test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Star Trek Online General Discussion

Cosmetic Re-Engineering?

alexraptorralexraptorr Member Posts: 1,192 Arc User
in Star Trek Online General Discussion
Any chance in the future that Re-Engineering could be expanded to include being able to choose our own effects?
Like maybe make it an item sink and give you a chance of obtaining a rare Effect Component when salvaging weapons, which would then be applied to any weapon of the same category.
I for one would love to be able to slap TOS torpedo sound and visuals on my gravimetric photon!
"If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q
«1

Comments

  • davefenestratordavefenestrator Member Posts: 10,661 Arc User
    edited January 2018
    PVP players would whine about misleading visuals.

    Including any of the lock box visuals could cut into sales, and any rep visuals would remove a dil sink. So the list of visuals would be limited.

    The visuals are apparently also hard-coded to the weapon type. Cryptic has said it would be very difficult to offer a weapon visual slot (like the shield slot) because of how their engine works. A "visual mod" may have the same problem.
  • killer1986chriskiller1986chris Member Posts: 382 Arc User
    I believe Kael has mentioned that CBS is no go on the idea of playing with weapon effects.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • gradiigradii Member Posts: 2,824 Arc User
    I would love to be able to slap a decent phaser rifle visual on my crafted phaser rifles. but apparently some people are against decent looking phasers.

    I blame the AP and disruptor heavy meta.
    "He shall be my finest warrior, this generic man who was forced upon me.
    Like a badass I shall make him look, and in the furnace of war I shall forge him.
    he shall be of iron will and steely sinew.
    In great armour I shall clad him and with the mightiest weapons he shall be armed.
    He will be untouched by plague or disease; no sickness shall blight him.
    He shall have such tactics, strategies and machines that no foe will best him in battle.
    He is my answer to cryptic logic, he is the Defender of my Romulan Crew.
    He is Tovan Khev... and he shall know no fear."
  • ssargonssargon Member Posts: 347 Arc User
    We really should be able to force special one-off weapons to be able to match any other weapon of its energy type. i can't be alone in being unable to use things like, say, the Nausicaan disruptor array unless i'm also using nothing but standard-looking Disruptors; or not using a weapon at all if it's completely unique in its effect.
  • scififan78scififan78 Member Posts: 1,383 Arc User
    If they could limit the weapon visuals to like type weapons, I think that could be ok. As in, Slap a TOS phaser array into an energy weapon visual slot and all phasers on your ship would have the TOS looks and sound. Any other weapon of a different damage type would remain unaffected.
  • davefenestratordavefenestrator Member Posts: 10,661 Arc User
    ^ those are both good ideas too, as a substitute for a true visual slot. Other games have a "unify colors" command for your armor that is similar.
  • mneme0mneme0 Member Posts: 498 Arc User
    davefenestrator wrote: »
    PVP players would whine

    Isn't that the main driver of balance nerfs in this game?

  • davefenestratordavefenestrator Member Posts: 10,661 Arc User
    mneme0 wrote: »
    davefenestrator wrote: »
    PVP players would whine

    Isn't that the main driver of balance nerfs in this game?
    Sadly yes. Cryptic should just admit defeat and yank the broken PVP from the game since it's never going to work and ruins a bit of PVE fun now and then.
  • dracounguisdracounguis Member Posts: 5,358 Arc User
    edited January 2018
    killer1986chris wrote: »
    I believe Kael has mentioned that CBS is no go on the idea of playing with weapon effects.

    Not that I'd not believe it; but I'd hope CBS has better things to do with their time than get that nit-picky in STO. But does sound like a good 'excuse' ;) for the Devs to not do it.
    Sometimes I think I play STO just to have something to complain about on the forums.
  • frtoasterfrtoaster Member Posts: 3,352 Arc User
    I don't want to change the visual and audio effects on weapons. I just want to change the models of ground weapons within the same class; for example, make a Mk XII phaser rifle look like a Mk II phaser rifle.
    Waiting for a programmer ...
    qVpg1km.png
  • soullessraptorsoullessraptor Member Posts: 353 Arc User
    Another concern with changing A/V effects is the strain it could put on systems. Both server and client side
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    davefenestrator wrote: »
    PVP players would whine about misleading visuals.
    Of which nobody would care.
    Including any of the lock box visuals could cut into sales, and any rep visuals would remove a dil sink. So the list of visuals would be limited.
    It would not, if a sacrificial weapon of the target type is needed to produce the effect. You would still need a weapon X for each weapon you want to give the weapon X effect to.

