Development Cycle Archive
Thread: Understanding the Crafting Experimentation Changes
- Early credit/Resource exploits have allowed the economy to become bloated and monopolized....Inflation is rampant.
- Because of number 1, rare and valuable resources are now widley available to older players.....Which makes what was supposed to be "rare" items mass producable by said players.
The solution....
- Money sinks/Resource sinks......
But the question is how to do this fairly, while keeping it "fun"..........My suggestions....
Refining Plants: These would be PC crafted "factories" that could take one type ofresource and turn it into a higher quality type ofresource of the same type. This process would be expensive and would also decrease the sum total of the resource being used.....An example.
Somone has mined 100k units of Colat Iron with 600 OQ. They bring it to their refinery and place it in....They then select from a list of other Colat Irons....Depending on the increase in stats the computer would generate a price...For a very large increase the price should be almost astronomical.
Also, depending on the increase, a certain amount of said resource would be lost in the refining process....
Lets say our crafter picked a type of Colat with 900OQ.....Then he would have to spend his credits, as well as lose 50% of his current stock of Iron.
This is just one idea for a good money sink...As well as a way to foster competition and competative pricing among smiths.
Heck you could even make faction controled Research and development sites....These sites could put out schematics or even Improve on current schematics....Of course the crafters who control the site would have to pay R&D costs for these things (which would be huge)...
The main reason why the economy is "stale" is because you have a linear economy set up.....Money goes from...
Mission------>Combat template-------->Crafter (then its supposed to go to harvesters hehe)
The main problem is the crafters have such a *low* overhead with current inflation of the economy that it is almost negligable....Credits have gone *way* down in value yet theamount ofcreditsto harvest resources remains the same as release (actually less now with more efficent harvesters) In real life when money goes down in value, you will have to *spend* more to get what you used to get before.
You need something that the crafters can spend money on that *will* affect their producable items....This money needs to be spent in a way that will *take it out* of the economy without competing directly with the crafters....
Refining is one way...Another way might be to let crafters simply buy "experimental" components for one-time-use armor or weapons ect.....
Crafters *need* another thing to spend money on....Something that will helpset themselves apart and make crafting fun.....
Re-writing the crafting system is not the way....The circle must be completed....Credits need to have a way out of the ecnomy and on the way out they need to be able to give the crafters something worthwhile for spending them (Again like a better product which they could sell for more money later).
Khaigon wrote:
Well, I'm no crafter, but please entertain what I have to say...
Since I joined Star Wars Galaxies at the beginning of July, I have seen a lot of things change. Most notably the economy. I remember when, on my server, a fellow named Kaoz made the best weapons on the server... but I couldn't afford their extreme price of about 15k... Today, you can barely get a piece of junk gun for 15k.
A lot of this has to do with what it costs the weaponsmith to get any sort of decent resources. Now, what you're doing is making the absolute best resources to make something that would only be considered mediocre against the items available today. This sort of thing with drastically drive up the cost of resources and drastically drive up the cost of items. On my server, 955 OQ Dantooine Herbivore Meat goes for as much as 75 CPU... imagine what it will go for when this change happens... no one will have any use whatsoever for low end resources, as they'll produce total junk. Prices are going to become absurd for decent items.
Actually thats not true. the reason they charge that much has nothing to do with the cost of resources. In 7 days with 5 med harvesters you can pull up well over 500k worth of resources on a 80% spot. The total cost to the person pulling up those resources, around 55k and 50 k of energy even at 3cpu for the energy total cost 205k credits for 500k of resources. do you know how many weapons and armor can be made? thousands.
They charge that much because they can. Somone is willing to pay for it.
Gamespy. They said that swg had leveled at around 100k subscribers. I am willing to bet that number is high. Especially when multiple accounts are taken into effect, which in a single character per server game is probably at least 20% of the accounts (and conceivably much higher, I know of several people with 5-6 accts).
JCatano wrote:
Just for kicks and a little, well....we'll get to that after your next post:
Where did this "less than 100k" come from?
MMORPGs are all about change. This is not something new. Thoughts of Armageddon isn't new, either.
