bit here and there to give it different flavors is not that hard... at least not as making it works. For example, let say that the devs have a working code of the knapping and pottery from TFC1, and that both are made using the same base code. What stop the devs to use the same interface  to expand it to handle magical runes made from stone and talismans made from carving wood? Yes, it would take time to create the texture and the new formulas, but is not like stating from zero. The same can be applied to research... if the devs sinks their time into the research interface, they may well expand it (the interface) to other things, like metallurgy (researching recipes),  gem cutting, cooking, alchemy and herbalism. This expansion of the interface may make TFC2 even more deep and fun, but it can also carry the cost of taking out time for developing other features (or refining the island system) and dilute the main content. In that regard, the innate system might have an advantage. At least is up to the devs what approach might want. It may be that they release as innate and change it over the course of the alpha.

Edited by chepelink
Clarify post
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think even Bioxx has a clear picture of what the final product is going to be like. I'm sure at this point he's just trying to get world generation how he wants it. I'm guessing what ever comes after is going to be based on how he wants TFC2 to play out.

There are 4 types of gamers. Achievers, explorers, socializers, and killers. Killers in minecraft typically stick to arena play on big servers so that's not our intended audience. Socializers require more that one person to be happy and most minecraft servers are single player or a group of small friends. Even going through the public servers they generally aren't that big. So again not TFC 2's audience. That means TFC2 is for achievers and Explorers.

If you tie the magic to innate ability, basically something you get automatically, then you are only pandering to the achievers since there is nothing to discover. If magic is for instance, behind some sort of research wall, they you are leaning more toward explorers. Take TFC 1 smithing for example. As pointed out it doesn't take any research. There is nothing to discover thanks to the wiki. Because of that, black smithing in TFC 1 caters more to people who are achievers more so than explorers. You don't have to look any further than the popular floating island survival modpacks or the Hardcore Questing Modpacks to know there is a lot of achievers in minecraft. Explorers of minecraft are typically the people working with redstone or are always expanding the map. 

In my opinion the way they should do magic in TFC 2 is a discovery based approach backed up with and achievement system. For instance lets say there are three statues on the island and you have to gift one of the three statues a certain combination of items during night or day to unlock a spell. Hidden in chest loot through out the first island you can pages that give you hints what you need to do to unlock the spell of that island. Each time you unlock a spell it increases your spell power. Now there are 5 islands North to south that don't get any harder. As you go east or west however the island bosses do get harder. So lets say the first 2 islands east and west you don't need magic to unlock the boss chamber. Magic is completely optional for those meaning the first 25 islands require no magic to unlock. Lets say starting at the 3rd island east and west you need 15 spell power to unlock the boss room. That means you now have to go find the magic on 15 of the 25 islands of which you may have only unlocked 3 in your journey west. Now lets say that the 4th island boss takes 21 spell power to unlock. So now you need 21 of the 35 islands you can unlock. Since Bioxx said he is mainly designing for the first 4 islands east and west I'd allow any further islands to by unlocked with 35 power and then just scale the bosses.

On top of the above if you had a leader board for those with the most spell power with an achievement at 35 spell power it is definitely enticing achievers to go play more of the game, while at the same time the explorers who might not care about how far west or east they go will care about discovering those pages and creating a library of books telling you how to unlock what spell where. It extends game play for the achievers and yet still throws a bone to the explorers. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2017 at 2:33 PM, chepelink said:

The thing with coding is that, once you have a piece of working code, changing a bit here and there to give it different flavors is not that hard... at least not as making it works. For example, let say that knapping and pottery in TFC1 was made using the same base code. What stop the devs to use the same interface  to expand it to handle magical runes made from stone and talismans made from carving wood? Yes, it would take time to create the texture and the new formulas, but is not like stating from zero. The same can be applied to research... if the devs sinks their time in the research interface, they may well expand it to other things, like metallurgy (researching recipes),  gem cutting, cooking, alchemy and herbalism. 

First off. This is a complete rewrite. You have no idea what that code relies on to function and it very well could be easier to write from scratch than the modify. I've come across a lot of code that was easier to rewrite. 

Expanding a system to handle other stuff is not always appropriate. One for example would be silly to take the smithing mechanic from TFC 1 and appy it to making a sandwich. I do agree that reusing systems can cut down development time if that was the point you were trying to make.

On 1/17/2017 at 2:33 PM, chepelink said:

It may make TFC2 even more deep, but it can also make the time for developing other features more scarce and too widespread to make it worthwhile.

 I do not understand this sentence. It does not make logical sense. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Stroam said:

Take TFC 1 smithing for example. As pointed out it doesn't take any research. There is nothing to discover thanks to the wiki. Because of that, black smithing in TFC 1 caters more to people who are achievers more so than explorers.

