CUEmu - Thread Posts

Gron_DM

Fri Dec 03, 2004 10:13 pm

DigitalOne wrote:

I Totaly agree with Sodon, I think our priorities are warped beyond recognition. Its been awhile since we had a pole (btw i dont agree with the way poles ar heald on these boards, cant someone start a pole on one of those websites, and link it here?), and meanwhile alot of new datas and ideas have come out, and we need to take those into acount. And even in our last pole droid experementation and consturuction changes are a minor issue. I dont know why where wasting so much time on irrelevant stuff like this instead of combat which has always been more vital.

My priorities are.

Expanded utility

Combat droids

Droid Power-ups (addresses Droid Decay)

Droid Decay (solved by combat droids)

Bug fixes

Over the months ive come to realize that utility droids shouldnt neccicarily decay, Leave that to the combat droids. A droid thats geting shot at all the time, and one thats rolling around town should take decay into account differently.

We have a fairly decent system of construction thats working for us, i dont see why we need to totaly revamp that. Im not i big fan of basic droid models, but thats a clutter issue, and dosent bother me to the point where im willing to tear down the system as is.

Construction and experementation are NON ISSUES to me. Lets work on the important stuff and drop this crap.

have you not been reading the myriad of posts in the DE forums here? we have focus threads on all these issues. drashk ispushing almost all of them simultaneously. i did the need/new module thread to help relieve some of that pressure but he is still trucking on this, the decay thread and the centralized droid issue thread (bug thread) if there was a faster way to make this happen i think he would do it. there is no better place i can think of then here to discuss and hold poll's in regard to the future of DE's. there is 2 things you have to rememeber about getting changes and improvements thru the system, that we can asks for what we really need to fix DE and the devs can say what theyll do to fix/help. the thing to rememebr is that those things arent always the same. and sometimes we get offered an item that seems low on our priorities as devs see it as "easy coding" as well. look at deto modules we threw them into our desired to see list almost as a lark and here they are...and a ton of other solid proposals didnt go live. all im saying is relax man, you want to do a focus thread on combat droids thats fine we have a ton of older threads back on DC/DH that outlined a ton of good variations to the theme on them. its up to the devs to move on it and they can be pressured only if we all make a point of lobbying for these changes.

Vilance -Retired from SWG
MDE for most of it, Guildleader as well
EGC Founding leader August 03
Corbantis
Founding Mayor Of Rhuidean, Tatooine
placed Nov 03.

DigitalOne

Sat Dec 04, 2004 3:47 pm

#54

I had a really good post but it didnt go through, so here is the clif notes version..

There is nothing wrong with the Project droid engineer series. I belive however that the model rebuild is increadibly misguided. And should be droped. I blame the the misguidedness on poor polling and mis interpretation of results.

I do see how you are trying to take into account future changed by creating a system what would be able to support them. But you seem to be mistaking what out foundation is. If talking about foundations is what you want to do, what good is a foundation without any idea of what you will build in it? I dont want to say yes to somthing that might end up hurting me in the future.

We are not so much playing a game as we are components in a model economy. The problem of foundation is that it does not lie in construction, but rather is a conceptual definition of the marketing process. The foundation is the ability to benifit and bring benifits toother people through exchange. Thier benifit is achived through the application of function which are result of the droids moduarity. Thus we should be aware that the our role is to deliver function to people, rather than the incorperation of those functuons. Thus we should focus on marketable utility which comes in2camps, combat and benificiality.

I understand and agree with your known issues list

Limited scope of functions

Limited market customization

Limited re-occurring market

Limited Customer base

Limited Want

Limited want, Customer base, and scope of functions are in the same tree it appears, and can be dealt with in terms of added content. However the reall issue here is philisophical, lets use utility again here to describe content. How effective do you want your utility to be? How effective is to effective? And how benificial is its effectiveness. In the utility we have now the range of effectiveness is grossly limited, even within the target profession. In order to market droids, they need to demonstrate a clear range of effectivness with significgant advantages, possibly encroaching on the boundaries of other professions or nodes.

I wrote a responce to each of these issues but i lost it and im not going to do it again.

I can be reasonable. Its logical to assume that with new content the system through which it is implemented must be involved with the process to take changes into account. We have a problem with re-occuring market, thus the first idea that comes to mind is decay of products. So we want to sell worse products. So the next step is to redifine what a good and bad product is through differentiation in quality. Logical. I'm with you this far.

