A few words on resource gathering

Tyceus

Firstclaimer
Jun 22, 2017
32
117
33
22
Denmark
#21
personally, i love the idea of getting meaterials from the Kaiju's we defeat! to weaponize it or use it for better defense or possibly even a super rare Kaiju heart for a reactor! some of the Kaiju's we will face will be extremely tough! why not use that to our advantage? they are also equiped with tech that might be of great use if we can reverse engineer it :D

and i certainly look forward to thumping as well to gather materials, however maybe mixing resources would be a very late game thing if at all? it will create much more freedom and variety when it comes to crafting and allows many different things to exists, maybe even as far as having biological looking armor by mixing the materials of different category's, so im not against it :)
 
Oct 29, 2016
54
116
33
#22
For control reasons I believe there will have to be RNG someplace in the resource gathering/crafting system(s) due to those players whose sole purpose is to game any outcome(s) they possibly can. So if players can determine what quality, amount, and/or specific resource gathered PLUS how the system works for putting those resources together to craft gear, then I think all heck would break loose within the community itself. So I believe the question that would need to be answered is "Where will the RNG be?" in Em.8ER. Will it be on the resource gathering side, the gear crafting side, a mixture of both, etc.?
I'm hoping RNG decide what/how much material there is on the ground instead of the purity...
But then again, with that kind of mechanic, the decision might kill me,"What do I do? Do I collect as much as I can or get the highest purity I can get with these rare minerals?"
Unless we can get all of them and then process it to make higher purity but losing some in the process.
I'm down for that.
 

PartTimeJedi

Omega Founder
Nov 13, 2018
88
224
33
#23
iirc it was confirmed long ago that Em8er will not have mineral "quality" levels. Putting mineral qualities on the map will create the same environment in Firefall; people will build bots to alert them when the best quality is available and mine it dry within minutes then log out. Furthermore it made all the imperfect nodes sit around un-mined for hours because nobody wanted them. Nobody wants to mine sub-par quality minerals let alone log in to never find their desired quality for days/weeks/months.

For Em8er minerals should be a flat value just like it was in beta 1.5.
Azurite
Quartzite
Bismuth
Coralite

These minerals all had their own flat rate properties. When used in crafting they 100% predictably would increase damage, healing, reload speed, ect. If Em8er is to have fully customizable crafting it needs to absolutely avoid mineral quality and instead use output sliders. These sliders would increase/decrease mineral quantity costs and 100% give you exactly what you want without the math and extreme luck required to get the exact mineral quality you need to get exactly what you want.

Players need to have the capability of logging in on the fly and finding exactly what they want with a bit of searching. I'm not saying the lands need to be lucrative but I recall the frustration of wanting Coralite 1000 but never, ever, had a chance of getting it due to bot alerts and therefore my gear would always and ever be sub-par.

I am all for gathering bio-mass parts or whatever creativity comes around but do not make it quality restrictive.
Well said!
I liked the flat rate mineral Beta version also.
 

EvilKitten

Well-Known Member
Ark Liege
Jul 26, 2016
744
1,447
93
#24
I really don't follow this. If it is simply a matter of purity then the resources you can get is a factor of time spend and efficiency. Meaning finding high enough densities in a reasonable time frame. This puts everyone IN GAME on a completely even footing. Obviously someone who has no life and nothing to do but thump all day is going to pull in more resources, but that is going to happen regardless.

I really feel that we should not be penalizing the players who log in less frequently and happen to miss those "15 minutes the 1000 quality resource was around". Having quality ranges actually benefits the players who are on more because they have a higher chance of being online when high quality resources show up. Much better to skip quality and make purity a refining process.

I think what you are looking for is not an RNG, but a handicap. RNG hurts everyone equally, or is supposed to. All it does is piss people off when they put in hard work and the RNG spits out a shitty reward. Or perhaps that is just me since RNG only ever gives me shitty rewards.

I'm hoping RNG decide what/how much material there is on the ground instead of the purity...
Er that is kinda the same thing, purity is the ratio of resource you desire versus stuff you do not. But yes any RNG should be the natural result of not knowing the resource map in the game. That is a natural RNG that everyone must deal with, not an artificial one like random qualities.
 
Oct 29, 2016
54
116
33
#26
Er that is kinda the same thing, purity is the ratio of resource you desire versus stuff you do not. But yes any RNG should be the natural result of not knowing the resource map in the game. That is a natural RNG that everyone must deal with, not an artificial one like random qualities.
Now that I think about it, yeah it's the same thing. I just remembered when in Firefall, there's only limited amount with a fixed rarity, we can't do shit about it. I just don't want that.
 

