Yoshida-san: Please Give Us a BETTER System for Relics and Future 2.0 Challenges!

[viion]

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm very well aware of the "token" system that they have in place for primal fights. Your assumption is that just because those exist means that:

a. It's easily to implement in other areas/systems (it might, but that is still an assumption)
b. The same team that worked on the primal fights is the same ones that worked on the relics quest and system (again, it's possible, but more then likely the work was divided up into sub-teams - (an assumption on my part))

While I think you have some good ideas about how the system should work, you present it as if theories were facts, and unless you are a team member on the FFXIV 1.xx development team, then you are assuming that things should be one way, or things are easy to do, when they might not be the case at all.

Now, I also get that it is perceived that these should be simple changes, and that is SE's fault in not communicating effectively to the player base on this very subject. And so you and I end up arguing two completely different ideas.

Did that help clear things up?

Cleared it up, as I thought you was saying i was assuming there was a token system in.

But as you're saying i am assuming it is easy, then we're on same page.

Going back to that though, it is easy. There are plenty of things the dev team say are difficult or dont talk about that i just dont believe because you can do it other ways im sure you know.

It doesnt matter if different teams did seperate work, they will be applying the same methods, using the same engine and using the same framework, with all the limitations it is likely they have to do things a specific way and follow some ruleset (talking about the way the code is done).

And one framework way is the Primal Tokens, this is easy to do, many systems borrow from it, its no different than how relic is right now in that you have to gather all these different items and hand them in, the items being the example of "tokens" and you hand them in. Just you get those "tokens" (aka Items) by random means. Where as primal you get them through also random excluding Garuda.

The system is there, you cant deny it, its been reused over and on different things, If you wear a full set of faction gear you can be rewarded an achievement, the "check-reward" is done, same as a token hand in. If you really were a developer like you said, you would see these design patterns and how entities are used using the same process.

In the end, to achieve the system, you're modifying 2 existing variables without doing anything else.

There is a variable that states your "drop chance" and then there is a variable that states how much you need. You cant deny this, its present and we have already really been told. We know we need 10 for Ifrit weps and 10 for Moogle weps, and we know there is a set "drop rate" for the tokens in the fights as they denied to increase this.

Thus to achieve the basics of "token" system, you increase drop variable to 100% and increase the need variable to a higher amount.

Its, that, simple. Garuda uses it.

You apply the same logic to Relics, you need 9 seals, so make it interesting, like 500 with a 100% drop rate. You edit 2 variables that exist.

No assumption there.

[Delmontyb]

Going back to that though, it is easy. There are plenty of things the dev team say are difficult or dont talk about that i just dont believe because you can do it other ways im sure you know.

It doesnt matter if different teams did seperate work, they will be applying the same methods, using the same engine and using the same framework, with all the limitations it is likely they have to do things a specific way and follow some ruleset (talking about the way the code is done).

It very well could make a huge difference, I would expect that it wouldn't. But that expectation might be incorrect and lead to a lot of frustration. I agree with you, that it shouldn't be hard to do these things. For me the picture will be crystal clear when we get our hands out 2.0. For now, you can chose to believe that 1.xx is capable of doing X, or that it was setup correctly, and it's easy to be expanded, and have things adjusted. (I would say, Item drop rates for one would be very easy) and your last point you make, I would agree that should be an easy fix), but I can't say for certain. There are other decisions, and factors that we are not aware of, and it's because of those that I am taking a wait and see approach to the relic system (as this is the topic at hand).

And one framework way is the Primal Tokens, this is easy to do, many systems borrow from it, its no different than how relic is right now in that you have to gather all these different items and hand them in, the items being the example of "tokens" and you hand them in. Just you get those "tokens" (aka Items) by random means. Where as primal you get them through also random excluding Garuda.

The system is there, you cant deny it, its been reused over and on different things, If you wear a full set of faction gear you can be rewarded an achievement, the "check-reward" is done, same as a token hand in. If you really were a developer like you said, you would see these design patterns and how entities are used using the same process.

In the end, to achieve the system, you're modifying 2 existing variables without doing anything else.

There is a variable that states your "drop chance" and then there is a variable that states how much you need. You cant deny this, its present and we have already really been told. We know we need 10 for Ifrit weps and 10 for Moogle weps, and we know there is a set "drop rate" for the tokens in the fights as they denied to increase this.

