Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kyzrati]

The premise: Add a way to make a greater number of weapon slots more viable for combat runs while further differentiating weapon-heavy builds and play style.

Background: It stemmed from a conversation with Reiver in the Combat Run Theorycrafting thread here and, further down, here.

This is not absolutely required nor will it necessarily happen; I'm just bringing it up to hear what you all think about it. Theorize away!

Weapon Mounts

• Mounts would be a new type of part that fits into a single weapon slot.
• It's not a weapon itself and cannot fire.
• You can move it around among the weapon slots as normal, and whatever weapon is listed below it is the one considered to be "mounted" (can be changed at any time for free).
• Mounts provide multiple specific bonuses to the mounted weapon, akin to similar combat-oriented utilities, but better.
• Thus different mount variants could affect the weapon's targeting, core targeting, armor penetration, overload potential, resource costs, heat management, etc.

So this system is effectively "weapon-slot utilities special for combat builds."

Is it worth it?

A lot more planning would be required to investigate the feasibility of this system and what impact it might have on the whole balance of things. I'm not yet even sure how much work it would be to implement (the answer is probably "a lot").

As per the discussion in the linked background thread, I also don't think this is entirely necessary, and might even be somewhat limiting (against the spirit of Cogmind?) by shoehorning combat builds into having too many weapon slots, which at some point they may not be able to fully utilize depending on their condition.

[zxc]

So essentially these weapon mounts improve another weapon you are using. There would be some overlap with weapons that take up multiple slots (which seem an elegant way of essentially implementing these weapon mounts) and with cannons, which are guns 2.0. There is also obviously overlap with the functions of combat utilities, which do similar things but apply to all weapons.

I'll think about it. My first impression is that this would not add enough to the game to be a worthwhile feature. I also like how unlocking weapon slots is a decision based on factors like the volley size you want, whether you want to do less weapon switching etc. which I cover in the combat-theory thread OP.

[Happylisk]

This kind of steps on utilities toes (and by kind of I mean a lot).  If I had to choose between an advanced targeting computer, or a weapon-slot utility that gives me even more accuracy, obviously I go with the latter.  It seems like the idea boils down to "here's an even better utility than before but to use it you have to increase your weapon slots."   

My gut feeling is that zxc is right - if you want to make people value weapon slots more, make more weapons take up multislots.  Currently, the only multislot weapon I make regular use of the heavy disruptor cannon.  Even then, I'd only use one at a time. 

On the other hand, if you take existing weapons and increase their size (e.g. make multirails/nova cannons two slot items) you're going to be nerfing existing combat builds.  I think the answer to the current meta of not having more than 4-5 weapon slots will come with the addition of late game branches.  Add zones where you'd need 3-4 two slot weapons to stand a fighting chance against the enemies, and I think people will take a second look at weapon slots. 

E: I just realized what I just said is not true.  The advanced targeting computer effects all weapons, whereas the mount just effects the mounted weapon (reading things more than once is a good idea).  So the weapon mount is  not just a rip of the utility slot.  It's a utility designed solely to improve one other item, which is currently unique and unprecedented in the game.  I hadn't dwelled on the ramifications of that before I knee jerked in response.

Given that it's not just shuffling some utilities into the weapon slot, I'm in favor of this.  I'd probably change my build to 6 weapon slots, with 4 weapon and 2 mounts.  I will say though that this will add even more complexity to weapon choices, which is already one of the most complex aspects of the game.   

[zxc]

Still, you can achieve the same thing with multi-slot weapons. You just won't get the mix-n-match effect that you would with these mounts. I think there is a chance these weapon mounts could be a worthwhile addition to the game, but the opportunity cost of K's time being spent on this any time soon is far too high.

[Kyzrati]

but the opportunity cost of K's time being spent on this any time soon is far too high.

This would be the biggest obstacle. With unlimited time I'd certainly throw it in there for kicks just to see, but it would likely be a significant investment.

I'd like to say that overall this would be a cool feature and something that could be explored post-1.0, but it's not something that should wait so long given how central it would be to balance if implemented.

This would certainly increase complexity overall, the more worrisome aspect of which I've noted here as adding a new subtype of item you'd want to be able to replace as part of a build strategy, yet you may not always be able to locate/have one and therefore are left with surplus weapon slots. Maybe that's not too big an issue; testing would be required.

Another factor I forgot to mention was that my concept for mounts would have them transfer all damage to the mounted weapon itself, until that weapon is gone, so they themselves will generally remain in good condition and you can swap another weapon in if available. You wouldn't lose a mount and then have only the base weapon. (So in a way this counteracts the issue I described above.)

Regarding multi-slot weapons, there are more of them already designed for the game, but they're all extremely powerful so you don't have access to them--yet

[Happylisk]

Regarding multi-slot weapons, there are more of them already designed for the game, but they're all extremely powerful so you don't have access to them--yet

I suspect that once the branches open up giving access to harder and more impressive wins 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I can only imagine the shitstorm Command is going to be

  coupled with access to doomsday multislot weapons 

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

hello quarantine

  you're going to see people reconsider how many weapon slots is ideal. 

I'll make a DCSS analogy. iron shot is a great spell for a 3 runer.  In fact, I would consider LCS a waste unless you had crazy mana recovery mechanisms and great spellpower.  On the other hands, you better have that LCS on standby if you want to take down Cerebov nice and quick.

I could imagine a similar dynamic here.  4-5 weapon slots being fine for a normal combat win, more would be ideal for the real ass kicking wins. 

[Reiver]

I think the idea is excellent, but a step too complex. If nothing else, it becomes another example of "Must equip X to use Y", and there's enough grumbling about the two examples already in game.

For the others out there: My suggestion was pretty much moving the Targeting Computers from a Utility to the Weapon Slots (Call 'em Targeting Pods, or something), thus meaning that if you want to boost your damage output, you want weapon slots - either for more guns, or better gunnery.

It'd help distinguish 'combat' builds from the current 'do you want half a dozen engines or half a dozen guns, everything else is the same' design. That said, if our favourite dev likes utilities being the default option for builds, then that's fine... it was just rankling me a little bit that the difference between a 'combat' build and a 'stealth' build was in the placement of half a dozen slots out of, what, twenty-odd?

Well, that, and investing slots in utilities to make your shooting work better is cold comfort when the targeting computers get shot off and you're staring at a cache of miniguns...

[sve9]

It seems like a really cool idea, but I agree with the others that it would probably have to add more to the game than it would for the time sink to be a good idea. Still a really cool idea!