So Ship outfitted with Thargoid weapons - is powerless against gankers ?

But not the other way around.

It's also vitally important to remember that it's a game with imaginary aliens in spaceships, so using real-world arguments doesn't necessarily translate - and that goes for my argument as much as yours :D

It happens the way it happens because that's the way it was written to happen.
So, erm, the OP is asking for an in-game explanation for why AX weapons aren't effective against human ships and your explanation is "cos it's a game"?

Which kind of brings me back to my original question...
 
At the end of the day, the damage imparted by a projectile is always going to be, at the very least, a function of it's mass and velocity striking a point on the target.
That is the minimum and will only ever be magnified as a result of specific design features such as being frangible, jacketed or tipped with another substance.
did you ever try to hit and damage a rubber ball with a rock or similar? its impact smashes glass, will damage metalls (cars etc) but wont do anything to rubber
the effect of kinetic impact strongly depends on the material you try hit and is never ever the same on diffrent materials
 
AX weapons are designed to fight aliens. Aliens with different technology to human technology. Stands to reason that weapons designed to affect alien technology may not affect human technology.
If that is the case the book where a cobra taken out a thargoid should of not happened. I know people already told me it was the scout version. Still do not buy it.
 
Think of it like this instead, just be grateful that the AX weapons don't make the gankers EVEN stronger!

You ever sprayed a fire extinguisher containing water on an electrical appliance fire? Sometimes a counter for something is not a counter for something else and makes the game more gamey.
 
Last edited:
did you ever try to hit and damage a rubber ball with a rock or similar? its impact smashes glass, will damage metalls (cars etc) but wont do anything to rubber
the effect of kinetic impact strongly depends on the material you try hit and is never ever the same on diffrent materials
That's one of those arguments which sounds superficially plausible but it doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

If you can't damage a rubber ball by throwing a rock at it, how do you damage a rubber ball?
You damage it either by firing something much smaller at it, thus imparting all the energy to a smaller surface-area, or you cut it with a knife, thus imparting the energy at a lower velocity.
It's still reliant on the same function of mass, velocity and surface area.

As a rule, if a weapon needs to be uprated to defeat a more resiliant target, it'll continue to be effective against less resiliant targets as well.
I can't honestly think of an example where this isn't this case.

When you find something that'll damage your rubber ball, it'll also work just fine at damaging a window or a car too.
 
I have the book on amazon the audio version. Guess i need to listen to it again.
It's an in joke. ;) CMDR Thrust from Bradford appeared in a parodic post describing the behaviour of beta testers and forum responses to such. Essentially, in a fictional storyboard/timeline, everyone else was still complaining they couldn't even log into the Beta while commander Thrust had tested all the content available and reached Elite (or something like that), it was very entertaining, but basically, long story short, CMDR Thrust from Bradford has earned singularly legendary status in the Elite community that surpasses even the great Chuck Norris (yes, seriously, CMDR Thrust could dogfight Chuck Norris with both his arms and legs tied behind his back, and not take a single hit). ;)
 
When you find something that'll damage your rubber ball, it'll also work just fine at damaging a window or a car too.
If I were interested in destroying both I'd rather hit the rubber ball with the knife and the window with the rock. But that's just me (y)

Ofc the bit where someone pointed out this is a game is the true answer. Trying to explain whether it is realistic is beyond pointless.
 
Ofc the bit where someone pointed out this is a game is the true answer. Trying to explain whether it is realistic is beyond pointless.
Very true but it seems like a little bit of extra thought could have provided a more plausible outcome.

Make the AX weapons into whizzy green lasers tuned to the resonant frequency of the Thargoid flux capacitors and invert the polarity.
Or something.
Job done.
 
Very true but it seems like a little bit of extra thought could have provided a more plausible outcome.

Make the AX weapons into whizzy green lasers tuned to the resonant frequency of the Thargoid flux capacitors and invert the polarity.
Or something.
Job done.
Done indeed, now FD don't need to! ;)

Pretty sure that's the premise of RP games. If we were going for realism I'd wanna first know why I'm fighting the thargs from a bridge at the front of the ship with a massive glass screen in front of me, limited to an arbitrary speed limit yet somehow ignoring g forces.
 
Pretty sure that's the premise of RP games. If we were going for realism I'd wanna first know why I'm fighting the thargs from a bridge at the front of the ship with a massive glass screen in front of me, limited to an arbitrary speed limit yet somehow ignoring g forces.
Well, yeah.

So, why exactly am I risking my life (and my SLF pilot's life) to fly this spaceship at all when we can, apparently, telepresence ourselves across the galaxy to crew other ships?
Can we not just do that to fight the Thargoids? [where is it]
 
Well, yeah.

So, why exactly am I risking my life (and my SLF pilot's life) to fly this spaceship at all when we can, apparently, telepresence ourselves across the galaxy to crew other ships?
Can we not just do that to fight the Thargoids? [where is it]
You know, facetiousness aside, holo-presence is more believable than being in the ship and magically saved by the escape pod every time. But again, it's all just varying degrees of handwavium to let a game happen ;)
 
When you find something that'll damage your rubber ball, it'll also work just fine at damaging a window or a car too.
Acetone will damage your ball, but it won't do much to the window. Might take same paint off your car, but it won't get through the metal skin. Tyres are a different matter, but we would have to consider them Thargoid technology in this analogy.
 
