[v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Post Reply
User avatar
Submarine
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu, 11. Nov 04, 22:25
x3tc

[v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.

Post by Submarine » Sat, 22. Oct 22, 11:51

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
bloop

linolafett
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 3321
Joined: Mon, 26. Mar 12, 14:57
x4

Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa

Post by linolafett » Mon, 24. Oct 22, 15:58

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.
01001100 01101001 01101110 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01110100 01101001 01101101 01100101 01110011 00101110 00101110 00101110

My art stuff

User avatar
chew-ie
Posts: 5439
Joined: Mon, 5. May 08, 00:05
x4

Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa

Post by chew-ie » Mon, 24. Oct 22, 16:04

linolafett wrote:
Mon, 24. Oct 22, 15:58
The visual asset was not adjusted to reflect that.
...which is awesome as modders could easily take it from there :)

Image

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!

:idea: Pick your poison seed [for custom gamestarts]

User avatar
Submarine
Posts: 458
Joined: Thu, 11. Nov 04, 22:25
x3tc

Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa

Post by Submarine » Tue, 25. Oct 22, 01:17

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.
bloop

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4750
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa

Post by Imperial Good » Tue, 25. Oct 22, 12:37

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.

Starlight_Corporation
Posts: 1263
Joined: Thu, 17. Feb 05, 16:51
x4

Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa

Post by Starlight_Corporation » Thu, 10. Nov 22, 00:17

Imperial Good wrote:
Tue, 25. Oct 22, 12:37
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.
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.

User avatar
EGO_Aut
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon, 2. Dec 19, 19:40
x4

Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.

Post by EGO_Aut » Thu, 10. Nov 22, 08:58

Buffalo of the Split is outbalanced with the Barbarossa :rant:

You should at least change the cargo cap. Buffalo is a real L freighter not a hybrid. - Or stick some turrets on it.

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30368
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.

Post by Alan Phipps » Thu, 10. Nov 22, 11:08

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.

blackphoenixx
Posts: 239
Joined: Mon, 31. Jan 22, 14:43

Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.

Post by blackphoenixx » Thu, 10. Nov 22, 11:24

EGO_Aut wrote:
Thu, 10. Nov 22, 08:58
Buffalo of the Split is outbalanced with the Barbarossa :rant:

You should at least change the cargo cap. Buffalo is a real L freighter not a hybrid. - Or stick some turrets on it.
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.

User avatar
EGO_Aut
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon, 2. Dec 19, 19:40
x4

Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.

Post by EGO_Aut » Thu, 10. Nov 22, 11:45

blackphoenixx wrote:
Thu, 10. Nov 22, 11:24
EGO_Aut wrote:
Thu, 10. Nov 22, 08:58
Buffalo of the Split is outbalanced with the Barbarossa :rant:

You should at least change the cargo cap. Buffalo is a real L freighter not a hybrid. - Or stick some turrets on it.
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.
That is not true, what i remember.
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.

Raptor34
Posts: 2475
Joined: Sat, 12. Jun 10, 04:43
x4

Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa - WAI.

Post by Raptor34 » Thu, 10. Nov 22, 16:42

Don't look at the opposite side of the shield generator mount of the Kukri.
Starlight_Corporation wrote:
Thu, 10. Nov 22, 00:17
Imperial Good wrote:
Tue, 25. Oct 22, 12:37
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.
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.
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.
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."

ahostofissues
Posts: 115
Joined: Sat, 6. Aug 22, 23:41

Re: [v5.10] obviously missing a turret on Barbarossa

Post by ahostofissues » Thu, 10. Nov 22, 17:53

Submarine wrote:
Tue, 25. Oct 22, 01:17
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!
:lol: 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....

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”