Skip to main content
Main Content

Community Update #111

Posted 2023-10-04 10:57:56
#1073997
I totally agree that deaf/blind wolves should be able to have more roles!
And I probably missed something, but can't deaf wolves be at least herbalists? I have a deaf wolf that's a herbalist.
Sorry if I mistaken, please correct me if I'm wrong!
Midnight
#116791
Posted 2023-10-04 11:15:51
#1074002
Ah you're correct, my bad! Blind ones still can't, though.
Lionel
#34199
Posted 2023-10-04 11:25:46
#1074007
So I'm going to come back to this since everyone has been blowing this up 😅

I'd just like to say that even with how high the wisdom stat needs to be for the BEST outcome that I don't think it's a bad thing. We already have roles that require very high stats so it's not like it's anything new 🤷‍♀️

It gives people something to work for. It will take some time for people to get there but it will be worth it and it will make the herbalist role actually worth breeding for. As a stat breeder I absolutely love this.

You don't HAVE to have 500 wisdom for your herbalist to do its job. The job will still get done just not as fast as a better wolf would.

I honestly hope the changes happen just like they are laid out. I'd be overjoyed.
stained
#43996
Posted 2023-10-04 15:43:33
#1074196
I don't have much to say other then I personally would love the idea of an alchemist or some other name for it, potions brewing and exliers sounds like a cool thing that would allow more open doors for improved gameplay and other fun quirks added, as for herbalist I think having the alchemist brewing potions and exliers should be separate from medicine making and allowing the 2-3 herbalists be making medicine or foraging would be a slightly smoother way of introducing a alchemist like role for potions/exlier fun
⛧🖤 ꫝꪖᦔꪊక𓆏 Salty Hat🕷
#1428
Posted 2023-10-04 16:24:39
#1074219
^ ^ ^ This
Mad Hatter's post is exactly what i agree with to make things at least more smooth for the new role to be introduced and done with. ~
Fangx
#12206
Posted 2023-10-04 18:53:12
#1074282
super excited about this alchemist/herbalist idea!! i think it'll help add life to the roles!!
catalyst
#1756
Posted 2023-10-04 20:42:14 (edited)
#1074316
oop, sorry, I didn't know deaf wolves could be herbalists. I've never gotten one, only had spontaneous blindness once, and since that pup couldn't do anything I sold it :/ But that doesn't change my opinion on the matter, I think it would be great to include those wolves.

Finally had time to read through the proposed changes and post this - it's so exciting that the herbalist role is getting a reimagining! I am definitely going to rehash what has been said before, because these are the points I feel most strongly about. I got a lot of ideas & inspiration from others in the thread, so just know most of these ideas aren't mine. I had way too much fun thinking about what parts of the game I enjoy and why so it is going to get a little out of scope, but hopefully my perspective is interesting and at least a little useful.

Anyways, getting on with it - 

What's in a name? (New Roles)

As many others said, I do not like the idea of restricting roles and limiting what a herbalist can do. Besides the unnecessary complication, it still forces players to choose what to prioritize and creates an artificial dichotomy. I think the herbalist role should be kept, but allow specialization into new roles of gatherer and apothecary. Wolves can switch between the two with no penalty and perform both, like hunters with stalker/finisher/chaser. (I am going to be using hunting as a comparison a lot here because I think it is a really well done feature). The gatherers would go out and find herbs and the apothecary would mix medicines. Then, the new role could be that of the alchemist, who only brews potions and elixirs but doesn't gather or diagnose.

I don't actually mind the wisdom/smart split if roles can be changed easily. If someone wants to balance stats, they could switch herbalists between gathering and mixing, or specialize in one. It also means herbalists have a wider pool of compatible studs - they could have puppies with a stalker (gosh how I wish that role was called tracker) and the pups would be well suited for either. The one thing I absolutely would not like is a stat split that doesn't follow hunting roles, like herbalists using smarts and agility for example, as that would really cut down the pool of potential mates. It is sometimes hard enough to find good pairbonds or studs for finishers and stalkers because there are fewer of them. Having an unusual stat spread that is only beneficial to another herbalist would exacerbate that.

Learning on the Job (Experience)

Yes, absolutely, more exp for herbalists is needed. I see this was already tweaked which is very appreciated! But I haven't done the math so I am not sure if it's properly balanced yet. Herbalists should be able to reach level 20 around maybe 5 or 6 years old, just by doing herbalist tasks! Scouts and hunting in the medium and harder biomes already accomplish this. Especially if foraging is going to take a whole energy bar, I would expect the exp gained per forage to be about the same as scouts. Just like different biomes give different stats and exp, they give different herbs, so it wouldn't be a big stretch. It would also be wonderful to be able to send your gatherers to different biomes.

