Weaponsmith Archive
Thread: The Real Problem with Resources and Weaons ... and the *real* solution.
Logix wrote:
Soar wrote:
No, I meant on wether or not weapon balancing is based on the actual resoruce max stats or if everything just went in as 1000
Yeah, i agree entirely about the max stats thing.Oh, yeah. Concrete evidence:
- Fixed experimentation formula to use the correct range when determining how much an item attribute changes. The formula was supposed to be based on the resource max range, but was using the entire attribute range. A crit success experimenting with an attribute can push the attrib over the resource max value, but never over the item max attrib value.
This was a major Test Center change that never made it to Live.
Well at least that shows they are aware of it. So what held it back?
Soar wrote:
Well at least that shows they are aware of it. So what held it back?
All the other experimentation changes in the same update, which allegedly had the effect of significantly reducing the quality of all crafted items because they couldn't be experimented up to pre-patch levels.
I read through those TC experimentation threads and I never really understood what the hell was going on because there were a lot of contradictoryposts and very little hard data.
LLJK_Griz wrote:
Soar wrote:
Well at least that shows they are aware of it. So what held it back?
All the other experimentation changes in the same update, which allegedly had the effect of significantly reducing the quality of all crafted items because they couldn't be experimented up to pre-patch levels.I read through those TC experimentation threads and I never really understood what the hell was going on because there were a lot of contradictory posts and very little hard data.
Ah, cool
, so they held it back because it was still a bit buggy. I heard about the nonexsistant atribute thing causing them to count as zero. But we can see they are working towards fixing the balance of weapons with the correct ideas in mind, looks like the just had a hiccup on the way. Might be best to wait for the expirmentation fix to um.. get fixed, then see how it all falls together.
My faith in the blind Devs is still intact
LLJK_Griz wrote:
Soar wrote:
Well at least that shows they are aware of it. So what held it back?
All the other experimentation changes in the same update, which allegedly had the effect of significantly reducing the quality of all crafted items because they couldn't be experimented up to pre-patch levels.
I read through those TC experimentation threads and I never really understood what the hell was going on because there were a lot of contradictoryposts and very little hard data.
*grin* It was certainly a circus for a while. However, extrapolating what I read that as, with what tests people did run, I think this would have hurt us. Thunderheart repeatedly mentioned the experimentation system as it is is currently 'broken in our favour' and we were benefitting from it. Taking that, I can only assume the 'fix' would cause a kick back, not a boost. Without getting too semantical I'll justrun through what I read it as, and what most people who ran the tests they could also interpreted as.
"Fixed experimentation formula to use the correct range when determining how much an item attribute changes. The formula was supposed to be based on the resource max range, but was using the entire attribute range. A crit success experimenting with an attribute can push the attrib over the resource max value, but never over the item max attrib value."
Assumptions -
Resource max range refers to a particular resources' range in a given attribute. So if plumbum iron has a (hypothetical) conductivity of 100, the resource range is 1-100.
Entire attribute range refers to just that - attributes (discarding the notion of hard caps for now) can go up to 1000. Hence the 'entire attribute range' is 1-1000, regardless of what that resource's current attribute value stands at.
Since this is based on experimentation, the key output of experimentation is the percentage increase. We all experience, at this time, a 7% increase per great success on experimentation. They say it's currently based off the entire attribute range of max 1000, so I assume 7% is the experimental maximum bonus move per single point of experimentation. 7% is the bonus you get for having perfect score resources. So if the max became dropped to 500, it would be 3.5%. Dropped to 250, 1.75%.
