Yes, but with a clause.
Only in the starter towns if you are not a citizien (for the new players).
Only in your city for the citiziens (because we are actually feeding them already!).
Day 7 of the test.
To my knowledge, none of the cities has developed the market place technology.
The economy of this game is based around the concept that no one can be self sufficient because each area has only a specific set of resources and you need resources from far away places to properly prosperate.
Regions in the far north and far south sorely need someone to supply them with iron, while regions in the center have no coal.
Regions from the north provide all the reagents and skins from the trolls, regions from the south most of the dead oak and so on...
Not to mention that a city can't develop all techs, so they are forced to rely on other cities for some of the crafts.
So, why isn't this working? What has gone wrong? Why are all cities trying to be as self sufficient as possible?
I would like everyone (and especially governors) to share their opinions on why things turned out like this and what could be changed to generate more trading between cities.
I will start with my opinions on the matter and possible solutions:
Put all this together, and we have the current situation where we prefer hauling carts over half a continent.
So, what do I think that it should be done to improve the situation?
Personally I would go with the following solution.
I think that we all agree that if it didn't require a tech, we would all build one in our cities. But then you remove options from the tech tree, and having multiple choices is good. So I think that the marketplace tech should remain. It could just be an upgrade though. Something that you do to get a bonus in a city which is focusing its efforts in being a trading hub.
As such, I would make the market place a default building that you don't require any tech to build, but rewards to the city coffers only half of the usual income from the marketplace. The overcost is still payed, but half of it is simply gold sinked. You can then select the market place tech (rename it to trading hub) to gain that other half of the income AND the marketplace starts to generate prestige proportionally to the volume of the trades happening in it.
So, what are your opinions and possible solutions on the matter?
Archers do feel quite powerful at the moment. Probably too much.
They are not even countered by warriors. It's just that in this test warriors were equipped with extremely advanced equipment which stops physical damage almost completely AND archers had their damage halved by wrong collisions AND the archer talent for bypassing armors isn't working AND mark of death isn't working.
I shudder to think what archers could do without all those handicaps.
Acid arrows is surely too good at the moment. It should be more tied to the Int/Dex build. The corrosion effect shouldn't go on every arrow, but should be a probability based on INT. Right now the difference between a DEX build and an INT build using that skill is minimal.
Other concerns I have for PvP:
You literally said:
"if a solo player got to a level he can do a boss then there shouldn't be a game mechanic that prevent that"
A solo player will NOT get to a level where he can do a boss alone, specifically because THERE IS a game mechanic preventing that, called horizontal progession.
Sure, you can grow in options and many fights will become easier, but those are fights that are in a scale supposed to be tackled by a single well prepared player.
"Bosses", whatever we mean for these, are not something that falls into that category.
Mostly agree with what was said.
2k and 24 hours is just too much for simply flagging. The minimum penalty should be much much lower.
I disagree on the concept that big zerg guilds will trivially bail out their members. Remember that every time they bail out someone, they are giving big cash to a bounty hunter. The more profits come from bounty hunting, the more bounty hunters there will be. Also, farming gold is not THAT easy.
Everytime you enter combat (the game already detects combat state), your inventory and equipment are closed and you can't open them until you are out of combat.
Effects of this change:
As I've wrote the other day in discord, I think that the real issue we are facing with non interactions between cities is mostly due to having too many tech points. They are just enough to allow a completely independent city, and this is hurting the intercity relations.
For the next test I would propose the following small but very impacting changes:
You can't have cities without banks and shrines. The first 5 ranks of a city are meant to establish the basic services of a settlement. You are given 12 tech points for those 12 techs. As such, increasing the city rank to 6 should require all the rank 1 techs to be completed. Right now in an effort to try to grab as many crafting techs as possible, we are skipping all the rank 1 techs which aren't strictly necessary.
When a city reaches rank 6 it should automatically unlock the marketplace tech. It is too important.
You now have 5 tech points between rank 6 and 10 for 17 possible techs. Those techs are divided in 10 crafting techs and 7 militaristic ones. As we saw, no one will take the militaristic ones if things are left like this, and being able to have 5 techs over a max of 10 still makes all cities too general purpose. Also, no matter what you specialise in, everyone will always take enchanting, since that is something very hard to get by trade, and everyone will get craftsmanship and engineering because they are affect all crafts in both material and quality. As such, I'd propose something like this:
a - Remove the enchanting tech. Allow the creation of enchanting tables with just the rank 1 tech witchcraft. Enchanting is a basic necessity which should be available in all cities and houses.
b - Like I saw proposed already, split Craftsmanship and Engineering in the 4 branches: leather, cloth, wood, metal.
Like this, you have now 15 crafting techs, out of which you can take a third. That's about reasonable. You need an ecosystem of at least 3 cities, probably 4, to have all the techs available.
For the military techs instead, you receive a bonus point at rank 6, 8 and 10 that can only be used for those techs. Every city should have its amount of military preparations and crafting expertise.
All in all, these changes could probably be implemented with a reasonable effort since they are mostly numerical changes and they should increase a lot the reliance of one city upon the other.
Obviously all this would work even better if coupled with the restriction of the natural resources to the residents of that region.
I agree with almost every point. The only one where I disagree is on the fast travel. Harbors are very important and should be kept. What can go away though, is being able to transfer a cart with them.
