Weaponsmith Archive
Thread: Weaponsmith Bug and Repair Discussion: Schematics
Page 1 of 2
Mor-Dan
Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:01 pm
#1
One of the things we currently have is a bunch of schems with the same requirements. How would you like to see these changed up to make things a little more diversified? What type of thought provess should go into what resources define a weapon, and how many it should require?
CorenLanra
Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:54 pm
#2
Personally I think it is rather uncreative of the Devs to just mask other schematics with different skins. I don't have them all on the tip of my tongue but I think there is the E5 Carbine and E11 MK-II using the same exact resources. Also, "light" weapons (lower CL) take the exact same resources and quantity as their advanced (except they can only take standard components not advanced). Personally I'd rather not waste my good resources on a Low CL weapon when I can make a higher DMG weapon with the same stuff. Possibly the resource requirement needs to relate to the CL requirement of the weapon.
Accamim
Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:26 am
#3
The only problem I have is that some of the lower CL weapons have more demanding resource requirements than some advanced weapons. However, I would not like to see changes to schematics, and this is probably why the resource requirements are similar to the pre-CU weapons with different skins. Isn't our resource pool diversified enough? Imagine if all the weapon schems changed tomorrow and we had to go through another 10-20 million credits in resource aquisition.
jason67
Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:37 am
#4
I would much rather they spend their time working on making the weapons more appropriate, ie the T21 is well outclassed by the adv laser rifle. I think their time would be much better spent reworking the T21 to make it an appropriate weapon for master level cert. Give it a higher min damage, make it faster, give it the ability to use a scope etc.... There's half a dozen different ways they can use to make it a worthwhile master level cert without unbalancing it at all, but why in the world would I use a T21 which has the same basic damage ranges for both min/max, uses more tissues than the T21, uses extremely hard to get resources that have poor quality levels and will ultimately make an inferior weapon especially since it'll be missing the added accuracy bonus of a scope, it just doesn't make any sense, and why this very simplistic issue was not addressed during the CURB is beyond me, the CURB was supposed to be all about balancing the weapons and combat etc... yet here is a master level weapon that is outclassed by the laser rifle. And sadly this is not the only master level weapon in this situation.
StarNick
Tue Aug 02, 2005 5:45 am
#5
"The only problem I have is that some of the lower CL weapons have more demanding resource requirements than some advanced weapons."
I agree. When a Heavy Particle Beam Cannon (CL30) takes 5 Advanced Blaster Handeler barrels, and our master heavy weapon (not even talking about some rifles, which take less too) the Plasma Flamethrower takes 4...
Or just the Rocket Launcher, a C22 weapon and its double or triple the resource requirements (and time) compared to other high end weaponry.
Something needs to be done so weapon schematics are reflective of their respective power capabilities of said weapon.
I agree. When a Heavy Particle Beam Cannon (CL30) takes 5 Advanced Blaster Handeler barrels, and our master heavy weapon (not even talking about some rifles, which take less too) the Plasma Flamethrower takes 4...
Or just the Rocket Launcher, a C22 weapon and its double or triple the resource requirements (and time) compared to other high end weaponry.
Something needs to be done so weapon schematics are reflective of their respective power capabilities of said weapon.
donkeyP
Tue Aug 02, 2005 7:02 am
#6
I also agree that the resource requirements for the low CL weapons should be changed. To me on a low CL weapon it would make more sense to have few or no named resources, in that the weapons are basically base models.
In the SWG universe :
They would be the cheap weapons that just about anyone can afford and therefore a WS would not use a specific resource in making it, he would just take a few good resources laying around and use them in making it. Then in making a more complex and powerful weapon he would have less leniency on using varried materials. If a part of the weapon is best made by a particular type of iron or copper(Named resource) then that is what any quality WS would do.
Save the named/specific resources for the higher CL weapons and make the lower CL weapons more generic in their requrements. Also i can see that every once in a while a CL should have a named resource, but this should be saved for the more exotic weapons.