So ... by switching over to resource actual max, then this would mean percentile movement on successful experimentation would suffer from what it does now. Instead of having 1000 max range giving 7% bonus, if a resource's combined key attributes averaged at 500, it would be 3.5%. People reported on TC getting only 3-4% great success improvements using the same resources as before this change hit TC. How this ties in to the comment about 'not pushing over an item's max attribute' - well to me, that's the effect where we hit the 'resource cap' for a gun that uses poor materials and we have leftover points to enhance durability, HAMs, or range. It's experimenting based on an assumed max range of 1000, but the item itself has the hard caps based on actual resource attributes - I'm sure we all have seen that a gun can only be improved a certain amount based on resources that went in - the worse the materials, the earlier the cap. In effect this would mean that under these changes, we would need to use all our points experimenting to hit the resource cap of the item, by reducing in proportion the amounts we gain in experimentation. For example if you get a base build of 11% and the item's cap, calculated on resources, is 40%, you could hit the cap in 4-5 experimentation points, and have the remaining points to put elsewhere. But the change would make it so experimention bonuses per great success reduce in proportion so it would take most, if not all points to hit that 40%.
The side effect of this, and why Ibelieve it was held back, was the problem where resources are totally missing a stat. Advanced power handlers relying on 66% conductivity where Iroluun Gas, Ostrine Carbonate Ore, and polymers don't have that. Under the current system with experimentation being based on max attribute range, this was effectively ignored (intended to be treated as zero, but the max range is 1000 so it was moot). Making it based off the actual resource attribute would therefore mean 0 would mean range of 0-0. This would be an undefeatable roadblock - unless they added all attributes to all resources. Leaving the resources as is while implementing this change would just be impossible for us to work around - we have no alternatives.
Anyway that's my long winded interpretation - I could be totally wrong. That is however what I got from the patch notes, Thunderheart's comments and what tests were run on TC.
Wheeee.
Dang why did you have to be so smart, I always find myself reading your posts 4 times before I catch on, lol
Kershakk wrote:Anyway that's my long winded interpretation - I could be totally wrong. That is however what I got from the patch notes, Thunderheart's comments and what tests were run on TC.
Wheeee.
No, no Kersh, I think you may be totally correct. It got a bit confusing where you were talking about resource actual max atribute, because I kept think you were refering to the thing earlier in the thread where resoruce types have max atributes like plumbum CD might be maxed at 100. But once I worked out you were talking about the actual quality score of the resoruce being used in the build, it all fit together nicely
So, yeah, what Kersh said. Once they fix the no-atribute=zero bug, then it theoretically should work fine.
I think the current system is good, with that I mean how copper, iron and steel are a bit diffrent. Copper should always have the highest possible OQ+COND I think. I don't see a need for steel with 990+990 OQ+COND as they in real life can't compare to a good copper in the conductivity range.
I agree, some Irons and steels have redicolous low stats, which gates the weapons that uses those. I think the easiest way to rebalance is lower the quantity needed of that resource.. lower the iron needed in a E11 and make them need more metal.
Hero has it exactly right. If an SR Combat pistol is supposed to be better than a Scout Blaster, adjust the stats to the point that it IS better than a Scout Blaster, when made with good quality materials. Good quality materials meaning good for Neutronium Steel. The best ever cond Neutronium was 399 on Intrepid, so I would bet that 400 is the max possible. And you people on Bloodfin better harvest Degi right away, that stuff looks niiiice.
I think what we are trying to avoid is taking some of the fun out of weaponsmithing by making it too easy. If I could use any Iron in a Scatter, I'd have no reason to be on the lookout for good Doonium. And part of the fun of this game is opening up my survey tools and seeing what's new out there. (and then beating everyone else to the good spots to harvest) Managed to get a 93% spot of 998 conductivity copper last night. To me it was exciting to see it, sample it, and race to find a good spot.
I also don't like the idea of making resources have wider stat ranges. Take the Degi Neutronium on Bloodfin for example. It is only 300 cond. Which for most stuff isn't any good. But for Neutronium it's great. If every metal had a max of 1000 everything, knowledge of which resources have high stats in certain areas would be wasted. (which I happen to have, so I feel it is important)
Greets ...
Ok ... I don't really have time to quote all you folks and do point-for-point exactly ... but a few of you are making *huge* assumptions.
*note: Logix take a hike with your comments concerning my *asteriks* ... if you want to be childish, go re-enroll in high school please :-) They are *easier* to do them to use bold.
Also note, I am approaching this from a *programmers* viewpoint.
Assumption A: Resources like X and Y qualities can *easily* be changed cause nothing else uses them.