    If the effect transference is RNG not guaranteed or otherwise required multiple copies of the weapon before the effect is transfered, it would actually be an increased sink. On that note, I would certainly suggest at least separate visual and sound fx, both because you'd always need to sink at least two weapons to transfer full effects and because it would allow creative combinations.
    The visuals are apparently also hard-coded to the weapon type. Cryptic has said it would be very difficult to offer a weapon visual slot (like the shield slot) because of how their engine works. A "visual mod" may have the same problem.
    There used to be a console command to change weapons color, so that's obviously not true. Also, this is about changing the weapon parameters in the style of re-engineering, not a "visual slot" which I agree is a bad idea.
  • alexraptorralexraptorr Member Posts: 1,192 Arc User
    soullessraptor wrote: »
    Another concern with changing A/V effects is the strain it could put on systems. Both server and client side

    No It isn't.
    "If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid." - Q
  • davefenestratordavefenestrator Member Posts: 10,661 Arc User
    There used to be a console command to change weapons color, so that's obviously not true. Also, this is about changing the weapon parameters in the style of re-engineering, not a "visual slot" which I agree is a bad idea.

    That was only the beam color, not the animation or sound or anything else. It was also very early in the game, were there even different visuals other than color for beams at that point?
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    There used to be a console command to change weapons color, so that's obviously not true. Also, this is about changing the weapon parameters in the style of re-engineering, not a "visual slot" which I agree is a bad idea.

    I have no idea why you would think changing weapon parameters would be any easier than adding visual weapon slots....

    If they can't do one because it's too complex, I can assure you that the other will be just as complex.
    <sigh> everyone's an amateur programmer...Changing a parameter is not at all the same as overriding it with some other, external item that may or may not be even the same type.

    And in any case, the real reason there isn't a "weapon visual slot" is because it would, as davefenestrator mentioned, cut into sales. An issue which a weapon-sinking effect transference wouldn't have.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    There used to be a console command to change weapons color, so that's obviously not true. Also, this is about changing the weapon parameters in the style of re-engineering, not a "visual slot" which I agree is a bad idea.

    I have no idea why you would think changing weapon parameters would be any easier than adding visual weapon slots....

    If they can't do one because it's too complex, I can assure you that the other will be just as complex.
    <sigh> everyone's an amateur programmer...Changing a parameter is not at all the same as overriding it with some other, external item that may or may not be even the same type.

    And in any case, the real reason there isn't a "weapon visual slot" is because it would, as davefenestrator mentioned, cut into sales. An issue which a weapon-sinking effect transference wouldn't have.

    Making a visual weapon slot IS CHANGING ITEM PARAMETER you fraking idjet. You'd have to be a moron to have the item overwite ANYTHING. If you slot say an AP cannon in the visual weapon slot, all the code is doing is changing the parameter of your whatever cannon you have to have the visual and audio paramters of the AP cannon...which is absolutely no different than changing the weapon parameter as you suggested. If you actually had it overwrite things, you are just asking for things to go catastrophrically wrong. And the word you are looking for is overwrite...not override because the way you are thing, the visual code would write over the bit of code that controls audio and visual. Or are you thinking of doing the even more idiotic method of having the base weapon go THROUGH the visual weapon code and cause so much uneeded calculation to happen as the visual weapons override the base weapon? Instead of I don't know, the simple solution of change weapon parameter. God, I hope nobody is paying you to program anything because if they are, they are getting ripped off by you utter lack of knoweldge shown here. And no...I am not an amateur programmer. I get paid for my work. And my work is worth actual money instead of the drivel you have shown here.
    "override" != "overwrite"
    Do try to at least get the dictionary right before grandstanding with your idle speculation.

    A visual slot overrides an equipped item. That means the game uses some of the visual item's parameters instead of the equipped item's, but the equipped item's parameters remain unchanged. If the visual item is removed, the equipped item's parameters are again used, the same they were before. This is different from changing the equipped item.

    And resorting to personal insults suggests you have no factual argument to present.
  • nimbullnimbull Member Posts: 1,564 Arc User
    Weren't people screaming when varients of different energy types had different colors that drove people in to rainbow rage?
    Green people don't have to be.... little.
  • soullessraptorsoullessraptor Member Posts: 353 Arc User
    alexraptorr wrote: »
    soullessraptor wrote: »
    Another concern with changing A/V effects is the strain it could put on systems. Both server and client side

    No It isn't.

    Yes. It is. Because then you have the game trying to process damage type, visual type, and sound effect, instead of one single packet. Some people would attempt to/actually cause lag by spamming different sounds and visuals
  • tarran61tarran61 Member Posts: 827 Arc User
    edited January 2018
    killer1986chris wrote: »
    I believe Kael has mentioned that CBS is no go on the idea of playing with weapon effects.

    "Thats a darn shame, I really like the Kelvin Beams but the sounds just dont cut it for me."

    Wait, that's not CBS, my bad.
    Positive thoughts.
    NeAC.gif
  • nikephorusnikephorus Member Posts: 2,744 Arc User
    CBS said no? You mean like a high tier constitution that we weren't suppose to ever get cause cbs said no?
    Tza0PEl.png
  • walligigwalligig Member Posts: 308 Arc User
    I think it would be kind cool if you could disable certain special weapon visuals (ex.. Quantum Phaser, Resonance Disruptor) and make them look like their normal weapon type sort of like you can with shields, engines, ect... by clicking the little eye symbol.
    sstosig2.png
  • willamsheridanwillamsheridan Member Posts: 1,189 Arc User
    CBS said no. But No to what? a complete visual re-engineering where you can change every weapon color to whatever you want or just a Type specific change (like making TOS phasers look like Kelvin phasers or Disruptors look like Coalition disruptors..)?
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    edited February 2018
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    There used to be a console command to change weapons color, so that's obviously not true. Also, this is about changing the weapon parameters in the style of re-engineering, not a "visual slot" which I agree is a bad idea.

    I have no idea why you would think changing weapon parameters would be any easier than adding visual weapon slots....

    If they can't do one because it's too complex, I can assure you that the other will be just as complex.
    <sigh> everyone's an amateur programmer...Changing a parameter is not at all the same as overriding it with some other, external item that may or may not be even the same type.

    And in any case, the real reason there isn't a "weapon visual slot" is because it would, as davefenestrator mentioned, cut into sales. An issue which a weapon-sinking effect transference wouldn't have.

    Making a visual weapon slot IS CHANGING ITEM PARAMETER you fraking idjet. You'd have to be a moron to have the item overwite ANYTHING. If you slot say an AP cannon in the visual weapon slot, all the code is doing is changing the parameter of your whatever cannon you have to have the visual and audio paramters of the AP cannon...which is absolutely no different than changing the weapon parameter as you suggested. If you actually had it overwrite things, you are just asking for things to go catastrophrically wrong. And the word you are looking for is overwrite...not override because the way you are thing, the visual code would write over the bit of code that controls audio and visual. Or are you thinking of doing the even more idiotic method of having the base weapon go THROUGH the visual weapon code and cause so much uneeded calculation to happen as the visual weapons override the base weapon? Instead of I don't know, the simple solution of change weapon parameter. God, I hope nobody is paying you to program anything because if they are, they are getting ripped off by you utter lack of knoweldge shown here. And no...I am not an amateur programmer. I get paid for my work. And my work is worth actual money instead of the drivel you have shown here.
    "override" != "overwrite"
    Do try to at least get the dictionary right before grandstanding with your idle speculation.

    A visual slot overrides an equipped item. That means the game uses some of the visual item's parameters instead of the equipped item's, but the equipped item's parameters remain unchanged. If the visual item is removed, the equipped item's parameters are again used, the same they were before. This is different from changing the equipped item.

    And resorting to personal insults suggests you have no factual argument to present.

