In-flight weapon loading...

[MMaggio]

Shame, shame, on those who see the obvious, but will bow to the masses.
Even Rami agrees with me, and that's not often.
It's not easy putting the obvious into words as they are racing thru my haed faster than I can type. I reel at the thought that I am among the farsighted few who can see the peril of this mod.
How do you possibly justify the ability to randomly take cargo, whatever it may be, and if you do it for one type of cargo, then you have to do it for all, and then magically transport it from the cargo hold to a hard point? You don't see how this affects the balance? Then why buy cargo of any kind for transport, when you, the player, can have access to it? Why not just increase the # of hardpoints 'till the player has enough missiles? What's the challenge? You go on a contract. You have "X" # of missiles. You have to husband them strategically to complete the mission. You can't just "back off" and reload when you screw up. You take a contract, either you have the firepower and the skill to complete the mission, or you fail, and learn. The ability to "harvest" the cargo hold is a concept that can't be regulated to just one or two items. Either you can access the cargo hold or you can't. That being said, then you have acess to anything the player can load in the cargo hold. It's just inherently wrong.
As I said before, if you insist in this madness, then the player must have the prerequisite crew and a time period that eliminates any strategic advantage.
Gosh Vice, you designed this game to require a reasonable amount of strategic planning. You have provided for a wide array of weapon systems. What's the point if a player can make the decision to buy an Excalibur system, then load, god only knows, whatever weapon systems he wants, in case he made a bad choice? It defeats the strategic planning of the game. That's why you give the player an option on weapons systems. That's why some weapons are better than others in different circumstances. You might as well just assign all the potentials of all the weapons to just one gun and one missile. That way, the player doesn't have to make ANY decisions!
I really don't understand why anyone can't see the peril in this mod. It eliminates any strategic planning, encourages misguided forays, and alters the outcome of any conflict.
The game plays, and has played, thru' all of the Evo series without this mod. No one ever suggested it before. I may be outvoted. If so, I hope you will take into considration my suggestions to require a sufficient crew and a time period that would disallow any strategic advantage.
I'm done with this topic. I shan't complain again.

[Tucker]

If I choose to have 5 cargo bays so that I can use them for missles then I have to trade other ships resources to have those cargo bays. It may be smaller engines or less shields or less maneuverable wings. Right now I go down to 1 cargo bay when I am doing missions, to have these better resources. There have been times I wished I could have no cargo holds for certain missions. You must agree that adds some balance to this. It is not as if I can have the extra missles in the cargo hold at no consequence. Perhaps not the consequences some want.

[tha_rami]

Well, thats the weird part: no. It doesn't compensate. It gives even more advantage to the rich.

[49rTbird]

Anyone who voted for the lic change hurt the poor!

[rivalin]

I'm pretty much convinced by Rami/Mmaggio/Archangel's argument, the change seems like slightly dodgy game design. If it's being decided logically; it can take 30/40 minutes to fit ordnance to a modern fighter jet, allowing for the fact that it is being done under field conditions would jump it up to an hour or so. Accounting for the fact that it is futuristic technology etc, maybe a time of ten minutes or so for the cooldown for missile changes would be the minimum time it should take.

[dogeddie]

Wow, some of these people are freaking out on this topic. It's a game change, not a lifestyle change. Vice wants his product to appeal to the most potential or current customers. We are lucky to get the input we have. I don't care which way it goes. All I wanted was to be able to pick up the weapons and put them in cargo. It could have stopped there and I was happy as hell. You guys battle the rest of this one out!

[Tucker]

I'll go with either way Vice decides it also and still enjoy the game (in fact I have been playing between posts here tonight) . But I do enjoy a good debate. Its a weakness ~lol~ And alot of folks here have expressed good argument for both sides and I appreciate that.

[Edited on 2-26-2008 by Tucker]

[Vice]

Need more specifics, generalized subjective statements make it difficult to critique such points. Examples:

It eliminates any strategic planning

How does it eliminate any strategic planning? The 'pro' points so far illustrate how the opposite can generally apply. You may be able to give yourself a few extra missiles here or there, but the scope of that option is limited by time, money, and quantity.

You take a contract, either you have the firepower and the skill to complete the mission, or you fail, and learn.

