False knowledge might be tricky to pull because even if the character is a novice the player behind them probably knows enough to avoid most pitfalls. Although if they don't, that would be fun to watch. Taking your example, players might not know much about metalwork but they can probably figure that different metals require different temperatures and techniques to work.

So the problem here is making sure that false knowledge is subtle enough that players couldn't just avoid making mistakes, making all the time needed to code it worthless.

Hum, interesting idea. Could probably be interesting to experience something like this occationally.

Posted By HeadUpHigh at 1:13 PM - Tue Oct 17 2017

False knowledge might be tricky to pull because even if the character is a novice the player behind them probably knows enough to avoid most pitfalls. Although if they don't, that would be fun to watch. Taking your example, players might not know much about metalwork but they can probably figure that different metals require different temperatures and techniques to work.

So the problem here is making sure that false knowledge is subtle enough that players couldn't just avoid making mistakes, making all the time needed to code it worthless.

I was thinking about this problem too, but I think that it can fall under the player skill vs character skill system that CoE is building on. While the character has no idea whether this discovery works or not, the player may already know because they may be versed in the subject. At which point, the player has past a sort of skill check, and then simply treats the discovery as a learning system for their character.

Posted By Epicmission at 2:19 PM - Tue Oct 17 2017

Personally i don't want to get too far away from the fact it's still a game. All this "realism" is amazing imo and i love what they're going for, but would rather it still have an element of being a "game" in that i don't have to constantly second guess myself if when the System straight up tells me "CONGRATZ U FOUND A NEW AND EXCITING WAY TO MAKE SOMETHING!" i don't have to go "hmmmmmm is that true or did i just royally mess up?"

While I agree that too much realism can ruin the game, I think that the research and invention aspect of the game is too simplistic. Right now, you are basically guaranteed a practical discovery if you spend enough research points. I think that detracts from the fun of research and invention, simply for the fact that a working invention can only be created by having at the very least a few failures.

I don't want to sit down and spend research points and then get a random unlock in the field I am researching after enough points have been spent. I want to have an idea of what I want to invent, work toward it, fail, retrace my steps and see where I went wrong, fail again, examine my failed creation, fail yet again, and after each failure learn a bit more about what I am doing wrong and how to correct it. And all the while, I am looking at my failures and seeing new possible inventions from them.

But also, I want to have the risk that my invention may not work as intended and may cause problems. Or worse, not work at all because I or others didn't do the testing needed to see if it does work. Inventions cause the world to change, but a lot of that change is from the failures of an invention and the inventor, not just the successes.

I would simply make crafting more detailed (add more layers). Such as:
1. Creating the ingot from mined ore (possibly mixing for alloys)
2. Heating up the ingot to right temperature
3. Shaping the ingot with well placed hits of the hammer
4. Cooling it (You would just wait?)
5. Shaping/Grinding to finish
6. Add edge
7. Aesthetics? (Blacksmith's signature etc.)

Research more layers/steps to improve with time.

I think false info is a good idea, but it should only come from dialogue or created items. I wouldn't want to have an unreliable narrator for a game AI...

I would think that for any sufficiently complex system you can build this up without needing an in-game mechanic specifying what your character does and doesn't know.

To go to the blacksmith example, if there are progressive ways to temper a piece of metal then you might initially find one method of heating, working the metal, etc. that you think is amazing but someone else keeps at it and finds and even better method later on that is more obscure. The game doesn't need to gate this material by giving you false information but simply have the additional information harder to find.

Really good topic though, I think the death of information exploration in MMOs is a hard thing to combat (look at all the wikis and class build videos and so on nowadays some meta remains un-mined but most information is mined and prettied up very quickly) but something well worth doing to add that mystery and sense of wonder back to games.

Posted By Epicmission at 5:19 PM - Tue Oct 17 2017

Personally i don't want to get too far away from the fact it's still a game. All this "realism" is amazing imo and i love what they're going for, but would rather it still have an element of being a "game" in that i don't have to constantly second guess myself if when the System straight up tells me "CONGRATZ U FOUND A NEW AND EXCITING WAY TO MAKE SOMETHING!" i don't have to go "hmmmmmm is that true or did i just royally mess up?"

The beautiful thing about systems that try to go 100% realistic is that if done properly can allow for unique variability that wouldn't otherwise be thought about - which is why people are flocking to this game. 'Avatar' is roughly the Egpytian word for god and many of us only play games for this amazingly overpowered, God-like sense of awe we generate. But that's not all a game can - should - be. This game is unique because it is allowing each player to, in effect, add and detract from a larger story. Stories involving 16k+ characters, all existing and developing in tandem.

Plus having a mechanism like that can allow an inquisitive person the ability to develop technology no one else knows - not just some cookie-cutter skill progressions

I feel that even with increased positive technologies a certain amount of failure should also be inevitable.

Just as in our own history, "unsinkable" ships should sometimes hit things that do sink them,

Gun/cannon barrels do explode occasionally, bells crack, bridges fall, and towers do lean. etc. even when their designers are 100% positive that they won't.

And I hope that this game will also provide some of those "accidents" that shouldn't have happened, but did, to also pepper it's history.

It's just more interesting when things don't always go according to the plan.