Droid Engineer Archive
Thread: Project: Droid Engineer Droid Decay System
Page 4 of 4
AudioOrgana
Tue Dec 07, 2004 1:28 am
#40
Gron_DM wrote:
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.
Yup, that's why - I'm a rifleman.
The reason this is relevant in the first place is that I feel the same thing would happen with droids - we'd be making integrity the most complex system in constructing a droid, when in reality when implemented properly it's always going to be at least secondary, if not further, down most people's priority.
Gron_DM wrote:oh back to topic i think its overkill as well, maybe look at AS for decay and WS, neither i know of bases condition of more then 1 step aka 1 component.....exluding the geo weapons that can use condition boosting cubes. really though id like to see the dev feedback from what i saw on the CU they are talking about a 3 to 9 month window to get it out, and if we can get some dev time to get in on the new combat system that to me is more important then decay as we can get decay added eventually they dont just do combat overhauls to entire games often.
You aren't going to see Droid Handler in the combat upgrade, I can almost promise you. The whole point is to rebalnce the existing professions, not add new ones. If you are hoping for them to give more combat droids without a new profession...well, as you know we've had that fight with the Devs before, and if you want to take it up again - may the Force be with you.
Although DE is now in a position where I can support a droid handler profession, I have to heartily disagree about combat droids being any sort of priority over decay. Combat is but one market; decay would affect ALL droid markets. Finally, people would have to replace that crafting droid they bought the week of launch, or that med droid they bought a year ago!
Combat droids are already pretty darn good. If anything, I fear a nerf more than anything else with the combat upgrade. I see how you think adding them would be easier during the combat upgrade, but I just don't agree. After the combat upgrade shakes out will actually be the best time, IMO, because then Devs can add them more clearly and directly with the end-result "balance" in mind. I just don't see them adding something to the mix to make their job of balance more complex.
Combat work in general and the addition of combat droids are relatively mutually exculsive. They aren't going to not implement droid handler because they aren't making changes to other parts of the combat system at the same time. To be honest, I believe that they are going to be a lot more liberal with additions to the game related to combat once the combat upgrade is over. I believe they have held back a lot on doing combat related changes (Smuggler, Squad Leader, etc.) because they would have just had to be rebalanced anyway. Once the main combat has been balanced, then they can begin to add additional combat features, like combat droids.
Grom, think about what WS would have been like if it had been implemented without decay - that's why many of us feel it is so important.
As to the implementation of decay (not it's importance), I was unaware how little was required in terms of contion with other professions. In that case, I DEFINATELY don't want ours to be so dang complex - we already have the highest non-profession sub-component requirement, and I don't want to add most-complex condition crafting process to our award list.
AO
DigitalOne
Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:07 am
#41
I have the feeling your thinking in two tone. To reject experementation on subcomponentsis to reject experementation altogeather.To belive this is False. We have clearly stated thatexpermentation is important and acceptable. We have stated where we would like exprementation tooccur (chassis, deeds, modules). We have defined what we mean by experementation (primarily to invoke diversity or
equal alternatives"). We're pretty clear whatourposition is. Your'se howeveris nebulous,you havent adequatly or convincingly conveyed your arugment supporting subcomponent experementation.
equal alternatives"). We're pretty clear whatourposition is. Your'se howeveris nebulous,you havent adequatly or convincingly conveyed your arugment supporting subcomponent experementation.
As such im trying very hard to understand your motivation, as our fearless leader you are in greater communication with the almighty developers and posses considerable influence far and beyond that attainable by we meer peons. Thus it is imperitve to clearly identify your agenda and logic so that we may feel confidant our constituancy is fairly represented.
atleast 2 Things seem to be important to you.
Histortical Issues
The Developers brain.
Historical issues are good, perhaps as a referance tool.But the thing that should be understood is that the way history is preceived begins to differ as the culture that percives it evolves. So not only is relevance in question, but the entire socialconsciousness may have shifted and forceda fundamental redefinition of a particular issue or terminology. Reliabity is a major issue. Especialy where communications and economic media are concerned, which is basicaly what this entire game is made of, you have to be extremly carefull what you chose and realy upon, because even semi recent issues may no longer be honest models.
