| Author |
enhanced modding system |
Not validated
Joined: December 18, 2009
Posts: 70
|  Posted: 2010-02-05 16:34
permission was given for us, the players to come up with a mathematical and reasonable solution to their current modding system, or lack of.
I don't have all the answers, just those for ICC since its all I've ever played.
please feel free to contribute ideas, point out flaws, and suggest new weapons..
But please. please no negative posts in here. Keep it polite and professional.. the point system can be found in the beta forums in the "my take on the point system" post.
my ideas are as follows..
Mathematically by the point system given, and the gadget count, being able to switch fighters, ranked a 5, with one L gun per slot, Rank 1, is not going to op that ship.
to be honest, four more light rails on the combat dread may make it on par with the battle dread. I'd have to run the numbers and see... (Coming soon)
lasers should have a backup weapon to be switched with too. but a new one, laser based that flies long range, but misses like your guns do.
the balance key here would be that they don't pD.. so changing all your guns to them would be dumb.. also raise energy consumption of this weapon 100% compared to the CL... this would further support forcing pple to only put 2 maybe 3 of these on a ship.
maybe adding a new gun system for light gun slots, A chain gun sort of thing. 4x fire rate 1/4 damage... plus .3333 to projectile speed, (or however it is to make it 1/3 more accurate) and keep the en consumption the same... which would make it 4x the energy consumption do to the fire rate. (this gun would be best used for scouts, and you would not want to load up on them because of the energy consumption and low ammo count...ammo count about
[ This Message was edited by: Deadly Crysis on 2010-02-05 17:03 ]
_________________
|
Starcommander
Marshal
Joined: December 14, 2005
Posts: 579
From: In your base, stealing your cookies
| Posted: 2010-02-05 17:47
I like the chain gun idea, but have it be a gun that can be PD based. This would help UGTO out the most but should be avalible to ICC as well. Power cost should be the same as a railgun as it is ammo based and just requires power to shoot it and for it to be able to track. Ammo should be about 100 and it uses 1 per a missile it kills, Range 400 gu so it is better then a CL but at the cost of a normal gun slot. Bullet travel speed should be same or 2x that of a gauss (Use the same animation too as it would be a good representation of it). It can do damge to ships but 1/2 that of a normal CL. Fire rate should be vary quick, 2x that of a partical cannon or the same rate as a pulse beam. This would be a good addition to the game.
The point system:
I was told once the actual numbers that things costed. Opps list isn't too far off from it. Normal gun/beam/missile is 1 pt, heavy/MKII is 2pt, torps are 2 or 3, fighters are 4, and core weps are 6.
Modding:
Allowing players to mod there ships smiler to the way it was before would be beneficial and not hard to implement in the current system. Just allow X slots to be swappable with the guns. So a missile slot can carry a rail-gun or torp in there options when orbiting a planet. MKII slots would be unable to use torps but could be swapped with a heavy gun. This also would for the ICC and UGTO only, if you let beams be swappable with guns for them the Escort dessy would be the terror of the game again. This we know isn't good and is unbalanced. IF that was allowed a restriction would be needed for the ED and PD so they couldn't go all guns and be that gunboat from the old days. For Kluth let there guns and beams be swappable (with each other) and there missile slots with torps. This would be "modding" with what is already in the game and already programmed. No hard mount changing, no cross-tech, non of that from old 480. This is the modding system we (the player base) have been talking about. This isn't unbalanced either with this modding system, IF it dose become unbalanced and a power build is found that can't be countered in some way. Like a torp MD, oh nose! Sit out of range and kill it. THEN you place a restriction on that ship so it can only have X of whatever was causing the issue.
Even the old system wasn't bad and I said then as I am now, just place a restriction/cap on the ship that was causing the issue, simple fix!
So there it is, the modding system that is already in place but with more options.
_________________
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.
|
Not validated
Joined: December 18, 2009
Posts: 70
| Posted: 2010-02-05 18:41
your version of the chain gun sounds more like a phalanx..
another good option, but I suggest it be swappable with CL, to help ugto with ICC missiles.
all your ideas seem good, although I do want to keep closer with the system in place... guns to be traded with guns,, lasers with lasers, and so on.
creating a class of each type of weapon based upon a specific need is what were going for. Each alt weapon to have a specific goal.
furthermore suggestions should be quantified. Do the research, in regards to en consumption, slots, power, and ammo.
