Jump to content

YARSOS #1


Recommended Posts

YARSOS aka Yet Another Repair System Overhaul Suggestion


Preface:
No one likes the elements breaking on X lives system. The factory owners want it to be 1 life (because that's quanta in the bank eh?) and other players don't want it at all.  

@Volkier has been fighting the good fight and while the "multiple lives system" was suggested by (the factory owner) players and implemented, the great ideas of Volkier go unacknowledged.  So the hopes of this suggestion getting more than a passing glance is low indeed.

 

The suggestion:

How about instead of lives for elements, have a maintenance meter that degrades randomly with element use. If the maintenance meter reaches 0 then there is a chance elements will be destroyed *while in use*. HP loss from crashing and PvP makes the maintenance meter take a big dive.  An element at 0 hp means it's broken and unusable (as usual). Scrap repairs hp as normal. (hp is so gamey... calling it "integrity" would be better especially since that is a trait sorely lacking in some). Just repairing an element with scrap will make it functional as normal however if it is *used* (just to reiterate) there is a random chance it would be destroyed permanently.  Finally, maintenance takes enough time (or maybe the construct needs to be stationary, or maybe you have a better suggestion so comment below) that it can’t be done in combat and in if the maintenance meter has degraded enough, it may require *parts* to bring the meter up again. A fully maintained element is the same as a completely new element.

 

But why?

 - It's far less grievous if the *permanent* destruction of elements is under the players control: aka a choice led to that outcome.  Whether that is going into a PvP zone or deciding to not do maintenance.  Hopping landing gear leading to entire ship exploding should not be part of this equation at all.
- Why "on use"? - computation is off-loaded onto the client in DU... mostly... except for factories.  That is why the batches of factories had to be increased as well as the schematic nerf.  Can't have all players DOSing the server with millions of factories now can we?  Anyway, what uses items but players themselves.  Hence on use.

 

What does this mean?

The side effect of this kind of system would be:
 - Even elements on static/space constructs would not be exempt from needing maintenance.  Those doors and buttons will need to be oiled and kept in working order... or just them break and buy replacements.  More choice for players. And factory owners should be happy right?  (no they will never be happy until your whole ship has to be replaced after moving 5 meters)
 - Mechanics! Imagine actual mechanic shops.  Job creation right there. (throw in some maintenance specific talents and we are golden)
 - Accidents (especially those caused by glitches and pop-in towers) are far less infuriating.  There will always be glitches, that is the nature of the beast. An entire ship should not need to be replaced because the (default) flight script decided to get stuck in a perpetual left turn.

- More of a market for parts.  Will that make factory owners happy?  My guess is no ?

- Elements that aren't used directly won't need maintenance... this covers those decorative items:  Leave them looking good without being a pain. No need to remember to water those plants.
- PvP and salvaging rewards...  fully functional elements: with some parts and scrap they are good as new.
- Industry needs maintenance.  You want to keep your expensive factory working?  Keep it maintained.  The reality is the initial cost isn't the problem, its keeping them going that is the real trick. No fire and forget factories.
 

Future improvement suggestions:
 - Talents - Make maintenance fun with a talent tree for your mechanic
 - Tuning - alter you engine to have less performance but a larger maintenance meter.  Or the opposite.  
 - Efficiency - Have engines become less efficient as they are less maintained... requiring a visit to your local mechanic for a tune up.

 - Recyclers - Take those destroyed elements and recycle them into parts which could be used to maintain the not-destroyed elements.
 

Element lives don’t matter... I demand maintenance.

TLDR: Random destruction chance with mitigation mechanics (maintenance meter) gives players a chance against mishaps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's better than the lives system that's for sure

I do see a couple of issues that will arise here though - so to play the devil's advocate:

cons:
- Balancing would be tricky, as making elements break too quickly will destroy any sense of immersion (you know, like those survival games where your character has an infestation of gut worms and have to eat every 5 minutes in game time lest they starve to death). On the flip side, realistic timeframes similar to those on current aircraft before you would begin to even notice a degrade in performance, would mean that you should be able to fly for weeks on end before your element goes down to 99%
- Does feel like a survival mechanic - which I appreciate is not what many people would be keen on. Like eating food or drinking water kinda thing XD

pros:
- Providing maintenance can restore your element back to full functionality - does create a new job line / skill line
- Providing maintenance can restore your element back to full functionality - does fix the current system's discentive for PvP

 

potentially escalating problems (peps?)

