Weaponsmith Archive
Thread: Focus Thread: Regaining the Challenge
Muzz wrote:
So you're only putting forward the thoughts and suggestions you agree with?
I dont no I put forward the thought I have seen more people agree with?
I believe you are talking about the ADK right?
Fact is that when the discussion was running you were the only one that ever brought up the 50% decrease in decay. If there is a general agreement that this is how we should adress the ADK I will include that in the lsit, but in the thread most people seemed to agree to the two suggestions I have included above.
I posted the draft here mainly to have you guys comment on what was missing and what needed to be corrected instead of postingitdirectly in the correspondent forum
So again if you feel anything is missing please state it here, but there needs to be more than one person agreeing to the line of thinking before presenting it for the dev team as the wishes of the whole community
Summerflame wrote:
Muzz wrote:
So you're only putting forward the thoughts and suggestions you agree with?
I dont no I put forward the thought I have seen more people agree with?
I believe you are talking about the ADK right?
Fact is that when the discussion was running you were the only one that ever brought up the 50% decrease in decay. If there is a general agreement that this is how we should adress the ADK I will include that in the lsit, but in the thread most people seemed to agree to the two suggestions I have included above.
I posted the draft here mainly to have you guys comment on what was missing and what needed to be corrected instead of postingitdirectly in the correspondent forum
So again if you feel anything is missing please state it here, but there needs to be more than one person agreeing to the line of thinking before presenting it for the dev team as the wishes of the whole community
Any suggestion I made with regard to the rate it slows decay was a purely arbitrary figure. After all, they aren't name No-Decay Kits but Anti-Decay Kits. If they reduced decay by even 90% that would still mean that weapons and armour (pieces stocked up with +25 tapes are just as important an issue as weapons) don't last forever, but will still mean ADKs are valuable. They could still be removed and used again when the item finally ran out.
Summerflame wrote:
Muzz wrote:
So you're only putting forward the thoughts and suggestions you agree with?
I dont no I put forward the thought I have seen more people agree with?
I believe you are talking about the ADK right?
Fact is that when the discussion was running you were the only one that ever brought up the 50% decrease in decay. If there is a general agreement that this is how we should adress the ADK I will include that in the lsit, but in the thread most people seemed to agree to the two suggestions I have included above.
I posted the draft here mainly to have you guys comment on what was missing and what needed to be corrected instead of postingitdirectly in the correspondent forum
So again if you feel anything is missing please state it here, but there needs to be more than one person agreeing to the line of thinking before presenting it for the dev team as the wishes of the whole community
One more thing.The bio-link suggestion is not the wish of the whole community.
Message Edited by Muzz on 10-16-2005 09:27 PM
.
3)Anti Decay Kit
The ADK has severely damaged the return business of Weaponsmiths especially on highend weapons. Once someone has a nice weapon ADKed there is no reason for them to return to the weaponsmith cutting us totally off from more business from them.
The ADK combined with the 2 above issues is severely limiting our marked and the more players that qualify for the ADK the worse it get.
Solution
The weaponsmith community has no real unified solution on the ADK. But here I will list the general thoughts on the matter
- Fixing the above two points (Resists and weapon caps) would lessen or almost remove the impact of the ADK on our sales.
- Having ADKs biolink the weapon it is protecting when used would help a lot and it wouldn’t hurt the people who bought the ADK at all as they could still trade the ADK, just not the Weapon. When destroyin gthe weapon the ADK should become tradable again. This would be a nice compromise between players who has paid a lot of credits for an ADK and weaponsmiths whos business (and thereby content) is majorly hurt by the ADKs.
I'm holding in a growing anger, until ToOW goes live at least,at the way non-combat profs are being treated in the game. The crying from the combat classes about ToOW quest/loot items being non-tradeable has made it worse.
These very same knuckle-heads didn't give a **** when RotW renderedmany craftable weapons useless.It's yet another confirmation of where SOE's priorities lie.
Ask away, all we will get is the odd small concession.
Muzz wrote:
Summerflame wrote:
Muzz wrote:
So you're only putting forward the thoughts and suggestions you agree with?
