Burn wrote:I'm never clicking any of your links ever again.
Burn wrote:High Command is an arsehat.
Burn wrote:I'm never clicking any of your links ever again.
Burn wrote:High Command is an arsehat.
Absolute Zero wrote:While you're digging, would it be possible to add third tactics to alt modes and thus add levels 12 and 13 to the game? Or would that require to much coding? Third tactics shouldn't be to hard, but I don't know if there is code to support 12 and 13.
I was also wondering if the code for bot modes was still there, and just disabled or completely removed.
High Command wrote:Another minor change I'd welcome would be a change to which alts are core, common, rare etc. Maybe base it partly on faction and what the alts actually are of.
By that I mean have plenty of core and common cars for the bots and only a few for the cons with most of the cars being rare.
Opposite for the jets alts being common for cons and rarer for the bots.
For the cons there's a few alts that I, personally, wouldn't have as core ones, the cockatoo and Donald Trump's wig spaceship for instance. On the other hand something like the cassette alt probably should be a core one.
Burn wrote:There's currently an issue with the alt mode rotation for the Autobots, Wingz is talking to Ryan about it.
I think cleaning up the alts was something Wingz was planning to do in time.
Back to the avoid suggestion, just found where the base for it is set, but it's one value for all levels. It's definitely something to look at though.
Also found where I can turn the game off ...
Burn wrote:I'm never clicking any of your links ever again.
Burn wrote:High Command is an arsehat.
Burn wrote:Absolute Zero wrote:While you're digging, would it be possible to add third tactics to alt modes and thus add levels 12 and 13 to the game? Or would that require to much coding? Third tactics shouldn't be to hard, but I don't know if there is code to support 12 and 13.
I actually started to experiment with the idea of a triple changer yesterday, before remembering the code simply does not support it.
It's one we can put on the cards though but we'd need to do it in a way where single tactic alts are just forgotten.
Burn wrote:I'm never clicking any of your links ever again.
Burn wrote:High Command is an arsehat.
Bun-Bun wrote:the back end settings need to be fixed so that there are more ways to unlock tactics than just Skill & Intelligence.
Burn wrote:Bun-Bun wrote:the back end settings need to be fixed so that there are more ways to unlock tactics than just Skill & Intelligence.
Someone's been talking I see ...
Burn wrote:So...you know we've been struggling to work out what works and what doesn't, but you've been sitting on all this information all this time?
Or just a coincidence that I tested those very things last week and shared with one person ...
If you have information that would help Ryan understand the mechanics better, why have you not brought it up before now?
Bun-Bun wrote:Proposal:Common Sense Weapons Reform
Part 1: Damage ranges
Right now the damage ranges for the weapons look like this
You may notice most of the ranges are rather small especially compared to the ridiculously large incredible range.
What I propose is that the ranges attached to the labels be changed (which I suspect should be a very minor code change) to something more like this:
Bun-Bun wrote:Part 2: Minimum Damage Cap removal
Another quirk of the weapon damage system is that there is a cap on the minimum damage range of 30. There would be a LOT more design space available if that cap were removed (which I will elaborate on in part 3).
At the very minimum it should be raised. There is NO reason that the cap should be lower than 1/2 to 3/4 of the total damage range (somewhere between 38-56)
Bun-Bun wrote:Part 3: Rebalancing Weapons
The weapons that exist now are mostly balanced based on the number of upgrades (FRP/SKL) needed to equip them following this chart:
The change I'm proposing is a more nuanced balancing system based on the XP cost of the upgrades needed to equip the weapon.
This is something that can be done right now with no coding changes just a lot of time editing (although I will show it could be better with the removal of the Minimum range cap)
Working within the cap this is a possible new balance system as well as an even more varied and powerful balance that could be implemented if the Cap were removed:
Burn wrote:(Going to work through these one at a time)Bun-Bun wrote:Proposal:Common Sense Weapons Reform
Part 1: Damage ranges
Right now the damage ranges for the weapons look like this
You may notice most of the ranges are rather small especially compared to the ridiculously large incredible range.
What I propose is that the ranges attached to the labels be changed (which I suspect should be a very minor code change) to something more like this:
So ... good news, coding is not required (that I can tell, haven't actually field tested).
Downside to this - There's a lot of weapons to edit. Around 600 in fact.
Concern - I suspect the incredible range was set up like that so that a level 1 had a random chance of surviving a shot from an incredible weapon. On the flip side, incredible weapon in a 8-11 mission against a level 11 can result in 1% damage, or a lot more, which is where the range came into it. That's my one concern.
Who wants to test a weapon?
Burn wrote:This is something that can be done at the same time as Part 1.
Once we confirm the cap no longer exists AND we get more minimum requirements added. (One of which being "level" which would probably make things a lot more fun)
Bun-Bun wrote:I would have assumed that the "Light, moderate, etc" labels were generated by the code based on the set range and not something that had to be set manually.
When you create a new weapon do you have to add in the ranges? I'm assuming not since a few months back you weren't even sure what they were and went through working it out. So if you just add the numbers you want for the ranges the code must assign the labels from somewhere.
As for level 1's having a chance to survive a FC blast... Should they though?
Admittedly my proposed scale makes a FC blast a guaranteed kill on anyone with less than 7 END and no armor but its SUPPOSED to be the high end weapon so i don't see the problem.
Who wants to test a weapon?
ME!
Although the test would be to make a weapon with a Minimun HIGHER than 30, that's where the cap was.
Bun-Bun wrote:Burn wrote:This is something that can be done at the same time as Part 1.
Once we confirm the cap no longer exists AND we get more minimum requirements added. (One of which being "level" which would probably make things a lot more fun)
You can make level requirements for weapons?
I didn't know THAT either
Burn wrote:I'm never clicking any of your links ever again.
Burn wrote:High Command is an arsehat.
Return to Heavy Metal War Forum
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Majestic-12 [Bot], Overcracker, Sabrblade