Design Rules Feedback

2

Comments

  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Bronze tint is for colouring things.  If you want the metal, why not still use the iron comm?  Bronze tint doesn't sound like metal to me at least...
    image
  • @Gurashi You're absolutely fine to say chocolate!

    @Jolanthe We can think about the price of bronzetint as well, but that's not as quick a fix (it's coded) so We'll get back to you when We can.
  • DaraiusDaraius Shevat The juror's taco spot
    Xenthos said:
    Bronze tint is for colouring things.  If you want the metal, why not still use the iron comm?  Bronze tint doesn't sound like metal to me at least...
    The point I think is that the tint is being made from two metals that historically haven’t been used to represent bronze, and which are generally more expensive than iron, which historically has been used to represent bronze.
    I used to make cakes.

    Estarra the Eternal says, "Give Shevat the floor please."
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Daraius said:
    Xenthos said:
    Bronze tint is for colouring things.  If you want the metal, why not still use the iron comm?  Bronze tint doesn't sound like metal to me at least...
    The point I think is that the tint is being made from two metals that historically haven’t been used to represent bronze, and which are generally more expensive than iron, which historically has been used to represent bronze.
    Oh, I see what you mean.  Then yeah, it seems like just swapping it to iron would make sense if/when there's a chance to do it.
    image
  • edited August 2019
    Yeah, that was it.

    The other new tints all seem well and good otherwise, though, and pretty well conceived. I've noticed palette creation seems to be the same - was that missed in the changes, or is the static cost meant to remain?

    EDIT:

    I also have mixed feelings on cocoa being non-riftable. But that might be for the better in the long term. If the offering is always going to be limited by what's available per weave, then I think this is for the best. Less stockpiling, more purchasing only when you wish to actually make immediate use of it.

  • edited August 2019
    RE: Armour/Weapons costs.

    We're open to reducing these as We agree that whilst the logic behind Our changes is sound, the numbers are too high considering the cost of the commodities involved. We scaled these as mentioned on the damage rating of the armour and the enhancement slots, so what We are proposing is just to reduce the base numbers.

    We would change this to 5 commodities per DR % (down from 10), and the value of adding an enhancement slot to 30 (down from 50). This will halve the cost of basic armour entirely for both Forging and Tailoring, and make basic weapons cost 30/60 rather than 50/100. We did discuss the possibility of removing enhancement slots from some armour types with the Furies, but have chosen not to at this time.

    We don't want to be changing this over and over again, so We wanted to run this by those with concerns before enacting it.

    On related and other topics:

    The current price of Polearms is just an error, but We're waiting to change it until We can just change everything. Scabbards was also an error (apparently We got used to the number 50) - they actually cost 10/20. This is fixed as per Changelog 1750, as are the commodities required for Bronzetint.

    We did discuss the possibility of removing enhancement slots from some armour types with the Furies, but have chosen not to at this time.

    We haven't forgotten about comments on the Artisan costs - We'd like to get armour and weapons sorted first due to the much more extensive nature of those changes, and then We'll move on to looking at that. That will include looking more at Artisan as a whole than just at the few patterns We changed thus far.

    And yes, it is deliberate that cocoa cannot be rifted/kept in stockrooms. This is indeed to prevent stockpiling. Jitta stocks 100 at a time and this stock refreshes, so hopefully it won't feel too restrictive - especially since a lot of designs won't need vast amounts of cocoa.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    I still think that would be worth the tradeoff (when you want the slots, upgrade to plate or robes, before that chain/scale are your friends).
    We can come back to that later if we need to, though.  Halving the cost seems like an acceptable spot to start at and see how it works out.
    image
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Also what about the inconsistent costs of forging accessories with no mechanical benefit?
    image
  • We will look at the cosmetic patterns as well, We just want to push the weapons and armour changes as a priority because they're much more impactful.

    If you're a Trademaster who was looking at submitting commodity changes and is hesitant to do now We're changing figures - We are logging any requests that come through to be dealt with once We've sorted everything. If you have already submitted a change that would now be wrong with these changes, don't worry, We'll be in contact with you to review things.

    There's no limit on how long We're accepting said change requests, so don't panic that you need to have them done soon but can't. Feel free to wait a week or two!
  • So this is A Tangent but I think it's worth considering since things are getting overhauled:

    Would it be possible to unrestrict the commands for looking at ALL of your org's cartels and the public designs? This would drastically cut down on the 'I don't know what design I want' that crops up a lot, and leaves private cartels to do their own thing. I don't feel you should have to have a tam or pastebin links just to know what designs are sitting around that should be easy to access but aren't.

    For instance, I'm a mage, but I want to look at Celest's armour designs. I can't easily without getting someone to paste me everything I'm interested in, or I take the onus onto myself and classflex so I save someone the trouble of sitting around waiting for me to make a decision. If I'm allowed to look at Dragonscale's designs while being in let's say Jewellery, then I can already pick what I want and just send someone a tell of "Hey are you willing to make me armour design 1234? I have the comms!"

