Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Poll

New name for energy damage/mounts?

Yay
Nay

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6

Author Topic: New name for energy weapons?  (Read 20752 times)

Gothars

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4283
  • Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity.
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #30 on: September 04, 2013, 02:59:17 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.


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.
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.

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5448
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #31 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.
Logged

icepick37

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1788
  • Go.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #32 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.
Logged
“I [may] not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Voltaire

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 5448
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #33 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 ;)
Logged

Wyvern

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2817
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #34 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."
Logged
Wyvern is 100% correct about the math.

xenoargh

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4922
  • naively breaking things!
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #35 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.
Logged
Please check out my SS projects :)
Xeno's Mod Pack

PCCL

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1996
  • still gunnyfreak
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #36 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
Logged
mmm.... tartiflette

Sonlirain

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 143
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #37 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.
Logged

icepick37

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1788
  • Go.
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #38 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.
Logged
“I [may] not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
- Voltaire

Ravendarke

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • Nemesis
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #39 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.
Logged

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 3151
    • View Profile
    • Bitbucket profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #40 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:
  • High-Explosive: shoots an exploding shell (or missile)
  • Kinetic: shoots a non-exploding shell (or missile)
  • Fragmentation: shoots a small non-exploding pellet, or an exploding shell that produces lots of small non-exploding pellets
  • Energy: shoots a laser, a plasma bolt, or other typical sci-fi item

  • Ballistic: mounts a cannon
  • Energy: mounts a lazor
  • Missile: mounts a missile

As noted before, there are two exceptions to the "energy damage = energy mount" rule. However, it is my view that:
  • In discussions, which of the two (mount or damage type) is being referred to by the term "energy" can often be determined from the context, and the confusion engendered by mixing up the two is very unlikely to result in significant errors (again: only two exceptions).
  • Ingame, a newbie doesn't need to know what the two exceptions are, and when she does encounter them it takes about 1 second of looking at the tooltip with its huge mount and damage type icons to identify them. Plus, Graviton Beam has "beam" in its name, glows with flux bonus where Mjonir doesn't, and the text descriptions of both weapons explain why they do special damage.
« Last Edit: September 04, 2013, 10:13:10 PM by Histidine »
Logged

Axiege

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 903
  • What a brave and loving name.
    • View Profile
    • My Youtube Channel
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #41 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.

Vulpes

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 42
    • View Profile
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #42 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"

Logged

Talkie Toaster

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 204
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #43 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.
Logged

Ravendarke

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
  • Nemesis
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: New name for energy weapons?
« Reply #44 on: September 08, 2013, 05:02:18 PM »

I don´t see how "pure dmg" fit any possible sci-fi universe "feeling".
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6