- If maintenance does not restore element back to full functionality, that means that now the moment you loose 0.001% durability on an element that element is useless for building purposes. Currently, building with "damaged" elements is near to not possible due to players inability to use undo / redo for element placements when there are dynamic properties attached to an element, bricking the entire 'undo' function when the player attempts to do this without having an element without dynamic properties in their inventory. Even if that bug was fixed (which should have happened well before any sort of such system using dynamic properties was implemented imho) and item durability was not tied to dynamic properties - you would still run into the issue of "how would the game know whether to use an element with full durability, 90% durability or less in any given scenario while building.

Basically right now, loosing a life on your element makes the element worthless for building - in what is ultimately a world building game. This has been mitigated by NQ by restricting "life loss" only due to pvp - which means that while flying is once again viable, pvp-ing is not. If even with maintenance you cannot restore full functionality to an element under this proposal, then just sitting in your pilot chair while building and tapping your mouse accidentally would be enough to deem all active elements on your ship un-viable for building.

- On the other hand, if maintenance does restore your elements to full functionality, then the solution does not provide an element sink that NQ is trying to create.



So yeah for the sake of a health discussion, just thought I'll throw in what I can potentially see as problems with any "slowly diminishing elements" system. I'm still like the idea of " x% of your elements are destroyed when your core goes boom " system the most, as it solves just about all the problems that the current system has created and on average provides the same level of element sink while rewarding careful pilots and well built ships. Can't remember who came up with it though as it was a communal result of a discord discussion XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not incorporate efficiency?

 

They already have the code needed to simulate an engine, adjuster, brake to have less output ... (via obstruction)... why not just use that code to simulate an element being less efficient due to dmg?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in full agreement @Kurock that the DU repair system, in it's current state, needs severe help and hard number counts are just too much of a sink.

 

However, I do agree with what @Volkier is saying:

36 minutes ago, Volkier said:

It's better than the lives system that's for sure

I do see a couple of issues that will arise here though - so to play the devil's advocate:

cons:
- Balancing would be tricky, as making elements break too quickly will destroy any sense of immersion (you know, like those survival games where your character has an infestation of gut worms and have to eat every 5 minutes in game time lest they starve to death). On the flip side, realistic timeframes similar to those on current aircraft before you would begin to even notice a degrade in performance, would mean that you should be able to fly for weeks on end before your element goes down to 99%
- Does feel like a survival mechanic - which I appreciate is not what many people would be keen on. Like eating food or drinking water kinda thing XD

 

The main issue NQ been notorious on when it comes to patches or features or changes, is setting the numbers required to do anything ridiculously high.

Thus making the game:

  1. less enjoyable
  2. more tedious
  3. less immersive
  4. direct you back to mining to engage in any one aspect of the game's acclaimed pillars

I do agree that it does create a maintainer job on board a ship and for a static construct WHEN IN USE.

If NQ were to implement something like this then the numbers would need to be digestible and not something that's akin to the game Green Hell.

This could very easily become yet another sink for the game... and as we already see, if a game has too many sinks and not enough faucets then you don't have a game.

You have a painful grinder few will enjoy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Volkier said:

Balancing would be tricky

I believe the opposite.  It's simple to work out the statistical probabilities of complete failure.  I would assume there is at least one statistical analysist in NQ just like I assume there is an economist. ?


That said, randomly decreasing the maintenance meter has to be very slow.  Why?  Because a griefer can break all your public buttons my smashing them for 30 minutes.   A months frequent use as a half life seems fair, but can easily be tweaked.  Most of the maintenance will come from crashing and PvP anyway...
 

