Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

We all have opinions on this game.

We all have stupid pipedreams about what we would love to see.

We all love to spout them off randomly and then argue about them.

This thread isn't about that.

This thread is about presenting modest proposals that shouldn't require major overhauls to the game in an orderly way so that the staff can reference them if they choose to in the future.

If anything in this thread inspires you to respond in agreement/disagreement use a different thread and just link to the proposal you want to talk about. If any of those side conversations result in improvements to the original idea then the original poster can add a link to that conversation in their proposal post.
Obviously I have no power to enforce this but the more random comments/arguments made the harder it will be to find useful posts and the likelihood increases that this is shut down in a Burn-Rage™.

What I will try to do is provide an ongoing directory in this post of new ideas and links to the relevant posts.

Directory:

- Weapon Range, Minimum Damage, & Weapon Balancing changes
- Avoid XP payout change
- Add 3rd Tactic to Alts
- Change to the existing Alt selection
- Altering all the Alts to have access to all the tactics
- Have recharge times reflect increased damage potential
- Stun Weapons
- Ability to equip a "repair kit" instead of a weapon
- Remove/Reduce the Alt rotation

Proposal:


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:


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)

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:

Make Avoid as valid a tactic in terms of XP payout as the others. A set 50xp per avoid is quite nice at levels 0-1 but the higher you go the less it benefits to use alts with avoid. Certainly not worth using the pure avoid alts.

Proposed maths:

Make XP 50(2C+1)
Where C = character level

Therefore payout would look like:

L0 = 50
L1 = 150
L2 = 250
L3 = 350
L4 = 450
L5 = 550
L6 = 650
L7 = 750
L8 = 850
L9 = 950
L10 = 1050
L11 = 1150

So to put this into context, currently if a L9 character uses avoid 7 times they currently get 350xp. Under the above formula they'd get 6650xp. Still not a massive payout but bearing in mind there would be additional xp coming from regular attacks.

If this still seems miserly the number the character level is multiplied by an be increased to give a greater incentive to level up.

For instance with a formula of 50(5C+1) the payout looks like:

L0 = 50
L1 = 300
L2 = 550
L3 = 800
...
L11 = 2800

And the above example of a L9 using avoid 7 times, pays out 16100xp.

I'll have to dig into the Control Panel for Bun's stuff, but I can tell you now, the Avoid stuff I can't do anything about. That's a coding change Ryan will need to do. (It's definitely a good idea)

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.

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.

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.

I was also wondering if the code for bot modes was still there, and just disabled or completely removed.

Ryan would have to answer that one, chances are though it was OS' code and he probably removed it when he chucked his tanty and left.

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.

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 ...

Add a second tactic to the single tactics alts.

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.

Nice. We had been making progress identifying a lot of them. Would be nice to complete that once RLBS is less hectic.

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.

Is that an integer that can be changed without altering the code?

I'll second, Psych's dislike of the single tactic alts.
I've given a little thought as to how they could be replaced. All the one's currently used could simply be removed from rotation (once is fixed) so people currently using them can keep them as is, if that's their preference. Then the formerly single tactic alts can be reintroduced in slightly renamed categories with dual tactics.
On that subject, what might be interesting would be to have alts with two of the same tactic. For instance a double strafe weapon with 1000xp strafe and 4000xp strafe, maybe with a high skill requirement to unlock the second strafe attack.
I'm sure Chompy would like to have even more bite...

Also found where I can turn the game off ...

Reminds me of something....

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.

Or we get rid of single tactic alts and make everything two tactics. From a tactical standpoint, single tactic alts are inferior in every way to a two tactic alt. And then there are -way- to many single tactic repair or avoid alts to be of any real value other than liking the alt. But if you can like the alt, and have it be useful, it's a win win.

Plus if we got rid of single tactics, we'd probably see more alts being used. Let's just add repair to everything.

Or bite?

Le sigh

So much for orderly & comment and pipedream free...

If we're gonna discuss adding tactics I'll lay out the way it should be done (though it'll involve coding)

I don't currently have the time to make pretty charts so...