Response A: X and Y have qualities caps because of a larger game design that spans *years*.
Having watched resources for a very long time, there is a method to the madness that goes *far* beyond our small *box* of visible understanding.
There is a lot of balancing involved in how the resources have strength and weakness's ... changes that *could* effect mutliple professions today AND multiple professions tomorrow is not the preferred change ... from a programers viewpoint.
Assumption B: It's easier to change experimintation for *just* those particular guns
Response B: No it is not ... anybody that has done Object Oriented Programming knows this is what is referred to as a Kludge. The Code Snippet (hereby after referred to as the Object) has certain methods of doing thing ... you feed it data, and it then *plays* with that data in a set manner.
To change how it *plays* with that data for just a few weapons would require several new *methods* to compensate for each *custom* request ... there are several ways to do this, but it requires additional code and additional complexity ... more complexity leads to more bugs ... more complexity leads to harder trouble shooting ... more complexity leads to limited future changes / expansions.
Basically ... from a *programing* standpoint this is one of the *worst* ways to fix it.
Assumption C: If base damage is changed and they *mess* up later this will cause uber guns.
Response C: The resource system is already setup and in place ... there are very rare *uber* spawns that can and do break the norms ... this is extremely rare ... and is what the Dev's would call *Fun* :-) and when a super uber comes along it is intended to make the *whatver * uber for that time period.
This is a non-argument cause it is as the game is intended.
Assumption D: It's harder to change base damage on the guns then to do X, Y or Z.
Response D: Bolgna :-) ... (back to programing speak) ... the Base Damage of a gun is a 'property' of that gun. When the experimintation object is involked, the *property* from *whatever* is being worked on is feed into the object... it's universal for all professions.
Changing the base damage on the gun is probably required changing date in 1 field of datathat gun ... no programming required. This is not only the *least* intrusive way to fix the problem ... it is the *correct* way to fix the problem. (ie: This is not a *programming* fix ... this is a *Data* fix)
In closing I have seen no arguments that counter my original statements. I approached this from a pragmatic position of "Let's not ask for things that won't get done, let's all ask for what *can* get done".
The Problem: The guns were *balanced* for damage without taking the resource quality caps into consideration.
Is that an *Assumption*? Maybe ... I would actually call it a well educated guess ... I have done numbers on what the damage on those *broken* guns would be if we had uber resources ... and they are where they should be ... so this re-enforces my educated guess.
Basically we can not / should not ask for changes that *could* affect other professions *just* to fix a few of our guns ... we need to ask them to *fix* those guns ... not *kludge* the code, but actually fix it ...
So ... I ask you all again ... please let's all get on 1 band wagon .... for I guarantee you this *wagon* will be a lot easier to get hitched to a team and get on the road then the other wagons you guys are discussing :-)
You make no counter-arguments, really. Saying "I am a programmer and thus I see the whole scope of the spectrum" means nothing if you do not explain why. What evidence do you have that changing these two resources will negatively affect the game in the long-run? What is this long-term plan that you have discovered that no one else has?
Simply stating that there may be one schematic that may use these resources sometime in the future is not enough. This is a dynamic game, things will constantly change. Staving off change because of a fear of a chain reaction that has yet to have grounds to appear would contradict the common concept of an MMORPG, the fact that they are dynamic. If the developers would prevent a change from occuring on the off-chance that in a year from now, it may affect some random profession, we would all be playing a non-patched, single-player game.
Manually adding damage to guns is not programming intensive, it is balance intensive. Exactly how much damage and speed should be added to a Power5? How much to a SR Combat? Should the SR Combat be more powerful in damage than a DX2 to make up for its energy damage? Should it be significantly less powerful because it is a non-Elite weapon? Should it remain unchanged as to keep it on par with its FWG5 counterpart? How is everyone supposed to agree on the exact amounts of damage to be added to these guns?
