Should Construction Level Determine Slots?

[d3ik]

This has been mentioned quite a bit and I figured I would put it up for a vote. Should a character's construction level determine if the items they build will get slots and the minimum number of slots the item will get?

[Nvidia]

Absolutely, I agree 110% with this statement. I mean, the current system is so screwed up, that sometimes people with 150 CST get better stats than people with 210 CST, WTF? o_O

[Drake6k]

Maybe it should cap at 150/150. Would allow the players to play other roles and give the non 220/150 cst a chance in rare building.

[d3ik]

Originally posted by Nvidia
Absolutely, I agree 110% with this statement. I mean, the current system is so screwed up, that sometimes people with 150 CST get better stats than people with 210 CST, WTF? o_O

This is my personal opinion. It makes sense... if a Tank spends his time levelling his character and improving his stats it means that he can hit people harder and with cooler weapons. If a trade skiller takes the time to level their stats to become a high-level constructor, shouldn't that be reflected in the items they build? My logic says yes.

[Frotto]

i voted no because the whole idea behind slots is that they are better than everything else, they are sought after, they are even required by some players. But they should still be random... perhaps increasing the chances of getting slots would be a better solution, however, to say that ooo i have 150/150 i gaurantee u'll get 5 slots on that lovely cs. it will make almost all the rares currently in the game worthless, and then make everyone go out and farm mobs for more tech parts, and then cause chaos over the few tech parts that actually drop now, (more so than their already is). Rares are cool, rares with slots are even cooler, rares with 5 slots are UBER, lets keep it that way, instead of rares are ok, rares with slots are still ok, and rares with 5 slots are normal.

[Dream]

Originally posted by Frotto
i voted no because the whole idea behind slots is that they are better than everything else, they are sought after, they are even required by some players. But they should still be random... perhaps increasing the chances of getting slots would be a better solution, however, to say that ooo i have 150/150 i gaurantee u'll get 5 slots on that lovely cs. it will make almost all the rares currently in the game worthless, and then make everyone go out and farm mobs for more tech parts, and then cause chaos over the few tech parts that actually drop now, (more so than their already is). Rares are cool, rares with slots are even cooler, rares with 5 slots are UBER, lets keep it that way, instead of rares are ok, rares with slots are still ok, and rares with 5 slots are normal.

True this.

[Nvidia]

How about they redesign the system so every 10 points over 150 gives you an additional chance at getting a slot? Then, when the weapon is being built, as you get a slot, the chance of getting another slot is lower... but with a higher CST skill, you have a better chance than someone with let's say, 150? As a slot is made, the chances are constantly becoming lower and lower, making it harder and harder to get the next slot, but having a higher CST skill reduces the amount of "chance" you lose at the next slot.

In other words, giving yourself more CST is like slowing the rate in which your chances of getting slots diminish? Does that make sense to anyone at all? It's a little fuzzy to me lol.

[Parappa]

I think specialisation should be rewarded somehow.

[ericdraven]

Originally posted by Parappa
I think specialisation should be rewarded somehow.

Yep.
I don't see any reason for (spy) constructors to go above 135, because you cap the quality of every item then.
OK, if you have a higher level it takes less time to construct something and you have not that much failed attempts, but that's no real "reward".

The cap of 135 is ridiculous, every newbie can get it - without leveling.
Starting with CST 64, go to a fac (114), get a boost (134). There you go. Useless.

I think "über constructors" (level 250+) should get a reward, maybe guaranteed "+1 slot" or whatever.

[greendonkeyuk]

Constructors NEED a point to aim at imo. Uber constructors should have some sort of extra bonus % to get slots. As eric pointed out, if the cap is 135 then the guys who dedicate their characters lives to levelling their construction skill should get an extra CHANCE to make slots.

Having them guaranteed to have slots at a certain level is gonna kill the industry totally as everyone will go to the highest level guy. Having a percentage chance of getting slots and having that improve by a certain amount for every 5 construction points for example (maybe 1% chance for every 5 intel points in construction or something) would mean uber constructors get a bonus but still lower level constructors stand a chance as well.

[JustIn_Case]

I voted yes, but....

Like stated above, it should only increase your chance of getting slotts.

