Weaponsmith Archive
Thread: ** ATTENTION ** Time to Work on the Compilation of the Top 5 Weaponsmithing Issues....
DarkCipher, why this thread? There are a few other threads of yours that already have our top issues listed.
1) Broken schematics - We all know what they are, they've been listed a million times already.
2) Scramble up the important statistics for various weapon schematics. - Ok, people are whining and complaining about how they don't want Plumbum in their guns and all that junk, and frankly, that's all nonsense. Resources will shift, that's how the weapons stay balanced. One day, there will be 900 OQ Plumbum somewhere, and not only will that make everybody shut up, but it will also allow those Weaponsmiths who mine that Iron to make some awesome weapons.
My suggestion, which I beleive would solve a lot of problems, is to have the various categories of weapon experimentation rely on different resource statistics. There are 4 experimentation categories in weapons: Damage, Durability, Efficiency, and Range. Why are all 4 categories always dictated by the same resource stats?
Let's take a Scout Blaster...what if a Scout Blaster's Damage experimentation was reliant on Heat Resistance and Overall Quality, while its Efficiency experimentation was reliant on Shock Resistance and Decay Resistance? Wouldn't that call for some real experimenting on the Weaponsmith's part in order to craft the "perfect" Scout Blaster? "hmmm...15 units of this Ditanium Steel, with 25 units of this Polysteel Copper...and viola!" Plus, you'd add a whole new dimension to resource speculation. No longer will 'smiths buy only the Copper with highest OQ and Conductivity...maybe they'll take Shock Resistance, or Malleability into consideration too. "Hmmm...this copper has 900 OQ and Conductivity, but only 200 SR...maybe I'll use this Copper with the 700 OQ/Con, and the 600 SR."
I think the current weapons available for us to make were drawn up pretty hastily...they show a lot of laziness in their design. Why even bother listing all of the required resource stats if they're all the same? I'm hopeful that either the current weapons will be re-done, or there will be new schematics comming that will make our profession a bit more "fun".
3)AP is not working when used in conjunction with a vulnerable damage type. i.e. DX2 pistols, if shot at a mob with Acid vulnerability, does not get its 25% damage bonus for being AP 1. It's treated like an AP 0 weapon hitting an AR 0 mob. This is a general combat issue, but it definitely affects Weaponsmiths, as we craft and sell weapons based on their merits.
Frankly, outside of bug fixes, Weaponsmithing seems to be just fine in my eyes. I'm pretty confident that things will improve. The "big patch" of August was hopeful, even if it did come with lots of bugs. Having such a large patch within 2 months of the game's life shows that there's progress being made, and it's being made rather quickly. As for the Novice Weaponsmith/Master Weaponsmith gap, I think new schematics will help bridge the gap...with more and more things being made, and more and more weapons that fill different holes, there'll be more of a market available. With the 15 or so economically viable weapons we have now we can't really hope to have a very deep economy.
I just take a look at SWG's sister game, Everquest, and am confident that things will be great...the game just needs to roll on a bit more.
1- broken projectile-dealies and chemical warhead schematics
2- Move all components required for DRX Mine to Munitions 1 box.
3- Consumables (grenades), take too long to produce (complexity too high). Also probably consume too much materials.
4- Make reinforcement cores OPTIONAL for axes, gaffi sticks, power hammers, to make it moreconsistent withsword core usage. This would also allow less painful grinding.
5- There is apparently no place to put Rancor teeth powerups. Presumably this would be sword cores and reinforcement cores.
Extra bonus 6 - Sliced weapon indicator.
1) advenced/normal chemical dispenser experimentation starts at 0
2) Make experimentation more viable. effectiveness and (ranged) should be more bang for theexperimentation buck.
3) When 'failing' (moderate) on effectiveness, speed and damage can go down. If these are linked up, speed and damage should go up when effectiveness goes up as well.
4) Rifle stocks. As effectiveness dont give any meaningfull value, these just add a lot of HAM for little extra damage. I liked it in beta, when spending 4 points into effectiveness on the final combine sent the HAM cost to its lovest possible, even with the optionals 
5) Since Beta I still dont understand how the devs figured there would be a market for 900.000.000.000.000 d18 pistols without experimentation, witch is the case unless you grind.
IMHO other things are wishlist. Adding slice tag to weapons is a smuggler issue, gated resources is a general crafting issue, certifications is general (marksman ?) bugs.
This is the way it was in beta DTox.... and when it was this way all weapons were mediocre at best. That is the reason the devs slimmed back all the requirements to just CD and OQ for the final combine yet all areas of experimentation are listed.
DToxWeaponsInc wrote:
My suggestion, which I beleive would solve a lot of problems, is to have the various categories of weapon experimentation rely on different resource statistics. There are 4 experimentation categories in weapons: Damage, Durability, Efficiency, and Range. Why are all 4 categories always dictated by the same resource stats?My suggestion, which I beleive would solve a lot of problems, is to have the various categories of weapon experimentation rely on different resource statistics. There are 4 experimentation categories in weapons: Damage, Durability, Efficiency, and Range. Why are all 4 categories always dictated by the same resource stats?
Hey all,
Well most issues seem to be covered or will be covered I think by everyone else here. To the guy who mentioned having our own personal types of weapons - very cool idea - probably should try flesh it out though rather than have vague hand waving - I'll have a stab at maybe trying to come up with a feasible implementation.
Right now we're all mostly cogs in the machine - everyone has access to the same resources, schematics - there isn't any personality in experimentation. I think we pretty much all universally experiment against DPS until we cap out on material limitations then reduce HAM.
I think opening up the experimentation aspect wide, wide open will go a long way into bringing life back into the profession and adding much more personal pride in our own creations.
Take for example - when we have a look at a gun frame schematic, we have things like "heat absorption mechanism - 15 ferrous metal" or "Shock resisting frame - 30 non ferrous metal" etc etc. Right now it really doesn't matter what goes where. I think it's daft that the entire gun frame takes on the same experimental base off the same resource quality factors. I think each of these component areas should have different experimentational properties and effects. What I mean is - say we have an energy weapon - let's say for the sake of argument that the "energizing container component" requires 15 non ferrous. Let's say that improvement here can be against "capacitance containment" (damage) or "energizing efficiency" (speed) etc etc. For the damage, the key resource quality would be, say, heat resistance, as it is able to withstand the buildup of a larger charge before firing - or for speed it's conductivity, allowing for charge to move faster from the component into the firing chamber. Then for something like the gun frame, accuracy, HAM costs, speed are all areas to improve against - personally I do not see a gun's frame adding any damage, but the mass could affect how fast you can move it, aim it, the shock resistance of the material reducing recoil, or so forth. Perhaps even make breakthrough points - like if you get a 'capacitance containment component' up to 75% effectiveness versus damage it gains light armour piercing, 85% medium, and 95% heavy, with some loss of max damage stat (otherwise it would get crazy). So the trade off here since speed and damage are seperate, you could have a gun that builds up this huge shaped armour piecing charge but fires slowly - or, you could forgo this and speed it up.
I hope I am being clear - what I am driving at it make each area of a gun frame directly experimented against with different areas and having different resource quality dependencies. So we'd think about what metal is best to use for the capacitance charger, metal to use for the gun frame, metal to use for the grips, what have you. I think this kind of system would vastly open up personalising options on gun making - and seeing as each gun has a serial attached to it it won't blow out the database anymore than it is now. I was toying with the idea of bringing in alloying - mixing minerals together, but that would be a pain to maintain I am sure! Anyway I think this would be a very cool implementation. No more "I'll just make this pistol out of this one type of metal" - we'll have to think - what do I want this gun to do? Which metal shall I use for the grip? The energy feed? The charge capacitance unit? Even without adding schematics you can have a huge variety of guns. Like I said, each gun even if made exactly the same stat wise is uniquely identified, I am hoping this would only require change in how experimentation is carried out - and not a whole database rework. The ifnal result would just be as now, a gun with X stats - here have this serial number.
I invite you to have a look at the gun schematics and think about what resource qualities you'd think would apply to each subcomponent *within* the gun frame base schematic. I sure as heck don't think having a grip with high conductivity helps in making a gun fire faster, harder, or easier.