1 hour ago, Volkier said:

- On the other hand, if maintenance does restore your elements to full functionality, then the solution does not provide an element sink that NQ is trying to create.

 

Updated OP to reflect it's a complete fix.... so no dynamic properties to worry about and complete salvage.  It's also far simpler to understand.

It makes both a element sink AND a parts sink since elements WILL be used when they aren't maintained AND people will want to maintain their expensive stuff.  For the cheap stuff... less so.  It's about choices and trade offs.  The current system has none.  The market will decide which is "better" for a player at a specific time:  if engines are dirt cheap then why bother maintaining them? 

 

1 hour ago, Demlock said:

Why not incorporate efficiency?

Added. It's very similar to Tuning so if one can be done, why not the other?
 

1 hour ago, Demlock said:

Thus making the game:

  1. less enjoyable
  2. more tedious
  3. less immersive
  4. direct you back to mining to engage in any one aspect of the game's acclaimed pillars

An element sink is very going to be fun, always tedious, and direct you back to mining.    The "lives" method is definitely less immersive. 

Maintenance makes sense... some might even find it enjoyable.  Not everyone.  And that is a good thing imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kurock said:

An element sink is very going to be fun, always tedious, and direct you back to mining.    The "lives" method is definitely less immersive. 

Maintenance makes sense... some might even find it enjoyable.  Not everyone.  And that is a good thing imo.

Oh, I agree with the need for maintenance, it makes perfect sense indeed.

 

I'm more pointing out (through traumatized experience) how NQ has typically introduced similar systems in a way that are not fun, or the numbers are so far overboard that no one even bothers playing the game.

 

They never start on low numbers so people can get used to the idea of maintenance or any new mechanic before turning up the heat.

 

12 minutes ago, Kurock said:

Added. It's very similar to Tuning so if one can be done, why not the other?
 

Well not so much tuning really. Tuning implies tweaking or changing characteristics of something that already exists.

 

I'm saying:

  • When an element takes damage, have it's efficiency decrease by the percentage of health removed from the element. So for example, if an engine, wing, adjuster, air/space break ect. has 90/100 hp then it will function at 90% efficiency.
  • When an element is destroyed and restored it will function at 90% efficiency even if it's at 100% health.
  • Every subsequent destruction/restoration of an element will result in the element operating at an addition 10% loss in efficiency
  • Degradation over time while in use can apply as well, in a forgiving numbers of course
  • They already have the code in the game for obstructing elements and making them function less efficiently... why not use the same code for an element's health

I think your approach to degradation and mine to efficiency would make a perfect couple for a well functioning feature for salvaging and such for DU.... provided NQ is able to bake the two ideas together in the game within their schedules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Kurock said:

I believe the opposite.  It's simple to work out the statistical probabilities of complete failure.  I would assume there is at least one statistical analysist in NQ just like I assume there is an economist. ?


That said, randomly decreasing the maintenance meter has to be very slow.  Why?  Because a griefer can break all your public buttons my smashing them for 30 minutes.   A months frequent use as a half life seems fair, but can easily be tweaked.  Most of the maintenance will come from crashing and PvP anyway...

Yep that will work - providing there's some way to prevent elements having dynamic properties applied to them for a reasonable amount of time, as that will otherwise severely impact building ships - especially if you want to do short test flights to see how everything you've placed is performing in real time rather than on paper throughout the build process. Though based on the direction of 0.23, the pessimist in me would argue that if we are going to get maintenance degregation it's not going to be anything remotely reasonable like what you proposed - but rather you would need to require maintenance after flying from Alioth to Sanctuary. 

I guess I'm just being very cautions with what cans of worms will be opened as it's very easy to turn something that is fun and has the potential to make the game more enjoyable, into a tedious grindy mechanic that does more harm than good. And with the track record of gradually implimenting stuff so far......... you see what I'm saying XD

Overall, and to be honest, I would far rather NQ focused on creating element sink through PvP and promoting PvP (ie. high risks and high rewards) rather than unfun mechanics that create far more issues than they solve - such as the current lives system - which incidentally discourages PvP as it takes what used to be little reward to a net loss for everyone involved (since elements with under max lives are worthless). There do need to also be penalties for crashing and flying recklessly - but again, this mechanic went in the opposite direction when scavenging was removed / nerfed a few months back, removing the ability of players to claim destroyed constructs they come across. As such, and the way I see it - I think any system that we propose and promote needs to put fixing current problems created by the "x lives" mechanic first, while complimenting added gameplay features as a secondary. I think the developers would also be more willing to consider a fix that involes fewer lines of codes rather over adding new functions at this point or revamping the whole thing. Though again, this is all merely speculative, said in the spirit of discussion of ideas, and I'm not a coder (nor would I know what the devs are thinking at any given time) so...... yeah :P just my 2ʱ

So in that spirit - the main and biggest problems I see with the current system (ie. the x-lives, not the one you proposed)
- pvp is discouraged since under fully working elements are worthless (not viable for building with them / can't be used in BPs etc.)

- creative building is discouraged as decorative elements are penalised (you'll need to replace more stuff if you get into a fight)

That list grows exponentially if they revert to the original system from 0.23 as they said they wanted to eventually do, so the community needs to come up with a viable alternative to propose to the devs before that happens. Hence why I still believe a "x% elements destroyed when core goes boom" would solve both of the above problems while keeping the same level of element sink which would be easier to digest for the minority of people who want to play the factory meta.

 

That said, on paper I do like your maintenance system: however, while it doesn't discourage or encourage creative building for decorative elements, I do think it would need to provide more incentives for PvP - if only because that's a requirement for the system to function best. Now it does create opportunities to do so by opening up the possibilities of overloading modules (higher rate of maintenance drops) for shorter period of time (think EVE online's overload requiring nanites to repair after the fact) - and it does make repair-work mid-fight more interesting - which is why I like it. I guess I'm going around in circles, and I do apologise for that - but my biggest concern is that I'm skeptical it would be implimented in a way where it becomes an every-day survival mechanic. What would you think could be easily added to the idea though to encourage PvP, as I believe that is just about a prerequisite for this to work?

 

  

26 minutes ago, Demlock said:

I'm saying:

  • When an element takes damage, have it's efficiency decrease by the percentage of health removed from the element. So for example, if an engine, wing, adjuster, air/space break ect. has 90/100 hp then it will function at 90% efficiency.
  • When an element is destroyed and restored it will function at 90% efficiency even if it's at 100% health.
  • Every subsequent destruction/restoration of an element will result in the element operating at an addition 10% loss in efficiency
  • Degradation over time while in use can apply as well, in a forgiving numbers of course
  • They already have the code in the game for obstructing elements and making them function less efficiently... why not use the same code for an element's health

I think your approach to degradation and mine to efficiency would make a perfect couple for a well functioning feature for salvaging and such for DU.... provided NQ is able to bake the two ideas together in the game within their schedules.

 

That doesn't fix the problems that the current system created though. It's just lives with extra steps. Elements under 100% efficiency are still worthless for the same reasons elements with 2/3 lives currently are. PvP is still discouraged. If anything, I'd argue that this is potentially worse as you no longer have to have an element be destroyed for it to be bricked, now it's bricked the moment it's HP drops below 90%. 

Now I do like that idea if it was a temporary measure in combat - ie. field repairs only gave back so much efficiency so PvP isn't a meta of "who has more scrap and people on board" - a ship that's hit 100 times is going to have stuff on it work less efficiently that the other ship that was only hit 10 times - but might not have 20 crew all repairing. But that will only work if there's a way to restore the element to full function after the fight itself (either in base through repair unit w/e). This will actually be a great mechanic to have - but not as an element sink imho - for the above reason of it basically creating the same problems as the current lives system does if used in that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Volkier said:

Now I do like that idea if it was a temporary measure in combat - ie. field repairs only gave back so much efficiency so PvP isn't a meta of "who has more scrap and people on board" - a ship that's hit 100 times is going to have stuff on it work less efficiently that the other ship that was only hit 10 times - but might not have 20 crew all repairing. But that will only work if there's a way to restore the element to full function after the fight itself (either in base through repair unit w/e). This will actually be a great mechanic to have - but not as an element sink imho - for the above reason of it basically creating the same problems as the current lives system does if used in that way.

