Architect Archive
Thread: Looking for other opinions since I'm really biased on this idea right now.
Page 1 of 3
Pawlin
Thu Mar 25, 2004 12:17 pm
#1
I think the market for MSE droids and Mabari armor is even lower. There is really no benefit to gettting those items if you can run missions for an hour or two and afford decent stuff.
Wyrme
Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:02 am
#2
I suppose I could use this on just about any other crafting professions board, but Architect wins, its what I'm working on now....
I saw someone (wish I could find it again to reference you.... sorry) suggest in another forum the idea that novice crafters should have the fullten experimentation points and I'll be buggered.... After thinking about itI can't think of a strong reason why they shouldn't.
Novices are left out in the rain, struggling to work through friends, or just grinding to master. With ten experimentation points, noviceswould becapable of making a quality product, from their limited schematics. A good friend of mine, Hoyganon Flurry, is an armorsmith, slowly working up the ladder without grinding, and he depends on us to get him experience, 'cause face it his armor isn't up to par yet.What's a good reasonwe don't see many armor types (a reason.... obviously the fact the comp is better), 'cause the peoplewho makelower level armors can't make them any good. What does a few more points hurt? A master loses out on his DL44 sales!? Now I'm not saying get rid of the experimentation skill set, just the fact that it limits points. This way it forces the grind in a logical manner. An armor smith is going to craft 15 suits of mabari, not just because he needs the XP, but rather because as a novice, his chance of getting 8 great successes isminimal! For anyone that's worried, I say jump the failure rate of experimentation so novices have to work point by point, 'cause the risk is too high to use more than one. He may have to craft fifteen pistols, but at the end of the day, he's got himself a decent pistol with which to make a name for himself. This would really help create the feeling that novices are working and learning. And after struggling to create aquality weapon, they'll have that experience to invest in new schematics or a better success rate. I suppose I could be missing something, mayhaps I've overlooked a technique, but when I have a hard time crafting anything over 40% with great materials as a novice craftsman, I don't need to be created worse (A reference to the recent attempt at crafting fixes)
Bonus!!!: No Guarantee, most people will likely jump on the bandwagon... But by allowing novice and above to make a quality, lower level (early schematic) product, we could hopefully push back some of the awful inflation we're in right now. More products would hit the market, since there'd be more things to sell, and if there's any economic standard that's universal it's that competition drops prices and improves quality!
I'd say the only thing to worry about with this change, would be how it'd affect the code of experimentation, in reference to attachments.I suppose you could just make it add points after one hundred..... but I'mno programmer.
I would like to hear some opposing opinions, since as i've said I've bcome really opinionated about this one right now.... so I find it hard to think in reverse.
Grisbilen
Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:28 am
#3
At first i thought: what a stupid idea, but after thinking about it, this idea isn't so bad actually.
Would make for more quality stuff being sold, and less grinding (not much but a little maybe)
f0rmula
Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:34 am
#4
lol.. agree with gris..
was ready to have a giggle at all the flames this chap was about to get, but actually point well made..
theres too little to be had by being a relatively low lever crafter.. the only way to really sell anything is to grind to master then sell stuff..
i agree too.. good idea..
james
was ready to have a giggle at all the flames this chap was about to get, but actually point well made..
theres too little to be had by being a relatively low lever crafter.. the only way to really sell anything is to grind to master then sell stuff..
i agree too.. good idea..
james
dantaglo
Mon Mar 29, 2004 5:51 am
#5
I dont mean to Sound like I am flaming..but, I think of the experiment points as being a reward for experience (grinding) I know that it's a pain sometiems,but also. a novice is like an apprentice and a master is person that shows the apprentice the "Ropes" I have taught a couple of now master architect.. I could be totally off base here, but that's my theory for it
f0rmula
Mon Mar 29, 2004 6:18 am
#6
imo the game should not require grinding in any shape or form.. obv you should be able to chose to throw resources at it if you really want to, but grinding spending hours sitting and clicking should definately not be a necessity..
architects are actually pretty lucky in this respect cos you can always build and sell walls..
james
architects are actually pretty lucky in this respect cos you can always build and sell walls..
james
jol69
Mon Mar 29, 2004 6:28 am
#7
I think this is a good idea. Not necessarily that a novice can have as many experimentation points as a Master, but that he should be able to do as good or almost as good as a master on lower level items. Take chefs in real life. I can make toast in the toaster just as well as any chef at a 5 star restaurant, on the other hand I couldn't even attempt something like a "Bloomin Onion". Maybe lower level items should be able to be "maxed out" with less experimentation points. Maybe a novice Architect could reliably make a BER4 Personal Mineral Harvestor as well as a Master could; something along those lines.