There are still limits with the new system, how would this be changed significantly? Even Rami says you only need 8 Exodus missiles to complete any contract against AI, so the other 5 missiles wouldn't even be needed for you or another skilled player.

Either you can access the cargo hold or you can't. That being said, then you have acess to anything the player can load in the cargo hold. It's just inherently wrong.

Ok, why is it inherently wrong to have access to anything you load in your cargo bay... in open space versus at a station (which is already available)?

That's why some weapons are better than others in different circumstances. You might as well just assign all the potentials of all the weapons to just one gun and one missile. That way, the player doesn't have to make ANY decisions!

Deciding what to carry as backups (or none at all) could be considered more of a decision than just the loaded weapons themselves... at least from what I'm reading.

Then why buy cargo of any kind for transport, when you, the player, can have access to it?

How does having access to use cargo you buy eliminate the need to buy it?

The game plays, and has played, thru' all of the Evo series without this mod. No one ever suggested it before.

It's been suggested so many times that I can't even estimate how many at this point. I have just been putting it off for years in the previous games due to the lack of support for multiple item classes for cargo bays. Now this new game has that extremely highly requested feature and this other feature now becomes an option.

Believe me, I don't mind pulling the idea from the game at all (been trying to present arguments against it for a while now, lol, remember? http://www.starwraith.com/forum/viewtop ... 1#pid31985 ), but the points for it appear more convincing than the points against it so far. Good discussion overall for sure

[tha_rami]

Fully agreed, Tucker. I think that Vice, too, enjoys a nice discussion. He even jumped in, and usually that means its a good one, and that he wants additional opinions or wants to see some additional arguments.

Noone's freaking out, by the by.

[Vice]

Yes, I often present counter-arguments to obtain more information, even if I agree with the other side of the debate. Helps me reaffirm or reconsider design decisions as to whether they are truly better for the game overall or not.

[Edited on 2-26-2008 by Vice]

[Coma]

Did someone realy say 10 mis wow thats a long time especialy concidering we have beaming technology in the game to move things to the hold which potentialy could be used to move stuff to and from hard points within seconds.......

as for me well i origionaly voted for this idea but the more i read and think about it i now wish id voted no.....

[madmax]

I di vote against but it doesn't affect me atm becuase i don't do contracts with more then 3 enemies nd don't use missiles unless I'm in trouble.

[Archangel]

Well I think what MMaggio was trying to say about it elemenateing stratagy. Is by giveing the option to move weppons to and from the cargo hold in space it alows players to carry everything they could need at all times. As it is if you want torpedos instead of the missles you curently have in the slots you go to the station and change them out. If you can swap them into the weppons slots in space then it elemenates the risk of an encounter that you hadnt planned for. Instead of comeing up with a combat strategy on the fly with limited recorces all you have to do is swap them out and go.

EX you take a mission to eleminate a patrole. No need for torps their all fighters. Well a cap ship shows up in the midle because there was a fighter in the aria that wasnt part of the mission that reported your presence. Curently you would have to concerve your missiles so you have them to use against the cap ship. If you can swap your trops/more missiles in after the fighters are gone then its really not stratagy so much as you filled your cargo bay with amo.

Lets face it in ER you done get 20 or more enemys at a time that you need to fight off. Given the small number of enemys you encounter at a time the curent number of missiles that ships can carry and the fact that you can higher wingmen, there really is no need for this. The only thing its doing is makeing combat esayer. It really dosent need to be esayer. Once a player gets used to how the ships fly and the basics of combat in ER, they relize its not as hard as they thought the first sevral times they tryed leaveing Saphire.

I've been playing for about a month and can esaly lay seage to an advanced system for 2 hours without geting killed. The only reason I eventuly end up dieing is because I expend the torps and end up being over powered (or blow myself up with the torp). But can still take down the cap ships with just guns as long as the fighters show up a cuple at a time.

I understand that new players would want things to be esayer, and people who dont have alot of time to play would like to be able to get so whare without takeing for ever to do it. But makeing things esayer also reduces the long term play ability. Which I beleve is something this game was specificly designed for to keep players entertained, thinking, and trying new things, for a long time. If I want esay and quick I can play Halo, get threw it in a few hours. Dont get me wrong its an enjoyable game, but it dosent take long to beet. ER is a game you play because it lasts, you dont get threw it in a few hours and then sit around woundering what to do next. You can play it for months and still learn new things. Dificulty has alot to do with that, make the game esayer and you get bored faster.

