Decreasing research effectiveness (random chance of failure) #1010
Comments
|
I like this idea, I want to add in some more variability to researching items. Right now its just "click and wait." Perhaps there are more fun mechanics that can be done, and tuning points where pack devs can tweak it to their needs |
|
I love this idea :) |
|
Some sort-of minigame sure would be cool. |
|
Remember: when you research an item it gets used up already, which is already an expensive thing. Including the blacklist of items, i think thats enough for someone like me, who didn't use EE3 at an extreme state like others did. EDIT: another solution is a configureable loss in swoping EMC around. |
|
It should be a config-option, I am 100% sure we can all agree on that. But having a default of "You need to finish a certain minigame" would be better and more challenging (think of the Thaumcraft research minigame - not a 1:1 copy, but just an idea of a minigame :)) |
|
Long post was long, I'm going to summarize: It would be rad if attempting to transmute materials into an item was what caused you to learn to transmute into an item. Studying the item, by destruction probably, in a research table could give you a base % success rate of actually producing that item in a transmutation circle: a success rate that is flexible and at a server's discretion. At that point, you may improve your knowledge by CONTINUING TO SMASH THINGS, but also you could learn by simply attempting to produce that material at a less-than-optimal rate of success. The rate at which you learn by trial-and-error should also be at the server's discretion. What do you guys think? |
|
I like the idea, it makes more sense than "I know the item exists, so I automatically know everything that is involved in creating it through transmuation." |
|
For added effect, it would be interesting if you received some other sub-optimal result instead of what you were trying to accomplish (thinking rebound or flawed results), but those are optional flourishes. |
|
Flawed results like a pickaxe that has some damage on it for example rather than full durability? |
|
Flawed result like coal instead of diamonds, even. Possibly improving your understanding of coal by 1% in the process. The important thing here is not to limit your imagination. It's EE3, let's go nuts. |
|
There could possibly even be a chance of receiving nothing, but losing some material, potentially improving your understanding. The chance of loss would be higher at lower levels of understanding. |
|
Might want to add an experience reward from failure, and a potential cost for success. Howabout Understanding related materials. You understand cobblestone at 75% so you have 1/3rd (or whatever) of that as a bonus to making items which are made with/from cobblestone automatically. If it's not a PITA that could logically decay through stages, so 1/9th of that at Stone or Furnaces. This would add a sort of natural philosophy about studying basic items early on for their cumulative bonuses, but should probably be available before practical transmutation. |
|
I'm not sure I follow that first line. Do you mean minecraft experience, or alchemy experience? In this case when I refer to one or the other I consider them mutually exclusive. I don't like minecraft experience. I think it's bad and should not be used by EE3, or its use should be kept to a minimum. Your other idea I think is really rad though, if I'm following. I might benefit from seeing it worded a bit differently. |
|
My intent was Minecraft experience. While an awkward and clunky system it's a core part of the vanilla experience. Denying a major section of vanilla is a decision a mod can make, but it removes points of interaction between vanilla and the mod, which in turn makes the experience of using the mod less integrated. Let me try restating the second idea more succinctly: |
|
Losing materials in the process completely actually makes no sense. It's EQUIVALENT exchange, right, right? At least approximately equivalent. You have to get at least something (physical, I mean). Some kind of unusable scrap/trash items would be great IMHO. Accidental break down of transmutation components into their raw forms, unexpected mixes of the materials (with net loss obviously), something along those lines. Consider this situation: you are trying to transmute a piston from the raw ingredients, fail miserably, get sticks, some pebbles, few iron nuggets. Try to make a diamond, unsucceed, get coal lumps instead. Attempt to make a furnace minecart from a furnace and some iron, accidentally make an iron ore block! (stone + iron) And, of course, getting experience/insights/research points even though you've failed is a must-have thing. P.S. |
