For the sake of gameplay I would have serial numbers include location of origin.
Centari station batch 375. Which would look like :
CS-375 'weapon name here'
Post
Mon Apr 11, 2016 9:37 pm
#107
Although not on the common name, I would put it in the information on the item, so you have to open a popup to see that.
Re: Modifying a vessel
This is good, yes I agree.BFett wrote:For the sake of gameplay I would have serial numbers include location of origin.
Centari station batch 375. Which would look like :
CS-375 'weapon name here'
Although not on the common name, I would put it in the information on the item, so you have to open a popup to see that.
<Cuisinart8> apparently without the demon driving him around Silver has the intelligence of a botched lobotomy patient ~ Mar 04 2020
console.log(`What's all ${this} ${Date.now()}`);
console.log(`What's all ${this} ${Date.now()}`);
Post
Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:49 am
#108
Re: Modifying a vessel
That's a good idea Silverware. Is there anything else you'd add to the serial number which would be based off of real game data? I'm thinking about additional information which may be relevant to the player but not necessary to be seen all the time.
Maybe the bonus indicator of +20% through -20%, the faction of origin (like how things say made in China), and anything else I may be forgetting.
Maybe the bonus indicator of +20% through -20%, the faction of origin (like how things say made in China), and anything else I may be forgetting.
Post
Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:59 am
#109
on what?
Re: Modifying a vessel
what.. bonus?BFett wrote: Maybe the bonus indicator of +20% through -20%
on what?
Post
Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:06 pm
#110
URL for source.
Re: Modifying a vessel
I'm just talking about the one that Josh mentioned about construction variance when he said "This also opens the door for effects like natural 'construction variance,' whereby you might get an object that's within +-20% of the blueprint specs,".Cornflakes_91 wrote:what.. bonus?BFett wrote: Maybe the bonus indicator of +20% through -20%
on what?
URL for source.
Post
Tue Apr 12, 2016 2:13 pm
#111
Re: Modifying a vessel
and what do you write in your modifier when you have a
+15% range
+5% energy needs
-5% damage
Gun?
+15% range
+5% energy needs
-5% damage
Gun?
Post
Tue Apr 12, 2016 8:47 pm
#112
Re: Modifying a vessel
I don't know. Maybe MKII if it's the second iteration. Or we could use Greek letter names. What do you think?
Post
Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:17 am
#113
Re: Modifying a vessel
Why second iteration?
As I understand Josh's post, it would be a random deviation in manufacturing but always the same blueprint.
So Cornflakes'
+15% range
+5% energy needs
-5% damage
Gun would not be a MKII iteration but just a specimen that turned out better than usual.
But considering my experience with MMOs that have randomized crafting output, I'm skeptical if it is s good idea. The approach easily leads to "craft 100 to get one really good item in between the dross" .
I'd prefer a concept where resources for boosting an item beyond its normal stats are simply rare. If you come across some, collect them and eventually you will have enough to tune that hyperdrive. But you don't spam crafted items all day in the hope of that one rare super-item.
This said, there are other benefits to Josh's new approach. For instance, each Hyperionator X-109 could now be separately modified if Josh wants to build a tinkering feature into the game. As I understand him, that was not a given with the old architecture. Also, separate conditions (like repair status) for each item might be more easy to implement now .
As I understand Josh's post, it would be a random deviation in manufacturing but always the same blueprint.
So Cornflakes'
+15% range
+5% energy needs
-5% damage
Gun would not be a MKII iteration but just a specimen that turned out better than usual.
But considering my experience with MMOs that have randomized crafting output, I'm skeptical if it is s good idea. The approach easily leads to "craft 100 to get one really good item in between the dross" .
I'd prefer a concept where resources for boosting an item beyond its normal stats are simply rare. If you come across some, collect them and eventually you will have enough to tune that hyperdrive. But you don't spam crafted items all day in the hope of that one rare super-item.
This said, there are other benefits to Josh's new approach. For instance, each Hyperionator X-109 could now be separately modified if Josh wants to build a tinkering feature into the game. As I understand him, that was not a given with the old architecture. Also, separate conditions (like repair status) for each item might be more easy to implement now .
Post
Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:00 am
#114
Re: Modifying a vessel
It's not quite random. If you have a blueprint for a laser the laser's stats are only going to change depending on how it is manufactured.
If I use my old, on ship, manufacturing plant, I'm going to get negative performance. If I use an industrial high tech manufacturing plan I'm going to get bonuses to the laser's performance. The catch is that these negatives and positives are constant when produced at a particular facility. The stats don't vary at all when produced at the same location.
If I use my old, on ship, manufacturing plant, I'm going to get negative performance. If I use an industrial high tech manufacturing plan I'm going to get bonuses to the laser's performance. The catch is that these negatives and positives are constant when produced at a particular facility. The stats don't vary at all when produced at the same location.
Post
Wed Apr 13, 2016 11:10 am
#115
Re: Modifying a vessel
its still not a MK2 variant, just a variant from BlasTech industries instead of some guys backyard.
Post
Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:03 pm
#116
Re: Modifying a vessel
Why not assign a number to a manufacturer/basement (i.e Blastech has the number 2312), a number to a specific object (i.e Laser cannon has the number 2647, and every single Laser cannon has this number, no matter who made it), a number for each of the stats, a design specific number(i.e This laser cannon design has the number 0212), a unit specific number (i.e Laser cannon #2978 has the number 2978), and just combine them to make a serial number?
