The Witcher 3 Alchemy System

[Aegis_Kleais]

But that is not the point here Aegis.

We all don't mind it if the potions hold longer this time around or if we can take them in combat.
We also don't mind that potions are limited so you are only able to take X ones during a fight
We absolutely LOVE that the toxicity seems to play such a big role.
Neither do most of us mind being able to purchase low-level herbs (not higher ones mind you).

Most of us also love the new upgrade idea and we think those "Mutagenic Potions" sound good it done right.

The one and only problem a LOT of us have is that atm (as far as we know from the devs) the potions are auto-refilling once you crafted them 1 time.
Which is complete bullsh** and does go against everything the system represents. It basically turns those potions and the preparation phase into buffs which can be applied most of the time and can be refilled any time.

Yeah, that's a bummer. Kind of makes all my points moot. Magically-refilling potions sound like a convenience function in order to promote use. Generally, I try to give a progressive developer like CDPR the benefit of the doubt if they feel this is a valid course of action, but I do have my doubts.

When it comes to this type of drastic change, I'm a proponent of having the system provide both methods of functionality, and allowing the user to choose.

 

[Percival_Dickenbutts]

We all love CDPR here, and we have faith in them, more so than most other developers, but that doesn't mean that they are beyond making mistakes or beyond criticism.
It's our right, Nay! Responsibility as the hardcore fans to let them know when we think they have made a mistake. I have complete faith that they can make an excellent alchemy system if they put their minds to it, because they already did it with The Witcher 1.

I would also like to point out, there is no evidence beyond the way Konrad mentioned the refilling system that everyone at CDPR likes the auto-refilling. There might very well be people at CDPR that are just as opposed to the idea as us, it might just be that they weren't in a position to tell the people responsible for the alchemy system how they felt about it.

 

[dragonbird]

It's our right, Nay! Responsibility as the hardcore fans to let them know when we think they have made a mistake. I have complete faith that they can make an excellent alchemy system if they put their minds to it, because they already did it with The Witcher 1.

And the numbers in the poll at the top of this thread still haven't changed. The percentage of fans who said "No" is still somewhere between 36% and 59% of the total who cast a vote. Between 180 and 294 out of 500 votes. There is no consensus, no "We, the hardcore fans think this".

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Sorry DB but I don't see how you arrive at those figures. What I see is 10% definite yes, 30% maybe ergo 40% total potential yes. And I voted maybe, if others who did feel anything like me, I am extremely concerned alchemy going to be dodgy. Fact is we have had a different system each time, there is no norm, we could get anything.

 

[Percival_Dickenbutts]

What's up with the poll anyways? Put the percentages together and you get a total of 133.6% probably because there's an artificial limit put on it at 500

Here, I'll do the math
54 people said "yes", 152 said they have to see it in action - totaling up 206 people who are up for it IF you count those 152 as "yes" answers

180 people voted a straight up "no" while a whopping 231 said they prefer TW1 which still counts as a "no" to the auto-refilling, we just specify that TW1 was great and would see a return of that system. 51 said they prefer TW2's system totaling up to 462 opposed to the idea of auto-refilling potions.

Total voters: 668
Yes: 8.08% or 30.83% if you are exceedingly generous with the interpretation of the "I have to see it in action to be sure" votes
No: 26.94% straight up "no" answers, couple that with the preference answers which make no mistake mean NO just as strongly, you get 69.16%

In regards to what I said about letting CDPR know when we think they made a mistake though, whether it's a consensus, majority or minority is irrelevant. It's our right/responsibility/whatever to let them know, just as much as it is ultimately CDPR's right whether to act upon it or not. I'm going to play and love TW3 regardless of what they do with the alchemy system, but something as crucial to the game and the lore as alchemy, deserves to maintain it's place in this game and not be swept under the rug as soon as you unlocked everything in it, at that point potions just become a list of buffs to choose from, might as well just make it an additional talent-tree in that case.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Is there a hard limit on votes? I don't think so. Remember its a multiple choice poll, so some people voted yes/no/maybe & tw1/tw2. Some people clearly did not vote yes/no/maybe instead only voting tw1/tw2. But I agree with you that any votes for tw1/tw2 are essentially no votes, ergo like I posted earlier its 10% definite yes, 30% maybe, therefore 40% total potential yes. Knock just a few off those maybes, and you've got 2/3 no. Pretty sure that counts as a majority.

