test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Suggestion: re-engineering consoles and weapons to different energy types
fleetcaptain5
Member Posts: 4,782 Arc User
Most of my toons are dedicated to one weapon type. Recently I've been considering using regular phasers on more of them.
The only problem with this: huge costs, and having a lot of useless items after the change.
My tac who uses antiproton for example, has multiple sets of weapons: single beams, dual heavy cannons of two types (regular and Herald), dual beam banks, turrets... and of course the associated tactical consoles, besides some universal AP boosting ones. Most of it is upgraded to Epic quality MK XV.
Changing this would mean that I have to buy at least one new set of weapons and consoles, upgrade those ... and end up with a lot of expensive gear that I'll have no use for anymore.
Whenever a player decides they want to switch weapon types, there are huge costs involved. This was always the case, but it's gotten worse as the gap between the level at which gear is obtained and the maximum level has increased, more quality levels were added and because ships in general can carry more gear than before.
It means there are, nowadays, very high sunk costs trapped in items that will be useless afterwards on top of facing high new costs for getting the new type of gear. Surely this whole thing could be made more efficient and less wasteful?
Some ideas that might help (with the second one being my preferred option) :
1. A re-imbursement system, allowing players to retrieve some fleet credit, dilithium or reputation marks (etc.) costs when discarding an item.
2. Expanding the re-engineering system, to include options to change, for example, an AP dual heavy cannon to a Tetryon one, or a Vulnerability Exploiter of one type to another.
I have no idea whether this would be technically feasible, but besides lowering the costs for players when they want to switch gear, it would also make the re-engineering system more useful. I don't know about others, but I generally don't care for the 'perfect' modifiers on my weapons so I hardly use the system right now. I would definitely use it more if it were expanded to include the options described above.
The only problem with this: huge costs, and having a lot of useless items after the change.
My tac who uses antiproton for example, has multiple sets of weapons: single beams, dual heavy cannons of two types (regular and Herald), dual beam banks, turrets... and of course the associated tactical consoles, besides some universal AP boosting ones. Most of it is upgraded to Epic quality MK XV.
Changing this would mean that I have to buy at least one new set of weapons and consoles, upgrade those ... and end up with a lot of expensive gear that I'll have no use for anymore.
Whenever a player decides they want to switch weapon types, there are huge costs involved. This was always the case, but it's gotten worse as the gap between the level at which gear is obtained and the maximum level has increased, more quality levels were added and because ships in general can carry more gear than before.
It means there are, nowadays, very high sunk costs trapped in items that will be useless afterwards on top of facing high new costs for getting the new type of gear. Surely this whole thing could be made more efficient and less wasteful?
Some ideas that might help (with the second one being my preferred option) :
1. A re-imbursement system, allowing players to retrieve some fleet credit, dilithium or reputation marks (etc.) costs when discarding an item.
2. Expanding the re-engineering system, to include options to change, for example, an AP dual heavy cannon to a Tetryon one, or a Vulnerability Exploiter of one type to another.
I have no idea whether this would be technically feasible, but besides lowering the costs for players when they want to switch gear, it would also make the re-engineering system more useful. I don't know about others, but I generally don't care for the 'perfect' modifiers on my weapons so I hardly use the system right now. I would definitely use it more if it were expanded to include the options described above.
[4:46] [Combat {self}] Your Haymaker deals 23337 (9049) Physical Damage(Critical) to Spawnmother
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
Post edited by baddmoonrizin on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Since there are problems with the DilEx, some might not find it a good idea to reimburse dilithium. However, I'd like to point out that these problems are caused more by other things such as sales and releases of expensive new items.
Still, if it really is a problem to include it, dilithium could be excluded from the re-imbursement system. It'd still help people retrieve some otherwise lost value in terms of other resources spent to obtain the items.
Besides that, if the second option were implemented, the system could actually be used as a dilithium sink and still be useful for saving those other resources.
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
First, you can have multiple builds on the same character that are mk xv golded out builds. Most of the items you have today will be bound to account and you can move them to other toons. The exception to the rule are fleet items and reputation items which has been how it's worked since those items were introduced. You knew there would be costs associate with switching energy types, but it's a choice you chose to make. There are costs associated with certain builds and switching them around, but they are entirely optional.
As for reimbursement, why should they reimburse you now after the fact and after you chose to invest so much into the consoles and similar? I would be cool with a small trial period of about 2 hours for certain consoles, provided of course they're not altered, but beyond that I don't see it as necessary. Wanting them to reimburse you just strikes me as wanting free consoles and items and not actually wanting to do the work necessary to create a new build.
They're also not going to let you re-engineer to new energy types either as again that defeats the purpose of acquiring new weapons. Changing mods on a weapon is one thing, changing the energy type is something else entirely and not something that could easily be done. I'm all for expanding re-engineering, but not in that way.
I'm sorry but this entire post comes off as wanting a free energy type switch without wanting to do the work to put the build together. It would remove 2 dilithium sinks and the reason to have different energy type consoles. As much as I hate to say it, if you're not willing to play the game and put in the work to switch energy types, why are you playing the game?
