Basic enough idea. A trinket which allows guns to fire another bullet before needing reloaded.
Gun ammo trinket
Well, some guns have very little shots before reloading, and for obvious reasons. Alchemers, for instance, have shots that break off and ricochet, effectively solving the problem of accuracy. Autoguns, well that's simple. It's more of a DPS-oriented gun, albeit requiring the user to fire at pretty close range. Essentially, the trinket will just increase the DPS of these guns.
Sure, I probably won't see so much of a problem on a gun like Antigua, but unless there is a downside to this trinket, it might be potentially problematic. Perhaps it would work if you had a reload time penalty with the trinket, I guess.
So called "reloading" is just recovery after full combo. So generally the trinket OP is suggesting is just "combo prolonging trinket".
If they introduce such trinket for handguns I'm sure sword user would like to have such trinket for swords as well. Yea, I can see those 3-hit Gran Fausts...
A few differences between swords and guns. First of all is that each gun shot is the same, in terms of animation, and the final strike of a so called gun combo doesn't do more damage than any other attack from it.
Secondly is that guns have FAR less damage per strike than swords.
Yes, but one shot from one gun can be more powerful than one from another. A prismatech shot is far stronger than a single antigua bullet. OOO's weighted everything just the way they like it, and that's why they've decided not to put this in the game regardless of all the threads that appear.
Yes, this trinket would be more beneficial to an Alchemer than an Antigua, but similarly a damage boost trinket (which already exist) would benefit an Antigua more than an Alchemer. As such Alchemer users would use the ammo trinket, and the Antigua users would up their damage
Damage trinkets increas damage per clip, not bullet. If I shoot four bullets at ten damage with one gun, or two bullets at twenty with another, a double damage trinket would make them each equal to eighty damage total. It dosen't benifit one gun more than another.
So what you are saying is that the damage boost from a trinket is percentage, rather than a numerical value?
Yes, of course. Like everything else in this game; it's all a ratio. That's how you acheive balance. Theoreticaly, you could add a precent-ammo trinket, but that would be tricky becuase you can't have half of a bullet, or half of a sword swipe.
Which is why they have the ASI bonus. Since it affects the animation speed, it also speeds up the reload animation.
Very good suggestion. I think there could be different trinkets, with different levels, that add 1, 2 or 3 shots.
Maybe this also works for sword swings before the final swing of a combo.
I think it's balanced, because of several reasons. First, you have to buy a trinket slot. Second, it could be made to not work in PvP. Third, this prevents you from using another trinket in that slot, so its basically just a choice for a different advantage than you had with other trinkets.
PS:
I still wonder why people are afraid of change. OOO will decide, whether they will implement a suggestion or not and they will think about it and do the right thing.
No need to say things like "I have no problem with that. Anyone disagree? It's not OP." Like you need to agree to all suggestions or like anyone cared, if you think it's OP.
And no need to say things like "it might be potentially problematic." Everything might be potentially problematic. So what.
And no need to say "OOO's weighted everything just the way they like it, and that's why they've decided not to put this in the game regardless of all the threads that appear." That's just assuming, OOO has already had or read this idea, but I think you can't be sure. Maybe this suggestion is just what they waited for and if they implement it, they will weight it out and balance it the way they like it, again. So why bother.
Because some changes create more problems then they solve. Every once in awhile you come across a concept that actually adds a mechanic without invoking major behavioral changes. However.... most suggestions, intentionally or unintentionally, create some kind of shift, and in some cases completely break an existing mechanic. Direct upgrades are especially prone to this because the end goal IS to break the mechanic in order to change its limits.
The goal of a true critic is to point out potential flaws in an idea so that they can discussed and addressed BEFORE it turns into a problem. Stability is also another major issue... sweeping changes create massive upsets in the system, but incremental ones allow it to adapt without major disruption. If your idea can hold its own against most of the reasonable arguments, then it is in-fact a good idea (at the time anyway). If an idea can get shot down on a very simple principle, then its a bad idea.
As a designer, you have to consider all possible outcomes your change can invoke, both positive and negative. For instance... say they add the entire accessories catalog to Bechamel's shop. Players that want accessories can now buy them directly, good right? But how would you set the prices? 5k per accessory would completely under mind lock boxes, under cuts layers selling them in AH, but generates a lot of good will with the players. Now say you make them 100k instead. Players are now pissed because no one could afford them and see it as OOO dangling a carrot over the free players, yet the rich players simply go in and pick what they want. Lockboxes are still a cheaper approach, but why take the chance? So now you have bad blood from one portion of the players, destroyed the accessories trade market, and added a new crown sink into the system. This has absolutely no affect on people who didn't go after accessories, and wouldn't have a lasing impact on CE trades (maybe initial dip due to increased seller activity)... So as a whole, was it a positive change or not?
But bad ideas are just as important to progress as good ones. You can still learn something out of the discussions that can eventually lead to a good idea elsewhere, or may bring something to light that can improve other ideas. The thing that frustrates a lot of active forum goers are bad ideas that get repeatedly posted over and over, without any significant improvements then the last 5 times it was brought up. We go through the same routine of arguments, with the same set of counter arguments, and never resolve the potential issues that come up. Then it can degrade into a flame war, and the whole topic is forgotten as the arguments shift toward each other.....
Starlinvf wrote:
Because some changes create more problems then they solve. Every once in awhile you come across a concept that actually adds a mechanic without invoking major behavioral changes. However.... most suggestions, intentionally or unintentionally, create some kind of shift, and in some cases completely break an existing mechanic. Direct upgrades are especially prone to this because the end goal IS to break the mechanic in order to change its limits.
That is not a reason to be afraid of or against change. OOO are not stupid. They will not implement changes that are bad for the game or they will modify suggested changes, so they fit to the game in the end.
Starlinvf wrote:
The goal of a true critic is to point out potential flaws in an idea so that they can discussed and addressed BEFORE it turns into a problem. Stability is also another major issue... sweeping changes create massive upsets in the system, but incremental ones allow it to adapt without major disruption. If your idea can hold its own against most of the reasonable arguments, then it is in-fact a good idea (at the time anyway). If an idea can get shot down on a very simple principle, then its a bad idea.
What you wrote here, Starlinvf, is disturbing in many ways:
No critic is useful in here. A critic disturbs the creative process in this early stage, by discarding important thoughts and frustrating posters of new suggestions. It often forces the original poster into a defensive position, which keeps him and others from further developing the idea, but making excuses or explain themselves instead.
Also, it is not the goal of a true critic to point out potential flaws in an idea, but to show others if something is applicable for them, when they don't have the knowledge to do so themselves.
Stability is not a major issue.
Suggestions don't have to withstand reasonable arguments to be good ideas at any given time. If an idea can get shot down on a very simple principle, then its not a bad idea, but it is not fully developed, yet.
Starlinvf wrote:
As a designer, you have to consider all possible outcomes your change can invoke, both positive and negative.
As a poster of a suggestion, you don't have to consider all possible outcomes your change can invoke. This is OOOs domain. The poster may think about that, but it is up to him. Only OOO knows all secrets of the game and have therefore the relevant information to fulfill that task.
Starlinvf wrote:
For instance... say they add the entire accessories catalog to Bechamel's shop. Players that want accessories can now buy them directly, good right? But how would you set the prices? 5k per accessory would completely under mind lock boxes, under cuts layers selling them in AH, but generates a lot of good will with the players. Now say you make them 100k instead. Players are now pissed because no one could afford them and see it as OOO dangling a carrot over the free players, yet the rich players simply go in and pick what they want. Lockboxes are still a cheaper approach, but why take the chance? So now you have bad blood from one portion of the players, destroyed the accessories trade market, and added a new crown sink into the system. This has absolutely no affect on people who didn't go after accessories, and wouldn't have a lasing impact on CE trades (maybe initial dip due to increased seller activity)... So as a whole, was it a positive change or not?
This would be up to OOO to decide that.
Starlinvf wrote:
But bad ideas are just as important to progress as good ones. You can still learn something out of the discussions that can eventually lead to a good idea elsewhere, or may bring something to light that can improve other ideas.
This basically true, so how dare you judge whether it is a bad idea, when you don't even know how useful it can be in the future.
Starlinvf wrote:
The thing that frustrates a lot of active forum goers are bad ideas that get repeatedly posted over and over, without any significant improvements then the last 5 times it was brought up.
This is only frustrating, if you claim the right to discard ideas and order people to not post them any more, but you don't have the authority to do so. My advice would be to ignore new threads containing suggestions that you already contributed to. Otherwise you will probably go nuts replying to all of them.
