Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: Gothars on September 02, 2013, 03:38:44 PM

Title: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Gothars on September 02, 2013, 03:38:44 PM
At the moment the damage type energy (energy, high explosive, knietic etc.) and the mount type energy (energy, ballistic, missile) have the same name, despite being very different things. That is quite confusing for newcomers. And sometimes hampers mutual comprehension even between experienced players, since you never know for sure what someone means with an "energy weapon". I see no good reason why this has to be.

Can't we come up with a new name for one of the two?

Just off the top of my head:


dealing:
- power damage ->  call 'em power weapons   (most on energy mounts)
- flux damage ->  flux weapons
- surge damage -> surge weapons

mounted on:
- grid mounts -> call 'em grid weapons   (most dealing energy damage)
- powered mounts ->  powered weapons
- reactor mounts -> reactor weapons


Feel free to add your own ideas.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Ravendarke on September 02, 2013, 03:43:04 PM
I am sorry, but I am not completly new to this game, yet I don´t understand at all your name system :D

Tho if it would be up to me, I would have those kind of mounts:
Energy
Hybrid - (True railguns, creating energy, kind of hyperspace, rail between weapon and target then sending ballistic payload, do not mistake with gauss guns)
Ballistic
Missile

Sizes are fine as they are, but I would split them to atleast two technological tiers.

Tier I What we have right now
Tier II For advanced weaponry, but also supporting Tier I

About energy weapons, I would probably add some tag for Beam/Projectile type.

Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Gotcha! on September 02, 2013, 03:55:03 PM
I fail to see why people would get confused by this. ???

Anyway, if it really had to change then I'd definitely keep the weapons at 'Energy' and probably 'Generator' for the mounts.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: ValkyriaL on September 02, 2013, 04:02:08 PM
I...don't think i get it... but i get it.

mounting an energy weapon on an energy mount seems pretty straightforward tho. nothing complicated there. same goes for ballistics.

or perhaps you want people to delve deeper into things? "why is this thing an energy weapon?" or "HOW is this thing an energy weapon?"

i believe EVEs way of doing it might make things better, lasers are...lasers.. railguns and blasters are hybrid weapons, machine guns and cannons and stuff are artillery and autocannons which both would use ballistic mounts, while hybrid weps would use Hybrid weapon mounts and lasers use energy mounts.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Silver Silence on September 02, 2013, 04:08:41 PM
Directed Flux Weapons, or DF Weapons.

Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Hyph_K31 on September 02, 2013, 04:22:42 PM
I think somthing along the lines of direct energy would be best. Since a lot of the energy damage weapons have different ways of dealing damage, at least as far as Lore goes, e.g; Graviton beams, Phase beams and the other shooty-things.

As long a the damage type and the mount type have different names, there should be no confusion. Since there are no weapons that deal ballistic damage or kinetic weapon mounts.

(Tired Hyph is tired, he should go to sleep now)
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Gothars on September 02, 2013, 04:25:55 PM
Quote from: Ravendarke on September 02, 2013, 03:43:04 PM
I am sorry, but I am not completly new to this game, yet I don´t understand at all your name system :D

Tho if it would be up to me, I would have those kind of mounts:

This is not about changing anything about mounts or weapons, only about changing a term.
I'm not sure what you meann with name system, I only made some suggestions for alternative names either energy mounts or energy damage could have.


Quote from: ValkyriaL on September 02, 2013, 04:02:08 PM
mounting an energy weapon on an energy mount seems pretty straightforward tho. nothing complicated there. same goes for ballistics.

But then there are energy damage weapons you install on ballistic mounts (Mjolnir cannon) and kinetic damage weapons you install on energy mounts (Graviton beam). So, is a Graviton beam an energy weapon? Or a Mjonir cannon? Both? None? You can see it as you like, but with the current nomenclature there's no way to be sure.


Quote from: Silver Silence on September 02, 2013, 04:08:41 PM
Directed Flux Weapons, or DF Weapons.

Yeah, like it.




Gn8 Hyph :)
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: GUNINANRUNIN on September 02, 2013, 07:01:07 PM
I understand what you mean. I say change the name of the mounts rather than the damage type. Seems like it'd be much simpler.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: CopperCoyote on September 02, 2013, 07:09:48 PM
I think the damage icon on the weapon card gets the job done just fine for new players. The first time i started with a wolf the graviton beam it drove home the difference between damage types & mount types.

If there is confusion in the forums we can we add some type of affix. Like dmg!energy or mnt!energy. I forget where the Blah!(noun) comes from so i may be using it wrong, but its just a suggestion. We could use little emoticon things too like (0)energy for mounts and x- energy for damage type.

I suppose we could just get into the habit of saying energy damage or energy mounts too.