[ericdraven]

Originally posted by greendonkeyuk
Having them guaranteed to have slots at a certain level is gonna kill the industry totally as everyone will go to the highest level guy. Having a percentage chance of getting slots and having that improve by a certain amount for every 5 construction points for example (maybe 1% chance for every 5 intel points in construction or something) would mean uber constructors get a bonus but still lower level constructors stand a chance as well.

Yes, that's true. But as if the industry isn't already killed.. o_O

My example was a little bit exaggerated tho, with INT 5 / DEX 4 (that's where spies start, right?) you would need about CST 158 for the cap. However, a few minutes of leveling is enough to cap a constructor. And that's not right IMHO.
No one can cap a high-end rare weapon within such a short time, why are tradeskillers so easy to cap? And what's the use to go over the cap when you get (alomst) nothing in return?

[Arcadius]

Guranteed slots of 1 or 2 with a higher chance of getting more slots?

[LTA]

or th ehigher it goes the better chance of the builder getting anything upto 120% stats on the weapons which in theory should increase slot chances aswell :D

[Traxus]

In my opinion they should only move the quality cap for non-rare items of any TL to 100%. That increases slot chances for high TL items somewhat, raises the "construct cap" a little, rewarding specialisation a bit more, plus lowers the big gap between rares and non-rares.

Edit:

Originally posted by LTA
or th ehigher it goes the better chance of the builder getting anything upto 120% stats on the weapons which in theory should increase slot chances aswell :D

Ah, yes, you were faster with a nearly identical idea. 120% is too much in my opinion, but 100% should work.

[Judge]

I voted no, because I don't like specialisation and it would screw over low-mid level constructors.

[VVerevvolf]

Everyone who played/plays a constructor will agree with this, and so do I.
I can get to 258 with a boost 3 in our fac, and my slot chance is not higher than the chance of much lower constructors.
Great. As said above, specialisation should be rewarded, because in every combat skill it is rewarded, but not in construction o_O.

I think very high constructors should be able to make weapons a few % better (maybe a random system, from 0% better up to 5% better) and the chance to get slots must be increased with higher construction skill.

[Voodoochicken]

NO.

There are so many threads about specialisation ruining neocron, but for some reason here is one asking for more. :confused:


I'm a constructor/researcher/droner. I would hate this change..


It seems to me that the arguement for the change is this:

"I'm a specialised cster. .I insist on wasting all my points into cst, even though KK tried to do me a favour by saying I don't need to.

The extra cst means I have less chance to fail on a build + it goes slightly faster, BUT that's not enough!.. I want more!

I am too retarded to simply put less points into cst!

I insist that completely specialised csters are more unbalancing on the game than PPU monks!"


Either this, or you know someone that is a completely specialised, maxed constructor.


Imo, slots should stay as they are, but the build quality cap on non-rare weapons should be increased slightly.

(and it shouldn't be that higher TL weapons cap at lower quality like it is now, for some reason).


This game needs less specialisation, not more.

[Progenitor]

Yes.

I still think there should be a bit of randomness involved, but the higher your cst, the higher your percentage of getting slots.

Say your 100 cst has a 30% chance for 1 slot, 25% for 2, 20% for 3 15% for 4 and 10% for 5 slots.

Or some other numbers that makes sense.

Cap it at 50% for 5 slots, 60% for 4, 70% for 3, 80% for 2, and 90% for 1 at cst 180ish or so. (specialization bonus)

That way even low level constructors will have a chance at uber slotage and the higher they go the better they will get at it.

-p

[VVerevvolf]

As you can see, KK wants ppl to specialise, otherwise they would not put in gloves that substract 100 from every combat skill. So they now need to increase slot chances for very high constructors, and many ppl would be glad.
And the chance to get 5 slotters is far too high in your post proginator. They still need to be rare, but higher construct ppl must get a reward.

[Voodoochicken]

You do realise % only goes up to 100?

Or do you mean that it would be a 1 in 2 chance of a 5-slot.. and if it isn't, then it would see if it was a 4 slot.. then a 3.. etc..

Both scenarios are ridiculous.

All weapons would be 5 slot/4.. why use anything else?


Fundamentally, there couldn't be >20% of getting 5-slots, other wise this would be MORE likely than anything else.

Why not just make shop buyable weapons max quality, w/5 free slots? ah yes.. becasue that's a stupid idea.


If they rewarded specialisation in cst by so much, then only the very highest csters would be worth going to... BUT

.. to counter the unbalancing effect of all the 5-slot weapons, KK will have to make it NECESSARY to have a cst skill of 280 to even have the same chance of getting slots as you do now.

[d3ik]

Originally posted by Voodoochicken


"I'm a specialised cster. .I insist on wasting all my points into cst, even though KK tried to do me a favour by saying I don't need to.



"I am a specialized pk'er. I put all my points into my combat-related skills and I am able to kill people more efficiently."

It works for them.... Thanks for trying to do me a 'favour', but I would rather my skills be reflected in my work.

[Edit] - And I do agree with you, Voodoochicken.... having a flood of five-slot weapons would be ridiculous, but there has to be a happy medium between no slots all the time and constant 5-slot uber weapons. I am just hoping we can find it.

[Voodoochicken]

I thought people that played spys wre supposed to be intelligent. :confused:

Specialisation is not a thing to be envious of.

"OMG.. they have to put all their points into one skill to be any good at PvP!.. I want! I want!! Why do players who want to fight get ALL the advantages!!"

[LTA]

Overall i think people who willingly sacrifice combat and chain themself that spot of plaza 1 where they doomed to stay as a pure tradeskiller should be rewarded.

people who spec for pure combat get rewards, so should should the other side, likewise the skill shouldnt effect the slots, it should effect the final stats of the finish product which in itself increases slot chances (As kk have said themselves).
If a conster can cap of items at say 110% instead of the average 88/9? (cant remember th enum) then he has a more chance of a slot.

How does a Specialist Builder (ie all points in) get the same results as a half specialised... it shouldnt happen, half specialised heavy tanks arent as good as full specialised ones so why should specialised tradeskillers have to suffer.

[Birkoff]

I agree that it should be higher the better, but there should be a big random ellement invlolved other wise if u get a TL 300 const (TL310 is possilbe isnt it or something) then your going to cap every rare with 5 slot. That will be no fun in a few days.

[Weazle]

I voted NO .... there will be too many CS script kiddies with their 5 slot Cursed Souls yelling "I 0\/\/nz j00!!".

I will say yes to construction level determining a greater chance of slots.

[Oath]

All well and good, but consider the little people, you know the ones that fart about with tl 100, if you were to make slots based on skill they would never get used and everyone would have 5 slot CS Holy lightnig etc............just a thought :D :p .

Greets,
Oath.

[Breschau]

I dislike the whole concept of slots. I realise the reason they're there, but I still don't like them. I think I'd prefer to see quality caps removed/raised so those who increase their construct skills higher than is currently needed will be making superior weapons (with less *need* for more than the ammo-mod slot).

[BlackPrince]

In order to Garuntee that you only recieve slotted weapons, I recommend the immdiate execution of any mere Spy stupid enough to hand me over a No slotted weapon, I may spare him if it has at least 2.

Make that an option.

[ghandisfury]

I voted no because it should be a bit of a crap-shoot. I think slots should remain random, but the quality cap should be drasticly improved. It's not that bad on rares for a high lvl constructor, but on the non-rares it's just stupid. The reward for being a higher lvl constructor should be a MUCH better quality cap.

[Maarten]

Here is my view on how to reward high lvl constructors.

Why is so hard to cap a low TL weapon? And why is it so easy to cap a high TL weapon?

If your construction skill is twice the TL of the weapon you are constructing you should be able to cap it.
And with cap I mean 100% quality. What's the deal with the 94% cap and 84% cap at high TL? So high TL weapons are harder to cap? High TL weapons are already hard enough to cap. You need to put a shitload of points into a single combat skill and a second one to get some decent damage on your weapon.
But that's the reward you get from specializing, right?
Wait, I'm getting a little confused by my own words here.
I'm going to say what I think would be most fun, then I will try to make it a balanced idea. While I'm typing, yes... :)

My idea is to make the quality caps on all weapons (even rares) at 100%. This 100% can only be achieved if the constructor has twice the TL as his construction skill (or index, to make DEX count as well). This will make high lvl constructors wanted because you need 180 to cap a TL90 weapon. And this will also create a purpose for people who only have 60 in construction. They can still make very nice weapons up to TL30. Right now, the only use a lvl 60 cster has is modding weapons and building items that have no quality. In other words, almost nothing.

About the thing that high TL items will be much easier to cap this way. I say remove the cap. Remove that cap of 120% quality. This will make slots much more interesting. But then the chance of them should definitely not be increased. Maybe even decreased a little (because you can already get 100% quality without slots).

