In-flight weapon loading...

MMaggio · Post by **MMaggio** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:13 pm

I just don't understand what you people are thinking! You go into combat, You have "X" amount of missiles. If you don't have enough, then think ahead. I don't see how you can claim to load them from storage to hardpoints on the fly.
The concept of buying weapons, shunting them to the cargo bay, and reselling them for a profit, makes sence. But to suggest that they can be swapped from cargo bay to useable hardpoints with just a "click" of a button, insults inteligence. This would require a suppositon that there were facilities on board to complete such a task. IE: a crew. And not just one crewmember, at least two.
I am against this whole concept, but if implemented, it should require as many obstacles as possible, including a time limit, just as it requires time, AND a crew to reload torpedoe tubes. In fact, the time required might even be reasonably adjusted to the type of weapon. This is NOT a good idea. I can see all kinds of problems with this concept.
I don't understand why those in favor are so short-sighted.
My two cents worth...

dogeddie · Post by **dogeddie** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:28 pm

If I buy a spaceship one hundred years from now for an assload of money and pay a crew to man and maintain it, they better be able to reload my flippin' weapons for me.

d_k_k_y · Post by **d_k_k_y** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:31 pm

Being forced to dock at a station to install weapons gives fights more tactical depth. Thus I won't miss it! Anyway if it might be possible or not.

Coma · Post by **Coma** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:31 pm

Reload yes but to change a whole wepons system is another thing.......

dogeddie · Post by **dogeddie** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:34 pm

Like I said earlier, make changing/reloading weapons of the same kind "missile B" able to be done in space, but a change in weapon type "missile A" or torpedo has to be done at a station.

Tucker · Post by **Tucker** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:45 pm

Originally posted by MMaggio
I just don't understand what you people are thinking! You go into combat, You have "X" amount of missiles. If you don't have enough, then think ahead. I don't see how you can claim to load them from storage to hardpoints on the fly.
.

You are still looking at it as it were an external hardpoint. Its not its accessable from the inside of the ship. I would look at this more as an in space torpedo system. Not exterior fixed hardpoints but more internal launch rails or tubes. In fact the excal system already does that. I use the excal now because I NEVER run out of missles. Being able to swap them from the cargo bay would be an enticement for me to use some of the others. With them in the cargo hold there is still a finite number ( just the X in X amount would be different. You would have to plan for that. It also would make you think about playing with all the different types. For example using the longer range missles to take out the fighter escort and then changing to higher damage lower range ones for the capital ship.

It might be interesting to know how many of the people against this use the excalibur or at least have no issues with it.

Now as to the questions
If a time limit is implemented, should it only apply for weapons and should equipment simply plug right in?

The missles could all be fired from a common style launcher. Changing out equipment would seem to me as something needing a station or at least a much longer time period perhaps taking the skils of weapons and engineering departments. That would slow or stop other things engineering was doing like repairing the ship.

- Time periods per weapon being loaded: 30 seconds with no crew, 10-20 seconds with crew depending on skill?

I have no problems with this it makes sense it would take time. To play devils advocate though; no established time limits would make changeout dependant on the still of the pilot using the interface and controls such as the mouse where using crew skill does not.

- Unloading is immediate, since the weapon is simply unclipped, but loading is where the time delay applies or should a time limit apply in both directions?

If it takes time to put them in I can see where it would take time to take them out. If the total of both is over 30 seconds I would probably just stay with the excalibur

- Arguments against a time limit at all? If you prefer immediate loading/unloading, please state any points on why it should be that way.

See above about operator skill. Still I don't feel time limits would be a deal breaker

[Edited on 2-25-2008 by Tucker]

Archangel · Post by **Archangel** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:50 pm

Well Im still against it. However if its going to be added I sugest a time limit of atleast 30 seconds. Thats with being sped up by crew. I base that on the fact that it takes 30 seconds to reload an excal which is specificly designed to reaload on its own. I would expect shufleing equipment from a cargo hold to a weppons slot to take a while. Certenly longer then an alrady existing reload system. I dont think it should be any less then that even with the crew to speed it up simply because it would esentaly undermine an alrady existing weppon. With the time limit between 50 to 30 sec its long enough that there could still be an advantage to jumping to a station to swap equipment.

I dont think there would need to be a unload time. With a time limit of 30 seconds or more your left vulnurable for a while.

