The Perfect Weapon!

[Graxxus]

Yep yeshua both of our ideas are very similar. What the above list is are ingredients that are currently in use in recipes right now that appear to give weapons that are created using them certain abilities over other weapons. My idea was to allow us to use current trade skill items and combine them to create a more complex trade skill item that could then be added to a kit. The problem is that implants only have a few slots and each nanocluster has modifiers that give you a very good idea of what the end product will be.

I think it would be hard to remove the necessity of recipes completely. However, with the creation of a set number of addition slots we would be able to add complex trade skill items to the kits in any order...like implants. Complex trade skill items (very similar to nanoclustes in function except their modifiers would be used to alter the base statistics of the weapon type you are making)would be created prior to adding them to the kit, allowing us to create pre set modifiers(using recipes) that we could then combine into a new weapon. Some slots of would be required to have a specific type of modifier addition...parts necessary to make the type of gun you want to make(rifle, pistol, etc). And those required gun specific modifiers would take up preset locations in the kit you are making...like implants do with faded,bright, and shining...except in the case of weapon construction we make those additions.

Areas marked free slot would be used to add in special attacks, range increasers, crit bonus increasers, min and/or max damage increasers, etc....what makes the gun unique. The preset modifiers we could add into the weapon would have both negative and positive modifiers associated with it. Add too many special attacks and the gun would have a lower max damage and/or a lower crit bonus. We could make any damage type we wanted but we would be limited to how uber it is due to the modifiers and the number of slots we have available for the weapon type's QL we are using. The simpler the weapon the lower the requirements to wield it, but the opposit is true for more complex weaponry.

We could combine weapon kits to create weapons that require multiple main attack skills. Weapons that require multiple main attack skills would do more damage in general than weapons only requiring one main attack skills. For example, combine a ranged energy weapon kit to a rifle kit to create a rifle kit with a secondary main attack skill for ranged energy. Weapon kits that have multiple main attack skill requirements would have more free slots to add in more modifiers to make even more powerful weapons at the price of having to up another main attack skill to use it.

Hopefully this is a little less cryptic In essence if recipes were required for the modifiers and the weapon construction was a litle bit more open ended, then we would have room for creativity but our creative masterpieces would be limited as to how uber they could be...due to negative modifiers.

[________________LRRH]

The Envisioned and In Progress lists were updated.. I forget which, but there is a bit about 'modifying weapons', so maybe they'll get field primers working again, or some other option. ;)

Not quite what we were gearing for in this thread, but it is a start.

[______________Yeshua]

I get you now.

Everyone who thinks that this idea should be implemented in game should send some feedback to Funcom, letting them know. I'm sure many of you already have, just like me. I think I've sent about 3 messages regarding "open" trade skills alone. Additionally, if you're just reading this thread and you agree, you should at least post a little something to get this bumped. Funcom is about making money. If too few people seem to care they won't focus any attention on this idea.

That being said...

I think the key, Graxxus, is to make the process as uncomplicated and open as possible. Instead of locating recipes for components, why not use "common" sense in the assembly process. If descriptions of items were good enough, and all the parts were made available in the shops, it would be very easy to figure out which items could be combined to create a weapon component. Recipes exist because Funcom knows that given the current descriptions there is no way we'd figure out what they want us to do with the items, or in what order they want us to do it. I took a peek at the "recipe" shop for weapons, and I was amazed at how many recipes there were. What a mess! Trade skills should be more intuitive and less restrictive.

I think the implant creation process is a perfect example of this... There is one book that covers all implant creation processes. It defines the parameters and dimesions of the realm of implant creation, but it doesn't tell you which clusters to put where. This is up to the Nano programmer to decide. Icorporating your idea into this process, there would be no clusters in the shops, only cluster components. Maybe cluster capsules, raw inactive bots (in bulk), and a bot programmer that requires an instruction disc. of course all of this would be governed by a QL checking system.

So, maybe a good starting point is just to be able to utilize a slot oriented approach to weapons manufacture. Then add items to shops which can be combined to create specific components, and slowly phase out the pre fabricated components, or not...

Ultimately, the point is to make the experience of being a trades person much more interesting and rewarding. As it is, we don't get nearly enough xp or credits for most of our efforts. Sure, I can get a decent amount of CR for making implants, but that's only because people need them. Someone once told me "Credits are cheap, XP is expensive". How true! I've got a nice sum of CR saved up, but it seems I never have enough xp to go around. Trades people are given far less xp than they should. My nano programming is nearly 700, and the most I get for implant creation is 1010 xp for making a ql 200 implant. I get 11k xp for killing one ~lvl 105 MOB, and all of the stats used to do this are below 560. I would be happy if I could get even 2k xp for making a QL 105 implant. Additionaly, the prices on some of this stuff is way out of wack. Like treatment labs, and stims. I've made a few ~QL 50 treatment labs and regeneration stims that cost 35-50k to make. This is rediculous! The real kicker was the stim, which only has 7 charges and costed about 46k to make. I only got around 200 xp per step for making any of the treatment labs and stims, and there are only about 4 steps to making them. Anyway, that's a whole different can of worms, worthy of it's own thread, so I'll leave it alone for now.

[Entrea]

Bump . . .

The Diablo II version of trade skills seems a good idea.
Having variable slots for each weapon type, and using bonuses and penalties for each part added to balance the whole system.

Having the graphics show the bits added will only cause lag when in groups (like armour), so that'll be dropped at the first mention.

