Gem Stones

Old Discussion topics

Re: Gem Stones

Postby Bmw » Sun May 29, 2016 5:53 pm

Guluere wrote:So i went to test out what you said, and a fleet with 2 sotl can easily beat a pirate hunter with pacifism. Even when one have a lot of ships.
and in that 5 mins i used 70 turns and found 2 treasure fleet.

Another 30 more turns used, 2 more treasure fleet found.

For the whole day, i found about 6 treasure fleet and 10 pirate hunters, this means i could have gotten a few gems.


when you have pacafism you don't even need sotl's all you need is a frig
User avatar
Bmw
 
Posts: 1535
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2016 2:43 am

Re: Gem Stones

Postby Haron » Sun May 29, 2016 6:25 pm

I think that's way too often, Stan. The question is: How many turns, on average, should it take to find a gem? With 20% chance to find pirate hunters, and a high chance to get gems from them, you'll get lots of gems even for one days supply of turns (144). With only treasure fleets carrying them, and a 10% chance pr. treasure fleet, it would require 700 turns. 700 turns pr gem is a more adequate price than 50-60, in my opinion. That's a matter of taste, I suppose - and it could be amended by having legendary cards cost 10 gems each instead of one, I suppose. We'd want gems to be expensive and rare, don't we? Then they must be really hard to come by, too. Not something you find every day.
The T'zak Ryn offers Naval Combat Solutions for the Quality Conscious Customer
User avatar
Haron
Forum Rambler
 
Posts: 1926
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:04 am

Re: Gem Stones

Postby Grimrock Litless » Sun May 29, 2016 6:37 pm

I used about 150 turns just today and found 6 treasure fleet, easily, i could have gotten a gem with 10% on them.

This is what i think, make it 2.5% and add 3 stages of grading from rare to common, common being 1.2%, uncommon being 0.8% and rare being 0.5%. This means that once the 2.5% is hit, there is 48% to get common, 32% to get uncommon and 20% to get rare.

I still have good amount of turns to spare.
"Got ya."
User avatar
Grimrock Litless
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:50 pm
Location: Under the sea, in a submarine!

Re: Gem Stones

Postby Haron » Sun May 29, 2016 6:49 pm

Well, the 10% suggestion was based on the written rules, which say it's a 3% chance to find a treasure fleet with each patrol. You finding 6 with 150 turns doesn't really disprove the 3% figure, you were probably just lucky (you managed an 8% hit rate). And, even with a 10% chance, you'd only have gotten 0.6 gems on average with six treasure fleets. Also: You may have "turns to spare", but 150 turns are just more than one days worth of turns. You have turns to spare because you had turns leftover from yesterday. Without buying turns, you can only spend 144 turns ON AVERAGE each day - for ALL activities. 700 turns for a gem seems rather fair, although if you think 1000 is better, I don't really mind.

As for gems having different qualities, that's a point we disagree on. A matter of taste, I suppose, but I really prefer gems to be gems, period. Besides, I don't really see any use for different types. I think it will only mess up what you use gems for. Having things cost x gems of quality y does not fit my taste.
The T'zak Ryn offers Naval Combat Solutions for the Quality Conscious Customer
User avatar
Haron
Forum Rambler
 
Posts: 1926
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:04 am

Re: Gem Stones

Postby Stan Rogers » Sun May 29, 2016 8:53 pm

Haron wrote:Well, the 10% suggestion was based on the written rules, which say it's a 3% chance to find a treasure fleet with each patrol. You finding 6 with 150 turns doesn't really disprove the 3% figure, you were probably just lucky (you managed an 8% hit rate). And, even with a 10% chance, you'd only have gotten 0.6 gems on average with six treasure fleets. Also: You may have "turns to spare", but 150 turns are just more than one days worth of turns. You have turns to spare because you had turns leftover from yesterday. Without buying turns, you can only spend 144 turns ON AVERAGE each day - for ALL activities. 700 turns for a gem seems rather fair, although if you think 1000 is better, I don't really mind.

As for gems having different qualities, that's a point we disagree on. A matter of taste, I suppose, but I really prefer gems to be gems, period. Besides, I don't really see any use for different types. I think it will only mess up what you use gems for. Having things cost x gems of quality y does not fit my taste.


Makes all kinds of sense to me. I thought Duplicate voodoo were a great deal when the first 5 or 6 cast netted me some mindbars.
Man, was I wrong about that when the next 9 were duds
The Last of Barrett's Privateers
User avatar
Stan Rogers
 
Posts: 1524
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 6:49 pm

Re: Gem Stones

Postby Grimrock Litless » Mon May 30, 2016 10:58 am

Haron wrote:As for gems having different qualities, that's a point we disagree on. A matter of taste, I suppose, but I really prefer gems to be gems, period. Besides, I don't really see any use for different types. I think it will only mess up what you use gems for. Having things cost x gems of quality y does not fit my taste.


I was thinking of this, you can mix defer qualities of gems and get [Mixed]Gems, which you can separate using X gold at the port it is in. And next to it will be the number of gems there is,
Eg. [Mixed]Gems 12

And so ships can transport them and each gem(Crates) takes 100 cargo space.

Because the gems are not common. We must make it so that it takes a lot of cargo space or not it wouldn't be realistic now would it?
As always you are as argumentative as people say.
"Got ya."
User avatar
Grimrock Litless
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:50 pm
Location: Under the sea, in a submarine!

Re: Gem Stones

Postby Most Lee Harmless » Mon May 30, 2016 11:12 am

I also think having different gem qualities is just over-complicating matters : plus it will be a pig to code for the devs so would make the whole 'module' far less likely to ever be done : even with a single gem quality, the number of elements requiring changes is enough to keep the code monkeys typing for weeks. So, from a practical point of view, for me, different qualities its a non-starter.
-1 : Move to archive.
User avatar
Most Lee Harmless
 
Posts: 3970
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2014 3:48 pm

Re: Gem Stones

Postby Haron » Mon May 30, 2016 11:24 am

When it comes to transporting gems, my thought was that they weren't to BE transported. You can keep 5 in your "pocket"; the rest must be dug down in a buried treasure, was how I saw it. And when you took a gem out of buried treasure, you got it in your pocket, and it could be used anywhere.

However, IF they are to be transported by ship, I see your reason for requiring large cargo space. I agree that it is not "logical", but in my view, the game consequences are more important than applying "real world logic". And if you are to use BOTH the "gems must be in buried treasure" (which I like) AND transport gems by ship, then how should that work? What about gems in pocket, then? I don't see how right now, but there may be ways to do this, I guess.

Guluere wrote:As always you are as argumentative as people say.


Why, thank you! Best complement I got in a long time :-)
The T'zak Ryn offers Naval Combat Solutions for the Quality Conscious Customer
User avatar
Haron
Forum Rambler
 
Posts: 1926
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 10:04 am

Re: Gem Stones

Postby Ziggfried » Mon May 30, 2016 11:25 am

I agree tho gems would be nice I rather see older ideas be implemented or something like another technology: shipper tech. For ea lvl one creat holds an additional trade item. As its now one creat is one wood. In reality a creat could hold 20 and a cargo ship holds lots of creats. Altho the pocket idea for gems is good thoughts. Like zigg pickpockets the bar maid in taver at a cost of five turns and finds a gem or finds gold coins or nothing
User avatar
Ziggfried
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 5:19 am

Re: Gem Stones

Postby Grimrock Litless » Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:08 am

Bumper Ahead!!1!!
"Got ya."
User avatar
Grimrock Litless
 
Posts: 2591
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 2:50 pm
Location: Under the sea, in a submarine!

PreviousNext

Return to Archives