LadyGrey
Mon Mar 29, 2004 6:53 am
#8
Actually, there is another way this could be approached. Keep the system as it is, but allow the lower-level items to be made "perfect" with just a few experimentation points. If you are given the ability to make something, then at that level you should be able to make it just as well as a master could.
If I was apprenticed to a master crafter (ala Real Life), and I was assigned to make some widget that would be a component in something else, or be a stand-alone item, then I would be expected to make it as close to perfect as possible. I might have a few more critical failures than someone more advanced. If something is of a low complexity, then it should only take a few experimentation points to make it completely right. So maybe experimentation should be linked to complexity, with more complex items requiring more experimentation points.
It's a moot point, since the devs never ever implement anything that is brought up in the forums. Actually, I wonder if they outsourced the code for doing crafting, items and vendors. Maybe that's why the current devs don't seem to be able to change one part of the code without messing something else up.
f0rmula
Mon Mar 29, 2004 6:58 am
#9
jol69 wrote:
I think this is a good idea. Not necessarily that a novice can have as many experimentation points as a Master, but that he should be able to do as good or almost as good as a master on lower level items. Take chefs in real life. I can make toast in the toaster just as well as any chef at a 5 star restaurant, on the other hand I couldn't even attempt something like a "Bloomin Onion". Maybe lower level items should be able to be "maxed out" with less experimentation points. Maybe a novice Architect could reliably make a BER4 Personal Mineral Harvestor as well as a Master could; something along those lines.
good idea too..
and excellent example
james
BoberFett
Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:56 am
#10
I've thought about this as well. While working up weaponsmith, I actually tried to make some items. Between the fact that I only had one point, and when I used that one point I was lucky to get a moderate success, failure was more common, it was impossible to make anything good.
The problem with all 10 points at novice would be that a novice who did get very, very lucky could make a schematic and could compete with a master.
Perhaps the answer is to front load more of the experimentation points, but not all of them. Put4 points at Novice, 1 point at each box in the experimentation line, and 2 at master.
f0rmula
Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:15 am
#11
BoberFett wrote:I've thought about this as well. While working up weaponsmith, I actually tried to make some items. Between the fact that I only had one point, and when I used that one point I was lucky to get a moderate success, failure was more common, it was impossible to make anything good.The problem with all 10 points at novice would be that a novice who did get very, very lucky could make a schematic and could compete with a master.Perhaps the answer is to front load more of the experimentation points, but not all of them. Put 4 points at Novice, 1 point at each box in the experimentation line, and 2 at master.
i see your point, but they would only ever be able to produce a few of the items as they dont have many of the schematics..
all experimentation points not a good idea, but i think its certainly a good idea to have a few more than novices have at the moment..
james
BoberFett
Mon Mar 29, 2004 9:34 am
#12
True, they'd be limited by their schematics, but I think most masters would still say they should be able to build a better D18 than a novice. Front loading a few more experimentation points would simply make the trip to master a little less painful.
Naufragus
Mon Mar 29, 2004 10:05 am
#13
the problem is that people would become SUPER DABBLERS...
I would take
1 line of Arcihtect
1 line of armorsmith
1 line of weaponsmith
I would now basically be able to build harvestors, guns and armor just as well as a master...only drawback would be i wouldnt have all the master schematics
**********************
as far as grinding goes...the way this game got it so wrong is basing your points on the resoucres used and not the quality or complexity of the item made. You should get more points for building a complexity 25 item than you should for a level 10...if you have a 4th tier box, you should not have to grind out novice level items ad infintum.
Page 1 of 3