Well the other aspect of this that wasn't mentioned would be:

  • You would use element specific parts or ingredients used to make the element to restore an element's efficiency to 100% if it is running at 40% or something from being destroyed 6 times.

This way, instead of people having to carry whole spare elements on board the ship and even a spare core, they now can just carry spare parts specific to that element to restore it's efficiency to 100%.

If the element on an enemy ship is completely destroyed then they should be able to salvage it down for X number of spare parts used to make the original element (at a cost of course).

 

the whole approach to what I'm suggesting is something that's not too complicated where you find it becomes a 2nd job for you

but

not too simple to where it's not something you can just ignore.

 

If coupled with Kurock's idea for element degradation, this would make for a perfect mechanic I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Demlock said:

Well the other aspect of this that wasn't mentioned would be:

  • You would use element specific parts or ingredients used to make the element to restore an element's efficiency to 100% if it is running at 40% or something from being destroyed 6 times.

This way, instead of people having to carry whole spare elements on board the ship and even a spare core, they now can just carry spare parts specific to that element to restore it's efficiency to 100%.

If the element on an enemy ship is completely destroyed then they should be able to salvage it down for X number of spare parts used to make the original element (at a cost of course).

 

I'd rather we had to use repair stations tbh - would make those useful for stuff other than voxels. They currently take parts already, so devs don't need to change / add anything - and it makes PvP more interesting imho... Though I still don't like efficiency dropping from the element going into yellow health as it feels like the original 0.23 system on steroids. Unless you are talking specifically about combat taking efficiency down - but then you have the wonky mechanic you have now where damaged elements behave differently just because they blew up from hitting the ground instead of blowing up from hitting a missile.

The parts system also means that factoria players won't be happy as people would be buying subcomponents instead of fully assembled parts. So I dunno - I'd say the ideal solution for a fun game would be a mix of all the discussed mechanics - but I don't know if it would fix the problems of the current system if implimented as an element sink.

If it makes you feel any better - I originally proposed a very similar solution initially as well - one that used subcomponents to restore full efficiency, with scrap only restoring a certain amount of efficiency to elements, added alongside an element recycler. I've since realised that - while it would be a fun mechanic - it's less likely to keep the most number of players happy and require additional gameplay mechanics to be added to go alongside them, while requiring a moderate developer time cost.... Though I might be completely wrong on all accords XD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Volkier said:

 

I'd rather we had to use repair stations tbh - would make those useful for stuff other than voxels. They currently take parts already, so devs don't need to change / add anything - and it makes PvP more interesting imho...

Oh the repair stations wouldn't be removed or unused at all. In fact they'd be a far more effective and efficient way to repair elements where as doing it by hand would be less than. Because in the end, when you're stranded out in the middle of no-where you can't use a repair unit if you're stranded on a planet or something.

 

You'll need the flexibility of being able to get your ship back up and running, ontop of being able to do full service when your ship is parked at home.

 

12 hours ago, Volkier said:

The parts system also means that factoria players won't be happy as people would be buying subcomponents instead of fully assembled parts. So I dunno - I'd say the ideal solution for a fun game would be a mix of all the discussed mechanics - but I don't know if it would fix the problems of the current system if implimented as an element sink.

Well in this case it becomes more of a balancing act of making one thing more valuable and cost effective than the other.

Now I have no degree in economics but you want people to be able to sell sub-components on top of whole elements.

 

Not everyone is going to have all the schematics needed to build all the stuff they want. So a market for sub-components is, in fact, needed.

 

When it came to producing some guns we ended up not perusing more industry and just ended up buying weapon parts that we didn't have the time nor patience for.

