Say hypothetically...

Talk about all things to do with the acclaimed 4X title.

Moderator: Erinys

Post Reply
User avatar
rytram
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:09 am

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by rytram » Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:33 pm

i think ya'll are misunderstanding my last comment. or rather taking it too literal.

i will try to rephrase. in SoTS. when you choose the weapons to equip on the ship. all mounts have a predetermined effective radius..or as i was stating, an arc. like this turret has a 90 degree Fov in which it can fire, that turret has a 100 degree FoV. on destroyers. you often have a limited amount of turrets. and none of them are particularly good for Point Defense. i happen to have most of my experience playing Liir (as the avatar suggests) on their ships a basic armor class ship has 5 small mounts and a missile rack. on that ship the best turret to use PD is the top center it has something like a 320 degree FoV. this is actually pretty decent. but it leaves the rear exposed to missiles, which is usually the place where u get a missile shoved up your ass when running from something like a asteroid monitor or a derelict. so, you have to place another PD in the rear mount which has like a 170 degree Fov. both mounting positions house a single small mount. the front mount both has around 270 degree Fov. this is the standard setup before any other command sections or Drive sections are acquired. with new sections comes a different configuration with different FoV.

my only thought was that if PD turrets had their own specific FoV to make them more effective. actually, i did state that each weapon type would have its own specific FoV instead of that FoV being dependant on what mount was chosen. this would allow us to further customize how our ships are designed and built. lets say the common laser mount would have a 180 degree FoV and a 70 degree pitch. you could choose to place it on the left and right side and then adjust the angle to face more forward or to the rear. you could choose to place a PD turret on the top mount and the PD would have a 270-360 Fov for best coverage, ETC.

you see. 2 of you chose to focus on a small portion of what i said and make it literal, i wasnt saying HAY MECRON, LETS PUT Phalanx CIWS's on our space ships. nope, i didnt say that. i was merely using it as a reference on how the PD works and its accuracy and FoV.

Mecron thought i wanted to locate mounts wherever i wanted on the hull and not in specific locations, which also isnt what i was saying. to top it off, after i shared my thoughts i asked him what he thought. he then essentially scoffed (in traditional Mecron fashion) and then tried to Jargin me with war tactic mumbo jumbo which was baseless. so i told him to look up to look it up. the intention of the reply was to state that with modern technology. in fact as early as 1977 we have had an anti missile/air defense turret capable of the shit i was explaining, which made the assumption that in a far distant future of SoTS that this Technology would be a basic concept.

which leads to
Rossinna-Sama said: ""Which is operating in a planetary atmosphere and doesn't have to deal with the conditions found in deep space, not to mention if it was actually hit by anything resembling a SOTS-style weapon, it'd shatter in an instant."
HERP DERP HERP DERP

like i said. too fucking literal. and a pretty dumb reply. not at all what i was suggesting. and MECRON gives it the ol thumbs up which leads me to believe he had no damn clue what i was saying either.

Fivve was actually paying attention and made a good point, but his point doesnt necessarily mean my idea wasnt reasonable. it was merely an idea anyway.

the entire point of this damn thread is to share ideas. it isnt attention seeking. hell, even this post isnt for the purpose of seeking attention. it is for the purpose of clarification and maybe challenging some people to properly read shit before replying.

Mecron. i get that you are essentially the God of your own game. but when you make a thread asking for feedback and suggestions try to take some of them with a grain of salt. i keep telling you that not all ideas will be good. but there is no point in ridiculing people for sharing their ideas. you are your only PR, and you are doing a shitty job of being the PR person. you are NOT the average forum member. i swear it is your favorite pass time to come on these threads and bash on your own fan base. i am not talking about your interactions with me specifically. anyone could go on any of your threads and read to see this. in fact there are a few people whom have pointed this same thing out before. you know what a REALLY good idea is? dont respond to comments or ideas you do not like or agree with. respond only to the ones worth your attention that makes sense to you. if you wanna troll and shitpost. dont shit where you sleep. honestly, it makes me question if you are even serious about selling your games lol. because, people can be quite stubborn and decide to not support a company whom disrespects their own fan base much like you yourself often do. that being said. id probably still buy a SoTS HD. because i like sots. but as far as your other games. forget it. hell. id still buy Sots even if the Franchise was sold to a different company. which honestly feels like the only way we will ever get a new SoTS lately anyway. you are too arrogant and stubborn for your own good Mecron. MOST of my comments have been suggestions to help the future of SoTS and KERB. you only chose to take insult where it was not intended. the other posts were meant to show some teeth because they were responses to your needlessly rude replies.

since i have been active. i have made suggestions on not only features and mechanics of the game. but uneducated suggestions on how to secure the funding for the development of the game and its advertisement. hell i have even gone to my local tabletop game store and asked them about stocking your "SOTS: TP board game" to try and help you. i have been careful to not suggest you to just sell the damn IP to someone else better equipped to see it through. and that is mostly because we dont know what we could expect from that game if it were. and you are clearly the most reliable team to develop the game....if you even can. after all. funding IS the issue. not desire. so pleeeease. fuck off with all that rude shit and being insulted all the time when someone shares an idea.