Secondly, we all want to look into the mind of god. Our god is named steve, and he works out of his mothers basement. These developers have a certain logic to them. The problem is thier is a major gap between developers and we customers. You might feel insulted by this Drashk, as your role is to bridge this gap. But the major problem in this phase of conceptualizing is little direct contact from the developers themselves. In times like these what we need is a rule book, or a game plan or some clear set of boundries that tell us what is implementable, what is feasible, what would work well within the rules of the game and the economy. We need the laws of SWG Physics, if we are going to tinker with the elements of the game. But what we have is you meerly sheaparding us into the direction you think they want us to go in. Your coming off very cryptic, because you might know somthing absolutly vital to us, but your trying to tell us in pantomime. You have to be straight up with is, why is it your trying to funnel us into subcomponent experementation?
Another thing your doing is your holding us up to the standard of WS and AS (Chefis heavy on exprementation butalso has non exprementable subcomponents). So you have WS and AS on one side of the spectrum, and Tailor and Arch on the other based on expendability of thier respective products. Since we have voiced that we are discontent on the Arch/Tailor side of things, we would like to move over to the WS/AS side but in order to do so we must recognize the need for certain factors ie, experementation. The problem here is we do not want to be AS/WS your holding us to a model which we do not want to be, are not, nor ever can be. The way droids work, the way we work, the whole role of droids is to different for us to be compareable to that model. Wanting a renewable market cannot put us in the same camp as these guys, we can shift into thier direction, but role, design and substance of our profession prohibit us from attaining a place among them.Thus compairing ourselves to them, setting them as an example or as a standard is ineffective and possibly detremental to the profession.
Part of the reason your basicaly responding to the same 3 people, is that everyone else is playing WoW, EQ2 (the loosers), or got bored of JTL(which you will be in 5,4,3,2....) or are waiting till the sun shines again. Not to mention its finals week. This should remind us that SWG is a salesman, and must now offer a product in a more competative environment. Fun Factor should really be considered in our reconstruction of DE as our little contribution to the game. This dosent assume that we should alter it in a way that sets out of balance the ability to contribute and benifit equaly. But within that realm of ballance be able to play in a non irritating mannor.
I would also like to mention redunancy of expremented subcomponents. So, take a protocol droid , you have 5 subcomponents, 6 counting personality chip. Your basicaly exprementing on the same factors over and over. If you have to use WS as an example thier exprementation attributes and modifers vary based on the component, this makes things more interesting. Experementing on the same 1 or 2 attributes 5 times per droid gets mundane. I know you origionaly wanted each subcomponent to have a unique effect which would resolve the issue, but that aint going to happen, your having a tough enough time convinceing us why subcomponet experementation should even be around.
Then thiers the two architypes all DEs tend to evolve into or through
industrialist
Scratch Builders
For the industrialist its clear, he will have to procure and hoard not only rare resources but rare resources of quality. Putting a strain on his logistics capability and his ability to mass produce in current numbers.
For the scratch builder he will have to endure the mind numbing torture of the crafting window much longer tham before. He will have a much tougher time aquireing and affording the quantities of "Good Stuff" than the industrialist or in general, and will find it much tougher to compete or want to stay around. He will soon find himself forced to buy 1 or more factories and heavy mining installations at great personal cost in order to stay afloat with the origional intention to simply manufacture subcomponents and when he realizes he has thepotential to sell and market droids on 3 major planets he will, and presto! you have another industrialist and just created a super competative DE environment since you have made the intermidiate architype inconvieniant and made the high end one the standard.
Seriously to experement on the same stats on the same parts 5 times per droid is going to get mind numbing boreing. There is a reason i moved to industrialism i would just as soon drive a nail through my head than build more than 2 custom droids for a frusteratingly ignorent customer and thats within the current model! But this is just a personal digression.
These are all things that hurt the fun-ability rating of DE, you might find it arbitrary to deal with but they play a role.
Now it is 4 am, and i was up all night writing this crap. Im at the part polimics abound. I want to take subcomponent exprementation, punch it in the face, and take a baseball bat to its crotch over and over untill i pass out.
Rihtan
Tue Dec 07, 2004 8:37 am
#42
This one has gotten too big for me to comment on everything so I'll sum up my views.
