Post:New Circle Requirements - A Precursor - 03/09/2012 - 20:01
| Re: New Circle Requirements - A Precursor · on 03/09/2012 08:01 PM CST | 2195 |
|---|---|
| Mech
>>Staggered split Leaving mech as the only crafting skill really isn't an option. The market is already getting flooded with superior products, and characters whose legacy rests on the crafting feats that they'd done have all been jammed together and made to be roughly the same. We've removed what made each discipline special with the idea that they'd have a specialized skill instead. Every day we wait to do the split is a day where people get frustrated with the blurring of the lines between crafting. >>New crafting skills post-X3 When Alchemy comes out, there's two weeks during the "preview" where people can try it out, and have their learned ranks added to their mech ranks if they decide to make the move. This lets people try the new skill out without fear of losing the ranks they gained during their trials. >>Potentially zero options for enchanting as every other mechanism would be turned off or switched to a different skill. I won't be switching off mechanisms that teach mech until ALL mech skills have been released. >>Mech in general I've been mulling this a bit, and I'm considering this approach for the split: Same thing as before, where if you move your mech into a skill, it wipes that skill first EXCEPT it leaves the first 100 ranks. This gives people 100 ranks to decide if a skill is something they want to use, and lets them retain the ranks they earned that way. It does allow double dipping up to the first 100 ranks, which is a pretty insignificant value in the grand scheme of things. The main thing that it allows is for experimentation without commitment, which everybody knows is the best thing ever (yay college!).
>>I don't think anyone wants bits to go somewhere they feel won't be useful. Simply waving your hands and saying, "Nah, that won't happen" isn't good enough. Again, I have yet to hear of a situation where people are training skills but don't want those ranks to be gained. It's not "Nah that won't happen", it's "I can't figure out what you're doing training a skill when you don't actually want those ranks". People aren't going to be able to assign their new ranks as they see fit because it's a wildly more disruptive change for everything to change AND for people to jump 20 circles at once. >>We should also have a way to monitor the flow of bonus EXP bits to make sure they are being applied appropriately. This idea is flawed at it's root. If you're asking for us to write code for you to be able to verify that our code works, you're subject to bugs in that code too. >>How awful would it be to have hundreds of ranks disappear and then find out months later you only got half the bits you should have? That's why we're testing it very thoroughly. We can't give you guys access to the code but trust me, I'm not taking this lightly. This is extremely unlikely to happen. >We should have the option to flag skills as bonus bits eligible/ineligible. This definitely won't happen. It's highly unlikely that you'll be able to dictate the flow of your bonus bits at all, but if you can, it would be one flag per skillset, not on a per-skill level.
I don't think that's true, though, because you can't accurately calculate normalized bits in a meaningful way. You give up number of ranks earned, time spent on the action, and total number of bits in order to create a value that, while mathematically derived from those three values, doesn't have any tangible meaning to people. "Plain Bits" are something that are easy enough to grasp without diving deep into the details of how the exp system works. It's pretty simple to understand that all of the experience that I earned to get to rank 500 in stalking will eventually be returned to me for free. >You're transforming 500 rank bits (which are less valuable) into an equal number of 50 rank bits (which are more valuable). Are they more valuable because there were fewer of them earned per unit time, so they cost more seconds to earn? If that's true, then the goal of normalized bits is to make the bonus bits you earn normalized to the amount of time they're saving you, right? So you can say "This pulse is at 50 ranks, so reduce me by some fraction of a pulse (if pulses are calculated at 100 ranks)." So now you have a bucket of pulses of value P_100, and you reduce them by fractions or multiples (as necessary based on rank). The problem I'm seeing is that this number is meaningless - It's not representative of the time a person's put into earning skills, nor is it an accurate count of the bits within each skill that got absorbed. It's some hybrid combination of the two, and I think it does a mediocre job of returning a good approximation of a player's time OR effort spent training their skills.
>>How about the resource collection system for enchanting? It seems like that might be a good place for Arcana, just as Foraging is used in mining. When enchanting comes out, that doesn't sound like an unreasonable idea, but it won't be coming out as part of X3 I don't think.
-- | |
| This message was originally posted in Abilities, Skills and Magic \ The Experience System, by DR-SOCHARIS on the play.net forums. | |