BTW Mecron. hows the mole?
Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!

User avatar
fivve
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:57 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by fivve » Sun Feb 10, 2019 9:37 pm

Rytram, I think there has been some serious misunderstanding here.

I think they were referring to the trend in regards to Warship designs in general across all strategy games where the rear is always vulnerable. For example Star Wars: Empire at War, Sins of a Solar Empire, Battlefleet Gothic Armada, Homeworld, Endless Space, I could go through my entire collection, as I've seen that issue in pretty much every game, but that would be sad.

I always thought that the rear was poorly defended for 2 reasons... 1) The engine cluster pretty much dominates the rear end. 2) It can only be intentional as I have noticed it everywhere, so we will be more tactical when deploying ships in combat. SotS on the other hand gives us the spin option so we can spin a ship round to take out any incoming missiles and torpedoes, however as you know that ship will most likely have to stay back and die allowing the other ships to escape.

As I have been writing this I have been playing SotS and something very important has come to my mind or should I say the end has come to my fleet. I suspect this to is by design, as in fleet placement is random when entering a system.
I sent my fleet from Mu to Metaluna however there is no way I am going to win this fight so I decided to retreat. Funny enough my fleet is on the other side of the Solar system from the Mu jump lane. Out of pure interest why do fleets get placed so far away from the jump lanes they emerged from? Would that be too difficult to code in SotS HD or is it a lesson to be learn? As in don't go exploring with ill equipt fleets.

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38557
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by Mecron » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:34 am

I think its getting pretty clear we can live without Ry. Do I have a second on this?

User avatar
THIEFs
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 9:21 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by THIEFs » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:36 pm

+1
Mecron wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:18 am
Yeah...you see... SotS was meant to be about war...real war. And real war engineering. Putting your own turrets where you want where everything is optimal is a fantasy that has never existed and hence I really wasn't very interested in simulating it. SotS ships feel real because they are built to reflect real world engineering issues that prevent everything from being perfect.
and that's exactly what made SOTS sots awesome and amazing... I really hope the core balance and those unique pros-cons of various there is plenty of other numbed down min-maxing 4X games games... strapping more and more guns does not make game fun at all... or having something that can universaly cover all... In fact smaller number is more interesting and more manageable for pulling off various tactics, module targeting etc, when you have limitations of arcs, and blindspots... that's what I was missing in SOTS2, that for some reason there was not as much time to manage fleets in detail... shis were too fast.. guns too many, coverign all directions too well.. they died off too fast on both sides.. enemy and mine.


I guess its a matter of taste.. i do preffer things that are along the lines of "Gratulous space battles" or "Nexus: The Jupiter Incident"
rytram wrote:
Sun Feb 10, 2019 12:33 pm
but it leaves the rear exposed to missiles, which is usually the place where u get a missile shoved up your ass when running from something like a asteroid monitor or a derelict. so, you have to place another PD in the rear mount which has like a 170 degree Fov.

Ry, you just explained it to yourself.. your ships have pros and cons... if you want to cover you ass, you have to sacrifice some offensive firepower for extra protection etc.. .. or you can slightly angle your fleet whenever cluster of missiles is coming closer.. or spread formation i such a way that ships cover each other... ;) just like in real life... if you make Point defense stronger by making missiles stronger and moents later your whole battle system is a mess :)

Torezu
Posts: 1742
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2011 7:06 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by Torezu » Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:22 pm

rytram wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:52 pm
Which is operating in a planetary atmosphere and doesn't have to deal with the conditions found in deep space, not to mention if it was actually hit by anything resembling a SOTS-style weapon, it'd shatter in an instant.
i dont understand what you are trying to explain. please elaborate
This is just speculation. Imagine that you're human, and you have your main stardrive, which takes an enormous amount of space relative to most of the rest of the ship, aimed to the rear. You can't really put much outside the node ring, because of the physics of how the node ring works. There's little room for turrets pointing backward, especially directly backward, so you cram some things in wherever you can. It's not ideal, but you need point defense. So you sacrifice some offensive firepower for that PD, and even then it doesn't work perfectly.

The various races' ships are designed the way they are for game balance reasons. Don't try to optimize the game to be the way you want to play it - play it the way it's been designed. Make suggestions, but don't expect them to be well-received when you use backhanded compliments, or insults, to get your points across. And if you've learned anything in your time on the forums, it should be that Mecron doesn't mince words.

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38557
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: Say hypothetically...

Post by Mecron » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:17 pm

Yes, tor...you may want to remember that I can smell passive/aggression a mile away and when ry has the right to abuse other board members, I will let him know. Otherwise if he tries the "your stupid" gambit on another board member, he can go.

As for the fragility point, a turret meant to operate in deep space has to be an order of magnitude tougher than the analogous terrestrial turret just to resist the environment, never mind enemy weapons. Something meant to harm a futuristic starship hull would make mincemeat of a modern turret.

Also...

"The various races' ships are designed the way they are for game balance reasons."

....Yes and No. The various races ships are designed to be consistent with the fiction of the game, everything, including balance, flows from that.

Post Reply

Return to “SotS”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests