Weapons

[Honved]

Ageed, the exact stats and names are close to irrelevant. Having several options with very DIFFERENT capabilities and reasons for using them makes more sense than 16 variations with trivial differences, or having some ships that only take one type (various Discos, several Terran fighters).

[gbjbaanb]

If you flat out dont allow it, people need to make more meaningfull decisions about loadout - which i think makes things more interesting.
On the other hand its more time consuming to try different loadouts...

They need the weapons dealer's super simulator kiosk in a station, where you can try out the weapons in the ship of your choice while you decide what to buy. (ie a bit of the station where you can go into space with any ship and flip loadouts at will to see what they're like, but with no impact on the state of the universe)(and a similar one where you can try out different ships before you buy too).

If you as fighterpilot would have to EVA out of your ship in space or while its landed on a station/carrier to change your weapon manually that would be enjoyable i think, interacting with your ship(s).

Sounds interesting, but I'd be just as happy with the update-at-station-only option. There's no need for the "I win" weapons swapping in space, making players... think!... before setting out.

[gbjbaanb]

This is a really good approach, and I think it will be a shame to go back to an X3 style where literally any ship can be outfitted for any purpose. It defeats the point of having different ship classes in the first place!

I have to disagree with you on that, in X3 every ship was limited to both the load out of weapons, type(mostly race based) and caliber(ship type). You could not see a M5 touting HEPT's or PBG. On the larger ships you had more choice, but this is only logical, a M2 should be able to mount all missiles, all energy, all projectile or a mixture.

Disagree there - a M2 should not be able to mount a tiny little IRE starter pistol. Their turrets should be more for the big guns, suitable for the big turrets with long range and more damage, and specialised guns like flak or point defence for anti-fighter scenarios.

So all hardpoints should be of a size relevant to the ship, and weapons designed for those sizes. (and OK, maybe you can have the bigger versions of many guns, but you shouldn't have the biggest mountable on the smaller ships, and the smallest weapons mounted on the bigger ships)

[dholmstr]

I always wondered why Egosoft went all out and did every weapon new in Rebirth. I mean IF gates went down and pockets of space were cut of, wouldn't the old tech linger on for quite a while? And if resources were scares did they really have enough to start everything anew? Do think the HIT/MA and Plasma/MA are more or less evolutions of x3 weapons (I actually like those 2, they have cons and pros). The PLASMA is really a new version of TERRAN Empc.

I was also abit baffled why they designed all new ships and not used more of the old works horses like Nova and such, instead they made loads of really crappy fighters for some reasons.

But back to guns, I want to see the old system where I could choose the role of my fighters (and even capitals), by picking guns for the said task. Like HEPT for heavy duty shooting bigger ships and PACS for wacking fighters vs fighters.

[Honved]

But back to guns, I want to see the old system where I could choose the role of my fighters (and even capitals), by picking guns for the said task. Like HEPT for heavy duty shooting bigger ships and PACS for wacking fighters vs fighters.

The problem with HEPT versus PAC was that In-System, the higher rate of fire and slightly lower energy draw per point of damage of PAC made it my fighter weapon of choice for taking on capital ships. HEPT burned too much power, and the target's shields regenerated before my guns did. I found 6xPAC plus 2 of some more specialized weapon (PBG, Ion-D, or PRG), or else 8xPAC, to be better choices than some multiple of HEPTs. Out of system it didn't pay at all to use PAC if you could fit HEPT.

X3:TC had a number of highly specializd guns:

Ion Disruptors - area effect, minimal hull damage, high shield and internal systems damage, ideal for "stripping" weapons and systems from a ship before boarding.

Plasma Burst Generators - area effect, mulitple hit areas on larger targets. Nasty against anything that gets close enough.

Phased Repeater Guns - high bullet speed, high rate of fire, but low damage per shot made it ideal for controlled damage against small, fast targets.

Proton Beam Emitters (or "Pure Bloody Evil") - high sheld damage, low hull damage, extreme speed but short range, ideal for taking down shields without doing a lot of hull damage.

Mass Driver Cannons - bypassed shields completely.


