Weekly Dev Update: 2016 June 3rd - Professions, Slopes and more

[Smoothy]

@Thorbjorn42gbf

I understood it that it depends on the permission set, locks allow you to say “permission group A interact with non locked items, perission group B can interact with locked doors and non locked chests, permission group C can interact with everything, permission group D can also build, and permission group E can tamper with the permissions”

By why would lock make so much sense then? Because you can handle inside beacons by permissions. If a chest or storage is placed outside beacon, the world regeneration makes it probably disappear anyway?

I mean, without locks you could do the same as you described. Some are just unable to open doors / loot storages, others are able to… locks would be useless in this case?

Edit: okay if I reread your post, i think the benefit you have is, you can do further undergroup.
People who have no access at all.
People who have access to your storage and rooms, but not to locked stuff inside.
People who have access to everything.

But i wonder if it’s necessary to do this step in between

[Thorbjorn42gbf]

@Smoothy

But i wonder if it’s necessary to do this step in between

Well if you want to have a protected area where people can grab food but not you cooking supplies it makes a great deal of sense.

Or if you have a storage area, giving people in your guild access to stone and basic materials are cool them stealing your sword you worked on for a week not so much.

[Okkelinor]

@james

In addition we’ve been looking at an entity focus HUD interface. This is designed to provide you contextual information based on the entity you’re interacting with. Entities in this case could include players, creatures, machines and locations. In many cases this HUD will be what you see above an entity when you look at, interact with or attack it. There’s a table of permutations with varying complexity based on a number of different factors like: your distance from an entity, if you’re looking directly at it, if you’ve attacked/healed it, and so on.

Why here is “ Benvio” and “ Sm4llworld” on the picture? Would not they must be “” and “”?

[Thorbjorn42gbf]

@Okkelinor

Why here is “ Benvio” and “ Sm4llworld” on the picture? Would not they must be “” and “”?

It is based on whether or not they show health not their name apparently.

[Havok40k]

I don’t get the purpose for that, now that you mention it. Why do we need a separate glyph for players showing health? Would not the presence of or lack of a health bar indicate the same thing?

[Thorbjorn42gbf]

It could be it follows some other system, that we didn’t quite catch or it could be that the symbol shows farther away than the health bar.

[Smoothy]

@Thorbjorn42gbf

Well if you want to have a protected area where people can grab food but not you cooking supplies it makes a great deal of sense.

whaa?

@Thorbjorn42gbf

Or if you have a storage area, giving people in your guild access to stone and basic materials are cool them stealing your sword you worked on for a week not so much.

This can be solved via guild beacon areas.

[Vastar]

I thought that the main purpose of locks is to sell stuff / collect tolls.
The devs mentioned several situations for such cases like:
Want to toll a gate you made? put a lock on it.
Want to sell a beacon? put a lock on it.

@Smoothy

But i wonder if it’s necessary to do this step in between

I also hope that we don´t need to put a lock on every single chest inside a beacon in order to protect it, that would be quite tedious.

[Thorbjorn42gbf]

@Smoothy

This can be solved via guild beacon areas.

The point kinda was that if you wanted to store stuff in the same area under different protection, then locks are helpful, if you store your awesome sword in a guild beacon you would have the same problem ^.^[1]
I also hope that we don´t need to put a lock on every single chest inside a beacon in order to protect it, that would be quite tedious.
[/quote]

In most cases I think the thought is that you will just not allow people to tamper with your chests inside you beacon. If you want to have a free food chest on the other hand it starts making sense having a beacon area with different protection and then needing to lock some of the other chests would start making sense

---

1. quote=“Vastar, post:28, topic:4479” ↩︎

[ben]

Good spot on the alphabet characters, I changed the names and forgot to change the glyphs! Nothing gets by you lot

[Havok40k]

My question is, who is Sm4llworld, after all?

[alexanderyou]

Welp now it’s stuck in my head again.

[ben]

There’s an interesting overlap between people arguing for race abilities and also arguing for not having caps on skill trees. Interesting because:

• Race abilities are: a subset of sets of stats/abilities locked to an entity.

And…

• Skill trees are: a subset of sets of stats/abilities locked to an entity.

The only real difference is the visualisation. So perhaps this about expectations? Players expect to be able to unlock all skill trees. But player’s don’t expect to be able to have all racial abilities as they’re a thematic trait associated with a character race.

We could do something like…

• Race 1 is Founder, Hunter, Miner, Trader
• Race 2 is Founder, Explorer, Defender, Crafter
• Race 3 is Founder, Gatherer, Builder, Trader
• Race 4 is Founder, Miner, Defender, Gatherer

…which was actually my original proposal for this system but my assumption is that players would want control over the trees and to essentially build their own class.

[Stretchious]

@ben

We could do something like…

Race 1 is Founder, Hunter, Miner, Trader
Race 2 is Founder, Explorer, Defender, Crafter
Race 3 is Founder, Gatherer, Builder, Trader
Race 4 is Founder, Miner, Defender, Gatherer

…which was actually my original proposal for this system but my assumption is that players would want control over the trees and to essentially build their own class.

Wouldn’t this mean that you’re essentially picking your professions before you even start playing though?

Would also mean that you’ll only ever have cat hunters (for example)…?

I don’t like it. I much prefer the proposed system you already have to be honest! Let’s call it the “Zootopia System”… where “Anyone can be Anything!”

[KuroKuma]

@ben

…which was actually my original proposal for this system but my assumption is that players would want control over the trees and to essentially build their own class.

Good assumption there^^ Except for me I hate classes (I think noone noticed until now^^)

It’s also interesting that while I’m not in this overlap (does that make me a purist of some sort?^^) of people arguing for and against basically the same thing. I can still see the minor differences that create those seemingly contradicting opinions. Expectation surely is one of them.
And funny enough I wouldn’t have as much of a probem with racial abilities as with a skill tree cap.
Maybe because skilltrees are much bigger (or at least we think they will be) than the one or two racial abilities.

@Stretchious

I don’t like it. I much prefer the proposed system you already have to be honest! Let’s call it the “Zootopia System”… where “Anyone can be Anything!”

… where “Anyone can be almost Anything!” would fit the idea of a cap better^^ but that’s just me nitpicking^^

[Clexarews]

I’m with @Stretchious and @KuroKuma and I think your assumption was correct, @ben. Long live the Zootopia system!

[ben]

@Clexarews

Long live the Zootopia system!

[Scortion]

Quick question: What is the Founder profession?

[Clexarews]

It’s part of the skill tree system given to everyone.

If the skill tree can be thought of as a literal tree, the founder skills are the trunk.

[Vastar]

@ben

• Race abilities are: a subset of sets of stats/abilities locked to an entity.

And…

• Skill trees are: a subset of sets of stats/abilities locked to an entity.

The only real difference is the visualisation.

And that racial abilities/perks just generate a minor difference between the races (e.g. one has a small bonus at night, the other one during the day…) whereas skill-trees determine what you are able to do.
I don´t see those two overlapping.