EvilKitten

Well-Known Member
Ark Liege
Jul 26, 2016
744
1,447
93
#28
Would you write up an example for how players gather, refine, and craft gear from your perspective so I can try to better understand the mechanics/metrics you're putting forth? Thanks!
I would be happy to do so but I won't really have time to put together anything comprehensive until next week, will put something together for you though.
 

EvilKitten

Well-Known Member
Ark Liege
Jul 26, 2016
744
1,447
93
#29
@Wyntyr

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1H8QWIOz5AZX-461Vg5KTQ2l192Ne0GwsH9UiVSrAKx0/edit?usp=sharing

So first off, my design has 100 possible purity "tiers" for any resource. In my example the quality is in 1% increments until you reach 98% where it becomes much finer. The actual displayed numbers are technically irrelevant, from the game mechanics standpoint.

The bottom purity tiers are what you find in the ground, Eg 40% Iron, 60% "dirt", or 25% iron, 25% Sulfur Dioxide, 50% "dirt". The cutoff I placed at 69% which is the highest you will ever find in the ground. Like FF a region will have a density map, so the purity for any one element will vary all the way from min to maximum within that range. The key is that ALL of it is useful, because you can refine any purity into a higher purity through processing. What is critical is that there is no one purity for an entire map, so players won't be limited in finding "rare" high quality tiers. There should always be a wide range on any one region, provided a player is willing to spend the time hunting them down.

And that time will definitely be worth while. Processing takes time, and you also loose a chunk of your total value for each purity tier you improve. In my spreadsheet I set it at 5% loss per tier. This represents unrecoverable material, known in the industry as tailings. If you only want to upgrade the purity of a chunk of resource by a few tiers, it won't be too bad, but that 5% is per level so it can quickly add up. As such, starting with a high purity resource will save you a lot of thumping time.

In the link above, to go from tier 100 to tier 1 requires you to input over 12,000 units in order to get out 100. Obviously the numbers themselves can be manipulated, but the point stands that being a vacuum cleaner won't automatically get you way ahead of anyone else (but at the same time it still is useful).

Above the purity tiers found in the ground are purities sufficient to be turned in for buildings or world tier progression. Less processing is required on the players part, the higher the purity however the better whatever rewards system Grummz puts in place will get you. I could see some RNG in the reward system where the higher the quality (and amount) the better your odds are or something. But that is another topic.

Only the top tier purity levels can be used for crafting. 100% purity may not always be the end goal however. 100% pure iron for example is great, but adding a small amount of impurity is how we get steel. So too we can use the purity of our resources to tie to multiple end effects with varying curves, not all of which top out at the 100% mark. Eg. Resource X is needed for crafting jump-jets, at 90% purity it provides 110 fuel cap, and 12.8 m/s lift. at 100% purity it would provide only 80 fuel cap but 15.2 m/s lift. The former would be better for hovering, the later for quick bursts of speed.

The goal here is to make sure that nothing is wasted, and everyone can be on an even footing. You will never have resources that simply sit in your inventory unused, because they can either be "upgraded" to fit your needs, or donated.
 
Last edited:

Wyntyr

Firstclaimer
Jul 26, 2016
3,115
6,618
113
Florida
#30
Thank you for posting! This info does give me better insight into where you're coming from.

After review I do believe, based on the way this is currently written, that the above would EXTREMELY benefit those that prospect and mine resources in the game for lengthy periods of time v/s those that casually prospect/mine. A Leet Prospector (LP) will have found or "lucked" into better base resource purity AND mined much larger amounts of said resources than a Filthy Casual (FC). To be fair some disparity will happen regardless of resource purity, quality, # of resources, etc. as the LP's just plain have more game time...however...with crafting gear, zone rewards for players donations, base construction, war effort aid, etc. I think the combination of three areas will really exacerbate that situation:

1. The base purity level being low v/s purity levels being random across the spectrum at any given time. With random purity levels through the entire spectrum a FC could at least "luck" into a much higher purity level resource, which this proposal doesn't allow.

2. The resource refinement mechanic being based on the amount of resources used to push the purity upwards. LP's are going to have the amounts needed per resource to push up that purity level so much quicker than FC's.

3. The high purity level of resources needed to begin crafting gear v/s being able to craft gear using any purity level.

IMO these together would combine to keep FC's from wanting and/or being able to use resources to craft gear (relegating them to use an ingame store and/or auction house if/when there is one), zone rewards gained for resource donations, base construction, etc. to aid the war effort. And there's the unknowns of how gear, base construction, etc. will relate to World Tiers.

Regarding the time component of the refinement mechanic i just want to say "No". I don't believe that the refinement times proposed are extravagant, just not needed IMO.

