[v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
[v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.
If you look at the model of the Barbarossa in the screenshot, it has a blank space beneath the second large turret group (fully populated) just like other blanks where a turret should go if not present.
But you cannot put a turret here. The screenshot shows all turrets full and the blank remains.
If the second turret group was symmetrical with the first turret group it would have two turrets, one above and one below, filling the blank but it does not, it only has one dorsal turret.
I dont know if this is oversight or intentional but am reporting it in case it is oversight and because imho it does not look right and should either have a turret in that space or it should have hull doodads, textures and skin colours, not just a blank space as if a turret is missing, surely?
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... 2878332031
But you cannot put a turret here. The screenshot shows all turrets full and the blank remains.
If the second turret group was symmetrical with the first turret group it would have two turrets, one above and one below, filling the blank but it does not, it only has one dorsal turret.
I dont know if this is oversight or intentional but am reporting it in case it is oversight and because imho it does not look right and should either have a turret in that space or it should have hull doodads, textures and skin colours, not just a blank space as if a turret is missing, surely?
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... 2878332031
bloop
-
- EGOSOFT
- Posts: 3321
- Joined: Mon, 26. Mar 12, 14:57
Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa
Hey,
this was indeed previously a turret mount.
After the asset was finished, it was decided that the loadout was too good for the ship, so the connection for the turret was removed.
The visual asset was not adjusted to reflect that.
this was indeed previously a turret mount.
After the asset was finished, it was decided that the loadout was too good for the ship, so the connection for the turret was removed.
The visual asset was not adjusted to reflect that.
01001100 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110100 01101001 01101101 01100101 01110011 00101110 00101110 00101110
My art stuff
My art stuff
Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa
...which is awesome as modders could easily take it from there
Spoiler
Show
BurnIt: Boron and leaks don't go well together...
Königinnenreich von Boron: Sprich mit deinem Flossenführer
Nila Ti: Folgt mir, ihr Kavalkade von neugierigen Kreaturen!
Pick yourpoison seed [for custom gamestarts]
Königinnenreich von Boron: Sprich mit deinem Flossenführer
Nila Ti: Folgt mir, ihr Kavalkade von neugierigen Kreaturen!
Pick your
Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa
I appreciate your candid reply. It had to be something like that but I am sorry to say, now it looks wrong. If you ask me though, nothing is too good for players of X4!
I can't see the reason for taking the turret away after working so hard to create it. If it is worrisome for OOS combat or OP aganst the player just set NPC loadouts to not use it and let us do so if we can capture it. It cant be more OP than the Asgard!
I doubt it is OP, with no main battery and one shield its just a beefy freighter, would die to a few Ms and a couple of Ps. I capped two simultaneously in Geometric Owl, thinking, this is too easy, glad they haven't got all their turrets.
Nice cabin though!
IMHO having a stronger ventral side would be interesting if you ever flew it.
I can't see the reason for taking the turret away after working so hard to create it. If it is worrisome for OOS combat or OP aganst the player just set NPC loadouts to not use it and let us do so if we can capture it. It cant be more OP than the Asgard!
I doubt it is OP, with no main battery and one shield its just a beefy freighter, would die to a few Ms and a couple of Ps. I capped two simultaneously in Geometric Owl, thinking, this is too easy, glad they haven't got all their turrets.
Nice cabin though!
IMHO having a stronger ventral side would be interesting if you ever flew it.
bloop
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 4750
- Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa
The Barbarossa is a heavily armored L trader. It is already high tier as far as L traders go both as a trader and that it is pretty much immune to anything other than pirate destroyers, which it easily outruns. It even has pretty good fire power for being a L trader, which is likely why it was decided to remove that L turret.
That said I do not know why they did not make a different variant of the Barbarossa that was more combat orientated that did have that L turret. VIG would use it to protect Windfall rather than as pirate raiders, effectively filling the role as their own destroyer rather than a freighter. To balance the extra fire power, shield and hull it would have significantly less cargo space and be slower (not suitable for trading). This would even have fit their scrap based build style quite well as the Barbarossa would be a modified, pirate orientated, version of that ship.
That said I do not know why they did not make a different variant of the Barbarossa that was more combat orientated that did have that L turret. VIG would use it to protect Windfall rather than as pirate raiders, effectively filling the role as their own destroyer rather than a freighter. To balance the extra fire power, shield and hull it would have significantly less cargo space and be slower (not suitable for trading). This would even have fit their scrap based build style quite well as the Barbarossa would be a modified, pirate orientated, version of that ship.
