About the proposed minigames for crafting

NiKr wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

Also, part of this is from your lower experience with hard PvE, but for your reference, no one, I don't think even the TOP guilds, will care about the literal best gear BEFORE going to fight a hard boss.

If you don't die like 20 times before you even know what to DO with certainty, then it's not very hard. Mathematically there would be no progression pyramid.

This happens in PvP games too against top players. If you ditch the matchmaking and find a REALLY good player willing to keep fighting you, it takes 10-20 matches before you can even figure out what to do, far less manage to do it. At that point, your 'ability to win/learn because you do more damage or survive longer' is only minimally affected by the types of gear gaps I'm used to.

I meant best gear at your stage of progress.

Wouldn't you need to be your best self to even see if it's possible to beat the boss at your progress stage? Or is that bad Lost Ark-like design of gear score that's not applicable to the games you've played?

Those games have laughably bad design.

As mentioned, those 'DPS checks' and other things you see in modern games are just a simplification. They are 'the result of someone who understood only part of older games recreating the part they understand'. I could rant for hours.

The crafting minigame options available for Intrepid's use are many and I am sure they have people on staff with at LEAST my skill level, wouldn't you assume so too?

I doubt there's any need to outline to them all the things they can do to make MMO crafting good. The reason other MMOs don't do it isn't because they can't figure out what to do, it's that they are catering to players who don't want to do harder things, and they limit the potential of the systems based on that.

This is true for nearly everything in 'modern' MMOs. Ashes is in no way required to do the same. Their challenge is actually the one I focus on:

"How can I make this as understandable as possible without dumbing it down?"

Azherae wrote: »

The crafting minigame options available for Intrepid's use are many and I am sure they have people on staff with at LEAST my skill level, wouldn't you assume so too?

I hope so. I usually assume way too many things (as recently shown by my posts), so it's better to just hope and then see whether the hope was met with reality.

Well then, let's hedge our bets.

In all arrogance, the optimal way for any 'crafting minigame' to work is this:

1) Player begins production
2) One of a subset of random things appropriate to that stage of production happens
3) Player responds by utilizing some very common item (part of the craft itself, functionally) to remedy the status and prevent some RNG-ish degredation of quality
4) Player can also choose not to respond and bet on it not getting worse, to save material (so 2 'ticks' of BadThing requires you to respond, on the first tick you can just 'bet it will resolve itself to save materials and speed up the process while you do some other step)
5) If Player does not have the material or does nothing, on Tick 2, they lose some quality. If they respond but only on tick 2, the chance of negatives (instead of just normal crafting) increases on subsequent ticks.
6) Player can prevent chances of specific negatives by using specific ingredients to begin with (rewards knowledge and gathering) thereby saving on DIFFERENT costs (the stuff needed to prevent/counter those negatives).

Result is that people have their own methods, recipes, etc.

Areas and nodes, too. If you have a lot of 'X resistant ore' that prevents Negative Status A while smelting, in an area, you would get a lot of crafters who don't bother with 'Negative Status Counter Item A' in that region.

A player in a region with neither has to choose if to import 'X Resistant Ore' from far away, or 'Import Regular Ore from closer and also Negative Status Counter Item A'.

The minigame is in pressing the buttons and deciding your risks according to your materials, since 'responding to every fluctuation' takes up 'Crafting Steps' or something that could be used to get closer to High Quality results (if Ashes even has these, I think so far we only know there's less chance of total failure). Doesn't even need to be though, the crafting could be guaranteed but the amount of time and materials required to make sure it finishes, is 'RNG'. Product is a given, Process is not.

There. Now we just wait for it to be better than the above.

EDIT: At least when this is botted (because it can and will be) the bot has to calculate odds, doesn't benefit that much, uses up more material whenever playing it safe, and everyone's bot is different (add enough minutiae in configuration and only dedicated botters and programmers will fine tune it for everything)

Azherae wrote: »

6) Player can prevent chances of specific negatives by using specific ingredients to begin with (rewards knowledge and gathering) thereby saving on DIFFERENT costs (the stuff needed to prevent/counter those negatives).

If there's a way to prevent any failures by using proper mats - I'd be happy with a system like this.

We have not received permission from WHIT3ROS3 to share the quoted post.

But at the same time you can't just ignore it.

If the minigame is too simple, I could theoretically have an untraceable bot ready in an hour.

If that minigame was based more on button presses than fiddly mouse movements, ten minutes.

You can't make 'Recognition >> Twitch Skill' style minigames for MMOs anymore except on Consoles.

We have not received permission from WHIT3ROS3 to share the quoted post.

I didn't say any of that.

There IS a type of skill that bots don't handle well, because most bots are not good at deciding when to make tradeoffs, and complex things require them to have billions of points of training data.

Many of the exploits and bots you are talking about are detectable, crafting minigame bots usually WORK in a way that makes them much harder if not impossible to detect. I also have suggestions for minigames that bots do not work on, which is what I was pointing out. I can TELL people 'I can bot this' or 'I can't bot this' and how long it takes.

Also, I have not stated any intention to cheat. I have said that I know HOW to. Intrepid already knows (assuming they pay attention to this stuff and if they don't, what's your point?)

I am happy to literally post code to explain to OTHER people how easy it is to cheat CERTAIN systems. I do not think Intrepid will ban me for knowing how to do it . If anything, I will gladly help them test 'can they detect it' in Alpha if they want, but that seems 'dangerous' on both sides.

I already would expect they will be monitoring my account extra close, and I welcome it. Because if I 'get caught cheating' when I am definitely not (because I will not), then it will tell them, and people, that their algorithms for detecting it are triggering false positives, and I MIGHT have enough understanding to help them see why.

I understand the wish to crush all botters and cheaters, I share it, but 'assuming that I am going to do it' because I know how, leads to nothing good for this community, so maybe let it slide a little and leave it to Intrepid as you pointed out.

We have not received permission from WHIT3ROS3 to share the quoted post.

I really never understand responses like this. I just end up assuming I always come off like some super arrogant person even when I am trying my best not to (might as well not, right?)

What would you have preferred here? For me to 'assume that I can't possibly have enough understanding to be any help at all'? I don't get it.

Azherae wrote: »

I really never understand responses like this. I just end up assuming I always come off like some super arrogant person even when I am trying my best not to (might as well not, right?)

What would you have preferred here? For me to 'assume that I can't possibly have enough understanding to be any help at all'? I don't get it.

To me you never did. I think it's usually either assumptions based on previous experiences with people that say those phrases (w/o looking at the bigger picture of someone's post history) or just projection.