|
I responded to DivineAspect in IRC with this, paraphrased: Mrkol, I think this is on the right track. I like the idea of being able to fail as the de facto standard for the mod [configurable to a server's desire, optional] and I especially like the idea of failures being "considered" - in such a way that you would receive a logical, flawed return of some kind. As for being difficult to code, I would be inclined to agree. I also feel like some of the best flourishes are so complex, and still worth doing. I can point out in many instances, it is the little things that make a design grand. |
|
Perhaps an Unstable quality to the flawed output, where you can't just throw it back in the process, but it seems to otherwise be a normal instance of the related but imperfect product. I'm more interested in the idea of backlash, because it establishes a key question, what's a mob or player avatar's life worth? Which opens the door for transmuting mobs. |
|
I want to address something that @Mrkol mentioned that I've been seeing for ages regarding the mod. Yes, the mods name is EQUIVALENT Exchange HOWEVER That doesn't mean that everything is equivalent and lossless throughout the entire mod experience In my point of view, the goal of players of the mod is to get to a point where they can equivalently exchange anything - they have become masters of alchemy. People that are "novices" are not able to do things perfectly every time, which is why we keep bringing up ideas relating to loss and skills and progression with the mod. Without that, this mod is simply a creative mode mod (and there's really no arguing that point). |
|
I think that's a very good way of putting it. It doesn't make sense for the player to be a "Minecraft God" right when they create a Transmutation Table and the Tome. |
|
I like the idea of a success rate, its alot like crafting in many MMOs, you put the materials in, attempt a craft, and it could fail or succeed, but you gain skills that increase your luck. The same sort of system could be put to work here. |
|
I think Thaumcraft 2 had something similar to that did it not? |
|
On that note some include a catalyst system, and now that I think about it that could be a idea too. An additional item which is used to increase the chance of success, or the volume of production. Perhaps tied to the Calcinator system? |
|
About the idea of flawed results, I think the mod should look for crafting recipes that can "unpack" the item (but must have a "pack" recipe to get it back), and instead of the getting the item fully destroyed, it should give some of these "unpacked" items back For example: If you transmutate something into a gold block, there are chances you are only getting a few gold ingots back instead of fully destroying the block I don't know if it was clear enough, and I might be over complicating it |
|
about @x3n0ph0b3 idea of the study thing, lets say for example after it learns the first time it will always destroy/consume the item, but after that for you to learn more if it always destroyed/consumed the item it would literally be a pain in the ass since lets say the % it gives when you study more won't probably get over 20% considering how grindy this sounds, so when you get to know the item more there less of a chance of it actually destroying/consuming the item, roughly putting that into an equation: Chance for destroying/consuming the item = (Amount that you already know% + (what you still need to fully learn% / 2))% In teory that is kind of middle way for being balanced for losing or not losing the item depending in how far your study of the item is. |
|
I wanted the emphasis to be more on the option of destroying the thing. Also I think the % success of an item should be configurable, but I failed to convey that the % chance should be item specific. What I'm suggesting is that with just one look, the player can begin to attempt to create a facsimile of that thing, and that attempting to create it from that point forward gains experience. Edited to be less turdly. |
|
@x3n0ph0b3 the 20% was an example |
|
Alright, I'm going to rehash the entirety of my idea. It's long. Sorry.