-
- Posts: 1263
- Joined: Thu, 17. Feb 05, 16:51
Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa
Would indeed be a great suggestion to the dev team to provide VIG with a destroyer of their own, with a unique role to play & fitting in with their theme, a freighter repurposed for combat/intimidation purposes.Imperial Good wrote: ↑Tue, 25. Oct 22, 12:37The Barbarossa is a heavily armored L trader. It is already high tier as far as L traders go both as a trader and that it is pretty much immune to anything other than pirate destroyers, which it easily outruns. It even has pretty good fire power for being a L trader, which is likely why it was decided to remove that L turret.
That said I do not know why they did not make a different variant of the Barbarossa that was more combat orientated that did have that L turret. VIG would use it to protect Windfall rather than as pirate raiders, effectively filling the role as their own destroyer rather than a freighter. To balance the extra fire power, shield and hull it would have significantly less cargo space and be slower (not suitable for trading). This would even have fit their scrap based build style quite well as the Barbarossa would be a modified, pirate orientated, version of that ship.
Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.
Buffalo of the Split is outbalanced with the Barbarossa
You should at least change the cargo cap. Buffalo is a real L freighter not a hybrid. - Or stick some turrets on it.
You should at least change the cargo cap. Buffalo is a real L freighter not a hybrid. - Or stick some turrets on it.
-
- Moderator (English)
- Posts: 30368
- Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.
This is no longer a Tech Sp issue, so I'll move the discussion over to gameplay and suggestions.
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.
-
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Mon, 31. Jan 22, 14:43
Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.
The Barbarossa also costs about triple just for the hull. It's actually more expensive than most destroyers. That's the balancing factor compared to the "pure" L traders.
Though i agree the cargo bay could be reduced to maybe 15k or so. Once you can afford it there's pretty much no reason to ever use another L trader again.
Also is it just me or do Barbarossas just not get harassed by pirates? I've checked through the logs of my Barbarossa autotraders and none of them had a single case of pirate harassment in their entries.
That'd be another pretty big advantage if true.
Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.
That is not true, what i remember.blackphoenixx wrote: ↑Thu, 10. Nov 22, 11:24The Barbarossa also costs about triple just for the hull. It's actually more expensive than most destroyers. That's the balancing factor compared to the "pure" L traders.
Though i agree the cargo bay could be reduced to maybe 15k or so. Once you can afford it there's pretty much no reason to ever use another L trader again.
Also is it just me or do Barbarossas just not get harassed by pirates? I've checked through the logs of my Barbarossa autotraders and none of them had a single case of pirate harassment in their entries.
That'd be another pretty big advantage if true.
I think it's a pity that there are so many useless (and too slow) ships, especially among the freighters. Credits shouldn't be an excuse, they're too easily earned these days in X4.
Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.
Don't look at the opposite side of the shield generator mount of the Kukri.
Would make more sense than SCA running around in Phoenixes and Behemoths and the idiots that is faction military going "hmmm... I'm at war with the Argon but this Behemoth is clearly not a threat."
I've suggested that before but for normal faction L freighters instead. They'll look the same of course, just with more hardpoints. And be faster as well as the other stuff suggested above, true raiders.Starlight_Corporation wrote: ↑Thu, 10. Nov 22, 00:17Would indeed be a great suggestion to the dev team to provide VIG with a destroyer of their own, with a unique role to play & fitting in with their theme, a freighter repurposed for combat/intimidation purposes.Imperial Good wrote: ↑Tue, 25. Oct 22, 12:37The Barbarossa is a heavily armored L trader. It is already high tier as far as L traders go both as a trader and that it is pretty much immune to anything other than pirate destroyers, which it easily outruns. It even has pretty good fire power for being a L trader, which is likely why it was decided to remove that L turret.
That said I do not know why they did not make a different variant of the Barbarossa that was more combat orientated that did have that L turret. VIG would use it to protect Windfall rather than as pirate raiders, effectively filling the role as their own destroyer rather than a freighter. To balance the extra fire power, shield and hull it would have significantly less cargo space and be slower (not suitable for trading). This would even have fit their scrap based build style quite well as the Barbarossa would be a modified, pirate orientated, version of that ship.
Would make more sense than SCA running around in Phoenixes and Behemoths and the idiots that is faction military going "hmmm... I'm at war with the Argon but this Behemoth is clearly not a threat."
-
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Sat, 6. Aug 22, 23:41
Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa
All the problems with X4, and this is the thing you’re picking? Ha ha ha!
Oh, man, thanks for the laugh. I needed that.
You're not wrong, and it was originally posted to tech support forum... Still. Made me laugh. I have nightmares about Egosoft choosing to spend all their time fixing things at this level....