changing exp/resource system

[Harloff]

It seems to me from the responces I get from the team that you guys are still worried about to many items being produced and thus flooding the marked. As I see it most items are produced in order to advance in level and not because the items are going to be sold. So the problem could in my opnion be solved by doubling the exp yield from crafting and halving the yield of resources when harvesting. This way the players could advance in level at the same rate as they do now but producing only half of the items they currently do, and thus getting closer to the needed amount of items. This would at the same time increase the value of resources. In fact this system would work equally well with changing the current system to giving "n" more exp and a yield of products 1/n of the current.

In some instances like adamantium I don't think changes need to be imposed though since the number of adamantium weapons produced is very close to needed amount. To my knowlegde anyway... Similar conditions may be applicable for other crafts as well...

I don't suggest this in order to critizise or annoy anyone I just think that it is a simple and logical solution, if the team wants to remove items from the marked.

[Stephen_Zuckerman]

While, as a player who usually has nothing better to do than craft, I would love this idea, it doesn't really seem to make any progress towards keeping people from just gobbling up a bazillion pieces of CNR and shooting up through the levels.

[Dorganath]

Something very similar to this idea was tested and ultimately shelved when the CNR system was recently reworked. The complete package involved several inter-linked aspects:
  1) Increased XP for crafting, anywhere from 100% to 250% of current levels (subject to balancing) 2) Decreased availability of resources in spawns (ores, deposits, minerals, trees) 3) Increase in payouts by pawn brokers so that a) those who chose not to craft could make at least some money by turning in loot from adventuring and b) so that crafters could at least recoup their expenses and possibly turn a small profit. 4) Added a modest requirementof gold to be spent for each ATTEMPT at crafting. This would reflect the maintenance and upkeep required for all these nifty craft stations everyone uses for free.
  These four items came as a package deal...removing one would unfortunately disturb the balance and goals we were trying to achieve. To be clear, market-flooding was only one of the goals in changing CNR. And these things were all in-place and tested for several weeks by the GM and Project Teams, still subject to a lot of balancing, but tested quite thoroughly.
  However, the resource availiability code appears to be more problematic than it should be, though it is something I will be trying to address in the future.This alone would make it unbalancing to increase the XP yield from crafting. In addition, we decided to table the GP requirement for the time-being, despite the tens of hours spent adding GP requirements to all the recipes. Taken together and also weighing the desire to not drive away those who craft for fun, we decided to table these ideas for the time being.
  However, do understand that the ability to do all these things is in-place and easy enough to implement, and we still may do so down the line.

[Leanthar]

What Dorganath stated. It will likely happen in the future, just not right now.

[Atomsk]

Just to toss in my .02, I really wish the crafting of instruments were easier.  There's only 1 class that uses them and the same class is the only one to craft them.  That being said, I understand you have to work and practice at making something before you're proficient at it, but a bard will make 20+ instruments, before he can advance the next one, that he can do nothing but pawn it off because there certainly aren't enough bards around to be bartering amongst eachother.

Yeah, so anyways.  I like the ideas discussed here, I hope we get to test it out soon.  

I've always liked the idea of the pawn shop keeping items sold to it and selling them for discounted prices while still buying the items at dirt cheap.  The pawn shop makes the profit, and the PCs are then in return able to buy all the throw aways of others so items aren't just destroyed.  And to not kill the player economy don't let the vendor sell the finished products, so that PCs can sell them...if that's possible of course.

[Leanthar]

"...I've always liked the idea of the pawn shop keeping items sold to it and selling them for discounted prices while still buying the items at dirt cheap. The pawn shop makes the profit, and the PCs are then in return able to buy all the throw aways of others so items aren't just destroyed. And to not kill the player economy don't let the vendor sell the finished products, so that PCs can sell them...if that's possible of course..."

It is possible but it causes heavy lag, that is why we do not have vendors outside or store items purchased. We used to do that but the server would get so laggy when somebody would go sell 30-100 items.

[Harloff]

*smiles* good I will look forward for these changes, eventhough I still think that options 1 and 2 can be implementet without 3 and 4. But then again I am not sure exactly what you have been considering. However, I can see the point in needing 3 and 4 together.

@ Dorganath... With respect to the deposits, I would suggest implementing a upper limit on all deposits, similar to those implementet on metal deposits. That would give an easy way of controling the yields. But you have proberbly thought about that already...

[Dorganath]

Harloff - 2/11/2006 11:58 AM
  @ Dorganath... With respect to the deposits, I would suggest implementing a upper limit on all deposits, similar to those implementet on metal deposits. That would give an easy way of controling the yields. But you have proberbly thought about that already...

 *grins* That code is in place, too. Our discussions determined that gem/clay/sand deposits would not, for the time being, have a practical limit (actually it's limited at 99, but you would never hit that). But the ability to put that in is definitely there and only needs a tweak of a variable or two.
  The thing is though that those spawns seem to be better at limiting themselves than the ore/tree spawns. It's semi-common to go above 10 returned on ores and trees, but I think I've gotten 10 out of a mineral deposit once.....MAYBE twice...in a year and a half. In testing, I can hit that number for ores and trees frequently enough to check to see if the limits are working.

[Harloff]

*nods* all those "crude this is hard work" "this is not you standrad garden dirt" and so on, ensure that the script is run more frequently compared to what you get.

[Lalaith Va'lash]

Dorganath - 2/11/2006 2:43 PM   It's semi-common to go above 10 returned on ores and trees, but I think I've gotten 10 out of a mineral deposit once.....MAYBE twice...in a year and a half. In testing, I can hit that number for ores and trees frequently enough to check to see if the limits are working.
 

 We hit ten on one of the mineral deposit earlier today, Connor was there. Though, I admit it was rare and we got lucky. I think Beryl was looking down on us, and knew it was for a good cause *winks*

[Dorganath]

Heh...yeah, that was a lucky take. Generally that just doesn't happen though.