_________________
|
MrSparkle
Marshal
Joined: August 13, 2001
Posts: 1912
From: mrsparkle
| Posted: 2010-02-05 18:55
Starcommander had a good system a few weeks ago, using the current point system.
I do suspect a lot of the resistance to modding is due to the work required. Sorry, but volunteer dev teams aren't exactly known to be productive, and that's nothing against them. I wouldn't want to bust my butt as a volunteer dev either, unless I knew exactly what I was doing and it wasn't much effort, otherwise that's a lot of free time and effort being used (I say kudos to the dev team, but a volunteer dev team isn't what this game needs. I hope you understand what I mean)
The point system is a simple system. Place restrictions on certain gadgets (no ships with 2 cloaks, multiple flux waves, lots of reload drones etc.) and use the point system to let us choose what weapons we want. Along with a properly working MASS system affecting our maneuverability (meaning if you want lots of torps or tons of missiles you aren't gonna be able to maneuver) it should balance itself.
Cannons, torpedoes and missiles all seem to have the same point values in my document (which might be inaccurate), so it's a simple case of swapping 1 weapon type for another. You won't be swapping 6 torpedoes for 18 cannons or anything like that.
Core weapons would need restrictions, because of their point value. The other weapons probably won't.
Take the ICC missile dread for example, and assume that torpedoes would have considerably more mass than missiles. If a player wanted to mod that dread to have all torps instead of missiles, bye bye maneuverability! Heavy beams would have more mass than light, cannons would have less mass than missiles, missiles less than torps, torps less than core weapons etc. No idea what mines would be.
And this is still true: If everyone is overpowered, noone is overpowered. The problem used to be cross-faction tech and not enough negatives to go with certain modding options, like a loss of maneuverability when using lots of hard-hitting torpedoes.
EDIT: One thing would be needed: Cannons would need to be reduced in effectiveness. Cannons should be a medium-range option that does low damage but has decent accuracy and allows for maneuverability, or we would wind up with cannon ships everywhere dominating everything. In a modding system like this, an all-cannon ship should not be doing that much damage, but should instead be chosen for it's speed and survivability, knowing it isn't gonna be a death-dealer. A cannon-ship flyer would be more interested in being able to outmaneuver his enemies than dealing damage to them. If he wanted damage he'd be using heavier missiles, heavier beams, even heavier torps etc.
[ This Message was edited by: MrSparkle on 2010-02-05 19:02 ]
_________________
|
FA-Opposition
Fleet Admiral
Joined: August 26, 2007
Posts: 12
| Posted: 2010-02-05 22:17
perhaps if you made a restriction that ones you have finished with your particular build let’s say you put guns in the place of the missiles or whatever one you did that you would no longer be able to change it back or change it for anything else for that matter so that way you would not be able to just build your ship for any occasion you would wish to have it a little more generalized ether that or fill your garage with a bunch of the same ship but just a little deferent which i would not do. Any way this would make people a little bit more thoughtful as to what they put onto their ships.
_________________
Opposition can be your friend. it can be the fire that tempers the better sword, the ice that cools a fiery temper. Don't ever run from it; learn from it
|
Not validated
Joined: December 18, 2009
Posts: 70
| Posted: 2010-02-06 05:50
[edit to the original post]
This is in no way to be taken as a list of demands (realising the standoffishness of some of the suggestions)
by; Crysis, Defiance, Starcommander and opposition
Our ideas are as follows..
Mathematically by the point system given, and the gadget count, being able to switch fighters, ranked a 5, with one L gun per slot, Rank 1, is not going to op that ship. The L guns could have a 30% reduction in level to balance out replacing fighters on a ship with say six of them.
(edit= We have come to terms with not being able to switch fighters for guns if, Interceptor fighters are given a area of 3000gu or so to patrol around your ship and engage enemy hostile missiles and fighters.)
[Siege Laser]
lasers should have a backup weapon to be switched with too. but a new one, laser based that flies long range, but misses like your guns do. This weapon should have a range of no less than 800gu, and no more than 1500gu. Damage of this weapon should be no less than 80% of CL at 70gu and no more than 130% of CL at 70gu
This weapon would give a much needed punch in unseating planet camping hostiles as using them in mass in actual combat would not be practical.
the balance key here would be that they don't pD.. so changing all your CLs to them would be dumb.. also raise energy consumption of this weapon 100% compared to the CL... this would further support forcing people to only put 2 maybe 3 of these on a ship.
