Forums » Suggestions
Make the Superlight *temporally* available to buy until the High Risk Courier Needed mission bug is fixed.
So the Superlight would only be available to pilots with enough faction standing/s, high enough license levels eg. +800, 9/9/-/9/- and who have successfully completed the Corvus System Recon mission.
There would also be a limit on the number of SL's a qualifying pilot could buy in any given week, either that or there would be a one off purchase available of say 10 for example. At least until the bug is fixed?
Edit: Maybe instead of being able to buy the actual Superlight the crafting mission could be bought a fixed number of times.
So the Superlight would only be available to pilots with enough faction standing/s, high enough license levels eg. +800, 9/9/-/9/- and who have successfully completed the Corvus System Recon mission.
There would also be a limit on the number of SL's a qualifying pilot could buy in any given week, either that or there would be a one off purchase available of say 10 for example. At least until the bug is fixed?
Edit: Maybe instead of being able to buy the actual Superlight the crafting mission could be bought a fixed number of times.
The superlight manufacturing mission needs to be modified. The requirements are far too high for the return. You can tell they are too high because the content is not being used.
If you want to encourage manufacturing by having the superlight manufacturable, so be it. But we know that people go through a lot more ships than the amount of superlights that anyone is willing to make or pay for with fair consideration, so the requirements should be lowered to something like so:
Premium Carbonic Ore: 50
Pentric Ore: 15
Thrust Regulators: 4
Engine Mounts: 8
Data Link Connectors: 6
Navigation Units: 2
Hull Panels: 15
Guardian Processor Core: 4
I made some arbitrary choices in this recipe, but it's still probably too high. The volume of units is quite low, but that's still a lot of screwing around and taking a trip to dau, edras and nyrius and bringing that stuff back to sedina for construction. It's a good idea to encourage trade in and out of greyspace, but it's a stupid idea to require so much just for one single superlight. If you're going to make it that much work it needs to build you a bunch of them. Accordingly increase the amount of superlights you get, or lower the requirements dramatically.
The same sort of issues arise with the construction of the trident type M. There's been a serious lack of thought as to how to structure the missions and what happens as a result of the hauls. You've got a massive emphasis on edras and latos as trade pathways, but virtually no variability in the missions. You could make it just as difficult to achieve, without making it as repetitively boring, thus increasing the entertainment value and engagement and uptake of tridents.
It's the risk/reward scenario that leads to the uptake of the content. It's a 5 minute fix in the case of the superlight to change the mission requirements to improve the effort/reward scenario and make people use and enjoy the content. Please tweak the requirements, there really are no downsides - put the new guy on it if you must, i'm sure he could figure it out.
If you want to encourage manufacturing by having the superlight manufacturable, so be it. But we know that people go through a lot more ships than the amount of superlights that anyone is willing to make or pay for with fair consideration, so the requirements should be lowered to something like so:
Premium Carbonic Ore: 50
Pentric Ore: 15
Thrust Regulators: 4
Engine Mounts: 8
Data Link Connectors: 6
Navigation Units: 2
Hull Panels: 15
Guardian Processor Core: 4
I made some arbitrary choices in this recipe, but it's still probably too high. The volume of units is quite low, but that's still a lot of screwing around and taking a trip to dau, edras and nyrius and bringing that stuff back to sedina for construction. It's a good idea to encourage trade in and out of greyspace, but it's a stupid idea to require so much just for one single superlight. If you're going to make it that much work it needs to build you a bunch of them. Accordingly increase the amount of superlights you get, or lower the requirements dramatically.
The same sort of issues arise with the construction of the trident type M. There's been a serious lack of thought as to how to structure the missions and what happens as a result of the hauls. You've got a massive emphasis on edras and latos as trade pathways, but virtually no variability in the missions. You could make it just as difficult to achieve, without making it as repetitively boring, thus increasing the entertainment value and engagement and uptake of tridents.
It's the risk/reward scenario that leads to the uptake of the content. It's a 5 minute fix in the case of the superlight to change the mission requirements to improve the effort/reward scenario and make people use and enjoy the content. Please tweak the requirements, there really are no downsides - put the new guy on it if you must, i'm sure he could figure it out.
Oh and make the concussion railgun reloadable.
Seriously.. 5 minute fix, it has to be.
Seriously.. 5 minute fix, it has to be.
You can tell they are too high because the content is not being used.
Source?
Source?
A sample study of all duels in b8 in the last year. The ship is made in sedina d14 but it has the lowest usage rate of all ships bought in sedina in b8 usage.