1. Decay good - If not added as a stand alone.
2. I would like to to keep experimentation on modules and chassis.
3. There should be two viable experimentation paths on any experimental unit.
4. Experimentation should be reduced/eliminated on generic subcomponents.
5. Trimming the number of subcomponents required would be wonderful.
To expound my preferences:
Reasearch paths
--For Utility modules a Effective / Integrity
--For Combat modules a damage / speed / Integrity
--For Chassis a HAM / Integrity
For other subcomponents either no experimentation or fewer subcomponents.
I also think I see how this ties in with your Droid Model Redesign ideas. I think like it. Assuming the two were implimented it would make crafting a lot more interesting, and more sensable.
1. Decay good - If not added as a stand alone.
2. I would like to to keep experimentation on modules and chassis.
3. There should be two viable experimentation paths on any experimental unit.
4. Experimentation should be reduced/eliminated on generic subcomponents.
5. Trimming the number of subcomponents required would be wonderful.
To expound my preferences:
Reasearch paths
--For Utility modules a Effective / Integrity
--For Combat modules a damage / speed / Integrity
--For Chassis a HAM / Integrity
For other subcomponents either no experimentation or fewer subcomponents.
I also think I see how this ties in with your Droid Model Redesign ideas. I think like it. Assuming the two were implimented it would make crafting a lot more interesting, and more sensable.
AudioOrgana
Tue Dec 07, 2004 5:27 pm
#43
I guess I just don't understand why it has to be so complicated. That's what it all comes down to for me - the same pithy observation I made in my initial reply.
/shrug
I've made my opinion known, and the choice is very clear - I guess it's up to Drashk to decide if he presents to the Devs postings made six-months, a year, or more ago written about a profession that is very different from where it stands today, or the opinions of those who have stuck by the profession and those who newer but actually playing it now.
Do we want to gate new players even more by making their droids extra-crappy because it's so sub-component and experimentation dependent? Do we want hand-crafters to have to spend twice as long constructing a droid because of the added experimentation? The rare resource requirements in our modules are at a nice level - do we want decay to be equally (or even more) complex than that?
Bah. I've said enough on the topic. All this would do is mean I won't have to stock "grind" and "good" resources, I'll just get "good" now (half the time I run out of "grind" and use "good" stuff just out of laziness anyway). I'll just bump my prices up. And then it's just an extra step in my schematic process past that. I don't think it would be good for the profession overall, or keep people in the profession or bring them into it/back to it (drive them away more likely), but hey - again, good for me - less competition.
AO
/shrug
I've made my opinion known, and the choice is very clear - I guess it's up to Drashk to decide if he presents to the Devs postings made six-months, a year, or more ago written about a profession that is very different from where it stands today, or the opinions of those who have stuck by the profession and those who newer but actually playing it now.
Do we want to gate new players even more by making their droids extra-crappy because it's so sub-component and experimentation dependent? Do we want hand-crafters to have to spend twice as long constructing a droid because of the added experimentation? The rare resource requirements in our modules are at a nice level - do we want decay to be equally (or even more) complex than that?
Bah. I've said enough on the topic. All this would do is mean I won't have to stock "grind" and "good" resources, I'll just get "good" now (half the time I run out of "grind" and use "good" stuff just out of laziness anyway). I'll just bump my prices up. And then it's just an extra step in my schematic process past that. I don't think it would be good for the profession overall, or keep people in the profession or bring them into it/back to it (drive them away more likely), but hey - again, good for me - less competition.
AO
CTRL_ALT
Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:27 am
#44
Droid Decay. Everytime a weapon is fired, vitality goes down. Everytime rechargedvitality goes down. Everytime used to craft, power another droid, heal another droid, or help a Doc or Medic vitality goes down. Everytime a droid is hit with sometime a fraction of that damage hits the vitality (1/25?) Every minute that a droid is running, a fraction of a vitality point is taken (1/5?)
More advanced system would involve weapon, chasis, and component decay (like on a ship), and a DE could swap out parts and repair droids. It's called replaceable parts. The weapon may be fried, but the chasis isn't too bent out of shape. A medical module malfunctions? Droid loses its logic? Store or emergency shutdown of droid and bring to your friendly DE to repair it for you.
Decay would be built into the chassis and the final deed, I like using any old resource to make subcomponents and stuff without worrying about quality.
Message Edited by CTRL_ALT on 12-08-2004 06:29 AM
Message Edited by CTRL_ALT on 12-08-2004 06:31 AM
Page 4 of 4