[Chain Gun]
maybe adding a new gun system for light gun slots, A chain gun sort of thing. 4x fire rate of rail guns(RG) 1/4 damage. Projectile speed should be 30% greater than RGs or at least 30% more accurate. En consumption of the chain gun should be the same as RGs per salvo, thereby increasing EN consumption for it 400% over the original RG system. Weapon should have a ammo count of 200% over the RG system. This lowers damage potential by 50% compared to RG.
This weapon system would be used primarily to engage smaller ships as you are trading en consumption for more hits per second.
The balance key here would be that CG is actually a far less efficient weapon system than a RG. It thereby has a specific role and would not be practical for same class or higher engagements.
[phalanx]
A weapon to be an alternative to pulse beam. PX would be interchangeable with CL. This weapon system, may be a bit too complicated... Basically we want a weapon that's about 50% better at intercepting missiles within 400gu of your ship. Energy drain should be on the level with CL. Weapon should have a limited ammo count, to be reduced at a rate of one ammo per missile intercepted. Weapon should only be reloadable by platforms, or orbiting planets. (like reload drones.)
[Interceptor Missile]
The creation of this weapon system stems from the publics loathing of IT missiles. But first to demonstrate our understanding of IT weapon system. IT missiles or ion tracker missiles are thought to create the arc bug. this is not true. However as the intercept path the missile takes may be off, they still yield the desired result. IT missiles actually do damage whatever ark is facing them "if" you are at a standstill, thus not creating an ion trail. (go now and test it for yourself)
This weapon system would be a hybrid of AR and IT missiles currently used today. IM should have the damage characteristics of AR, in that they strike whatever face they hit rather than only the rear. IM missiles should have the range and attack power of IT missiles with a slightly faster but noticeable fire rate. IMs should also have 200% more ammo than ITs.
IMs do
1. have the range and damage potential of IT
2. have more ammo and a faster fire rate than IT at the same en consumption
IMs do not
1. ion track (commonly referred to by the community as the arc bug)
2. avoid radar like ARs do.
More ideas or revisions to this idea coming soon.
Thank you for your time and patience.
[ This Message was edited by: Deadly Crysis on 2010-02-06 05:52 ]
_________________
|
Eledore Massis [R33]
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: May 26, 2002
Posts: 2694
From: tsohlacoLocalhost
| Posted: 2010-02-06 07:56
Could work, if the dev's start today we might see this in beta around 2019.
Every device on a ship or 'gadget' has its own specifics, the more you have the more code there is to maintain and it takes longer to balance them all out.
Your idea, while being good, would increase the current gadget list by a factor of 8, or more.
So instead of Thinking of MASSIVE systems to implement modding, think smaller.
what could you possibly add that is small?
I yet have no clue, that's why we are asking you.
_________________
DS Discordion
|
Not validated
Joined: December 18, 2009
Posts: 70
| Posted: 2010-02-06 08:02
I feel quite confident we could implement the IM system ourselves.
it's the simplest and most needed mod that been suggested yet, and just requires making a new wep in the directory, copy and paste the code from AR, then change values of range number of ammo, and fire rate.
damage could also be easily changed
if you could email me all pertaining C++ code for AR. I could probably make the changes myself and hand it back.
from there just add it into the directory of missiles, so they may be swapped at a planet.
have no problem helping do some leg work here
I also believe the chain gun would be a simple matter to implement. Modify the code for rail guns to do this 
of all this, the phalanx interceptors and the siege laser would be the hardest.
phalanx could work with adding in a new particle emitter and cheating with the pulse beam code... the tricky part would be giving it an ammo value and making it use it accordingly... upping the hit rate by 50% may also be hard, as im not sure how you guys calculate that.
the interceptors having a set range to patrol and intercept missiles and fighters... would.. be... well.... a major headache I think... the easy way would be to make the fighter a mini ai ship.. complete with a (Defend tgt) parameter and a pulse beam for pd. Then its a matter of the fighter being in the right place at the right time, as current AI logic does not have it chasing down fighters and missiles... that may be the real issue.