And the time limit should be aplyed for all equipment. If your going to change things in space it shouldnt be simple. Needs to be something that would have to be carefully thought out before hand.

I know there was 4 but I cant remember the last one and the time limit was the big one for me.

Still dont like it, but Ive run out of new logical dissagrements and arguing alone is rather unproductive. I am more comfortable with the idea given a time limit some whare between 50 to 30 sec.

Tucker · Post by **Tucker** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:52 pm

Originally posted by Archangel
Well Im still against it. However if its going to be added I . I am more comfortable with the idea given a time limit some whare between 50 to 30 sec.

The time limit now for the excalibur system is 30 seconds with no limit to the number of missles

Post by **Vice** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:58 pm

Like I said earlier, make changing/reloading weapons of the same kind "missile B" able to be done in space, but a change in weapon type "missile A" or torpedo has to be done at a station.

iirc, that hasn't been part of the original requests, this would be for loading weapons from the cargo bay into hardpoints, not only matching types.

You go into combat, You have "X" amount of missiles.

That is quite correct, the only difference this amounts to is now you would have to plan with X+(1-4) instead of just X. And you wouldn't have access to all of your missiles right away, you would have to wait for the (1-4) to load before you could use them.

I have no problems with this it makes sense it would take time. To play devils advocate though; no established time limits would make changeout dependant on the still of the pilot using the interface and controls such as the mouse where using crew skill does not.

Understandable. The one big counter-argument to this, that is convincing to me at least, is that a time delay continues to give docking with a station a huge advantage, in that you will still be able to load weapons immediately instead of having to wait for the load time out in space.

MMaggio · Post by **MMaggio** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:03 pm

HELLOOO!? Can no-one see the problems in this concept?
This game has been played for a long time by die-hard fans, and those of us who have been around for the longest, have no problem with the "status quo".
It seems to me that some of you newer gamers are looking for "easy" solutions for situations that us older players have been dealing with from the start. There are parameters and limits to every game, and while they are subject to improvements, the changes shouldn't insult intelligence nor realism.
Being able to take commodities of any kind, from the cargo hold and install them as "functional" systems, on the fly, is inherently unrealistic. And I don't understand why an experienced gamer can't see the problems that this concept will cause.
I'm just stunned, by the whole concept...

49rTbird · Post by **49rTbird** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:06 pm

Being a frugal (cheap) person, I would have to pay fewer docking fees if I was fighting reds and needed to switch or replentish weapons if I could store them and load them in space.

Tucker · Post by **Tucker** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:07 pm

Originally posted by MMaggio
HELLOOO!? Can no-one see the problems in this concept?
This game has been played for a long time by die-hard fans, and those of us who have been around for the longest, have no problem with the "status quo".
It seems to me that some of you newer gamers are looking for "easy" solutions for situations that us older players have been dealing with from the start. There are parameters and limits to every game, and while they are subject to improvements, the changes shouldn't insult intelligence nor realism.
Being able to take commodities of any kind, from the cargo hold and install them as "functional" systems, on the fly, is inherently unrealistic. And I don't understand why an experienced gamer can't see the problems that this concept will cause.
I'm just stunned, by the whole concept...

Not to be argumentative but again can you explain to me how this changes the balance of the game anymore than using the excalibur system does now.

I see this as a much smaller change than the recent one on the station liscense but it surely seems to be an emotionally charged one

Archangel · Post by **Archangel** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:08 pm

Thats what I was saying. Why should it be faster just to load up your cargo hold? If your ship has 8 missile slots and you have 5 cargo bays thats 13 missiles in total. An avarage mission has 4 to 5 enemys add 2 to 3 passers by who join in thats 8. One should only need one missile per enemy. The higher level missiles are one shot one kill. So why would they need to reload faster then 30 seconds? If theres a capital ship you shouldnt be wasteing missiles on fighters when you know youll still have to deal with the capital. If you need to reload before takeing it on you can always back out of weppon range and tranfer missiles before engageing it. Besides if you know whare their week they are esayer to kill then fighters.

With a longer time limit theres also still incentive to make such changes on base.

Sorry this was in respnce to a statment by tucker. This is moveing faster then I thought.

[Edited on 2-25-2008 by Archangel]

Post by **Vice** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:10 pm

Being a frugal (cheap) person, I would have to pay fewer docking fees if I was fighting reds and needed to switch or replentish weapons if I could store them and load them in space.

