Forums » Suggestions
Upgrades
I had an idea last night to reinvigorate weapons: upgrade paths. Right now, for example, nobody uses the ion blaster. They either use the busgun or save up for a tachyon. But what if you could upgrade weapons for no extra cost, and even at a reduced cost if you had +1 mechanic skillz? For example, say you buy an ion blaster for 200c. Now, you have an upgrade tab at stations. In that upgrade tab it says "Upgrade to Phased Blaster for 1400c" and "Upgrade to Tachyon Blaster for 4600c" and "Upgrade to Gravition Blaster for 8000c". That way, you buy the cheap weapons and get the expensive ones withotu losing any money. And maybe if you had +1 mechanic, it would say "Upgrade to phased blaster for 1200c". So you'd pay 200c less than if you just bought it outright. You'll also notice that I restricted the upgrades to similar weapons. You can upgrade a blaster to a blaster, but not a blaster to a cannon.
Just think, this could apply to everything... engines, batteries... not ships, though. And if "tweaking" is ever put in the game, you could tie that in too.
Just think, this could apply to everything... engines, batteries... not ships, though. And if "tweaking" is ever put in the game, you could tie that in too.
Good idea, needs some tweaking I'd think though :)
-outrider
-outrider
At some point you would have to reach Tachyon(1)- and Graviton(2)-blasters, no? I guess they should differe quite a bit from each-other...
/G really should go sleep
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
/G really should go sleep
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon
2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
i don't get your example is confusing cause you said no extra cost and then in the exaple it says upgrade to what ever for something credits
No extra cost versus buying it straight out.
Right now, if you bought an ion blaster and "upgraded" it to a tachyon (sell the ion, buy the tachyon), you pay more than if you'd just bought the tachyon outright. I propose that you should pay, AT MOST, the same as if you'd bought it straight out.
Right now, if you bought an ion blaster and "upgraded" it to a tachyon (sell the ion, buy the tachyon), you pay more than if you'd just bought the tachyon outright. I propose that you should pay, AT MOST, the same as if you'd bought it straight out.
I disagree.
I also disagree with the paths. It would be better if there were say, multiple qualities of the same 'technology' - say a 'red ion blaster', 'green ion blaster', 'blue ion blaster', ect. Then it would be reasonable to upgrade the technology and eventually provide a skill path for doing so at less cost. But the idea that you can magically turn an ion blaster into a tachyon and not have any parts left over (no waste) is kinda odd and I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish anyway.
I also disagree with the paths. It would be better if there were say, multiple qualities of the same 'technology' - say a 'red ion blaster', 'green ion blaster', 'blue ion blaster', ect. Then it would be reasonable to upgrade the technology and eventually provide a skill path for doing so at less cost. But the idea that you can magically turn an ion blaster into a tachyon and not have any parts left over (no waste) is kinda odd and I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish anyway.
I'm trying to accomplish a reason to use cheaper guns. The price difference isn't enough to make anyone go cheaper than a tachyon, since the busgun is plenty until you have 4000c. Right now, the ion blaster and phased blaster are entirely redundant, as are the light engine, light battery and medium battery. If they could be upgraded, people might start with them and then go to better weapons. But since they can't, people don't.
Ok. But I still don't agree.
1) People don't use the cheaper guns because they aren't very good.
2) People don't use the cheaper guns because at present there isn't a direct relationship between quality and price. The sunflare and the gauss are some of the cheaper weapons.
3) People don't use the cheaper guns because the more expensive weapons are readily available. Access to them is not limited by geography (they are in every station), time (people never have to travel far) because the universe is still relatively small, reputation (everyone has a license to carry the most devastating military technology around), or expense (2000 or so credits isn't very much if you made a couple successful trading runs).
I therefore purpose that we address those concerns first, and only bother introducing a new mechanic if we find that any existing mechanic can't do the job.
1) Can we make the cheaper weapons better? Yes, there is room to make the cheaper weapons better without obseleting the more expensive weapons. We can also make more varied weapons as there are still several unfilled niches.
2) Can we make a more direct relationship between quality and price. Yes, we can. We can pretty easily rank the weapons and come up with price scale that everyone would agree is more representative of the actual quality of the weapons than the current one.
3) Can we make the more expensive weapons less readily available. Yes, both at present and in foreseeable ways, we can limit the accessibility of high quality weapons. Notably, we can force pirates to buy thier high quality weapons in remote 'lawless' sectors at high prices. This punishes socially unacceptable behavior in a realistic fashion (that pirates will not on the whole feel is unfair, and indeed could probably be induced to look on as a mark of respect) without banning or completely elimenating what is at some level a desirable feature of the game. Also, as the mission structure progresses we can have missions which 'unlock' access to high quality weapons.
1) People don't use the cheaper guns because they aren't very good.
2) People don't use the cheaper guns because at present there isn't a direct relationship between quality and price. The sunflare and the gauss are some of the cheaper weapons.
3) People don't use the cheaper guns because the more expensive weapons are readily available. Access to them is not limited by geography (they are in every station), time (people never have to travel far) because the universe is still relatively small, reputation (everyone has a license to carry the most devastating military technology around), or expense (2000 or so credits isn't very much if you made a couple successful trading runs).
I therefore purpose that we address those concerns first, and only bother introducing a new mechanic if we find that any existing mechanic can't do the job.
1) Can we make the cheaper weapons better? Yes, there is room to make the cheaper weapons better without obseleting the more expensive weapons. We can also make more varied weapons as there are still several unfilled niches.
2) Can we make a more direct relationship between quality and price. Yes, we can. We can pretty easily rank the weapons and come up with price scale that everyone would agree is more representative of the actual quality of the weapons than the current one.
3) Can we make the more expensive weapons less readily available. Yes, both at present and in foreseeable ways, we can limit the accessibility of high quality weapons. Notably, we can force pirates to buy thier high quality weapons in remote 'lawless' sectors at high prices. This punishes socially unacceptable behavior in a realistic fashion (that pirates will not on the whole feel is unfair, and indeed could probably be induced to look on as a mark of respect) without banning or completely elimenating what is at some level a desirable feature of the game. Also, as the mission structure progresses we can have missions which 'unlock' access to high quality weapons.
@Celebrim
Aint that basically advocating getting the devs to redistribute the more expensive weapons (and optionally, the more used ones), making them initially unavailable in the more accessable sectors? That I'm for :)
As for making the smaller weapons more used, I'd go for a change in effect. Exactly what and how I'm not sure off (have a few ideas, but I have to let them brew for a while), but the notion of grading them and buying/making upgrades sounds interesting.
Most importently we should limit limit some of these "lets change the weapons"-threads untill the devs show us more of what is up their provebial sleeve - at least missions and ranking should be looked at first, before we waste energy on changing things that most likely is en route to a make-over.
/G wonders why there are no steady-beam-weapons
Aint that basically advocating getting the devs to redistribute the more expensive weapons (and optionally, the more used ones), making them initially unavailable in the more accessable sectors? That I'm for :)
As for making the smaller weapons more used, I'd go for a change in effect. Exactly what and how I'm not sure off (have a few ideas, but I have to let them brew for a while), but the notion of grading them and buying/making upgrades sounds interesting.
Most importently we should limit limit some of these "lets change the weapons"-threads untill the devs show us more of what is up their provebial sleeve - at least missions and ranking should be looked at first, before we waste energy on changing things that most likely is en route to a make-over.
/G wonders why there are no steady-beam-weapons
"Aint that basically advocating getting the devs to redistribute the more expensive weapons..."
Well, not entirely. I don't really want to discuss the specifics because people will get the wrong idea of what I'm advocating if they try to interpret it in the light of the 20 or so sector existing universe.
"/G wonders why there are no steady-beam-weapons"
I can answer that one, but since I've already answered it in detail before I'm just going to be brief this time. In order to approximate 'steady-beam' the beams location has to update almost continiously. This involves putting out alot of network traffic. Also, lag would create weird problems as the beam wobbled about and would exacerabate the problems of position agreement that we already have. You could avoid both problems by having 'static' that held thier position. The dev's beam weapon works like this. But if you'll look closely you'll realize it doesn't look all that good when fired by a fast moving fighter because the fighter quickly moves away from the beam leaving it 'hanging' in space without visible origin. I think that a static beam like that might work pretty well on a capital ship, since you'd be dealing with the beam's point of origin moving only a few meters during the time the beam was visible and this is just a tiny fraction of the total size of a capital ship model.
Well, not entirely. I don't really want to discuss the specifics because people will get the wrong idea of what I'm advocating if they try to interpret it in the light of the 20 or so sector existing universe.
"/G wonders why there are no steady-beam-weapons"
I can answer that one, but since I've already answered it in detail before I'm just going to be brief this time. In order to approximate 'steady-beam' the beams location has to update almost continiously. This involves putting out alot of network traffic. Also, lag would create weird problems as the beam wobbled about and would exacerabate the problems of position agreement that we already have. You could avoid both problems by having 'static' that held thier position. The dev's beam weapon works like this. But if you'll look closely you'll realize it doesn't look all that good when fired by a fast moving fighter because the fighter quickly moves away from the beam leaving it 'hanging' in space without visible origin. I think that a static beam like that might work pretty well on a capital ship, since you'd be dealing with the beam's point of origin moving only a few meters during the time the beam was visible and this is just a tiny fraction of the total size of a capital ship model.