Weapons faction, hull specific, or open after a new tier is introduced?

xcvxvx
xcvxvx
Incursion Leader
Joined May 2014 Posts: 1,111
edited 11 Oct 2017, 9:13PM
A area of interest is being able to mount weapons(and or tech) that fit the player's style on tactics rather than frozen to a faction or hull type.
 

Weapons faction, hull specific, or open after a new tier is introduced? 17 votes

Faction specific
35% 6 votes
hull specific
11% 2 votes
open released after a time period
17% 3 votes
independent of faction or hull when introduced
35% 6 votes
  • RaniRahn
    RaniRahn
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Sep 2015 Posts: 1,393
    no bacon?
    52 45 38 67 54 6b 39 55 49 45 4a 56 57 53 42 44 54 30 6c 4f 55 79 45 3d
  • M.V.K.0
    M.V.K.0
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Jan 2017 Posts: 1,010
    Since is still mainly based on a Turn-Based Style system, there has to be say Faction and/or Hull Specific Tech. All player progression is based on the story despite ones expense for development to have. 

    If time would allow say a Level drop for the newer Levels, then yes that would change tactics, but till then the overall Strategy remains the same, only certain ships gain certain attributes upon initial release despite how anything is acquired let alone still when. 


    Thanks,

    MVK
  • Nightmare Deathlock
    Nightmare Deathlock
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Oct 2014 Posts: 8,616

    Its not turn based at all mvk

    born in sector 1100

    alliance: LORD (VC only)

    VC: lv42 base (only game worth playing) likes to mess with noobs. loves being an insector (who doesnt? lol)

    BP: lv46 base (i think) retired

    WC: lv14 base (i think) hate this game...

  • Brutalitywarlord
    Brutalitywarlord
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Jul 2015 Posts: 101
    I disagree with getting rid of hull exclusivity, there are certain weapons that should stay on specific type if they are meant to perform the function of that ship. Faction exclusivity however, definitely  needs to go as it just leaves people who can't score enough for the ships, completely out of abilities to compete with the new event fleets and try and catch up. Unfortunately Kixeye ignores these polls and will not make decisions based on them, or at least not ones made by the fans of the game
  • Nightmare Deathlock
    Nightmare Deathlock
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Oct 2014 Posts: 8,616

    Hull exclusive destroys variety more than faction exclusive brutality... A lot of hull exclusive items would be 10x more useful on other ships...

    born in sector 1100

    alliance: LORD (VC only)

    VC: lv42 base (only game worth playing) likes to mess with noobs. loves being an insector (who doesnt? lol)

    BP: lv46 base (i think) retired

    WC: lv14 base (i think) hate this game...

  • M.V.K.0
    M.V.K.0
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Jan 2017 Posts: 1,010

    Its not turn based at all mvk

    Yes it is.


    Thanks,

    MVK
  • Nightmare Deathlock
    Nightmare Deathlock
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Oct 2014 Posts: 8,616

    @M.V.K.0 said:
    Nightmare Deathlock said:

    Its not turn based at all mvk

    Yes it is.

    Thanks,

    MVK

    facepalm ok then how can we move our ships freely? Weapons have reload times that are based on times and not turns, and the ability to physically dodge much more than a turn based style rts would do?

    born in sector 1100

    alliance: LORD (VC only)

    VC: lv42 base (only game worth playing) likes to mess with noobs. loves being an insector (who doesnt? lol)

    BP: lv46 base (i think) retired

    WC: lv14 base (i think) hate this game...

  • geotku
    geotku
    Minor Nuisance
    Joined Sep 2015 Posts: 108
    For those whom desire BACON!!!   

    http://ozarksbaconfest.com  This Sat, 10/14/17.  

    And soon enough, fleets shall sizzle like BACON!! upon our OP Bases!! HooRaahhh!!
  • M.V.K.0
    M.V.K.0
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Jan 2017 Posts: 1,010

    @M.V.K.0 said:
    Nightmare Deathlock said:

    Its not turn based at all mvk

    Yes it is.