Thus to achieve the basics of "token" system, you increase drop variable to 100% and increase the need variable to a higher amount.

Its, that, simple. Garuda uses it.

You apply the same logic to Relics, you need 9 seals, so make it interesting, like 500 with a 100% drop rate. You edit 2 variables that exist.

No assumption there.

I agree, like you said, increase the amount needed, and have 100% drop rate is the ideal solution.

That being said, most of everything you said is spot on, the exception being what is ideal. In the ideal situation the team can share the framework, between systems, that's the best way to do it. Make it once, re-use where needed. But, and I might have this wrong, the primal drops check the players inventory and places the items directly into there inventory. So it does something different (again, less I'm mistaken) then the seals that drop from Hamlet. As the seals don't check your inventory first.

This could be a few things:
1. An extension of the system/framework in place
2. A different framework

My whole argument is that there currently isn't anyway to prove (outside a dev response) why the systems are the way they are perceived to be. And really, until we get our hands on 2.0 will we have any clearer picture, of Yoshi-P's development philosophy.

I would prefer that it happened before 2.0, but if I had to vote on getting 2.0 on time, or having a better Relic system in our current build, I'd vote for 2.0 on time hands down. Now, this is just my vote, and I assume the Relic system (or Relic weapons) will be in 2.0, if they are not, then I'd like to know that too, so I can start playing the lottery now.

[viion]

It very well could make a huge difference, I would expect that it wouldn't. But that expectation might be incorrect and lead to a lot of frustration. I agree with you, that it shouldn't be hard to do these things. For me the picture will be crystal clear when we get our hands out 2.0. For now, you can chose to believe that 1.xx is capable of doing X, or that it was setup correctly, and it's easy to be expanded, and have things adjusted. (I would say, Item drop rates for one would be very easy) and your last point you make, I would agree that should be an easy fix), but I can't say for certain. There are other decisions, and factors that we are not aware of, and it's because of those that I am taking a wait and see approach to the relic system (as this is the topic at hand).



I agree, like you said, increase the amount needed, and have 100% drop rate is the ideal solution.

That being said, most of everything you said is spot on, the exception being what is ideal. In the ideal situation the team can share the framework, between systems, that's the best way to do it. Make it once, re-use where needed. But, and I might have this wrong, the primal drops check the players inventory and places the items directly into there inventory. So it does something different (again, less I'm mistaken) then the seals that drop from Hamlet. As the seals don't check your inventory first.

This could be a few things:
1. An extension of the system/framework in place
2. A different framework

My whole argument is that there currently isn't anyway to prove (outside a dev response) why the systems are the way they are perceived to be. And really, until we get our hands on 2.0 will we have any clearer picture, of Yoshi-P's development philosophy.

I would prefer that it happened before 2.0, but if I had to vote on getting 2.0 on time, or having a better Relic system in our current build, I'd vote for 2.0 on time hands down. Now, this is just my vote, and I assume the Relic system (or Relic weapons) will be in 2.0, if they are not, then I'd like to know that too, so I can start playing the lottery now.

Everything ya said is valid, some very good points, 2.0 could come and we see several systems and alternations to obtaining things and how things are done, and while the system is likely separate due to the inventory checking but it could be conditional based, if they use common languages that is not difficult to do, based on similar coding methods. We dont know tho, its getting very gritty to discuss the core functions.

I think a lot of cases when they say "Cant do it with the current system" its more of "I'd have to deleted it and rewrite it all over" kind of thing, which is what they have done to the whole game in a sense. But that doesnt mean conditional setups and function calls don't exist, they do ( i can say fact here XD), 2 reasons, 1 its obvious and 2. decrypt their UI files and you can see code function calls lol

While 1.0 is messed up and stuff, from a programming standpoint a lot of functionality exists that we can already see infront of us (example given by the method i pointed out by adjusting 2 variables).

That said, this whole thing, could not even be a technical solution. It could just be a frame of mind. If you look how Garuda went down, people spammed it. Likely, most of this is to blame of the exploit, but even so it was a very small set amount to get 7/7 weapons. When you get 2 every time you need 40 thats 20 runs per weapon making is so you only have to do it 140 times, this is a very, very small amount of times to fully complete that content and a lot of people did this who have Garuda wins. Maybe he doesnt want it to be completed so easily when people were taking very long time to cap out Ifrit and Moogle weapons.

