Forums » Suggestions
Lec.:
"Anyway, the point is that this ain't space quake where everyone gets the same weapons and then dukes it out based on reflexes and a little tactical skill. There should be definitive advantage to be had here. Not Diablo II, spend-months-and-or-serious-cash-for-my-gear type definitive advantage, no. But something to make it a rare or unique thing... you know, the sort of thing you find in an RPG... yeah, that's an acceptable advantage."
I disagree. The advantage to be had should rely on style-beneficial variations, not on superiority. The main argument for having this in the first place is "variation." I can assure you, that this will not add significant variation, because everything winds up the same - just gets better and better, and of course, nobody will want to have anything but the better weapons.
No, I'm not trying to say this should be turned this into Space Quake. I am saying that we want to make it mroe interesting, as oppose to more dependant on building levels - whether they be the levels of the character or the levels of the equipment.
If you want to be able to 'improve' weapons over time, the improvements should eb made in the form of tweaking the weapon to better suit your own fighting style. For example: a player decides he wants to be able to inflict more damage per hit with his AAPs, but endurance/sustainability isn't important to him/her, so he/she decides after earning some tweaking points, to give their AAPs better damage at the expense of higher drain in a tradeoff. Their AAPs are then superior to what they had before, given that higher damage is what they value given their combat style. This would prevent everyone from going the same route - higher and higher - with their weapons, and you would see some variation in both weapons and combat style.
I could have my increased-range/decreased RoF phasers, Leber could have his increased speed & power/increased weight Neutron Blasters of Doom, and everyone - including the vets, elite, noobs and those with sub-par combat abilities - could be happy.
it's also more realistic; you don't just improve your car - you sacrifice agility for power, or luxury for weight, etc.... There is always a tradeoff, no matter how small.
You want to improve your rails? fine. Do you want less weight or more power? more speed or less energy? take your pick... but you shouldn't be able to pick them all.
"Anyway, the point is that this ain't space quake where everyone gets the same weapons and then dukes it out based on reflexes and a little tactical skill. There should be definitive advantage to be had here. Not Diablo II, spend-months-and-or-serious-cash-for-my-gear type definitive advantage, no. But something to make it a rare or unique thing... you know, the sort of thing you find in an RPG... yeah, that's an acceptable advantage."
I disagree. The advantage to be had should rely on style-beneficial variations, not on superiority. The main argument for having this in the first place is "variation." I can assure you, that this will not add significant variation, because everything winds up the same - just gets better and better, and of course, nobody will want to have anything but the better weapons.
No, I'm not trying to say this should be turned this into Space Quake. I am saying that we want to make it mroe interesting, as oppose to more dependant on building levels - whether they be the levels of the character or the levels of the equipment.
If you want to be able to 'improve' weapons over time, the improvements should eb made in the form of tweaking the weapon to better suit your own fighting style. For example: a player decides he wants to be able to inflict more damage per hit with his AAPs, but endurance/sustainability isn't important to him/her, so he/she decides after earning some tweaking points, to give their AAPs better damage at the expense of higher drain in a tradeoff. Their AAPs are then superior to what they had before, given that higher damage is what they value given their combat style. This would prevent everyone from going the same route - higher and higher - with their weapons, and you would see some variation in both weapons and combat style.
I could have my increased-range/decreased RoF phasers, Leber could have his increased speed & power/increased weight Neutron Blasters of Doom, and everyone - including the vets, elite, noobs and those with sub-par combat abilities - could be happy.
it's also more realistic; you don't just improve your car - you sacrifice agility for power, or luxury for weight, etc.... There is always a tradeoff, no matter how small.
You want to improve your rails? fine. Do you want less weight or more power? more speed or less energy? take your pick... but you shouldn't be able to pick them all.
I didn't really read anything. I just want to give my 2c.
I think crafting will be enough. The interaction between fighter, trader, and miner will be enough. Miners make money from traders by selling ores and lose money from pirates. Traders make money from trading and lose money from pirates. Fighters make money from protecting miners and traders and lose money to traders and miners. Pirates make money from miners and traders by stealing widgets and lose money from fighters.
Just got to balance that, that's all.
I think crafting will be enough. The interaction between fighter, trader, and miner will be enough. Miners make money from traders by selling ores and lose money from pirates. Traders make money from trading and lose money from pirates. Fighters make money from protecting miners and traders and lose money to traders and miners. Pirates make money from miners and traders by stealing widgets and lose money from fighters.
Just got to balance that, that's all.
Unmm, Mr. Lecter, listen to yourself... your arguments suck. seriously.
Cunjo's right, we need variety. modifying in tradeoff will improve variety a lot more than upping in stats.