    Thanks,

    MVK

    facepalm ok then how can we move our ships freely? Weapons have reload times that are based on times and not turns, and the ability to physically dodge much more than a turn based style rts would do?

    Movements and Firing Rates does not need to needed to justify Turn-Based Regards. 

    What can and can not be dodged also, but not needed for mention, supply the interest to say what is placed for Turn-Based or not either.
    But, I can give you a hint, What did you ask again??


    Thanks,

    MVK

  • Nightmare Deathlock
    Nightmare Deathlock
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Oct 2014 Posts: 8,616

    @M.V.K.0 said:
    Nightmare Deathlock said:

    @M.V.K.0 said:

    Nightmare Deathlock said:

    Its not turn based at all mvk
    
    
    
    Yes it is.
    
    Thanks,
    

    MVK

    facepalm ok then how can we move our ships freely? Weapons have reload times that are based on times and not turns, and the ability to physically dodge much more than a turn based style rts would do?

    Movements and Firing Rates does not need to needed to justify Turn-Based Regards. 

    What can and can not be dodged also, but not needed for mention, supply the interest to say what is placed for Turn-Based or not either.
    But, I can give you a hint, What did you ask again??

    Thanks,

    MVK

    Turned based means only one side does actions before the other, this is not the case at all for vega

    born in sector 1100

    alliance: LORD (VC only)

    VC: lv42 base (only game worth playing) likes to mess with noobs. loves being an insector (who doesnt? lol)

    BP: lv46 base (i think) retired

    WC: lv14 base (i think) hate this game...

  • M.V.K.0
    M.V.K.0
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Jan 2017 Posts: 1,010
    edited 12 Oct 2017, 4:00AM

    @M.V.K.0 said:
    Nightmare Deathlock said:

    @M.V.K.0 said:

    Nightmare Deathlock said:

    Its not turn based at all mvk
    
    
    
    Yes it is.
    
    Thanks,
    

    MVK

    facepalm ok then how can we move our ships freely? Weapons have reload times that are based on times and not turns, and the ability to physically dodge much more than a turn based style rts would do?

    Movements and Firing Rates does not need to needed to justify Turn-Based Regards. 

    What can and can not be dodged also, but not needed for mention, supply the interest to say what is placed for Turn-Based or not either.
    But, I can give you a hint, What did you ask again??

    Thanks,

    MVK

    Turned based means only one side does actions before the other, this is not the case at all for vega

    I would say is very debatable still for the worth of VEGA. 

    I will say may not be all Turn-Base, but for any within a RTS would still make it a Turn-Based since the rest can't add up to be a RTS.

    And as much as thing don't add up as they still cost, what adds up is still the difference.

    And for example, the basis of Formations makes a good 50-50 really for what I would say you have said for what is worth an RTS to say isn't Turn-Based about.


    Thanks,

    MVK
  • Harlan Harvey
    Harlan Harvey
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Jan 2016 Posts: 1,794

    Dude..... seriously???? Read this out loud to yourself... It makes ZERO SENSE. NONE. PERIOD.

  • M.V.K.0
    M.V.K.0
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Jan 2017 Posts: 1,010

    Dude..... seriously???? Read this out loud to yourself... It makes ZERO SENSE. NONE. PERIOD.

    I actually do sometimes and along with others have read, I still don't find your difference. 

    I may say find some other differences, but I still don't think half of them matter.


    Thanks,

    MVK
  • xcvxvx
    xcvxvx
    Incursion Leader
    Joined May 2014 Posts: 1,111
    I disagree with getting rid of hull exclusivity, there are certain weapons that should stay on specific type if they are meant to perform the function of that ship. Faction exclusivity however, definitely  needs to go as it just leaves people who can't score enough for the ships, completely out of abilities to compete with the new event fleets and try and catch up. Unfortunately Kixeye ignores these polls and will not make decisions based on them, or at least not ones made by the fans of the game
    There would be nothing preventing mounting a destroyer only weapon on a cruiser when refitting for a particular target.  Of course the added range of the destroyer would not transfer over.  Yet the destroyer would still be able to use said weapon.   A weapon is a weapon.   Hull exclusivity restricts player creativity.   And personal tactics.   Example: Mercury beam: faction demon corp ,hull: Carrier?  Notice that there is no way to assign a weapon to Demon carrier In fact no Demon faction hull carries this weapon.   By opening up to all someone might have a use for it.
    Form and function of any weapon is victory.  Ending hull exclusive after a time would drive refit coining as more players experimented with seeing what works. 
  • Harlan Harvey
    Harlan Harvey
    Force to be Reckoned With
    Joined Jan 2016 Posts: 1,794

