Droid Engineer Archive
Thread: Here they are, TC changes so far (all schematics available now!)
Pistoller wrote:
its pretty simple what I understand. when De crafts a droid with the best armor modules it on the droid untill it gets destroyed at that time we use the stims that we will have on the droid however the stims arent as good as the droid crafted armor modules so after repairing the armor will be lower. Now he still didnt say anything about the medium armor on the droids thats gone. I think its kind of good because after the droid gets destroyed people will come back for more good droids.
huh?
Pistoller wrote:
I thought I was clear let me put this this way your droid dies armor is gone. you use stims on droids you get armor back but not as good as before the death of the droid.
right, but thats not the way things work, and nothing indicates thats the way things will work. Neither of the repair kits do anything involving armor either....
Personally, I think we should all just go into that thread and tell him we don't have a clue what he's talking about. We can sit here all day saying we don't get it, but I sincerly doubt that would make 'them' understand that we're not tracking, at all. They're not telepathic, and they don't come in here. We're not helping anyone, least of all ourselves, if we don't make sure he understands that answer wasn't answer at all as far as DE's are concerned.
Thunderheart wrote:
Pistoller wrote:
TH can you tell us if droids armor is a bug or a nerf. Seems that with the higher ham we cant get medium armor on the droids anymore.
"I recieved a PM on this as well. I spoke with the dev and it has changed a little bit. From what I understand, there have been some changes. Before, armor was used once and gone forever. Now, armor can be repaired (with the new repair kits).
It used to be that the armor when crafted onto a droid would overwrite each other’s values instead of summing up multiple armor modules. Now it works properly and you should be seeing that putting multiple droid armor modules into a droid adds up those two modules capabilities and gives the droid the sum of their powers.
So basically, armor with a high rating that is used once and destroyed forever has been replaced with reduced armor that can be repaired and always usable."
CaixCatab wrote:
Personally, I think we should all just go into that thread and tell him we don't have a clue what he's talking about. We can sit here all day saying we don't get it, but I sincerly doubt that would make 'them' understand that we're not tracking, at all. They're not telepathic, and they don't come in here. We're not helping anyone, least of all ourselves, if we don't make sure he understands that answer wasn't answer at all as far as DE's are concerned.
Done it..exactly that
I don't hold out much hope it will do any good though...a bit like screaming in a vacuum. He doesn't want to hear so he won't.
topush this live without fixing or at least communicating to us coherently about the armor issue would be horribly incompetent. to expect TH to be able to communicate coherently to us about droid armor would also be incompetent. every word he has spokenon the subject ofdroid armor since armor was first broken with publish 6 has been unquestionably incomprehensible and incoherent. and that is putting it nicely.
this has got me upset. i was upset about this when nobody responded to the problems that publish 6 created with droid armor, but decided to wait till publish 7. now the problems with droid armor are even bigger than they were with publish 6 and still there is no coherent response or acknowledgement on the issue? ![]()
![]()
Shian_Tavkin wrote:
Javelin
Once again thanks for the work you are doing on TC BUT
Do you realize that with your last post in the TC Monday bug thread, you basically conceded to the Devs that AR1 would be acceptable to DE in exchange for added HAM?
IMHO we should not be volunteering to give anything up...certainly not until we have a ruling on what was/is intended.
I think maybe that was a 'tactical error' there, sorry, but I do.
No offence intended