Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department
- Rocket Frog
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:45 pm
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
Edited by frog.
Last edited by Rocket Frog on Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Wolfsong
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:33 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
Have skill level add/reduce damage on weapons and add/reduce crafting time on tools. Make it a range, though, rather than a flat amount, so you can't just craft something once but there is a small grind.
Something like, for weapons:
Awkward: -1d5
Novice: -1d2
Efficient: 0
Skillful: 1d2
Expert: 1d5
Additionally, I would increase rot rate on weapons across the board.
Something like, for weapons:
Awkward: -1d5
Novice: -1d2
Efficient: 0
Skillful: 1d2
Expert: 1d5
Additionally, I would increase rot rate on weapons across the board.
- Rocket Frog
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:45 pm
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
In addition to the said things...
"picklocking" a lock with a crowbar sounds to me like trying to play a piano with a hammer. Why don't we make it based on a characters strenght and label it lile "forcing" a lock and, parallel with that, we add actual picklocks to picklock things, based on a characters skill at building that kind of lock, and making that something that doesn't destroys the lock?
Also, make pick locks non repairable and with chances of breaking. That would make skills to play a more important role at fighting.
"picklocking" a lock with a crowbar sounds to me like trying to play a piano with a hammer. Why don't we make it based on a characters strenght and label it lile "forcing" a lock and, parallel with that, we add actual picklocks to picklock things, based on a characters skill at building that kind of lock, and making that something that doesn't destroys the lock?
Also, make pick locks non repairable and with chances of breaking. That would make skills to play a more important role at fighting.
- Rocket Frog
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:45 pm
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
Wolfsong wrote:Have skill level add/reduce damage on weapons and add/reduce crafting time on tools. Make it a range, though, rather than a flat amount, so you can't just craft something once but there is a small grind.
Something like, for weapons:
Awkward: -1d5
Novice: -1d2
Efficient: 0
Skillful: 1d2
Expert: 1d5
Additionally, I would increase rot rate on weapons across the board.
But... This is how it works already... Right?
- Wolfsong
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:33 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
Currently weapon damage is static. Skill only affects time to craft. I am suggesting that skill also affect weapon damage and tool quality, and that tool quality further alter crafting time.
- computaertist
- Posts: 674
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:33 am
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
Rocket Frog, are you referring to fighting skill and strength affecting damage? I think Wolfsong is suggesting that, for instance, the same fighter with two almost identical swords made by two differently skilled smiths would do different damage with each sword. This would be in addition to the current differences in fighting skill and strength.
Mark Twain wrote:Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.
- Rocket Frog
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:45 pm
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
Wolfsong wrote:Currently weapon damage is static. Skill only affects time to craft. I am suggesting that skill also affect weapon damage and tool quality, and that tool quality further alter crafting time.
Oh!! Yeah!! I was with that too!!
computaertist wrote:Rocket Frog, are you referring to fighting skill and strength affecting damage? I think Wolfsong is suggesting that, for instance, the same fighter with two almost identical swords made by two differently skilled smiths would do different damage with each sword. This would be in addition to the current differences in fighting skill and strength.
With the strength thingy I was only referring to the "lockpicking" with a crowbar. I was only talking about locks and lockpicking.
But of course. Im with you with that of the weapons quality, too.
- Rocket Frog
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:45 pm
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
Ok. You hyped me. I was discussing this in a parallel chat with someone and didn't want to talk about it for rp reasons. But since the character that already applies it is more or less public now and the 1st time it did it was more than 4 days ago, then...
The crafting system im trying to use works with a 6 sides dice.
There are 7 quality levels:
Poor
Low
Average
Well crafted
Superior
Exceptional
Masterfully crafted
With your skills you have at the dice:
Awkward (-2)
Novicely (-1)
Efficiently (0)
Skillfully (+1)
Expertly (+2)
In addition, as a rule, you can only achieve masterful crafts with expert abilities.
For example:
You are awkwardly crafting something. You roll the dice, you get 6. Minus your modifier it would be 4. So with your skill and a top effort you would only make a well crafted thing.
With my rl friends we use this system for our role board games.
Of course, this is only an idea. Not even a suggestion.