Currently I make my herbalists scout for some exp and levels before I make them a herbalist, which is somewhat clunky and discordant with how players expect the game to work. It's just odd that a wolf gets better at making medicine by running around all the different biomes. Which brings me to the next point: levels!

*Super Mario Coin Sound Effect* (Levels)

Herbalists are unique in the current system in that wolf level is the determinant that makes medicine mixing faster. This is odd because no other role uses level as any factor for success - only stats. It complicates things because as level increases, stats also necessarily increase as well, so having both measures count for something is redundant and questionably necessary.

So instead, a good system would be to not use level as an input at all, and replace it with proficiency and stats. The proposed 500 in any one stat is certainly very high, but I don't think it is prohibitively so. We already have 500 as a precedent for endgame stalkers, who need 1050 combined wisdom and smarts to find large trails in the rainforest and glacier. And that's with splitting bonus stats between both! As was pointed out earlier, if only one stat is gained per activity, it's more like finishers. As of this writing, there are 827 wolves with 500 strength or more, 62 of which are leads. So it's not as dismal as it seems.

Of course it shouldn't require so many stats to perform basic functions, but 500 can be thought of as the very upper level that may confer a few perks. It's doable but hard, as it is supposed to be. If the bar is set too low (like the 100 wisdom / strength for scouting the glacier and rainforest), it becomes so trivial that players have nothing to work towards, and they get bored. But then you get the opposite problem of stat breeders feeling unfulfilled that any point they gain over 500 is wasted. Math isn't my strong suit, but the logarithmic curve discussed above makes sense, letting new player progress quickly but satisfying stat breeders as well.

So how should a herbalist grow and develop over their lifetime?

The Carrot and The Stick, or, Hunting and Herbs

It makes the most sense to me for proficiency to reduce time taken, and stats to increase bonuses - either guaranteed or the chance to proc increasing with higher stats. The bonuses could be extra uses of item crafted, additional herbs found, decrease of failure chance, or increased chance of finding crafting recipes or other goodies. 

It's important to reward players, not punish them! The chance of failing a cure or a foraging expedition at low stats or proficiency is really disheartening because it has a huge impact to new players, who don't have the extra resources for a workaround and are much more likely to just drop the game when things are frustrating. 

Hunting has a chance at failure, but it is designed really well and doesn't feel as bad because:
  • New players are required to start out in the easiest biomes, automatically making it easy for them and eliminating the feeling of fighting an uphill battle.
  • Failure chance is dependent on biome, which players can change at any time.
  • There are no resource inputs other than energy and time: it doesn't cost anything to send your wolves on a hunt. There is also little opportunity cost, because hunters don't have anything else to do, and still get rewards on failure.
  • It makes sense and is intuitive, and the chance for success is clearly displayed at the start of each hunt. It feels less random, because players know the risk they are taking.
  • Good hunters (with high proficiency and stats) fail less often. This feels rewarding and gives players a sense of progression and something to work towards
  •  It's generally balanced because even though the number of hunts are limited, your pack can have as many hunters as you want. Small packs don't need as much food and don't need as many hunters. When established players get more wolves, they can make more of them hunters, so it scales nicely.

Having low stat / low proficiency herbalists fail more often at an even rate across new and established players violates almost everything that hunting does right:
  • Punishes new players disproportionately, if the failure chance is tied only to herbalist skill and stats.
  • Wastes resources (herbs, or SC for diagnosis) that took time to obtain and could have been used for something else (trade, decor, nesting materials, a different cure, etc).
  • Is difficult to predict: the timing and specific affliction that any wolf develops is random, so you never know which herbs or cures you will need. Food is food and players can always figure out about how much they will use each day.
  • There is a limited number of herbalists which don't scale by pack size, so a single failure has a greater chance of being unbalanced and hard to recover from.
  • Sure it makes sense to have them fail sometimes, but it's not a great player experience. With hunts, no worries, just send out another hunt right away. That failure doesn't cross over into other areas of the game. If a wolf gets ear mites and can't hunt, and someone tries to make the cure but fails, then tries to gather the right herbs but fails at that too, it could be hours before another cure can be made. All while that sick wolf can't do anything else, and then is left uncured over rollover, which can quickly snowball into an unmanageable situation for a new player.

It comes down to player choice and agency. For hunting, players can choose to hunt in harder biomes for more experience, bigger prey, and greater failure chance, or they can stay in the starter biomes for plentiful food and low exp. Players can't choose which illnesses their wolves get (usually), and it is much harder to predict what to prioritize until it's needed urgently.

So that is why there should NOT be a chance of herbalist failure in diagnosing, gathering herbs, or making essential cures at all. When someone needs a medicine, they should be able to make it and cure their wolves without fuss. However, I don't think a chance of failure would be terrible if it was structured like hunting: balanced for late game players, clearly communicated, and (somewhat) in the player's control.

If at first you don't succeed.... brew, brew again

It would make sense, then, for potions and especially elixirs made by the alchemist to have some sort of failure chance based on how rare they are, or how big of an effect they have. But only if they are late game items that are entirely optional for day-to-day gameplay. The failure chance could be clearly displayed on the brewing menu so each player could decide for themselves whether it's worth it or not. Failures could still be rewarded with an item that has a lesser effect, or a tainted elixir, so it doesn't feel like a total loss. I love the idea of random effects on failed potions - I am really excited to collect more smoldering effigies this month because they are really fun to use! The alchemist role could be what "ups the ante" for players who have been around for a long time, with increasingly complicated elixirs requiring a lot of ingredients (even trophies? Lunar items?) to make increasingly complicated effects.

I do want to caution about permanent stat boosting items though. Lead stats are pay-to-win enough as it is, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of packmates becoming that as well. Even a cap of one per day will compel certain people to stock up on these elixirs and give as many as they can to their star wolves, leaving little chance for other players to catch up. I really like the idea that they will only work up until a certain threshold, say, good only up to 200 or 300 stats. That way it can give a boost to new players without causing runaway stat inflation. Or possibly they would not be able to boost a wolf to more than they could get naturally: if they already got their bonus 4 stats a day, the elixir would have no effect.

Some Possibly Unpopular Opinions

About level-locking: I don't actually mind it for crafting (NOT using) some upper level items like the rich healing salve, cure for all, or advanced elixers. Like leads finding chased wolves, it is a goal for people to work towards, and if exp for herbalists is more balanced it can be attainable for everyone. That way level can still be a factor in a few things and a shorter term goal that every wolf can reach in their lifetime, even if they can't get to 500 stats.

Using the event herbs / gems / items as ingredients is also a good idea! It will give players something to do with them in the "off season," and lend their items much needed rarity. However - I do agree that it is especially unfair to new players who don't already have a stash of those items. So to give everyone a bit more of an even footing, the potion recipes that use those ingredients could be released the month of the event? That way everyone would have a chance to obtain them relatively quickly instead of having to wait months. Of course that won't help people who joined after the event, but that will always be the case.

Conclusion

Personally I like the idea of a herbalist rework. More roles for wolves is very welcome, and I am always thrilled when stats are beneficial to their job. With a little refinement about what works and what doesn't in other areas of the game, I am excited to see what new things await!
Zea
#27549
Posted 2023-10-04 23:49:21
#1074383
I like Zea's post and Dżanek's idea of a logarithmic scale. If not a scale, I do think that the max stat requirement should be at least semi-high, as it's an end goal. An herbalist can do just fine at not maxing their stat potential just like a hunter can do just fine without maxing theirs, so if someone isn't about stats, they should still be able to get the job done. Much like with hunters being used daily, herbalists' stats should naturally go up over time too.

As for event items being used for ingredients, I don't mind it. If used for potions and elixirs, it's not a required part of gameplay. It's okay for some things to not be accessible to new players or those who don't login at the time. Lunar apps aren't always available to new players, but they get the chance when a special moon comes along. Augmentation can be viewed in the same way. If there's a certain elixir someone wants, they can find where the ingredients come from and plan accordingly. (Perhaps there should be a way to indicate when to find the ingredient though. I think all event items could use that, like the event herbs. The only tell they're not your average herb is from the European mention in the footnote, there's no knowing which event they come from unless you already know.)

I'm gonna go back to silently watching this thread now, I'm loving the discussion.
Whirligig
#11137
Posted 2023-10-05 04:00:00
#1074426
I love the idea but I agree to let blind and deaf wolves do these things. I also agree the alchemist should be named something more like wolvden like. I love the idea to be able to have three herbalists!
Since the new herbalists only diagnosis illnessses and forgage maybe they should be called a medic or forest doctor or gatherer and the new alchemist role (since they will be making the potions, and herb mixes) should be called the herbalist. 		The Arctica Pack
#2399
Posted 2023-10-05 05:11:10
#1074435
THIS IS INSANE WHAT THE HECK WE COOKING YALL 		ZIMMER0DASH
#129104