Arisa also made a good point, i would also like to see master level weapons have their power reflect their skill requirement. This is an issue withfew weapons that require master certs. The T21 and advance laser rifle are a very good example of it.
Maceey
Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:03 am
#7
Master prof weapons need to be better then your normalCL 54 weapon.
The Scythe,Hack,Ge, dxr6 rifle is all crap.
The Projectile Pistol and Projectile Rifle barrel isn't used in any weapon at all.(new heavy warhead anybody????)
Control units and Power conditioners are useless. They have no stats that make the weapon better and can be crafted with the cheapest resources you can find. You might as well remove them directly.
We need a CL 54 Weapon schematic for TKM
There are big CL level gaps in the melee department.
Heavy weapon resource and component use needs to be taken down a bit.(see starnick's post)
Change the heavy weapons now listed as rifles to heavy weapons.
Be a little more creative with the resource use on schematics.Just change the amount a bit so we can at least price the lower cl level ones cheaper then the higher cl ones.Not just copy paste weapons: Czerka = dxr6 carb / ee3 = e11 mk2 = e5 / intimidator = FWG5 / Alliance disrupter = power5 pistol / Scatter = HC Scatter(oke just the barrel...) light laser = adv laser
Have the amount of resources and named resources depend on the CL they have. Put them accordingly to the cl in the weaponsmith skill tree.
i think that's about enough to think about for now.
Mor-Dan
Tue Aug 02, 2005 9:44 am
#8
StarNick wrote:
"The only problem I have is that some of the lower CL weapons have more demanding resource requirements than some advanced weapons."
I agree. When a Heavy Particle Beam Cannon (CL30) takes 5 Advanced Blaster Handeler barrels, and our master heavy weapon (not even talking about some rifles, which take less too) the Plasma Flamethrower takes 4...
Or just the Rocket Launcher, a C22 weapon and its double or triple the resource requirements (and time) compared to other high end weaponry.
Something needs to be done so weapon schematics are reflective of their respective power capabilities of said weapon.
commando weapons are different. aside from them having higher splash damage than other elemental weapons (when it's working, anyway), they also have some effects, such as the KD from a rocket launcher. things like this keep some of the weapons useful even after you pass their combat level.
Santos_L
Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:42 am
#9
I agree that we need some changes specifically ref matching the resource requirements to the CL level of weapons and Master Cert weapons should have some little beneficial benefit to using them over standard CL 54 weapons. My cautions on this is be careful of what you ask for as we may end up on the receiving end of a giant nerf bat like the Armorsmiths did with the CURB.
I'd quit this game rather thensee all the resources I've bought and worked hard to collect be made useless.
Santos'l
Master Weaponsmith / Master Smuggler
Summerflame
Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:53 am
#10
I agree that the lower CL weapons should use less resources. Anything else is silly.
Possibly also make the Lower CL weapons use generic resources as someone else suggested in this post.
I also strongly agree that master certified weapons needs some kind of benefit above others. How About adding some sort of profession specific mod to them? Having the T21 stay as it is statswise would be okay as long as it had a mod of +15 Rifle speed or Rifle accuracy or Rifle defese or something along those lines?
This I believe could make master certified weapons viable.
As far as loot schematics go make them all CL 54, make them weak in some aspects and stronger in others. How about a scythe with Max dam cap 600, but Elemental dam 300`+?
Make the game more diverse bymakingcreaturesvulnerable todifferent kinds ofelemental damage, that would also give people a reason to carry multiple types ofweapons
SEAkridge
Tue Aug 02, 2005 11:51 am
#11
They definitely need to change the schematics on the lower level weapons. A light bowcaster, which is CL1, requires 2 specifically named resources (quadranium steel and doonium iron), 3 identical BPHs, 1 PFM, and a barrel. This is a weapon with a max damage cap of 97 and a min damage cap of 47. Both of these stats are blown past on assembly, without any experimentation taking place. This is the same schematic that the preCU bowcaster used. When I heard there was going to be 3 levels of bowcaster, this is the one that I thought would be the elite one, because of all the requirements. It just seems strange to have that level of sophistication in a CL1 weapon.
