Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Planet Search Overhaul (07/13/24)

Show Posts

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.

Messages - Iscariot

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 57
Discussions / Re: What's Your Phobia?
« on: April 18, 2012, 05:29:35 PM »
Or you could be using a deer slug...

Deer slugs will go clear through drywall. Believe me.

Missing with a pistol means a hole you can put a stamp over. Missing with a shotgun means a hole you need to put furniture over.

Probably not a relevant concern if you're fighting off a home invader :D


See, EMP torps were a classic case of not worth it - though they were ok when used by your escorts who got free ammo refills.  IR and Radar missiles were the other ones that I considered worth it.  Polaris torps were powerful, but annoying to restock - and if you could get them at all, you could also get devastating beam weaponry and didn't need the torps.

Ravens suffered from a critical flaw; the problem isn't that they were dumbfire; the problem is that EVN ship graphics were these oh-so-pretty 3/4 view graphics that didn't match the underlying 2D engine, so you couldn't actually aim with a dumbfire weapon.  You may note that almost every "fixed" blaster type weapon in the game was actually a front-quadrant turret that auto-aimed...  Their equivalent in the original EV was actually a quite usable weapon, solely because the graphics were a much closer match to the game mechanics.

I dunno, I wasn't that annoyed to restock wraithii, and polaran torps were so murderously useful that I can't think of a reason not to use them, especially given the extremely short ranged and limited nature of capacitor pulse lasers; good as they were, they didnt' stop you from being mobbed, and it was a pain to aim them up close.

I agree on the Ravens, although I'd say that being dumbfire seriously didn't help their case, and compounded their inherent problems.

I don't, because what that actually accomplishes is no growth.  Find a weapon set you can use, and then never even experiment with other things because it's just too expensive.  Now, having some weapons rare and hard to find, sure.  But don't make it extra-painful to try to fight with a weapon system you don't know how to use well yet - that's bad enough already.

The key is finding the sweet spot in cost, where you can experiment to some degree if you field a particular weapon on one or a few ships, but the costs may become prohibitive if you implement too widely without the proper economic base.

And that's just a matter of playtesting. I don't accept the idea that you need to be able to spam munitions around like a child in order to understand their usage.

To solve the weapons testing problem: Couldn't we just have an in-game "weapons range"? Pick your ship, pick your loadout, pick a target, and go.

Also a decent idea.

Discussions / Re: What's Your Phobia?
« on: April 18, 2012, 03:38:44 PM »
Yeah, a pistol's gonna go through drywall too, anything worth putting into an assailant will, in the end, but at least it's only one projectile I have to take care of, and not a spread of buck.

'Missing' with a pistol means not hitting your target. 'Missing' with a shotgun means not putting all of the shot pattern on your target-- a considerably higher bar.

I dunno, I think that's a good thing. The game would be very short and uninteresting indeed if you could dabble with all the available weapons, settle on your particular optimal loadout, and then go on kicking ass for the rest of your career. I like the idea of pained and costly growth.

Discussions / Re: What's Your Phobia?
« on: April 18, 2012, 03:09:30 PM »
Safer than me. Personally speaking, I don't understand the point of having a firearm and keeping it hopelessly unavailable in your home. I guess if you're a sport shooter and think that you will never, ever, need to use it for home defense.

Which is why I wouldn't buy a shotgun, honestly. First off, the 870 and most other commercial shotguns have freaking 20'' barrels, which make them awful inside a house, they've got like eight or so rounds max, and unless you're using slugs (which would be overkill), you have to put your entire shot pattern on your target, otherwise loose pellets will go flying through your drywall-- potentially into family members, friends, or loved ones.

A shotgun is just not a good home defense weapon. I'd rather use a handgun-- and I do.


Well, lore trumps everything so point taken.

About the conversion though, no I'm not talking about turning energy into mass... I'm talking about spending all that stored energy in a burst to maximize the DPS.  Hence the nuclear bomb example where you can use the reaction as more stable power source for smaller energy draw but for longer time, or in one big bang in an explosion for maximum carnage in shortest time frame available.

But since the lore says these engines are only unlimited while they work slowly, so I have no choice but to bow to the all mighty lore sorcery ;D

Damn the wizards!

Damn the wizards indeed! I'm not entirely happy about reactionless drives, but I guess it's a necessity given that even I wouldn't want to worry about fuel in-system.

Are you honestly going for logic card when the lore just tossed in infinite source of energy? :P

BTW, why is the universe so unstable when they basically have unlimited energy source?

It's not the logic card, it's the verisimilitude card. All sci fi settings inevitably strain logic and plausibility, the question is how internally consistent they can remain given their outlandish premises.

And I don't have an honestly good explanation for that. A lack of human knowledge, I guess. They don't know how to apply their unlimited energy toward the uses they need it for. So they're stuck warring over stuff.

In reference to EVN: railguns didn't have ammo limits at all.  Chainguns did, and I never used those - they just weren't worth the hassle, even if the ammo was cheap.

Hellhounds... yeah, hellhounds were one of the few worth-using missile systems... at least, once you had a few billion credits and didn't care about price tag of ammo.  Of course, they were also insanely OP - for a starfarer equivalent, imagine swarmer missiles that move twice as fast and hit like atropos torpedos.

Sorry, it's been a while since I played EVN, you're right. I did use the quad chainguns as point defense, but you're right that I didn't mount them as my own main guns. Probably more because I never, ever, flew anything less than a Valkyrie into combat in that game, but whatever. Anyway, there were plenty of other worth using missile systems. All of the freaking Polaran ones for one (*shakes fist at holier-than-thou douchebags*), EMP torps, hell, the stocks of IR and Radar missiles were so large that you could spam the hell out of them and get a nice bonus to your DPS. The only ones I didn't use were stellar grenades and ravens, because they were both dumbfire.

All I'm saying is that accepting a flat cost after battle to account for ammunition will probably result in more expenses than if you had a properly scaled system taking into account your actual use of ammo.

I also have supremely little respect for the malingering over the improper use of torpedoes :P If you don't have a shot, don't shoot 'em.

So you're willing to accept a flat cost based on fielded ships, but not a scaling cost based on actual sum of munitions expended? That.... doesn't make sense.

I use ballistics all the time, in this game and in earlier games like Escape Velocity, and I never had a problem with it. Magazines for railguns in EV Nova were huge, and hellhounds were too awesome NOT to use them. Blasters and beams were for pussies.

From a gameplay and not plausibility perspective, I am for either supplies being consumed or a separate ammo stock because it imposes strategic differences between different fleet compositions. It's also plausible and cool.
While it is both plausible and cool, it would also be very simple to just buy WAY more ammo than you would ever need and be fine for the rest of the game. I'm fine with supplies being used to restock ammo and missiles, but a separate ammo stockpile just seems like needless complexity.

As I said earlier, I'm not opposed to ammo drawing from generic supplies. Actually, cp has pretty much convinced me that it'd be better to do so.

Discussions / Re: What's Your Phobia?
« on: April 18, 2012, 12:08:24 PM »
Ah, I'm fond of the 870, though I'll probably never buy a shotgun. Just no real point.

I personally don't think that in battle repairs ought to make a difference outside of starting up your engines or bringing gun batteries online, but repair drones already have their own sprites so I've resigned myself to the understanding that yes, there will be in-battle repairs.

I guess that just makes me a different sort of player. I'm less interested in the immediacy of combat, the flashy explosions, than I am in the immersion in the game world, the feeling of being a captain that exists in such a setting.

It's the same deal for me in first person shooters. I think regenerating health-- CoD style shooters-- are just childish. For more than one reason.

Violating conservation of momentum allows you to create perpetual motion machines, which means infinite energy. You can handwave in a limit, but I think the game itself shows that effectively infinite electricity is indeed in effect.

From a gameplay and not plausibility perspective, I am for either supplies being consumed or a separate ammo stock because it imposes strategic differences between different fleet compositions. It's also plausible and cool.

Suggestions / Re: Blow It To Pieces! (Detached damaged ship parts)
« on: April 18, 2012, 07:18:30 AM »
To be honest, I'm not that into the self destruct either.

Suggestions / Re: Blow It To Pieces! (Detached damaged ship parts)
« on: April 18, 2012, 06:52:47 AM »

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 57