To me, that makes a huge difference. Edit: Now imagine this feels grindy. 10% is not a lot. Failure once and now I still only get a diamond 1/4 of the time. Poop to that, I don't like it. Everyone's gonna want this differently and there's no way to make it feel just right for every person. That's what configs are for. If you set everything [I mean everything] to 75% success on destroy, with a 25% chance improvement, succeed or fail, then all it takes is one destroy and ONE attempt to create the thing to achieve max success rate. Is that too grindy? |
|
well sorry if from what I said made you understand it wrong but I only said what I thought/my own opinion out of the entire thing(including the grindy part) on just from the learning aspect, a friend of mine explained your idea releated to learning and I though just the learning side from using an item for just learning porpuses since that sounds more fun than the side of trying to create and losing all the other stuff and learning from that, and again, sorry if I made you angry or something for my poorly written text or that my reverse engineering idea didnt go through the way I wanted it to. |
|
And we had the Philosopher's stone, which has always had the inbuilt power to transition mundane materials to similar mundane materials, in world. We've had that since EE2 and we're not planning on getting rid of it. Ever probably. |
|
Yeah but I mean, what if you used chalk to draw points on the ground and could convedrt whole buildings at once. :P |
|
Short answer is yes, I want something like that. Who wouldn't? That sounds rad. |
|
Ignoring how unbelievably griefy all this could end up being, maybe you could also mark big spaces and convert everything in it to EMC directly. :3 |
|
I imagine like many things, server owners will want to turn the majority of EE3 off. It's sad but true. It's something we're just gonna have to accept. |
|
Learning experiences as a counter to rng gods. Alternately, how about transmutation domains rather then tracking each item? Everything made of stones is a domain, mob drops, metals, and the reason diamonds are so hard is that it's them emeralds and netherquartz in a domain, not exactly full of options Also, being able to render a whole area down to EMC, and save that pattern and rebuild it would make an interesting and magical variation on quarries and builders. Also the ability to throw up a wall would make a great reference to the source material. The catalyst problem seems to be the same problem as any other additional type of EMC in addition to the current linear system. The only way that works is if the special EMC or catalyst is determined automatically, much as DynamicEMC currently does EMC, otherwise it would overwhelm lazy pack authors, etc. |
|
The idea of an "epiphany" or breakthrough with an item is sort of still in the RNG rut, which I'm seeing met with resistance - but what isn't? And I don't dislike the idea, I think a bonus for subsequent attempts is actually a great idea for a compensation mechanic, if we did decide to go the RNG route. It would give the player more recourse. The idea of "domains" or having items with a common thread is one I can definitely get behind, especially if it's intuitive what those domains are. This lends itself to the catalyst idea as well. The catalyst doesn't have to be determined automatically; the absence of a catalyst could simply imply that the item has no definable characteristic that requires one and thus no bar of entry. I misread what you were saying about pack operators - I can see how this would create work, but honestly, that's part of the tuning process. If we wanted to, we could incorporate community managed libraries that help find meaningful defaults. Over time, this would become a non-issue I think. |
|
Combine the domain idea with the catalyst idea. Define basic domains (maybe restrict it to less than 12, or less than 10, or less than 7. The number is not important, but the simplicity of it is) and assume that all items are catalysts within that domain. The better the item [EMC value], the stronger the catalyst? This would force pack authors to pick domains for materials that weren't already mapped, but I think there needs to be some meet-in-the-middle here. |
|
I feel like purely linear catalysts would be missing an opportunity. At the same time a few needed catalysts for vanilla progression could really draw out the mod with the challenges. One for after iron, one for after gold, one for after diamond (and hence including allmost all modded items) could do a lot to tier the mod into meaningful pieces. Catalysts don't have to be items, they could also be processes, distillation devices, arrays of sigils, alternate circles, chalk of exotic forms, pillars representing the laws of nature, murals which are alchemical diagrams, salamander, homunculus, or familiar. Or better yet the first form could be an item, and the advanced form is unconsumed. |
|
In fact, I sort of enjoy the idea of the catalysts being specific items because I feel like having some stability and continuity makes the mod easier to learn. I don't want to complicate things and in the end, you have to pick something. We've gone around in circles more than once in this discussion. Ash - lowest or similar. The catalysts could be universal instead of by domain. They could be tiered by EMC rather than any arbitrary domain and thus it would require player knowledge to know which to use, generally. Or you could substitute catalysts of a lower tier in larger quantities for a greater catalyst if you provided enough. I like the idea that processes could be catalysts. What if processes took the above items and turned them into specifically "catalytic" items, to be used specifically for the mod. You would have to prepare catalysts in advance to perform alchemy, but you could stockpile them and stash them for use. What if using higher quality catalysts than necessary for a transmutation had a better chance of the catalyst not being consumed in the process? At this point I'm just throwing ideas at the wall. |