CorenLanra
Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:33 pm
#12
Mor-Dan wrote:
StarNick wrote:
"The only problem I have is that some of the lower CL weapons have more demanding resource requirements than some advanced weapons."
I agree. When a Heavy Particle Beam Cannon (CL30) takes 5 Advanced Blaster Handeler barrels, and our master heavy weapon (not even talking about some rifles, which take less too) the Plasma Flamethrower takes 4...
Or just the Rocket Launcher, a C22 weapon and its double or triple the resource requirements (and time) compared to other high end weaponry.
Something needs to be done so weapon schematics are reflective of their respective power capabilities of said weapon.
commando weapons are different. aside from them having higher splash damage than other elemental weapons (when it's working, anyway), they also have some effects, such as the KD from a rocket launcher. things like this keep some of the weapons useful even after you pass their combat level.
You got that right... But do you sell any Rocket Launchers? Would you use your high end resources to make a relatively inferior weapon from a business standpoint?
StarNick
Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:06 pm
#13
"things like this keep some of the weapons useful even after you pass their combat level."
Sorry Mor-Dan, thats a good concept on paper but its horrible in practicality.
Take a look at our weapons:
For grenades -
C12/C22 Frag - No state effect, just the ability to "produce more damage"
Glop - Blindness (weaker than eyeshot, barely lasts through halfway through the timers)
Cyroban - Snare (lasts 1-2 seconds)
Thermal/Proton Detonator - Fire DoTs
For weapons -
Launcher Pistol - None
Rocket Launcher - Weak KD, usually KDs on the first hit...then stops
Heavy Acid Rifle/Acid Stream Launcher - Blind (better than the glop)
Heavy Particle Beam Cannon - Big beam that suppousedly can "fire" through a slew of enemies up to 64 m (if lined up)
Flamethrower/Plasma Flamethrower - Fire DoT
Lightning beam Cannon - Fire DoT
All our CL54 and Cl50 weapons all have the same "state": Fire DoT. This isn't much compared to a root, or a KD, or a blind, or a snare, etc
Also keep in mind we're a profession ment to do *damage*. With our master weapon, alone, we can hit for around 1200 damage (with elemental) using our best marksman special...an elite carbine can hit for 1600 or so with improved legshot. In terms of damages, around the upper max ranges of unenhanced weapons for each (950's for the PFT, 880's for the carbine). Thats including elemental...with our fire DoT, tack on just an extra (approximate) 1200 damage total.
AoE? Right now non-existant (elemental + 1 for damage), even if it was it seemed it was 40-50% on most weapons save the Lighting Beam Cannon.
Elemental? You're looking at for master level weapons an extra 90 damage, only a few weapons actually have 140-180 elemental damage...and they're primarily the CL 22 and CL 30 weapons.
States? Pathetically weak...
Ok now look at this:
You're a commando...you're doing good damage against a CL 80 mob, you wan't to KD it. You switch to your Rocket Launcher, take a drastic plunge in damage...it'll take a few shots to really KD it (generally), by the time you switch back to do damage...it's already up. Its a fact FEW commandos even use weapons beyond CL40 because of damage (a rocket launcher is around 350 max dmg and like 180 elemental right? thats 600-900 damage with a special just abouts). Its totally inefficient and impractical to use lower level based weapons...
Now, AoE - when and if it ever gets fixed - may give just one small chance at justification...one small chance. But also get this:
Our weapons are special? Is it special if a FWG5 *Pistol* can outdamage a Rocket Launcher, just because that Rocket Launcher does an innate (but weak) KD, but the FWG5 costs much less to produce that Pistol? You may be right...thats the Dev's concept of Special alright
The schematics should reflect the power output of said weapons...regardless of profession, because if you think our weapons are powerful because of their "uniqueness" you're dead wrong...they're no different from other weapons. Rather, our professions state attacks are built into them, NOT the professions damage. Thats why we need specials to get our job done, as our weapons aren't doing em...
Now...it would be a whole lot better if the schematic costs were kept *IF* we saw Advanced Versions of the Rocket Launcher or other low CL Heavy Weapons that are pretty dang powerful for their schematic resource/component requirements. But the low CL stuff has to reflect on the actual output that the weapon can generate...
Sorry Mor-Dan, thats a good concept on paper but its horrible in practicality.
Take a look at our weapons:
For grenades -
C12/C22 Frag - No state effect, just the ability to "produce more damage"
Glop - Blindness (weaker than eyeshot, barely lasts through halfway through the timers)
Cyroban - Snare (lasts 1-2 seconds)
Thermal/Proton Detonator - Fire DoTs
For weapons -
Launcher Pistol - None
Rocket Launcher - Weak KD, usually KDs on the first hit...then stops
Heavy Acid Rifle/Acid Stream Launcher - Blind (better than the glop)
Heavy Particle Beam Cannon - Big beam that suppousedly can "fire" through a slew of enemies up to 64 m (if lined up)
Flamethrower/Plasma Flamethrower - Fire DoT
Lightning beam Cannon - Fire DoT
All our CL54 and Cl50 weapons all have the same "state": Fire DoT. This isn't much compared to a root, or a KD, or a blind, or a snare, etc
Also keep in mind we're a profession ment to do *damage*. With our master weapon, alone, we can hit for around 1200 damage (with elemental) using our best marksman special...an elite carbine can hit for 1600 or so with improved legshot. In terms of damages, around the upper max ranges of unenhanced weapons for each (950's for the PFT, 880's for the carbine). Thats including elemental...with our fire DoT, tack on just an extra (approximate) 1200 damage total.
AoE? Right now non-existant (elemental + 1 for damage), even if it was it seemed it was 40-50% on most weapons save the Lighting Beam Cannon.
Elemental? You're looking at for master level weapons an extra 90 damage, only a few weapons actually have 140-180 elemental damage...and they're primarily the CL 22 and CL 30 weapons.
States? Pathetically weak...
Ok now look at this:
You're a commando...you're doing good damage against a CL 80 mob, you wan't to KD it. You switch to your Rocket Launcher, take a drastic plunge in damage...it'll take a few shots to really KD it (generally), by the time you switch back to do damage...it's already up. Its a fact FEW commandos even use weapons beyond CL40 because of damage (a rocket launcher is around 350 max dmg and like 180 elemental right? thats 600-900 damage with a special just abouts). Its totally inefficient and impractical to use lower level based weapons...
Now, AoE - when and if it ever gets fixed - may give just one small chance at justification...one small chance. But also get this:
Our weapons are special? Is it special if a FWG5 *Pistol* can outdamage a Rocket Launcher, just because that Rocket Launcher does an innate (but weak) KD, but the FWG5 costs much less to produce that Pistol? You may be right...thats the Dev's concept of Special alright
The schematics should reflect the power output of said weapons...regardless of profession, because if you think our weapons are powerful because of their "uniqueness" you're dead wrong...they're no different from other weapons. Rather, our professions state attacks are built into them, NOT the professions damage. Thats why we need specials to get our job done, as our weapons aren't doing em...
Now...it would be a whole lot better if the schematic costs were kept *IF* we saw Advanced Versions of the Rocket Launcher or other low CL Heavy Weapons that are pretty dang powerful for their schematic resource/component requirements. But the low CL stuff has to reflect on the actual output that the weapon can generate...
Message Edited by StarNick on 08-02-2005 07:07 PM
Page 1 of 2