| Author |
Design Proposal - Enhancement Changes |
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
|  Posted: 2010-03-18 18:44
Azreal, that's what they were always intended to do.
_________________
|
Drafell
Grand Admiral
Mythica
Joined: May 30, 2003
Posts: 2449
From: United Kingdom
| Posted: 2010-03-18 18:49
Enhancements are NOT designed to replace modding options. Those will come when we are ready to start implementing weapon variants. The combination of Enhancements and variants will allow a a significant degree of ship customisation options, while keeping them within the intended role.
_________________
It's gone now, no longer here...Yet still I see, and still I fear.rnrn
rnrn
DarkSpace Developer - Retired
|
Starcommander
Marshal
Joined: December 14, 2005
Posts: 579
From: In your base, stealing your cookies
| Posted: 2010-03-18 19:39
The negatives seem a little....pointless. As in it will start making certain weps pointless to have on a ship. So if say I get a 3% beam damage bonus and the negative is -2% projectile damage. If i stacked up on those (like most people will) then my IC on an ICC Assault Dread would be pointless in having. This would effect Kluth the most as there SI would also become nothing more then oversized PSI cannons. Now if it was +3% beam damage and say -2% projectile recharge rate, that would be better. So you pick up more damage but in return your projectiles take longer to recharge. The inverse of this one would be +3% projectile damage and -2% beam recharge rate.
This is all based on what negatives you are thinking about. Just throwing up some warnings as to what to think about when thinking of what to reduce.
I do like the half for negatives so that even a high level enh still gives you a benefit without nerfing too much of something else.
_________________
WH 40k armies, Grey Knights, Dark Angles, Imperial Guard (Vostroyan First Born) and Orks.
There is a thin line between knowing when to give up and when to try harder.
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-03-18 19:40
You won't get +2% beam -2% projectile. You'll get something akin to +2% damage, +3% energy usage.
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2010-03-18 20:07
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-18 19:40, BackSlash [R33] wrote:
You won't get +2% beam -2% projectile. You'll get something akin to +2% damage, +3% energy usage.
|
|
Reasons for not using them at all, thus defeating the idea that people will pay to use them. At least there would be an option of do I wanna go with some beams or torps/si...hmmm...
Im not trying to be arguementative, but Im not understanding how this is supposed to improve over even what we have now. Its almost like a forced change for the sake of it, tho I am sure that is not it. I see where you said there was an issue with improper real application of the modifiers. I dont understand why this whole revamp is better than, as an example, limiting a ship to +20% projectile damage total. Why not limit the allowed amount of enhancement per damage type? That would get even more interesting in the case of Thari's, where there are multiple multipliers. It would allow for almost a templated approach to enhancements.
Also, as a seperate issue completely, how will that effect the way the enhancements we have currentlywork? How will a +6% Advanced Weapon Multiplexor that's already on my ship be effected by this kind of a change?
_________________
bucket link
|
Enterprise
Chief Marshal
Joined: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2576
From: Hawthorne, Nevada
| Posted: 2010-03-18 23:00
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-18 20:07, Azreal wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2010-03-18 19:40, BackSlash [R33] wrote:
You won't get +2% beam -2% projectile. You'll get something akin to +2% damage, +3% energy usage.
|
|
Reasons for not using them at all, thus defeating the idea that people will pay to use them. At least there would be an option of do I wanna go with some beams or torps/si...hmmm...
Im not trying to be arguementative, but Im not understanding how this is supposed to improve over even what we have now. Its almost like a forced change for the sake of it, tho I am sure that is not it. I see where you said there was an issue with improper real application of the modifiers. I dont understand why this whole revamp is better than, as an example, limiting a ship to +20% projectile damage total. Why not limit the allowed amount of enhancement per damage type? That would get even more interesting in the case of Thari's, where there are multiple multipliers. It would allow for almost a templated approach to enhancements.
Also, as a seperate issue completely, how will that effect the way the enhancements we have currentlywork? How will a +6% Advanced Weapon Multiplexor that's already on my ship be effected by this kind of a change?
|
|
They are things called tradeoffs.
You do more damage, but it takes more power. You have to decide whether or not you're happy with the damage your doing or its worth having less power per shot for an extra bang.
Or you can do less damage for more range, less manueverability for more armor, faster speed for less accelleration or vice versa. It lets you customize your playstyle even more.
Imagine having sliders on your ship that let you put more power to engines or some such. This obviously comes at price of other systems. Its the exact same thing. Its just a bit different.
There are obvious positive points about this. It prevents bonuses from getting out of control without having to throw on arbitrary limits. So you can have that +56% damage, if they want it take 48% more power. Having ceiling limits like only up to 20% projectile damage creates templates and has far less fredom than this. Let people have their decisions but as long as there is balance there is no issue.
Before now people payed to play the game, but that didn't give them entitlement to have ships that gave an unfair advantage to people who did not. Just because you have the option of boosting parts of your ship doesn't mean it needs to be excessive.
In the end, its still a positive effect. If the negative is less than the positive, overall you still gain an advantage, and if you use that advantage properly then you do well. I don't see a reason to give people God of Doom Enhancements +7 just because they decided to shell out $10.
