storage slave OR component controller slave FOR weapons/thrusters/systems

[NeonSturm]

Imagine you mine a sector and find a valuable resource …
… then you can refine it and create components from it, such as "crystal circuit" or "metal mesh".

But because you got lucky with resource-type or rarity level (or maybe you just invested more resources) …
… you can manufacture Level-2 components such as "charged crystal circuit" or "alloyed metal mesh".
(but it could be entirely new components, it does not matter how these items are called)

But we only have 1 Level of cannon blocks !!!



This is no problem if you can slave storages to computers.

Instead of creating Level-2 weapons or add effect/weapon slaves, you just slave a storage computer just like weapons/effects/lights now.

The effect would be proportional up to a limit, just like effect-modules now.

The bonus% of Level-2 items could be a server-config or server-dependent block-config.


You may even place these components and link them to a component controller instead of using storage blocks.

Logic blocks can also have different types of slaves.
The slaves could be counted into a storage-block-like entity which can serve numbers for item-stacks of a type.​

 

[Madman198237]

No.

Because this requires somehow saving the storages of ships, turrets, and whatnot, and then requiring those resources. No, please no, oh no. We have a good enough system right now---no need to change it.

 

[NeonSturm]

No.

Because this requires somehow saving the storages of ships, turrets, and whatnot, and then requiring those resources. No, please no, oh no. We have a good enough system right now---no need to change it.

Do you require Cannon-Cannon slaves for the Cannon to fire?
If the slave is not loaded, it will not use the slave and be less efficient, but not useless.
This slave type is intended for Level-2 upgrades which may add 5% or 10% strength only.
Though some servers may set it to the strength of an offensive ion effect on weapons.

Did you actually read what I have written? Because you are murdering the thread with irrelevant details.

1. We do not need Level-2 blocks for each weapon. Old weapons would exist too.
   
2. Slaving would be optional.
   
3. Title: "(a) slave OR (b) slave FOR (systems)" → SLAVE IN ANY WAY.[/B]

 

[Madman198237]

What? Ok, so you've been unclear so far. However, the basic premise of my argument remains: IF you base things off of storages, THEN you must track and fill storages on blueprints, in order to keep the slaves without making the use of these "level 2" things extremely micro-management-dependent. Which would be extremely lame.

 

[NeonSturm]

What? Ok, so you've been unclear so far.

No, you didn't read.

Neither the title, nor that I put a clear example with logic blocks, nor that I said we do not need Level-2, only slaves for Level-1 cannon/weapon blocks (slaves are not required to fire the main weapon)​

I thought about that very carefully when writing the post, jet again someone comes with arguments which were already contradicted in 3 different ways in the OP and thread title both.

EDIT: sorry if I were a bit angry when writing it, but having one bombing the OF with such arguments got me angry.​

IF you base things off of storages, THEN you must track and fill storages on blueprints, in order to keep the slaves without making the use of these "level 2" things extremely micro-management-dependent. Which would be extremely lame.

Yes and no.

As storage slave: Yes, that would be useful. Just add cost to blueprint and fill storages on spawn when slaved to a computer. When removing the storage, put it's contents into your inventory first.
OR
As component-controller slave: No, it would just enumerate slaved components like an Activation Module might enumerate slaved AND, OR, NOT which will change when itself changes.

The only difference would be that this enumeration is used in the slave% ratio of weapon computers and shown to you like a storage block's contents are.
​

Edit:

Filling storages in each turret is not more lame than placing them after spawning. Despite that we need a shared cargo system (to and from sub-entities) anyway, but that's a different topic..​

That does not mean I am against filling such storages through the blueprint, just saying that this shouldn't be final argument when voting yes/no on the OP.

 

[Groovrider]

This idea sounds terrible and over complicated. Tiny super-gems to make your weapons more powerful? No thanks. And involving storage is even worse. No thanks.

 

[NeonSturm]

This idea sounds terrible and over complicated.

Because there are 2 alternatives for which you can choose.

Tiny super-gems to make your weapons more powerful? No thanks.

They would add mass (just as cargo) and would be soft-capped like effects. But they could also be placed like effects just that the blocks are different (not uniform) similar to logic in Alternative B.