|
if I go into chemistry a bit ussually catalysts means something that trigger reactions between certain things/elements and since in a way both chemistry and alchemy are the same thing at their heart(does this sound weird?), so is that basically what you are going for @x3n0ph0b3 ? |
|
I agree catalysts need to be general or automatically be calculated. In general I think it should require very very minimal configuration if any. I think it's probably possible to calculate a number of them though looking up of the item's crafting recipes though. Just figuring out the most common root item for a item and it's properties would help. |
|
Not all items have crafting recipes which immediately disqualifies that as a magic bullet. |
|
Not all items have EMC values either. There can be no magic bullet. All a program can do is use guides to help figure out what a reasonable default should be, and if it can't find one deal with that. That's the same idea behind autocalculating EMC after all. |
|
Let's stick to general, if we go this way at all. Let's assume the items are configured in a way that makes them very straightforward. A catalyst could be defined as "Item" - itemstack definition, including meta. "Potency" - how good a catalyst is this? numerically what this represents is the limit of EMC that can be processed, as a baseline, using this catalyst. This could even be a range instead of a flat "x or less". Catalysts could be "too good for X", but I was thinking more along the lines of just "1 to x" being acceptable. "Efficiency" - how many times (items) can this catalyst be used to process in a single transmutation? The more items a single catalyst can produce at once, the more efficient it is. This determines the max batch size without using additional catalysts. "Attenuation" this mechanic I can flex on, but I was thinking "how perfect is this catalyst". A catalyst could have a chance of failing or rebounding that is inherent to the catalyst, and has nothing to do with the items you're attempting to transmute. The lower this is, the higher the opportunity for a transmute using this catalyst to fail. A config file would look something like minecraft:pork_cooked minecraft:redstone minecraft:glowstone minecraft:gunpowder etc. Also thinking maybe potency and efficiency could be combined in a way that makes a catalyst "good up to a certain EMC" and that flat EMC could determine the max amount of material the catalyst can process, rather than a flat stack size (eg. drop efficiency as a stat, or even drop potency and make it ignore EMC entirely) - nothing here is sacred. |
|
I think things below a certain EMC shouldn't need a catalyst to form, say EMC 16? Then... looks up and sees the post edited. I like attenuation as a measurement of catalyst purity, but I'm just going to refer to catalysts below, to avoid confusion. Catalyst buffers out backlash effects for items with an EMC less then their maximum on one hand (at a cost of their degrading to ash), and having a success boost chance for a single domain on the other. You then need to have small piles of catalysts as cosmetic raw materials around or in your magic circle. As for processes generating the catalyst, I think that reduces complexity over having the apparatus nearby, so should clearly be stage two of that process. We can then make putting things through those processes produce superior catalysts, such as the legendary magnum opus. |
|
I'm going to extrapolate on the alchemical process for a while and see if it sounds fun. Design docs to follow. |
|
@pahimar, you are absolutely right, I 100% agree with you. But absolute equivalency and being able to get what you want straight from the beginning is not what I was talking about at all. I also really like @x3n0ph0b3's catalyst idea. It sounds booth like a logical lore thing and a nice gameplay mechanic. |
|
I like these ideas, but I think they are defeating the point of my original request. My goal was to try to make EE3 not be the easiest way to create every item, even if you have an unlimited amount of EMC. I want to configure the server so that I have to lose more than of that exact item to be able to create that item. The reason is that I've always liked how modded minecraft has lots of different strategic choices, where there is no best choice. So, for a moment, let's pretend that "researching" consumes an average of 3 of the item[2]. Here are some choices that it opens up (I'm assuming that the player has "lots" of EMC, since really, EMC tends to be pretty easy to get): Ghast tear: I can either create an auto-spawner (using 2 tears) and spawn more to farm the 2-4 tears, or I can keep searching the nether for a 3rd. Nether star: I can either use my nether star to create ExU wings, so I can fly and collect skulls easier, or I can just collect 3 stars, so I can transmute stars, and then make wings.[1] Portal Gun: I found a portal gun in a chest. It's really cool. Do I want to risk my only way of creating portals, or do I wait for a better source of nether stars? Enter pearl: I've got 2 pearls. Should I try to farm another, or should I make an ender chest for my quarry? Dark Matter: Do I want to create a nifty tool now, or do I want the convince of being able to create dark matter from EMC? (In other words, "condensing" dark matter only makes sense if you have at least 3 dark matter worth of EMC that is extra items) The whole point of this request was originally to force the user to decide if they want to risk the destruction[3] of their 1 item in achemy, or if they would rather use that item right now. [1] Some people will see he hole in the Nether star example, where it's smarter to create wither skulls, and use those create wither skulls to farm nether stars. Similarly, if you have 1 diamond, you could break your diamond into diamond nuggets, create more of those, and re-assemble them into diamonds. This could be addressed by either the server-owner blacklisting items, or another feature where you can say some items have prerequisites. [2] Some people have objected to RNG, because they don't want to be "stuck in RNG hell". First, there's RNG in most of minecraft. Just an an example, I've also played games where it took me forever to do something because I couldn't find a: Nether Fortress, Carrot, Pumpkin, slime, Blaze, diamond, Redstone (15 diamonds, and no redstone? Really?), or coco beans. Even if you don't agree with that argument though, I don't see a problem going with the earlier suggestion for "progress". The only reason I had avoided "progress" in my suggestions, was to avoid having to track more game state, per player. I guess the effect is probably minimal, if the state is kept in a (multi?)block, that can only research one item at a time. (And when you finish the research, the knowledge is saved in your player/book) [3] Some people don't want items to be destroyed, thinking it's against the theme of the mod. I don't care, either way, so if that bothers you, just make research turn the item into a "useless blob of matter" that has some EMC value (or you could give the player some fuel that's appropriate to the level of the item) I'd rather not go down the "deconstruction" route, since components of a recipe are sometimes more valuable than the result, and I'd rather not turn this mechanic into a quirky wacky deconstruction table. |
|
Fundamentally, we're circumventing your original request because we're making the assumption that no mechanic in its current state is sacred - it renders the spirit of your original request obsolete, because we're talking about broad sweeping mechanical changes that make your interpretation of research costing too little moot. This isn't a dig at the original request - we're thinking bigger than research. You have to look at the cost of this system holistically and stop assuming we're keeping one mechanic while simultaneously suggesting new ones. Obviously you're part of the conversation, since starting this thread, so.. welcome to the party. The difficulties we're trying to overcome range from oversimplification being unfun, to overcomplication being unfun and difficult to learn or use, to the problems with a system that forces you to "grind", to the problems with a system that doesn't. One person thinks it costs too little while the next person thinks it costs too much, and configuration concerns are a priority as well. How difficult is it to tune a pack? How difficult is it to calibrate recipes? How difficult is it to add to and take away from as content designers? We have balance and cost constraints to consider, we have mechanical complexity and code debt (maintainability) to consider. We have "pointless crafting for the sake of crafting" to consider. We have unnecessary tiering to consider. When I say holistically, by god, I mean holistically. You can't attack one piece of this problem. You have to hit all of it. |
@x3n0ph0b3 I would disagree. The changes I've heard suggested are ways to change how EE3 works in the context of itself, and vanilla. It's talking about changing things when you are pre-darkmatter. My goal is to try to have people spend more time in mod X, if they want rewards from mod X. Your suggestions make progressing through EE3, more interesting, but don't do much of anything to the effect "finishing" EE3 has on other mods. I find what you've said to be interesting, but ultimately it's "solving a different problem" since your mechanics can be circumvented with EMC, rather than playing the mod. |
|
I don't follow you, care to elaborate? "but don't do much of anything to the effect "finishing" EE3 has on other mods" Please explain to me how this is actually possible without first discussing how to get there? You want us to skip to the end and talk about that first? We could, you know. Edit: If what you're saying is "fix mod interaction" before we even discuss whether we have "good self interaction", I'm afraid you're putting the cart before the horse. if that's the case, I'll abandon this thread entirely and leave it until it's time to address this. We're not here yet. Edit 2: Not to beat a dead horse, but at the time of writing this, your opening post doesn't say one word about mod interaction. It's speaking specifically about a research system having arbitrary failure rates (and we're brainstorming that in addition to other things here). |
|
I agree with this being a creative mode enabling mod. I find a lot of mods to be like that though. Even parts of common mods seem like that. Once a self maintaining system is in place to pull in materials then it has essentially become creative mode. Whether it be EE or the Ender Quarry. it all comes down to the same thing. Extremely little to no effort is going into the gaining of materials and maintaining the systems through which the materials are acquired. At this point the portion of the game dealing with material acquisition is nearly at a end. It has gotten to the point where I try to hold off automation as long as possible to make that part of the game last longer. I slowly give in and start using farms, quarries, etc though. I think a lot of the issue is on my side and my inability to take full advantage of all the game elements that Minecraft has to offer. It would be helpful though if there were practices in place that don't seem to exist in most mods as of yet.