Proposal:
All The Tactics

What needs to happen first is that the back end settings need to be fixed so that there are more ways to unlock tactics than just Skill & Intelligence.

Second, EVERY Alt class needs to have access to EVERY tactic just at varying costs and unlocks but the rub is you can only use two at a time. This bit will obviously require some new coding.

If we're going to go down the road of level 12+ then you just need the varying unlocks/costs and don't need to worry about limiting how many you can use at once.

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:

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 ...

Mogwai?
Mkall?

The fact that there are more unlocks listed but don't work has been a known thing for a long time.

I have a word doc full of just about everything Tammuz ever told us and it's in there somewhere cause he found out sometime after OS went postal

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?

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?

I didn't know it was a state secret apparently

Sorry I wasn't aware that I had to share every little bit of gleaned info that may be right or wrong with the people that should have better info than me
It's not like I have a definitive guide book, just what I can piece together from decade old posts.

The unlock stuff just happened to be in the same area as mechanics stuff I was working on for another (Crazy pipedream) proposal so it was fresh in my head.

In the future if you want to run every single idea you have through me I'll be sure to tell you what i know but i don't think that option interests ya

(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.

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)

This ... appears to be removed.

I just created a weapon with a minimum damage of 1 and a maximum damage of 75.

Ryan must have changed something somewhere because I'm absolutely certain that the cap was there.

Who wants to test a weapon?

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:

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)

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.

Uhm...
Huzzah?!?
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.

Based on guestimates on Armor ratings (see something I don't know!) a 10 STR attacker hitting a 10 END target with 10 tons of high end armor with a Fusion cannon can probably do up to 7% damage. Even if the FC's damage was increased the whole way to the top of the scale that wouldn't change (much).
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.

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

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.

Yes ... sorry, I didn't factor this in. That being said, they are "just labels". If we change the damage outputs, that's where the meaty stuff happens, they would just be incorrectly labelled which is, as you suggested, a minor coding change is required.

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.

We set the minimum and the maximum. From there the system picks up the ranges, as previous paragraph, this is what I overlooked and would require a minor coding change.
(Though trying to get my head around it, it may not even be necessary)

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.

I don't see it as a problem, I see it as a concern. It's up to the player if they choose to enter a 1-11 (sometimes they may not have a choice, but eh) knowing all too well they could be shut out, or they could scratch a level 11. It's a very minor concern.

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.

[/quote]
Min Max Test. Go.

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

ugh ... I'm getting mixed up. (Trying to juggle this and work stuff) It's for alts. Sorry.

Firepower and Skill for weapons only. We should get that expanded ...

Burn wrote:We should get that expanded ...

**** Yeah we should!

I'd like to have a go at some more weapons testing.


It occurs to me the other thing that can be altered is recharge time. That's the other way to offset a high damage weapons, give it a longer recharge time.

I'd much like to see weapons be given some grounding in how they would actually be used.
Melee weapons (swords, claws etc) would have no recharge time and have skill requirements.
Gun weapons would have varying recharge times and mostly a firepower requirement but some have skill too. For instance:
Shotgun requiring 4 firepower, recharge time 6 seconds, damage moderate
Sniper rifle requiring 2 firepower 2 skill, recharge time 3 seconds, damage moderate to heavy
Machine gun requiring 3 firepower 1 skill, recharge time 0 seconds, damage light to heavy.
As stat requirements increase, damage inflicted would show a general increase as recharge times decrease.
The ideal would be having the maths worked out beforehand so weapons requiring the same number of stats give out the same average damage but the catch between them is either the ones giving out more damage take longer to reload or them having a lower minimum damage. That way people can choose to go for a consistent weapon, knowing it'll deliver roughly the same each time, an inconsistent one that may give them a big hit or a gentle scratch, a fast weapon giving out smaller damage each time or a slow one delivering bigger hits.
You could even go so far as to have the MH and FC differ in this way. Have the fusion cannon give out more damage than the MH but give it a longer recharge time while the MH gets a no recharge but a wider damage range.

Downside to all this is even more work than just charging the damage stats. Sorrynotsorry.