The siege laser would technically be easy mod to.. but getting the ascetics right is another story. having a beam travel as fast as gauss and originate from your ship, out to 800 or 1000gu...and terminate after 2 seconds... hmm... I'd have to think on this... but basically id take the gauss code, and modify..
so yea.. I do realize these are steep wants.
crysis_d@yahoo.com
as for thinking small... perhaps making your ion trail a color of your choice rather than and enh.
lasers could also have a set of selectable colors.
missile trails too.
these are small cosmetic changes that would be nice
[ This Message was edited by: Deadly Crysis on 2010-02-06 08:28 ]
_________________
|
Eledore Massis [R33]
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: May 26, 2002
Posts: 2694
From: tsohlacoLocalhost
| Posted: 2010-02-07 10:29
Disregard anything that might look like sarcasm.
It is just my humble opinion, and they just always have a tint of harshness.
Quote:
| On 2010-02-06 08:02, Deadly Crysis wrote:
I feel quite confident we could implement the IM system ourselves. |
|
Most of us know how it can be done, just that its the job of the dev's. DarkSpace unfortunately isn't a open source project.
Quote:
| it's the simplest and most needed mod that been suggested yet, and just requires making a new wep in the directory, copy and paste the code from AR, then change values of range number of ammo, and fire rate.
damage could also be easily changed |
|
Copy pasting C++ code and changing value's is easy, but without adding the weapon on the general balance board, we will get the 481 till 483 all over again.
We need to have all these weapons balanced, and i don't think adding 80 weapons will make it easier, since that would mean we have 80 more variables and 80 more places to adjust value's.
Quote:
| if you could email me all pertaining C++ code for AR. I could probably make the changes myself and hand it back. |
|
Ask the dev's
Quote:
| from there just add it into the directory of missiles, so they may be swapped at a planet.
have no problem helping do some leg work here |
|
You and a lot of other people. but just being a person willing to help doesn't mean that you can help. being a dev isn't just doing stuff, you have to follow the plan and this means you sometimes have to wait until some one else is finished..
Quote:
| I also believe the chain gun would be a simple matter to implement. Modify the code for rail guns to do this |
|
Fail! more particles more LAG. why you think we got heavy cannons, to reduce the particles...
You'd make a great developer for not thinking of this.
Quote:
| of all this, the phalanx interceptors and the siege laser would be the hardest. |
|
we just need better fighter AI and or our beloved fighter control interface. the phalanx interceptors won't be a problem then. but yes currently its impossible to even consider something like that.
The siege laser, i still don't know what you have in mind, unless i can copy,paste the idea from Nexus the Jupiter incident. Then its a no go.
(still i would like to see the K'Luth Stellar incinerator as a BEAM!).
Quote:
| phalanx could work with adding in a new particle emitter and cheating with the pulse beam code... the tricky part would be giving it an ammo value and making it use it accordingly... upping the hit rate by 50% may also be hard, as im not sure how you guys calculate that. |
|
Now your thinking. but pulse beam code is the same as any other CL, but indeed just putting another graphics on top of it could work, but the 50% hit ratio that is harder, since all CL have 100% hit ratio.
Quote:
| the interceptors having a set range to patrol and intercept missiles and fighters... would.. be... well.... a major headache I think... the easy way would be to make the fighter a mini ai ship.. complete with a (Defend tgt) parameter and a pulse beam for pd. Then its a matter of the fighter being in the right place at the right time, as current AI logic does not have it chasing down fighters and missiles... that may be the real issue. |
|
Fighter AI and Fighter control interface, have been on the WANTED list for more than 5 years..
Quote:
| The siege laser would technically be easy mod to.. but getting the ascetics right is another story. having a beam travel as fast as gauss and originate from your ship, out to 800 or 1000gu...and terminate after 2 seconds... hmm... I'd have to think on this... but basically id take the gauss code, and modify.. |
|
So you want something that looks like a 800gu beam moving at 235gu/s and whut?..
Still find your Siege laser a bit vague but you might want to take the psi cannon rounds and stretch them to 800gu.. that might work..
Quote:
| so yea.. I do realize these are steep wants.
crysis_d@yahoo.com
as for thinking small... perhaps making your ion trail a color of your choice rather than and enh.
lasers could also have a set of selectable colors.
missile trails too.
these are small cosmetic changes that would be nice |
|
OOOooooo.... there is a tought, Selectable engine and missile trail colors.