Anyway that's my piece. Oh, and bowcasters doing energy damage is crazy! It's throwing a bolt, for pete's sake! Though thecaster requiring a projectile feed and a *blaster* rifle barrel is quite strange. Same deal with Tusken Rifles ... requires a projectile feed, a projectile barrel but look at this ... it's energy damage!
We need more variety and options to keep things from getting stale. When the only thing that changes what we make is what happens to spawn this week and hence out of our control, it gets old, real, real fast.
Regards,
Ker'shakk
P.S. I don't know much about the malleability being better for experimentation urban legend - but I fervently hope this isn't true. Sure it will bend easier, but who here wants a gun that will bend with the wind? I want a gun that'll be run over my a truck and not have a dent. Can just imagine a flexible projectile rifle? You fire it and it curves up 35 degrees afterwards from resistance and recoil. Yay!
1) Experimetation bugs for chem disp and projectile components.
2) Sliced weapons sohuld be prominently illustrated, and should *not* be repairable. This would make the consumer think about whether or not to slice a weapon.
3) MANDITORY RESOURCES IN A DRAFT SCHEMATIC SHOULD REFLECT THE PROPERTIES OF THE RESOURCE THEY REQUIRE!!!!!!!!!! I can't believe that they haven't addressed this yet. Why would a gun requiring conductivity need plumbum iron in the first place?!? Until this is fixed, firearms sales will be limited to three or four types of guns.
4) Crafting stations/Crafting tools/Crafting modules should reflect experimentation bonuses.
5) HAM experimentation should be bumped a bit for components.
THINGS that should NOT be changed:
1) Leave rare resources rare. Don't spawn rare resources every other shift. I'd like to see a market for mining speculators.
2) Power handlers aren't supposed to stack. The damage of multiple power handlers should be reflected in the schematic itself, not by stacking the power handler stats.
There ya go.
-Rev
1) Schematic Problems (Chem Components)
2) Stacking Components doesn't stack results, if this wasn't the intention of the DEVs in the first place, then reduce the number of power handlers needed. I run through BPH like nothing.
3) HAM and Range Experimentation doesn't do anything.
4) Fix weapon hierarchies. (I.E. Elite Carbine and EE3 Carbinedoesn't do near the damage or speed that the laser carbine does, Though Elite is one of the top Carbine certifications and Laser is the lowest of the three.
5) Need to do something with the Melee Weapons, more diversity, broader range of stats, maybe forget putting the Scythe and other mission-only weapons under our creation.
Sorry,
To clarify above, I meant put the mission-only items under our creation. I did forget one which ill add that Overrides any of mine above...
SLICED WEAPONS need to be tagged, something...and I agree that they should also not be repairable...
Raiyne
Master WS
Kettemoor - Naboo - Theed
The gun is made up of various components. Let's look at a scout blaster:
Weapon Frame Assembly: 18 Aluminum
Blaster Assembly Receiver Housing: 8 Metal
Weapon Grip and Trigger Assembly: 4 Metal
Power Handler, Barrel, Scope (optional and nearly worthless)
First, Overall Quality should either be:
1. Computed as an average of the rest of the qualities, or
2. Be used in every single schematic as 25-50% of the stats
Why not make the Weapon Frame Assembly's stats of choice be:
Decay Resistance 33%
Shock Resistance 33%
Unit Toughness 33%
These will combine to determine the durability of the weapon.
Assembly Receiver Housing:
Shock Resistance 33%
Heat Resistance 33%
Conductivity 33%
These can combine to determine the speed of the weapon.
Weapon Grip and Trigger Assembly:
Malleability 50%
Shock Resistance 50%
This can determine the HAM and accuracy of the weapon.
The power handler would then create all of the damage and speed modifiers, the barrel would increase accuracy, and the scope (which should be able to be disabled by the end user!), can increase accuracy and damage and HAM but lower rate of fire.
I would be HUGELY in favor of being able to craft add-ons to the power handler that can change the damage type and add-ons to the barrel to change the armor piercing.
Yes, this is a lot more complicated. But shouldn't we have a LOT of options when making a weapon? This will make the best weaponsmiths the ones that actually CARE. It will also increase the variability of the weapons available. Right now, there's at most 10 total weapons that people buy. That's pretty sad.
Trebax @ Corbantis - 4.4.3.4 (+ 73k XP to go!)
Grats on the new role Cipher. Here's hoping that everybody here can now really make a difference through you and the devs. Here's my list of issues, along with a few extra comments:
1. Experimentation bugs on projectile and chemical components
2. Useless elements of weaponsmithing
3. Lack of content for weaponsmiths. We need schematic quests/drops. I'd love to see more weapon types with true differences (trade-offs) with them, other than the simple damage type variations, these could be introduced to the game as part of the new quests/drops.
4. Components not stacking their bonuses/stats. I think we all agree that if they did, this would make the current weapons overpowered. So.... change the base line stats to put it back in line. Then a T21 made with superb powerhandlers should be maybe 10% above the current best weapons, whilst one with sub-par powerhandlers would be significantly worse. As combat is being rebalanced anyway, this would have to be considered with that in mind.
Edit: sorry, don't ask me why pressing backspace/enter a few times submits a post :/
Grats on the new role Cipher. Here's hoping that everybody here can now really make a difference through you and the devs. Here's my list of issues, along with a few extra comments:
1. <b>Experimentation bugs<b> on projectile and chemical components. Details already given in bugs thread.
2. <b>HAM/Range</b>: Sacrificing experimentation points in dmg/speed for HAM and Range experimentation is still not worthwhile in any circumstance whatsoever except scopes. What's more, even a scope experimented to 0 HAM still adds a few HAM in the final combine, and stocks are still totallly worthless as the penalties are too harsh and can't be experimented down enough.The decrease in HAM and increase in range needs to be very significantly increased per experiment point put into it, forall components and final combines.
3. <b>Lack of content for weaponsmiths.</b> We need schematic quests/drops. I'd love to see more weapon types with true differences (trade-offs) with them, other than the simple damage type variations, these could be introduced to the game as part of the new quests/drops.
4. <b>Components not stacking their bonuses/stats - balanced fix suggested:</b>I think we all agree that if they did stack as things are now, this would make the current weapons overpowered. So.... change the base line stats to put it back in line. Then a T21 made with superb powerhandlers should be maybe 10% above the current best weapons, whilst one with sub-par powerhandlers would be significantly worse. As combat is being rebalanced anyway, this would have to be considered with that in mind.
5. <b>Novice weaponsmiths</b>: There's no real viable alternative other than grind and destory. The items they can make just aren't good enough to sell until reaching expert techniques. How about adding crafter missions which actually give crafting xp and a small monetary reward to the relevant profession, at a rate that is proportional to the time it'd take to do, and at a level (and reward) depending on the crafter's techniques skill. Either that, or bring back a limited storage capacity for schematics.
On a side note, my vote is to NOT change the resource rarity. Weaponsmithing is too easy as it is, not to mention everyone makes the same stuff. Top end weapons should be rare. Top end, great quality weapons should be very rare. I think the devs have got this spot on, except the recent changes to commando weapons which made them too easy to make. (I support the expendable weapons being easier to make , but not the other types). Stockpiling rare resources is a part of the game, it adds an extra element to it, and removing requirements for these rare resources is just going to dumb down a great system.
Similarly, I don't believe T21s are too hard to make. They're meant to be! (And this is coming from someone on Lowca with no alantium ore).
Vote no to dumbing down
Thanks for your time, Cipher in particular.
ok my 5 are
1.specific resources for specific weapons should have better qualities in the specific categories.
2.email should be recieved when harvester's shut down due too resource shift.
3.Should be seperate cap on bazzar for each weapon in stead of 3k for everything.
4.advanced components should always be better than non-advanced no matter what the quality of resource.
5.Experimentation is screwy any type success should improve weapon not lower it's value.
Not sure if all these are possiable to fix but That is my 2 cents worth;there are more.
Sharkey Machine ,Tempest ,Talus,Nashal