That said, if it does end up changing i'd prefer it if the mount's name was changed. Having energy as a generic catch all term for shiny sparkly weapons is too good to pass up.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: sirboomalot on September 02, 2013, 07:25:28 PM
While I agree that there can be some confusion with the current terms used, I personally kinda feel that the terms you suggested might end up being even MORE confusing. The only overlap between the damage and mount types is energy, why not just make the energy mount into a powered mount, and let most of the weapons for those powered mounts do energy damage. Nothing else needs to change.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Zaphide on September 02, 2013, 07:45:49 PM
Yeah i agree, simplest way to solve it is to just change the 'Energy Mount' to 'Force Mount' or similar :)
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: BillyRueben on September 02, 2013, 07:52:51 PM
I don't see it as that big of a problem. Most of the weapons in the vanilla game that are energy mounts do energy damage anyway. A modding issue maybe?
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Histidine on September 02, 2013, 09:38:18 PM
Quote
While I agree that there can be some confusion with the current terms used, I personally kinda feel that the terms you suggested might end up being even MORE confusing.
Concur with this. I think all the proposed rename schemes here are just more confusing and/or esoteric and take more time to learn than the current system, which only has two exceptions to the "energy weapon goes in energy mount" rule anyway.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: FloW on September 03, 2013, 01:52:45 AM
Quote from: Gotcha! on September 02, 2013, 03:55:03 PM
I fail to see why people would get confused by this. ???

Anyway, if it really had to change then I'd definitely keep the weapons at 'Energy' and probably 'Generator' for the mounts.
Pretty much this. I'd write more here, but I just want to voice my support.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: RawCode on September 03, 2013, 04:27:37 AM
Currently all energy weapons deal energy damage, it pretty obvious that that energy weapon require energy mount.

If thing change a bit, additional damage types are required:

if some energy weapon deal piercing damage, type of damage shoud be called searing, with "energy style" icon, but still 150\50.

same for kinetic weapons that does energy weapon, that damage shoud be called composite and deal 100\100 with "kinetic style" icon.

anyone who have issues with tooltip reading can navigate merely by damagetype icon color - blue for energy, red for kinetic and green for missiles.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Axiege on September 03, 2013, 04:48:13 PM
Quote from: RawCode on September 03, 2013, 04:27:37 AM
Currently all energy weapons deal energy damage, it pretty obvious that that energy weapon require energy mount.

Graviton Beams. Also, I tihnk the problem Gothars has brought up has been misunderstood. He's saying that it is potentially confusing to have a damage type and weapon type have the same name, especially in cases, such as the Graviton Beam, when energy weapons are not doing energy damage, and when non-energy weapons are doing energy damage, such as the Mjolnir Cannon.

I think what we need here is some consistency across the systems. The weapon and mount types are, for the 2/3rds majority, named for the delivery method of the damage type (ballistic weapons fire shells, missiles fire self-propelled explosive, and neither restrict what kind of damage you would assume the weapon can do). Energy works just fine as a damage type, but does not very well describe the delivery method of the damage.

Since nearly all vanilla energy weapons use beams or lasers, beam weapons/mounts would be a suitable replacement I think.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Hyph_K31 on September 03, 2013, 05:10:18 PM
So perhaps simply adding a prefix Pulse or Beam before energy would suffice for damage types. Whilst there would be no actual difference between the two damage types, the difference would be in the delivery, which is what seems to count.

(Yet another sleepy post, gotta stop doing this)
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: icepick37 on September 03, 2013, 06:10:50 PM
Reasonable measures to reduce confusion and ambiguity aren't really bad. Neither is leaving things the way they are if it ain't broke.

I don't really mind how this falls out either way.

I would think the damage type should change though. Since "energy" isn't really destructive per se. I am having a hard time coming up with a good alternative, though, haha. Which I daresay is the reason this is even a thing.  :p
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: xenoargh on September 03, 2013, 06:11:57 PM
Just call it Directed Energy.  

That's factual (it's what it's really called), covers a broader variety of weapons, and doesn't create confusion with the damage type ENERGY and the Weapon Slot.

That said, yes, it's confusing, and probably needlessly so.  

The whole system as it is right now is needlessly complicated and confusing, though.

Getting rid of the Ballistic / Energy system didn't make Vacuum less playable or make it any worse to balance; the whole idea of Ballistic / Energy / Universal is one of those things that sounded great on paper but has largely pigeonholed a lot of ships to the point where they're not really viable, anyhow.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Gotcha! on September 03, 2013, 07:42:44 PM
Reading all of everyone's different ideas makes me hope Alex won't change it.
I still think it's unnecessary and most ideas posted here would just make it confusing, instead of removing any form of confusion (which I don't see in the first place), in my ever so humble opinion.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: RawCode on September 04, 2013, 08:00:37 AM
call energy damage "searing" then, any use of "energy" will cause confusion for users who unable to read tooltips.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: jhb on September 04, 2013, 08:12:10 AM
Maybe radiation or electrical for one or the other?
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Gothars on September 04, 2013, 09:01:16 AM
Quote from: RawCode on September 04, 2013, 08:00:37 AM
call energy damage "searing" then, any use of "energy" will cause confusion for users who unable to read tooltips.

Searing sounds really good and makes sense.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: icepick37 on September 04, 2013, 11:38:19 AM
Yeah I like that sound of that.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Wyvern on September 04, 2013, 11:39:54 AM
I'd second the notion of leaving energy damage as it is, and considering renaming energy mounts to powered mounts.  That helps clarify statements like "Powered weapons gain increased damage based on your current flux levels." - which is, as the Mjolnir cannon and graviton beam demonstrate, unclear when both mount type and damage type are named "energy".
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: xenoargh on September 04, 2013, 11:50:15 AM
"Powered" feels too vague.

Flux Weapons?

Flux Mounts?

Directed Flux?

High Tech?

That might actually work: High Tech vs. Low Tech.  No more confusing stuff about "ballistics" when a lot of beam-bolt weapons are, well, ballistic.  No more confusion about damage types.  Fits with lore.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Hari Seldon on September 04, 2013, 01:14:26 PM
Quote from: Gothars on September 04, 2013, 09:01:16 AM
Quote from: RawCode on September 04, 2013, 08:00:37 AM
call energy damage "searing" then, any use of "energy" will cause confusion for users who unable to read tooltips.

Searing sounds really good and makes sense.

"Searing" is good.

How good is "energetic"?  So many people are saying Nay to changing the name that "energetic" might be good because it's pretty much the same thing as the original "energy" but not the same word as the "energy" damage type so there is less confusion.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Gotcha! on September 04, 2013, 02:30:37 PM
@Gothars: Not all energy weapons would do searing damage. When I think of searing I'm thinking of serious cooking and/or frying.
What about EMP energy weapons and molecule disrupting weapons, radioactive stuff and dark matter/dark energy? (Not that we'd know anything about the last two.)

@Wyvern: Ballistic weapons are also powered.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Wyvern on September 04, 2013, 02:50:58 PM
Quote from: Gotcha! on September 04, 2013, 02:30:37 PM
@Wyvern: Ballistic weapons are also powered.
And every energy weapon that's not a beam fires a ballistic projectile.  Ballistic weapons don't gain additional power from flux.  Neither do missiles.  That's the reference I was aiming for, and why I seconded Gothar's original suggestion of "Powered" as a name for the mounts.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: icepick37 on September 04, 2013, 02:55:53 PM
How about dynamic mounts. As a nod to "dynamism" :)

Quote from: Gotcha! on September 04, 2013, 02:30:37 PM
@Gothars: Not all energy weapons would do searing damage. When I think of searing I'm thinking of serious cooking and/or frying.
What about EMP energy weapons and molecule disrupting weapons, radioactive stuff and dark matter/dark energy? (Not that we'd know anything about the last two.)
Yeah, it's not perfect, but it kinda makes sense. All cooking is is a rearrangement of molecules which kind of makes sense with radioactivity and disruption and whatnot.

Maybe Disruption damage would work.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Gothars on September 04, 2013, 02:59:17 PM
Quote from: Gotcha! on September 04, 2013, 02:30:37 PM
@Gothars: Not all energy weapons would do searing damage. When I think of searing I'm thinking of serious cooking and/or frying.
What about EMP energy weapons and molecule disrupting weapons, radioactive stuff and dark matter/dark energy? (Not that we'd know anything about the last two.)

EMP is a secondary damage type, dealt additionally to the main damage type. Some energy weapons have it, but also a ballistic weapon and a missile.

For all other forms of direct damage you mention I'd say searing fits quite well. When I imagine kinetic weapons I see forceful impacts of simple projectiles, high explosive weapons penetrate armor and detonate inside of it, and in my imagination energy damage is archived by melting - or searing - a ship's hull, by whatever method.


Quote from: Wyvern on September 04, 2013, 11:39:54 AM
I'd second the notion of leaving energy damage as it is, and considering renaming energy mounts to powered mounts.  That helps clarify statements like "Powered weapons gain increased damage based on your current flux levels." - which is, as the Mjolnir cannon and graviton beam demonstrate, unclear when both mount type and damage type are named "energy".

You know, that's a really good argument, on the account that I can't quite remember to which of the two energy classes the bonus applies^^

But I think "powered" is a bit too broad, it would fit all mount types except missiles.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Thaago on September 04, 2013, 03:05:14 PM
I was a little confused that the damage and mount types are the same when I was first playing. It could use clearing up, but is not a high priority imo.

My vote is for the energy mount to stay "energy" and the energy damage be called "directed energy". I personally don't like searing... maybe its because I associate that with a slow burning process. I see beams searing, but I see pulse lasers and am blaster shots blowing things rapidly apart. Meh, just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: icepick37 on September 04, 2013, 03:07:21 PM
Directed sounds too beamy. Not all energy damage is beamy. Like the big cannon and the amblaster.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Thaago on September 04, 2013, 03:40:56 PM
I guess its all subjective :D I was thinking searing is too beamy.... hmmm...

Maybe it is a better idea to change the mount type to powered, just because we can't come up with a name to agree on for damage ;)
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Wyvern on September 04, 2013, 04:03:56 PM
Actually, I'd like to make an alternate-alternate suggestion: leave the names alone, and add a tip to the in-game tips list that comments on the differences.  Something like, "Energy weapons and the energy damage type are two distinct, if similarly named, notions.  For example, the graviton beam (an energy weapon) does kinetic damage, while the Mjolnir cannon (a ballistic weapon) does energy damage.  The graviton beam will see its damage increase from high flux levels, while the Mjolnir cannon will not."
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: xenoargh on September 04, 2013, 05:10:32 PM
Burying that kind of thing in tool-tips instead of just using a different name is really not the way to improve readability and player education.  I really hate "use a tool-tip to fix that" when we know that most newbies will only read some of the tool-tips before they've made up their minds about whether they're having fun.

The issue here is that the name doesn't match what it does; that it's also inadvertently using the same name as a damage type is causing further confusion.  It'd be simpler to just change the name and a lot less likely to cause confusion for newbies.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: PCCL on September 04, 2013, 05:14:16 PM
I don't think it's necessary if energy weapons MOSTLY meant energy damage and the other way around. As is there are 2 exceptions which I'm fine with, but if a significant portion energy weapons have different damage types there could be genuine confusion happening.