No thanks. And involving storage is even worse. No thanks.

Guess what is even worse in "what we already have"? The structure tab !!!
Alternative B (Component controller slaves) wouldn't be anything new, just giving you structure information with an UI similar to that of a storage block.​

 

[Lukwan]

Forgive me if I harvest your suggestion to craft a Frankenstein version of it.

Special mining bonus to ship: check. Toss the overly complicated, tiered storage/crafting rigmarole.

Just have a very rare chance for some McGuffin bonus to be applied to the miner permanently. Yes, permanent and non transferable. This gives a dedicated mining vessel some 'cachet' and may eventually help it become more survivable. No learning curve. It would not be overpowered because who would waste time grinding with a capitol-ship trying to mine and hoping for a minuscule buff.

Caveats to limit being OP:
- Human mining only, no buff for drone or AI mining.
-Keep the buffs small. (1% speed boost, Plus 2% to shield regen, improved gravity resistance.)
-Buffs do not transfer to the BP and are lost when ship overheats.
-Mass limits.

"Always with the 'splaining ". For RP or for people who want context this buff can be explained in any number of random ways: take on board stranded NPC crew member (engineer), provide shelter for alien life-form, or salvage ancient technology cache. Sort of like the events in FTL.

 

[Sven_The_Slayer]

It certainly is an interesting take on a tier/buff system. Instead of blueprints being locked until you can find X amount of rare material to even spawn it in all the weapon systems/thrust/shields/whatever would be the stock but you could buff them by adding these rare crystals to the system via storage, if I'm understanding the proposal correctly anyway.

As far as I know there is plans to allow "experienced crew" to buff ships. A rare material doing so as well would be an interesting parallel mechanic.

 

[NeonSturm]

You understand it correctly Sven_The_Slayer

In Alternative A:
* The quadrary or pentrary slaves could be indicators where weapons are placed - but which are placed can be defined with the storage system.

But I made a Plan-B for the case peoples do not like storages and would murder my thread because of it:
* You place the blocks like logic blocks, link them to a controller like you would link logic blocks to a shared activation block or button.
​

A would be just like a slider, but you change it's value by adding components to the storage.
B would control groups of placed-down components instead (a controller may control one array of ammo factory T2, one array of ammo storage T2)

 

[Lecic]

>tiered weapons

no

 

[NeonSturm]

>tiered weapons

no

>no

reason?

Note: procentual buffs, not tiered blocks
With your logic effects and cannon-slaves are also "tiered weapons".

 

[Lecic]

>no

reason?

Note: procentual buffs, not tiered blocks
With your logic effects and cannon-slaves are also "tiered weapons".

 

[Lukwan]

Technically speaking what we have right now is a tiered system. You can make a small, cheap canon (tier-1). If you want more dakka you add a secondary system (tier-2) and if you want spice you can a third tier with a tertiary system.

1-2-3

We can play around with balance of these systems and tweak them as needed to balance new elements. We could add to existing system but we don`t need to re-invent the wheel.

 

[Lecic]

Technically speaking what we have right now is a tiered system. You can make a small, cheap canon (tier-1). If you want more dakka you add a secondary system (tier-2) and if you want spice you can a third tier with a tertiary system.

1-2-3

We can play around with balance of these systems and tweak them as needed to balance new elements. We could add to existing system but we don`t need to re-invent the wheel.

But those aren't tiers. A rapid cannon isn't better than a regular cannon against armor. An ion cannon/cannon won't be able to do anything to armor or blocks. Tiers are better. These are alternatives.

 

[Lukwan]

No argument there Lecic. I was trying to make a semantic argument to convince people that we don`t need or want a tiered weapon system.

 

[sayerulz]

Seriously, stop.

 

[NeonSturm]

YES

If tiers are "tech-levels" and 1/2 ion 1/2 punch would be as effective if you dumbly fire both but additionally gives you the option to save 50% energy by not using one - it is better tech, a higher tech-level.

I AGREE that arguing about tiers has no place here.


If you argue about tiers, you should read the OP again and vote if you like just one of the 2 alternatives and not post about "whether you like it to be called tiers",

Just post: I like option A more, I like option B more. You may mention that it is not called tiers, but more argumentation has no place here.