I dont no I put forward the thought I have seen more people agree with?
I believe you are talking about the ADK right?
Fact is that when the discussion was running you were the only one that ever brought up the 50% decrease in decay. If there is a general agreement that this is how we should adress the ADK I will include that in the lsit, but in the thread most people seemed to agree to the two suggestions I have included above.
I posted the draft here mainly to have you guys comment on what was missing and what needed to be corrected instead of postingitdirectly in the correspondent forum
So again if you feel anything is missing please state it here, but there needs to be more than one person agreeing to the line of thinking before presenting it for the dev team as the wishes of the whole community
Any suggestion I made with regard to the rate it slows decay was a purely arbitrary figure. After all, they aren't name No-Decay Kits but Anti-Decay Kits. If they reduced decay by even 90% that would still mean that weapons and armour (pieces stocked up with +25 tapes are just as important an issue as weapons) don't last forever, but will still mean ADKs are valuable. They could still be removed and used again when the item finally ran out.
I think all (reasonably thought out) ideas should be considered. You didn't like this idea, althoughI don't recallmany other replies knocking it out of the ball-park completely. Personally I don't like your bio-linking idea, there's already too much of that in the game, but I see that's being put forward.
If there is a valid reason why this suggestion is not worth consideration alongside the bio-linkingoption then post it and I will be more than satisfied and will notraise the issueagain.
Well as I se it I was chosen to represent the majority not every view on the weaponsmith board, but if there is no objection from the rest of the community I see no reason to not include your solution.
I would ask you to present your viewin one or two lines to be included in this draft.
Also while we are on the topic of ADKs I am thinking about leaving it out of this post and giving it a post of its own as it is really a huge issue and it has a great chance of overshadowing the rest of this post.
I think the ADK discussion would benefit from having a topic off its own too.
Summer, I am seconding Muzzes idea, for it goes along with the last post in this thread I just made, but if you are going to eliminate the ADk from the suggestion and start a new thread, make it a stickied one and lets get it going now
Please
Lythand wrote:
.
3)Anti Decay Kit
The ADK has severely damaged the return business of Weaponsmiths especially on highend weapons. Once someone has a nice weapon ADKed there is no reason for them to return to the weaponsmith cutting us totally off from more business from them.
The ADK combined with the 2 above issues is severely limiting our marked and the more players that qualify for the ADK the worse it get.
Solution
The weaponsmith community has no real unified solution on the ADK. But here I will list the general thoughts on the matter
- Fixing the above two points (Resists and weapon caps) would lessen or almost remove the impact of the ADK on our sales.
- Having ADKs biolink the weapon it is protecting when used would help a lot and it wouldn’t hurt the people who bought the ADK at all as they could still trade the ADK, just not the Weapon. When destroyin gthe weapon the ADK should become tradable again. This would be a nice compromise between players who has paid a lot of credits for an ADK and weaponsmiths whos business (and thereby content) is majorly hurt by the ADKs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will have to agree the ADK hurt the market. Here are some of my suggestions.
Make the ADK Biolink the Owner. All current ADKs in game can be forced to be biolinked to the owner apon login, if the player denies the biolink, it gets removed from the wepon. Make it so it can not be applied to a weapon till its biolinked. If you destroy the weapon, it staysyours. If you choose to not to biolink it, then its tradable, but not useable. Once biolinked, its never tradable again. Having it biolinked to the character should also be eliminated from the players account once the account is canceled. This Idea might seem a bit harsh, but I really think ADK's put a major hurting on the Community as a whole. The whole biolink idea is a possible one, either the ADK or the item.
Second Idea for the ADK. Lets refresh on what the Acronym means. Anti Decay Kit. Meaning it will keep a weapon fromdecaying over time. When I played Dungeons and Dragons I used a mechanic where weapons had a chance of breaking. The ADK can keep the weapon from decaying, but not breaking. Make the chance of break lower with thehigher the complexity the weaponis. However a slice on the weapon can add back to that chance. Example a Advanced Laser rifle might have a 2% chance of jamming or breaking everytime it fires. Having it sliced at 100% modification might make it a 4% chance of break. Thus bringing the combatants with ADKs back to the weaponsmith. May not be as frequent as before, but a little is better then nothing. I think this will cause every combat profession to cry out - and thus it not very possible - we need to ask for the realistic
Make ADKs so they can not be applied to Sliced weapons. Possible - this is an idea I could run with. It would cause a bit of a pre-nurf issue.
Move the ADK to a longer period of time of play before a player qualifies to get it. Make it like a 36 or even a 48 month reward item. People who have them now are grandfathered in. Have people who are within a month of the ADK now be grandfathered in. Everyone else has to wait. Personally if I were running the game, you would have access to all the holograms before having access to the ADK. I think this will cause every combat profession to cry out - and thus it not very possible - we need to ask for the realistic
Make the ADK specific to a type of weapon giving you the option to choose how it will be applied when you qualify It would cause a bit of a pre-nurf issue.
Make the ADK specific for a profession giving you the option to choose how it will be applied when you qualify It would cause a bit of a pre-nurf issue.
How about making the ADK have a chance to break. I think this will cause every combat profession to cry out - and thus it not very possible - we need to ask for the realistic
Give the ADK a decay time. Give it some high value of decay, which will keep the weapon from decaying. Like a power up. Once the adk is gone the weapon will start to decay. The owner of the wepon has a choice to use the wepon as is, or get another ADK. I think this will cause every combat profession to cry out - and thus it not very possible - we need to ask for the realistic
An Idea wich will probably never come into play. Change the ADK to a crate of special power ups. The paower ups work like any other power up where after so much use, it disapears. The power up will be a ADK style pwoer up. Once the power up is gone, the owner must use another one. Once all the power ups are gone, the owner must purchase more....from a weaponsmith
Weaponsmiths will get a new schematic power up of ADKs Keep in mind this will also make the owner of the wepons choose..Do I want to use an ADk power up..Do I want to use one of the other power ups.. So then the weapon owners have to make other descisions. I think this will cause every combat profession to cry out - and thus it not very possible - we need to ask for the realistic
These are just some Ideas. Some of the above Ideas will not work with the others. As summer has said the adks hurt. The ideas above either cut down on the inventory of ADKs or limit them.
I've posted basic thoughts about the idea, feel free to use anything I have posted about it before. I believe another poster also suggested a similar idea on the previous page, perhaps a hybrid of ideas would be a good starting point. If anything more complicated is required I will happily fluff it out.
Although I don't like the bio-link idea I will concede that it has much more chance of actually making it live, not because it's necessarily a better idea but simply for the reason that the 'ub3r 1337' impatient whiners that now seem rife throughout the game won't cry about it so much. Bollocks to the greater good of the game huh.
I think this will cause every combat profession to cry out - and thus it not very possible - we need to ask for the realistic
Im not saying my ideas are the best..just a suggestion..someone can maybe modify them to a more realistic idea. Bottom line is..the CU hurt the WS. NO matter what change is made, it will in some way weaken what has been given to the combat professions, causing an out cry. Anytime there is change to the game, there is outcry. Look at all the outcry before the CU. I had my doubts, but was willing to give it a try if it bettered the game. I think the CU was a good Idea. However it came with some bad ideas as well. If we make another chage, its going to make people complain. If we leave it the way it is, people will complain. This game will not please everyone all the time.
Finally I did take in consideration when makeing the above recomendations that I too have a combat class. But if it balances the game, or brings life to the WS, even one of the above ideas, might help. And by all means if there is a way to modify an idea I have, have to it. I'm just giving ideas
Message Edited by Lythand on 10-16-2005 05:28 PM
Muzz wrote:
I've posted basic thoughts about the idea, feel free to use anything I have posted about it before. I believe another poster also suggested a similar idea on the previous page, perhaps a hybrid of ideas would be a good starting point. If anything more complicated is required I will happily fluff it out.
Although I don't like the bio-link idea I will concede that it has much more chance of actually making it live, not because it's necessarily a better idea but simply for the reason that the 'ub3r 1337' impatient whiners that now seem rife throughout the game won't cry about it so much. Bollocks to the greater good of the game huh.