Weaponsmith Archive
Thread: The Real Problem with Resources and Weaons ... and the *real* solution.
Today to get 100% experimentation you need 1000 for every attribute and resource.
Instad change it to the maxium possible stats on the resource used. If a resource is capped at CD:500 OQ:1000 then if you use a resource which is 500/1000 you should get 100% experimentation (not 75% as it is today).
It should of course use the requirement for the schematic. if it says "metal" you would require 1000/1000 for 100%. but if the schematic say plumbum it would be 500/1000 (assuming these are the caps).
If you used that plumbum 500/1000 in a schematic require generic metal you should of course not get 100% experimentation.
Did anyone expect a more cogent response from our correspondent?
Bermag wrote:
Maybe what should be used is the maximum cap of the resource and not assuming 1000 as highest attribute. For exampel:
Today to get 100% experimentation you need 1000 for every attribute and resource.
Instad change it to the maxium possible stats on the resource used. If a resource is capped at CD:500 OQ:1000 then if you use a resource which is 500/1000 you should get 100% experimentation (not 75% as it is today).
It should of course use the requirement for the schematic. if it says "metal" you would require 1000/1000 for 100%. but if the schematic say plumbum it would be 500/1000 (assuming these are the caps).
If you used that plumbum 500/1000 in a schematic require generic metal you should of course not get 100% experimentation.
This is the BEST way to fix the system.. It allows for those of us who know the various caps on various resources to better recognize the truly godly ones.. and that was hard won knowledge and we should be rewarded for it.
It allows for those of us who have spent months collecting the best resources on the server even though they made no real difference on the stats to see some reward for our hard efforts.
And it would fix the balancing issues with weaponry because the weapons would be able to achieve their intended stats.
As much as I agree with what Hero has stated previously.. his method for change does little more than fix the rank order of the weapons... it would be a needed fix.. but not the best one.. as in the end.. even though the weapons would all be higher quality.. all weaponsmiths would still be crafting weapons within one to two points of each other..
Hero's change would be the one I would be screaming for if I were a combat player. It IS easy to implement... But it doesn't do add any FUN for the weaponsmith profession..In the end.. it's just a band-aid.. a kludge.. now go back and fix it properly (I know I heard that somewhere)
For the combat professions.. Hero's change would make it so that each new skill box would have meaning because I'd want to rush out and get the next weapon... As a weaponsmith.. this would increase my sales... but it doesn't do much for my FUN.
I already sell more weapons than I can humanlykeep stocked.. I don't need more sales from people buying out all the otherweapon types that they now only buy in small quantities to have a comprehensive weapon selection... What I want is some true variation for my efforts on collecting that plumbum that is 80 points better OQ + Cond.
That would make the game FUN and contribute more to the competition among weaponsmiths..
I agree that this is a HARDER change to implement.. it actually requires the use of a calculator to come up with the proper impact of each stat... but for weapons.. it's at MOST two stats per resource.. and there what? 250 or so weaponsmith schems at most? (total guess.. don't flame me for this one) It might take a few days worth of work for ONE programmer.. It's not a far fetched solution...
And it is the ONLY real fix to make things work the way they were intended without the risk of further impact on the future and the domino effect of all the other professions wanting a change to their resources as well (although they could rightfully expect a change to their schems and the way stats are figured)
Still.. it is much better to fix the problem now with the number of schems currently existing than to wait while more and more schems are added!
Bermag wrote:
Maybe what should be used is the maximum cap of the resource and not assuming 1000 as highest attribute. For exampel:
Today to get 100% experimentation you need 1000 for every attribute and resource.
Instad change it to the maxium possible stats on the resource used. If a resource is capped at CD:500 OQ:1000 then if you use a resource which is 500/1000 you should get 100% experimentation (not 75% as it is today).
It should of course use the requirement for the schematic. if it says "metal" you would require 1000/1000 for 100%. but if the schematic say plumbum it would be 500/1000 (assuming these are the caps).
If you used that plumbum 500/1000 in a schematic require generic metal you should of course not get 100% experimentation.
This would be another way to fix the guns ... if it was a true scale then if a resource had a cap of 100 and 1000 and you have 50/1000 then your would get a 50% exp bonus ... this would satisfy a bunch of folks ... but it has the potential to effect every crafter from every profession.
If the Dev's are ready to do that, then great ... but I *know* it would be easier for them to break out their handy-dandy weaspons spreadsheet ... plug in the caps for the resources ... and then adjust base damage back where it is supposed to be ... would not even require *coding* time ... only require time to plug in the new data to the DB.
Be0Wulfe wrote:
Did anyone expect a more cogent response from our correspondent?
He was not our correspondent when I started this thread.
Although I very concerned that he is going to blurr the lines form what the community wants to what Logix wants :-)
It's one thing to be a voice in the crowd ... trying to *yell* as loudly and as coherrently as you can to get heard ... it's quite another job to have to have listen, identify and sympathize with all those voices in the crowd.
I am concerned that Logix will not listen to the voices, but rather rebuke the voices in defense of his voice ... basically Logix really should consider his voice anymore ... he is a conduit for the community ... the question is whether he can make the transition or not :-)