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 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic: New name for energy weapons?  (Read 20579 times)

Talkie Toaster

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #45 on: September 08, 2013, 05:25:18 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.
Logged

Hyph_K31

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • O' Hear My Name and Tremble! Ug Ug.
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #46 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?
Logged

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

naufrago

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #47 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.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 08:21:08 PM by naufrago »
Logged

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4912
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #48 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.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2013, 09:19:03 PM by xenoargh »
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

RawCode

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #49 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
Logged

Silver Silence

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #50 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.
Logged

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4281
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #51 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.

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.

rex

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #52 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."

Logged

firstattak1

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #53 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.
Logged

rex

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #54 on: September 09, 2013, 09:31:41 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. 
Logged

mendonca

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1157
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #55 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?
Logged


"I'm doing it, I'm making them purple! No one can stop me!"

icepick37

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1788
  • Go.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #56 on: September 09, 2013, 12:46:51 PM »

Particle damage would be another option, all the energy weapons use particles (if just photons).
Ooooo, I quite like that.  :D
Logged
“I [may] not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Voltaire

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2733
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #57 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...
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

Hyph_K31

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1605
  • O' Hear My Name and Tremble! Ug Ug.
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #58 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.
Logged

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

naufrago

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #59 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:
"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.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2013, 01:29:11 PM by naufrago »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6