Return to “Suggestions”

Post

Re: Modifying a vessel

#108
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.
Image
Post

Re: Modifying a vessel

#110
Cornflakes_91 wrote:
BFett wrote: Maybe the bonus indicator of +20% through -20%
what.. bonus?
on what?
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,".

URL for source.
Image
Post

Re: Modifying a vessel

#113
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" :roll: .
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

Re: Modifying a vessel

#114
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.
Image
Post

Re: Modifying a vessel

#116
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? :ghost:

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. :shh:

You could always go more into detail. Include the location of construction, the date and time, etc. :twisted:
Last edited by Idunno on Wed Apr 13, 2016 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image 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

Re: Modifying a vessel

#117
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? :ghost:

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. :shh:

You could always go more into detail. Include the location of construction, the date and time, etc. :twisted:
Me likey for some reason... :think:
:squirrel:

--IronDuke
Moving toward the future at 60 minutes per hour.
I-War 2 thread
Epic Limit Theory Limerick
Post

Re: Modifying a vessel

#118
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.
Image
Post

Re: Modifying a vessel

#119
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.
Image
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
Post

Re: Modifying a vessel

#120
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...)

Online Now

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron