Droid Engineer Archive

---

Br-10n wrote:

Sounds fairly good. I'm not too sure about changing the experimentation lines though. Any change like this needs to affect existing droids as well as new ones, w/o being a major nerf to the current droids.

---

I'm not so concerned about it being a nerf to current droids - that would just be good for us, in reality, as we'd sell more droids initially and would weed out the "legacy" droids. It would kick start the new economy we'd have with decay.

I'm more concerned about over complicating the issue. In this scenario, every single part in the droid is important for it's quality, like it's a weapon or piece of armor. That would be all well and good - and should be for things like new modules and any new combat droids - but to make every last droid sensor package that important may be overkill. Unlike weapons, there isn't a variety of stats that this would all weave into - it would only be for integrity. To be honest, while integrity is important, I don't think it's worthy of being dependent on every single part we make.

I'm sure some people will view this as self-preservation, but it's really not - I only mine/keep high quality stuff, and I can't tell you how many times out of laziness I've actually burned good resources in stock parts just because that's what I had lying around. It's not that I think it would be too difficult (especially for me as an Industrial crafter - I only have to make the schematic go through the experimentation process once), but just not worthy of the process.

Ideally, I'd like to see the subcomponents remain the same (with a slight bonus if you make exceptional ones) and the integrity to come from the chassis. Make the chassis require one or two more slots of metal than they do now, and make the integrity come from those plus whatever bonus is applied for good components, if they exist (sort of like those optional weapon power ups in the crafting process). Then make the final deed reflect the integrity of the chassis, and then experiment on the HAM.

I'm much more for a streamlined approach to this - it shouldn't be cheap or a no-brainer to make high-integrity droids, but it also shouldn't make droid engineering three times more complicated than it already is. We need to look at what we are trying to accomplish - sustained, repeat sales, and keep that in mind. Hopefully, we will overall be producing many more droids with a true decay system in place - and the question is do we want to have to keep up with using high quality materials and experimenting on every last part we have, until the end of time as we constantly repalce these droids?

Maybe we do...but I don't think anyone would accuse Droid Engineering of being "easy" as it is, and going that far would push the threshold much higher, and decrease the accessability to new players too far, IMHO. And let's not forget, prices would definately drop for many of us - disposable means less credits, So we'd be doing a ton more work for less profit. The repeat sales in decay may be worth it - but this is something to definately keep in mind when talking about how we want it to be implemented.

There is no question we need it, it's just at what level of implementation will it benefit us most.

AO

Message Edited by AudioOrgana on 11-29-2004 11:58 PM

I like it, but would like to make one suggestion: Perhaps instead of a station or an LE, make any droid with a Droid Repair Module able to repair, but have the LE get a bonus to the quality loss.... such as with an R3, you lose 1 point for every X, and with an LE you lose 1 point for every x+bonus. I would like that system better, since it would allow the variation we have now.

I think to keep the modulability of the droids, inherent functions should be included, but I'd also like to see bonuses, such as an additional +10% on the surgical droid to medical or allowing them to use Med-B in the stim modules (or both). This is much like the MSE gets a bonus to detonation power.

Other than that, I like the idea.

I'm with AO on this one (It still feels strange saying that...). I love the idea, and would be fine with it as is, but I think it goes a little overboard on the sub-component importance.

---

Br-10n wrote:

Sounds fairly good. I'm not too sure about changing the experimentation lines though. Any change like this needs to affect existing droids as well as new ones, w/o being a major nerf to the current droids.

---

Exisiting Droids would havethree-fourths of the Maximum Integrity Rating available to that specific Droid type.

All exisiting components would have an Integrity Rating of the rating granted with 30% Durability Experimentation. (Highest possible un-experimented maximum you can have.)The Mechanism Quality rating would stay the same.

Both sets of numbers are examples to be used and are not actual set numbers. Just like the rest of suggestions made in this thread, its not the numbers that matter as much as the concept behind them.

---

JavelinCatcher wrote:

Point of clarification: Use of a disabled droid/Flight computer in space. I'm going out on a longshot saying that it shouldn't be possible, but it's not mentioned.

Also, how should space affect droid decay under this system? Decay on destruction of the spacecraft? Should it be included in this system or seperate?

---

Oversight on my part. I forgot to mention the decay on droids effected in space. Each time a ship is destroyed in space, the Droid/Flight Computer would take a permanentIntegrity Hit. This would also mean that Flight Computers would either need Experimentation, or a hard capped Integrity Rating, comparible to a Droid.

And yes, once a Droid/Flight Computer is disabled, it would no longer be usable in space.

---

Drashk wrote:This is where the Droid Integrity Rating maximums would come into play. The reason I add so many chances to experiment on the Integrity rating was to allow for experimentation at some point along the lines of production. Just because you can experiment Integrity doesn't mean that the Integrity Rating is the maximum sum of all parts. Let us say that X Droid has a hard capped Integrity Rating of 1000. If every single component used to craft X droid had a 100% Integrity Rating, the droid would actually have a Rating of 2000.

---

Hmmm...I don't think that was the concern I was trying to express. I understand the concept, just am not a fan of the execution. It's the same reason the rating on R3 combat droids irritate me - the cap is lower than the max, therefore in construction we "aim for mediocrity". You can achieve the highest stats with bazaar-quality common materials, so the question becomes, "what's the point?" In fact, if this system were to go live as written here, I'd much rather have no caps, because it would at least be challenging instead of inconsequential. That's just my personal feeling on such a system.