My hope is that the degree of difference between weapons is at least as great in X4, rather than simply various "sizes" of weapons with widely varying names but functionally just bigger and smaller versions of the same thing. If they're going to be just different sizes of the same thing, call them the same thing, with a number or letter to indicate size: "A/B/C", or "L/M/H" versions.

Oh, and while we're at it, PLEASE fix the broken ship nomenclature. The earlier games in the series had M3-M5, and when bigger ships were added (M1, M2), it left no room for more between them, so we got M6, M7, and M8 waaaaaay out of sequence; then they added M0 because it made no sense to call a super-capital ship an M9. The whole thing needs to be renumbered in a more logical order, from smallest (M1) to largest, so it's an open-ended scale for future games in the series (looking at you, M20: artificial planet?). They could still use M0 as a military designation for civilian personal transports (the space equivalent of the family car), or some other smaller class than scout ships. The old veterans know the present crazy sequence of numbers, but it's got to be a lot of needless confusion for a new player.

By the way, I figure it's better to ask and/or complain about stuff now, rather than wait 6 months or a year until the fundamentals are already mostly done, and it's too late to change things.

[mr.WHO]

I don't care for X3 weapons, but I do care for X3 weapon variety.
X-Rebirth was poor in both player and NPC/capship weapons.

[ajime]

Ahh.. the rich weapon content options in X3, so much effort i have spent for configuring my ships to experiment guns. I gotta get back to my fully PAC armed Python soon to get some fun.

[ubuntufreakdragon]

I want a real Ion disruptor that disables surface elements individually without destroying them.

[dholmstr]

Honved, I wasn't really talking about HEPT vs PAC per say, more about the the overall options when it came to what guns on what ship. This option is not present in Rebirth (except maybe the players ship buuut thats a whole other thingy).
I just wonder why they they choose to go the one gun option on the players ship, and why we can't choose what guns on our fighters. Again it prolly would need more out of the engine than they have time or resources to build on. The capital guns are good, but again there ain't a choice just put all in and get on with it.
The picture I have gotten about Rebirth was that Egosoft wanted to try a new engine and rightly so. I was also willing to pay actual money for that so they could continue the work. I don't think Rebirth was ever anything more than a xtensive lab test

[A5PECT]

I liked the variety of weapons on the Skunk in XR, they all had distinct feels and functions, and catered to several different combat styles. It was a little silly having all of those different weapons on the Skunk at the same time, and disappointing being restricted to using one weapon at a time. But both of those issues should be resolved in X4.

The weapon selection for AI-controlled ships was what was really lacking in XR.

I wasn't a fan of the alpha/beta/gamma system, and was glad to see it done away with in AP. Weapon design like that is overly graduated distinction with no real difference.

[Killjaeden]

I wasn't a fan of the alpha/beta/gamma system, and was glad to see it done away with in AP. Weapon design like that is overly graduated distinction with no real difference.

No Difference? What? The difference between alpha and gamma was significant.
Stuff added in TC (not AP) was no different from A/B/G system other than name and minor stats. Ion Cannon, PPC, IBL - all the same, except name and bullet graphic - could as well have been Beta and Gamma PPC.
PRG was like an IRE beta version (fast firing, stronger). PBG (the flame throwers) which just substituted the Alpha PSG .
CIG where like Beta HEPT or APPC - longer range, more power, more draw.

It just made weapon selection more confusing for new players. ABG System you need to learn the role of one weapon, and then have different sizes of it. Very easy to grasp. AP you need to memorize every weapon one by one - and yet there are barely any differences.

[gbjbaanb]

I just wonder why they they choose to go the one gun option on the players ship)

because in the FPS engine they used, you only equipped 1 gun at a time, swapping between shotgun, sniper rifle and chainsaw as needed....

[adeine]

Whichever selection we end up with, I hope there is a decent tactical choice for capital ships with satisfyingly effective anti-fighter/flak weaponry vs heavy/anti-capital weaponry.

[Fulgrymm]

I liked the ABG system, it added a degree of granulation to weapon power.