We can see Relics in dats, and usually when they're in dats with stats they're good to go, but they not in yet, likely requiring more content (New GC weapons need new Rank), the purpose of relic is to take long, how do you test the length it takes to obtain something without giving the item out once the requirement has met. We could see that further quests onto obtaining relic might be much more difficult and creative controlled based on feedback obtained from the RNG series of quests.

That is tho, a theory, that it has been done intentionally by design view and not technically.

Which worries me, design views are not really limitations because its how Yoshi thinks, and if his mind is set on RNG is good, then we will see it in 2.0, 3.0, 9.4837498 no matter version its his design choice.

But coming back to technical, it could be, as i think you mentioned, why do all the work in 1x when its already done in 2x, i know that feeling very much from a developer standpoint.

[shots]

/support /10char

[Sigmakan]

You're not alone in regards to the embittered side of it... However, I still wonder if they had much choice in the matter of "prolonging content". Meaning that, while a gamble, they didn't have many other options easily at their disposal. This is just an assumption, as I have no idea how hard 1.xx is to develop on, but basing these thoughts off of how long it took them to develop the content and bring it out, looking at their track record for 1.xx updates.

Yea they probably didnt have many other options. They knew they could only dedicate so many resources to 1.xx and they had to make sacrifices/adjustments. I'm just not sure if they thought through the potential long lasting "bad taste in mouth" effect. We shall see once 2.0 rolls around.

[Jynx]

I laugh hard at this when I see your Signature...

Yet I never claim to represent the entire games populace. I only represent my opinion, everyone else made up their own mind to like my posts. In those posts again I never claim to represent anyones opinion than my own.

It's true that the people who don't post don't have a opinion (On these forums at least) But assuming you can extrapolate how many people like/dislike an idea based on the forums is utterly stupid I'm sorry there is no other way to word it.

[Zezlar]

The only thing I can see them doing at this point is changing how they plan to finish the quest in terms of creativity. They can't change it now due to how it has already been implemented. Players have already advanced into the quest.

On one side if they increase the drop rate, the value of the relic will have no meaning. Everyone and their brother will have one thus making it just another item. That's not a relic. Also by increasing the drop rate is a big F*** you to all the people that already put in time with the low drop rates.

I know a lot of people here want a challenge and/or a progression based system but the fact remains that they can't really change it right now without destroying the items value/angering certain players.

They can however use this thread, and it's replies to help make a more diverse/unique quest for the later stages that will be implemented or even for future "relic" items.

[Delmontyb]

Which worries me, design views are not really limitations because its how Yoshi thinks, and if his mind is set on RNG is good, then we will see it in 2.0, 3.0, 9.4837498 no matter version its his design choice.

But coming back to technical, it could be, as i think you mentioned, why do all the work in 1x when its already done in 2x, i know that feeling very much from a developer standpoint.

As it should worry you, as it does me as well. You're last post was spot on... Because if it's not a technical limitation, it's a mental one. The question that has yet to be answered is, is this by Yoshi-P's design?

I hope not.

[viion]

Yet I never claim to represent the entire games populace. I only represent my opinion, everyone else made up their own mind to like my posts. In those posts again I never claim to represent anyones opinion than my own.

It's true that the people who don't post don't have a opinion (On these forums at least) But assuming you can extrapolate how many people like/dislike an idea based on the forums is utterly stupid I'm sorry there is no other way to word it.

Think ya missed the point, you were taking mic out of his likes Math when you celebrate likes in your signature, I find it a little ironic.

But the Math is fine, it can be used as a general figure because not all those people will like 1 way or dislike 1 way, but they will fluctuate and have either or, thus the percentage can be used. Thats just how life works in general!

[Jynx]

Think ya missed the point, you were taking mic out of his likes Math when you celebrate likes in your signature, I find it a little ironic.

I'm not trying to talk him out of his likes. I just think the math is terribly innacurate and has no real basis at all. I personally don't care for likes much myself (Although I do whore out my signature for likes because I think they are things that should be in the game) I'd rather a idea stand for it's merit instead of a popularity contest.

I'm also of the strong opinion that players (Much like people) don't know what's good for themselves at times and act in self-damaging ways usually in the form of their opinions that have no basis in game design.

While not all ideas are terrible I do find many to be self defeating.