Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95a is out! (03/26/21)

Poll

New name for energy damage/mounts?

Yay
Nay

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6

Author Topic: New name for energy weapons?  (Read 20592 times)

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2735
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #60 on: September 09, 2013, 01:14:00 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).
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

naufrago

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #61 on: September 09, 2013, 01:44:11 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
Logged

Hari Seldon

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #62 on: September 09, 2013, 02:23:09 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"
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 02:24:49 PM by Hari Seldon »
Logged
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Salvor Hardin, Foundation

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5220
  • Quantum Mechanic
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2013, 02:28:24 PM »

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.
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4912
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #64 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?
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4281
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #65 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?



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).


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" ;)



Grid Mounts?  E-Grid?  P-Grid Mounts?

Full circle, see OP^^

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


Logged
The game was completed 8 years ago and we get a free expansion every year.

Arranging holidays in an embrace with the Starsector is priceless.

Hari Seldon

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #66 on: September 09, 2013, 04:25:50 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?



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).


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" ;)



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?
Logged
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." - Salvor Hardin, Foundation

Gotcha!

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1113
    • View Profile
    • Welcome to New Hiigara
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #67 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?
Logged
  

Hyph_K31

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • O' Hear My Name and Tremble! Ug Ug.
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #68 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.
Logged

"GEDUNE, stop venting in front of your classmates!"

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4912
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #69 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 :)
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

Hyph_K31

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • O' Hear My Name and Tremble! Ug Ug.
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #70 on: September 09, 2013, 05:24:25 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.
Logged

"GEDUNE, stop venting in front of your classmates!"

RawCode

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #71 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.
Logged

BillyRueben

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1406
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #72 on: September 09, 2013, 06:39:14 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.
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4912
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #73 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 :)
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

RawCode

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #74 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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6