There are so many potential ways to change mods without changing the core features of the mods themselves. It is just that a lot of careful thought needs put into it. |
|
Maybe some people just don't like the gaining of materials phase of Minecraft very much. I mean why else would people use so many farms and mods and things to automate it? But it's still fun to work up to that point, it's still fun to explore around in survival mode, and it's a fun design challenge to work in all these farms, machines or magical things that you need to get beyond the point that you need to go out yourself and gather materials. You don't like those types of mods? That's fine. And in large multiplayer servers maybe they aren't needed because there might be people that can go out and gather materials for you, or make the game less fun because there is so many materials being thrown around by so many people with identical farming and mining setups that they are kind of worthless so there is no economy or anything. But that's not the only way to play Minecraft. Me? I play singleplayer and sometimes I feel like Equivalent Exchange is almost required to deal with mods that just make you wonder around for more and more rare things over and over in order to get anywhere in them. I tried starting my newest world without it just to see and the result is basically chests and chests of junk I don't need that I have gathered just exploring around and hardly anything I do need. I am trying to get into Applied Energistics but I have yet to get that one rare crystal I need. |
I do like these type of mods. I like a lot of different mods. I just can't play with a lot of them or it will detract from my gaming experience. Mods that basically give everything for just about free do that to me. I won't take them out of a pack. I won't tell others not to use them. I just won't use them myself anymore. It isn't about not liking them. I like them and find them very interesting. It is just they bypass the very elements of the game that I find interesting. I try playing vanilla and last all of a day of real time (little of that is actual play time. four hours, possibly) I can play a modpack for a month of real time (whole tons of play time, averaging twelve hours every day.) I enjoyed setting up a EE system, multiple times. I enjoyed getting the stuff for Ender Quaries, and Laser Drills then setting them up. It was even fun to automate all the processing for all the materials that were coming in. Then after I had all that set up my attention went else where. Lots of it is my play style. I don't build for the sake of building. I'm not a builder. I'm more the crafter sort. This is in multiplayer. Even if it is just one other player. We have separate bases most the time now and don't trade all that much. Mostly we just play the same game to show off to each other what we have accomplished. We've enjoyed the game a lot more since we stopped sharing resources. The biggest money makers out there are deadly. They will kill. People like them a lot though and go for them do to how much they like them. They don't care that those items shave half a century off their life expectancy and drastically reduce their quality of life. It isn't always good to use something just because I like it. I like smoking a lot, the smell of it, the feel of it. It isn't even all that expensive for me (about $50 a month). It is still something I don't do because it reduces how much I enjoy life. I like drinking too. Found I like coconut flavored stuff. It plays hell with my meds though. So I stay away from it. Not because I don't like it. but because I wouldn't enjoy life as much with it in there. Still working on that with soda. I never have truly quit that. Spent $300 on soda last month (which is really close to half my monthly income). I am still drinking the stuff though. I like the hell out of it. I really need to stop drinking it though. It isn't about what is liked. It is about what makes it a worthwhile experience altogether. |
|
"Like" and "worthwhile experiences" are concepts that tend to overlap, but I get your point. But I think I should remind you that everyone has their own opinions and value systems. There are people who like more challenge and more fiddling with things, and people who like reducing the complexity of gathering stuff so they can focus on what they want. Heck, there are people who rather eat fatty food and drink lots of soda now then worry about health risks later for that matter, and I think those people should be able to live how they like as well. :P I am not saying that the whole "if you don't like it, don't use it" is the final word on the subject of course. But this IS a GPLed project, so maybe I could say "if you don't like it, fork it and see if you can improve it" at least. But I could say the same of myself if it changes. The GPL is awesome. :3 |
|
Here are my musings on the subject. I don't think there should ever a complete loss from a failed transmutation. Rather I believe there should always be a result, just perhaps not the one the player wanted. Mostly I feel that this would be better for the player because they at least got something out of it. As a player I would still be upset at the loss, but at least I might be able to use what I got out of it for something else. So, for example: I think it is possible to make research more interesting if it is changed a bit from how it is now. Rather than focusing specifically on the result of the transmutation, I think it might be better to look at the process as a whole. What if there were extra EMC costs for both breaking down an item and transmuting an item based on a players level of understanding or "research." Basically, I'm saying there should be research for breaking down an item, and research for transmuting it. Until the research is complete on a given item, EMC penalties are imposed on the breaking down or transmutation of that given item. For an item you haven't broken down much you would suffer a loss of EMC from breaking it down until it was fully researched. For items you hadn't transmuted often you would be forced to pay a higher EMC cost to transmute them until fully researched. To be clear I am suggesting there be two types of research for each item. I will try to elaborate on this with an example: The reason I failed is two-fold, first I didn't have enough knowledge(research progress), in gold ingots to extract the maximum EMC value from them, so I only got half the EMC they were worth. Second, I don't have much knowledge on diamonds either, so I couldn't have made them even if I had the full EMC of the gold ingots because they would have cost, say 50% more(12,288 EMC) than normal due to my lock of knowledge about them. However, as as result of this failure, I gain knowledge(research) on breaking down gold ingots, and transmuting diamonds. So if I were to attempt it again, I would extract more EMC from the gold ingots, and the cost of making a diamond would be less than the previous attempt. I would probably fail again if I used items in the exact same proportions as before, but I would learn from them again. Now let's say I realize my failure is due to loss from inefficient breakdown of the gold ingots and a lack of experience with transmuting diamonds. Instead I use triple the needed gold ingots for a perfect transmutation. As a result I get a diamond, and some other random junk to use up the EMC from the process. I would once again gain knowledge about breaking down gold ingots, and knowledge about transmuting diamonds. I would also gain knowledge about transmuting whatever other junk I got out of the transmutation, if my knowledge on it wasn't already complete. Now for catalysts. I think catalysts are an intriguing idea. If it were me I would base the catalysts on some kind of Element System, be it an existing concept or an entirely custom one. In my opinion, I think EE3 should probably use the Feng Shui five element system as a base, Fire, Earth, Metal, Water and Wood. These elements lend themselves well to Minecraft in general and seem quite appropriate to the mod. Depending on what you want to do you may consider adding two more elements, Life and Death. I would think the best way to use catalysts would be as anchor points on an large(7x7, 9x9?) Alchemic Array. With different Array's and Catalyst combinations getting different results, and/or different specific setups being required for certain specific items, but otherwise being able to handle transmutation of most common items fairly efficiently. Some arrays could be perfect for some items and other arrays less perfect but capable for a small increase in EMC cost. Eventually leading up to a perfect array/catalyst combination that becomes the Transmutation Tablet, and/or gets absorbed by a Minium Stone to create a Philosopher's stone. I also believe that catalysts should never be used up in the process, but they could be insufficient for the task being attempted, thus requiring better quality catalysts, or greater quantity of catalysts to get the job done. You only really need up to 8 arrays, each allowing a different number of anchor points for the catalysts from 0-7. You could get quite a decent amount of complexity out of only 8 arrays and 7 catalysts. I would think however that you would want multiple levels of catalyst so maybe three tiers, resulting in 8 arrays and 21 catalysts. Some kind of mechanic for creating catalysts should be sussed out as well. The research system could even take Catalysts and Arrays into account and not progress beyond a certain level of research knowledge for any valuable item(64+ EMC?) without the use of Arrays and Catalysts. So for Progression purposes: Well, these are just my ramblings. |