Thankfully, the bots were allowing you to buy certain weapon parts which made putting weapons together much much easier.

 

12 hours ago, Volkier said:

If it makes you feel any better - I originally proposed a very similar solution initially as well - one that used subcomponents to restore full efficiency, with scrap only restoring a certain amount of efficiency to elements, added alongside an element recycler. I've since realised that - while it would be a fun mechanic - it's less likely to keep the most number of players happy and require additional gameplay mechanics to be added to go alongside them, while requiring a moderate developer time cost.... Though I might be completely wrong on all accords XD

 

Really?

I'd like to see  what you wrote!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Demlock said:

Oh the repair stations wouldn't be removed or unused at all. In fact they'd be a far more effective and efficient way to repair elements where as doing it by hand would be less than. Because in the end, when you're stranded out in the middle of no-where you can't use a repair unit if you're stranded on a planet or something.

 

You'll need the flexibility of being able to get your ship back up and running, ontop of being able to do full service when your ship is parked at home.

 

 I was thinking more along the lines of scrap only restores to a certain % efficiency as you suggested, while repair station restores to full. So you would not be stranded, but you would also want to visit a local repair station to restore elements to full functionality. Also battle scarred ships would handle differently and more efficiently to fresh reinforcements - providing there's a minimum cap you can restore your element to. Though that just creates a new fun mechanic without providing an element sink, so doesn't really solve what NQ is trying to solve, while permanent durability loss doesn't solve the problems that the "x lives" system has created.

 

8 hours ago, Demlock said:

Well in this case it becomes more of a balancing act of making one thing more valuable and cost effective than the other.

Now I have no degree in economics but you want people to be able to sell sub-components on top of whole elements.

 

Not everyone is going to have all the schematics needed to build all the stuff they want. So a market for sub-components is, in fact, needed.

 

When it came to producing some guns we ended up not perusing more industry and just ended up buying weapon parts that we didn't have the time nor patience for.

Thankfully, the bots were allowing you to buy certain weapon parts which made putting weapons together much much easier.

 Yeah, but I think the schematics system already does that to a degree - since as you said not everyone is going to have schematics for everything. Though I do see what you are saying, and that's also part of the reason I would prefer to keep field repairs on scrap with repair stations using element parts. I think PvP is already tedious enough without the requirement to have a cargo hold full of hundreds of different sub-components. Though it will certainly be realistic, we want to encourage risk taking and player interaction, not make it a chore. 

 

8 hours ago, Demlock said:

Really?

I'd like to see  what you wrote!

On reflection, the one I've posted here is quite a bit more different than what I thought - I was thinking of another we had while brainstorming in a discord discussions with a bunch of other players on the subject - though that one never made it into a forum post. But here you go - 

   (basically TLDR - scrap is produced using a recycle-type module on existing elements that will yield scrap + parts up to the tier of the module recycled. Sorry it wasn't the one I was thinking, but point remains - while I think it would be a cool mechanic, I think the simpler and the most win-win for everyone whether it's factory owners, builders, pilots or pirates, the better. And an RNG items destroyed and not dropped on death is a time-tested and proven mechanic to date. Though I won't deny there are definitely better alternatives - just need to find one that's appealing to everyone :P)

image.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering their die hard desire not to do a wipe, I'm guessing some of these, MUCH NEEDED changes, might not happen. As they would be changing the basis of items in general. Then again they could set a script up to swap all elements in the games DB for the new variation then slow phase the old ones out of the game with a later patch, basically buying some time while they do the change over.

I mean if the items look like 

 

Name: X

Prop1: ( Static )

Prop2: ( Static )

ETC:  ( Static )

Dynamic Data: ( Really should be restricted to LUA ).