[Vice]

As it is if you want torpedos instead of the missles you curently have in the slots you go to the station and change them out. If you can swap them into the weppons slots in space then it elemenates the risk of an encounter that you hadnt planned for. Instead of comeing up with a combat strategy on the fly with limited recorces all you have to do is swap them out and go.

That's a solid reason. Good point. The argument that it just reduces the value of station docking doesn't seem nearly as strong as the argument for introducing the 'mandated' uncertainty factor, especially considering the variables involved with the change. The limited resource issue can still apply with the limited number of cargo bays.

If you can swap your trops/more missiles in after the fighters are gone then its really not stratagy so much as you filled your cargo bay with amo.

Ok, but what if you hadn't planned for that and failed to take what you would have needed with you in the cargo bay? Wouldn't that also be a strategic element? I guess you could argue that if you always just carry around spare missiles with you, then you're always working within a more generous range of options... but to do that, you have to give up mining, recovery, and trade options. There's still a trade off there that effects gameplay much as before.

The combat-to-longevity ratio in your last few paragraphs makes sense. Couple of solid convincing points there.

Sounds like several people have reversed their positions and some are now in the undecided category, which tips this poll in favor of not adding it. Any other comments, please post them here. I'd like to either add this or leave it out by tomorrow so the next build can be put together.

[Edited on 2-26-2008 by Vice]

[Kveldulf]

I know I posted earlier, but I'd like to voice my new opinion on this matter:

First of all, since these are internal hardpoints, I do believe we should allow switching weapons and stuff. However, I also agree that there needs to be some sort of time delay to move items around. Yes you are required to open up the inventory menu, however, once you place the order to load new missiles for instance, it just doesnt make sense for it to be immediately moved from the cargo hold (which is where they appear to be) with the platinum and other trade goods, into a launcher. There does need to be some time delay here. I think U-Boats in WW2 took up to 30 minutes to load torpedoes that were stored in the same room as the tubes, and this is with a large crew doing this mind you.

Understood, our ships are not U-Boats, and this is also in the future, but 10-20 seconds seems to fast to me, even with robots. But then I'm also into more hardcore sims, so take it for the cry for more realism that it is.

I dont fully agree with the argument about richer players being more powerful with adding this feature in, but I do agree to a degree. The biggest cargo bay you can carry holds 5 items, so overall, you'd be looking at an extra 5 missiles at most. The largest bay can also be fitted in the smallest frame, and still have assembly points left over. Granted, larger frames can carry more loaded missiles, but if you do handicap the reload time, this can be negated to a point. Ultimately, there will still be a slight advantage to the larger ships, but honestly, aren't the larger ships more biased without allowing switching? Last I checked, the Leviathen and Centurion still use basic particle and beam lasers that even the first frame you get can fit (provided the player can afford them at least).

I guess my point boils down to this; it can unbalance gameplay a little, but its already unbalanced between rich and poor/large ship and small ship, and from a role play standpoint, there is no reason to not allow it, provided there is a delay.

[Archangel]

I dont see it haveing a big efect on fairness between poorer or richer. The bigest balance issue I see with it is in game play. It would make combat alot esayer. Which in tern makes the game get boreing faster.


"Ok, but what if you hadn't planned for that and failed to take what you would have needed with you in the cargo bay? Wouldn't that also be a strategic element? I guess you could argue that if you always just carry around spare missiles with you, then you're always working within a more generous range of options... but to do that, you have to give up mining, recovery, and trade options. There's still a trade off there that effects gameplay much as before."

Yeah its still got a trade off and there is some strategy in there still. Its the reduction of strategy and skill (practice) that I see causeing a problum. Most of the enjoyment of a game is figureing it out. There are plenty of ways to use the current method to ones advantage. So why cant people do the same as many alrady have. Figure out what weppon systems are most flexeble to them and deal with suprise situations by learning to be conservetive with missiles and learning new combat tecniques.

It took me a long time to get used the the flight phisics in this game. Spent alot of time geting blown away. I also thought for a while it would be nice to be able to have more missiles. But once I got used to the game I learned some new tricks that wernt posible in other space sims, things I never would have taken the time to learn if I had additional missiles. I also learned the safest way to take down a cap ship using just guns because I used up all my missiles on the fighters. A long series of mistakes lead to haveing to learn. And all of it resulting from not haveing as many missiles as I hoped I did. Something alot of people dont consider unless they look back at it.