Anyway, you gave me nothing to refute, because the change hasn't even gone live, yet. Everyone is screaming at something that isn't there at this time.
Feel free to try and come to a conclusionabout somethingwhich hasn't been implemented.
Taking out the versitility of weapons (and armor) doesnt sound like a good move to keep that system alive.
example:
If i want a weapon Just for status effects... I use a very LOW ham cost, High speed, bare minimum damage, high accuracy weapon.
If I want a melee weapon that hits more often than my normal power hammer, I use a 2handed axe thats tooled for MIN damage, high accuracy, low ham costs.
Versatility is this games crafting ace that separates it from the rest of the other games that seem to be D.P.S. chug-a-lugs... this game has tactic options that co-exist with the weapons... keep it that way please.
I strongly dissagree with the proposed changes to the crafting system.
Ouroboros
Chrysalide wrote:
One valid concern that has been raised with regards to this issue is that there are certain resources that are required for higher-end draft schematics that have capped qualities. For example, a certain item that has a dependency on conductivity might require Plumbum Iron as a resource component. The trouble with this being that ferrous metals, and specifically iron, will most always have poor conductivity (and realistically so). The perceived result of this is that any experimentation line that depends on conductivity can never be raised to an acceptable level. It is important to note that we are and have been aware of draft schematics like this. In such cases, we have artificially inflated the maximum values in the draft schematic for attributes that depend on the capped resources, so that the end result is in line with the expected values.
That may be a little confusing to follow so I will try to explain a little better with an example. Very simply, say that you have a weapon, and we want the maximum damage for that weapon to be no less than 50, and no greater than 100. Say that experimentation for maximum damage depends on conductivity, and the schematic requires iron and aluminum. For the sake of argument, let's say that the iron conductivity is capped at 10% of resource maximum, and aluminum conductivity is capped at 90% of resource maximum. When these two resources are used in crafting the item, the maximum conductivity possible is averaged out to be 50%. With this in mind, we have set the range of values for max damage on this weapon to be 50 to 200. The result of this is that with the maximum conductivity possible with these hypothetical capped resources (50%) the maximum damage that can be achieved with this weapon is what we wanted it to be (200 x 50% = 100). These artificially inflated values are not new in Publish Seven; these have been around since the launch of the game. In short, it is a valid concern, but it is one that we have always been aware of, and took steps to address in the original implementation.
Well if this has been "addressed" since the start how come some items like Advanced Blaster Rifle Barrels still cannot reach more than around 60% effectiveness....
I think its is still borked - just try it.
Fixing a system which works for an unknown new system which will probably have even more bugs in it while leaving the original bugs in is beyond my comprehension.
Vercin_getorix wrote:
I thought long and hard about posting a response. I do not think I will be heard in the cacophony of replies. In the end, here I am. I figured the best way to approach this is to go line by line:
"To put not too fine a point on it, the game economy is in poor shape."
This doesn't mean anything. I realize that you went on to ellaborate somewhat, but you did not strike home. What would be helpful is if you put your concerns in language that has meaning. "poor shape" means lots of different things to lots of different people. The result is that the statement becomes meaningless.
My temptation is to espouse ecomonic philosophy that will roll off of everyones back. I will spare you. What would help me is to frame your discussion in economic terms. That is, if you view the failed economy in terms of unemployment, hyperinflation, stagnation, etc. Once you frame the discussion, then we can rationally talk about it.
"Our main concern centered around the fact that with most master crafters all making the best equipment possible"
Your expectation SHOULD be that crafters make the best equipment possible. That being said, I could not disagree with you more. Most master crafters make garbage. Every server I have anything to do with has its elite crafers, and they rank in the 1 to 2 dozen. Typically, I see about 3-4 elite Weaponsmiths per server at any given time.
Your problem -may- be that 4 Master Weaponsmiths can easily meet the demand of weapons on a server. This is a different problem than you are adressing.
"there is very little variety on the market"
Perhaps. But the question is if this is because of the system, or because of the market. Based on my personal first hand experience as a weaponsmith, it is because of the market. Ask any Weaponsmith. 90% of the customers only look at Damage and Speed. Nothing else matters to them. Adding complexity to the product will not change this. If you change the combat system to depend on something more that speed and damage, this could change.