Just now there's no problems though, I feel
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Sonlirain on September 04, 2013, 06:10:32 PM
The more i read this topic the more i'm lost.

The current system is EASY.
Energy weapon mounts and Balistic weapon mounts.

Most energy weapons deal energy damage with VERY few exeptions that cna be spotted by reading the weapons stats anyway.
It's a little bit more complicated with Ballistic weapons because they can deal HE, Kinetic Frag, or even energy... but EVERYTHING is in the weapon descriptions so you can tell if weapon X is the weapon you need or not.

If someone can't read the weapon descriptions then it's their own damn fault.

Adding more types and classes just makes it needlessly complicated.
Note that i didn't play SS in some time now (waiting for a new version) but i think the only thing the descriptions lack would be info about whether the weapon is pulse or beam since beams only generate soft flux... making them effectively useless at tasks other than PD.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: icepick37 on September 04, 2013, 06:17:19 PM
Yeah, I do think most people agree this is a niggling thing. It COULD help clear things up if a good change was made, but so far (as you can see), a "better way" has yet to be shown, haha.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Ravendarke on September 04, 2013, 06:34:29 PM
Ok... leave energy type mount as it is, get rid of energy damage type, replace it with those Damage types: Electric, Thermal (Plasma), Radiation.... there you go, energy/energy solved and energy weapons doesnt have to use kinect and can offer different bonuses. Still I would prefer complete overhaul but that´s just me.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Histidine on September 04, 2013, 09:59:14 PM
IMHO the only proposed changes here that aren't worse than the current system are "directed energy" damage type (although I have a sneaking suspicion that people will just end up shortening it to "energy" and we'll be right back where we started) and "powered" mounts. "Searing" is a very unusual term in a sci-fi context, and (more importantly) as others have mentioned, really isn't the word I'd use to describe a hit from the AM/Mining/Heavy Blaster or the Mjolnir.

The current system works because it uses one or two-word descriptions that fit the weapon perfectly:


As noted before, there are two exceptions to the "energy damage = energy mount" rule. However, it is my view that:
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Axiege on September 05, 2013, 09:15:28 AM
In my opinion it really doesn't need a name change, although Searing is a really odd replacement as other have said. I'm not grilling hamburgers here...

Powered and Flux weapons/mounts are really good names though, further illustrating the fact that the weapons do more damage the more Flux you have built up.

But seriously, Searing... no.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Vulpes on September 05, 2013, 10:47:11 AM
So, this thread has highlighted the issue of ballistic energy weapons and energy ballistic weapons (sounds silly right now, eh?) and whether or not they get the flux damage bonus.

Wouldn't the simplest fix be a quick rewording of the Flux Supercharge description?  Something like "+x% Energy mount damage output"

Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Talkie Toaster on September 08, 2013, 04:12:59 PM
If a change would be made, the goal would be to simplify things and make them clearer. The simplest, clearest thing I can think of would be to switch the 'Energy' damage descriptor to 'Pure' damage. Because that's what it is- unmodified, pure damage against anything and everything.

Thus Energy weapons are generally weapons dealing pure damage that scales with flux. The Mjolnir is uniquely a Ballistic weapon that deals pure damage, and the Graviton Gun is an Energy weapon that deals kinetic damage. Everything makes sense.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Ravendarke on September 08, 2013, 05:02:18 PM
I don´t see how "pure dmg" fit any possible sci-fi universe "feeling".
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Talkie Toaster on September 08, 2013, 05:25:18 PM
Quote from: Ravendarke on September 08, 2013, 05:02:18 PM
I don´t see how "pure dmg" fit any possible sci-fi universe "feeling".
Really? To me, it carries the sinister efficiency of high technology.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Hyph_K31 on September 08, 2013, 06:55:10 PM
It just doesn't seem right to me, either.

What is pure damage? Just straight up loss?
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: naufrago on September 08, 2013, 08:17:26 PM
I agree that the terminology for the Energy mount type and Energy damage type is a bit confusing, but it's actually really tough to come up with a replacement name for one of those.

Currently, I'm leaning towards renaming Energy mounts as Phase mounts. If you think about it, 'Phase' is almost synonymous with 'high-tech' in this game. I think it could work since there isn't much of a conflict between existing terminology, and it could fit well with the high-tech theme.

If I were to ask you right now what a Phase weapon is, the only things that would probably come to mind are the Phase Beam and Phase Charge Launcher. One of those is already an Energy mount weapon, and the other can easily be renamed if necessary. There might be confusion that since it's a Phase weapon, it can be used while phased, but players would quickly discover that's not true, especially if that were noted in the tutorial or something.

'Phase' as it's used in the game generally refers to something that interacts with p-space. Non-weapon related things that are phase-related are the Phase teleporter, phase skimmer, and phase cloak. However, there's enough distinction between those and the potentially renamed Phase mount that minimal confusion should arise. It also adds a bit of mystique to the Energy weapons, that they're somehow special since they somehow require or interact with p-space to operate. It helps to differentiate them more from Ballistic weapons, imo.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: xenoargh on September 08, 2013, 08:53:32 PM
I can see Phase working, although that'd cause a little discontinuity between what Phasing does (i.e., outside space) the Phase Beam <sigh> and all that.

I still think High / Middle / Low Tech might be the best long-term solution.  But that'd be a whole new Mount type, and I can only imagine the flame-wars that would ensue if that got changed now.