    Whatever man.
    Your doing fine. Your just a very special person.

  • M.V.K.0
    M.V.K.0
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Jan 2017 Posts: 1,010
    xcvxvx said:
    I disagree with getting rid of hull exclusivity, there are certain weapons that should stay on specific type if they are meant to perform the function of that ship. Faction exclusivity however, definitely  needs to go as it just leaves people who can't score enough for the ships, completely out of abilities to compete with the new event fleets and try and catch up. Unfortunately Kixeye ignores these polls and will not make decisions based on them, or at least not ones made by the fans of the game
    There would be nothing preventing mounting a destroyer only weapon on a cruiser when refitting for a particular target.  Of course the added range of the destroyer would not transfer over.  Yet the destroyer would still be able to use said weapon.   A weapon is a weapon.   Hull exclusivity restricts player creativity.   And personal tactics.   Example: Mercury beam: faction demon corp ,hull: Carrier?  Notice that there is no way to assign a weapon to Demon carrier In fact no Demon faction hull carries this weapon.   By opening up to all someone might have a use for it.
    Form and function of any weapon is victory.  Ending hull exclusive after a time would drive refit coining as more players experimented with seeing what works. 
    Yes, but in saying that is still saying then that weapon can not provide a place to use for the ship if other weapons were still allowed to be equipped.

    How is player creativity not restricted otherwise??


    Thanks,

    MVK
  • Nightmare Deathlock
    Nightmare Deathlock
    Unicorn Overlord
    Joined Oct 2014 Posts: 8,616

    I dont care if faction restriction exists... That makes much more sense than ship restrictions, restricting to a specific class only... Let alone both... Is a brutal choice for the said equipment... Take the stasis special for frigates... While useful on the tornado i think id want that on some shatter battleships or something you know? Or the mercury beam which would be plenty more useful on say a covenant built specifically for squadron destruction

    born in sector 1100

    alliance: LORD (VC only)

    VC: lv42 base (only game worth playing) likes to mess with noobs. loves being an insector (who doesnt? lol)

    BP: lv46 base (i think) retired

    WC: lv14 base (i think) hate this game...

  • xcvxvx
    xcvxvx
    Incursion Leader
    Joined May 2014 Posts: 1,111
    M.V.K.0 said:
    xcvxvx said:
    I disagree with getting rid of hull exclusivity, there are certain weapons that should stay on specific type if they are meant to perform the function of that ship. Faction exclusivity however, definitely  needs to go as it just leaves people who can't score enough for the ships, completely out of abilities to compete with the new event fleets and try and catch up. Unfortunately Kixeye ignores these polls and will not make decisions based on them, or at least not ones made by the fans of the game
    There would be nothing preventing mounting a destroyer only weapon on a cruiser when refitting for a particular target.  Of course the added range of the destroyer would not transfer over.  Yet the destroyer would still be able to use said weapon.   A weapon is a weapon.   Hull exclusivity restricts player creativity.   And personal tactics.   Example: Mercury beam: faction demon corp ,hull: Carrier?  Notice that there is no way to assign a weapon to Demon carrier In fact no Demon faction hull carries this weapon.   By opening up to all someone might have a use for it.
    Form and function of any weapon is victory.  Ending hull exclusive after a time would drive refit coining as more players experimented with seeing what works. 
    Yes, but in saying that is still saying then that weapon can not provide a place to use for the ship if other weapons were still allowed to be equipped.

    How is player creativity not restricted otherwise??