The crafting system im trying to use works with a 6 sides dice.
There are 7 quality levels:
Poor
Low
Average
Well crafted
Superior
Exceptional
Masterfully crafted
With your skills you have at the dice:
Awkward (-2)
Novicely (-1)
Efficiently (0)
Skillfully (+1)
Expertly (+2)
In addition, as a rule, you can only achieve masterful crafts with expert abilities.
For example:
You are awkwardly crafting something. You roll the dice, you get 6. Minus your modifier it would be 4. So with your skill and a top effort you would only make a well crafted thing.
With my rl friends we use this system for our role board games.
Of course, this is only an idea. Not even a suggestion.
- Joshuamonkey
- Owner/GAB Chair/HR Chair/ProgD
- Posts: 4529
- Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 3:17 am
- Location: Quahaki, U. S. A.
- Contact:
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
I like that there's some randomness, and yet "you can only achieve masterful crafts with expert abilities"- I think that's key. In earlier discussions about skills it was brought up that we could limit the highest skill level to in-game work, so you can't just spawn with an expert/master skill.
Joshuamonkey's Blog
http://doryiskom.myminicity.com/
https://writealyze.com
"Don't be afraid to be different, but be as good as you can be." - President James E. Faust
I'm LDS, play the cello, and run.
http://doryiskom.myminicity.com/
https://writealyze.com
"Don't be afraid to be different, but be as good as you can be." - President James E. Faust
I'm LDS, play the cello, and run.
- Wolfsong
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:33 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
I think that's pretty reasonable. If I had one quibble, it would be that progression to efficient (which I think of as average) should be quicker than it is currently. Having had several characters who had pinged the wrong end of Cantr genetics... Having mostly awkward skills sucks. But higher levels of skill should still take time and effort to improve to.
- Wolfsong
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:33 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
To backtrack to talk about rot -- Cantr is a simulation of life, but it's not a realistic game. People appear at the age of twenty from nothing. Individuals can elect to die at any time after a certain age. Healing is instantaneous, and things like popcorn can make you feel better. It doesn't matter if having stone or metal rot isn't realistic. This isn't about realism; it's about balance.
I would personally make everything rot, just because it seems like the most simple solution. But I would also put new container types into the game to mitigate or even prevent that rot - for a price. Fridges, temperature controlled lockboxes, etc. These containers would be size limited and either mitigate or totally prevent rot, but would require that they be constantly powered by some kind of refined fuel (aka, not wood.) That way, people could still keep their precious gems and rare food items, but in return they're consuming a lot of another resource to do so, which would drive trade and the economy.
That makes alcohol, propane and petrol immediately more valuable.
Additionally, buildings and vehicles would also be affected by rot. The larger the town (ie, the more vehicles or buildings it has) the quicker things should start to decay. That way, large towns are encouraged to have large populations to keep the buildings in good repair, and to not hoard vehicles - but small towns aren't disproportionately screwed. Rate of decay should be variable based on the materials used in building construction, but it shouldn't favour stone so much so that you never need to use it again in repairs, because there's a lot of stone out there sitting around worthless. I'd be inclined to say that mud and grass buildings should be unable to be repaired, to differentiate between the "lower" building materials and the "upper" building materials like wood and stone and marble.
Stone is slightly more valuable with this change.
Wood is much more valuable (repairing vehicles, buildings and ships.)
Metal becomes more valuable (repairing vehicles and ships.)
I would require any ship that can only be docked to a coaster harbour to be only repairable when docked to a new harbour building type - a drydock. I'd also make the requirements for building a drydock somewhat high, so it becomes a specialised harbour that not every town immediately has available. That way, sailors would have to be at least a little strategic about where they sail, and would periodically (not even every year, but every couple of years) return to a familiar port for repairs. Ships that can be docked to towns directly can be repaired by towns directly.
This would also mean that pirates would eventually either need to create a functioning pirate town of their own, or have friends somewhere and a safe haven for repairs - creating more nuanced conflict roleplay.
Edit: Everything should rot, with the exception of notes. Notes should not rot.