Good point, minor strategy option there. Overall impact would be somewhat limited considering a time limit plus a limit of 4 cargo bays (need to leave one for any swapping you might want to do), with an overall possible addition of just 5 more missiles total and that's only if you give up cargo space you would otherwise use for trading.

tha_rami · Post by **tha_rami** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:16 pm

It's emotionally charged because some of us feel the game is getting too simple. This is adding to the whole oversimplifying and actually, this has been playing since the days of Evochron.

I've been asking for dynamic AI that would adapt to the player, but I understand that is quite hard to create. I remember requesting far more powerful capital ships, but now that fix is toned down by the possibility to beat each contract with, what, 13 missiles? No contract requires 13 Exodus' missiles.

That's why its charged, and I stand with that the game should get harder instead of easier. Even a time-limit won't help here - it's the overal direction that's disturbing me.

I've not been convinced by a single pro-argument as of yet. Imposing limitations on 'switching' isn't going to convince me, I'm afraid. But it seems that won't matter - and we're a democracy, so I guess fair is fair. You can't always win

.

[Edited on 25-2-2008 by tha_rami]

MMaggio · Post by **MMaggio** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:19 pm

"Not to be argumentative but again can you explain to me how this changes the balance of the game anymore than using the excalibur system does now."

I should think the answer is obvoius. Five minutes of a logical mental process should make it obvious. I'm remided of the phrase, " If you don't know by now, I can't explain it to you".
Excalibur missiles are designed to be respawned. That's a given. It's included in the price and difficulty in acquiring them. The game does not support respawning of high grade missiles. Suppose we include the respawning of "Fulcrum torpedoes"? Would that be fair?

[Edited on 2-25-2008 by MMaggio]

Post by **Vice** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:25 pm

Can anyone now understand why I have been stalling on this and the license change for over two years? But enough requests are coming in to make these changes, that I want to consider them at this point.

With a longer time limit theres also still incentive to make such changes on base.

Makes sense, reaffirms the advantages of docking with a station.

It seems to me that some of you newer gamers are looking for "easy" solutions for situations that us older players have been dealing with from the start. There are parameters and limits to every game, and while they are subject to improvements, the changes shouldn't insult intelligence nor realism.

Fair enough, but I do think players of varying levels of experience should have a say in what happens, I don't want the game to be just for an extremely skilled space-sim player to the extent that some things keep it from being accessible to other players.

I do see a lot of emotion being thrown into the mix, what I'd really like to see on the side of those who don't want this change is a solid argument for why you think this change would have such a significant impact on the fairness/balance of gameplay. The points listed so far don't seem to explain exactly why/how gameplay would be wildly thrown off or why it would suddenly become too easy with this change (which is certainly much more minor than the difficulty/challenge-increasing license change made).

Really what this comes down to is the ability to load 4 or 5 more missiles/guns onto your ship that you won't have immediate access to use, plus you have to give up cargo space to carry them, plus you still have to pay the extra cost. Will that radically change the difficulty of the game? If so, how?

[Edited on 2-25-2008 by Vice]

49rTbird · Post by **49rTbird** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:25 pm

Originally posted by MMaggio
"Not to be argumentative but again can you explain to me how this changes the balance of the game anymore than using the excalibur system does now."

I should think the answer is obvoius. Five minutes of a logical mental process should make it obvious. I'm remided of the phrase, " If you don't know by now, I can't explain it to you".
Excalibur missiles are designed to be respawned. That's a given. It's included in the price and difficulty in acquiring them. The game does not support respawning of high grade missiles. Suppose we include the respawning of "Fulcrum torpedoes"? Would that be fair?

[Edited on 2-25-2008 by MMaggio]

Only if I can respawn my money also! lol:P

Archangel · Post by **Archangel** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:28 pm

Well Ive spent enough time gameing and modding to how bad this can turn out. But it apears as though theres only 3 of us still hevaly against it. As rami put it you cant win em all. So Ive put in my sugestions that I feel would justify (and I use the tearm losely) it for myself and not overly punish the players who wish to use it.

Looks like were on the loseing end here so might as well make the most of it.

tha_rami · Post by **tha_rami** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:30 pm

Really what this comes down to is the ability to load 4 or 5 more missiles/guns onto your ship that you won't have immediate access to use, plus you have to give up cargo space to carry them, plus you still have to pay the extra cost. Will that radically change the difficulty of the game? If so, how?

* In multiplayer, the balance will be shifted towards ships with a larger cargo bay, and thus be against new players.
* Defeats another purpose of docking.
* Removes the need of hotdocking. In MP, you lose track of to where a player will run.
* Empowers ships with unfair weaponry towards the AI. 8 Exodus are enough to complete any contract. 13 will definitely defeat that.
* The time delay can pretty much be defeated by timing: firing a missile each 6 seconds and reloading a new one immediately, allows you to fire 13 missiles in 78 seconds. 3-5 countermeasures each means almost 50 CM's on average.
* The game isn't too hard currently. It's too easy. Anyone can make billions in hours as soon as they figure out the tricks. Only as long as you're mining or doing contracts, the game is hard. Everyone gets to that point still.

[Edited on 25-2-2008 by tha_rami]

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:36 pm

Originally posted by MMaggio
HELLOOO!? Can no-one see the problems in this concept?
This game has been played for a long time by die-hard fans, and those of us who have been around for the longest, have no problem with the "status quo".
It seems to me that some of you newer gamers are looking for "easy" solutions for situations that us older players have been dealing with from the start. There are parameters and limits to every game, and while they are subject to improvements, the changes shouldn't insult intelligence nor realism.
Being able to take commodities of any kind, from the cargo hold and install them as "functional" systems, on the fly, is inherently unrealistic. And I don't understand why an experienced gamer can't see the problems that this concept will cause.
I'm just stunned, by the whole concept...

Mike, maybe you're right.

I've re-thought this after reading your and Rami's post...

It does seem like a serious imbalancing problem that gives larger ships/richer players a big advantage. Which is bad.
And I do recall there being a problem with the stations being somewhat unused from Evochron Alliance - which this will make even worse.

If Vice does make the change, my vote is for the crew you have being irrelevant to the speed of the transfer, which yet again is giving richer players an advantage -
and for the delay for either unloading or loading to be at least two or three minutes.

This change... it basically nullifies the differences between "hard points" and "cargo bays", doesn't it? Now they're nearly identical.

Isn't that supposed to be an integral part of managing your ship(which adds more involvement on the player's side), as opposed to just having a single weapons bay of varying size that holds anything and can launch missiles?

*edit* and Rami put it much better. I totally agree.

[Edited on 2/25/2008 by Jeremy]

Tucker · Post by **Tucker** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:46 pm

Originally posted by tha_rami
It's emotionally charged because some of us feel the game is getting too simple. This is adding to the whole oversimplifying and actually, this has been playing since the days of Evochron.

I've been asking for dynamic AI that would adapt to the player, but I understand that is quite hard to create. I remember requesting far more powerful capital ships, but now that fix is toned down by the possibility to beat each contract with, what, 13 missiles? No contract requires 13 Exodus' missiles.

That's why its charged, and I stand with that the game should get harder instead of easier. Even a time-limit won't help here - it's the overal direction that's disturbing me.

Rami
Thanks for taking the time to share your point of view. I can fully understand and appreciate the concern about the game getting too simplified. And I would fully support harder missions and harder capital ships maybe with more turrets or guns or even countermeasures. Maybe oneday we will even see an aircraft carrier type of capital ship that can sned out waves of fighters after us. So perhaps this issue is a symptom of a larger issue. I do try to remember that each of these "simple things" for us is a great deal of work for vice. And I would never want him to think that when we argue these points we don't appreciate his doing them.

Originally posted by MMaggio
"Not to be argumentative but again can you explain to me how this changes the balance of the game anymore than using the excalibur system does now."

I should think the answer is obvoius. Five minutes of a logical mental process should make it obvious. I'm remided of the phrase, " If you don't know by now, I can't explain it to you".
Excalibur missiles are designed to be respawned. That's a given. It's included in the price and difficulty in acquiring them. The game does not support respawning of high grade missiles. Suppose we include the respawning of "Fulcrum torpedoes"? Would that be fair?

[Edited on 2-25-2008 by MMaggio]

I am really trying to understand both sides but I must not be a logical creature . Yes excalibur missles are designed to respawn. If they change the system to allow reloading from the hold that will be designed to do that also. I have never said any of the other missles should respawn for free. If I was not clear on that I apologize, I feel having to buy the higher end war material makes sense. When they are in the hold I still have to buy them. There are already many ways in the game to get more firepower. We have discussed the excal, I can also hire more ships. Yes the economics plays in, as it should. Shold I have a home system and have to return there to hire a fleet. That would be analogous to having in my mind at least to having to dock to reload missle tubes. If we follow that vein should we not be able to pay docking fees in hostile system and even buy there ?

As I said I really am trying to understand I will promise to listen to what you say. So please don't imply I am unable to understand.
thanks

[Edited on 2-25-2008 by Tucker]

Post by **Vice** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:50 pm

* In multiplayer, the balance will be shifted towards ships with a larger cargo bay, and thus be against new players.

Ok, again, how? Small ships can carry 5 cargo bays also. Small ships are faster and can evade missiles more easily. The heavy ship would have to wait while its weapons load, leaving them vulnerable and/or simply not able to attack the new player with a minimum of one class of weapon. New players are often at some disadvantages in any game. How would this change significantly offset the fairness level between new players and more advanced players considering these points?

* Defeats another purpose of docking.

Defeats or reduces? Docking would still provide major time advantages for swapping weapons.

* Removes the need of hotdocking. In MP, you lose track of to where a player will run.

Is that a negative or a positive? Hotdocking would still provide major time advantages.

* Empowers ships with unfair weaponry towards the AI. 8 Exodus are enough to complete any contract. 13 will definitely defeat that.

If 8 are enough, then there's no need for the other 5 and you can use the bays for recovering cargo from the ships destroyed. According to your point here, this situation illustrates this would not have much of a significant impact against AI ships if 8 Exodus are enough and gameplay would remain largely the same.

* The time delay can pretty much be defeated by timing: firing a missile each 6 seconds and reloading a new one immediately, allows you to fire 13 missiles in 78 seconds. 3-5 countermeasures each means almost 50 CM's on average.

Yes, more firepower, more spaced out toward the end (if the time delay is applied, could take more like 5 minutes to fire the last 5 missiles), resulting in pockets of time making it easier to evade for the player being fired at, if the attacker chose to try and fire all of their weapons at once. Wouldn't be a very wise strategic move and likely a waste of missiles... and cargo space.

* The game isn't too hard currently. It's too easy. Anyone can make billions in hours as soon as they figure out the tricks. Only as long as you're mining or doing contracts, the game is hard. Everyone gets to that point still.

That's subjective and not reflective of much of the feedback I get about gameplay difficulty. You know all of the ins-and-outs of the game, making it much easier for you to play. And the points about mining, contracts, and tricks are outside the scope of this change specifically.

[Edited on 2-25-2008 by Vice]

Archangel · Post by **Archangel** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:50 pm

"Will that radically change the difficulty of the game? If so, how?"

It seems rather small an additional 5 missiles. But since the max number is curently 8 thats more then half. And given the efectiveness of missiles in this game thats a big diffrence. Thats 13 kills at long range without any risk. In my experience the AI typicly dosent fire untill your within 1000k or however distence is mesured. And since the exodus has a range of 2000 I beleve. You can sit at range and pick them off with missiles with little danger to yourself. Adding the ability to carry more weppons such as missiles in my experience has turned out worse then players haveing super ships. Its typicly most noteced in MP. And that was with games that the missles were no whare near as efective as they are in ER.

Secondly it reduces the need to learn to fight using guns. Which is in my opion whare the excitment of combat really comes in. But most people will chose esay over exciteing. When you give players more missiles to play with they avoid geting in close to use guns, which esentaly rusults in missing one of the most exciteing and rewarding aspects of battle.

I admit I carry ecallebers on my ship. But I use it as a last resort weppon for when I end up in over my head. Perhaps its just me but thats how I feel missiles should be used. Id love to see the range of guns incressed to 1000 so I could use them more often without haveing to shoot down sevral missiles to get in range. But Ive always beleved that guns should be the primary weppons in space sims. Simply because of how exciteing dog fights are. Thats why Ive always preferd space sims over the combat sims out there. Its all about the dog fight.

Thats my two cents.

Goatnado386 · Post by **Goatnado386** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:51 pm

Ooh.. I like that idea! Requiring a weapons crewmember in order to allow reloading from cargo bay is a great idea and would really work out well. It's okay to have features like this so long as there is a noticeable drawback. Requiring a crewmember is perfect.