With all that said, I like your use of the term "Purity" v/s "Quality" as it's different (even if it ends up being the same/similar game mechanic). I prefer "Schematic" v/s "Blueprint" for the same reason. I feel a few term changes here and there can help change the feel of a game instead of using the same old same old. I'm really looking forward to see what Team Em.8ER already has planned (hopefully via the subscription drops). And thank you again for the write up. It is good stuff and most folks won't put in the time.
 
Last edited:

EvilKitten

Well-Known Member
Ark Liege
Jul 26, 2016
744
1,447
93
#31
After review I do believe, based on the way this is currently written, that the above would EXTREMELY benefit those that prospect and mine resources in the game for lengthy periods of time v/s those that casually prospect/mine.

A Leet Prospector (LP) will have found or "lucked" into better base resource purity AND mined much larger amounts of said resources than a Filthy Casual (FC). To be fair some disparity will happen regardless of resource purity, quality, # of resources, etc. as the LP's just plain have more game time...however...with crafting gear, zone rewards for players donations, base construction, war effort aid, etc. I think the combination of three areas will really exacerbate that situation:
I am uncertain what you mean by "Leet Prospector" vs. "Filthy Casual". Experience will matter, the amount of time will also matter. I don't think the game should penalize someone for having more time on the job or taking the effort to better understand the mechanics. This system is not intended to benefit players who cannot or will not put in the time and effort. It IS intended to be fair and impartial.

1. The base purity level being low v/s purity levels being random across the spectrum at any given time. With random purity levels through the entire spectrum a FC could at least "luck" into a much higher purity level resource, which this proposal doesn't allow.
I am not sure I understand, I stated that a specific resource would be varied across a map, meaning there would be "hot spots" but that the world resources won't be a fixed "quality" across the board like it was in FF. That doesn't mean the hotspots would be static. I suppose it was assumed on my part that like FF, Em-8er maps would update as they become depleted and I passed that assumption on into my writeup.

As players thump out an area the "purity" of the resources in that area will go down. Meaning successive thumps will get less and less out. Once the average purity of a region drops below a point determined by Grummz, the purity mapping will be updated for that resource. In FF (at least when I played) when a resource was reset a new quality was chosen, but every resource was set to the same quality so no matter where you thumped, if you wanted Iron and the quality was 100, you were hosed. A player wishing to craft blue level gear could log in day after day only to discover the resource they needed was simply not there in sufficient quality.

In this scenario there is no quality, the purity will vary all across the map but ALL of it is usable, which means players are never stuck waiting around or hoping they log in to a good quality resource. You can jump on, find the resource you need in any purity and call in your thumper for maximum immersion. It might take a while to get everything you need but you will never be stuck or sitting idle waiting.

2. The resource refinement mechanic being based on the amount of resources used to push the purity upwards. LP's are going to have the amounts needed per resource to push up that purity level so much quicker than FC's.
You put in the time and effort, you get the reward. I do not understand the issue. If you spend 3 hours a day playing this game why should someone who jumps on for 30 minutes a week be able to compete with you, that completely invalidates the time spent. If you put in 3 hours a day you should get out 3 hours a day. if you put in 30 minutes a week you should get out 30 minutes a week. It should not be part of the game design to penalize or handicap.

With that said, one aspect that I wanted to ensure doesn't happen is people who don't have a lot of time being suck hunting for resource and never finding them in the time allotted. If you only have 30 minutes to play, and it takes you 20 to find a high quality node that only leaves you 10 minutes to mine. If you can simply run out and quickly find any purity of a resource and mine, you may end up with the same amount of resources in the 30 minute window, but you spent more of that time being engaged in the gameplay rather than wandering around searching.

3. The high purity level of resources needed to begin crafting gear v/s being able to craft gear using any purity level.
I personally feel that this is nitpicking. Numbers can be adjusted. Grummz can set an average thump to get 12k Ore, or he could set it so a mining session only averages 2k Ore and suddenly the item becomes much more time intensive to make. I also wish to emphasis again that you don't have to craft everything to 100% purity to get a good item. As long as you have different stats affected differently then sure 100% might reward a better item, but other qualities can be good in different ways.

1562178332461.png (random drawing to illustrate)


With all that said, I like your use of the term "Purity" v/s "Quality" as it's different (even if it ends up being the same/similar game mechanic). I prefer "Schematic" v/s "Blueprint" for the same reason. I feel a few term changes here and there can help change the feel of a game instead of using the same old same old. I'm really looking forward to see what Team Em.8ER already has planned (hopefully via the subscription drops). And thank you again for the write up. It is good stuff and most folks won't put in the time.
All cool, I am really bad at the execution of gaming so I tend to seriously min/max my characters to compensate. As a Priestess of Logic this means a heavy emphasis on mechanics and understanding how gameplay elements mesh underneath the surface. I am however not a game developer, nor do I assume my idea's are perfect. Nothing can be improved if there is no discourse :)
 
Last edited:

Nalessa

Commander
Jan 6, 2017
82
214
33
34
Belgium
#32
Since items won't break, I wouldn't mind resource qualities, it makes getting that snazzy high lvl crafted gear very satisfying to get.