Having tradeskill-made weapons the only ones with slots would help though. Maybe being able to add slots to existing weapons, until the first part it fitted, with the skill needed increasing for every slot added. Or even needing a tradeskill item to fill the slots.

Whatever happens though, we need either need to be able to make better weapons, or the sale price to increase.

[______________Yeshua]

qoute: Aetherer::
________________________________
Having tradeskill-made weapons the only ones with slots would help though. Maybe being able to add slots to existing weapons, until the first part it fitted, with the skill needed increasing for every slot added. Or even needing a tradeskill item to fill the slots.

Whatever happens though, we need either need to be able to make better weapons, or the sale price to increase.
__________________________________

I'm sorry, could you elaborate on your last two points. I don't follow.

[_______V.T. Stampede]

bump !

[_____________Lionhrt]

I like your idea Yeshua.

Im a fan of weapons being damaged so to take things even farther, I would like to see weapons be damaged over time where one of the parts in the socket would need to be repaired. For example, the barrel of a rifle gets damaged and all of a sudden your not able to shoot far anymore. Well you just take it to someone that specializes in repairing weapons. They place a new barrel in the socket and that person gets xp from removing the old one and also from placing the new one in it. The weapon should only be damaged enough where the stats lower but not cripple someone that might be currently in a fight. The sockets could have 3 colors to them, green for new, yellow for wearing, and red for damaged. The type of metal the barrel is made of will determine the longevity of that part.
Another way of doing it, you could give each part a percentage of how much usability is left in the part and you can have the option to set a certain percentage of when to flash a message telling you that the item is due for repair.

If the idea above isnt feasable or interesting then have the weapon parts removable where if your tired of chemical damage you can change a particular part in the socket to make it radiation. The person removing the piece out and placing a new one back in would get xp from both actions.


Also I would like to see docs have the ability to remove clusters from implants.

[Entrea]

Originally posted by Yeshua
qoute: Aetherer::
________________________________
Having tradeskill-made weapons the only ones with slots would help though. Maybe being able to add slots to existing weapons, until the first part it fitted, with the skill needed increasing for every slot added. Or even needing a tradeskill item to fill the slots.

Whatever happens though, we need either need to be able to make better weapons, or the sale price to increase.
__________________________________

I'm sorry, could you elaborate on your last two points. I don't follow.

OK then:

1. You get a weapon you want to add to,
2. You make a one-shot slot adding machine, and add a few slots, depending on QLs of the weapon and machine,
3. Add the slottable items until you are happy, or the slot you are adding to excedes your skill. The first slot might need a skill equal to the QL of the weapon times 3, slot 2 needing QL * 6, slot 3 at QL * 9, etc.
But,
4. If you leave any slots empty, they disappear when you use or trade the weapon, to save getting dupes or other cheats.

Or:

1. You get a weapon making kit, just like normal, but one that adds slots to the weapon you are making. The kit should state how many, and the price would reflect that.
2. Make the weapon as normal, but add the slotable bits as extra steps at the end.

Whatever, the price to make weapons is too high, as the price you can sell it for is far too low.
FC needs to either lower the price of parts, or allow crafted weapon to sell for more.

[______________Yeshua]

Your post is still as clear as mud, to me at least.

Why are you "adding slots"? The number of slots avaialable would be pre-determined by the kit.

What is a "one-shot slot adding machine"?

The only QL requirement would be a range based on the QL of the kit. Maybe an 80% rule could apply. So, a QL 100 kit could use QL 80-120 parts. Every slot uses the same range. What's the sense in making this any more confusing than it has to be?

How would making open slots disappear stop duping exactly? Can anything be duped by trading someone an unfinished Implant, say one with only one slot filled? I've never heard of this kind of magic, but it sounds very powerful.

Finally, the idea is to do away with the old system of weapon manufacture completely. No, one wants to have to follow guidelines when "creating" something. What if there were recipes for Implants,that had to be followed? Given, Implant manufacture is not a completely open trade skill either, but it is not nearly as restrictive as weapons manufacture. The weapons kits themselves should be made up of a number of slots, you shouldn't have to, nor should you be able to add slots to it. There's no reason or need for this.

I agree that the price of pursuing any trade skill is too high at this point, and that the reward for participating is far too low. In fact, these two factors have had a cripling effect on the trade skill community, and it is likely that unless Funcom fixes those two issues, all of what we are discussing will be little more than a trivial pursuit, as no - one will invest in trade skills anyway.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to flame, just trying to moderate. I don't want to confuse the issue. I want what has the potential to be an excellent addition to the trade skill community to be presented to Funcom as clearly and concisely as possible. I have seen a lot of threads go every which way, because the one who started it doesn't take out the time to consider each post, and respond with complete thoughts. It will be difficult enough for old Funcom to implement the kinds of changes many of us would like to see, without making it harder than it needs to be. Like I said, there are still 3.5 years to get trade skills right, and it is likely that the improvements will come in steps. Maybe we should push for one idea first, and then, after seeing how well it works, we can give feedback to further tweak the finer details. Things like costs of trade skill items and the amount of xp given for using them could be changed easily, but the basic operation of trade skill items may take a little longer. I'm one that believes in allowing the development team to develop an idea completely before presenting it as a finished product. Not doing this has gotten us to where we are now, and two wrongs never make a right.

[______________Neikos]

I AGREE!!!