No different than any other build. Just build a ship for exploration or large quantity trading or mining or pretty much anything other than PvP and you are victim waiting for a ganker - why do you think so many people play in Mobius PG or Solo mode ? Simply because they want to do something other than PvP and without the fear of some *&^$£ sending them to the rebuy screen just for cheap kicks.
So Ship outfitted with Thargoid weapons - is powerless against gankers ?
- Thread starter valbarr
- Start date
No different than any other build. Just build a ship for exploration or large quantity trading or mining or pretty much anything other than PvP and you are victim waiting for a ganker - why do you think so many people play in Mobius PG or Solo mode ? Simply because they want to do something other than PvP and without the fear of some *&^$£ sending them to the rebuy screen just for cheap kicks.
How's this made-up nonsense sound?
Human hulls are hard metals and composites, and Thargoid hulls are softer regenerating organic things.
Projectiles designed to damage hard hulls are armour piercing hard penetrators, or shaped charges, which would go right through thargoid hulls without causing much of a 'wound track', which the Thargoid can then easily regenerate. By contrast, projectiles designed to damage Thargoids are frangible, fragmentation and expanding types, which would 'splash' off human hulls causing little if any structural damage.
Result: Thargoids effectively immune to conventional weapons, AX weapons useless vs human ships.
Alright, how about a knife with low velocity and high pressure. That will cut the ball in half but do little to the window unless the pressure is very great. Of course, you can fire the knife at high velocity at the window, but that would be a different weapon - a gun, not a knife.
Oh, I agree with you. [up]
I was just commenting on what I assume was FDev's thought-process.
As I said, I think they might not have accurately estimated the way people will attempt to play the game.
What I want to know is why Thargoid weapons damage us, but our weapons don't damage them. Typically, a species develops weapons that are suited to its environment. So scorpions developed a sting for protecting themselves from prairie dogs and mongooses and the like, and to allow them to subdue larger prey than would normally be the case, but turtles and scorpions don't interact, so the scorpion has no defence or attack against a turtle. I know that seems obvious, but nobody said it yet, and it's the crux of the issue. We humans developed weapons to kill other water and carbon based life forms, as they are the only life forms we know of, we wouldn't have a clue how to kill a monster made of cream cheese and plutonium, because we've never had to do so.
So thargoids should have developed weapons that damage organic technology, just as we have focused on armor piercing and rapid expansion explosions. We don't use organic technology, so why are Thargoids weapons effective against our ships? Why didn't they have to develop HX weapons as well?
Meh...
So thargoids should have developed weapons that damage organic technology, just as we have focused on armor piercing and rapid expansion explosions. We don't use organic technology, so why are Thargoids weapons effective against our ships? Why didn't they have to develop HX weapons as well?
Meh...
thermal im kinda ok with, that it doesnt do any damage against the goids.
but kinetic is just silly, there is no logical way to nullify kinetic energy.
ramming should also be viable.. seeing there is no stopping a 1000t FAS traveling 1800km/u..
We didn't spend 9 months scanning their ships with weird probes and sending all the data home..?
Good answer. [up]
The problem you have is that they would need to allow modifications for the AX weapons, or they'd still be about as competitive against another player as throwing potatoes. But if they did that, thargoid content would boil down to yet another instance of "he who can sit at home rolling overcharged multis obsessively will win". I'm glad they dropped that stance and let players attempt to win the fight based on their actual flight and organisational skills.
THis is slightly incorrect.
You can only have 4 of a specific type on your ship. I run a Python with 4x Missile Launchers and 1x Frag cannon
The frag cannon is not an AX weapon.
with such low ammo, i dont even dare call it a weapon..
But that would have actually been original and interesting gameplay. Far easier to re-skin USS after letting everyone wait a few years.
/salty
Honestly, there is nothing about cheese or plutonium that would make something immune to old fashioned kinetic bullets and artillery.
That's actually something that always bothers me in Pacific Rim (outside of the fact that pretty much everything in that film would collapse on itself in the reverse way an ant can't die from falling, don't get me stated on robots punching their own hands and not obliterating their own fists). The US military was ineffective with its modern weapons (I think nukes did work but risked killing the planet) but a robot punching it in the face worked.
whats the lore behind these wepaons anyways? they have different ammo, afaik, so why would you not be able to laod them with conventional ammo, and also what magic ammo is it that they cannot regulary damage a normal human ship. That sounds like a very strange lore thats more fictional than scientific.
yes these are just plot weapons made for a somewhat weird filmplot to work. Otherwise everyone would just snipe the monsters and done, no movie would ever exist. but I think in ED we could ahve come up with a MUCH better explanation. like, the skin fo the ships is very soft and absorbing a lot of the kinetic energy and can heal quickly as it is some weird tissue with such ability and it would need bullets or missiles with special chemicals able to dusturb that regeneration. that would explain why they work on the organic ships but now well on other human ships.
So just some pseudoscience with a sense making reason within it's pseudoexplanation. But entirely violating physics in a SCI-fi game is probably not the best approach. Still a better lovestory than Twillight.
Last edited:
Don't know the lore, and don't want to know
I said above that it was done for game reasons and not realism, and the section you are quoting is explaining why it's a better gameplay decision: because if we can engineer the weapons, the thargoid war becomes another engineering competition that sees the aliens become either mashed in moments by overpowered weaponry or capable of taking it, therefore requiring all players engineer their weapons strongly to stand a chance.
Don't know the lore, and don't want to know
I said above that it was done for game reasons and not realism, and the section you are quoting is explaining why it's a better gameplay decision: because if we can engineer the weapons, the thargoid war becomes another engineering competition that sees the aliens become either mashed in moments by overpowered weaponry or capable of taking it, therefore requiring all players engineer their weapons strongly to stand a chance.
there is a difference between nonsense unrealistic for a plot reason and some sci fi explanation. They could have with some creativity made a proper explanation without defeating basic physics entirely taking the sci out of the sci fi.
Last edited:
Why?
Because flying around random re-skinned USS randomly at random for random reasons (because there is no risk, no danger to the galaxy, no power balance, no one is suffering) is somehow better than flying around random re-skinned USS with at least SOME level of intent and risk and affect on the galaxy?
Don't get me wrong, Power Play could be so so so SO much more and isn't (and I doubt ever will be) but I really don't see how the above is any better than doing the same thing but with some Power Play in the background.
I'm sure they could have, but I'm not the chap to explain or refute it. Pretty much all gameplay in ED is unrealistic as hell; I'm not one to pick random bits of that to challenge FD with.