I think what people are trying to say about the system is that they don't want sub-components to be so important to the process. In other crafting professions where sub-components have quality differentials, they generally have more than one line of important experimentation - like medicine or weapons. While integrity as a concept is going to be VITAL to us as DE's, for our customers the practical application is going to be negligible in terms of value once the shock of it all is over. Think of it like condition on a weapon - when faced with a gun with two identical stats, sure, someone will pick the one with higher condition. However, most people aren't ever going to buy a gun with lower damage/speed because it will last a bit longer. Therefore, you see WS putting their points into either damage or speed, depending on the weapon.

In the end, what we are trying to accomplish is a finite lifespan to our droids. Although it's a big deal to us now, and will change the way we do business forever (I know my prices will go down - and I'll be happy to do it), eventually it will recede into the backbone of the profession. When that time comes, are we really going to be wanting integrity to be such a bother? If we are only aiming for mediocre results in the first place, why put in such a complex system?

I think the simple route to decay would be to :


a) eliminate all experimentation from sub-components (like they did in beta for Flight Computers - they did it instantly, even if all they did was hide the interface)

b) increase the chassis requirements for adv droids, and the combine requirements for regular droids, to include several types of resources : say, a bit of ore, a bit of iron (something we need to use more of as DE's), some gemstone even. Something to liven up the mix and give us a new resource and desirable stat to look at. Make it varied - say, the UT of the gemstone, the OQ of the ore, and the SR of the iron. Have these stats translate into the integrity.


This would also give an advantage to the advanced line of droids; on the regular models you will have to choose to spend your experimentation on HAM or on Integrity, where the advanced droids would make the chassis the integrity allowing you to put your points into HAM, or possibly into additional integrity if the system allowed further experimentation at the deed level as well.

This gives it something more dynamic and complex, but not as tedius as depending on each and every part when we don't even have to make those parts very good in the first place. Integrity if implemented correctly will eventually be a minor concern, because like vehicles in SWG, we won't be able to imagine a game without it, or how we survived before it came. At that point, I don't think we want to be worrying about all subcomponents, even if it does (or, in some cases, especially if it does) only require mediocre results.

As an industrialist, decay based on sub-components would only add a few seconds to my prep for a factory run so it wouldn't change my life very much - but if I were soley a handcrafter, and suddenly I have to experiment on every single damn droid sensor package just to compete, I don't think I'd be as happy. I just think, as I said originally, it's a bit ambitious for what we need, and I don't want us to shoot ourselves in the foot and later wonder why we asked for such a complex implementation for something that should have been a basic feature in the first place.

AO

---

Gron_DM wrote:

im a WS or was up until recently after months of crafting and selling (weapon speed and damage is same line btw) i can say making the subcomps have critical stats is ok but only 1 line please. even in WS most items only ever really use 1 line, damage speed...either way people wont care about these stats for droids unless you make the max vs min really have a strong effect on the droids durability and function. otherwise its a bunch of extra code that will be ignored (much like it is now). i dont mean to sound negative but i felt it was worthwhile to point out that unless you make a line of experimention very critical to object performance itll never get used (even in WS all lines other then damage and condition are useless specifically- accuracy only helps the ideal range and effeciiecy aka low ham only helps by maybe 10% with 3 boxes ...)

---

One line works for both? How do WS make one intentionally higher than the other, i.e. most WS have different versions of certain weps, like "damage edition" or "speed edition", is that a crock? Or do you mean it's the same line, but on different components? I'm totally curious - I never knew that.

Besides my curiousity to the above, to the topic : would you then agree with my conclusion that WS don't generally sell weapons to customers based in favor of condition instead of higher damage/speed? The only time I have heard such a thing is with Genosian rifles, just because of the cubes required (green is better cond?) and the lower condition in the first place - even then, I believe most people are going to choose damage over condition.

Making it depend on subcomponents in such an intricate system is really unnecessary. It's overkill. We just need a simple system that makes our droids deteriorate until they die and need to be replaced. I think the proposed system looks great on the front-end (the user events that lead to decay) - though I'm not sure who technically feasable each event is - but on the back-end I just don't think it needs to be so complex.

AO

---

AudioOrgana wrote:

---

Gron_DM wrote:

im a WS or was up until recently after months of crafting and selling (weapon speed and damage is same line btw) i can say making the subcomps have critical stats is ok but only 1 line please. even in WS most items only ever really use 1 line, damage speed...either way people wont care about these stats for droids unless you make the max vs min really have a strong effect on the droids durability and function. otherwise its a bunch of extra code that will be ignored (much like it is now). i dont mean to sound negative but i felt it was worthwhile to point out that unless you make a line of experimention very critical to object performance itll never get used (even in WS all lines other then damage and condition are useless specifically- accuracy only helps the ideal range and effeciiecy aka low ham only helps by maybe 10% with 3 boxes ...)

---

One line works for both? How do WS make one intentionally higher than the other, i.e. most WS have different versions of certain weps, like "damage edition" or "speed edition", is that a crock? Or do you mean it's the same line, but on different components? I'm totally curious - I never knew that.

Besides my curiousity to the above, to the topic : would you then agree with my conclusion that WS don't generally sell weapons to customers based in favor of condition instead of higher damage/speed? The only time I have heard such a thing is with Genosian rifles, just because of the cubes required (green is better cond?) and the lower condition in the first place - even then, I believe most people are going to choose damage over condition.

Making it depend on subcomponents in such an intricate system is really unnecessary. It's overkill. We just need a simple system that makes our droids deteriorate until they die and need to be replaced. I think the proposed system looks great on the front-end (the user events that lead to decay) - though I'm not sure who technically feasable each event is - but on the back-end I just don't think it needs to be so complex.

AO

---

yes, most ppl care about dmg/spd (btw the speed or damage versions were probably sliced or rifles, in rifles you can choose to use a stock and it will make the rifle slower) condition a far 2nd place and ham isnt even noticed unless is a specific issue....like popularity of low ham Vk's in general though 1 line does it all.