Obviously, these guns are not going to be dependant on resources anymore if you manually add the damage. Every server with thecrap Plumbum will still have these good weapons. There is not enough effort being put forth. Whereas, if you create a Plumbum with a wider range, we must become dependant on it. Not all servers will be guaranteed to have good SR Combat Pistols, because some might be waiting on a better Plumbum spawn. Some might have just dimished their supplies of 650 Conductivity Rhodium and are back to making regular Pistol/Rifle barrels. But not if you just throw stats on them, then there is no increase to the economy or to competition, everyone is more or less in the same leagues for these weapons and components.
The stats of the Plumbum Iron itself barely matters, as it stands. A 50 conductivity Plumbum over a 100 conductivity Plumbum makes no difference, at all. A 600 OQ Plumbum over a 800 OQ Plumbum also makes no significant difference. So no one will be competing over Plumbum/Rhodium, it does nothing for the economy, it makes the crafting of these weapons easier and thus more common.
So, if you are a believer that we should not be nerfing resources to make them "easier" or our profession more "trivial", this change would contradict that. A broad sweep of damage increases to weapons/components would just contribute to making it more trivial, making resources matter less.
Lastly, as you state, assuming these weapons would be properly adjusted to what they are supposed to be with proper resources is a well-educated guess. And thus, anyone can plainly see that upgrading the resources is quite possibly the most efficient fix that can be offered.
Logix wrote:
You make no counter-arguments, really. Saying "I am a programmer and thus I see the whole scope of the spectrum" means nothing if you do not explain why. What evidence do you have that changing these two resources will negatively affect the game in the long-run? What is this long-term plan that you have discovered that no one else has?
I did explain why ... objects and methods ... but getting past that ...
The same as you ... you are assuming that because *today* nothing else uses them it's ok.
Actually ... my argument is stronger ... for resources all different for an overall balance to the entire resource market ... some materials are strong in some qualities and weak in others ... this causes market fluxuation. You solutions would / could throw the the *balanced* market of.
This fact along with all the *new* stuff that is going to be coming out ... Speeders? More Rifles? just to mention a few the dev's have already sighted. They are not going to add *more* new resources class's ... just *more* things that use it.
I have now given *vastly* more proof then you have given ... turn the tables and prove your point ...
Simply stating that there may be one schematic that may use these resources sometime in the future is not enough. This is a dynamic game, things will constantly change. Staving off change because of a fear of a chain reaction that has yet to have grounds to appear would contradict the common concept of an MMORPG, the fact that they are dynamic. If the developers would prevent a change from occuring on the off-chance that in a year from now, it may affect some random profession, we would all be playing a non-patched, single-player game.
Not a year from now ... next month speeders are coming out ... TH has already mentioned new weapons ... rifles in particular and generally statements ... to come in the next *months* ... not years ...
Sorry ... your going to have to do your homework and not try this sort of smoke screen.
Manually adding damage to guns is not programming intensive, it is balance intensive. Exactly how much damage and speed should be added to a Power5? How much to a SR Combat? Should the SR Combat be more powerful in damage than a DX2 to make up for its energy damage? Should it be significantly less powerful because it is a non-Elite weapon? Should it remain unchanged as to keep it on par with its FWG5 counterpart? How is everyone supposed to agree on the exact amounts of damage to be added to these guns?
This is actually pretty simple ... they "know" where guns are supposed to be damage wisebased upon 100% perfection ... they know the *caps* on the resources needed ... it's actually pretty simple math ... especially for these game designers ... they eat this up for breakfast and ask for seconds.
How do I know? I have programmers I supervise ... heck ... I do some programming myself ... I am the chief designer here at my work :-)
This is sooooo not hard ... if you thought about it for a few mins you would agree.
If you can't do the math yourself ... you need to rethink your career as a weaponsmith :-)
Obviously, these guns are not going to be dependant on resources anymore if you manually add the damage. Every server with thecrap Plumbum will still have these good weapons. There is not enough effort being put forth. Whereas, if you create a Plumbum with a wider range, we must become dependant on it. Not all servers will be guaranteed to have good SR Combat Pistols, because some might be waiting on a better Plumbum spawn. Some might have just dimished their supplies of 650 Conductivity Rhodium and are back to making regular Pistol/Rifle barrels. But not if you just throw stats on them, then there is no increase to the economy or to competition, everyone is more or less in the same leagues for these weapons and components.