    I explained why BOTH situation was a bad idea from a programming standpoint vs a simple change in parameter to the base weapon based on visual item equipped. Which would make using whatever system the same as far as technical difficulty goes...which means if they said they can't do one, they can't do the other since other than a UI change, the base code is the same.
    Except the visual slots very clearly are NOT changing the items in any way. I have no interest in speculating on Cryptic's programming.
    And if ALL you have is personal insult, it suggests you have no factual arguements. The fact that you utterly IGNORED all my factual arguements and focused in on the insult leads me to believe that you are blooming idjet who doesn't have a response to my very factual arguements as to why you are WRONG. Just because I am being an **** doesn't make me wrong.
    No, you having no argument and trying to contradict observed fact makes you wrong. The bad language just highlights it.
  • UnknownUnknown
    This content has been removed.
  • markhawkmanmarkhawkman Member Posts: 35,236 Arc User
    nimbull wrote: »
    Weren't people screaming when varients of different energy types had different colors that drove people in to rainbow rage?
    A few people.... most people don't care.
    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    My character Tsin'xing
    Costume_marhawkman_Tsin%27xing_CC_Comic_Page_Blue_488916968.jpg
  • warpangelwarpangel Member Posts: 9,427 Arc User
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    coldnapalm wrote: »
    warpangel wrote: »
    There used to be a console command to change weapons color, so that's obviously not true. Also, this is about changing the weapon parameters in the style of re-engineering, not a "visual slot" which I agree is a bad idea.

    I have no idea why you would think changing weapon parameters would be any easier than adding visual weapon slots....

    If they can't do one because it's too complex, I can assure you that the other will be just as complex.
    <sigh> everyone's an amateur programmer...Changing a parameter is not at all the same as overriding it with some other, external item that may or may not be even the same type.

    And in any case, the real reason there isn't a "weapon visual slot" is because it would, as davefenestrator mentioned, cut into sales. An issue which a weapon-sinking effect transference wouldn't have.

    Making a visual weapon slot IS CHANGING ITEM PARAMETER you fraking idjet. You'd have to be a moron to have the item overwite ANYTHING. If you slot say an AP cannon in the visual weapon slot, all the code is doing is changing the parameter of your whatever cannon you have to have the visual and audio paramters of the AP cannon...which is absolutely no different than changing the weapon parameter as you suggested. If you actually had it overwrite things, you are just asking for things to go catastrophrically wrong. And the word you are looking for is overwrite...not override because the way you are thing, the visual code would write over the bit of code that controls audio and visual. Or are you thinking of doing the even more idiotic method of having the base weapon go THROUGH the visual weapon code and cause so much uneeded calculation to happen as the visual weapons override the base weapon? Instead of I don't know, the simple solution of change weapon parameter. God, I hope nobody is paying you to program anything because if they are, they are getting ripped off by you utter lack of knoweldge shown here. And no...I am not an amateur programmer. I get paid for my work. And my work is worth actual money instead of the drivel you have shown here.
    "override" != "overwrite"
    Do try to at least get the dictionary right before grandstanding with your idle speculation.

    A visual slot overrides an equipped item. That means the game uses some of the visual item's parameters instead of the equipped item's, but the equipped item's parameters remain unchanged. If the visual item is removed, the equipped item's parameters are again used, the same they were before. This is different from changing the equipped item.

    And resorting to personal insults suggests you have no factual argument to present.

    I explained why BOTH situation was a bad idea from a programming standpoint vs a simple change in parameter to the base weapon based on visual item equipped. Which would make using whatever system the same as far as technical difficulty goes...which means if they said they can't do one, they can't do the other since other than a UI change, the base code is the same.
    Except the visual slots very clearly are NOT changing the items in any way. I have no interest in speculating on Cryptic's programming.
    And if ALL you have is personal insult, it suggests you have no factual arguements. The fact that you utterly IGNORED all my factual arguements and focused in on the insult leads me to believe that you are blooming idjet who doesn't have a response to my very factual arguements as to why you are WRONG. Just because I am being an **** doesn't make me wrong.
    No, you having no argument and trying to contradict observed fact makes you wrong. The bad language just highlights it.

    So...you aren't going to speculate on how cryptic does their programming by stating how they are NOT doing something...k. You do realize you just proved yourself wrong here right?
    Items do not change when put in visual slots. Anyone can easily confirm this. Why do you persist in trying to claim otherwise?
    And seriously resorting to attacking my grammer and spelling now...yeah you really have nothing left.
    "Bad language" = cursing and insults. If you don't understand what people are saying, you should ask for clarification instead of making stuff up.
This discussion has been closed.