Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

31

Discussions / Re: Nexus 2 on Kickstarter! Help fund the most engaging tactical 3D space game ever!

« on: October 05, 2012, 12:17:11 PM »

if only they jumped onto the bandwagon sooner 

32

General Discussion / Re: Sunders!

« on: October 05, 2012, 12:14:42 PM »

its a wasted opportunity at a good LR support ship. the thing can keep itself away from harm fairly well so the small missiles and small ballistics are of no use to it. if the slots were medium missiles and those 3 small ballistics turned into 1 medium then i'd have some reason to actually use them.

33

Suggestions / Re: new damage type: incendiary

« on: October 04, 2012, 03:07:20 PM »

It's totally possible for things to burn in space. How do you think rocket engines work?

that's not "in space", that's "inside the missile located in space". of course it can burn since it's located on the inside of something. when the fire is directly outside, it cannot burn since it has nothing to fuel it.

but something like a "incendiary gel round",

read the expanded hellbore cannon lore in the codex.

Sorry, but you are just wrong


"If something is in space but sealed in an airless container it will burn, but if it is in space with no air and no container, it wont burn."
The oxides or whatever(they contain oxygen) in the fuel allow it to burn without gassified oxygen

i am wrong because i didn't want to include something everyone should already know? seems legit.

34

Suggestions / Re: new damage type: incendiary

« on: October 04, 2012, 12:55:24 PM »

Its entirely possible to get things to burn in a vacuum if they carry along their own components: gunpowder will detonate just fine as it carries its own carbon and nitrates (that contain oxygen). But really it doesn't matter at all how "realistic" something is.

The question that matters: Should a damage over time effect be included in Starfarer? What does it add to the gameplay?

I'm against damage over time because I can't think of how it will add to gameplay. If people want to change my mind with interesting examples then feel free.

and that viewpoint doesn't stand in space based anything, partial realism is a very mandatory trait for this genre. and now i introduce you to mohs scale of sci fi hardness


thank you milord for giving us lowly peasantry a chance to voice our opinions to our humble overlord :eyeroll:

35

General Discussion / Re: Surprisingly Dangerous Weapons

« on: October 04, 2012, 12:32:15 PM »

AP's are good against cruisers and most low-tech ships but I find that most caps can just soak up the damage with shields.

the only capital that can really shield-tank that is the paragon.

- the onslaught is so terrible with its flux that it can't really use it's shield that often
- the conquest should just have its shield removed, as its suicidal to block anything with that
- the odyssey is OK-ish, but it's pretty much forced into a defensive stance

36

Suggestions / Re: new damage type: incendiary

« on: October 04, 2012, 10:45:59 AM »

It's totally possible for things to burn in space. How do you think rocket engines work?

that's not "in space", that's "inside the missile located in space". of course it can burn since it's located on the inside of something. when the fire is directly outside, it cannot burn since it has nothing to fuel it.

but something like a "incendiary gel round",

read the expanded hellbore cannon lore in the codex.

37

Discussions / Re: Mount and Blade 2

« on: October 03, 2012, 12:07:04 PM »

My point still stands.

only in your mind it does, so there's no point in arguing with you.

38

Suggestions / Re: new damage type: incendiary

« on: October 01, 2012, 10:46:10 PM »

http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=1928.0

http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=2703.0

we've been over this already.

internal fires can't work due to you blowing a huge hole in hull and making all the science oxygen leak out.

39

Discussions / Re: Mount and Blade 2

« on: October 01, 2012, 04:59:34 PM »

Who cares that it's in production if there's no gameplay or information released at all? Not even telling us if it's on the same crap engine or not.

did you not read the part where i pointed out what the purpose of the advert was?

40

Discussions / Re: Mount and Blade 2

« on: October 01, 2012, 04:30:33 PM »

Er?

stop bashing it

did you not bother to read the post where that originated from and try to form context?

41

Suggestions / Re: Kinetic mass rounds.

« on: October 01, 2012, 11:05:31 AM »

The one thing that DID make loads of sense in this book was the presence of a factory-ship to produce supplies for the fleet it was part of...

Say whatver you want but the bigger a fleet is, the more logistical support it needs, and having a fleet make all the road back to a specialised space station instead of just making what they need off what they can find by themselves is just a straight up *** idea...

But space is largely empty and you won't find much out there to begin with.

For extended exploration some small degree of self sufficiency via production of basic materials (refinery for fuel, most common & basic spare parts production and water/oxygen extractors) would make some sense but otherwise it would be better to just pack more supplies than waste space on tools to make the supplies out of... well, unfinished supplies that needs to be put together.  Unless space traveling tech uses fuel that is readily available throughout the galaxy and can easily be refined on the spot, then having mobile refinery would make sense but that's pretty unlikely imo.

Then again a large fleet for extended exploration makes zero sense to begin with... would rather go with small unmanned drones which saves heaps on cargo since you don't have to feed/shelter anyone, which takes loads of supplies on its own.

then you'd rather loose an entire fleet due to fuel shortage rather than spare the OP to have a ship to PREVENT that scenario ?

In the finished game fuel WILL be needed to jump from sector to sector, hence if you didn't have a ship to produce fuel out of supplies and you run out you're pretty much f*cked.

eh, firstly all you're doing is trading fuel for supplies, in which case if you run out you run into the problem either way, so it's not really a preventative measure.

secondly, yes, yes i would. having to actually manage a supply line or wondering if your destination has a fuel/supply depot is far more interesting and thought provoking than having a refinery ship and trivializing 2 aspects of the game and make a line of ships moot.

I'm suggesting this as a way for orbital bombardment and a way to eliminate "fixed" defences such as space stations in orbit.
The projectiles aren't actual rocks. They're basically giant bullets. The projectile is launched from a set distance. And after a time nails the target. This of course would be useless against ships because ships could dodge it rather easily.

ships can barely shoot eachother at knife range, they are not going to be able to shoot something several millions of kilometers away. that and the domain of man apparently have an issue with super long range weapons, as the tachyon lance only has a mere ~3500 range as opposed to the > 299,792,458 range it could have.

42

Discussions / Re: Mount and Blade 2

« on: October 01, 2012, 10:33:10 AM »

It's funny that people are defending that pos of an advertisement here when even the folks on Taleworld's thought it was stupid.

where did they say that?

who's "defending" the advert?

43

Discussions / Re: Which One?

« on: October 01, 2012, 10:22:08 AM »

Armoured Core V and XCOM

44

Discussions / Re: Which One?

« on: October 01, 2012, 12:41:43 AM »

assassins creed and XCOM

45

Discussions / Re: Mount and Blade 2

« on: September 30, 2012, 09:10:06 AM »

guys:

Announcement Teaser

stop bashing it since you obviously don't know the function of one :

it's not to raise hype ( that's what actual gameplay TRAILERS are for ), it's to raise awareness that it is in production.