Weaponsmith Archive
Thread: Logix A Request regarding the Summit
), this *begins* to make the Consumables economically viable to use.Brilyn,if they kick you off the WS board, you can always come to the commando board and keep the weapons discussions lively there.
Brilyn wrote:
Hey there. Not a flame or a whine.
I've been chatting with the Commandos quite a bit on their forum, and (aside from their *main* issues), the subject of cost-per-shot of the various Heavy Weapons came up.
Now, I'm not looking for people to jump in here with the "yeah! Make Rocket Launchers easier to make!" or anything like that.
Regardless of how easy they are to make, I forsee people still selling them at the same price.
So, with that in mind, is there any chance you could request that the Devs increase the number of uses for Heavy Weapons and Grenades by, say, a factor of 3?
In discussions on the commando board the heavy weapon charge increase we were discussing was a factor of 10, bringing them to the point where they are reasonably economical on a cost per shot basis.
The commando want last I new was a increase by a factor of 5, bringing grenades inline with the unenhanced output that CMs get on their biopacks.
That would start them off with about 87 uses each, with a base assembly.
While some people will argue that this is a lot, and will increase prices accordingly (you bad bad people you!
Ignoring the whole speed factor, a Commando can use a Flamethrower for about 2000 shots or so, including using powerups and specials all the way. Per-Shot, the Flamethrower will do more damage than most of the Heavies (assuming equal resistances).
Think your shot count is off for the simple reason that unless you use OCS1 or OCS2 the flamethrower takes less durability loss compaired to other weapons due to the fact that powerups DO NOT WORK on them (or HARs or LLCs).
I have no problems with the Heavies (and Grenades) being 'consumable', but the amount of shots a Commando gets is generally considered too low to be worthwhile.
Any chance you could mention this at the Summit? Or chat to Garvin about it?
) would like to see 'lots more shots' per weapon.
Logix wrote:
To be forward, odds are going to be that we're not going to discuss anything related to weapon crafting. The whole focus of the Summit is Combat Balance and there's a *LOT*to be discussed. So I'm just going to tell you now that I cannot promise we'll be able to get around to discussing specific schematic changes.
That said, I agree with the concept of making grenades more economically viable. And I'm sure Garvin has a whole list of additions, as well. If you're really interested in Commando rebalances, I'd recommend you shoot Garvin a PM and ask if he's got a list of what he plans to try to bring to the table at the Summit.
In the meantime, feel free to continue this discussion and I'll make notes for the Summit.
I guess aquestion I have in order to further the discussion would be: how integral do the devs feel weapon stats are to "balance"?
I mean, we can all point to weapons in the game that are worthless and some that are ridiculously good. Have they given you any indication of what they intend to do -- if anything -- to tweak current weapon stats as a part of the combat balance?
To me, it's hard to provide commentary without having at least a rudimentary feel of how integral the developers feel weapon stats should be to the balance as a whole.
Brilyn wrote:
...it's not possible to Master both Commando and Weaponsmith. Which, in my opinion, contributes to a lack of understanding of Commando weaponry by Weaponsmiths: we can't test them ourselves.
I completely agree. I did Commando for my second holo back in February, and it totally changed my perception of the profession. I came to the realization that they have exactly one working weapon: the flamethrower. To be of any use, the HAR needs AP, and the launcher is just crap without pistoleer specials that it's probably not worth your time to get.
I could go on, but the bottom line is that yes, being a commando helped me understand their pain better. =)
Logix wrote:
To be forward, odds are going to be that we're not going to discuss anything related to weapon crafting. The whole focus of the Summit is Combat Balance and there's a *LOT*to be discussed. So I'm just going to tell you now that I cannot promise we'll be able to get around to discussing specific schematic changes.
As a Commando, I certainly do hope that the point of bringingthe crafting professions to the summit is precisely so that such things can be discussed. The fact that two entire branches of our profession is dedicated to limited use consumable weapons that are problematic as far as cost : benefit ratio is a primary issue for the Commando. I have reason to believe that thisis aWeaponsmith issue as well, sinceI have had a great deal of difficulty finding heavy weapons to purchase. (Brilyn is my supplier now, and he is doing an excellent job)
I average 1000 credits per shot with a Rocket Launcher, and that's if I can find them (No offense to Brilyn, I rely on his shop now). I feelthecostevery time I miss, or every time I am still outdamaged by another profession, especially one that costs fewer skillpoints to master. Although some ofthe problems can be alleviated to a degree by consumables craftedto be moreaccurate, we often still have trouble keeping up with our own flamethrowers, much less other profession's DPS.
That said, I agree with the concept of making grenades more economically viable. And I'm sure Garvin has a whole list of additions, as well. If you're really interested in Commando rebalances, I'd recommend you shoot Garvin a PM and ask if he's got a list of what he plans to try to bring to the table at the Summit.
For the most part, even with skill mods added to the Commando's tree, the cost : benefit ofconsumables isn't going to be rectified. I think the general consensus is that the weapons themselves need some attention.
In the meantime, feel free to continue this discussion and I'll make notes for the Summit.
SeaRaptor wrote:
I guess aquestion I have in order to further the discussion would be: how integral do the devs feel weapon stats are to "balance"?
I couldn't speak for the Developers. Personally, I think appropriate weapon balance is vital to both proper class competition and combat balance.
However, they did mention how important Weaponsmith/Armorsmith testers were going to be for the Sandbox server for Combat Balance testing (for schematic changes, etc). So I'd guess that they do consider it pretty relevant .. but whether or not they want to allow for much player input on specific weapon changes, I couldn't say.
The problem is: What are they going to balance first? I mean, we've got the GCW, PvP, Jedi vs BH, HAM, individual combat profession balance and special move revamping, AP/AR, the whole Composite Armor war and weapon stat balancing. As for what they feel is best to start working towards first, I'm as clueless as anyone.
Logix wrote:
What are they going to balance first? I mean, we've got the GCW, PvP, Jedi vs BH, HAM, individual combat profession balance and special move revamping, AP/AR, the whole Composite Armor war and weapon stat balancing. As for what they feel is best to start working towards first, I'm as clueless as anyone.
A fair question.
I'm not a developer, but I would probably do it this way:
First, you have to institute HAM changes. This is the underlying system that all combat is based on. Any change must start here.
Second, special moves. HAM costs and damage multipliers are looked at at this stage of the game. In addition, each profession's "role" in combat is discussed/defined, and their specials flavored accordingly.
Third, weapons get a balance pass. I think our most valuable input in this instance will be on weapon certifications. The developers can see raw numbers on weapons and honestly, they don't need our help for that, I'll wager. However, our experience is invaluable in telling them what weapons sell and WHY, and why certain weapons are crap simply because they are certified in the wrong place.
Fourth, armor. Once weaponry balance is moving in the right direction, you can consider AR/AP and armor resists (preferably after at least damage types have been settled on for weapons).
Last, PvP. This would include lightsaber resists, BH vs Jedi, and factional combat. (This is not the GCW balance, that's separate.) I put PvP last because whlie it is intended to be the "endgame" as a part of the GCW, the reality is that very few people participate in PvP.
Again, I think our most valuable contribution to the combat balance lies in our potential to affect great influence on the weapon certification tiers, because they obviously have a lot of flaws as they currently stand. Raw weapon stats can be tweaked/changed/altered at pretty much any point during development; it's the certifications and advancement paths that are a more crucial part of the equation.