Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Ammunition

Flari-Merchant
@ Bob

I guess that what I am hinting at with all of this "too much coin is floating in player hands" ranting has to do with the game's economic model.

So long as it is possible for players to print coin by killing mobs, you have no real handle on controlling inflation. There is less confidence that my coin can for sure be exchanged for x pieces of y at the AH. Barter gets you more value usually than coin.

A more manageable economy might look something like:
1. There is X amount of coin minted and loose in the world.
2. Characters adventure or quest and so get some of that loose coin.
3. Coin sinks continuously replenish how much loose coin is available.
4. When necessary, Thornkeep mints a batch to replenish the coin that is available. Keep a nice medium since players do value their rewards.

Doesn't make all that much sense in all stages, but is more easily regulated than magical coin generation.

-plus-

Your response doesn't address how to get more gathered materials for sale on the AH or I don't see it.
Flari-Merchant
Actually the cost of ammunition might help a great deal with players having a need for coin that is higher than it has been. I suppose that waiting to find out isn't that onerous a task. smile
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Having a need for coin sinks is fine and all, but there isn't enough coin generated per escalation to cover for the cost of doing a three or four day escalation for one party. It's a negative sum equation.

Plus new players who want to play arranged character won't be able to afford this. They won't have years of experience built up, few to no expendables and still take a really high ammo cost? These new players coming in on the humble bundle could be wasting their xp thinking they get to play a wizard before all of this drops. How will this be balanced for them?

Then we are told to just simply branch out as if we could flip a switch on our feats? The xp rate right now does not allow for such branching out. Are we supposed to spend another year of xp to get some melee feats now due to this? What other changes may come that could render other builds null and void and require another year of retraining.

Now if after every major rebalancing a Respec was offered, this kind of development model would work well. We get a chance to adapt to changing circumstances, reconsider our builds, and then go do the appropriate achievements to grind out the rest. But when you are committed to a build that requires one to two years of real time to finish, how can anyone be expected to keep doing this? If I had known this was going to happen I never would have made a wizard at all. This game makes you commit to a single build for a very long time, but now we are told to respect without being given a means to reasonably do so,

With all this in mind, how is simply implementing something just to see what happens a good thing? Why not do more playteating to tweak the imbalances now and get it right the first time?
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Bob
It is true that there's theoretically no limit on the amount of coin that can be obtained by killing mobs, but there's a limit to how much time players on average are going to spend doing that, and at a certain point you just can't kill mobs any faster. In theory, the more time spent killing mobs, whether due to more players or more time spent killing per player, the higher the demand for gear/training/supplies. Ideally, the supply of coin thus goes up at roughly the same rate the demand for things coin can be spent on rises. Initially, that will indeed result in prices going up, but hopefully those with some inclination toward gathering and crafting respond to those higher prices by spending more time on those activities, bringing things back into balance. If players don't respond to those price changes as expected, or if gear/etc demand doesn't rise relatively evenly with looting activity, then we'll have to reevaluate some of those supply/demand curves and see about ways to further regulate the money supply, or to more tightly link increases in money supply to increases in demand (bigger dependency on ammo and consumables to kill mobs quickly, link coin generation to item churn more tightly). Ammo alone may go a long way toward helping with this, since kills require ammo, but it's only worth using the ammo when the rewards are high enough. That helps supply and demand self-regulate on that front.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Seriously, all that needs to be done is give us a chance to respec our toons after major rebalances like this one. Things would be a lot better and then when we are told to Branch out of builds we actually can do that.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
You are a Troll
For each combat toon that isn't melee you will need:

1-2 gatherers
1/2 - 1 crafter
and 1 gold to buy the ammo they will make?

Not sure that is really viable.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
You are a Troll
For each combat toon that isn't melee you will need:

1-2 gatherers
1/2 - 1 crafter
and 1 gold to buy the ammo they will make?

Not sure that is really viable.

And that is just for ammo alone? Not even takin gear making and replenishment into account?

Yeah, if nothing else at least give a Respec at this point to give us a chance to actually branch out and or make hybrid builds. The more we talk about how the numbers add up it is not looking good.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Bob
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Having a need for coin sinks is fine and all, but there isn't enough coin generated per escalation to cover for the cost of doing a three or four day escalation for one party. It's a negative sum equation.