Blastech's newest laser cannon design: 12-32-45-2647-2312-0212-2978
Random mercenaries modified laser cannon design: 13-31-46-2647-2312-PM0212-2978
PM stands for personal modification.
You could always go more into detail. Include the location of construction, the date and time, etc.
Blastech's newest laser cannon design: 12-32-45-2647-2312-0212-2978
Random mercenaries modified laser cannon design: 13-31-46-2647-2312-PM0212-2978
PM stands for personal modification.
You could always go more into detail. Include the location of construction, the date and time, etc.
Last edited by Idunno on Wed Apr 13, 2016 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The results of logic, of natural progression? Boring! An expected result? Dull! An obvious next step? Pfui! Where is the fun in that? A dream may soothe, but our nightmares make us run!
Post
Wed Apr 13, 2016 1:29 pm
#117
--IronDuke
Re: Modifying a vessel
Me likey for some reason...Idunno wrote:Why not assign a number to a manufacturer/basement (i.e Blastech has the number 2312), a number to a specific object (i.e Laser cannon has the number 2647, and every single Laser cannon has this number, no matter who made it), a number for each of the stats,a design specific number(i.e This laser cannon design has the number 0212), a unit specific number (i.e Laser cannon #2978 has the number 2978), and just combine them to make a serial number?
Blastech's newest laser cannon design: 12-32-45-2647-2312-0212-2978
Random mercenaries modified laser cannon design: 13-31-46-2647-2312-PM0212-2978
PM stands for personal modification.
You could always go more into detail. Include the location of construction, the date and time, etc.
--IronDuke
Post
Wed Apr 13, 2016 3:03 pm
#118
Re: Modifying a vessel
If serial numbers were to become a thing in LT I'd like to see that they don't go over 10 digits long. A super long string of numbers and letters beings to lose meaning when it's so long that the player can't easily remember what each segment stands for.
So, for keeping with my previous example:
Centari station (which has a 10%+ modifier), BlastTech Laser Cannon.
CS10-BT-LC
8 digits sorted by location, make, and type.
Or we could just scrap the entire idea of model/serial numbers and read the stats of a given weapon to determine the properties.
So, for keeping with my previous example:
Centari station (which has a 10%+ modifier), BlastTech Laser Cannon.
CS10-BT-LC
8 digits sorted by location, make, and type.
Or we could just scrap the entire idea of model/serial numbers and read the stats of a given weapon to determine the properties.
Post
Wed Apr 13, 2016 4:18 pm
#119
Re: Modifying a vessel
Well, the serial number might be an interesting tidbit which could be opened up in a pop-up. In a sense this serial number would just be the game's registry information of that particular asset. These sorts of numbers should DEFINITELY not be considered part of the normal name.
As I was saying above, I personally think that the blueprint should in most cases be spot on. I disagree that normal construction should have wide variations in quality, and if anything the variations should almost always be detrimental. a 10-15-20% bonus on anything in normal variation is absurd, that's not tinkering. Those sorts of large increases should only come through research.
Instead there should be aftermarket modifications which are scripts with names like "overclocking" that distort the blueprints with multipliers (102-130% normal) and whatnot. Or there should be modifications to the construction/repair equipment like "Atomically precise construction" which do give slight, but not terribly significant benefits (105-110% normal) to what is made using that equipment.
For using different materials, I'm thinking there should not be too many substitutes for a given design. For example, you could make something out of carbon or silicon, but you can't go making it out of iron or gold or diamond-coated ultrapure Joshite. Rare != Better. Thats one very gamey thing that I've always hated.
As I was saying above, I personally think that the blueprint should in most cases be spot on. I disagree that normal construction should have wide variations in quality, and if anything the variations should almost always be detrimental. a 10-15-20% bonus on anything in normal variation is absurd, that's not tinkering. Those sorts of large increases should only come through research.
Instead there should be aftermarket modifications which are scripts with names like "overclocking" that distort the blueprints with multipliers (102-130% normal) and whatnot. Or there should be modifications to the construction/repair equipment like "Atomically precise construction" which do give slight, but not terribly significant benefits (105-110% normal) to what is made using that equipment.
For using different materials, I'm thinking there should not be too many substitutes for a given design. For example, you could make something out of carbon or silicon, but you can't go making it out of iron or gold or diamond-coated ultrapure Joshite. Rare != Better. Thats one very gamey thing that I've always hated.
Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can
Post
Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:11 pm
#120
Re: Modifying a vessel
im with hyper there, the specific module shouldnt hard define the applied modifier, much less the location its used in
maybe production modules should be able to produce the baseline product from a blueprint in any case and modificators should be something actively chosen for the production run.
some modules are maybe only capable of doing worse jobs for the sake of production speed or build cost, but the +0 +0 +0 +0 version should always be buildable.
and variations on the baseline are active deviations
(quick'n'dirty protocol, overclocking, etc...)
maybe production modules should be able to produce the baseline product from a blueprint in any case and modificators should be something actively chosen for the production run.
some modules are maybe only capable of doing worse jobs for the sake of production speed or build cost, but the +0 +0 +0 +0 version should always be buildable.
and variations on the baseline are active deviations
(quick'n'dirty protocol, overclocking, etc...)