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
I'm talking about toons I created years ago.
Yes, I knew that it would be costly to change later on, but preferences can change over a period of years. Obviously I couldn't know years ago what weapon type I would want to use today. You can't expect players to foresee such changes in preferences - meaning that 'should have thought better about these things' is quite an unreasonable answer to this proposal. Or any proposal that involves making changes to gear easier and more efficient in general.
Not wanting to made the investments that come with switching weapon types * could * be the main reason for some people, yes. But that's not the case for me. Some of my toons already have quite expensive gear laying around that I'll never be able to put to good use again because I switched weapon types in the past. Which simply makes me hesitant to do it again. So no, it's not so much the case that I'm never willing to invest some resources.
I thought I had clearly spelled out that that isn't the only or even main reason too. Cause the other serious drawback of how things currently are that I mentioned above, is actually being stuck with useless stuff (yes, that's limited mostly to fleet gear, but that's also the most expensive gear in terms of resources and time spent to collect it, together with reputation stuff).
If my post only comes off as a suggestion made by someone who's not willing to invest in something, you've clearly ignored half of it, misread it or misunderstood it.
What I'm actually proposing here is allowing players - through investments, I never said the thing shouldn't cost anything, in fact, I even added that it could act as a dilithium sink (1) - to make changes to gear to ensure that they're not stuck with stuff that's useless to them.
It's fine if you disagree, but at least disagree with the actual thing I suggested please. Right now you're just misrepresenting what I actually proposed.
Note:
(1)
It could act as a dilithium sink since most reputation or fleet gear isn't that expensive in terms of dilithium; fleet consoles for example especially cost a lot of fleet credits. That's why I said that it could act as a sink while still being useful in terms of ensuring that players don't end up with a lot of stuff - that they spent a lot of other resources on - collecting dust.
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
I presumed that many players who've been around for a while have this issue. Where they've got some old toons that they gave a certain theme, specific weapons and which they might want to change now. Without wanting to buy all the same stuff again but just for a different weapon type, resulting in getting a lot of double stuff, where half of it will likely never be used again.
It really has little to do with not wanting to make investments. It's about making things more efficient and giving players more options to make those investments without those investments resulting in so much waste.
[3/25 10:41][Combat (Self)]Your Haymaker deals 26187 (10692) Physical Damage(Critical) to Orinoco.
I read what you said and I stand by my assessment as that's how it comes off to me, even if you didn't intend it that way. You may not have known you would want to switch energy types when you made that initial build years ago, but as a long time play you should have been aware that it wouldn't be cheap if you wanted to swap to a top of the line energy build of a different type. It's not "inefficient" just because it's more costly. Costs are comparable between the energy types and roughly the same.
By switching energy types you're basically starting over, and asking for Cryptic to let you skip some grind and recycle items you already have. While you're certainly free to ask such a thing, let's not pretend it's something it isn't. By that logic, you're asking that you be allowed the same amount of benefit as before, but with less work and less investment. What you're proposing wouldn't add a new dilithium sink, but at best expand on one ever so slightly that's already present, and at worst it would remove a dilithium sink by having infinitely recyclable fleet gear. If I wanted to go from a top of the line Phaser build to a top of the line Polaron build, why should I expect to have same amount of power as my previous Phaser build if I'm not willing to do the same amount of work to get there? It comes off as wanting special treatment because now you have buyer's remorse with your current build, or you've decided you want a new car because your current one is no longer your cup of tea.
If you were donating those old fleet items back to the fleet somehow, then I could see a slight bit of reimbursement, much like you get a slight reimbursement by donating doffs from the fleet starbase. However you're not donating the items back to the fleet and you're not trading them in like you would an old car. It's been this way since fleet items were introduced with people knowing full well they would have to restart practically from scratch if they were going to swap energy types. We can debate what costs should be, but I still say in my book this strikes me as wanting a top of the line build without putting in top of the line work to get it. If you choose to swap energy types, that is a cost you choose to incur willingly and not the fault of the game even if you do want to consider it "inefficient" cost wise. If you thought you may switch energy types then you should have invested into generalized consoles such as +beam or +cannon. Yes you're leaving small amounts of cat1 on the table, but at least you could switch energy types far easier than you could have otherwise. I'm sorry you'll have what you call "useless gear" on that toon, but that's a choice you chose to make willingly and not the fault of the game.
I stand by my assessment that this is wanting the same amount of reward as someone who put in more work without you having to also put in that same amount of work. Overall I find this an absolutely terrible idea. You wanted honest answers, I'm giving you my honest take even if it may not be what you want to hear.
Star Trek Online volunteer Community Moderator
I'd say just seek out the best weapon that that type does. You can't really go wrong with the Lobi Store, some upgrading and reengineering :-)
This is covered by literally the first Rule of Acquisition: "Once you have their money, you never give it back." Seriously, they will never do this, as 'lowering the costs for players' is not in their interest.
Wasteful is WAI. They want you to 'waste' resources on one type of Locator; and then, when you want a different type, they want you to buy a new one. Pure and simple.
why do it at all? Dilithium sink.. that's why although it would be a temporary sink, it would still be one