Topic: minor assistance.  (Read 2564 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
minor assistance.
« on: February 10, 2016, 08:34:18 pm »
ships may vary in fighters carried so a list will work in 50 a reasonable upper limit?

ships may have light and heavy weapons, this will also be lists, are 10 light and 10 heavy reasonable?

Offline Captain Adam

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 737
  • Gender: Male
Re: minor assistance.
« Reply #1 on: February 10, 2016, 09:29:30 pm »
.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 05:48:32 pm by Captain Adam »

Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1668
  • Gender: Male
Re: minor assistance.
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2016, 12:39:00 am »
I like having a ratio of 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 in terms of Lights to Heavies.  Not every ship needs to use every hardpoint, but Heavies are supposed to be the big hitters.  If they are even in numbers, then they lose their effect.
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline EschelonOfJudgemnt

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 259
Re: minor assistance.
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2016, 03:31:57 am »
I agree with the concept of light weapons having a higher percentage of the total slots.  'Point defense' weaponry can tend to soak up a lot of weapon slots if you are trying to cover multiple arcs, depending on if you have a lot of seeking weapons, small craft, and such to deal with.

Also, in SFC, combining weapons into shared hardpoints has other consequences.  I.E. 4 weapons in the same slot use only one unit of 'repair stores', same as a single weapon in the same hardpoint.  Your implementation may handle this differently, of course.

In my mind having more than 2 weapons in a hardpoint reduces flexibility a slight bit as well...  I'd rather have 20 hardpoints with a 2 weapon cap than 10 hardpoints with a 4 weapon cap, if the only reason for combining these is 'saving screen space'.  Of course, if the weapons console 'window' is tiny, then having 40 hardpoints might look way too cluttered...

If you are talking a quad mount gun or something, then 4 weapons in that hardpoint might make sense.  If we had 'WWII style turrets', then having 3 or even 4 heavy weapons in the same mount would make a certain amount of sense.  Star Trek doesn't really do turrets though, just 'shared' mounts... and we don't have fine control over individual weapons in a hardpoint (i.e. we can only fire one at a time, or all of them, so if you wanted to fire two simultaneously, well that requires two keystrokes instead of one.  Or if you only want to arm two of the four weapons, or mix overloads with standard loads, etc., well all weapons in the same hardpoint will share the same state, power limitations aside, so you lose 'fine control' by combining weapons in a hardpoint).

I think a 24/12 split is probably not a bad target.  Pairs, triples, and quads are common, and 10 is just a weird number in that context (not divisible by 3or 4).  Or 16/12, 18/12, etc.

'Shared location' multiple hardpoints can always be expressed with two touching boxes (i.e. the don't have to be separated), to help with the screen real estate.  Similar to how they are done on SFB SSD's.  Compromising a bit, of course, with allowing 2 weapons to share a hardpoint (i.e. 4 weapons in the same location expressed as two hardpoints of 2, again to allow addditional flexibility).

Another concept which is 'lost' in the translation from SFB to SFC is the size of heavy weapons.  PPD's and Plasma R torps are larger than some of the other heavy weapons, so they might occupy 2,3, or 4 'slots' in a hardpoint.  I.E. 3 or 4 Plasma F's might fit in the same space as a single R torp...

Also, SFB's 'one size fits all' concept for heavy weapons (plasmas aside) is a 'kludge' to keep things simple.  In reality, you might have multiple sizes of disruptors, for example, which do more damage (and perhaps have longer range) as they grow in size.  If you are making your own game, you can introduce some variability here in some cases.  Plasma Torps in SFB/SFC are a good example of this concept in practice.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 03:43:48 am by EschelonOfJudgemnt »

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: minor assistance.
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2016, 09:25:34 am »
thank you

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 11629
Re: minor assistance.
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2016, 09:31:44 pm »
Why do they have to be different?  Why could not any of the weapon positions be designated for any weapon?  From SFB for example there was a variant D7 with Ph-1 on the disruptor hardpoints.  Is there a programming need or is this just a convention chosen back with SFC1?
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Captain Adam

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 737
  • Gender: Male
Re: minor assistance.
« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2016, 03:15:13 am »
.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 05:45:29 pm by Captain Adam »

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: minor assistance.
« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2016, 09:48:10 am »
no reason, just asking.