There's definitely not sufficient coin generated on its own, but I'm also assuming that all the other items dropped will be sold at the auction house for coin. If not, you still got that much value in items, so that still needs to be considered when thinking about profits.

I'm also assuming that characters won't be using expensive crafted ammo throughout. Not all characters will use ammo in the first place, ammo-using characters will ideally mix in some non-ammo attacks when possible, and I'm assuming some makeshift and salvaged ammo will get used against smaller encounters or weaker enemies. Basically, I'm assuming that players will take reasonable measures to minimize their ammunition costs, and that the more expensive ammo is, the more seriously they'll take those measures.

Between all that, I still think that most parties will generate far more value in loot than they consume in ammunition and other supplies most of the time. Sometimes other considerations will make it worth cutting into those profits, like killing an escalation off quickly to prevent someone else from finishing off the boss, or eliminating an escalation that's successfully raiding your holdings. Then it's just a question of whether or not you can afford to take that loss at that time.

Paddy Fitzpatrick
Plus new players who want to play arranged character won't be able to afford this. They won't have years of experience built up, few to no expendables and still take a really high ammo cost? These new players coming in on the humble bundle could be wasting their xp thinking they get to play a wizard before all of this drops. How will this be balanced for them?

New players will actually be pretty close to current levels of effectiveness just using salvaged ammo, and above current levels when using T1 +0, so this should work out reasonably well for them. When they have to fall back to makeshift ammo, they should still be able to kill goblins and such, which are reasonably rewarding for someone at that level.

Wizards in particular have an advantage at first, in that their initial basic attacks don't require ammo. About the time the fact that those can't be upgraded starts to be a problem, they have the option of picking up a Mastery skill, adding some non-ammo attacks to choose from.

Paddy Fitzpatrick
Then we are told to just simply branch out as if we could flip a switch on our feats? The xp rate right now does not allow for such branching out. Are we supposed to spend another year of xp to get some melee feats now due to this? What other changes may come that could render other builds null and void and require another year of retraining.

Now if after every major rebalancing a Respec was offered, this kind of development model would work well. We get a chance to adapt to changing circumstances, reconsider our builds, and then go do the appropriate achievements to grind out the rest. But when you are committed to a build that requires one to two years of real time to finish, how can anyone be expected to keep doing this? If I had known this was going to happen I never would have made a wizard at all. This game makes you commit to a single build for a very long time, but now we are told to respect without being given a means to reasonably do so,

We tried to provide lots of warning all along that ammo was coming, and that there were advantages to giving yourself a mix of capabilities. We've also worked hard to make sure that even without crafted ammo you're still reasonably effective. Plus, when you have good ammo, you're extremely effective.

And again, wizards have a great option in adding some Mastery skills. Those have also been rebalanced a bit and should be more effective than before.

Paddy Fitzpatrick
With all this in mind, how is simply implementing something just to see what happens a good thing? Why not do more playtesting to tweak the imbalances now and get it right the first time?

We're implementing ammo not just to see what happens, but because the lack of it is causing serious issues that need to be addressed. We've done what we can to verify that the numbers we've chosen match up to our underlying design assumptions about how players will react to ammunition costs when those are truly meaningful, and that's really all that can be done when running on test servers. I believe our assumptions are basically correct, but I do want to reassure everyone that if they turn out to be not quite perfect, we'll adjust things as needed.
Flari-Merchant
Oh how I would love a respec for so many reasons. It should be a voluntary thing if possible. Paizo wouldn't lose any dollar value from it except whatever it would cost to make it happen.

We have stuck in here through lots of changes and lots of surprises. It seems like it would be a descent thing for Paizo to do at this point.
Bob
I certainly understand why respecs would be tempting, particularly when the game is still in development and so much can change. The tricky part is that some of our design decisions, particularly the way we handle achievements, were made with the assumption that no respecs would be allowed. A lot of thinking would need to go into working around any such change, along with a fair amount of implementation work.

Not saying it's impossible, just that it's a bigger issue than it might seem at first.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post