I remember beta firefall I'd be so hyped to get that new better weapon because I found a nice resource node earlier that day.

A nice thing to have though is improving already existing gear you have.

Like for example in ESO, you can craft a max lvl green staff, but at any time you can upgrade it to blue once you have the mats to do so, then purple, then orange.
It really encourages you to spend time tracking down a specialized crafting station, craft a piece of a set, then upgrade the quality of it when you have the mats.
 

Faeryl

Omni Ace
Greeter
Base Commander
Jul 26, 2016
398
1,293
93
Planet Earth, USA, East Coast
discord.gg
#34
I heard differently.
Hey there, I'm not certain what you "heard differently" but here it is straight from @Grummz in Discord:

November 21, 2016
Grummz: Nothing will perma-break in Em-8ER, btw
Er, gear-wise
Bases can get destroyed
Afaik, this has NOT changed.
 

Sy

Active Member
Nov 16, 2018
131
202
43
syeedali.com
#35
Yes, there's no perma-break, but tech will wear down, only to be repaired if the same tech is available.

So someone who has top-tier tech will have great gear, but if we lose enough that we recede and the enemy takes an area responsible for our unlocking tech, then it can't be repaired until we reclaim the area.
 

Mahdi

Firstclaimer
Jul 26, 2016
637
1,344
93
Montana, US
#36
This is one of the major game mechanics to keep the community driven towards the same terraforming goals. Perma-break = bad. Tech limit on the gear keeps the constant action against the A.I. for the sake of using that awesome gear. Only one of the ways to give the game it's replayability.
 

Wyntyr

Firstclaimer
Jul 26, 2016
3,115
6,618
113
Florida
#37
This is one of the major game mechanics to keep the community driven towards the same terraforming goals. Perma-break = bad. Tech limit on the gear keeps the constant action against the A.I. for the sake of using that awesome gear. Only one of the ways to give the game it's replayability.
Exactly; plus the system allows for power expansion AND loss. Most games add new levels and gear (power creep) making your previous gear irrelevant (no longer BIS). With world tier drop and loss of repair for that stage of gear, then peeps may switch back to a previously crafted set that may be less powerful but can be maintained/repaired. The issue I see will revolve around inventory management and space. I believe loadouts will be a must and not a convenience with this system.
 
Last edited:

Wyntyr

Firstclaimer
Jul 26, 2016
3,115
6,618
113
Florida
#38
Thanks for the response!

I am uncertain what you mean by "Leet Prospector" vs. "Filthy Casual".
I assigned these labels to differentiate those who have lots of ingame time v/s those that don't. This way I could abbreviate them throughout my post so folks would know which group I was talking about at any given point. Nothing more than that.

Each one of the points I wrote about in and of themselves aren't much of a problem, if a problem at all, it's the combination of them that makes it problematic...IMO.

I do agree with you that one Purity/Quality (P/Q) of a resource shouldn't be across the entire server. There should be a variety of both resource types AND the P/Q of said resources throughout the zones. I.E. if a Reaper locates 3 different resource veins but of the same resource, then the P/Q of each vein, at minimum, has a chance to be different if not guaranteed to be different.

I too would like to have a Blending/Refinement (B/R) system for P/Q ingame. Though my version would only allow to bring up P/Q to a certain point. Basically not to the very top. Reapers would have to have THMP'd that top P/Q or purchase it off the market. I understand that both of those are random in that a Reaper may not come across the high P/Q resource they want/need via prospecting and it not being on the market (or just plain exorbitantly expensive). I believe the system you're proposing is trying to alleviate that issue although IMO I believe it would hurt more than it helps.

Also I did find in the Vision Book that base construction itself will cost ingame currency, not direct resource use. If that remains to be the case, then resource P/Q may not matter that much for that particular sink depending on the pay out for a high P/Q resource v/s a low P/Q resource. So by being able to turn in resources not being used for crafting a Reaper would have ingame currency to use to purchase a resource needed for crafting OR to donate for base construction.

All cool, I am really bad at the execution of gaming so I tend to seriously min/max my characters to compensate. As a Priestess of Logic this means a heavy emphasis on mechanics and understanding how gameplay elements mesh underneath the surface. I am however not a game developer, nor do I assume my idea's are perfect. Nothing can be improved if there is no discourse :)
Same. It's tough to get ideas across in one format. I'm a talkative, visual ques person so this format, although good and needed, throws me off sometimes. :)
 
Last edited: