Chip Combat Overhaul Pitch

[red turtle]

I find the current way chips are handled in terms of combat a bit too difficult to upscale in terms of progression.

As it stands right now, to my best understanding. You can hold 30 chips, you can hold 5 of a specific chip, and all programs can be leveled only up to level 3, at which they produce the chips at a pretty fast rate, and they require feeding at a regular rate. Toys will reduce this rate of hunger loss even further.

All chips unless otherwise disabled are reloaded instantly from a stock, and can be used with minimal delay, regardless of the chip.

I think this system is somewhat flawed. I dont think it takes into account the scaling required for an idle game.

programs produce more chips than you can hold by level 3, and battles are essentially burst dps as you spam chips until your stock is depleted. which isn't a good way to balance later difficulty around as it lacks in the moment strategy. I also don't see how it can be improved later game without just nonstop chips rendering the limits of the stock system moot.

Now obviously I don't know whats around the bend in terms of features we havent seen in other areas. That being said, i do think this system could be more dynamic and balanced

So I am suggesting something I call the "Dynamic Chip System" (DCS) to replace the current system.

The current system relies on a stock of chips to be drawn as fast as they are used to your hand, to use up the chip stock until it is depleted, at which any chips produced immediately get added to your hand. This production rate is improved by leveling up the programs.

How the Dynamic Chip Production System works is that instead you have a infinite supply of chips. As long as you have a program on your home board, you have that chip in your loadout.

The balance of this is that instead of pulling as often as it appears, you instead have the addition of a DRAW button, and a bar. When the bar is full, you can Draw and pull a set of 5 chips to your hand.

[red turtle]

Now that being said, how would this affect having multiple programs, or programs that are leveled up?

Simple, your not gonna always draw the same chip or all of the same chip.

Having multiple programs and or leveling them up, increasing the weight of that chip's draw rate.

This also means you can balance stronger chips, by having them weighted out to be less likely to be drawn.

The current stock menu (aka the one with the numbers) would instead display the chances of drawing a particular chip

you can draw more than 1 of a chip, but the chance of doing so is 1/3 of the initial draw rate weight, so you cant stack the deck to do like all bully block or something.
chips will also have a cap to how high its draw rate is tied to their strength/rarity, so if you try to stack things that way, you can end up getting no chips on draw. However thats only going to happen if your greedy about it.

Leveling up could do any number of things maybe even specific to that chip. Like increasing its draw weight, increasing its power, improving the effect, the amount of a chip you can draw, buff time, etc. The point is inherently that its dynamic

the DCS system means that you can balance out chips further, and measure out weaker chips against stronger ones, while allowing for late game upgrades like upgrading reload speed,

its also self balancing, because if you do too many different chips, you end up with a mess of chips lacking any sense of strategy because they all have to share that chance of being drawn

If you try to do all of the same chip, your not gonna pull a full hand and its limiting your power if you end up facing something requiring different solutions.
Having a general group of programs to draw that are weaker but reliable and always available, and strong chips that aren't always going to show up but can spin the side of battle in your favor, is dynamic, and scalable as the game goes on, well into post launch content

so players can do a fair mix of automation programs and battle programs and you can give players more prog space without that changing too much.

Also for context, auto would auto draw

and Weight is a system where every thing shares a 100% chance of being drawn, so in a hypothetical you have 4 chips, it would be a 25% chance each. Weight means that 1 chip is now more likely to be drawn and its instead 40% and the other chips are now 20% each.

As for Food. Every time you draw a chip, that program loses a set amount of hunger.

So instead your having to refill them after using their chip alot, which also works to balance filling your loadout with only 1 chip, you'd expend your program hunger extremely fast.
If they reach 0 hunger they no longer allow you to draw their chip

Toys add a natural decrease to the amount of hunger removed every draw

-# also i forgot to add loadout to the top image. oops

either way, this overhaul allows for a better balancing of strong to weak chips, creating a natural incentive to varied decks while letting you make small balance adjustments specific to each chip. While allowing you to manage scalability for future content.

[red turtle]

@worthy crown hey, im a bit curious on your opinions on this. I usually don't ping the devs for suggestions, but i figured its a bit out of the way, and if i dropped it in the QoL/Features thread it would completely flood it.

[fleet sail]

i'm gonna pitch in on this for a sec as well.

i agree on things needing a bit of change, either in balance, spam, or combat as a whole.
What i wholeheartedly will and forever will oppose is the idea of having a system decider for the player.

"you want 20 of these in your deck? sure, but let me weight them and give you this unwanted one instead."
Now obviously this is heavily inflated to prove a point. the example itself is moot. my point is is that the players get less direction of where to steer in and i think that goes against what the game offers or perceives.

that's my whole hearted argument, taking control from the player to the system, and i think that's counterintuitive given we were already given some form of manual action, no matter the "common conveniences" or "its supposed to be"

a slowdown system (longer chiploading) or only reload on empty after X time is up would both also mean a complete combat overhaul since it now heavily relies on the chipgen (CG) and the amount of programs. This would mean chips need vastly more impact (as a whole, because its currently very buster centered) or the buster system needs a tweak. (with different enemy scaling etc.)

which would mean (sorry if this seems an attempted hijack thread) the focus would need be on either programs, levels, chip power, buster power if kept with the current system, which would seem an easier fix, but could get bloated with the amount of clutter in said progbox etc. easily.

We could also try and adjust combat outside of the combat via passives or other tools that do X Y or Z but i do realize that that is a mere band-aid over a possible broken system.

I've yet to help think about combat as a whole, even after spending enough hours with it, i don't think taking away deck customization to a system is a good thing.
So my apologies as i currently cannot help enrich this idea.

so yeah, Zu can pitch in, but it might be too revealing as well 🤔

[worthy crown]

Hey!! Il have a read when I’m home back at my compooper. Currently touching grass and doing irl things for once (pain) lol

but thanks for getting this to me! Maybe something cool can come from it

[red turtle]

If you ask me it's as much out of your hands as the original battle network.

The main reasons for weighting being as specific as it is, is to prevent just lining your deck with all the same chip or having 1 program and being able to draw endless of the same chip from that.

Just like how the actual battle network won't allow you to fill your deck with more than 4 of the same chip.

If you play with a decently varied chipset it becomes a non-issue. As you'll likely pull the chips you've built your deck for often if not all the time.

It's safeguards to prevent obviously abusable strategies like all bully block or all recoverD

The player is intended to use the chips drawn strategically, and part of that is designing chip loadouts correctly.

I earnestly do thing this system would play really well.

Battle network is all about making bending the arm of the system to get what you want out of it. Like lining up program advances.

The control you think is being stripped away is no different than how you can't reliably get the chips you want all the time currently.

The game decides what chips from your stock are loaded at random and you can only reroll until it's what you want or waste unwanted chips

The only way to get what you want is to stack the deck to the point of borderline abusing the system or expend all your chips in a burst until you have only what you want.

Both things this system I've outlined is made to prevent and correct.

It solves spam, deck stacking, and leaves opportunities for strategies beyond just dump out as many attacks as you can.

I don't think gameplay is sustainable for long term with the battle system like it is now.

It would just devolve into an arms race between the player just steam rolling with chip spam and the devs now balancing around that.

Which means players who want to play more strategically are stuck having to go in with the only viable strategy being spam

It's not a healthy model for gameplay of something like this

Being able to just do whatever you want with zero restrictions leads to problems like bully block giving you, 20 buffs.

A system taking just the problematic aspects away from the player is no different than rules to building a deck in a card game.

Yeah it be nice if I could fill my deck with 40 pieces of exodia, then I'd always win.

Balancing control and freedom is key to smart RPG design. The current combat system is a bit too free to the point of over centralization and I think the game might suffer for it in the long term

And it's certainly not taking away deck customization to a system regardless of how you slice it.

[fleet sail]

at least battle network doesn't limit your draw strength. but by default only allows X size of said chip using an "MB" system mostly (common chips can be spammed but stronger chips are warded off from stacking) This is more livable as a restriction instead of a system decided what you can and cannot draw. This just means "Strong chips are limited in power, your BIT cannot do more than X of Y chip because it overloads them and breaks them down (or whatever fancy story) "

i still don't disagree with what you're saying, the system needs an overhaul and i'm basically making an issue about semantics, but the feel is important here. Being governed by a system is not a good feel no matter how well its phrased. But setting limits on a system is an entire different angle.
(and yes battle network pulls randomly from a pool of chips you have on deck, in this case they're being generated so your deck SHOULD always look the same for BITS. a limit system here makes more sense than weighting in my view)

Honestly regarding spam and steamrolling i feel like there's still better ideas out there, such as chip loading or chip limits without requiring the need to spam X of strongest chips. You can only include 2 of X chip at said time meaning you can at best use it twice with the current system. Which is not ideal, Hence i believe a change in system is required.
(current system does NOT have a hand btw. its just 0/30 and its bugged. We duplicate more than we know unironically.)

Again, i do not disagree with balancing or changing the system. i am disagreeing with the way the system is required to be balanced (i feel you bring it as weighting, which i do understand, but also disagree, i'd rather see different restrictions that make more sense than "oh this must be gods will")

so yeah, like i said earlier i haven't fully thought or fleshed out the crux of the problem here i feel.

makes me question how BN handles random pulls either 🤔

[red turtle]

You do realize that it functionally does right?

If you put more of a chip in your deck. You are more likely to see it.

Just because I've put the concept of weight to numbers doesn't mean it didn't exist until right now.

[fleet sail]

true

i mean using draw rn already weights which chips you grab, unless rando didn't do that to me

[red turtle]

Yes

All this system does is make it so stronger chips are inherently less likely to appear all the time or multiple times if you have your deck spread equally.

So weaker chips are still useful.

[fleet sail]

doesn't mean i'll like it

here's another problem

weaker chips are genuinely terrible the way they are right now.

[red turtle]

There is no point to using them I know.
Why use weaker chips when you can just stack the deck with op chips.

It's a problem that needs to be solved. And making weaker chips more plentiful is a solution.

And giving them higher weight is a way to do that.

[fleet sail]

the weight system could work if weaker or less desirable chips actually had an impact. or did something like a weaker combine into stronger version. we all want to run strong stuff and we all understand it cannot happen all the time. there has to be an upper floor limit

[red turtle]

And this is a limit

[worthy crown]

we were going to give players the ability to leave the game on and have whatever

[red turtle]

It's one you can design your deck around.

[worthy crown]

but i decided to add a cap

(we are giving multiple folders)

and as you progress there will be type advantages etc (we're planning it anyway)

[fleet sail]

so a cap on current system, with chips?

[worthy crown]

as in 5 each in your folder

[red turtle]

And obviously I don't know what features are around the bend when making suggestions. I'm just giving feedback and possibly avenues of improvement with what I am able to see.

[worthy crown]

but tbh a big overhaul like this can't really happen until we finish teh game and think about additional playstyles

we need to get a lot of Qualty of life in

[red turtle]

I get you

[worthy crown]

and bug fixes

and finish

but

lemme read teh whole thign

we essentially had to create some rules or balancing would take way too long too

i know it's more fun having complete freedom

but it would probbaly lead to the most insane decks

[red turtle]

Its basically changing the current system to weighted distribution rather than relying on the stock system. Pacing it out with a reload timer.

[red turtle]

Yep

It's a balance of freedom and control.

[fleet sail]

i'm very much aware, like i said i'm discussing semantics, but if you want to take control from a player, it should at least make sense

[worthy crown]

yeah, the timer system is mainly to go hand in hand with it being idle really

[fleet sail]

also the chipgen timers are WAY off

like 5 at once is a massive issue

[red turtle]

The suggestion is mostly maths and exact value designs, plus safe guards

[worthy crown]

they vary depending on chip -- should make that show

it would take a huge overhaul and from our side it just makes balancing harder

we can sort of gauge where the player will be with x chips

and x folder

giving room to break it if they can (with extra health bots / working chips together)

so we can guage progression of the game in different biomes

but if players have complete open freedom we can't really predict anything and it can get unbalanced

[red turtle]

You responding to dyaneko or the suggestion?

[worthy crown]

oh sorry just overall why we've decided to make a limit on chips with a regen time

it's not an actuall rpg so to speak, it's an idle game at it's core

i know it would be nice though

[fleet sail]

but if its locked to 5 programs you'd wildly vary on what chips to enter and use 🤔 that makes for interesting folders.

[worthy crown]

there essentially is no way to lose

iof you have as many chips as you want of 5 you really like

[fleet sail]

also still not limited for triple SSS tier chips, but i guess tehy;re tackled with higehr CG

[worthy crown]

there's no actual need to level up the BIT

because chips keep going

[red turtle]

Honestly I think individually balancing how many of a specific chip you can hold at a time might be smart too.

[worthy crown]

in the current game there comes a time where your BIT needs to be levelled up

because you can run out during battle

[worthy crown]

we do have plans to give tools which give you +1 of a chip type

or +2 etc etc

but you have to get that upgrade

[red turtle]

I mean in a restriction sense. So stronger cards only let you hold 2 or 3 at a time.

Aka not infinite bully blocks

[worthy crown]

yeah bully block is a bit op

yeah we are probably going to make 1 legendary chip per deck

[fleet sail]

sec, phone.

[worthy crown]

there's none in the demo

but there will eb!

be*

but the chips have been incredibly nerfed

they were a lot stronger. but it just made the game such a breeze as you levelled up

[red turtle]

This is kinda what my suggestion solves.

Those legendary chips are rarer to appear than normal ones

So it becomes something that can turn the tide of a fight in a pinch rather than a crutch to rely on.

Well either way I'm gonna get some sleep. You can finish reading through it and I'll read your response when I get back.

[worthy crown]

okay! ❤️

yeah the current system also promotes idle gameplay a bit more - you get a deck, you level up, you let them just go

[fleet sail]

i'll get back to to it after the call

[worthy crown]

ill think about it

and read in a mo too all of the above

[fleet sail]

(CURRENTLY) if i hatch 5 eggs at once, they all have the same timer. and thus will launch their chips into the deck and then to the field. meaning some sort of delay system to press on a program (to time it out for a short bit) would be beneficial on the current system. (if you move them to the deck and then back, they keep the CG state (chipgen time)

[fleet sail]

That would also work limiting a couple stronger chips as well. since currently a couple run rampant and steal the show.
(also enemies pretty much behave the same, we need more types, but that's another discussion)

[fleet sail]

So the idea of having a buster meta suits with chips being weaker overall then i guess 🤔 requiring the BIT to be leveled as chips can be obtained as early as stage 1. currently its still unbalanced. But nerfing chips even more makes it feel like chips are nigh useless, so it really relies on proper balancing. (which chip, where it unlocks and what does chip where) the chips right now, only a couple feel like they're well put with the current AI system for the BIT too. (its wasteful, really wasteful)

That way, chips feel like a boon to get (it actually helps) rather than, "oh no, i drew the wrong chip"
Should i think that chips add a possible support option for players? that would WILDLY change the way i need to think about chips. (and saying support doesn't mean actually support chips, but rather being helpful assists with progression)

i thought it's supposed to be a dance with chips having a focus on boosting progression (meaning chips have more impact, but that it should be lessened from its current state with restriction and balances and limits) which rounds back to. Only 1 legendary chip! meaning you can technically run more to get more but they are only stored once (meaning the rest bounces off, right?)

Hmmm

i'm not envisioning either system well. i need to set some time aside for that honestly, (as i said before) because the current system can be tweaked to make it generally more accessible for balancing in a different way than what Jbyrd said. and Zu is not looking for an overhaul (assuming from what he said earlier) Aight. i'll give it a try 🤔

[winged whale]

Since the main discussion wound up on this post, any thoughts on what I pitched?

[sharp vessel]

Y'know, after reading all of this? I think the Dynamic Chip System is a really good solution. I'm not entirely sure why it's said to be taking control away from the player when it, in fact, gives them SO much more control

As of right now, you can't be super sure if/when a chip will show up in battle since your Programs' timers are all over the place, making it effectively random

However, if you have percentages and are drawing from those you can, over a long period of time, get an idea of how a folder will perform. Law of Big Numbers and all that

And the ability to predict future results is kinda integral for an idle game, I think

Because if you can't reliably take your hands of the wheel, then what's the difference of it straight up being a MMBN game?

I honestly honestly need to be convinced as to why the Dynamic Chip System is not a viable idea

The only change I'd make is that instead of there being a chance for "Haha Nothing", instead you'd just get more of the weakest chip

If you still want to limit folks from running just broken chips, the solution is within the Draw button itself. It could be something crazy as the draw having a longer cooldown the more you use it succession, where it takes longer and longer for the new chips to get drawn

Essentially having the Custom Meter be "longer"

Which would be a slow down that's fixed--or even accelerated compared to the default--if you use a lot of the chips in your hand, especially the more heavily weighted ones

Meaning that, ironically, to use the strongest chips the most often/fastest, you'd need to stack up on weak cards

I dunno. What do you think, @worthy crown ?

Of course, this crazy implementation would require a sort of wheel rather than a bar like the OP suggested. This wheel would get more and more reeled back the stronger the chip that's used is. When you hit Draw, then you have to wait until said wheel finishes spinning back to its default position before being able to Draw again

(You know, like how Megaman's Navi logo would spin when picking chips on the Custom Screen, but in this case it's not just cosmetic)

[fleet sail]

Just a short sidenote i'll get back to it later. I wasn't against the system as a whole. Just the weighting because weighting. Limiting it is better than arbitrarily weighting it, that sucks.
Mmbn does this via chip limits 4 progs or MB limit etc. THAT makes sense to restrict it. Weighting is pure roflmao rng the way it was introduced and i was referring to THAT being a bad idea, not dimissing the rest.

Also in words its hard to properly express what i try to convey. I feel it gets lost in translation.

[sharp vessel]

I mean. The whole system IS about RNG. Dismissing that IS dismissing the whole pitch

Arbitrary limits are MORE restrictive than arbitrary weights

I'm asking what makes you so opposed to one versus the other

Both systems are RNG. By design. What I'm having trouble wrapping my head around is the notion of just RNG being somehow worse than RNG plus a hard limit on the amount of copies of a chip you can have in a deck plus a limit of 30 chips in a deck

[fleet sail]

Alright, just a sec.

I make 2 distinctions here.

weighting affects player strategy by adding a layer of RNG
and
restricted player freedom.

-> i want to tell you that i am NOT opposing the DCS proposed system. Just an RNG factor in it.

The CURRENT system has favoured the amount of chips that enter the deck by choice. choose a multitude of 4 chips and you will always get those 4 chips (yes rng can pull values, but it is very manipulative to trigger different timers depending on release of a program etc, details currently not the topic.)
So you can setup a semi failsafe strategy that works over 90% of the time under the current (albeit broken) system

This means that, weighting is not a factor that limits the player. i can add 20 programs and i will always get that same chip never to be limited by said chip (that is busted and needs adjusting)

With the other system it would mean that you can add to it. but only slightly, which means you need to diversify the meta, which is good. but then if people want to add 20 of the same S tier chip, it would be weighted, or not pulled at all, and it would pull among common chips too. effectively avoiding player strategy. (this is my issue)

i get the way the system works and functions. but this one adds a layer of extra rng that effectively makes chips desired by players less chosen, meaning you effectively diminish the gameplay value of the game as a whole. its like building your chipfolder in battle network, without minibomb, and you pull minibomb anyway...

limiting the X program or chip limit by saying "its legendary", like the 100mb limit for 1 chip per folder in MMBN is far more acceptable than just avoiding a players strategy altogether. This seems also to be the direction the developers are wanting to take rather than a complete overhaul. (and is more natural as its a LOT more akin to the MB limit in MMBN // e.g. not 10 shotguns in 1 folder)

we all agree that the current system needs a bit of a tweak.
I just pointed out that weighting chips just for the sake of "balance" diminishes player strategy in the DCS system.
Limiting it instead of weighting it makes more sense naturally as now players KNOW their boundaries in which to set their strategy in. Yes auto pulls randomly, that's not the point. its the way players deal with the chips naturally.

if you feel i am talking about a detail, you're right. i absolutely am. i stated this before "semantics" as i called it. but it is a flaw in the proposed system that needs addressing if you want people to feel involved in deckbuilding. Because that is what this game is. and Idler with strategy.

and as i've said before i currently haven't come up with a better proposal other than "hey i think this bit is a bit wrong and needs tweaking"

.
Other than that, Jbyrd makes excellent suggestions i would very much love to see in the game. Which would include a different chip system albeit tweaked, or under DCS. We'll see.

If you feel i've missed your point. Then please explain me what you think i am missing. And we'll see how we go from there =D

[sharp vessel]

its like building your chipfolder in battle network, without minibomb, and you pull minibomb anyway...
This flags to me that there might be a misunderstanding as what weighting means in terms of chip draw. I'm also against Haha Nothing as a possible result of a draw. Drawing a chip should always result in a chip being drawn, simply put.

However, with that as a given, your hypothetical of pulling a chip you never put into your deck isn't really allowed by DCS. At all. That was never part of the pitch

All weighting does is that, based on the other programs you have, it will change the odds of drawing a specific chip. The higher the weight, the higher the chance

So if you want to just put the same S tier chip in your folder? Go ahead! Just leave out any other programs and that's what you'll get

The catch with DCS, whether that be the original pitch or my thoughts on it, is that there's a secondary system which slows down how fast you can draw more chips

In order to use those S tier chips faster, you need to use weaker chips. Are you forced to? No. Will it go much more smoothly if you did? Yeah!

It's like the decision of making a mono-coded folder in MMBN or not. Sure, put all the chips you think are cool in there! But if they're all of different codes, you'll have a VERY hard time using them all

[sharp vessel]

Your pitch has quite a bit of overlap, functionally, when compared with DCS. However, your suggestions as to handle pet program progression does fill the gap in DCS' model!

(The functional overlap being "Get weaker chips more often, stronger chips less so")

[fleet sail]

This flags to me that there might be a misunderstanding as what weighting means in terms of chip draw.

but earlier it was said as a proposal:

How the Dynamic Chip Production System works is that instead you have a infinite supply of chips. As long as you have a program on your home board, you have that chip in your loadout.

`Now that being said, how would this affect having multiple programs, or programs that are leveled up?

Simple, your not gonna always draw the same chip or all of the same chip.

Having multiple programs and or leveling them up, increasing the weight of that chip's draw rate.
This also means you can balance stronger chips, by having them weighted out to be less likely to be drawn.

you can draw more than 1 of a chip, but the chance of doing so is 1/3 of the initial draw rate weight, so you cant stack the deck to do like all bully block or something.
chips will also have a cap to how high its draw rate is tied to their strength/rarity, so if you try to stack things that way, you can end up getting no chips on draw.`

The mention of the system drawing from an infinite supply, and having programs increase draw strength of said chip irks me as a draw system (and yes the weighting is applied here).
which means i can have 19 of 1 chip and 1 of the other and on production it would pull the 1 more often than the other 19[if in deck]. (or get NO draws at all!)
this is again, the point i'm trying to emphasize. less strategy blocked by weighting via the proposed system. (screw getting 0 pulls)

Now i did have to re-read it more thoroughly and yes i did misunderstand that it will not pull random chips from the DCS system. call it a translation error or reading comprehension, but i pinpointed where that went wrong. (not gonna draw always the same chip)

Strategy building is what i am after, prefer limited than weighted.

.
Even though MMBN may have done the weighting of pulling chips. in here the story is to make your own chip production. and setup your own deck
the current system does this via CG (chip generation) so you always get predictable outcomes.

Its not great either (running 20 lightning will not get me enough chips to produce enough lightning to let it run on auto, ever) but it's still preferable as its predictable and can easily be strategized around.

DCS slowing it down even further aside from balancing CG with the current system just means that if i produced 5 chips i can still only pull 1 or noone.

and i get it

it's not that i am entirely against the weighting either. but the way its proposed just rubs it the wrong way on the strategizing with the decks draw power and potential.
If 19 programs only ever produced 1 chip (limited) then having the other 18 around is merely useless is a system i would understand and enjoy much easier.

Now if its in the pool [1/30] it will pull it, whereas the pool is full [30/30] i have a 1/30 to draw it on one of the 5 spaces. now THERE is where you can potentially add weighting. (which i wouldn't enjoy, but a randomizer is effectively the same) if that weighting would also be drawing that chip less you'd get a system where S tier chips are just left behind because they won't be pulled enough. (so a balance is required between limiting and weighting. if its weighted and not randomized)

but this is an entirely new branch you'd hit in with like the systems as a whole.

But i can bet Zu will have idiot me running data over chips anyway, and a couple other fools 🤣 (hence the current tiered chips for the demo)

[sharp vessel]

To be fair, I did say:

I'm also against Haha Nothing as a possible result of a draw. Drawing a chip should always result in a chip being drawn, simply put.

However, with that as a given. . .

That said, your scenario of having 19 programs and only drawing from the 1 weaker program would be something that's self imposed. You put that single, highly-weighted program into that lineup. If you don't want it, you simply remove that program and leave the other 19 untouched

Now if its in the pool [1/30] it will pull it, whereas the pool is full [30/30] i have a 1/30 to draw it on one of the 5 spaces. now THERE is where you can potentially add weighting

So the funny thing there is that there is no effective difference in having 29 more chips to go through versus an infinite amount. The limiting factor is your hand, which can only ever hold five chips. If there is a pool of chips of 10 or more to pull from, there is no discernible difference from the current system to DCS in the eyes of the end user.

Even without weighting, your proposed scenario would mean there's a 28/29 chance that you don't get your chip in the next draw. Which then turns into 27/28, into 26/27, and so on

If there is a MMBN-like imposed chip limit based on a chip's strength, then congrats, now you have a system that has you drawing weaker chips more often than you do S tier chips

Which is just DCS again

But now with the drawback of just plain having nothing to play after setting the game to AUTO for a few minutes

[fleet sail]

To be fair, I did say:
I don't understand that response as a whole. That is not something i referred to. i did refer to what was pitched in the DCS initial phase, and i did mention that i understood where my issue was regarding my "haha nothing" with the minibomb comparison later.

I feel like i'm not being understood here where i already have mentioned that i understand the DCS system, and disagree with a point in it.
I'm curious why you would feel the need to point out that there's no difference to the end user. in my perspective that would be obvious given my example?

i am of the opinion things like cooldowns and explainable limits work better for users than weighting. and gives more freedom to players to construct their deck.
Which aligns in parts with DCS. Zu and Jbyrd already explained a couple things that better explained the situation to me than the initial pitch did which made me reconsider the system, bar the weight.

DCS just pitched weighting in it that limited its drawpower, that i opposed because i can see issues with it to it being led by RNG, rather than a system that uses limits and cooldowns to combat imbalance(now how and where cooldowns and limits apply is a different story). Jbyrd also mentioned that balancing chip limits wouldn't even be a bad idea overall, and then later we ended up here to the discussion of me trying to show you my perspective.

But i'll not invest more time regarding the weighting, i've made my point. I'll eventually cook something but it'll be in the future for now.

i bet Zu has a good idea of what seems to be working for the future at this point.

[red turtle]

i will point out, the point of this is to prevent you from just stacking 30 of the same chip nor trying to cheat the system by doing 29 and 1 other chip

Your not gonna draw a full hand of the same chip, after the first... maybe second draw, each successive chance is lowered and the removed original weight is instead put towards a spam counter chance where you don't draw any chip

Nothing would stop you from just making a deck of strong chips.

the incentive is to make a proper varied deck instead of just trying to do something like 30 bully block

So let me put it like this

Lets say, the upward weight limit of... slash is 75%. if you max out the weight through stacking the deck with nothing but slash and put 1 other chip to fill the 25%. you will always guarenteed draw 1-2 slash and that 25% chance chip because the first drawn chip has to give you something.

after that the weight is reduced by 1/3rd and that removed weight is instead given to chance to draw nothing if the system did end up attempting to draw another slash.
The catch is, if it does this. It will skip to another chip to give you until every unique chip in your deck has been drawn atleast once.

After that, any chance you have to not actually get a subsequent chip will end up actually just giving you nothing.

Keep in mind, this would only occur if you had such an insanely high weight for a chip that you couldn't possibly draw anything else. Which is only possible if you do nothing but only have 1 or 2 chips in your deck

If you have a varied deck, you can't possibly draw nothing. So even if you have a high weight, having atleast 5 different types of chips, will ensure you always draw a full hand, and give you a higher chance for the chips you want to appear multiple times. and even just having 4 different types would be enough since you'll be likely to draw something twice, but it introduces the chance of drawing nothing once.

i didnt make that clearer in the original post because discord text limits

its meant to be a essentially rng manipulation protection.

so if you did nothing but the same chip. and got 1-2 of that chip, after that since theres no other possible chip to draw. any time it fails, it will draw nothing.

so hands would end up being really 1-3 of the same chip every draw in a 1 chip deck.
4 if your lucky and 5 if your obscenely lucky

also something that had to be removed from the original post. the current system we have now I called the Stock Chip System (SCS) because chips are generated and stored in a stock