Im also with you to a certain degree concering expanded customization. However i think this can be solved with content rather than fundamental changes. There need to be some limitations or differentiations on the droids as you plan to make them. A MSE should never be as powerful as an R3, since an R3 takes extremely more effort to make. There are signifigant ballance problems in this proposal. There need to be ways in which an R3 is favorable above the simplest droids besides appearance, because that dosent count. Your underestimating the pragmatism of customers, and devaluing your own product.

There need to be built in benifits or limitations on droid chassis, the problem for a long time is that they are meerly skins, now you want to truly render droids nothing more than appearance.

However if you are married to this system, and it appears you are, my opinions aint going to matter. I think this system is bad, im convinced the system we have now is prefecatly alright, granted we need more content, but that can go along way, and fix alot. However, since your the god of these boards, i will play with you.

Here is what i whould change to make your system decent, simply by making some features simpler and adding some form of differentiation.

#1 Either leave subcomponents alone, or remove experementability on them entirely.

#2 Create 1 and only 1 value on droid chassis and final assembly that contributes to decay rating. On utility droids it should look like this (ham exprementation and decay exprementation, and on combat droids, ham, decay, damage output)

#3 Take into account the simplicity of low end droids which are WED, MSE, DZ-70, and R5, maybe power too. If you absolutly must have 6 slots per droid standard at MDE, then have the max slots on these droids 3 max. And/or come up with inherent functions for all other droids. Ther HAS to be a CLEAR BENIFIT to having a more expensive droid. You should have come up with a thread to devise inherent functions concurently with this thread.

#4. Your resource values need to be tweeked, especialy those in the leveled droid module clusters. I would reduce them 20-40% and have them non quality based.

#5I dont see a clear benifit to this system, besides adding decay integers. Why not just make Protocol, BLL, and R2 Droids 6 slot, and add a bunch of new 6 slot droid models. This would solve alot, and make us ready for new content.

RasalTheWise

Sat Dec 04, 2004 5:00 pm

#55

Drashk, I didn't get a chance to fully absorb your proposal here, but from what I scanned, I very much like it. /sign

Rasal's Ye Ol' Droid Shoppe

00000000000
000~~00000~~0000
0000~~000~~000000
00000_000~~0000~~ Purveyor of fine and sophisticated droids and other Artisan needs.
~~0000~~/0\~~000000~~ Come see my shop in beautiful South Coronet!
~~000000000000~~ Shop Location: -140, -5500
00000000000
000000000

Drashk

Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:05 pm

#56

Drashk wrote:

If nothing comes up this weekend, and I actually get off my duff to finally put the finishing touches on what I have in mind, I should have the last two major discussions threads, that I had planned, posted.

Ok, so I am lagging on the two posts. Strike this weekend. I hope to have them by the end ofnextweek. I'm trying to get some game time in, and finally hit Master Rebel with Calous, which I have been lagging on as well.....

Making SWG more Star Warsy. One droid at a time.

Nell2ThaIzzay

Sun Dec 05, 2004 11:37 pm

#57

Sorry, that post was a reply to the last post on page 2. I didn't realize there was a 3rd page.

Marr'Taan LeBeau
Imperial Mercenary - Professional Contract Killer

"Death is my business, and business is good"

Bounty Hunter, Creature Trainer, Droid Engineer, Rifleman
Former Musician and band member of the Tyrenian 3 (Marr'Taan LeBeau, Cale Amossoo, Bari)

Handsnake

Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:35 am

#58

I cautiously am interested in this concept. It does have appeal.

As for the MSE droid having 6 det modules with +10 on each slot, I'd just suggest changing the inherent bonus to have it capped at +30,and throw a cap on the det power - say, 75 or so.

But with this, you would also have to look at applying some of the same design paradigms to the combat modules.

We need a way to optimize them and "tune" their damage, within reason. Perhaps have rare drops from SBDs and Droideka mobs that have a "beam focus" that could allow stun damage? Or cold? One might have the ability to 'switch beam types' and have a combat droid with say, 3 different damage types.

The easiest method would be to use a pistol of the appropriate damage type as the "tuner component". Allow the droid to have the same damage type of the weapon and use the total of the weapon for the decay rating on the module. (for droid decay). The individual modules of a certain type (say, 2 heat and 3 stun and 1 energy) would allow (for example) a 6 module Probot to hit with all three types (depending on a command to switch damage types) at say +20 maximum damage for heat, +30 for stun, etc)

You could even have a rating based on the WS level for the pistol to be available. Say, Tier 1 is +1, Tier 2 is +2 Tier 3 is +3, Tier 4 jumps to +5, and Master box pistols are +10. Weaponsmiths will enjoy the extra business - being able to sell repub blasters by the crate.