 

Then change to 

Name:

HP: ( modifiable )

EFF: ( modifiable decimal )

ETC: ( Modifiable )

Dynamic LUA: 

 

Just a thought to add into yours, it's not impossible, just depends on how hard coded they made the games assets/items. Though even phasing things out would more than likely cause any/all BPs to basically break as their used items would be gone.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Haku0814 said:

Considering their die hard desire not to do a wipe, I'm guessing some of these, MUCH NEEDED changes, might not happen. As they would be changing the basis of items in general. Then again they could set a script up to swap all elements in the games DB for the new variation then slow phase the old ones out of the game with a later patch, basically buying some time while they do the change over.

I mean if the items look like 

 

Name: X

Prop1: ( Static )

Prop2: ( Static )

ETC:  ( Static )

Dynamic Data: ( Really should be restricted to LUA ).

 

Then change to 

Name:

HP: ( modifiable )

EFF: ( modifiable decimal )

ETC: ( Modifiable )

Dynamic LUA: 

 

Just a thought to add into yours, it's not impossible, just depends on how hard coded they made the games assets/items. Though even phasing things out would more than likely cause any/all BPs to basically break as their used items would be gone.

 

 

 

The thing is - if lives or durability or efficiency was removable from dynamic properties so that those elements could be built with properly - it creates a slew of other issues such as how does the game split them into stacks, how does the player know without clicking on every single stack which one is the full functioning one, how does the game know what stack to use first to undo something, how do you prevent scams since those elements can now be used in trading / market / dispensers, how do you work with picking up and undo-ing in order to apply skill bonuses to someone else's ship and make sure the elements with the correct function go in the same place - or alternatively if you want to use a fully functional element to replace a broken one without yeeting the broken one altogether.

Basically while I don't particularly like it, I can fully understand why it would be added as a dynamic property as the alternative would be creating a complicated mess to make the system function, or have a non functioning system that causes more issues than it solves (kinda exactly like the x lives mechanic we have right now). Which is also why I've come to a firm belief that any solution cannot involve dynamic properties for it to be a functional solution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's my point, those properties should be showing up in some way, somewhere for us to see and notice right away. I can think of a number of ways to go about it myself along with at least 25% of the community. We don't work for NQ so having it hit the table for them feels kind of "Meh".

  1. Why do we not have the current tooltip with info like "Most" other MMO's
    1. I get we don't want to be like everyone, however, some of those common features are there for ease of use, so players are not diving through multiple UI's and then throwing their hands up saying "F This".
    2. That kind of setup, where I can see
      1. A breakdown of an items stats as they are from everyone by rightclicking to see info.
      2. A tooltip that tells me ,with my talents you get X boosted, with a colorful text showing where my boost are and how much.
    3. Heck, for damaged constructs, have the color fade from green to yellow to red, since thats kind of a common motif with traffic light lol, G/Good - Y/Hmmmm - R/Check it, throw it away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Volkier said:

 

  1. how does the game split them into stacks?
  2. how does the player know without clicking on every single stack which one is the full functioning one,
  3. how does the game know what stack to use first to undo something,
  4. how do you prevent scams since those elements can now be used in trading / market / dispensers,
  5. how do you work with picking up and undo-ing in order to apply skill bonuses to someone else's ship and make sure the elements with the correct function go in the same place - or alternatively if you want to use a fully functional element to replace a broken one without yeeting the broken one altogether.
  1. Answer:  With dynamic properties, there is no stacking as each element will have it's own unique set of stats based on the talents, health and efficiency at any given moment once modified.
  2. They could add some green outline or some other menu indicator to showcase that "X" item is brand new
  3. That's something for the devs lol
  4. Same deal as how they added the ability to see what you're buying before you're actually buying it... Simply give a dropdown of the stats of an item if it is a modified item
  5. In-game when someone with talents picks up and puts down an element the talents are automatically applied. If your talents are less than the ones the item has then the item retains the buffs at that tier. There wouldn't be much of a reason to undo an applied buff to any given item really.
    As far as replacing a broken element with a fully functional one, they need to really do a better job on their salvaging mechanic instead of just saying "Oh let's get rid of this destroyed thing because there's absolutely nothing more we can do with it now".... (even though we have recyclers ...)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...