>>Obviously, these guns are not going to be dependant on resources anymore
That is such a bologna scare tactic statement ...I thought you were a master weaponsmith? was I wrong?
If you would STOP AND LISTEN instead of defending your precious breaking the entire resource system ... I am suggesting upping the damage by the factor of the gate.
The problem with this entire line of thought is that you are thinking of "just" plumbum ... if this argument is good for plumbum then it's good for the entire resource spawning system ... why can't *all* resources have as good or as bad a chance of CD?
Now other things that are not named (WUK's) that use high CD get a new source of potential metals ... I hope I don't have to explain why this is not good.
Now ... you solution to fixing a few guns, as I have stated before, is overreaching and will not only affect many, many, many things today, but things in the future.
The stats of the Plumbum Iron itself barely matters, as it stands. A 50 conductivity Plumbum over a 100 conductivity Plumbum makes no difference, at all. A 600 OQ Plumbum over a 800 OQ Plumbum also makes no significant difference. So no one will be competing over Plumbum/Rhodium, it does nothing for the economy, it makes the crafting of these weapons easier and thus more common.
No .. it doesn't make it easier or harder ... at all ...
READ THAT AGAIN ...
No ... it doesn't make it easier or harder to make those weapons ... the change I am suggestion doesn't affect the *ease* of making SR, or Elites or any of those ... it keeps there "easiness" or "hardness" exactly the same.
All it does it put the gun where it belongs in the damage spectrum. So stop already with the doom and gloom.
plumbum is not the "only" resource used ... If you can't make APH's well ... the gun will not be as good as the other guy, etc, etc, etc ... the system works for everything else? are you know saying everything else is broken?
There will be good and bad plumbum .. and that will make good and bad SR's ... I am advocating a base damage increase to compensate for the fact plum will never have a CD over 100. it's that simple :-)
So, if you are a believer that we should not be nerfing resources to make them "easier" or our profession more "trivial", this change would contradict that. A broad sweep of damage increases to weapons/components would just contribute to making it more trivial, making resources matter less.
I am not talking broad sweeping ... we are talking about *compensating* the weapons base damage to account for the *gating* of the gun due to the resource balancing schema already in place.
You keep *ignoring* the fact that the guns were *balanced* based upon 100% perfection ... that, I am sure, is the underlying problem ... different designers working on different systems ...
There are only X number of guns that are truly gated ... once the base damage is fixed, these guns will take their rightful place in the heirchy of weaponary ... smiths will still make bad, good and great guns of these natures ... the guns will still be rare if the resource spawns are rare ... and be bad if there are not good spawn ...
Lastly, as you state, assuming these weapons would be properly adjusted to what they are supposed to be with proper resources is a well-educated guess. And thus, anyone can plainly see that upgrading the resources is quite possibly the most efficient fix that can be offered.
It's not only a well educated guess ... it's currently an unchallenged guess ... nobody has but forth any reasonable explanation of how *else* they would have done it? It's proven by the fact that those *gated* guns do less damage then their lessor counter parts ... I could even produce spreadsheets that would back this up ... if I have not already deleted them. (I did this a couple of months ago).
On the other hand ... it's *very* easy to argue and prove beyound a reasonable doubt that changing resources, such as plumbum, and removing their *caps* would adversely affect the market. It's these caps that create scaricty ... it's the stock and trade of weaponsmiths ... finding and stockpilling the best resources to make the best guns.
If I had 10 different steels to choose from that all had a chance at fantastic SR's ... I would always make better scatters and FWG's.
The whole problem with your theory of *changing* stats on Plumbum ... and maybe a few others is that it affecting a system right now that *works* ... why *break* that just to fix a couple of guns?
If you up the *base* damage of lets say the SR, you are only compensating for the gated CD of the Plumbum ... your are not granting a *free* pass to have everyone make the best SR on every galaxy ... as you have eluded to.
Please ... no more scare tatics ... your talk a nice game ... you use theatrics very well ... but this is not hollywood ... come back down to earth and talk facts and figures ... no more chicken little please :-)
Greets ...