Its something we all do in every game and most never even think about it. But as im sure Vice knows their things a developer has to plan out. In my opion Vice got it right the first time and theres no need to change it. Anyone whos played long enough to get out of Saphire without geting blown away knows exactly what Im talking about. You learned something from all that dieing that you may not have if you could have loaded more amo from your cargo hold.

[Edit] I should really have payed more attention to grammer in school lol.

I also enjoy a good debate, this one has been most enjoyable.

[Edited on 2-26-2008 by Archangel]

[Pariah]

Man, try coming into this discussion late... it's the War and Peace of forum discussions .

I don't see this feature changing game play much. If given the ability to load more missiles on the fly I'll use it. As far as it wrecking strategy I disagree. It may wreck the current strategy model but a new one will rise up to replace it. Also, the stations serve as crew management/ refueling center/ trade hub/ shipyard/ news terminal etc. etc.... so I don't see customer frequency dropping off really being a problem.

The suspension of disbelief factor reference this being technologically possible is maintained. I can envision my crew hustling about to reload my missiles....... and I think the idea of the presence of crew members affecting the efficiency of the change is brilliant.

If you know the secrets the game is too easy. If you're just starting out and don't know them it's pretty challenging. What I think happens is that when you're new the allure of the all powerful secrets that unlock untold riches creates a compelling sense of mystery about what lies in store for you as you explore the game. Later, when you've mastered the tricks, you realize that the question was so much more valuable than the answer......

[Vice]

Wow, amazing how divided this is. I'll include one more direction as a possible way to implement this for comment, then if there isn't enough consistent interest, I'll drop the idea for future updates. Here are two possible ways to go with this (with a variation on the transfer option):

Option A - Allow transferring weapons from the cargo bay to hardpoints, but at a speed that is slower than it would take to actually travel to a nearby station and load them that way (so probably at least 60 seconds for a gun and 30 seconds per missile, maybe longer? Crew can influence speed). This would make the option relatively useless in the middle of a fight and would only be feasible while travelling from system to system or hiding somewhere. Otherwise, the fastest way to load weapons would be to travel to a station. For equipment, keep the requirement to dock at a station to install those components, so only weapons would be able to be transferred and only at a very slow speed.

Option B - Drop the idea entirely and keep the current system.

Thoughts?

[Edited on 2-26-2008 by Vice]

[MMaggio]

This forum will not allow me to make a big enough, "B"!

[Vice]

So even though you'd get 50% of what you want (removing loading anything from an equipment class) and station docking would remain the fastest and best option, you'd still vote for B? Ok There's one.

[Berdyon]

Definatly A.

It's what I proposed from the start.
And all the arguments posted here haven't made one scratch on my opinion:

It should be possible, just not useable in battle.

[Edited on 2-26-2008 by Berdyon]

[Berdyon]

And I guess it's logical not to change equipment in flight:

A missile is something you might want to load right after a battle.
The equipment is more like an idealogical choice: miners take a mining beam... etc.

Also equipment is logically, just like a gun, harder to change.

[Edited on 2-26-2008 by Berdyon]

[Mechanical]

I think I have to abstain. I really don't know. With such long delays I don't see it being at all useful in combat which seems like the primary objection to it. So I'm teetering in the middle, but the wind is blowing towards A.

What if there was a special type of weapons cargo bay, something that only had a couple slots but required a lot of assembly points? That would help with any realism issues, it's designed that way, and increase the strategic trade-offs in ship design.

Of course like always, there are probably a million things I didn't think about. I've only been playing for a week.

[Goatnado386]

In other games, such as Space Force, you can swap gear in space but you can't access your inventory screen when in combat.

You really wouldn't have to make swapping weapons take a minute or whatever you're offering. 10 seconds to change any ship part is plenty of drawback because that's a VERY long time when in the middle of a firefight. Even if you're simply waiting on a missile to get loaded onto a hardpoint it puts you a a distinct disadvantage. This is how it is done on Eve Online. You can switch and swap, but everything you do takes 10 seconds.

[Berdyon]

Thought you were against!?!?

This isn't helping that cause

[Edited on 2-26-2008 by Berdyon]