Posts made by Roccandil

@grofire said in Not enough slots:

@asspirin as @Silynx said already you a memory points limit, why we need 2 limits?
let you put all the skill and items you can use, and let the memory be the limit.

I like this idea.

@SmithyJones

I do feel like the game pushes me to not enchant, craft, or ultimately use any decent gear. The benefit simply isn't worth the cost.

If the developers want to model smells in cities, awesome, but if so, I see two inconsistencies:

• The tannery is still in the city, and can be placed anywhere with no "smell" penalties.
• Even more reason to allow players to tan hides in wilderness home plots.

@Helix said in Player towns should not be safe:

This is going to be controversial, but I don't think player towns should be safe or grant immunity from pvp. It should be entirely dependent on the governor and the guild owning the town to provide protection for it's citizens. Like wise towns should require fortifications (walls, watch towers, etc) to be built around the parameter to keep unwanted travelers out.

At least on Syndesia, I'd consider allowing player towns to be safe for citizens, as long as enough NPC guards remain alive.

I could see this gameplay flow:

• Enemies start attacking NPC guards
• Every citizen in the town gets a message that the guards are under attack, and that if enough guards are killed, the "safe" status for citizens will fall
• Citizens can choose to aid the guards, dump their loot into the bank while it's still safe, hide, etc.

Like others, though, I'm assuming we'll be able to build walls to keep out the undesirables.

Why can't tanning tubs be placed in city house plots? Seems like an artificial limitation that has led to all sorts of problems.

The developers could even configure tubs to be placeable in city-based house plots only once the tanner is built.

That way the tanner is important, the city is important, but citizens still get control over their own tanning tub(s).

@Xzait, I agree, the enchantment system isn't fun for me, for the same reason. I'll be avoiding it as much as possible.

More slots would be nice. Maybe have separate slots for bandages and herbal remedies?

Yeah, I feel much the same.

Under the new talent tree, you can play as a mage without needing any gear crafted in cities, or needing any enchantments. They do help, of course, but you don't need them.

Talents

I really enjoyed the talent system! Gave me a good reason to go out doing everything different I could. I also felt like with talents, I was powerful enough to solo more content (notably wisps).

Suggestions on talents/knowledge:

• Sixty talent points seem too few somehow!
• Would be cool if crafting also provided knowledge.
• I wish the base attributes were set via the talent system.

Roads

I enjoyed the paved road system, especially since I wound up running through a bunch of town centers simply because it was beneficial to do so.

The ninety degree turns in the middle of nowhere felt odd, but I'm assuming all of those were in potentially claimable town locations.

Player-made stone roads need the speed bonus!

Cities

The bank, tavern, and town hall are cool. I also liked the wood stacking system for the carpenter.

I'm not entirely sure, however, I like how much crafting content is gated to cities (even though it will pressure players to join cities, which will help me out as a governor).

As a neutral point, I didn't notice any difference between large and small towns, other than the number of possible house plots. City status descriptions were somewhat confusing.

The worst part for me may have been laying claim blueprints: they often didn't work, for no apparent reason, even when the color said they were placeable.

Suggestions on towns (obvious permission problems aside):

• Would be very nice to have multiple bank tabs!
• Quarries: we need a quarry building for mass stone block production!
• Tree farms would also be a nice addition
• When mass-placing claims (or anything else, like tubs), would be awesome if I could check a "repeat" box, so I didn't have to navigate the crafting interface just to select the same thing again
• Are there going to be 5x5 or bigger house claims, so we can build the biggest houses?
• Would love a way for citizens to leave messages for me in the Town Hall

Other pros

I liked seeing the endurance bar become prominent.

Gripes

I don't enjoy the randomness inherent to the enchanting system. I tolerate it, but it feels like a good concept dragged down.

Target selection is frustrating. The best spells for me are those that don't require a target, simply because I can reliably use them in a fight.

Mob sniping/stealing shouldn't be possible. If party A gets a mob down to 1% health, lone player B shouldn't be able to take the last hit and get all the knowledge and loot. A system that weighs the damage done by varying parties involved to determine who gets the kill would be very nice.

I don't enjoy gear permanently wearing out. Would be nice if we could at least repair it.

I don't enjoy the amount of hard CC in the game (even in PvE). CC basically takes me out of the game, and I've never found that enjoyable.

We really need party icons on the map!

If PvP were not opt-in, any group that started early could theoretically dominate the entire test by preventing access to key mobs. That probably wouldn't work out well long-term.

If there were a parallel Arboreus PvE continent in the test, I wouldn't have a problem with making Syndesia's rules be PvP-oriented.

When I try right-clicking gear on my character screen, the gear briefly flashes in my inventory before reappearing equipped. It's almost like the right-click action passes through and is processed twice (once to unequip, once to equip).

Dragging gear from my character screen to inventory does nothing.

Yep, I'm seeing this too.

If a road blueprint is placed such that part it of overlaps an existing road, if the blueprint is then canceled, the overlapping area reverts to normal terrain.

No RNG.

@PeachMcD said in Arborian or Arborean?:

From a demonic perspective, both chickens and humans are tasty, hairless, and bipedal... so it might be anthropocentric to consider us to be so very different from one another

Wait, how do you know we're tasty?

@Razvan said in Arborian or Arborean?:

Could also be a reference to Plato's definition of human as a "featherless biped". It became famous because Diogenes plucked a chicken to prove that the definition is stupid, since that would be a featherless biped as well. Only in this case he used "hairless" instead of "featherless" because furry don't have feathers.

I could easily see a sentient furry quadruped referring to humans as hairless and biped, because in those two characteristics, humans are different.

A sentient chicken, though, would still be biped, so it wouldn't see that as a difference between itself and humans. I suspect it would focus on something else (possibly our mammalian characteristics).

At any rate, examining a world from the perspective of each character is an interesting puzzle, and tends to lend authenticity to the world.

@PeachMcD said in Arborian or Arborean?:

@Roccandil said in Arborian or Arborean?:

The Beastmen could just as easily call humans "hairless bipeds".

It's a comment on the current state of affairs IRL to see that, before the game has even started, people are using their creative juices to come up with ethnic slurs.

"Hairless bipeds" is (as I recall) a quote from Screwtape Letters, so it's actually a demon's-eye view of humans.

@Meiki said in Arborian or Arborean?:

The beastfolk might even prefer to call themselves Nelenians (Children of Nelena) as she is their Mother and "creator".
Angels and Demons could go for the Babileans even (as Babilis herself probably also used to be an Angel so the common lore goal for Angels might be to redeem their Mother and their kin, so they would probably not part themselves of their kin in such a way that Abominations will.)

I like it! The name "Beastmen" sounds human-centric, something humans would call them, not something they would call themselves.

Specifically, it uses "Beast" to modify "Man" (implying a Beastman is a kind of human, or simply oriented to the human perspective), and I can't see the Beastmen seeing themselves that way.

(The name Beastmen also differentiates between normal beasts and sentient beings that look like beasts, again, a human-centric perspective.)

The Beastmen could just as easily call humans "hairless bipeds".