True, but that is if you look from the perspective of a single feature. For example, saying that having the ore tied with a stone type and not every "biome" have that stone type is to cater to explorer, since it is literally having you (the player) to explore the world (and you get rewarded). TFC1 as a whole cater to both types of players... one a bit more than the other, though. TFC2 has islands to explore and to conquer, that in itself is catering to both players: the explorers and the achievers. By the way, depending on how you focus the research it can cater to explorer or to achievers; too complex and hard but not random enough and it would be an achievement to finish all the topics/talents  but too mainstream to do it (and vice versa, a random but easy system would reward the feeling of exploration/research, but would not be an achievement since it'd be easy)

6 hours ago, Stroam said:

First off. This is a complete rewrite. You have no idea what that code relies on to function and it very well could be easier to write from scratch than the modify. I've come across a lot of code that was easier to rewrite. 

Yup, I update my comment to reflect my lack of clearness. I know very well that, I am a developer. The context here is that making a piece of code consume time and, if the feature is not used or don't add something particularly deep to the game, is better not to do it. But, at the same time, that code with a little tweaks (and the power of imagination) you can expand it to other features. In this regard, knaping and pottery that may share the same code is a perfect example of this... and also, it can be expanded a bit more to include other features that make sense. So...

6 hours ago, Stroam said:

One for example would be silly to take the smithing mechanic from TFC 1 and appy it to making a sandwich

Right, but the sandwich making interface and mechanic can be re-styled and rewritten to make potions: put a bit of  'x' herb here, a bit of herb 'y' there, put a catalyst, a liquid base and instead of bread use a glass bottle, and you have a potion. Instead of flavor you have three properties (healing, poison, neutral) and each property instead of having nutrition values it may have descriptors potency, duration, and side effect (for neutral potions that would be, for example, a potion of swimming). And the weight system can alter the properties and descriptors of the potion based on the weight of the herbs and catalyst used.

6 hours ago, Stroam said:

 I do not understand this sentence. It does not make logical sense. 

I fixed a bit more. The context is that develop a feature cost time, and if the feature is not good enough to worth the effort it is better to not do it. In this regard, the focus on an innate system, while boring in a principle, can free time to other features... like expanding the island progression or having classes or skills or better enemies (AI wise or otherwise). But, if the research system can be expanded to other things that are not just magic, it may be worth the time to develop it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Stroam said:

Now there are 5 islands North to south that don't get any harder.

Just a nit-pick, it's 9 islands.  1 row of tropical, and then 4 above and four below of sub-tropical, temperate, sub-arctic, and arctic.

 

11 hours ago, Stroam said:

 Even going through the public servers they generally aren't that big. So again not TFC 2's audience.

I think that's unfair.  It's a bit like Thomas Watson or Ken Olson saying computers don't need to improve beyond government use because the market for them is so small.  TFC1 was never finished, and if taken in isolation was very poor from a multiplayer game design perspective.  It had one big achievement path - smithing - and that was it, and anyone could do it.  Everyone was the same, so why would you need others?   This is the reason I continually agitate for TFC2 to be better designed from a multiplayer perspective.  I think it would attract a larger multiplayer audience if it was better designed for multiplayer.  You look at the Happydiggers server, there's hundreds of people that have been on that server and successfully made a town.  The problem is they don't stick around.  Unless you're a ambitious builder or organizer, or a mining fanatic, there's no reason to once you hit red/blue steel.  There's nothing else to keep you.  I would argue that in fact the audience that continually power their interest in the game via single player is the small audience, and if a larger and more enduring audience is desired, better multiplayer design is the best way to go.  But I don't know if the devs even remotely care about that.  But imho the game can appeal to socializers at the same time as explorers and achievers, with ease, if designed correctly.

Edited by Darmo
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, chepelink said:

True, but that is if you look from the perspective of a single feature. For example, saying that having the ore tied with a stone type and not every "biome" have that stone type is to cater to explorer, since it is literally having you (the player) to explore the world (and you get rewarded). TFC1 as a whole cater to both types of players... one a bit more than the other, though. TFC2 has islands to explore and to conquer, that in itself is catering to both players: the explorers and the achievers.

Correct. I did just focus on one aspect. Also correct, it does in different ways cater to both types of players.

9 hours ago, chepelink said:

The context here is that making a piece of code consume time and, if the feature is not used or don't add something particularly deep to the game, is better not to do it. But, at the same time, that code with a little tweaks (and the power of imagination) you can expand it to other features. In this regard, knaping and pottery that may share the same code is a perfect example of this... and also, it can be expanded a bit more to include other features that make sense. So...

Right, but the sandwich making interface and mechanic can be re-styled and rewritten to make potions: put a bit of  'x' herb here, a bit of herb 'y' there, put a catalyst, a liquid base and instead of bread use a glass bottle, and you have a potion. Instead of flavor you have three properties (healing, poison, neutral) and each property instead of having nutrition values it may have descriptors potency, duration, and side effect (for neutral potions that would be, for example, a potion of swimming). And the weight system can alter the properties and descriptors of the potion based on the weight of the herbs and catalyst used.