Last edited:
Very true but it seems like a little bit of extra thought could have provided a more plausible outcome.

Make the AX weapons into whizzy green lasers tuned to the resonant frequency of the Thargoid flux capacitors and invert the polarity.
Or something.
Job done.

They did that.

The Thargoids "skin" is made of "Stuff" that doesn't get heavily affected by our normal weaponry.
It also regenerates super fast, unless we pump "Gaurdian tech" into said skin. (Normal weapons DO damage thargoids, just a small amount, for a very short time, before they regenerate it)

That's your internal consistency.
 
You know, facetiousness aside, holo-presence is more believable than being in the ship and magically saved by the escape pod every time. But again, it's all just varying degrees of handwavium to let a game happen ;)
I recall, years ago, I played this game all about sub-sea treasure-hunting.
IIRC, it was the first game I ever bought on CD, but I digress.

It started off as a bit of an RTS syle game where you had to dock at ports to re-supply and then move to locations in the ocean while fighting various opponents.
When you arrived you could deploy an ROV and the game turned into an "underwater FPS" where you had to float around, steering your ROV to the seabed, avoiding or fighting off fish, navigate through trenches and then through the interior of the shipwreck to recover the treasure.

I think it would have been nice if ED had worked a bit like that.
Make it so the SRV and SLF cockpit view appear in a slightly reduced screen "window" so it's apparent you're remotely-piloting the vehicle.
That would have made it all very plausible as to what happens when the remote-vehicle is destroyed.

As for Multicrew, I would just bin that poop and replace it with an in-game noticeboard and a thing at stations that allowed you to join other ships.
You post a message looking for crew on the noticeboard.
People read it, contact the ship CMDR, arrange to meet at a station and multiplay happens from there.

No telepresence required.



What was the thread topic, again? :eek:

Acetone will damage your ball, but it won't do much to the window. Might take same paint off your car, but it won't get through the metal skin. Tyres are a different matter, but we would have to consider them Thargoid technology in this analogy.
You know we are talking about kinetic weapons, right?
 
Ofc the bit where someone pointed out this is a game is the true answer. Trying to explain whether it is realistic is beyond pointless.
True, however, as a video game, the entire AX weapon mechanic could have been designed in a better way which does not make players need to choose between playing normally or fighting the Thargoids. If the AX weapons just did normal damage to human ships, but also had an extra modifier making them more effective against Thargoids than regular weapons, well then pilots looking to fight the aliens wouldn't be left super vulnerable to player killers, nor would they be prevented from doing normal things like bounty hunting or defending themselves from NPC interdictions. Just make the AX weapons very expensive, so much as to greatly inflate your ship insurance, that way pilots with no interest in fighting the Thargoids would never fly with AX weapons, and alien hunters would also not want to fly with AX weapons when not fighting the aliens.

It certainly could have been balanced in a more thoughtful way so as to not punish players who want to fight against the Thargoids. For some reason Frontier decided to make it a choice, thereby limiting how people play and further exacerbating the ganker/griefer situation which plagues open today by making alien-fighting ships much more vulnerable than they normally would be. The game does not need more limitations on how we play, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
It certainly could have been balanced in a more thoughtful way so as to not punish players who want to fight against the Thargoids. For some reason Frontier decided to make it a choice, thereby limiting how people play and further exacerbating the ganker/griefer situation which plagues open today by making alien-fighting ships much more vulnerable than they normally would be. The game does not need more limitations on how we play, IMHO.
This is just a guess but I think FDev went with an "either/or" scenario deliberately.

From some of the things I've read, I get the impression they planned on creating the Thargoids as a "big bad" that everybody could team-up and fight.
That being the case, I guess they intended that people would wing-up in groups containing both AX and regular ships so they could work together to their strengths.

Trouble is, of course, that FDev underestimated what a bunch of disinterested, antisocial, misfits we all are with the result that everybody wants to be able to do everything all by themselves and we're all terrified of being ganked by other oddballs who enjoy taking advantage of the opportunities that arise from that.
 
Wow the tinfoil hattery is strong with this one.

No OP, they are not designed to attacks human ships, think of it as a bottle of Raid Max.

That being said they are still dealing snall damage so you are not defenseless, if you want to fight in an underpowered ship that's not FD's problem, if you want to kill gankers than you probably shouldn't be fighting thargoids in the first place.

TBH op seems like you are trying to find a problem where there isn't one
 
From some of the things I've read, I get the impression they planned on creating the Thargoids as a "big bad" that everybody could team-up and fight.
That being the case, I guess they intended that people would wing-up in groups containing both AX and regular ships so they could work together to their strengths.
I agree that Frontier is obviously designing the 2.4 content to encourage (and even require) people to team up, but if that was the design intent then why punish players for doing so by gimping their weapons and decreasing their ability to defend themselves or play the game in any other way at all? When designing a game, it's generally not a great idea to design content to actively push players into a direction while at the same time making that direction far less appealing from a gameplay point of view. Designing difficulty into content is one thing and can be very positive, but designing inconvenience into content is not usually very value added.
 
Top Bottom