1 (edited by Burial 2012-09-23 15:14:42)

Topic: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

ANNI IDEA IS BEST SO FAR

Annihilator wrote:

i think i had that up often enough now -

LWFs should grant the same mass reduction through all tiers. The higher tier advantage should be in lower penalties and lower fitting costs.

that way a t1 lwf would be as valiable as a t4.

but i would still prefer if the would implement "laden weight" mechanic. The stat was there back in beta, but as useless as the mass stats of ores

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

+1 tho i think the whole movment system needs a change since LWF seems to be a must for most people to get around. If an istem becomes a must have then theres a problem... kinda like nav 10 imo

True Pros make a Podcast to influence the Devs minds, 
The rest of you guys are Hacks tongue

PS. I got my Highways & stopped playing b4 they came in & have never used them! ...... Irony much ? tongue

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

i think i had that up often enough now -

LWFs should grant the same mass reduction through all tiers. The higher tier advantage should be in lower penalties and lower fitting costs.

that way a t1 lwf would be as valiable as a t4.

but i would still prefer if the would implement "laden weight" mechanic. The stat was there back in beta, but as useless as the mass stats of ores

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

Annihilator wrote:

i think i had that up often enough now -

LWFs should grant the same mass reduction through all tiers. The higher tier advantage should be in lower penalties and lower fitting costs.

that way a t1 lwf would be as valiable as a t4.

but i would still prefer if the would implement "laden weight" mechanic. The stat was there back in beta, but as useless as the mass stats of ores

+1, I like that.

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

+1 more modules!

"you're not in an MMO to make friends, you're there to make enemies smile"

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

I think LWF is good as it be now we need other type of new modules.

With Noralgis frontier ops sorry Gamma frontier smile, we don't have no more speed skill because after many time finally devs undestand how it was important to have that skill at lv 10 a must have for everyone.
Also even if you go in pvp in T1 for speed you must use lwf T4

what i'd like to see about LWF is only epitron comodities in T3 and noralgis in T4 (like before patch) and to have more people in game able to produce it move LWF research in the Syndacate tree like firearms.

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

Annihilator wrote:

i think i had that up often enough now -

LWFs should grant the same mass reduction through all tiers. The higher tier advantage should be in lower penalties and lower fitting costs.

that way a t1 lwf would be as valiable as a t4.

but i would still prefer if the would implement "laden weight" mechanic. The stat was there back in beta, but as useless as the mass stats of ores

+1, great idea Anni.

Population graphs

<GM Synapse> please don't abuse our fresh players before blowing them up. And for god sakes, don't do that after it!

8 (edited by Line 2012-07-09 06:51:04)

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

speed=robot_max_speed-(((robot_max_speed*0,25)/100)*((robot_current_cargo*100)/robot_max_cargo))

robot_max_speed - your current max speed based on robot and fittings (lwf, plates, etc)
robot_current_cargo - your current cargo volume, U
robot_max_cargo - your robot cargohold size, U
0,25 - speed max penalty (25%), can be different for different robots, but not necessary.

Have a productive day, runner!
R.I.P. Chenoa, you'll never be forgotten.
DEV Zoom: Line, sorry, I was away for christmas.
http://perp-kill.net/?m=view&id=252086

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

1+ a copy of steve idea, but when it works, why change it.

<GargajCNS> we maim to please

10 (edited by Burial 2012-09-22 17:19:45)

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

Bump.. what do devs think? Shouldn't be too hard to implement and very useful!

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

Burial wrote:

Bump.. what do devs think? Shouldn't be too hard to implement and very useful!


Doing this would defiantly improve the success of the game.  Bringing lights, ewars, and assaults into a more affordable fold.

Not too sure with the "laden weight" however, I would start with the separation first then study the later issue.

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

so, what would be the difference between a small and a medium one?

remember, legslot modules almost nowhere differ between small and medium at all.

  • Armor plates,
    which you will still just fit the medium one on a small bot or your better off with uni-hardener

  • repair modules
    which even heavy mechs often just use the small T4 one because the its the only one that has a positive HP/AP ratio on a non-blue robot

  • shield modules
    medium ones got to high fitting cost for small bots, small ones are nogo on mechs due to the shield radius/hitsize ratio

  • accumulator expander
    actually i don't know why small ones exist at all. on any bot, a recharger (which has WAY lower fitting costs) is more effective, and on assaults, i'd rather install a medium one due to how accumulator recharge is calculated.

  • injector
    since the change of the ammo-size, their only role is to keep a shield alive or help ictus with its neuting.
    for that, it doesnt matter which one you take

most legslot modules that already differ between small and medium dont make sense the way they are at all. those differences could have been spread along the 4 tier levels already.


but back to LWF:

when you look at the tier progression of LWF you got this:

  1. CPU/Reactor
    T1 : 5/2 <> T4 6/3  no factor

  2. Mass reduction:
    T1/T2 20%; T3 25%; T4 30%

  3. Armor penalty:
    T1 to T4 -27.5%  <- no difference

  4. Demob penalty:
    T1, T3 and T4 25% ; T2 20%

for me the biggest error in the current balance of the frames, is that the Mass reduction scales, but the Armor penalty NOT.
It should be exactly the opossite - all frames having SAME mass reduction, but the T4 has the lowest
or, if the mass reduction scales, then the armor penalty should scale with it (T1 low mass reduction, low armor penalty, t4 high mass reduction, high armor penalty)

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

Annihilator wrote:

i think i had that up often enough now -

LWFs should grant the same mass reduction through all tiers. The higher tier advantage should be in lower penalties and lower fitting costs.

that way a t1 lwf would be as valiable as a t4.

but i would still prefer if the would implement "laden weight" mechanic. The stat was there back in beta, but as useless as the mass stats of ores

I like this the most so far.