"new vendors find it difficult to break into the business"
This is as is should be. It is unreasonable to think you will start a retail sales business, and immeditately be competetive with Walmart. This just doesn't happen. It takes time and a lot of hard work to make a successful business. You can lay this at the feet of the current crafting system if you wish, butit is misplaced. Establish manufacturers will always have an edge in a mature market. Only innovators have an edge on the establishment, and I do not see how your new system allows for true innovation.
"We want to take the first steps in rebuilding the economy."
Despite the rhetoric of the current US Presidential campaigns, governments cannot rebuild economies. Only the consumers can. You might not think of yourself as such, but you are a de facto Oligarchy in this game.
"By having resource quality play a more significant role in the experimentation process"
Not to rub it in, but you first say you want to help the new crafters, yet you change the system to the advantage of those that already have the best resources, ie. the established crafters.
"especially when using lower quality resources"
On balance, lower quality materials will always make lower quality merchandise. All things being equal, consumers will usually purchase higher quality goods and services if they can afford it. Convience is the big exception to this rule, but I digress.
"consumers will need to decide what types of equipment will best suit their playing styles"
You nailed it, and didn't even know it. There is little diversity in the market place, because there is little diversity in playing styles. Now we can wax philisophical about why this is. We can discuss "chicken and egg" problems of game design. But, we are not doing that. That would help us understand your changes.
"We believe that the introduction..."
This may be nitpicking, but please please please stop using language that reflect insecurity in your decisions, like "we hope", "we would like", and "we think". You are in control. You make the decisions. If you seem uncertain about the current course of action, then you are generating fear and trepidation in the player base. Much of the rancor in this dicussion is fueled by your unsure language. You may not be sure about your course of action, but don't tell us.
Lastly JustG wrote: "I would ask that you try to keep the emotional responses out of it... that has no effect other than to make us skip that post."
People are emotional because they care. To openly say that you dismiss peoples feelings outright serves to really freaking tick people off. You cannot with a wave of your hand invalidate peoples feelings. People have feelings for a reason.
I said this before, and I really want you to listen. Your are the de facto governement in this system. There are few greater mistakes politicians can make than to discount peoples feelings. They will punish you mercilessly for doing it. The developement team may not be elected, but players can certainly vote with their credit cards.
Just in summary, I strongly urge the team to not move on this change. You have a problem you are trying to solve. That problem has not been clearly defined. No metrics have been put forth to illustrate the problem. You have not convinced large portions of the player base that there is a problem, most notably the successful master crafters and the people that have been playing the longest, ie. your most loyal and most influential players. You have not put forth any evidence that the your changes will actually work to fix the problem as you see it. All the discussion of effects is rife with speculation.
So, in finish, you are taking a HUGE risk in going forward with these changes. Are you prepared to move forward with this, against the will of the people, on a hunch?
It is a terrible idea.
Idea: Anything less than max damage is a bad weapon.
This idea pervades the boards and pervades these responses. It is this psychological aspect which your crafting solution fails to address. Unless you can change the definition of "good weapon" and "good armor," any change will only rearrange the deck chairs.
For weapons, the solution to this is a more granular certification system. As a crafter puts experiment points into his weapon, he raises the certification proportionately.
Since armor is not certified, it must produce real penalties for the wearer. These could include reducing weapons speed, running speed, ranged accuracy, and melee accuracy. When armor actually affects more than just HAM, the players will have more of a choice. Composite may give horrid ranged penalties, for instance, but only minor melee penalties.
Of course, this suggestion is a major NERF.
Maybe if damage and HAM weren't on the very same experimental, and experimenting on other things like HAM/accuracy/durability would give results on par with damage/spd experimentation. Give me25-75 more damage over 5 less HAMS, +5 accuracyor 75 more durability anyday.
Your intent may be good, but those of us who play can see this will only help the entrenched 12-pt.crafters get richer. This could have waited until after the endgame (read: GCW) was fixed to be more enthralling that a [HQ] pissing contest.