    Thanks,

    MVK
    I think that what you are communicating is what to do with more choices in weaponry.  Ending exclusiveness allows a player to load out the way that suits them best.  Some people like beam weapons some like explosive.  The weapon does not provide a place for usage the hull carries weapons chosen by the player.  There may be 2-6 weapon spots per hull.  What a player(in an event) attacks determines load out.  The hull and weapons are as best as possible at a player's discretion.  Ending restrictions allows effective loadouts per player Doctrine.  I am not sure that I am answering your question.  The syntax is not American English.  If in another language I can try to have it translated.  For instance: the weapon does not provide a place.  What hulls are in your fleet?  Try this ship calculator to  possibly illustrate what I am posting about.
    http://www.vegashipcalc.co.uk/index.php?ship=3&l=1

  • M.V.K.0
    M.V.K.0
    Incursion Leader
    Joined Jan 2017 Posts: 1,010
    xcvxvx said:
    M.V.K.0 said:
    xcvxvx said:
    I disagree with getting rid of hull exclusivity, there are certain weapons that should stay on specific type if they are meant to perform the function of that ship. Faction exclusivity however, definitely  needs to go as it just leaves people who can't score enough for the ships, completely out of abilities to compete with the new event fleets and try and catch up. Unfortunately Kixeye ignores these polls and will not make decisions based on them, or at least not ones made by the fans of the game
    There would be nothing preventing mounting a destroyer only weapon on a cruiser when refitting for a particular target.  Of course the added range of the destroyer would not transfer over.  Yet the destroyer would still be able to use said weapon.   A weapon is a weapon.   Hull exclusivity restricts player creativity.   And personal tactics.   Example: Mercury beam: faction demon corp ,hull: Carrier?  Notice that there is no way to assign a weapon to Demon carrier In fact no Demon faction hull carries this weapon.   By opening up to all someone might have a use for it.
    Form and function of any weapon is victory.  Ending hull exclusive after a time would drive refit coining as more players experimented with seeing what works. 
    Yes, but in saying that is still saying then that weapon can not provide a place to use for the ship if other weapons were still allowed to be equipped.

    How is player creativity not restricted otherwise??


    Thanks,

    MVK
    I think that what you are communicating is what to do with more choices in weaponry.  Ending exclusiveness allows a player to load out the way that suits them best.  Some people like beam weapons some like explosive.  The weapon does not provide a place for usage the hull carries weapons chosen by the player.  There may be 2-6 weapon spots per hull.  What a player(in an event) attacks determines load out.  The hull and weapons are as best as possible at a player's discretion.  Ending restrictions allows effective loadouts per player Doctrine.  I am not sure that I am answering your question.  The syntax is not American English.  If in another language I can try to have it translated.  For instance: the weapon does not provide a place.  What hulls are in your fleet?  Try this ship calculator to  possibly illustrate what I am posting about.
    http://www.vegashipcalc.co.uk/index.php?ship=3&l=1

    My syntax is fine given I didn't leave my response short of your replay. I just don't think you read what you said for my response.

    But in regards to Doctrine of a Player to say, that has been stated many times through out this thread already and still really only seems to be in question in regards to of instances where that still saying then that weapon can not provide a place to use for the ship if other weapons were still allowed to be equipped, has a conflict in which to present that otherwise for restrictions does not. And with no conflict for restrictions to still have is regards to be creative for players to still do.

    I don't mention anything else for response then what you have said despite what anyone else has been saying. Take what is in saying to those terms and see if any conditions then change for what don't still otherwise. 
    After that, perhaps a place of words can shift and alter the regards to use and of use to find since something has went somewhere else then it was before against rewording for the samething over and over again for different words to have following words used before for the samething. 

    I can understand that, I know at times it is question since most people just say talk the speak anything or always speaking and never really talk when practical communication between people need both. 
    My response other is basically the same outcome for say the interests of weapons so far. Which could highlight at a time why things are confusing and say syntax and construct has little to no difference at all really anymore. I would say is practical to the terms of "Non-progressionalism" but there are probably still better words for the ways. 


    Thanks,

    MVK
Sign In or Register to comment.