Also, to improve droids in combat, we already have seen in JTLS a system for doing this. Unprogrammed Droid Repair chips - seems like a master could program a certain weapon special if they have an appropriate attack - that the droid could perform. Even if each combat class only had 2 or 3 each (one at novice, one or two at master) suddenly droids woudl be much, much more useful for elites. To use this, the combat droids would have to give up one slot to allow a datapad, making it less than overpowering. And the use of these programmed specials can accelerate droid decay.

Have the specials only work for a person who has the ability. You could require the use of chips and have them decay over time as well.

Also, this plan allows for MUCH better combat droids as is. Imagine a CR600 probot, or LE Repair.

In my opinion, if we did the above with the damage types and especially the programmed specials, every single combat class would want a combat droid. Imagine a Tangle Pistol-enhanced 5 combat module Probot with a data storage module with his MBHowner's three BH-programmed specials - eyeshot , sprayshot, and underhand shot.The droid'sweapons shoot a stun of around 210-230, ap0. Or he could have a tangle/repub blaster setup and be able to hit with both types of damage. Switching from eyeshot of something to a crowd control at energy ap1 would be rather a nice selling point.

To balance this, the specials should enforce a substantial speed hit and noticeable condition hit. .

Message Edited by Handsnake on 12-06-2004 02:00 AM

Repub Arnaz
~~MDE/MWS/MArtisan
Lovely Goontown, Naboo
I live in Goontown. I forgot where my house is.
WTB - Pantaloons

Ayno

Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:56 pm

#59

So as I understand it, the problem we are proposing a solution to in this thread is:

1) Lack of variety in customer choice

2) Some models rarely/never used (e.g. BLL)

3) Market is too small?

From the intro:

"... a change that<...> would help to breathe a lot of life back into all of the 13 different Chassis types, and at the same time offer a larger overall market. "

While the proposal is interesting and well thought out, my initial impresion is thatitmight be overkill, and would be a hugeshock to existing droid engineers if implemented. Imagine logging in one day after a new expansion and suddenly all your stock of advanced chasis are useles. That would not be fun.

Pros to the idea (some if not all taken from this thread):

- We probably would see a larger variety of droids out there. I think this idea definitely does that!

-Customers would have a much greater choice. I think it definitely does that. So far so good, since these two are the problems idea was intended to fix.

- Would eliminate some confusion in the current profession (e.g. the two socket clusters)

Cons to the proposal:

- Would probably invalidate alot ofa DE'scomponent stock(e.g. advanced model frames,pre-made clusters, etc)

- Droid engineers would have to relearn much of their profession

- Droid models would be used for purposes that don't make much sense

- Droids might require more resources to make

Pro/Con depending on your viewpoint

- Profession becomes simpler. Less reward for knowing the ins and outs of each model

I think we can address these issues with a less dramatic approach and still bealmost aseffective withfewer cons. Much of this has already been discussed on this forum, and I don't take any credit for the ideas.

- For the Adv Protocol droid, give him four or five modules instead of 2. His is after all a Master Level droid. With five modulesand a personality chip, people would buy him because he looks cool and talks back. Suddenly, we'd see more protocol droids.

- For the BLL give them a fewmore modules (and remove a defense module - who would ever use 3 with current resist caps?).And mabe one combat capable module. Why not make them the ultimate tank droid?They look like they can take a beating. And they have 3armor slots (1of which is practially useless). Tons of HPs, less combat rating than an LE droid. And a few module slots for auto-repair units. BAM. Suddenly, we'd seemore (some? <grin> ) BLLs as marksmencome running in to get them.And odd choice, but makes more sense than a repair droid or and R3 unit as a tank.

- Have certain models excel/give bonuesesat certain tasks. Like detonation bonus on the MSE.

- Introduce more funtionality to droids. More functionality means greater market.

Theseless drasticchanges seem to go along way towards resolving the problems outlined in this thread, have fewer cons than the initial proposal (I think), and introduce changes DE's and players have been asking for = a happy community.

Ayno - Master Droid Engineer, Ahazi Galaxy
Store located 1555 meters NW of Theed, Naboo (-5876 5368)

Droid Engineer Archive

Thread: Project: Droid Engineer Droid Model Redesign