 

[Garrison72]

I'm sure they know by now, but we also need to see more to fully assess the system. I'm trying to keep an open mind - maybe refilling potions adds more complexity in new areas and reduces time collecting stuff. Maybe the world size affects the rate we run into herbs. That's why I hope they delve into menus and game mechanics at Gamescom, as much or more than showing the world. I'd also like to hear them talk about secondary effects again so we know that didn't get axed.

 

[Percival_Dickenbutts]

Is there a hard limit on votes? I don't think so. Remember its a multiple choice poll, so some people voted yes/no/maybe & tw1/tw2. Some people clearly did not vote yes/no/maybe instead only voting tw1/tw2. But I agree with you that any votes for tw1/tw2 are essentially no votes, ergo like I posted earlier its 10% definite yes, 30% maybe, therefore 40% total potential yes. Knock just a few off those maybes, and you've got 2/3 no. Pretty sure that counts as a majority.

Look in the top right corner of the poll window, it says: Voters: 500.
But put together the actual votes and you get 668 and the percentages say 133.6%. Setting 500 as the limit, but having 668 votes overcharges the percentage by 33.6%

And I voted that I prefer TW1's system and I can assure you I meant NO by that.
I assumed that a normal "no" vote, meant that they didn't like the idea of auto-refilling, but would still want something different from TW1 or TW2.

*sigh* I miss the metabolism idea, I actually liked that one.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Multiple votes per person is why you are raising 500 to 668. I don;t believe - until a mod tells me otherwise - that there is a hard limit of 500. I believe 500 is the number of people who have voted.

The only numbers that need looked at for our purpose is yes & maybe.

 

[Percival_Dickenbutts]

Multiple votes per person is why you are raising 500 to 668. I don;t believe - until a mod tells me otherwise - that there is a hard limit of 500. I believe 500 is the number of people who have voted.

The only numbers that need looked at for our purpose is yes & maybe.

Multiple choice poll, not multiple votes per person.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Multiple choice poll, not multiple votes per person.

Thats a tautology mate.

 

[Percival_Dickenbutts]

Thats a tautology mate.

No it isn't, you said something wrong, and I corrected you.

 

[Aes Sídhe]

So you're telling me that in a multiple choice poll a voter doesn't get multiple votes?

I'm off for dinner, that'll give you some time to reflect.

 

[Percival_Dickenbutts]

So you're telling me that in a multiple choice poll a voter doesn't get multiple votes?

I'm off for dinner, that'll give you some time to reflect.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. The voter gets multiple choices of where to put his/her 1 vote.
I only got 1 vote, and if only some voters got several votes to throw around, then the poll is made completely irrelevant anyway.

Enjoy your dinner buddy =)

 

[Garrison72]

It depends on the parameters. Most MC polls I see allow one vote. Some, however, allow more than one. I hope we're all happy now.

 

[Percival_Dickenbutts]

Regardless of whether some people cast more than 1 vote or not, there's still a majority of "no" answers

 

[Garrison72]

Regardless of whether some people cast more than 1 vote or not, there's still a majority of "no" answers

Correct. Been a while since I looked at the results, and I'm surprised at the number of TW1 votes. I don't think it was that much better than TW2. In fact, where TW1 allowed you to experiment and it arguably had more depth, TW2 made alchemy more immediate and meaningful. Balancing positive and negative effects could be a real brain twister at times. Boss fights could go from crazy hard to easy if you had the right combo of potions. I feel TW2 took important steps in the right direction.

 

[tommy5761]

It would appear that the poll is skewed . 501 voters and 668 votes cast . Doesn`t add up . You also have to realize there are people here with more than 1 account and that can also screw up the voting . Maybe we`ll see how the potion system works at GC or maybe not . I guess time will tell .

 

[Percival_Dickenbutts]

TW2 did indeed have some aspects that were nice, ideally they would take the best aspects from the previous two games and do something new, just you know....not auto-refilling

 

[Aes Sídhe]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. The voter gets multiple choices of where to put his/her 1 vote.
I only got 1 vote, and if only some voters got several votes to throw around, then the poll is made completely irrelevant anyway.

I am looking at the votes I made ages ago, the text of both appears in italic. Maybe & TW2 if you must know. It's likely you did it wrong or simply didn't try to vote twice, can't you reset your vote?

and btw "The voter gets multiple choices of where to put his/her 1 vote", I mean I really am laughing now, sorry.