I fixed a bit more. The context is that develop a feature cost time, and if the feature is not good enough to worth the effort it is better to not do it. In this regard, the focus on an innate system, while boring in a principle, can free time to other features... like expanding the island progression or having classes or skills or better enemies (AI wise or otherwise). But, if the research system can be expanded to other things that are not just magic, it may be worth the time to develop it.

Thanks for the clarifications. I agree you should definitely reuse code whenever appropriate as it cuts down on time and bugs.

5 hours ago, Darmo said:

I think that's unfair.

It's an observation on how little socializing beyond a few people is on minecraft. I don't think it has an inherent fairness.

5 hours ago, Darmo said:

You look at the Happydiggers server, there's hundreds of people that have been on that server and successfully made a town.  The problem is they don't stick around.  Unless you're a ambitious builder or organizer, or a mining fanatic, there's no reason to once you hit red/blue steel.  There's nothing else to keep you.

Doesn't this just strengthen the point that it's not really designed for people who want to socialize?

5 hours ago, Darmo said:

I would argue that in fact the audience that continually power their interest in the game via single player is the small audience, and if a larger and more enduring audience is desired, better multiplayer design is the best way to go.  But I don't know if the devs even remotely care about that.  But imho the game can appeal to socializers at the same time as explorers and achievers, with ease, if designed correctly.

I totally agree, but I think it's still niche.

6 hours ago, Darmo said:

Just a nit-pick, it's 9 islands.  1 row of tropical, and then 4 above and four below of sub-tropical, temperate, sub-arctic, and arctic.

Thanks for the correction as accuracy is important. I was just using the formula, RoundUp([Islands North to south]/2) with the arbitrary number 35 at the end.

*edits*

17 hours ago, Stroam said:

Lets say starting at the 3rd island east and west you need 25 spell power to unlock the boss room. That means you now have to go find the magic on 25 of the 45 islands of which you may have only unlocked 3 in your journey west. Now lets say that the 4th island boss takes 35 spell power to unlock. So now you need 35 of the 63 islands you can unlock. Since Bioxx said he is mainly designing for the first 4 islands east and west I'd allow any further islands to by unlocked with 50 power and then just scale the bosses.

Though I can't think of 63 types of spells in minecraft and that may get confusing having so many. Maybe some of those would be spell power ups or modifiers like they do in the psi magic mod and you can craft your own spells. Unimportant

 

 

Seeing how Bioxx at this time has integrated Harvestcraft into TFC 2, I believe that anything you'd like to see in TFC 2 has a dramatically increased chance of being in TFC 2 if you go out and make it. Which is fair since making everything yourself is very time consuming and if Bioxx sees something that almost fits Bioxx's vision and is already made, Bioxx may grab it and do some slight modifications, then call it good.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stroam said:

It's an observation on how little socializing beyond a few people is on minecraft. I don't think it has an inherent fairness.

I was trying to be diplomatic.  If you want to mince words, my first instinct was to call that criticism myopic.

 

1 hour ago, Stroam said:

Doesn't this just strengthen the point that it's not really designed for people who want to socialize?

All that can be said for certain is that it was never finished, and what was finished has shortcomings as far as encouraging multiplayer between strangers.  The devs have said before that their intended focus was small groups (as opposed to large multiplayer servers of strangers).  That indicates to me that was their eventual intent - a small group is still social.  What that might have entailed, only they can say.  In the end, that's all the past.  My point was that you were saying 'look at existing TFC1 servers their base is small' and then using that as a reason that TFC2 is not about multiplayer.  TFC2 could be more, and the devs have strenuously emphasized that it's a different game.  So why shackle it to TFC1's situation and surmised goals? 

 

1 hour ago, Stroam said:

I totally agree, but I think it's still niche.

Ya, it'll probably always be niche relative to vanilla and the huge arena servers.  I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I thought I might chime in.

 Magic Innate/Magic Researched

 both of these can be given together and when they are can make a more robust and useful magic system. Take for instance a simple flame spell. It very well could be the ability to use magic in minor ways is innate and anyone can cast a small flame for light or to start a fire. However this is just a simple cantrip and not useful for more then utility reasons or starting forest fires. More "powerful" (by magnitude) flame spells might be achievable through practice and strengthening ones magic ability, but the ability to cast say, and explosive fireball, or make a wall of fire, or flame cloaks, or other more nuanced flame spells must be researched, as it is through the research one learns to harness the innate ability in new ways. This could apply to any school of magic, from direct attack spells, to warding spells, to spells that let you fly, or even the simplest (from a gameplay standpoint) utility spells.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now