  • Xenthos said:
    (when you want the slots, upgrade to plate or robes, before that chain/scale are your friends).
    It's one of the more irritating things to me in this game that plate armor is categorically the best armor for 3.5/5 classes. While I get the direction Xenthos is trying to go (make it easy for newbs to be protected early on) it's a great turn off for me, and one of the reasons I nearly didn't stick around, that I'm expected to either give up defense to wear robes/gowns, or slots to wear scale/chain. Just... why?

    Ideas I know will never be implemented:
     1) Make armor follow the same pattern as weapons. There are standard versions of scale/chain/plate that have 1 slot, and High Quality versions for more comms with more slots. And then Forgers as normal can make their ultra-masterwork super-armor.

     2) Make more armor patterns so there's a 2-slot alternative to plate armor. Something like the following schema: Leather (0 armor/1 slot); Splint and Scale (20% armor, 1 slot); Chain and Plate (20% armor, 2 slots).

     3) Just... make armor not take up clothing slots, but still allow it to be hidden. (alternatively, just get rid of clothing slots, they're silly).
  • Merlose said:

     3) Just... make armor not take up clothing slots, but still allow it to be hidden. (alternatively, just get rid of clothing slots, they're silly).
    This would be especially amazing! Why can't I wear jacket armour with a dress? :(
  • edited August 2019
    Changing how armour (and weapons) work is not really within the remit of Our overhaul - We just look after the designing side of it, not the armour and weapons system it's linked to. We managed to squeeze out a few things but more major changes aren't Ours to make.

    That said, your ideas are being read by those who are thus responsible, so do keep going! We're just not able to help you there personally.

    Unless there are any wild objections to our above plan regarding the commodity costs, We will input them approaching the weave today. We don't want you to have to wait too long for this fix.
  • I like the new proposed costs for weapons/armour! I think they'll be much more manageable
  • Per Changelog 1753, those new values are now live.

    We're going to work on discussing the cosmetic Forging patterns and the Artisan costs next. If you have other trades you want Us to look at in terms of minimum commodity costs, please keep throwing them out here with specific examples.
  • UNLIMITED POWER
  • I had a thought, though I'm not sure if I should be submitting it here or using the IDEA function:

    Since we have chocolate now, would it be possible to add a new design category to the cooking patterns? Maybe something along the lines of 'confection'?

    I know we already have candy (magical candy!), so it can't be that, but it's a hard making new chocolate treats without lumping them into a pastry/meringue/platter/etc categories. What might y'all recommend to people who want to make a dessert with chocolate that doesn't involve any of the above?

    Thanks in advance! Again sorry if this isn't in the right place! Have a nice day <3
    ‘It’s important to be kind. You can’t know all the times that you’ve hurt people in tiny, significant ways.
    It’s easy to be cruel without meaning to be. There’s nothing you can do about that. But you can choose to be kind. Be kind.’


  • Gurashi said:
    What might y'all recommend to people who want to make a dessert with chocolate that doesn't involve any of the above?
    Without knowing exactly what you want to go for, I'd like to point out there's also crepes, scones, and rolls under cuisine, which often go underused. Muffins and bread under baking also open up different sets of potential.

    Otherwise if you just want "chocolate chocolates", if you will, without having to make a whole platter of them, then you're probably limited to waiting for your suggestion to go through.

  • Jolanthe said:
    Gurashi said:
    What might y'all recommend to people who want to make a dessert with chocolate that doesn't involve any of the above?
    Without knowing exactly what you want to go for, I'd like to point out there's also crepes, scones, and rolls under cuisine, which often go underused. Muffins and bread under baking also open up different sets of potential.

    Otherwise if you just want "chocolate chocolates", if you will, without having to make a whole platter of them, then you're probably limited to waiting for your suggestion to go through.

    That's what I'm thinking ... like what if you want to make a chocolate bar? Something that doesn't involve grains or baking (though, rolls sound fun - don't you have to bake those?)
    ‘It’s important to be kind. You can’t know all the times that you’ve hurt people in tiny, significant ways.
    It’s easy to be cruel without meaning to be. There’s nothing you can do about that. But you can choose to be kind. Be kind.’


  • Gurashi said:
    Jolanthe said:
    Gurashi said:
    What might y'all recommend to people who want to make a dessert with chocolate that doesn't involve any of the above?
    Without knowing exactly what you want to go for, I'd like to point out there's also crepes, scones, and rolls under cuisine, which often go underused. Muffins and bread under baking also open up different sets of potential.

    Otherwise if you just want "chocolate chocolates", if you will, without having to make a whole platter of them, then you're probably limited to waiting for your suggestion to go through.

    That's what I'm thinking ... like what if you want to make a chocolate bar? Something that doesn't involve grains or baking (though, rolls sound fun - don't you have to bake those?)
    Bake/cook is divided strictly by category, and don't always make sense (you cook the scone and rolls, since they are in cuisine, but you always bake ice cream since it is listed in pastries, etc). I wouldn't dwell over whether or not the creation syntax makes much sense in the grand scheme of things unless the whole of cooking is revamped to better fit that.
  • XenthosXenthos Shadow Lord
    Well, lemon bars could kind of be called a cookie, right?  What about describing a brownie as a thick, cakelike chocolate cookie?
    And if you can do that, it does not seem too much of a stretch to make a rectangular cookie of solid chocolate.  I have seen cookies made out of all kinds of comms already, they don't seem to require dough.
    image
  • Thanks for the feedback @_@! I really appreciate it!
    ‘It’s important to be kind. You can’t know all the times that you’ve hurt people in tiny, significant ways.
    It’s easy to be cruel without meaning to be. There’s nothing you can do about that. But you can choose to be kind. Be kind.’


  • edited August 2019
    brownie cake!

    @Charties As an aside, would it be helpful or not so much if we made a wishlist of new items we'd eventually like to see as crafters?
  • DaraiusDaraius Shevat The juror's taco spot
    Probably not strictly relevant to the topic but since the Charites are following this thread... Do you think we'll ever have the ability to merge cartel catalogues, or transfer designs between cartels of the same trade? I would love to trim down my clans by consolidating my designs into fewer cartels, and it would be nifty for trademasters to be able to sell designs to other trademasters.
    I used to make cakes.

    Estarra the Eternal says, "Give Shevat the floor please."
  • Daraius said:
    Probably not strictly relevant to the topic but since the Charites are following this thread... Do you think we'll ever have the ability to merge cartel catalogues, or transfer designs between cartels of the same trade? I would love to trim down my clans by consolidating my designs into fewer cartels, and it would be nifty for trademasters to be able to sell designs to other trademasters.
    I've asked about this, and the problem is that designs have to be transferred over manually. Apparently there's no way to just change which cartel a design is in.
    Her voice firm and commanding, Terentia, the Even Bladed says to you, "You have kept your oath to Me, Parhelion. You have sworn to maintain Justice in these troubled times."

    Yet if a boon be granted me, unworthy as I am, let it be for a steady hand with a clear eye and a fury most inflaming.
  • Requesting ideas for new patterns is on Our list, but as mentioned is being placed behind the commodity review in priority. We will be calling for suggestions at some point soon, so feel free to think of them, but don't make formal requests at this time.

    In terms of merging cartel catalogues, as mentioned at present they have to be moved manually. This is in part due to how the design system works. However, it's also because whenever someone requests a design transfer, We review the request carefully to ensure that it's a genuine request and not an attempt at theft. Not that theft has ever happened in this way! But We do our best to make sure everything is looked at thoroughly for the sake of your precious designs.

    Which doesn't mean We would never add a batch transfer option - it just means We would always retain personal control of it. We'll discuss it amongst Ourselves but be aware that such a thing would be dependent upon the availability of coding resources.
  • While I realize it is outside the scope of this review as well, what about the ability to have multiple trades on a single cartel? That is instead of having a 'bookbinding cartel' you have a single cartel that has trade permits that allow you to submit designs of the trades you have permits for.

    I suspect, that how cartels are coded (or how I think they are) that this probably would be a complete recode of the clan/cartel design, but maybe I'm wrong in that thinking.
  • edited August 2019
    Well. Now that my catalogue design has been approved, I am very confused by how the search function is supposed to work. But I think I've pieced together this much thus far:

       *The target person under READ CATALOGUE isn't actually a filter for seeing just that person's designs, but effectively a filter for viewing it through their eyes, so to speak. If I use myself, for instance, I can't look at tailoring designs if I don't have tailoring active, but I can look at cooking and bookbinding designs since I have both of those active.

       *Basically, you can't search the design listings without knowing someone who -currently- has that trade active. They don't have to be online.

       *You also must have a separate reference for the exact design types under that trade, since the only message you get back is: "No such craft type." even when you provide no other argument. If you don't know the exact names for these, you might be stuck guessing.

       *If you actually want to look for designs by a specific person, you still need to append the DESIGNEDBY search function at the end.

    So that takes some of the wind out of it, but I think the third bullet point is at least approachable for correction. Would it be possible to get some sort of echo for all the searchable craft types for that trade, rather than the base "No such craft type." error message?

    EDIT:

    If everything is working as intended, let's also change the catalogue AB from this:

    READ CATALOGUE <person> <trade> <craft type> [search]
        - Search a person's known designs.

    To this:

    READ CATALOGUE <person> <trade> <craft type> [search]
        - Search known designs a given person can access.

  • Has any more discussion been held for reducing artisan costs further?
Sign In or Register to comment.