I still don't understand why you're against it... you haven't made any good points for your way over his, and it seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I've never played Quake, so I have absolutely no clue what 'Space Quake' is supposed to be or not be, but I think modifying widgets in some areas over others would be a lot more interesting and fun than just improving them, regardless of the real world applications. After all, this isn't about making it realistically-sound, it's about making it fun; if it were about making it realistic, we'd use a real physics engine, a totally off-balance combat system, and the game would suck more than Elton John at a gay-pride kegger.
Cunjo's right, we need variety. modifying in tradeoff will improve variety a lot more than upping in stats.
I still don't understand why you're against it... you haven't made any good points for your way over his, and it seems like you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I've never played Quake, so I have absolutely no clue what 'Space Quake' is supposed to be or not be, but I think modifying widgets in some areas over others would be a lot more interesting and fun than just improving them, regardless of the real world applications. After all, this isn't about making it realistically-sound, it's about making it fun; if it were about making it realistic, we'd use a real physics engine, a totally off-balance combat system, and the game would suck more than Elton John at a gay-pride kegger.
Aequitas' Talon,
wile your chalange was directed at Dr. Lector, i will respond to it with my own opinion as i think the Doc and i have a similar view on this issue:
the problem with a system of modification points and trade offs is that it will ultimately be overshadowed by carfting. It has been the general consensus of other threads that crafing should allow the widget designer to trade a penalty in one area for a benefit in another, and then generate a list of components based on the alloted adjustments.
The goal of "learning widgests" is a system wherein small but noticable benefits can be gained from having the same weapon, ship, battary, etc. over a period of time. This increase is ment to represent a level of personalization, and to encourage players to develope both an attachment to their perticular ship, scanner, weapon, etc. and to encourage playes to have a signature ship/configuration (because if i could increase the stats of my ship slightly by using it repetedly i'd be less liely to just swap it for another whenever i had anythiong resembling a reason). The former would help adress a number of previously discussed issues, including but not limted to, the lack of clasic RPG elements (namly character advancment), and the "cheepness" of death. The latter would help add diversity to the game.
This will pose no signifigant issues with regards to bandwidth, and will not be a general balance issue because it will be easy enough to limit the maximum amount by which a given widget can be inpruved. And PVP will only be minamaly affected because very few PVPers stay with any one given ship for very long without dying, or trading in for a new one, and if they did have a valuable advanced loadout they probably wouldn't hang out in B-8 with it (lest somone swarm-gank them and steal the cool widgets)
additionaly this will enhance crafting rather than compeet with it. For Example, M'at has managed to buy a newly developed AAP that has enhanced perjectile velocity at the expence of mass. now, afer using this heavy AAP for a couple of weeks without dying (remember this is purely theoreticle) he gets enough player and bot kills to slighly inpruve his weapon's damage. now M'at has an AAP with signifigantly increased velocity, and mass, and a miner enhancment to damage. this new AAP is different from the others that he has been crafting, and therefor can be sold for a higher price, or kept as a weapon of coice.
wile your chalange was directed at Dr. Lector, i will respond to it with my own opinion as i think the Doc and i have a similar view on this issue:
the problem with a system of modification points and trade offs is that it will ultimately be overshadowed by carfting. It has been the general consensus of other threads that crafing should allow the widget designer to trade a penalty in one area for a benefit in another, and then generate a list of components based on the alloted adjustments.
The goal of "learning widgests" is a system wherein small but noticable benefits can be gained from having the same weapon, ship, battary, etc. over a period of time. This increase is ment to represent a level of personalization, and to encourage players to develope both an attachment to their perticular ship, scanner, weapon, etc. and to encourage playes to have a signature ship/configuration (because if i could increase the stats of my ship slightly by using it repetedly i'd be less liely to just swap it for another whenever i had anythiong resembling a reason). The former would help adress a number of previously discussed issues, including but not limted to, the lack of clasic RPG elements (namly character advancment), and the "cheepness" of death. The latter would help add diversity to the game.
This will pose no signifigant issues with regards to bandwidth, and will not be a general balance issue because it will be easy enough to limit the maximum amount by which a given widget can be inpruved. And PVP will only be minamaly affected because very few PVPers stay with any one given ship for very long without dying, or trading in for a new one, and if they did have a valuable advanced loadout they probably wouldn't hang out in B-8 with it (lest somone swarm-gank them and steal the cool widgets)
additionaly this will enhance crafting rather than compeet with it. For Example, M'at has managed to buy a newly developed AAP that has enhanced perjectile velocity at the expence of mass. now, afer using this heavy AAP for a couple of weeks without dying (remember this is purely theoreticle) he gets enough player and bot kills to slighly inpruve his weapon's damage. now M'at has an AAP with signifigantly increased velocity, and mass, and a miner enhancment to damage. this new AAP is different from the others that he has been crafting, and therefor can be sold for a higher price, or kept as a weapon of coice.