Starlinvf wrote:
We go through the same routine of arguments, with the same set of counter arguments, and never resolve the potential issues that come up.
It is not necessary to resolve the potential issues that come up. OOO may or may not address potential issues, while they think about a suggestion. It's just a suggestion after all.
Starlinvf wrote:
Then it can degrade into a flame war, and the whole topic is forgotten as the arguments shift toward each other.....
This is because people assume too many things. Why not leave a suggestion as it is. Just add more suggestion to it, so it stays constructive.
What's actually really frustrating, is that suggestions of people are being ranted by other people, instead of being developed further. That way, people stop posting ideas. Many good ideas will never be released into this forum, because people think "if i post it, those forum people will just say how bad it is, again". I don't want this. I want to read all ideas, regardless how "bad" other people think they are. Maybe I can contribute and make it an even better idea. Maybe it will make the game even better. So why scare people off.
"it also speeds up the reload animation."
No. From what I understand ASI does not effect gun reload speed.
My only problem is that this would make gunners have too many stats. ASI, Damage, CTR, and now gun ammo. What they ought to just do is just make gunners reload faster with ASI.
@Desouler: Woah woah woah woah.
Dude, let me get this straight, essentially you are saying: "Post your idea anyway, it doesn't matter whether it's good or not since OOO decides what's final. And if you don't have a suggestion to add on to this, shut up."
I do agree that the Suggestions board is here for a reason - obviously to make suggestions. But really, I think you're kicking up too much of a fuss over criticism. What I'm going to say next is probably more disturbing than Starlinvf, but by no means do I agree with him wholeheartedly.
"Why not leave a suggestion as it is. Just add more suggestion to it, so it stays constructive."
A building with an unstable foundation will eventually collapse, regardless of how high you try to build it. Likewise...
"Maybe this suggestion is just what they waited for and if they implement it, they will weight it out and balance it the way they like it, again. So why bother."
Same logic applies to your argument for adding on suggestion after suggestion.
"As a poster of a suggestion, you don't have to consider all possible outcomes your change can invoke. This is OOOs domain. The poster may think about that, but it is up to him. Only OOO knows all secrets of the game and have therefore the relevant information to fulfill that task."
That does not mean we don't need to consider any of the possible outcomes when we come up with an idea. Otherwise I'd be proposing Dungbombs or evidently overpowered nuclear bombs right about now.
"This basically true, so how dare you judge whether it is a bad idea, when you don't even know how useful it can be in the future."
I don't know about you guys, but if I critique something, usually it means that the idea has potential value, but needs development, like you said.
"Suggestions don't have to withstand reasonable arguments to be good ideas at any given time. If an idea can get shot down on a very simple principle, then its not a bad idea, but it is not fully developed, yet."
Again, if it's a bad idea, I wouldn't waste my time commenting on it. Granted, I may sound harsh, but I do acknowledge that this idea may work with a few considerations.
"No critic is useful in here. A critic disturbs the creative process in this early stage, by discarding important thoughts and frustrating posters of new suggestions. It often forces the original poster into a defensive position, which keeps him and others from further developing the idea, but making excuses or explain themselves instead."
If this is true, then it's evident you just can't accept criticism.
Look, I'm not here to shoot the idea down. I'm here to refine it. If you have a suggestion, or if you think there's a flaw in my argument, then say it. If you don't, please don't question what I do on the basis that "criticism is bad", and not because there's a flaw in my argument as to why the idea needs to be refined.
"This basically true, so how dare you judge whether it is a bad idea, when you don't even know how useful it can be in the future."
I don't need to know how to cook to know that something's not right with a dish.
"Also, it is not the goal of a true critic to point out potential flaws in an idea, but to show others if something is applicable for them, when they don't have the knowledge to do so themselves."
Essentially all the 'flaws' we point out are from our own perspectives. The main point is to present views from different perspectives - otherwise we'd email Three Rings with our proposals straight away.
And before the flame war bursts out, here's my take on the ISSUE AT HAND:
You still need to consider balance.
If I do have a clip size trinket, I'd effectively make damage trinkets useless for guns, since my DPS is bumped up more than if I do use a damage trinket. Particularly so for the Alchemer line, since it would effectively allow you to fire 2 shots before shield cancelling - i.e. twice the DPS if you are a shield cancelling gunner.
Granted, the idea is innovative. But perhaps make the opportunity cost of equipping such a trinket dependent on the weapon - e.g. one trinket could increase Antigua's clip by one, but it'll take two to increase the clip size of the Alchemer/Autogun by one. This way it will allow players to reconsider using such a trinket while sacrificing another - or even two.
There's my suggestion.
Kentard wrote:
Dude, let me get this straight, essentially you are saying: "Post your idea anyway, it doesn't matter whether it's good or not since OOO decides what's final. And if you don't have a suggestion to add on to this, shut up."
Not exactly. Essentially I am saying: "Post your idea anyway, it doesn't matter whether it's good or not since OOO decides what's final. And if you're just pointing out flaws of other peoples ideas without coming up with a solution to them in the very same post, shut up."
Kentard wrote:
A building with an unstable foundation will eventually collapse, regardless of how high you try to build it. Likewise...
Adding more suggestion to it does not mean to try and build it higher. It means to help and make the foundation stable or to make plans for how to build it higher, if someone else finds a way for stabilizing the foundation.
Kentard wrote:
That does not mean we don't need to consider any of the possible outcomes when we come up with an idea. Otherwise I'd be proposing Dungbombs or evidently overpowered nuclear bombs right about now.
Of course it does mean we don't need to consider any of the possible outcomes when we come up with an idea. It's just an idea. Ideas are not dangerous at all by themselves. People making the ideas come real are the ones responsible for the outcomes. Those people need to consider the possible outcomes as good as possible. You help them, if you offer a solution for a flaw, right away. Dungbombs is a valid idea. It may even be related to other stuff someone already detected in the game files, but I don't wanna spoil things.
Kentard wrote:
I don't know about you guys, but if I critique something, usually it means that the idea has potential value, but needs development, like you said.
... but critique that just points out flaws without offering solutions, will make the original poster feel bad, without fixing things up. Its destructive, even if the original idea has potential value. It's not helpful and can even lead to a lack of innovation.
However, this does not fully apply to you post, because you offered a solution to a possible problem: "Perhaps it would work if you had a reload time penalty with the trinket, I guess."
Kentard wrote:
If this is true, then it's evident you just can't accept criticism.
No, it's not. It's evident that I understand that the suggestions board contains suggestions. Suggestions don't need to be complete concepts and therefore it's not the right time/place to post destructive critique. Instead people should help to further develop these suggestions into complete concepts, by adding constructive solutions.
Kentard wrote:
Look, I'm not here to shoot the idea down. I'm here to refine it. If you have a suggestion, or if you think there's a flaw in my argument, then say it. If you don't, please don't question what I do on the basis that "criticism is bad", and not because there's a flaw in my argument as to why the idea needs to be refined.
I was not questioning what you do on the basis that "criticism is bad". I don't think criticism is bad in general. I just think there are two kinds of criticism: Constructive (i.e. offering solutions to problems) and destructive (i.e. just saying something is bad and optionally pointing out why, but not offering any solutions).
Kentard wrote:
I don't need to know how to cook to know that something's not right with a dish.
... but you need to know how the dish was intended to be and for whom it is and in this case you don't, because it's not even a dish, it's the idea of a dish.
Also, what do you think was more helpful for the cook: Just saying "something's not right with that stuff" or saying "it's not sweet enough, pls add sugar".
Kentard wrote:
Essentially all the 'flaws' we point out are from our own perspectives. The main point is to present views from different perspectives - otherwise we'd email Three Rings with our proposals straight away.
WTF, we can email them? What's the address for feature requests? I just post here, because I didn't find a better way to file my suggestions. Now email would be awesome.
I went looking for an old Blitz needle demo, and read through a bunch of other posts on the subject. Apparently it doesn't change the reload time, but speeds up the surrounding animations (raise and lower gun) as well as shot spacing. The benefits a more noticeable on autoguns since your locked into the animation while firing, but for the other guns the difference is moot.
In my defense, it looks very convincing when used live.
@Desouler: Your starting to split hairs now. I'm just gonna try to sum up the general statement I made into a simple point.... Your presenting your ideas to seasoned development team that not only has intricate knowledge of the mechanics, but other ideas in the pipe for deployment. When communicating ideas, it greatly improves the odds of them understanding the goal if you can frame it in the mind set of a game developer. You wouldn't just go up to your boss and suggest you should be payed more because your hard worker. Showing them how you've proven yourself may even get them to consider it.... but you'd be Ace in the hole if you convince him on why its a good investment, how it benefits the company, how it makes "him" look good for recognizing your contributions, and making him think it was his idea.
Anyway... The feedback loop from the Suggestion forums gives them a great deal of insight on how the community thinks, and how we respond to things. If at the community level we can work out most of the concerns, and generally agree on something, it takes a lot of guess work away from a the developer's perspective on what we want. If it has enough merit, it gets thrown in for consideration, examine the reason the change is requested (to see if there isn't a deeper issue that should be addressed instead), check feasibility, and refine or redesign it further to better fit the live environment. It may get implemented a lot differently then we envisioned, but at the very least they understand why we are fore or against certain concepts. Leave it too vague, and we could end up with something thats both unexpected and unwanted.
Case in point.... lock boxes. We wanted accessories, new learmors, and harder vels. At the time it was still being suggested, the general consensus was accessories being a vanity item, had no mechanical advantage of the game, and most weren't concerned about weither or not people would pay $$$ get them. With the Steam trade being implemented, they could nail 3 birds with 1 system. A generic box that would be the frame work for premium content distribution (modeled after TF2's success with keys/crates), a simple way to distribute accessories, and create a base line value for Steam trades. At the time its only function was to distribute accessories.... and you know what people complained about? The keys being too expensive.... (I consider the binding to be a separate issue, and bit more valid. And don't even get me started on the Prize wheel crown argument)
Then came the Shadow Lairs. Prior to this, the consensus was 5* players wanted a new place to explore since they blew through the existing content, needed some kind of new goal to work on, and wanted it to be more challenging then doing FSC runs over and over. So they recycled the maps, upped the difficulty level, and added some vanity swag for them to obsess over. And as a measure to keep players from simply blowing through it in a few days, and draining some of the ungodly wealth they keep building up, they used shadow keys to attach a price tag on the trip. But what they weren't counting on was players finding this concept of premium content utterly insulting, even if the armors are mainly vanity items, and area itself wasn't worth farming..... Where was the logic behind this outrage? It didn't affect any other areas of the game, it didn't even stop them from obtaining it in under a week, yet its made out to be a necessity that everyone have easy access to the areas. Impatience won that battle, and Boost now has them on sale for a fixed price.
So what did OOO learn from this? We like shiny things, we want them often, and god help you if its not free or easy to obtain. Not exactly the most sensible group to be taking ideas from.
"and area itself wasn't worth farming"
Obviously you haven't run enough shadow lairs. One run of UFSC worth ~21k CR.
Starlinvf wrote:
Your starting to split hairs now.
No I am not.
Starlinvf wrote:
When communicating ideas, it greatly improves the odds of them understanding the goal if you can frame it in the mind set of a game developer.
That's funny, because I am a game developer and I think it makes no difference. Just when you annoy people with telling them how bad their ideas are, they stop posting ideas and you will find less when you need inspiration.
You can't trust or rely on forum posts anyways. People in there could just be trying to sabotage you. So, you have to check things anyways.
... and what really helps to understand a goal, is to actually write: "The goal is ...". However, the goal of a poster can be very different from your goals, but the idea itself can still be useful for your purposes. So the goal may not be as important as you think it is.
Also, it's usually not a single game developer who decides about what to implement and how to implement it. Just sayan.
Starlinvf wrote:
The feedback loop from the Suggestion forums gives them a great deal of insight on how the community thinks, and how we respond to things.
No, it gives them a small bit of an insight on how the very small part of the community thinks and responds to things, that actually uses the forums and bothered to post.
... and for the rest of post #18:
I don't think that's what OOO learned from this. There was no real outrage. It was just a few people complaining. You always get a few people complaining. So what. I think what OOO learned is: "We make cool stuff. A few people complain. Many people spend $$$ to get our cool stuff fast and easy. Some people will get it for free, but it will take ages. Most people will be happy. Let's make some more cool stuff."
@Khamsin: I thought the shadow lairs didn't drop crowns.... or am I losing my mind now?
"@Khamsin: I thought the shadow lairs didn't drop crowns.... or am I losing my mind now?"
That would be Unknown Passage. Shadow lairs are the most rewarding levels in the game... not most profitable given the shadow key cost, but definitely the most revenue generating.
A common two sentance suggestion has formed fifty line posts.
Kentard and Desouler aren't even arguing about much, for example. The're arguing about how to critique a suggestion at this point, as opposed about arguing about the actual suggestion. I'm guessing Gfjmember is going to return to this thread and just lol. Why have you guys demoted yourself to the point of telling the original poster how to record a suggestion?
I am not so much disagreeing with Kentard, but more with other people. Kentards replies contain useful information. I just think that, when he writes things like "it might be potentially problematic" this is true for everything, but also it can be demotivating for the poster of a suggestion.
Also, I am not telling the original poster how to record a suggestion.
I was on topic in the beginning and, speaking only for myself, I said everything I had to say on this topic.
You've been arguing with people about arguing as opposed to actualy debating the subject, and on a side note arguing with me is also off topic, due to the fact that this has nothing to do with ammo trinkets.
Your last large post had nothing to do with "A trinket which allows guns to fire another bullet before needing reloaded."
"I'm guessing Gfjmember is going to return to this thread and just lol"
*nods*
"Granted, the idea is innovative. But perhaps make the opportunity cost of equipping such a trinket dependent on the weapon - e.g. one trinket could increase Antigua's clip by one, but it'll take two to increase the clip size of the Alchemer/Autogun by one. This way it will allow players to reconsider using such a trinket while sacrificing another - or even two.
There's my suggestion."
I'm afraid I don't like this system, but maybe an upgrade to the proposed trinket that increases clip size by 50%?
"My only problem is that this would make gunners have too many stats. ASI, Damage, CTR, and now gun ammo. What they ought to just do is just make gunners reload faster with ASI."
I don't think that would be too many, all are pretty clear. Getting a bit off topic, there may also be room for a range increase trinket, which could apply to all 3 weapons (swords having longer reach)
wat you gon do? Call cyberpolice? Consequences will never be the same.
Did you just ask me to come at you bro? You got some ghetto swag boy. Chargin'n'all.
"I'm afraid I don't like this system, but maybe an upgrade to the proposed trinket that increases clip size by 50%?"
Afraid I might have to offer destructive criticism to this idea just this once. What you're suggesting is improving the DPS of all guns by 50% or more (given that some gunners will shield cancel). I.e., you will (and I daresay WILL) make Gun Damage trinkets obsolete. Hence I suggested an arbitrary increase in gun ammo, otherwise we'd have a gunner with 2 of said trinkets, and an Antigua that can fire up to 12 shots, and 11 if you shield cancel.
In any case, before the off-topic discussion gets out of hand, can we just have a consensus to offer constructive criticism to future suggestions, and only give JUSTIFIED destructive criticism if there is a genuine problem with an idea (i.e. no matter how you look at it, it will not work)? I'm really not anticipating another flame war (and glad to hear that you're a game developer, Desouler. I was a forum mod/frequent contributor on some game development forums. Thing is, I moved on. :P)
Kentard, damage and clip size are different because of time. You need to fire another shot for that extra damage you otherwise had delivered in one shot. Just sayan. What happens if you combine a gun damage trinket and a clip size increase trinket? Does it still look obsolete to you?
Btw, I don't think it's a mayor problem to obsolete something. It's not like the obsoleted item vanishes. It's just something new being available and that happens all the time and it's okay, because people make it their new goal in game.
Also, I find the Antigua series of guns pretty lame. Increased clip size for Antigua is like totally irrelevant, IMO. You can just fire even more ineffective shots. Who cares.
PS: There are no general problems with ideas. It's just people thinking their problem with an idea is of general means, but it isn't. It's them being egocentric. That's all.
Just doing a bit of math here.
A Low Damage Bonus Trinket amounts to 7% per clip. Medium would be 14%.
Let's say you're using a Shadowtech Alchemer MK II at Stratum 3 against a Beast. That would be about 40 damage in 1 second assuming you shield cancel, or 80 damage in about 3 to 4 seconds if you don't, equating to a dps of about 27.
With one medium damage bonus trinket that's about 45 damage in 1 second, or about 89 damage in 3 to 4 seconds - 30 dps.
Now the gun ammo trinket. It depends on how you want to implement it - but we'll go with the basic suggestion of one extra round.
This would mean 80 damage in 1.6 seconds with shield cancel - 50 dps-ish, I think, or 120 damage in 4 to 5 seconds - 30 dps.
(Pardon me, I just committed Skitt's Law)
Yeah, I suppose it's a small problem dps-wise, though nothing to worry about given that each round is emptied at around a second per round anyway. It'd be more favorable to non-shield cancellers, though the new issue I have with this is envisioning a use for this - as you said it's merely a new goal in the game, but that's about it.
PS: I do suppose you wouldn't find the Shadow Lairs' rewards a bad idea (at least until changes are made)?
I was told it was 7.5, but whatevs. Math time it is.
Gfj mentioned that it would be precent of bullets, but if a medium one (would total to 15% prevaling low is 7.5) was the maximum, like ASI or CTR trinkets, then it would make your gun shoot out... 15% of a bullet? If you used two trinkets, and stacked medium armor, that totals out 60% extra bullets. HURRAY.
"thats what she said"
Cool story bro, put it in the basket.
hmmm pinappleo has moldown now
i think these i deas are good, just that there is 2 trinket slots, 4 shot pepperbox is OP, 4 shot callahan is OP, unless its a rare drop and/or you can only where 1 ammo+ trinket max
My basket's full of Orangeos trash.
don't think any of them would be overpowered, even with 10 shots: pepperbox still locks you in place and will just lock you more in place with more shots; callahan still throws you backwards and will just throw you more often backwards with more shots. also, they say OP is [fabulous person].
One man's trash is another man's tresure.
They would be under powered, you'd only get one extra bullet plus a fith if you were using 5* trinkets and armor all with ammo buffs. The only trinket that breaks this rule is the heart pendant line, and those are just flat out lame in pvp. Well, for people who don't have them. I got's +2 hp in teir one however...
PvP effects can be all different from the rest of the game, anyways.
well swords and guns have CTR, ASI and DPS trinkets
so do bombs (CTR & ASI)
but ASI on a gun? change that to reload speed or something usefull (this is coming from a swordsman with some guns as side arms) think giving it more shots will be a bit weird? so why not give the sword an extra hit? :D and bombs idunno xD
"Yes, of course. Like everything else in this game; it's all a ratio. That's how you acheive balance. Theoreticaly, you could add a precent-ammo trinket, but that would be tricky becuase you can't have half of a bullet, or half of a sword swipe."
Percentages are indeed tricky. I originally started replying to this post to show how it was feasible if you rounded to the nearest whole number, but there's a lot of issues we'd need to work out with the individual gun lines if we followed this model. All the numbers here are just random numbers I pulled out of the air to prove a point, but they seem pretty solid to go off for now given that they're just examples.
Hypothetically speaking, we could have two different trinkets with the first one being 33% and the upgraded version being 50%. In this case, make the 33% trinket cheaper than the 50% trinket since it would follow the current trinket alchemy machine in the Haven Arcade. The 33% increase applied in this way would work with any gun that has a clip size evenly divisible by three in an ideal manner (Blaster, Pulsar/Catalyzer, Antigua) but wouldn't be "weapon exclusive" if you rounded to the nearest whole number for everything else like the alchemers and the autoguns, which would get their third shot anyway with this method.
However, this concept also applies to the 50% trinket line - guns that would otherwise round to 4.5 rounds (Blaster, Pulsar/Catalyzer) would round up to 5 rounds per clip, while the two-round guns would still retain their third shot but not get any additional bonuses. The one gun I see not being affected too much by what amounts to "bullet bias" is the Antigua line, since it would get two bullets extra with a 33% trinket and a three bullet increase with 50%.
But on the same token, the number differences might not be so bad in the grand scheme of things. You could argue that the 2-shot guns are getting screwed over, but they also essentially get the benefits of a 50% trinket from a 33% trinket, assuming that only one trinket is involved here. With THAT in mind, the only issue I see is if alchemers/autoguns/Magnus lines were used with one 50% and one 33%, as the cumulative bonus would put it at 83% which is still close enough to round it up to the nearest whole number of 4 shots.
In the end, this does seem to amount to a lot of math for OOO to incorporate for just one trinket line, and there's a lot of grey areas that would need basic checks to determine whether or not the gun would be compatible with the trinket in question.
----------
tl;dr - lots of hypothetical numbers say this trinket idea is hard to work out as it is
So, we either do an ammo count, which detriments higher shot guns, such as the Antigua line, or we have a percentage, which creates a headache number wise.
I'm glad I'm not a dev and what I say at the end of the day doesn't really matter :P
(not an attack on OOO, I've so far found them to be deeply caring and engaged with the community)
I have no problem with that. Anyone disagree? It's not OP. Just one extra use before reload. Sounds beneficial. +1