On the other hand... an intriguing idea... maybe mounts could mount the Tech levels below them, but not above them?  So Low Tech can only mount Low and would correspond to Ballistic, High would be equivalent to Universal, Mid would be equivalent to Energy but could mount Low Tech?  

Or it could work more-or-less how it works with mount sizes, where one unit down can be mounted, but not two?  So High could mount Middle, but not Low, and if there was still a genuine need for Universal, keep that in?

Fairly long tangent about the balance issues that arise from the current system and stuff.
Spoiler
That'd sure put a different spin on how it works now, but the arguments over the game-balance issues that would arise would no-doubt give Alex a serious migraine.  

It's like a lot of stuff that I've effectively modded out of Vacuum atm;  I really don't see how, in a really balanced game design, we need all these barriers to player choice or how it's really enhancing the game's design or makes the game more Fun.  I don't mean to come across as super-critical in that sense, it's not a crippling issue, I just feel like it's something that could be cut and it wouldn't suddenly ruin the game.

As an example, all of the classes in Torchlight can use practically all of the weapons, armor and shields.  There are a few exceptions to this, but they're end-boss unique gear things.  Otherwise, you can use anything with anybody.

Yet generally speaking, we don't actually end up doing that, because each class has its own nuances and some weapons don't work as well as others.  Plus there is that other selection criteria, style.  Maybe my Paladin is numerically better crushing stuff with giant hammers, but I really like how he looks using his sub-par-but-visually-cool sword-and-board skills.  

So in essence, eliminating hard walls, in terms of barriers to choice, doesn't mean that we're not going to want to push our "characters" towards a sensible opti-max; if we're flying a Tri-Tachyon vessel with the Flux Dissipation to support lots of High Tech weapons that cost more Flux but don't have ammo problems, we're going to go that direction out of self-interest, not because the game forces us to.  

I'm not saying that's easy to figure out.  Part of the issue here is that the High / Mid / Low ships aren't necessarily pushed far enough away from each other that, for example, a Paragon is a shield-tank, but not an armor tank, opposite for the Onslaught, with the Conquest firmly between, etc., etc.  

Part of that issue is the universal nature of the Flux system, which has always been an inherent penalty for Energy weapons in general; it's always been pretty problematic that Flux drain is effectively shield-killing damage over time, it's a much bigger problem than Heat management was in the Mechwarrior series.  

I really wish we could split Flux up into weapon Flux and shield Flux and assign the relative number of points of Dissipation to weapons and shields, because that would fix a lot of the things that are causing issues with trying to arrive at good balance and vessel differentiation / tech styles / good, well-balanced pigeonholes atm.  

Anyhow, sorry for the long tangent, it's just all inter-connected.
[close]

Mount sizes have always made sense from a functional standpoint but the arbitrariness and quasi-elemental nature of the mount types that the current system has created doesn't really help much, other than keeping ships pigeonholed, often to the point where there simply aren't any competitive ways to equip them.  So they're unique, but I'll never fly 'em unless I'm really bored, and they might as well have static equipment lists, because the only time I'll see them is when I'm blowing them up.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: RawCode on September 08, 2013, 09:21:34 PM
searing damage for energy weapons fit ANY usage of sci-fi energy weapons including animatter, dark energy, tractorbeams and other stuff, "they all burn through shield, armor, hull and crew with constant efficiency"

for mounts:

uplink - for weapons that require large amount of energy, blabla mount provide direct connection to ship's main reactor
reinforced - for weapons that require recoil handling, blabla mount provide recoil dampers and other stuff

missile mount can - dunno how can be described
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Silver Silence on September 09, 2013, 01:31:05 AM
Phase damage actually seems like a good choice. Though as Xenoargh said, phase damage might imply being able to strike out of phase or at phased ships.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Gothars on September 09, 2013, 08:02:08 AM
Particle damage would be another option, all the energy weapons use particles (if just photons).

"Phase" would just exchange the damage/mount confusion for a damage/phase-cloak confusion.

I don't think it has to be super precise, the other terms aren't either. High Explosives work more like Sabots, Ballistics are far from the only ballistic weapons in the game. It just has to be distinct.

Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: rex on September 09, 2013, 08:31:56 AM
I find it a little confusing.

I mean, there's hull mods that increase distance of energy weapons and the flux bonus applies to energy weapons as well. Do these apply to my beam weapon that does energy damage?

I think the answer is, No and Yes.  Probably. I honestly don't know.

Flux weapon mounts seems sensible enough.

Mount types:
Missile, Ballistic, Flux

Weapon Types:
Missile, Projectile, and Beam (though I would advocate replacing beam with CREW(Coherent Radiation Emitting Weapon) cause i'm a nerd. this is a bad idea and would just confuse people.) 

Still a little confusing with pulse lasers being projectiles, but... uhhh....  it's just sooo silly...  I mean... that's not how lasers work. These should be plasma weapons or something. We have some light that travels instantly fast and other light that is almost as slow as fast bullets.  ARRRRGGG!!!!  Realism. Nerd Rage!  but whatever.


And we can just leave the damage types as is.  just change the descriptions to "increases damage of weapons on flux mounts" and "increases range of projectile weapons."

Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: firstattak1 on September 09, 2013, 09:04:50 AM
To throw in my 2 cents, flux is also confusing. Some one could assume if a mount type was called flux, it would mean it gets rid of flux or that ballistic and missile don't make flux, even though they do.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: rex on September 09, 2013, 09:31:41 AM
Quote from: firstattak1 on September 09, 2013, 09:04:50 AM
To throw in my 2 cents, flux is also confusing. Some one could assume if a mount type was called flux, it would mean it gets rid of flux or that ballistic and missile don't make flux, even though they do.

Ehhh...  yeah... but with the high flux bonus, flux makes more sense than kinda anything else.  Obviously more fluxiness is going to those ports at that time. Folks would figure out pretty quickly that ballistic makes flux.


only other thing I could think of would be 'power'.


seriously anything other than energy would be an improvement. 
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: mendonca on September 09, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
I really have no idea how to beat 'energy' for the mount name, but I accept the argument that it is not ideal.

Hows about an Energy Mount becomes a 'Conduit' - as it is more the means of transferring energy from the ships reactors (or whatever) to the weapon mounted upon this thing?
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: icepick37 on September 09, 2013, 12:46:51 PM
Quote from: Gothars on September 09, 2013, 08:02:08 AM
Particle damage would be another option, all the energy weapons use particles (if just photons).
Ooooo, I quite like that.  :D
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Wyvern on September 09, 2013, 12:48:52 PM
I'll cast another vote for "Particle Damage", with the added note that - in the case of the Mjolnir cannon - it may mean just one really massive particle...
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Hyph_K31 on September 09, 2013, 01:02:35 PM
Voting for a change of mount name. Don't really care what it is, just as long as it is fitting.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: naufrago on September 09, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
I didn't say Phase damage, I said Phase MOUNT. >:(

EDIT: Another argument in favor of renaming Energy mounts to Phase mounts- high flux damage bonus. You could make the argument that high flux levels make it easier to tap into p-space, increasing the amount of power that can be drawn from whatever arcane processes they employ. Calling them Phase mounts increases their affinity with this game's particular brand of space magic.

EDIT 2:
Quote from: Gothars on September 09, 2013, 08:02:08 AM
"Phase" would just exchange the damage/mount confusion for a damage/phase-cloak confusion.

I disagree. Think about the terminology we use that involves 'Phase'– we have phase ships (ships that have a phase cloak), phase cloak (and the associated terms 'phasing in' and 'phasing out'), phase teleporter, phase skimmer, phase beam, and phase charge launcher.

The biggest conflict I see is with the term 'phase ships', since that might be confused as 'any high-tech ship with primarily phase mounts' as opposed to 'any ship with a phase cloak'... but that conflict is easily solved by referring to current 'phase ships' as 'cloak/cloaking ships'.

If you can say for certain that their would be confusion between phase terminology or concepts, I would ask you to provide specific examples where the conflict may occur and is not easily resolved with a small shift in nomenclature.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Wyvern on September 09, 2013, 01:14:00 PM
Quote from: naufrago on September 09, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
I didn't say Phase damage, I said Phase MOUNT. >:(
But then why can't my phase mounts fire while I'm phased?  Or at things that are phased?  >.>  It feels like it implies some interaction with phase mechanics.  Then again, so does the "Phase Beam", but oh well.

My vote is still for either "Particle Damage" or "Powered Mounts" - one of those two (but probably not both).
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: naufrago on September 09, 2013, 01:44:11 PM
Quote from: Wyvern on September 09, 2013, 01:14:00 PM
Quote from: naufrago on September 09, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
I didn't say Phase damage, I said Phase MOUNT. >:(
But then why can't my phase mounts fire while I'm phased?  Or at things that are phased?  >.>  It feels like it implies some interaction with phase mechanics.  Then again, so does the "Phase Beam", but oh well.

Don't the phase teleporter and phase skimmer imply some interaction with phase mechanics? Imo, 'phase' just means that it taps into p-space at some level- the skimmer and teleporter use it tunnel through regular space quickly, the cloak uses it to avoid interaction with the real world and to travel at increased speed. 'Phase mount' would imply that it draws additional power from p-space.

You will have people who get confused that you can't fire Phase weapons while phased, but it's fairly minor confusion that players will quickly discover isn't the case either through trial-and-error or some tutorial or description text. And as you mentioned, the Phase beam already would have the same confusion associated with it, but we somehow manage. =p
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Hari Seldon on September 09, 2013, 02:23:09 PM
Quote from: naufrago on September 09, 2013, 01:44:11 PM
Quote from: Wyvern on September 09, 2013, 01:14:00 PM
Quote from: naufrago on September 09, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
I didn't say Phase damage, I said Phase MOUNT. >:(
But then why can't my phase mounts fire while I'm phased?  Or at things that are phased?  >.>  It feels like it implies some interaction with phase mechanics.  Then again, so does the "Phase Beam", but oh well.

Don't the phase teleporter and phase skimmer imply some interaction with phase mechanics? Imo, 'phase' just means that it taps into p-space at some level- the skimmer and teleporter use it tunnel through regular space quickly, the cloak uses it to avoid interaction with the real world and to travel at increased speed. 'Phase mount' would imply that it draws additional power from p-space.

You will have people who get confused that you can't fire Phase weapons while phased, but it's fairly minor confusion that players will quickly discover isn't the case either through trial-and-error or some tutorial or description text. And as you mentioned, the Phase beam already would have the same confusion associated with it, but we somehow manage. =p

Sorry but "phase mount" doesn't really work for all of its associated weapons because low-tech energy weapons like lasers in real life don't need p-space interaction.  That's why I like powered mounts because what you're really trying to say is "this mount gets bonus damage when you have high flux" and "powered mount" sounds similar to "energy mount"
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Thaago on September 09, 2013, 02:28:24 PM
Quote from: mendonca on September 09, 2013, 10:06:52 AM
I really have no idea how to beat 'energy' for the mount name, but I accept the argument that it is not ideal.

Hows about an Energy Mount becomes a 'Conduit' - as it is more the means of transferring energy from the ships reactors (or whatever) to the weapon mounted upon this thing?

I like 'Conduit Mount' as well. It conveys that these weapons are hooking into the power grid. The only thing we use 'conduit' for is the reinforced flux conduits - which I think is appropriate and not at all confusing.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: xenoargh on September 09, 2013, 04:00:36 PM
The only problem I have with "conduit" is that it's not a word the non-nerds will get.  That, and it's probably a little hard to localize. 

I like that word, "grid", though- short, has that electrical / energy connotation...

Grid Mounts?  E-Grid?  P-Grid Mounts?
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Gothars on September 09, 2013, 04:22:25 PM
I would prefer renaming the mount over renaming the damage, too. But neither Conduit Mount nor Powered Mount I like as much as Searing Damage, Thermic Damage or Particle Damage (although I get that searing might be associated with cooking for native speakers). Mhhhh....

Active mount?



Quote from: naufrago on September 09, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
I disagree. Think about the terminology we use that involves 'Phase'– we have phase ships (ships that have a phase cloak), phase cloak (and the associated terms 'phasing in' and 'phasing out'), phase teleporter, phase skimmer, phase beam, and phase charge launcher.

The biggest conflict I see is with the term 'phase ships', since that might be confused as 'any high-tech ship with primarily phase mounts' as opposed to 'any ship with a phase cloak'... but that conflict is easily solved by referring to current 'phase ships' as 'cloak/cloaking ships'.


Phase charges are proximity charges now :)

So, aside from the phase beam (and I really don't get why Alex doesn't change its name), all name-wise phase related stuff is directly tied into the lore concept of p-space and not otherwise explainable (without inventing a lot of new techno babble).


Quote from: naufrago on September 09, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
If you can say for certain that their would be confusion between phase terminology or concepts, I would ask you to provide specific examples where the conflict may occur and is not easily resolved with a small shift in nomenclature.

This whole 5-page thread is about "a small shift in nomenclature" ;)



Quote from: xenoargh on September 09, 2013, 04:00:36 PM
Grid Mounts?  E-Grid?  P-Grid Mounts?

Full circle, see OP^^

But it's not bad, could get used to it...


Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Hari Seldon on September 09, 2013, 04:25:50 PM
Quote from: Gothars on September 09, 2013, 04:22:25 PM
I would prefer renaming the mount over renaming the damage, too. But neither Conduit Mount nor Powered Mount I like as much as Searing Damage, Thermic Damage or Particle Damage (although I get that searing might be associated with cooking for native speakers). Mhhhh....

Active mount?



Quote from: naufrago on September 09, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
I disagree. Think about the terminology we use that involves 'Phase'– we have phase ships (ships that have a phase cloak), phase cloak (and the associated terms 'phasing in' and 'phasing out'), phase teleporter, phase skimmer, phase beam, and phase charge launcher.

The biggest conflict I see is with the term 'phase ships', since that might be confused as 'any high-tech ship with primarily phase mounts' as opposed to 'any ship with a phase cloak'... but that conflict is easily solved by referring to current 'phase ships' as 'cloak/cloaking ships'.


Phase charges are proximity charges now :)

So, aside from the phase beam (and I really don't get why Alex doesn't change its name), all name-wise phase related stuff is directly tied into the lore concept of p-space and not otherwise explainable (without inventing a lot of new techno babble).


Quote from: naufrago on September 09, 2013, 01:09:22 PM
If you can say for certain that their would be confusion between phase terminology or concepts, I would ask you to provide specific examples where the conflict may occur and is not easily resolved with a small shift in nomenclature.

This whole 5-page thread is about "a small shift in nomenclature" ;)



Quote from: xenoargh on September 09, 2013, 04:00:36 PM
Grid Mounts?  E-Grid?  P-Grid Mounts?

Full circle, see OP^^

But it's not bad, could get used to it...




Charged mount?  Overcharged mount?
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Gotcha! on September 09, 2013, 04:29:21 PM
So, after 5 pages of, in my opinion, please do not shoot me, poor substitutes, I wonder what Alex thinks of all this.
Is he even planning on changing it?
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Hyph_K31 on September 09, 2013, 05:01:51 PM
In all honesty, I don't really think it needs to be changed at all. It would be nice, sure, but is it really that hard to figure out? Perhaps we're being a little pedantic about this.

When it comes to conversation, and making out the difference between an a weapon that deals energy damage, and one that is an energy type mount, it's really just a trivial matter to make that distinction.

It's a simple matter to figure out the difference between energy damage and energy mounts, because they've got labels on them.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: xenoargh on September 09, 2013, 05:06:21 PM
This thread's basically just Nerds Being Bored. I don't think any of us think it's some do-or-die thing :)
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Hyph_K31 on September 09, 2013, 05:24:25 PM
Quote from: xenoargh on September 09, 2013, 05:06:21 PM
This thread's basically just Nerds Being Bored. I don't think any of us think it's some do-or-die thing :)

 ::) I'm bored too! You may notice how many times I've changed my mind in this thread... Yuch.

If there's no real reason to discuss this, perhaps it should be moved elsewhere? Like general discussions.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: RawCode on September 09, 2013, 06:31:20 PM
IMHO

to evoid confusion different things shoud not share same words.

phase mount is bad cos there is phase clock available.

flux mount is bad cos flux is present as ship runtime stat.

emp mount is plain stupid cos emp is just side effect of some weapons.

if energy damage XOR energy mount renamed, no additional actions required, no things will share same word after this change.

energy mount can be renamed to something like conduit, uplink, torrent, vortex or any other word that describe energy flow required for energy based weapons to operate, name shoud evoid usage of "power" or "energy" directly.

energy damage can be renamed into searing or particle or something, cooking reference is actually OK.
for non cooking it can be called fusion damage, it also describe well how hienergy effect matter.

is someone dont like hiexplosive damage, it can be called shattering, it also describe well effect of this weapon type on ship's armor.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: BillyRueben on September 09, 2013, 06:39:14 PM
Quote from: xenoargh on September 09, 2013, 04:00:36 PM
The only problem I have with "conduit" is that it's not a word the non-nerds will get.

Conduit is also a very "electrical" term. I spent a good chunk of today putting some in at work.

http://www.mcmaster.com/#standard-electrical-conduit/=oftrai

Again, bored, so I had to nitpick.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: xenoargh on September 09, 2013, 06:46:21 PM
Well, that's sort of the good/bad about "conduit"; it has that connotation, but it's not a word that every random Joe will immediately think, "gee, that has something to do with energy, power, lasers" (sharks not included).  

I think "E-Grid" might have something going for it.  It's not as marginally-meaningful as "circuit", "conduit" or even "powered", and it's short and simple and would probably translate well (the "E" can be the first letter of the local version of "Energy"). Plus it has that cool Star Wars-ish naming convention to it- it sounds like something a Wookie would know how to fix.

Completely tangentially- honestly, I have always thought HE should be renamed "Armor Piercing", since that's what it actually does.

High Explosives generally are used for killing things with compression, but HE in the game is shaped-charge stuff.  But that's like, a whole 'nother (and probably equally-silly) topic :)
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: RawCode on September 09, 2013, 10:28:21 PM
little thread hijack
HE does not pierce armor, it shatter armor and remove armor plates from hull.
armor piercing rounds ignore portion of armor.

for energy, this game is sci-fi, it shoud not contain only terms that everyone knows, in other case, we also must rename tachyon and phase cloak and other terms that not from everyday life.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Axiege on September 10, 2013, 12:14:53 PM
I don't know if it's already been sugessted, but how about Photon Mounts?

I do think consistency across the mount naming conventions is important, and like I pointed out earlier, Ballistic and Missile Mounts are both named for kind of projectile they fire that delivers the damage to the enemy. In the case of lasers and beams, it's kind of hard to define that since we percieve the beam instantaneously traveling to its destination. Unless, we explore the physcial properties of light.

That, or Particle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_beam) Mounts, which would probably be better, since that would give more flexibility in terms of damage type, since a beam of pure light would likely only be able to be intensified. I think this also works better for blaster type weapons as well.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Gotcha! on September 10, 2013, 07:30:45 PM
Particle, photon, proton, electron, phase, laser, plasma, tachyon, pulse, disruptor, dark energy, dark matter, it's all (fictional) energy.
Thus all of these names would be ridiculous, no offense. Renaming energy weapons to one of these would leave out all other energy based weapons.

Generator/Dynamo/Battery etc. is at least logical for mounts and Alex would do well to leave the weapons at Energy, since there's simply no better word for it in the entire galaxy. Yes, that includes the Sirius VII Zarkonian Book of Infinite Words and Logic.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: mendonca on September 11, 2013, 12:48:52 AM
It's pretty simple, but I think for me the best alternative is 'active' mounts, and 'energy' damage. It's clear enough, concise, doesn't require a mastery of any particular language, and gets the message across without being too clever.

At the end of the day I think it's about distinction more than trying to be clever with words (as fun as being clever with words actually is) so I'll go out on a limb and say that is my favourite so far.

I like 'particle' damage, but probably due to Transcendence I always see Particle as a sub-type of 'energy', so I'm a bit unsure about that. 'Searing' is cool, but again a bit too specific for my taste. Personally I don't think going for 'Photon' or 'Particle' or similar for the type of mount feels right - again a bit too specific for something (the mount) which is very general in it's nature (and presumably construction).
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: PCCL on September 11, 2013, 12:51:04 AM
Assuming there wont be too many exceptions to the energy mount energy damage thing, id say leaving the two as is might be best. Seems intuitive for the new players
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: icepick37 on September 11, 2013, 11:11:58 AM
All matter acts like both particles and waves, so I don't feel like particle damage is too specific. (even if it's anti-particles or whatever, haha).

This whole thing is so subjective though. No matter what change is made (even if it's no change) someone won't like it, haha.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: Gotcha! on September 11, 2013, 11:28:57 AM
If you look at it that way then particle is the worst choice of them all, since it'd group energy, ballistic and missile weapons.
Title: Re: New name for energy weapons?
Post by: icepick37 on September 11, 2013, 11:48:01 AM
Haha. I just meant it is a suitable synonym for energy.

At the macro level matter does not act like that.  :)