weapon lifetimes

[Betelgeuse]

I took this from other games (some rpg some rouge like)
Things where down with use so they should break if you use them to much. This would encourage people to use different weapons and not just there favorite all the time (plus would really give you a great reason to have several weapons at all times).
There would be a station to extend the lifetime of the weapon but it couldn't repair broken weapons.

Any thoughts?

[Blinzler]

Well, nothing last forever
But just a few pointers - seeing the energies that flow through these weaponsystems (taking the energy weapons) it is more then likely that stuff tends to burn out at one point or another.
Taking the missile and other launchers - gotta keep the barrel nice and clean, shouldn't ya?
Take it from me - in real life stuff breaks all the time, just like my graphics card recently *sniff*

But then again - from the point of programming the whole thing - does it make sense to implement this and will it be worth doing so or just end up pissing off people?
Imagine you bought yourself this nifty new omni-tev9 and after two shoots it burps some sparks and you smile weakly before they pound your behind back to then stone age? Now that's realistic, but it ain't fun

[Betelgeuse]

well in the games that it is a part of it just means you have to care for your weapon. There could even be items to help care for them.

And when things break unexpectedly it can be the most fun in the game. Think about it you are suddenly in a situation that you don't have control over anymore unlike the rest of the game. 8)

[Blinzler]

I agree wholeheartedly that surprises are always ...ah... interesting. And given that I'm usually safe bedind a monitor, sitting in front of a keyboard I am, too, usually more inclined to smile when I get a thrashing if something goes wrong then I would if it happened in real life.
Just the point I tried making is - you need to find the right line between getting a black eye and breathing and just plain getting shot dead. The latter tends to be frustrating, especially if you invested some time and then out of the blue - game over. Realism is good and everything, but a game is a game and part of a game - for me - is having fun.
As long as there are ways to keep the chance of critical failure minimized through active afford, rather then being purely dependend on Lady Luck - I'm all for it.
After all - if you end up hammering on your keyboard cos your trying to find the next stargate while 20 ships are on your trail, your weapons zonked out and your shield just went to energy save mode - you might consider buying that can of "Uncle Fettermints 100% guaranteed weapon cleaner" next time. Or start cursing again, hammering wildly on your keyboard... Darn ship-kobolds

[TedStudley]

it would have to take a heck of a long time for the weapon to deteriorate, unless you were using it at near maximum reactor capacity. That's another idea; if you use your reactor at max capacity too many times, it ought to just explode.

[OddBob]

I'm all for this as long as your weapon can only break when you don't keep it maintained or if the chance of completely random failure is something like once every ten games.

Also, there's a fine balancing act about maintaning and how long it take your weapon to deteriorate. Too much and it's annoying and impractical (Like system shock's three-clips-and-your-rifle-rusts-through) or if it's not enough it's not really worth it to get maintenance equipment and everyone will be carrying around a maintenance kit to only use it once.

I think that a weapon maintenance kit should also be able to repair a damaged weapon (maybe). If combined with the possibility of damage to items when taking armor hits, then the player will always have a few kits around if they can, and they won't be dead weight in the hull; a weapon breakdown is more of a surprise reduction in maintenance kits than something you have to plan for specifically.

[evilbob]

maybe a few repair items-
a one use one, and then some re-useable ones.

[Sponge]

I don't really like this. As far as I'm concerned, having your weapon break is more annoying than anything else. This is one of those times that you have to sacrifice a bit of realism in exchange for a more entertaining game.

[TedStudley]

Weapons would break, but they would be designed not to, especially because they were designed to withstand combat fire! Maybe shielding for individual ship components as well as for the entire ship? Once the shielding is broken then it could break.

[Karl]

I'm with Sponge. I like it when my stuff works as designed. I want to be doing battle with the enemy, not my own ship. Having weapons break would be more annoying then anything else.

However...

I think it might be interesting to add a weapon enhancement item that increases the power of a weapon but makes it prone to breaking down on occasion. (A "dangerous upgrade".) That way, players could choose to take that risk or not.

Power to the player!

[Betelgeuse]

just to be clear nothing I suggest is to make the game more realistic. I may object to something as being unrealistic but everything I suggest is because I think it would be a fun part of the game.
Forcing people to think if they want to use there weapon and panic if there weapon breaks seems like a lot more fun than the current hold down the fire button strategy.

[Karl]

Forcing people....

There should be no "forcing" people to play any one way. People should be free to play the game the way they want to play it.

[Betelgeuse]

people do need to be forced to play differently. How a game does that is up to the game but a game where everyone plays the same every time gets old very quickly. The big think about transcendence is supposed to be replayability and you don't get that if every game seems like the last.
Ideally you just need to make it so a person just doesn't play the way they did last game but people once they find something that works have a hard time changing.

[Karl]

No, people need to be able to choose to play differently. Randomness should be used to give you different situations to adapt to, and then you are free to use whatever strategies and tactics you desire to handle those situations. It shouldn't be: now you HAVE to do this because all of your other options are taken away.

This "forcing" thinking is just backwards... it implies that, instead of picking a ship or a character class to use, the game should force you to use one as luck of the draw, and "if you don't like it, too bad!" That's ridiculous and not fun. Trying to force people to do things they don't like does not increase replayability. It just makes the game suck.

If you wind up playing the same way every time and you aren't happy with it, then the game should offer different paths, combinations, and strategies for the player to explore and choose to use. And those options need to be balanced so that the player wants to use them. If a player winds up using the same weapons every time, then the other weapons need to be balanced and given interesting differences in abilities so that the player will *want* to try them out.

[Karl]

In any case, the number one thing that increases replayability is not randomness: it's quality gameplay. Look at every sport in existence.

And having random forced restrictions ultimately hamper freedom of gameplay, and quality of gameplay. Let's say you took basketball and added random rules like: "This game, you can only shoot 3-pointers." Or took baseball and said "This game, you HAVE to play catcher." That might be good on a lark, but having to deal with that constantly would be obnoxous.