On a related note, one of the fears I had for this test has indeed manifested. With ingots and boards becoming light items, trading them has become too easy. You no longer need a cart. This was supposed to be countered by making them weight a lot, so you couldn't carry a lot of them, but currently they are 1kg each. They should be at least 15kg each.
One final note: we didn't have food issues in the start of the test, because there was the possibility to gather wild wheat (and there was also the starting town wheat exploit). After that was removed, gathering food has become much harder.
Thank you for your valuable contribution.
Care to add some explanation on why you think that way?
Yeah, usually they are one per season. In fact in the last news article, they already gave a name to the next test and it is "Summer Alpha", so we can expect it in August at the latest (provided that there are no delays).
In any case, it looks like we are going to receive an update to the development roadmap, so I suggest that you wait for that and make your decision.
By the way, hop on the discord, it will be easier to follow the news.
The population of the Alpha right now is low, and that's due to the alpha cycle that the game is following.
We have around one test every season and it lasts for around one month. The alphas have a lot of players in the first 1-2 weeks of testing due to all the players experimenting around with the new mechanics implemented in that test, and then the population starts dwindling toward the end.
This alpha is close to its end, so the population at the moment is at its minimum.
There is a little caveat in this though. We are still missing the implementation of a key mechanic (sieges), which should be hopefully coming this week. Following that then the population will again rise to test it, but it will also mean that the test will close in the following week.
Is it worth buying right now? I don't know. I did buy it in the previous alpha and I'm having quite a bit of fun. Even if it is an alpha it is quite enjoyable. Point is that it is an alpha, so we have only a little set of the full features (only one continent, around a third of the skills, only one race...) and this obviously impacts the longevity of the experience. It isn't something that you can play regularly for a long time, at the moment. If that is what you are looking for, then you should wait at least the beta.
As far as the development, I'm proparly a bit biased but I think that they are doing great. The project is ambitious (take a look at the blog articles) and even if they are a bit late on the schedule, they keep pursuing it without major hiccups.
Yeah, having BOTH the RNG system AND a way to force higher grade would be the best of both worlds for me. Not sure if it is worthy of attention though. For me the system is fine like this.
I had thought the same thing regarding the enchants and durability (but durability damage was partially RNG ) and stopped exactly for the reason that you can't trade items without full durability.
Also, you introduced another hot topic there. Durabilty damage in pvp. Right now there isn't, so good equips just change hand, they never get destroyed.
A 25% durability damage on items when getting killed (not just knocked down) would be a good start IMO.
I acknowledge your point Jacenson however at the moment one of the few ways you can reduce the odds of item destruction when enchanting is to use higher quality equipment -excellent- which makes it kind of a requirement if you intend to do any enchanting beyond one enchantment.
If the odds of loosing an item to enchanting destruction were not tied to quality or had some other way to help mitigate then the good quality items would see more value.
This is not true.
I regularly enchant my good quality equipment with double enchant. The failure chance is fairly low and quite manageable. Yes, it will sometimes happen that you destroy the item. It is one of the events that you have to react to, like missing a skill in pvp. I despise games which are too much dependant on RNG, where luck is your main factor, but this one clearly isn't one of those. This one holds just that little amount of RNG which makes it so you not only have to plan but also react. There are games where you suffer the RNG and games like this where you manage the RNG.
Now, as I said a solution without RNG would still be good for me. Not as good as the current RNG one, but it surely wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. What is important though, is that the resource investment to create an higher quality item increase exponentially with the quality. With the current difference between a poor item and an excellent item, if a poor item requires 1 resource, the fine one should require 2, the good one 4 and the exceptional 8. Exceptional items should be luxury items and the norm should be between fine and good.
Personally my enjoyment in RNG systems is because it requires more "skill" to be managed.
You can't math your ideal solution. You need to optimize and improvise, Managing lesser quality products without them becoming trash, finding a market for all your production no matter the quality is what makes a succesful crafter in a sandbox game.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the player which just wants to make his armor, RNG sucks. Because in his case he actually trashes the bad results. He doesn't have the volume of production to optimize.
This usually means that the single player pays more in trying to make his own stuff than what he would pay if he just were to buy it, because the seller has more production and so more optimization.
This has its perks and flaws.
Usually the design goes like this:
You give priority to the single player making his own stuff ---> No RNG crafting.
You give priority to "crafters" supplying multiple players with stuff ---> RNG crafting.
Personally I love spending most of my time in a crafter role, so I like the RNG systems, but I also understand those who don't like it.
In the end, I would live fine with any of them.
That's exactly my point. As you said, right now discarding metal products would be foolish. That's because IMO the metal process is the only one correctly implemented at the moment.
Indeed, if you look around at my posts, you will see that I've many times stated that the current system for leather and wood needs some more work and the current system for cloth looks more like a placeholder than an actual planned system.
Wood needs a refining process. Have it dry first.
Leather does not entail hauling heavy materials around, so it should at least interact with other resources. Ideally when we get alchemy, we should have tanning agents. Put the leather in the tanning tube and then add the agent. Weak tanning agents for tier 1 and 2 leather, mild agent for tier 3 and strong agent for tier 4. The amount of agent depends on the amount of leather in the tube.
Similar system for cloth.
If you are arrive at the point that you can flood the market in an attempt to make the exceptional item, it means that you could afford to discard the good ones even though the difference between a good and an exceptional one is many times negligible.
If that happens, the problem is that the resource is way too common.