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

Annihilator wrote:

for me the biggest error in the current balance of the frames, is that the Mass reduction scales, but the Armor penalty NOT.
It should be exactly the opossite - all frames having SAME mass reduction, but the T4 has the lowest
or, if the mass reduction scales, then the armor penalty should scale with it (T1 low mass reduction, low armor penalty, t4 high mass reduction, high armor penalty)

+1

I've not liked any LWF idea changes until this one, including OP. A consistent mass reduction could work for me as long as that it's same or better than current T4. Going slower across the board would suck.

As for drawback, sure scale the armor reduction and demob resists as you go up the tiers.

Sparking to other games

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

I'd like to see my formula implemented, with some more additions.

We have different ropot types that are designed for some specific roles. Why a combat bot should be as good for carrying stuff as industrial one? It's not about cargo volume, but speed penalty. Let's get back to my basic formula:

speed=robot_max_speed-(((robot_max_speed*0,25)/100)*((robot_current_cargo*100)/robot_max_cargo))

robot_max_speed - your current max speed based on robot and fittings (lwf, plates, etc)
robot_current_cargo - your current cargo volume, U
robot_max_cargo - your robot cargohold size, U
0,25 - speed max penalty (25%), can be different for different robots, but not necessary.

With new additions, penalty SHOULD be different for different robots, accordingly to their role. For example, max penalty can be:

E-war - 50%,
Combat - 25%,
Industrial - 10%

Combined with Anni idea, this may become very good change.

Have a productive day, runner!
R.I.P. Chenoa, you'll never be forgotten.
DEV Zoom: Line, sorry, I was away for christmas.
http://perp-kill.net/?m=view&id=252086

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

Yeah rather than making all the LWF's the same mass reduction i would like to see stuff like a superconductive frame that reduces accumulator use, EM insulated frames that reduce EWAR effects, stealth coated frames to increase signal masking or make it harder to hit ect...of course all with a significant downside.

Stranger Danger / Capital Punishment / Cyberdown
Pillar of the Community
Ruler of Recruit Chat
CIR Ministry of Truth

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

+1 Annifailator

Same mass reduction, different penalties.

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

Stranger Danger wrote:

Yeah rather than making all the LWF's the same mass reduction i would like to see stuff like a superconductive frame that reduces accumulator use, EM insulated frames that reduce EWAR effects, stealth coated frames to increase signal masking or make it harder to hit ect...of course all with a significant downside.

You know, I really like this idea, adds alot without really adding alot, if you know what I mean.

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

@ Stranger Danger
oh noes, that would be out of the vertical progression background of the tiered system in perp
giving each tier a DIFFERENT role.

that cannot happen.

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

I believe he was thinking more so having different sets of LWFs to T4, thus more mods in general, thus more "speed" options.

The Gifter
Top  Killer 2013  - 01: 334 -- 17 -- 317  : Merkle
Top  Killer 2012  - 01: 027 -- 472 -- 445 : Merkle

Scarab Kill Count - 13

21 (edited by Annihilator 2012-09-23 22:21:10)

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

even though, it cant be a "light-weight" frame with a differend side effect, since for everything there must be a different module.

for the effects he listed, theres the different robots ingame, or already existing modules, like masking bonus on ewar bots, or ewar resist with sealings and eccm. 

sure, i agree, it would be nice if we could modify the treats of the robots a bit more with the modules, but never with overlapping specs -> so it cannot be mass reduction AND another positve effect.
Look at Armor plates... it doesnt really work there either. Demob resist, but also adding so much mass that you dont really need to be demobbed at all...

Another interpretation of Stranger dangers post would be, that he is asking for more "Tunings", aka tunings for masker modules, because you can fit only one masker.

just a bit offtopic:
in another topic, i suggested that robots should have a slight self-heal out of combat, that doesnt consume AP. Immediately some came up that this must be a seperate module, while it wouldnt make sense to fit a passive heal module, when you could use the active one out of combat anyway.
The basic idea behind my suggestion you have quoted in your main post is btw that i want to have EVERY tier of a module beeing a valid fitting choices, not only because you cannot afford the highest one.

*Disclaimer: This post can contain strong sarcasm or cynical remarks. keep that in mind!
Whining - It's amazing how fast your trivial concerns will disappear

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

Oh, some kind of "nano dye" or any other thingie - it should add says 10% HP that will slowly self-repair (just those 10%)

Have a productive day, runner!
R.I.P. Chenoa, you'll never be forgotten.
DEV Zoom: Line, sorry, I was away for christmas.
http://perp-kill.net/?m=view&id=252086

Re: Lightweight frames revamp: Make lower tiers viable!

Line wrote:

Oh, some kind of "nano dye" or any other thingie - it should add says 10% HP that will slowly self-repair (just those 10%)

Good idea but would like it as not part of the robot frame set of items but something seperate, maybe even something that stays in cargo.