Dam ... I need an edit button:
If I had 10 different steels to choose from that all had a chance at fantastic SR's ... I would always make better scatters and FWG's.
I don't know *where* that sentence came from .. was supposed to be:
If I had 10 different Iron to choose from that all had a chance at fantastic CD's ... I would always make betterCommand and Melee's.
Logix wrote:
Copper > Steel/Iron. Period. Copper will always reign supreme for Conductivity, it doesn't matter how many Steels and Irons you throw in with average Conductivity range. That is not an argument. One more Steel/Iron with average-level conductivity will not replace the ~990 Conductivity Polysteel Coppers across most of the servers. They just do not replace copper and they never will.
I never said they would replace copper.
But they *could* replace the current "irons" ... and yes that is a big thing. There are quite a schems that call for "iron" that use CD as a primary component. Let's talk apples to apples and not apples to oranges are you are apt to do.
Additionally, while more arguable, it isn't going to replace the other notorious Steels/Irons, such as Kammris Iron, Doonium Iron and Duralloy Steel. These three metals have the greatest potentials for their types than that of the "average" steels and irons.
If they make the *change* that you suggest they could.
But hold on ... you mean there is a rhyme and a reason for the fact there are *notorious* metals? Yet this is the very *balance* that you wish to disrupt.
Yes, because these metals are not used *today*, it is okay.
You make that *change* and give Plumbum the possibility of having 1,000 and it could be used by other things today. And if not 1,000 then what? and then you get into a worse "balancing" nightmare then just tweaking the guns.
This is a dynamic game, as I stated. You cannot base every minor change off of what may come in the future, else no changes would be made.
But I *can* and do *make* that statement when there is a choice. When faced with A or B ... and B could have bad reprucussions on the future, I can most certain say "No" to B ... especially if A doesn't face that same threat.
Furthermore ... The *Devs* know what will and will not be used. I beleive plumbum serves a place in the design scheme ... if you change the scheme you can change things in other places without even realizing it.
The possibility of speeders and rifles? That's not a valid counter-argument, there is nothing at all tying them to these two resources.
That is a valid *counter* argument to your statement about *years* in the future things might get changed.
I have no proof there is anything tying the together ... and you have no counter-proof there is not. The point was simple ... they are going to choose types of materials to be used ... and they may or may not be the ones we are talking about.
The future point of this line is that by *you* changing a properties of resources you could very well be affecting things that are "in the future" ... ney ... sorry .. no *might* ... you are "unquestionable" affecting things in the future. Sooner or later something else will use plumbum ... and it will be affected by your changes in some manner ... either directly due to the quaility or indirectly due to the change of the current market.
You could argue the *change* might be minimal ... but that is aside the point ... I argue your method most certainly will affect other things ... where as my method will not.
That is just grasping at straws and like I will reiterate over and over again, you cannot pull such a vague conclusion in such a dynamic game.
That is only 1 point of my argument ... on the contrary you *entire* argument rests on the fact that this change will not affect anything else ... if we knew, right now, this was used in another upcoming schematic, then we could reasonable dismiss your suggestion.
I submit it is *YOU* that is grasping at straws here.
Market fluctuation has nothing to do with this. In a world of thousands upon thousands upon thousands of different resources going in and out of the market, changing two will not affect it in the slightest.
Market fluction has everything to do with removing *caps* on resources ... although there are thousands or resources, they fall into very small categories which you have already acknowledged ... your first paragraph broke it down into 3 categories ... and now you wish to expand it past those three here? Very nice ... but please ... decide which side of the fence you are going to argue against ... and stay there.
Removing the Caps on 2 will cause a casacade affect ...
A) They removed X and Y for the weaponsmith ... I want caps removed from U and W of my required resources.
B) Could add a High CD Iron to the mix that was not there before ... making it *easier* to make certain things better ... further pushing us towards everything being the same by everyone.