Bottom line is that all levels of constructors will become wanted and that rares will become less of a necessity in order to survive. Plus you will have more fun with your slots because you can REALLY do with them as you please. And this makes 5 slotted weapons REALLY uber. :)

But then, such a drastic change in the way how the quality of weapons is handled is probably way to big to ever be implemented.

So then I only hope they implement the way how the construction skill/index is handled as I suggested. So you need a low lvl constructor to cap a low TL item and a high lvl constructor to cap a high TL item.

But whatever happens, I say NO to increasing the chance of slots with a high lvl constructor. High lvl should effect quality, not luck.

[Cruzbroker]

Ehm..

HOW ABOUT:

The slots in STORE BOUGHT stuff are based on RANDOM, INT/DEX skill AND CST skill....

RARES would ALWAYS BE PURE RANDOM slotted.

let's say bit more detailed:

INT/DEX 30-60 the slots change starts to raise 0.5% by every INT/DEX lvl..

CST after 150 would start raise change of slots by 1% every 5 CST point.

THIS IS, how it would not make anything uber, and would give a reward for speiaiclsdiation....

I repeat: RARES would be always RANDOM slotted..

[kujikiri]

I have to vote yes on this one.
For the player who wants to play a tradeskiller there should be as much of a goal system as there is for the combat oriented player. IMO a constructor should have 0% chance at slots until quality is capped, then for every 20% skill over capping the item he gets a chance at slots, so you need 180% skill to cap the item to have a shot at 5 slots. I'm not saying have a greater chance to get 5 slots, but any chance. By basing the slot chance on the TL of the item we would let the lower level constructors get slots on lower TL items, but would require herr uber to get any chance at 5 slots on a high TL item.

[Nullifidian]

Originally posted by Parappa
I think specialisation should be rewarded somehow.

I think specialization has already destroyed this game. I think this proposal is asking to fuck it up some more.

People used to be able to fight AND use a tradeskill.

Hell, Spies used to be able to have 2 tradeskills and use both rifle AND pistols. Spies could pick a couple tradeskills and drone as well.

People had fun with their characters and weren't stuck doing one thing and only one thing.

You didn't have a bunch of cookie-cutters running around everywhere.

[CR@SH]

I think there should be more of a reward for higher constructing. I do however feel the lower level constructors should have a decent chance at slots as well. Maybe make the construction directly proportionate to the chances of slots. So someone with 110 construction would have a 10 % chance of slotting an item. While someone with 150 construction would have 50% chance. And cap it at 200 construction. So that would mean dedicated constructors would be the best.

Perhaps a formula similar to this (i'm not the best at math so this is just a example)

Lets do this with someone that has 110 construction with a 100 tl item:

0.1*(110) - 10.0 = Slot chance in %

That would mean a 110 constructor would have a 1% chance of slotting a tl100 item.

Ok now with a 150 constructor with the same tl100 item.

0.5*(150) - 10.0 = Slot chance in %

The 150 constructor would have a 65 % chance of slotting a tl100 item.

Now i know it has its flaws but at least its a possible starting formulas. Now perhaps someone more inclined mathematically can come up with something better.

[Nullifidian]

The truth is, people are just whining that their macromules aren't any more useful than people who actually PLAY constructor characters.

[xkorpio]

As someone said before, the chance should be increased for a higher lvl of construction, but it does not have to "ensure" nothing, a good amount of luck and randomness is cool

[HarpoMa]

I agree with slots being dependant on skill but really it should be the researcher not the constructor.


The researcher skill should determine the max # of slots and the constructor should determine the realization of that max # of slots.


So if you go to a 200 rsh and you get a bps that can have upto 10 slots. Then you go to a cst 100 and you get between 1 and 10 slots.

How does it work with rares? Who knows but maybe you research a slot enhancer module at a rsh and apply it to a slot on a rare.

Anyways.

[Cruzbroker]

Here's the reason for higher INT/&DEX (and rank) have a better change getting slots:

You must be a fighter too.

If you are a 2/30 rank Total CST, the only skill that's high is INT... when u were droner/rifler at the same time, your rank would be like 45/50... And then you would have better change to get slots..
Ofcourse you could LoM everything there, but then your rank drops to something like 3/50, and the slots rate would drop also...

Haa!..

[VVerevvolf]

uuh.. rank is not related to slots.