I would personally make everything rot, just because it seems like the most simple solution. But I would also put new container types into the game to mitigate or even prevent that rot - for a price. Fridges, temperature controlled lockboxes, etc. These containers would be size limited and either mitigate or totally prevent rot, but would require that they be constantly powered by some kind of refined fuel (aka, not wood.) That way, people could still keep their precious gems and rare food items, but in return they're consuming a lot of another resource to do so, which would drive trade and the economy.
That makes alcohol, propane and petrol immediately more valuable.
Additionally, buildings and vehicles would also be affected by rot. The larger the town (ie, the more vehicles or buildings it has) the quicker things should start to decay. That way, large towns are encouraged to have large populations to keep the buildings in good repair, and to not hoard vehicles - but small towns aren't disproportionately screwed. Rate of decay should be variable based on the materials used in building construction, but it shouldn't favour stone so much so that you never need to use it again in repairs, because there's a lot of stone out there sitting around worthless. I'd be inclined to say that mud and grass buildings should be unable to be repaired, to differentiate between the "lower" building materials and the "upper" building materials like wood and stone and marble.
Stone is slightly more valuable with this change.
Wood is much more valuable (repairing vehicles, buildings and ships.)
Metal becomes more valuable (repairing vehicles and ships.)
I would require any ship that can only be docked to a coaster harbour to be only repairable when docked to a new harbour building type - a drydock. I'd also make the requirements for building a drydock somewhat high, so it becomes a specialised harbour that not every town immediately has available. That way, sailors would have to be at least a little strategic about where they sail, and would periodically (not even every year, but every couple of years) return to a familiar port for repairs. Ships that can be docked to towns directly can be repaired by towns directly.
This would also mean that pirates would eventually either need to create a functioning pirate town of their own, or have friends somewhere and a safe haven for repairs - creating more nuanced conflict roleplay.
Edit: Everything should rot, with the exception of notes. Notes should not rot.
- Tiamo
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:22 pm
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
I like the lines along which you think, Wolfsong.
On top of that i would say maintenance should come in different 'levels', making maintenance of advanced/complex items harder than upkeep of basic equipment. Like requiring repair resources (original resources, glue, etc.) or the use of (fueled?) repair tools/machines (i like the drydock, maybe use fuel for lifting the ship).
Another note: in real life most things are pretty balanced (unless we manage to mess it up on a planetary scale). By making things more resembling real life in Cantr, it should be easier to balance Cantr life.
On top of that i would say maintenance should come in different 'levels', making maintenance of advanced/complex items harder than upkeep of basic equipment. Like requiring repair resources (original resources, glue, etc.) or the use of (fueled?) repair tools/machines (i like the drydock, maybe use fuel for lifting the ship).
Another note: in real life most things are pretty balanced (unless we manage to mess it up on a planetary scale). By making things more resembling real life in Cantr, it should be easier to balance Cantr life.
I think ...
- Wolfsong
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:33 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
I would agree that maintenance should eventually come in different levels, both manual and fueled, and that all repairing should be overhauled to require either tools or resources (including tool and weapon repair) but I'm hesitant to say that these different levels should be defined from the start, as I think suggesting too much at once for staff causes gridlock and confusion, and nothing happens as a result. Better to start simply and build from there.
- Rocket Frog
- Posts: 173
- Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:45 pm
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
Hey, Wolfsong... What do you think about adding batteries too? That way you could put that "energy" into something and storing it, and you could also transport it and even sell it.
Make power plants on land, portable generators, and also rechargeable batteries.
And maybe you could make radios run on power. Maybe bring back their long reach and balance them with energy?
*yawns and hugs her pillow, and hides back under her blanket*
Make power plants on land, portable generators, and also rechargeable batteries.
And maybe you could make radios run on power. Maybe bring back their long reach and balance them with energy?
*yawns and hugs her pillow, and hides back under her blanket*
- Wolfsong
- Posts: 1277
- Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 5:33 am
- Location: Australia
Re: Game changes - discussion about implemented changes.
See above where I talk about trying to keep things simple so that they are actually implemented. It would certainly be cool to have that sort of technological leap, and it would be interesting to see what electricity could accomplish (un-nerfing radios and repeaters, for example, but requiring they be fueled to continue working) but feature creep can keep people from actually implementing anything.
Return to “General Discussion”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest