Droid Engineer Archive
Thread: Sodan's Hybrid DE Proposal
Just a few thoughts here to help provide not only a unified proposal but also one with the best chance of success at being passed.
There's talk (admittedly limited) about trying to make Master Artisan a requirement for Droid Engineer. That would make Droid Engineer cost significantly more in skill points and would help to offset Dev concerns about us becoming too strong for not enough points. As has been mentioned by others we've been told that prerequisites for a class cannot change. I would advise everyone to consider that set in stone.
While it is possible for the Devs to change their mind on this I think it is extremely unlikely. The reason for this can be seen by simply thinking about a player who does not have Master Artisan who is a Droid Engineer, and they are certainly out there. What becomes of them? Do they suddenly lose Droid Engineer until they fill 3 new branches and earn the AP to master Artisan? That is hardly fair to them. Do they retain Droid Engineer even though they have not obtained Master Artisan? That is hardly fair to the other Droid Engineers.
In short, changing prerequisites for a class are easy to code but would cause such nasty gameplay snarls that I can't see the Devs every allowing it and if we put forth a plan involving that as out unified front then we will probably be shot down no matter how united we are.
The second thing I would say is that I think it is very unlikely the Devs will want to alter the skills system beyond the addition of new skills in the skill trees. I find it unlikely that they will allow a skill that can't be used without a unrelated skill box being filled. I've argued this before and feel (right or wrong) that I got shouted down by the people who wanted to see this solution. I stopped arguing the point since it seemed counterproductive but I have never changed my point of view in this matter.
Fortunately the proposal was raised of putting +1 Combat Droid into the Ranged Support box and giving no Combat Droid ability in the DE tree (so a DE would have the skills to control a combat droid but would be limited to 0 combat droids without Ranged Support). I think this is a brilliant idea and completely solves the problems of making a single skill that covers multiple boxes.
I wouldurge that any proposal put forth utilize this method for making sure that Ranged Support is required. A proposal that does not require alteration to the underlying methodology of the skill system is much more likely to be approved by the Devs, in my opinion.
Icarus-6 wrote:
Fortunately the proposal was raised of putting +1 Combat Droid into the Ranged Support box and giving no Combat Droid ability in the DE tree (so a DE would have the skills to control a combat droid but would be limited to 0 combat droids without Ranged Support). I think this is a brilliant idea and completely solves the problems of making a single skill that covers multiple boxes.
I wouldurge that any proposal put forth utilize this method for making sure that Ranged Support is required. A proposal that does not require alteration to the underlying methodology of the skill system is much more likely to be approved by the Devs, in my opinion.
Tallin,
Geta look atr the revised proposal:
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=droid_engineer&message.id=69111
You can vote in that thread. The Ranged Support requirement is listed as the first variant, or optional plan.
Icarus-6 wrote:
Just a few thoughts here to help provide not only a unified proposal but also one with the best chance of success at being passed.
There's talk (admittedly limited) about trying to make Master Artisan a requirement for Droid Engineer. That would make Droid Engineer cost significantly more in skill points and would help to offset Dev concerns about us becoming too strong for not enough points. As has been mentioned by others we've been told that prerequisites for a class cannot change. I would advise everyone to consider that set in stone.
Something just occured to me; a possible flaw in the ointment.
Does this proposal still have people needing Droid Crafting experience to move up the refinement tree? How does crafting exp "impart the knowledge" of how to control higher level droids in combat? I'm concerned the devs will use this as a reason to justify the need for the DH profession and Droid Combat Handling exp.
And shoot down this proposal because of that. 
Helstrum wrote:
This seems like a re-hash of things we have already covered. We do not like what SOE has planned to give us reguarding droid use, so now do we want to change our position? I am unsure of how changing our profession to a hybrid would help the "Star Warsiness" of the game. Combat droids are illegal right now in the timeline.
Maybe if you had to be overt to call them, but I doubt we would want that.
I prefer to stay the course and try to get better modules out of SOE and better combat droids too instead of chaning our class to a hybrid.
As I'm sure has been said over and over, reference to the timeline and canon of SW no longer has any bearing whatsoever in terms of Dev thinking...it was those very Devs who tried to throw Droid Commander down our throats (including Battle Droids) so I do not think the 'continuity' has the slightest bearing on any present discussions.
The position is being changed because it is the last chance...every other proposal has been turned down by them..so in an attempt to get us somewhat closer to where we could have been, we have this proposal, whisch is formulated to address the Dev's concerns and ensure skillpoints are spent for any equivalent benefit.
I think it really is as simple as that. Stay how we are for months and months, or try to find a way to work around the 'checkers' argument.
Mightion wrote:
Something just occured to me; a possible flaw in the ointment.
Does this proposal still have people needing Droid Crafting experience to move up the refinement tree? How does crafting exp "impart the knowledge" of how to control higher level droids in combat? I'm concerned the devs will use this as a reason to justify the need for the DH profession and Droid Combat Handling exp.
Here's the link for the vote thread:
http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/board/message?board.id=droid_engineer&message.id=69111
TheWoody wrote:
2) cannot change prerequesites (so no MA, I checked it out a few weeks ago, didn't fly the first time and they don't want it now)
BRILLIANT
Because it could work. Though my programming expertise is limited to qbasic some years ago, I think that it must be within the dev's ability to be able to break up that certification into "part a + part b = complete cert"
There is appropriate point cost for combat abilities in the form of pets, so we don't get something for nothing. It would be identical to dabble in this or dabble in CH, as long as appropriate pet levels are implemented so one side doesnt have an advantage over the other (the main balancing point I can see would be the medium 40% droid armor would have to make our total CL go down to balace)
Only problem, is that this whole discussion is moot, unless someone, ahem, DRASHK or RUNESABRE talk to us and tell us what is and isnt possible.
Message Edited by EricTheGreat on 03-07-2004 12:28 PM
/bow
TheWoody wrote:
Wow, wish I hadn't taken yesterday off for myself. Just had to catch up by reading through 8 pages worth of posts
Things are moving pretty fast these days here.
But here's my thought.Thisis gettingbuffed and shined up by enough DEs here toget itvery cleaned-out.Lets see if we can get thisthoroughly ready with a clear plan outlinedand put it on a new thread either tonight or first thing Monday morning.
Look's like Sodan is WAY ahead of you.
I should state that we should remember that we are working under certain confines:
1)In all circumstances, it is most advisedNOT tochange any game functionality. If nothing current infrastructure is used then both implementation and balance can be done with a minimum of work.
Indeed. The best proposal will be the one that accomplishes the goal, meets the Devs' set-in-stone requirements and requires the least amount of coding time to implement.
2) cannot change prerequesites (so no MA, I checked it out a few weeks ago, didn't fly the first time and they don't want it now)
Hmmm...this is unfortunate. I'd hope this would NOT be true. Setting MA as a prereq. is a perfect way to ensure skill point cost that appears to be a hard rule.
In addition, I seem to remember Thunderheart addressing our dependency to MA and stating that it would either go up or go down, at some point. I'd say that it's going up (from what I can see of the changes in P7, so they are already headed in this direction anyway). Our dependency most definitely doesn't seem to be going down, that's for sure. 90% of the DEs that I know consider MA to be a 'prereq.' anyway. I say we simply make it official (as it should have been to begin with...).
3) The main thing that is of concern is character-point cost, not the intangible grinding-value that we player assign to various tasks. If we stay within the character-point concept (running parallel to CH was a brilliant move) then I think we should be OK.
Indeed. Making this 'look' and behave similar to a current game system will make it very easier to balance as well, I suspect. Another big bonus of the plan.
4) There has been no official poll, but it seems that majority of DEs here are in support of trying to push thisas an addition to Pub-8. I would like to ask that once this plan moves to the next stage in the following few days, that attacks on it are kept to nill on the matter.
Well...."Attacks"? No.
"Poking holes in it so that we can 'plug' them via altering the proposal"? Yes.
I think we need to try to build a plan, shoot it down and then fill those holes. That gives us a plan that's very likely MUCH harder to say "No" to....
As said, without nothing but full clear support from the community, things will pass into obscurity and be whitewashed by the Devs.
Yup. That's why we have to get something very close to unanimous support (from the DE community) behind this proposal, in whatever final form it might take.
As such, if you have reservations or doubts then make suggestions (preferably in this thread rather than the full posting one requested above) and all efforts will be made to try rectify your concerns.
Absolutely. This is the place to brainstorm and 'poke holes' in the proposal. We can then work together to fill the holes such that all DE 'camps' are happy and balanced. The plan, so far, is excellent in that regard.
Well done, Sodan.
But remember, it is desired that this is pushed forward. At no time should we sacrafice what little momentum we can generate in being bogged down over an argument over semantics or hypotheticals.
That's true. We have to move this forward but not without foresight. What is important is to find/address 'holes' in theplan sooner than later (and make sure that our fixes still address the set-in-stone rules put forth by the Devs).
I'm not suggesting we don't examine thoroughly; but I am saying that without a general overalldesire by the players to push forward and clean up the problems later (The whole reason they have TC is for cleaning up problems) then it will never take off.
I'd have to say, right now, that there's quite a good level of support from all DE 'camps' that I've seen on this. That alone makes it a very worthwhile plan to tweak, as it does seem to address all playstyles and includes concerns that the Devs would have on skill point cost, 'uber template' prevention, etc.
These are my thoughts on the matter. We'll be looking into organizing the forum equivilent of a paper campaign or the like to bring this to the Dev attention within the next few days.
It doesn't even have to be that long. It's myguess that the Devs may very well be watching this all develop and may even be looking at how feasible itis (so they can give us a"Yes, you're on the right track" or "No,just drop this" response). Itwould be mucho useful to have that feedback from them ASAP.
There's no point in building this plan if it's a non-starter.
If you're interested in assisting then please send me a private tell here on the forums, and keep watch for the upcoming posting.
And if you haven't, I suggest reading the link in my Signature, as it is being asked throughout this last endevour (yes, it will probably be the last endevour we can undertake) that a certain sense of mutual assistance be given to each other here on the boards, if only for the next month.
Me? Constructive? NEVER!
Thanks again to Sodan for this idea.
Indeed. I don't think that Sodan can be thanked enough. This was, honestly, a great stroke of genius on his part...
Respectfully,