The superlight manufacturing mission needs to be modified. The requirements are far too high for the return.
Reducing what's needed to build a SL is besides the point TRS, at least until certain bugs are resolved.
Reducing what's needed to build a SL is besides the point TRS, at least until certain bugs are resolved.
Yeah I lack motivation to build this kit mainly because it's too much work for the reward it gives.
all the old crafting items were always stupidly ridiculous, the mine, the sl, widowmaker
The turrets were probably the most sane thing they ever implemented (recipe wise) then the trident came and Inc went nuts again, then after serious community griping he became less nuts (but still nuts enough to be waaay out there)
His excuse is that crafting sucks in all MMOs
Somehow that makes it ok!
Fix the bug AND try to be sane! I'd build one of these if the kit was saner
The turrets were probably the most sane thing they ever implemented (recipe wise) then the trident came and Inc went nuts again, then after serious community griping he became less nuts (but still nuts enough to be waaay out there)
His excuse is that crafting sucks in all MMOs
Somehow that makes it ok!
Fix the bug AND try to be sane! I'd build one of these if the kit was saner
His excuse is that crafting sucks in all MMOs
Not with the capship, no. I made it very hard so there would be a very small number of them when bugs started to crop up. I didn't need a zillion people with capships flying around, along with infrastructural issues on the back-end.
The same is true of the T-U mine and other things.. if I want to try it in the game, but I'm worried about it being destabilizing or game-breaking, then I make it hard to get.
The goal of the Superlight difficulty was more of exclusivity. I think it might be best to keep the entry barrier pretty high, but maybe give it some kind of insurance system like the capships.
The "all MMO crafting sucks" comment comes from a totally different issue, that being that the process of crafting is not as interesting as I would like it to be. The whole "X stuff becomes Y, which becomes Z" is about the best anyone has come up with, and it's kind of lame. But, even if we had a totally different structure of crafting, I would still make untested, unstable and potentially worrisome new things difficult to acquire.
Not with the capship, no. I made it very hard so there would be a very small number of them when bugs started to crop up. I didn't need a zillion people with capships flying around, along with infrastructural issues on the back-end.
The same is true of the T-U mine and other things.. if I want to try it in the game, but I'm worried about it being destabilizing or game-breaking, then I make it hard to get.
The goal of the Superlight difficulty was more of exclusivity. I think it might be best to keep the entry barrier pretty high, but maybe give it some kind of insurance system like the capships.
The "all MMO crafting sucks" comment comes from a totally different issue, that being that the process of crafting is not as interesting as I would like it to be. The whole "X stuff becomes Y, which becomes Z" is about the best anyone has come up with, and it's kind of lame. But, even if we had a totally different structure of crafting, I would still make untested, unstable and potentially worrisome new things difficult to acquire.
Each kit should be evaluated and the effort/reward for the kit should be considered.
Did he actually say 'crafting sucks in all MMOS'? I find it hard to believe Incarnate is not going to intentionally make a feature of his game crap, it's more likely that he hasn't had the time to playtest it properly and hasn't thought it out thoroughly.
Well thats why he has players, so I'm hoping we get some consultation on this in future, especially re: the trident manufacturing build.
Did he actually say 'crafting sucks in all MMOS'? I find it hard to believe Incarnate is not going to intentionally make a feature of his game crap, it's more likely that he hasn't had the time to playtest it properly and hasn't thought it out thoroughly.
Well thats why he has players, so I'm hoping we get some consultation on this in future, especially re: the trident manufacturing build.
The same is true of the T-U mine and other things.. if I want to try it in the game, but I'm worried about it being destabilizing or game-breaking, then I make it hard to get.
Yes but in the process you set a terrible precedent and create negative expectations of the skill for the future. You're better off having it slightly game-breaking and then cutting it back than doing what you're doing with cappies at the moment.
Yes but in the process you set a terrible precedent and create negative expectations of the skill for the future. You're better off having it slightly game-breaking and then cutting it back than doing what you're doing with cappies at the moment.
I understand what you're saying, but the best I can say is that you don't fully appreciate the man-hour requirements of fixing a serious game breakage scenario. We don't have enough man hours to go around as it is. Plus, all of the content under discussion is very high level, and in the case of the capships, has been emphatically stated to be an unfinished prototype feature. Plus, kind of breakage we're talking about with capships was not "slight", but more like "might cause the server to crash and burn" in terms of issue scale. When it comes to just mild game-imbalance or weapon issues, I'm more inclined to agree with you, but that isn't the side I've erred on in the past.
Now that the bug is sorted I'm all for reducing the Superlight build but make the quantities indirectly proportional to the number of SL's you craft.
For example - for the first 10 you craft the amount of raw materials might not change from the current requirements, then for the next 10 they go down slightly, and so on and so forth until a bottom limit is reached (this would, in some respects, reflect RL where something is manufactured over and over again until eventually the process becomes much more refined and efficient as more are built etc.) So at the end of the day if you take the time to craft a certain number of SL's your rewarded for your efforts.
And I don't see why this method of reduction couldn't be employed in other crafting work such as the Trident (obviously the quantities would need to be worked out but the principal remains the same).
For example - for the first 10 you craft the amount of raw materials might not change from the current requirements, then for the next 10 they go down slightly, and so on and so forth until a bottom limit is reached (this would, in some respects, reflect RL where something is manufactured over and over again until eventually the process becomes much more refined and efficient as more are built etc.) So at the end of the day if you take the time to craft a certain number of SL's your rewarded for your efforts.
And I don't see why this method of reduction couldn't be employed in other crafting work such as the Trident (obviously the quantities would need to be worked out but the principal remains the same).
There use to be a few people who made SL kits and sold them for credits. I still have a few in storage that I bring out very rarely. But I'm thinking there is a caveat there, that the ship you get really isn't worth the return on credits. If the stats were increased, and the amount of work staying the same, that might crafting them rather lucrative.
The insurance route on ships isn't a terrible idea if the kits stay complex. I don't mind making the effort once
@Incarnate: Yeah I won't pretend to know the first thing about the viability of the capship changes, but I don't think theres any dispute about the value of them in the long term.
With the SL kits though, alternative solutions like insurance aside, if you just tweaked the values on the ingredients list I think we'd see some use vs virtually no use at all (in combat). Same for conc railgun really and some of the other manufacturable content that has bad effort/reward scenarios.
I'm not going to pretend its something that would motivate me to play more, but I think it disheartens people who come in and go "this just isn't worth it, why would it be designed this way".
With the SL kits though, alternative solutions like insurance aside, if you just tweaked the values on the ingredients list I think we'd see some use vs virtually no use at all (in combat). Same for conc railgun really and some of the other manufacturable content that has bad effort/reward scenarios.
I'm not going to pretend its something that would motivate me to play more, but I think it disheartens people who come in and go "this just isn't worth it, why would it be designed this way".
It sounds like it might be worth making a Suggestion thread for proposed tweaks to manufactured/scarce equipment currently in game.
Raising all the ship prices would also help balance out the system....
Some of us do enjoy crafting etc.... You should work out a deal....
It would also help immesely if players could trade ships ..
Some of us do enjoy crafting etc.... You should work out a deal....
It would also help immesely if players could trade ships ..
Phaserlight: If Incarnate asks for it I'll make a detailed suggestion but if theres no plans to make any changes on this in the near future there's not much point.
I'm not going to pretend its something that would motivate me to play more, but I think it disheartens people who come in and go "this just isn't worth it, why would it be designed this way".
I'm not really worried about people "coming in" and experiencing that, since this is all high-level content.
Phaserlight: If Incarnate asks for it I'll make a detailed suggestion but if theres no plans to make any changes on this in the near future there's not much point.
Erm, well, I would find the suggestion useful? But most of the suggestions that are implemented are not "planned changes for the near future" until someone actually suggests them and I go "hey, that seems sensible" and perhaps elevate or adjust a priority to include it. So, if there's something you'd like to see happen, and you have an idea about how it should happen, that's what the forum is for. I obviously don't make any guarantees about when things may or may not happen, but they're far more likely to happen if we have a clearly-documented good-idea that's been debated by the community, to which I can refer.
Generally though, I'm ok with the notion of making some of the more inaccessible content a bit more accessible.
I'm not really worried about people "coming in" and experiencing that, since this is all high-level content.
Phaserlight: If Incarnate asks for it I'll make a detailed suggestion but if theres no plans to make any changes on this in the near future there's not much point.
Erm, well, I would find the suggestion useful? But most of the suggestions that are implemented are not "planned changes for the near future" until someone actually suggests them and I go "hey, that seems sensible" and perhaps elevate or adjust a priority to include it. So, if there's something you'd like to see happen, and you have an idea about how it should happen, that's what the forum is for. I obviously don't make any guarantees about when things may or may not happen, but they're far more likely to happen if we have a clearly-documented good-idea that's been debated by the community, to which I can refer.
Generally though, I'm ok with the notion of making some of the more inaccessible content a bit more accessible.