Two less absolute crap resources spawning every month or so isn't going to make a scratch on the economy. It's like having every server to have one less Weaponsmith than there is now: there are hundreds and hundreds, it's not going to make a difference, it's not going to cause a huge skyrocketing demand of weapons because there's one less Weaponsmith. Conversely, nothing would change if you added 1 more Weaponsmith to every server, it's not enough to make a dent.
It could and would affect the demand for High CD iron ... you argument is *today* that might not matter ... my argument is why take the chance ... especially when there is a better, more appropriate way to handle it.
Changing the guns like this is the equivalent to changing the schematic to use generic Iron.
Bologna ... now you most DEFINATELY are grasping at straws ... if a gun has a 50 point max damage handicap due to low CD Plum, changing the base damage to add 50 more points is not at all like changing a named resource to generic iron.
It's simply a compensating move ... that is all ... and is the proper fix ...
Why? Cause Plumbum is not BROKEN ... if plumbum is not BROKEN then why fix it?
You are getting a dramatic increase to stats without a change in the work you do. Thus, demand and supply will skyrocket (because no one sells these guns as no one buys them) and every Joe Schmoe Weaponsmith on the block will be selling these guns at roughly the same stats. The difference is, at least with a genericIron, you might have a *little* more advantage if you were around a lot longer. But just adding stats, you don't. You won't have any available opportunity to have an edge over someone else. It does nothing for the economy, the market doesn't fluctuatefor these particular guns.
Entire statement is invalidated cause of false premise ... I am not advocating to make it "generic" iron ... and you are way out of bounds to say that I am and to go down this scare tatics path.
Bad Form ole chap ... I would hoped you would stop sinking to this level ...
High-end guns and partsneed a Link-Steel aluminum. They need a Doonium Iron. They need some sort of additional competition over the norm.
Correct ... and they would ... adding let's say 50/100 to the min/max of a SR Combat, is not going to quash competition and the need to have good plumbum ... Quality of it and the rest of the components will still affect the market.
A certain set of guns should not be exempt from this competition, it just does not make sense.
I am not advocating that ... but you seem to think I am ... please ... don't put words in my mouth ... it's unsanitary.
If I go to Endor and throw down 10 PMEs on the highest-quality Plumbum that only I know about, I deserve the reward for that effort. I don't deserve a 0.3% increase in wound chance, while everyone else is using 55 Conductivity Plumbum and making otherwise identical weaponry.
Doesn't plumbum have 2 qualities that matter? Last time I checked ... it wasa combo ofCD and OQ ...
Hmm ... yes it does ... and you have finally revealed yourself.
You have just advocating removing the *caps* off every single resource.If you pick any other resource that has caps (maybe just not as severe) you are going to see this.
As I have stated from the beginning ... you are advocating remove *all* caps from *all* resources ... even though you are *requesting* it just for 1 or 2.
If it's good for the goose it's good for the gander.
Now we can debate till we are blue in the face about whether all resource should or should not have caps ... or whether families of resources should or should not have caps ... or whether individual class's should or should not have caps.
But those changes are "huge" and "broad" sweeping.
To do what you say on 1 or 2 things ... just for weapons smiths ... and just for a couple of guns is just to much impact (both real and potential) to justify it's use ... BECAUSE there is a viable alternative that solves the root problem.
So ... are you going to acknowledge the root problem? The fact they balanced the guns based upon *uncapped* resources?
We are at the same spot ... if the resources were uncaped, the guns would be in balance ... because they were *balanced* based upon uncapped resources.
Chicken and the Egg?
Almost ... if the guns are rebalanced, then that only affects the guns ... if the resources are uncapped, you set precedent for every other crafting profession for the entire life of the game to cry for the same thing ... for every single resource.
No ... I would bet money there is a design statement regarding the resources ... and there is no reason on god's green earth to change that when you could just compensate those guns for the *fact* that the PLUMBUM is not BROKEN and working according to GAME SPECS.
It was actually the weapon balancers mistake NOT to account for the GAME DESIGN when balancing the gun in the first place.
Do I need to spell it out even further?
If it's ain't broke ... don't fix it.
Plumbum is not broke ... doesn't need to be fixed ... the guns that rely upon it are broke ... fix them instead.
It's not rocket science you know.