Might be something jack was looking for for the Fleet Options..
Every fleet can have its own engine color.
keep it up, but keep thinking.
[edit] [/quot ] isn't [/quote ]
[ This Message was edited by: Eledore Massis =ADM= on 2010-02-11 02:59 ]
_________________
DS Discordion
|
Sens [R33]
Admiral
Joined: September 27, 2008
Posts: 1020
From: Edge of th...
| Posted: 2010-02-07 12:15
I cringe at the thought of 2000 rounds per second whizzing from 5 batteries trying to shoot down missiles.
_________________
Proud member of the Order of the Gaifen
Founder and former Club chair of the Shigernafy Fan Club
Co-founder of the Doran Judication Comittee
|
Not validated
Joined: December 18, 2009
Posts: 70
| Posted: 2010-02-07 13:37
well the idea is to identify a need for a new weapon. The most quantifiable right now would be the IM missiles, as a viable alternative needs to be explored for icc's number one killing machine, the MD.
so now I got some questions.
1.) Copy pasting C++ code and changing value's is easy, but without adding the weapon on the general balance board, we will get the 481 till 483 all over again.
We need to have all these weapons balanced, and I don't think adding 80 weapons will make it easier, since that would mean we have 80 more variables and 80 more places to adjust value's.
First I feel your exaggerating a bit.. second what do you mean balanced on the balance board? At present all imp aware of is that each wep/def/sup system is given a numeric value. That being the case, the IM and the IT would rank the same.
2) Fail! more particles more LAG. why you think we got heavy cannons, to reduce the particles...
You'd make a great developer for not thinking of this.
On the contrary, The weapon systems im suggesting are for icc, which already has the least amount of particles being emitted . This weapon would put it right there with its ugto and luth counterparts per ship class.
no ICC pilot in his right mind would put all Chainguns on his ship, as rails are just as powerful over time, and the en consumption is so high for the chain gun.
I'd give the chain gun a rank 1 on the current ranking system.
3) The siege laser, i still don't know what you have in mind, unless I can copy, paste the idea from Nexus the Jupiter incident. Then it's a no go.
no idea where your coming from here lol
4) Now your thinking. but pulse beam code is the same as any other CL, but indeed just putting another graphics on top of it could work, but the 50% hit ratio that is harder, since all CL have 100% hit ratio.
perfect!! if the PL is rated at 100% intercept rate, then rais the fire rate of the PX by 50%, thus you have your 50% more accurate. The issue still stands, Ammo count. any ideas?
thanks for your input.
_________________
|
Not validated
Joined: December 18, 2009
Posts: 70
| Posted: 2010-02-10 07:07
ok re evaluating my stance on this after reading the Dev meeting log.
[Siege Laser]
siege laser is the most, un quantifiable weapon system ive come up with.. with no real need, and major draw backs.. im feeling it will just be a big waist of code... would have looked cool though!
Idea scrapped until further notice.
[Chain Gun]
with the devs moving to reduce the number of objects on the screen at once, this weapon too also becomes un needed.
idea scrapped until further notice
[phalanx]
originally designed for ugto to use as an effective countermeasure to the missile walls we hurl at them.
with missiles about to undergo major changes, this weapon is no longer warranted or needed.
idea scrapped.
[Interceptor Missile]
again, with the current dev move to reduce the number of objects on screen at once, this weapon to also becomes useless.
idea scrapped.
and that is the end of enhanced modding.. until we see the devs next move... im afraid designing new weapons will have to go on the back burner.
New selectable laser colors. ion trail colors, and missile trail colors for fleets will be my next project.
prolly will continue this idea in jacks post about fleet usefulness.
Crysis out
[ This Message was edited by: Deadly Crysis on 2010-02-10 07:09 ]
_________________
|
Eledore Massis [R33]
Grand Admiral
Templar Knights
Joined: May 26, 2002
Posts: 2694
From: tsohlacoLocalhost
| Posted: 2010-02-11 03:19
Sorry to see you getting shot down like that Crysis.
But what was said at the dev meeting about reducing objects has been known to me, and several others for some time.
To be honest some like the phalanx idea has already been tried once. but can't find drafell's post about it.
Keep contributing, don't let some losses keep you from participating,
E.
_________________
DS Discordion
|
|
English
Deutsch
Nederlands
)