-Ent
_________________
|
Azreal
Chief Marshal
Joined: March 14, 2004
Posts: 2816
From: United State of Texas, Houston
| Posted: 2010-03-18 23:20
The negative effects are stronger than the positive effects in the example listed = weakens you in one area MORE than it strengthens you in another = why would I put it on my ship to begin with = why would I PURCHASE them from any shop for real money = not an improvement.
Ive not heard anything that answers the issues I have brought up.
_________________
bucket link
|
BackSlash
Marshal
Galactic Navy
Joined: March 23, 2003
Posts: 11183
From: Bristol, England
| Posted: 2010-03-19 05:30
Ooh err, my mistake. I meant something akin to +3% damage, +2% energy usage, not the other way around...
Oops 
_________________
|
NoBoDx
Grand Admiral
Joined: October 14, 2003
Posts: 784
From: Germany / NRW
| Posted: 2010-03-19 06:38
cant wait till we get a system similar to the energy-management (triangle) in uprising
full power to the shields /armor(armor-absorb) => weapon (recharge or dmg) and engines (speed) on minimum
or weapons at 10% , armor & engines at 45% and so on
_________________
The only good 'ooman is a dead 'ooman. An' da only fing better than a dead 'ooman'z a dyin' 'ooman who tell you where ter find 'is mates.
|
xTx
Chief Marshal
Joined: September 10, 2005
Posts: 101
From: Canada
| Posted: 2010-03-19 13:45
Take enhancements out of game completely. They have caused an imbalance in the game and will continue to do so. I like the idea of player designed insignias on ships or original paint jobs.
[ This Message was edited by: xTx on 2010-03-19 16:48 ]
_________________
|
SPaRTaN Z
Chief Marshal
Joined: June 26, 2009
Posts: 235
| Posted: 2010-03-19 21:02
Perhaps a trade-off of less than 50% would be ideal. or the more advanced an enhancement the lesser of the trade off..
limited +2 -2
standard +3 -3
improved +4 -3
enhanced +5 -3
advanced +6 -3
or whatever.
i'm sure u guys wil figure it out..
Requesting tho that the MV is changed, with tighter clusters, more moons etc etc. MV change is needed majorily.
_________________
|
Aeraesoria
Admiral
Synchronicity
Joined: October 25, 2007
Posts: 49
From: Aeraesoria
| Posted: 2010-04-15 14:03
I have a suggestion... how about instead of us making the mistake of unloading enhancements on to planets and lose them. If they are unloaded to the planet it automatically goes to YOUR enhancement storage in the garage... srsly we've all been there when we get an awesome enh drop from an enemy and then mistakenly unload it on a planet and lose it forever...
_________________
|
Starcommander
Marshal
Joined: December 14, 2005
Posts: 579
From: In your base, stealing your cookies
| Posted: 2010-04-15 14:20
Quote:
|
On 2010-04-15 14:03, Aeraesoria wrote:
I have a suggestion... how about instead of us making the mistake of unloading enhancements on to planets and lose them. If they are unloaded to the planet it automatically goes to YOUR enhancement storage in the garage... srsly we've all been there when we get an awesome enh drop from an enemy and then mistakenly unload it on a planet and lose it forever...
|
|
good work on the necro bump lol. This conversation ended a long time ago.
_________________
WH 40k armies, Grey Knights, Dark Angles, Imperial Guard (Vostroyan First Born) and Orks.
There is a thin line between knowing when to give up and when to try harder.
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2010-04-15 14:31
I have to think about this, because I'm a fan of enhancements actually enhancing your ship, not trading one thing for another which is what this proposal does.
If for unstance coolers increase rate of fire at the cost of damage, or multiplexers at the cost of energy (essentially decreasing rate of fire) then nothing's getting enhanced, like Azreal said. Then what's the point of buying them?
In most other MMOs what you equip directly enhances your character or ship, rather than trading one stat for another, unless it's a stat you absolutely don't need; warriors don't need intelligence, casters don't need strength. But what warrior would equip a weapon that increases haste but decreases damage, and what caster would use a staff that increases damage but decreases intelligence?
Those kinds of things mostly don't exist. Unless it's extreme values being used, like +100% haste for -75% damage, those items aren't used.
I'm a bigger fan of simply limiting the max +%, so we can only have +24% projectile damage and have to use other bonuses, instead of 8 advanced giving +48%.
_________________
|
Coeus
Grand Admiral
Sundered Weimeriners
Joined: March 22, 2006
Posts: 2815
From: Philly
| Posted: 2010-04-15 18:22
@StarCom - convo ended a less than a month ago - not exactly waiting on eternity here...
If you're going to penalize for a stat boost... do the most logical thing and have it take more ENERGY! Fireing faster? Takes more energy to cycle the weapons. Firing harder? More energy to increase the yields. Faster speeds? More energy pumping to the engines... get the picture?
_________________
Do I really look like a guy with a plan?
'I'm gonna go crazy, and I'm taking you with me!'
ICC Security Council Chief Enforcer
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
