Forums » Suggestions
A proposed change to weapons variants
I've been thinking about this for a couple of days, and I think there might be a better way to handle weapons variants, that would also add some interesting differences to the various factions.
I suggest that we make a lot more weapon variants, and limit them by faction, with each faction specializing in one particular attribute(speed, damage, rate of fire, mass, energy use, ammo capacty, autoaim arc) of the weapons.
To start with, we would remove all the Mk2, Mk3 versions of the low level weapons, particularly the plasma cannon and the ion blaster. Just keep the basic version availible everywhere, then each faction would have a variant of that weapon that was better in one respect. The Xang Xi version of any weapon might do 10% more damage, the Orion version might fire 10% faster, Corvus 10% lighter, etc etc. All the stats except the one that is specialized would remain the same as the basic version.
Doing this would require a little bit of rebalancing of weapon levels. the free bus gun could remain the same, and the Plasma cannon Mk3 could become the basic variant. Use the Ion blaster Mk3 as the first version of that weapon.
At higher weapons levels you would still have Mk2 versions, but they would be seperated by a few extra levels, adding a second "basic" model for variants to be built around a few levels higher. The gauss Mk2 or the neut2 could be 3 levels higher than the first version, and buffed up just a bit in the process to compensate for the extra levels required.
Variant weapons from the factions would be availible in multiple tiers, a variant that is 5% better in that factions specilization at +300 reputation, and a second variant that is 10% better at +600 rep. Possibly a version that is 15% better at +900 reputation.
Nations would have more complex "specializations" for instance all serco weapons might be; heavier, have a lower rate of fire, higher shot speed and do more damage. Itani weapons might be just the opposite; lighter, faster rate of fire, lower shot speed and do less damage. once again at higher levels of reputation the specialization would get larger.
The % values above are not meant to be absolute, and obviously would need to be tailored a bit for the attribute in question. the general progression is what i would like to see however. the first variant is Q amount better than the basic version in that attribute, the second variant 2Q better, the third variant 3Q better. since it becomes progressively harder to gain reputation after +600, the third variant is a lower return on investment, because your investment of time is larger.
This could open up a lot of interesting new variations in combat, and if tied into some sort of system where reputations with certain factions were mutually exclusive, could allow for some personalization of characters that is currently a bit lacking.
Eg you could never get +600 with both Orion and Biocom, because your total reputation with them could never exceed a sum of 1000 points. (so you could be +500 with both, or +600/+400, etc) Thus you would have to choose which attribute you prefered out of the two.
I suggest that we make a lot more weapon variants, and limit them by faction, with each faction specializing in one particular attribute(speed, damage, rate of fire, mass, energy use, ammo capacty, autoaim arc) of the weapons.
To start with, we would remove all the Mk2, Mk3 versions of the low level weapons, particularly the plasma cannon and the ion blaster. Just keep the basic version availible everywhere, then each faction would have a variant of that weapon that was better in one respect. The Xang Xi version of any weapon might do 10% more damage, the Orion version might fire 10% faster, Corvus 10% lighter, etc etc. All the stats except the one that is specialized would remain the same as the basic version.
Doing this would require a little bit of rebalancing of weapon levels. the free bus gun could remain the same, and the Plasma cannon Mk3 could become the basic variant. Use the Ion blaster Mk3 as the first version of that weapon.
At higher weapons levels you would still have Mk2 versions, but they would be seperated by a few extra levels, adding a second "basic" model for variants to be built around a few levels higher. The gauss Mk2 or the neut2 could be 3 levels higher than the first version, and buffed up just a bit in the process to compensate for the extra levels required.
Variant weapons from the factions would be availible in multiple tiers, a variant that is 5% better in that factions specilization at +300 reputation, and a second variant that is 10% better at +600 rep. Possibly a version that is 15% better at +900 reputation.
Nations would have more complex "specializations" for instance all serco weapons might be; heavier, have a lower rate of fire, higher shot speed and do more damage. Itani weapons might be just the opposite; lighter, faster rate of fire, lower shot speed and do less damage. once again at higher levels of reputation the specialization would get larger.
The % values above are not meant to be absolute, and obviously would need to be tailored a bit for the attribute in question. the general progression is what i would like to see however. the first variant is Q amount better than the basic version in that attribute, the second variant 2Q better, the third variant 3Q better. since it becomes progressively harder to gain reputation after +600, the third variant is a lower return on investment, because your investment of time is larger.
This could open up a lot of interesting new variations in combat, and if tied into some sort of system where reputations with certain factions were mutually exclusive, could allow for some personalization of characters that is currently a bit lacking.
Eg you could never get +600 with both Orion and Biocom, because your total reputation with them could never exceed a sum of 1000 points. (so you could be +500 with both, or +600/+400, etc) Thus you would have to choose which attribute you prefered out of the two.
Spellcast,
There was a thread a while back (sorry, can't find it via search) that addressed your last point regarding faction ratings. That concept, if implemented, would singlehandedly alter the nature of how players acquire gear -- even w/o the weapons changes that you propose -- and thus make for some interesting character path choices. Yes I just paraphrased what you originally wrote, but I think that it's an idea worth repeating. :-D
As far as weapon changes go, amen to cutting down on the multi-flavored low-level weapon variants. They are a waste of space and add very little value to players, IMO.
The weapon nation-based specialization concept has some merit. The one pitfall of which I can think is that planning and executing the actual system will be a true challenge for the developers. Sure it is probably not difficult to change weapon RoF, damage and weight values. It will be more challenging to ensure that one nation doesn't acquire an uber weapon because it works extraordinarily well with other aspects of gameplay such as VO flight physics peculiarities. In short, balance will be a bxtch.
If potential balance hurdles can be overcome, then i'm 100% game for more nation and faction-specific gear.
There was a thread a while back (sorry, can't find it via search) that addressed your last point regarding faction ratings. That concept, if implemented, would singlehandedly alter the nature of how players acquire gear -- even w/o the weapons changes that you propose -- and thus make for some interesting character path choices. Yes I just paraphrased what you originally wrote, but I think that it's an idea worth repeating. :-D
As far as weapon changes go, amen to cutting down on the multi-flavored low-level weapon variants. They are a waste of space and add very little value to players, IMO.
The weapon nation-based specialization concept has some merit. The one pitfall of which I can think is that planning and executing the actual system will be a true challenge for the developers. Sure it is probably not difficult to change weapon RoF, damage and weight values. It will be more challenging to ensure that one nation doesn't acquire an uber weapon because it works extraordinarily well with other aspects of gameplay such as VO flight physics peculiarities. In short, balance will be a bxtch.
If potential balance hurdles can be overcome, then i'm 100% game for more nation and faction-specific gear.
Actually i dont think that balance would be as much of an issue with the method i propose. the only thing that has to be determined is how the attributes balance against each other.
After all, I'm suggesting marginal changes to one attribute of the weapon, with all other stats remaining the same as the control (the basic version of the weapon). the balance would be in determining if a 10% increase in damage enhances a weapon the same amount as a 5% reduction in mass or a 9% increase in rate of fire. I suspect that once a basic set of ranges were reached, creating the variants would be a simple spreadsheet task, you could set up Excel to calculate the values for that matter.
After all, I'm suggesting marginal changes to one attribute of the weapon, with all other stats remaining the same as the control (the basic version of the weapon). the balance would be in determining if a 10% increase in damage enhances a weapon the same amount as a 5% reduction in mass or a 9% increase in rate of fire. I suspect that once a basic set of ranges were reached, creating the variants would be a simple spreadsheet task, you could set up Excel to calculate the values for that matter.
I like the idea of having more faction specific weapons, but the way you describe w/ each faction specializing on certain aspects of all weapons I think would cause balance issues. IMO, the most important weapon statistic by far is velocity, so I'd just focus on Orion to the exclusion of all others. This wouldn't be as much of a problem, except I think most people would agree that velocity is the most important, and then we end up with everyone focusing on Orion. You do address this in your last post, but it's going to be tough to balance them all.
Another thing is that some systems interact. If one faction has a higher rate of fire, do they also get a lower energy usage, or is that a seperate faction? If you have a higher rate of fire but the same energy usage, once the battery is empty you lose your advantage. And depending on what the base energy usage this is more important - I for one don't much want a Rail Gun that has a higher rate of fire. It'd be worthless.
Another thing is that some systems interact. If one faction has a higher rate of fire, do they also get a lower energy usage, or is that a seperate faction? If you have a higher rate of fire but the same energy usage, once the battery is empty you lose your advantage. And depending on what the base energy usage this is more important - I for one don't much want a Rail Gun that has a higher rate of fire. It'd be worthless.
Yes, rate of fire and enery usage would be seperate.
I actually prefer a higher rate of fire to a higher shot speed myself, as i tend to try to hold my shots until my opponent makes a mistake, and i'd rathar get off 6 shots instead of 5 while he's veunerable. It's all how you manage your energy.
Yes balancing the attributes against each other would be difficult, but the devs allready have to do that to decide what tweaks to make to weapons when creating them as it is. Personally if it was a choice between a 4% increase in velocity, and a 10% increase in damage, i'd choose the damage.
I actually prefer a higher rate of fire to a higher shot speed myself, as i tend to try to hold my shots until my opponent makes a mistake, and i'd rathar get off 6 shots instead of 5 while he's veunerable. It's all how you manage your energy.
Yes balancing the attributes against each other would be difficult, but the devs allready have to do that to decide what tweaks to make to weapons when creating them as it is. Personally if it was a choice between a 4% increase in velocity, and a 10% increase in damage, i'd choose the damage.