Thank you Lord Q. I think I can understand now where he was going with this and how Crafting would make a difference here... does anyone have any idea yet how/when crafting will happen?
"and to encourage players to develope both an attachment to their perticular ship, scanner, weapon, etc. and to encourage playes to have a signature ship/configuration (because if i could increase the stats of my ship slightly by using it repetedly i'd be less liely to just swap it for another whenever i had anythiong resembling a reason)."
I like that... okay, I guess I can see your point, though I think I would not like to see something like this put into effect until after the crafting system gets off the ground (assuming it does what we're discussing here).
"and to encourage players to develope both an attachment to their perticular ship, scanner, weapon, etc. and to encourage playes to have a signature ship/configuration (because if i could increase the stats of my ship slightly by using it repetedly i'd be less liely to just swap it for another whenever i had anythiong resembling a reason)."
I like that... okay, I guess I can see your point, though I think I would not like to see something like this put into effect until after the crafting system gets off the ground (assuming it does what we're discussing here).
no one realy knows when anything will be inplemented (except maybe the devs, but even they get cought off guard with unexpected delays). I think the general timeline has the new UI, the mission sytem, and faction fixes ahead of crafting yet, not to meantion a slew of "miner" projects and their inevitable balance tweeks. so don't hold your breath, but crafting is on the "Big list o' Stuff Comming Soon(tm)".
Loooong crafting discussion:
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11406
I think this suggestion could go hand-in-hand with crafting, or could serve as an "appetizer" before the whole "crafting feast" begins.
I really don't want anything that would unbalance the game, but combat purists like Cunjo are going to have to understand that crafting WILL make unbalanced ships. However, the tools to re-balance things will be in our own hands, so the devs can stay away from constantly "balancing" things.
For example, with crafting, if one of your common adversaries crafts a longer-range neut 3 weapon that is giving you fits, perhaps you could craft up some kind of more maneuverable ship, or perhaps a fast missile weapon that was very good at homing but only gave concussion damage to throw off his aim.
Anyway, with this suggestion, I was thinking something short-term that would make death mean something and make custom ship loadouts a little more interesting.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/11406
I think this suggestion could go hand-in-hand with crafting, or could serve as an "appetizer" before the whole "crafting feast" begins.
I really don't want anything that would unbalance the game, but combat purists like Cunjo are going to have to understand that crafting WILL make unbalanced ships. However, the tools to re-balance things will be in our own hands, so the devs can stay away from constantly "balancing" things.
For example, with crafting, if one of your common adversaries crafts a longer-range neut 3 weapon that is giving you fits, perhaps you could craft up some kind of more maneuverable ship, or perhaps a fast missile weapon that was very good at homing but only gave concussion damage to throw off his aim.
Anyway, with this suggestion, I was thinking something short-term that would make death mean something and make custom ship loadouts a little more interesting.
"I think this suggestion could go hand-in-hand with crafting, or could serve as an "appetizer" before the whole "crafting feast" begins."
uhh, no.
under no circumstances should something like this come before crafting (going by what LQ said). In fact, I really don't think there is a point in discussing it until after we've had a look at the crafting system in action.
uhh, no.
under no circumstances should something like this come before crafting (going by what LQ said). In fact, I really don't think there is a point in discussing it until after we've had a look at the crafting system in action.
I completely disagree with you, Cunjo. Something like this would be a great way to "walk before you run" with the crafting system and its implications.
If players start screaming bloody murder over a feeble 5% to 10% performance boost, then the devs know that the crafting system will probably have to incorporate something like Phaserlight's "sliders" idea, where no crafted item can ever be "better" than another item, and each item has a limited amount of performance so as to not upset the folks who like the "Space Quake" aspect of the game.
If most folks seem to be OK with the idea of some players having slighly better "stuff", then that opens the door on the discussion for crafted items that can actually be improvements over the standard items.
If players start screaming bloody murder over a feeble 5% to 10% performance boost, then the devs know that the crafting system will probably have to incorporate something like Phaserlight's "sliders" idea, where no crafted item can ever be "better" than another item, and each item has a limited amount of performance so as to not upset the folks who like the "Space Quake" aspect of the game.
If most folks seem to be OK with the idea of some players having slighly better "stuff", then that opens the door on the discussion for crafted items that can actually be improvements over the standard items.