View Full Version : Feature request : loot random quality tweak

01-18-2013, 06:13 AM
Granted I haven't looked at the item tables yet, so bear with me I'm guessing about a little of this -

I'd like you to consider adding a bias to higher loot qualities such that each 'tier' of quality was calculated for effect as an item +1 'level' of the base item

In other words -

A grey item is calculated for effect at X, X being stat req.

assume we're talking an engine. engine stats are - helm requirement, defense/thrust bonus multiplier.

Engines have a calculation that happens that determines their final quality - that being their 'item level' possibly? So thrust = baselevel + some random factor (or some other curve producing funnymath)

I'm suggesting something like :
bonuses/costs for rare loot to be : output = baselevel+raritylevel + some random factor
secondary requirements to be : cost = baselevel - raritylevel * some random factor (so that higher quality things also have lower fitting reqs)

I'd also like to request that the highest quality of loot be : baselevel+raritylevel + abs(some random factor) so that it always randomizes positive of the baseline

That way rare loot will trend towards being the better stats as well as being desirable for secondary benefits. It seems enrichening to the game to me to find a 'rare' item and expect it to tend towards desirable stats.

Yes before anyone calls me out on this, I know this his how WOW does it. Thanks move along.

01-18-2013, 07:52 PM
I'd like rarer items to have increased base stats, too. I hate trashing an Elite item simply because its main stats suck compared to the Normal I'm currently using.

01-19-2013, 06:39 AM
I don't like how random stats are applied to all items.

The only general bonus should be chance to find items/money for every item, the other bonuses should stay within the attribute of the item they are applied to.

Then a thruster won't be getting critical hit or attack bonus for example and the main stats of the item would be increased the rarer it is.

01-19-2013, 09:40 AM
Here's a prime example of what I am saying.

I found my first (after 100+ hours of playing) elite power plant.

24 engineering requirement, 409 power output. That is a ratio of about 17 to 1 for power to engineering requirement, which is about as bad as heavy slot power generators ever get.

The best power to skill ratios are around 21 to 1, to put it in perspective.

This is the problem I see with the loot table as-is. The 'rare' items don't have improved primary stats. Having 5 secondary stats doesn't make them more desirable.

Also I am puzzled why the 'cheap' modifier shows up on quality 1 and 2 items and 'Excellent' modifier shows up on quality 0 (gray) items. That seems counterintuitive.

01-20-2013, 12:21 AM
I agree with what your saying 100%.

If an item is rare it's primary function (Thrust for Thrusters) should get the most benefit, then secondary stats.

I just also want them to change what those secondary stats are, I don't want +1 to em resistance on anything but a shield or shield booster..it doesn't belong on my weapon for example.

Stuff like that would also help balance the common-rare stat distrubution a little better.

01-20-2013, 12:56 AM
I don't mind there being random stats on everything - that makes finding things interesting. I'm starting to suspect that something is bugged.

I'm seeing 'grey' items that say 'excellent' and very rare items that say 'budget' which doesn't seem right.

01-23-2013, 01:45 PM
I'm seeing 'grey' items that say 'excellent' and very rare items that say 'budget' which doesn't seem right.

I wouldn't call that a bug, but it's something I might change.

01-23-2013, 02:29 PM
ok. well since they do say 'budget' and 'excellent' i thought you might have some sensing code in there assigning those pretitles and they didn't seem right, but yes this is a design issue

01-23-2013, 02:36 PM
Budget and excellent refer to the basic quality of that specific component type with rarity being completely separate. I might make it so higher rarities force or have better chances for better basic quality though.

01-23-2013, 02:37 PM
I made a spreadsheet to track ratios that I could calculate and I didn't see that the pretitles were accurate, hence the post.

01-23-2013, 09:18 PM
Budget and excellent refer to the basic quality of that specific component type with rarity being completely separate. I might make it so higher rarities force or have better chances for better basic quality though.

If Budget to Excellent is a basic quality ranking, I'm not seeing the relationship either. It may be too random, or there may be too many variables involved (cost + tier + model + rarity?), but comparing items is just confusing currently. I see plusses on obviously lower-quality items, Budget items that outclass Excellent ones, and Elite items with horrible primary stats. There's so much variation that comparing items is a chore.

Here's my recommendations:

1. Simplify the tech-level/model-number progression into a linear string. Plasma Generator I is followed by II, then III, up to VI, which then progresses to Anti-Matter Generator I, and so forth. Each step in the progression has a higher requirement and a higher primary stat.

2. Combine the Cheap/Expensive stuff with the Rarity. The rarer something is, the higher its primary stats are. Nobody will complain if the Elite's primary stats are higher than a similar Normal item. People will complain if their Cheap Elite item has lower primary stats than a similar Expensive Normal item.

3. Replace the Cheap/Normal/Expensive prefixes (which are now covered by the Rarity) with Efficient/Normal/Powerful instead:

Efficient has a lower primary stat, but a better power-to-stat ratio. (270 power load for 90 DPS, requires 80 Tactical)
Normal is average. (400 power load for 100 DPS, requires 80 Tactical)
Powerful has a higher primary stat, but a worse power-to-stat ratio. (600 power load for 120 DPS, requires 80 Tactical)

Note the base requirements stay the same. Efficient items would be favored by players with high stats who don't have much power to spare, while Powerful items would favored by players with low stats, but extra power. Components that don't use power won't have Efficient/Powerful prefixes.

01-23-2013, 09:41 PM
well, I don't think it has to be difficult. As I said, you can pretty easily derive a mean from the intended stats and then figure out if a particular piece is ahead of or behind that curve and then generate the pretitle from that. I think doing it procedurally is probably the way to go.

the two stats I ever end up caring about are -

how good is this compared to the requirements (i.e. output per engineering point, or whatever the fitting requirement is)

how efficient is it (output per unit of cost, i.e. power vs thrust)

and then of course the product of those two factors for an overall rating.