|
So far, I've done what I feel to be a halfhearted job trying to include all of what has been discussed here - I can't win them all, but so far the plan I've laid out has fat that needs trimming. I observed the "theoretical" outline as overly complex, sort of offhandedly; in retrospect I feel this was a good thing. I don't want to make the system "convoluted" in an attempt to add some flare to it; that's pretty counter-intuitive. Things I'm sticking with so far are: Research Destruction Yet vetted concepts, at the moment: Potential bonuses I'm considering at the moment are speedups, instant progressions, free research (item doesn't break) or a buff for clarity which reduces the time for future research temporarily. I also think based on the mathematical designs of the catalyst, the amount of time it should take to research something should be formulated based on its value, which I am [dubiously] equating to complexity. Definitely non-linear; in fact I plan on abusing the log2(emc) for a few things, as I feel it is a pretty forgiving curve. I'm also considering potential maluses for failing to "react" in time for the research quicktimes, for lack of a better word, but I don't intend to make them too hard to accomplish. They primarily will exist to reward you for taking part in the research. Also I think they should give a little experience as a bonus (again, log-base-2 emc). Finally, I think it would be pretty cool if you could skip item destruction by spending experience levels instead, similar to enchantment. (again, log-base-2 emc) - if you have exp in short supply, item destruction is your only means of conveyance, but if you stockpile experience, you can save yourself items in exchange for those levels. This would require some UI retooling for the research station, but I think it would go a long way in making the process more interesting, slightly faster, and a bit more rewarding for the user. PS: As an aside to my complaints earlier about MC experience, I admit I've changed my stance on using it: As long as EE3 is putting in EXP, I don't feel bad about consuming it. |
|
Ill start with, this is the farthest post i have read to in this long A mini game (eg: thaumcraft...) can become cumbersome in nature. You would have a chance to get a crafting table, torches, pickaxe, piston. I would also like to see a multiblock for the research table. 3x3x3 not Top AAA Click top or side with chalk to initiate the multiblock forming.
|
|
A recipe scrape makes me think twice, but I don't dislike the premise. (Paraphrasing mode, activated - this post is too long) I don't want it tied to the alchemy system of creating things either; I prefer them separated. My reason for this is dubious but it boils down to complexity. Taking it down the roads of "trial and error is how you learn" or "just another crafting system" aren't ideas I can get behind, but I want to make it clear they are not 100% "bad". There are components of them I like. Let me say it straight: I don't know how to make a capacitor, but I can still use one to fix a circuit. I'm not going to force a player to know all the inputs to learn a recipe. It isn't difficult, to scan in the inputs - in most cases it isn't particularly expensive either. It's just an inconvenience. I'm actively avoiding inconvenience. I like certain parts of Thaumcraft's research system: I respect other parts of Thaumcraft's research system. These are my opinions: What I don't like about it is that it forces you to stop; it kills your momentum. Sometimes it kills it for extended periods of time. And it keeps coming back to that Thaumometer. At first it's exciting, but after a while I start to hate that thing. I resent having to use it for the two-hundredth time. Similarly I think people will resent having to drop a few hundred items into a table and just stand there. I don't think we need to make the research system harder, I think we need to make it more expensive [for some, with configs] and involve the player more, but in as simple a way as we can. |
I am very interested in EE3, but I would really like to tweak the balance so that researching takes more "samples".
The idea is that the config would have an option that lets the server owner configure the chances of research working. If the research "fails" then the item is destroyed and you don't get the research.
The reason I'd like this is to allow for more interesting strategic choices. Say that your server has the chance set to 20%. You've managed to collect a ghast tear. Do you spend it in a recipe, or do you risk your single tear in hopes of being able to make more?
Mostly, I want the ability to force players to risk losing an item rather than have EE3 research always be the best choice when you get something rare.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: