Well not technically plot, but whatever.
In the docs it says it still takes an entire frigate chassis to hold an ion cannon. Uh.. but what about ion plats?
Well not technically plot, but whatever.
In the docs it says it still takes an entire frigate chassis to hold an ion cannon. Uh.. but what about ion plats?
Ion plats dont have such strong engines, so more space is left over to make the Ion installment working. By the way did you read that from Hw2? or do you still have that in mind from Hw1?
It was in HW2 documentation somewhere. I remember it saying (probably the manual) that while the Hiigarans had managed to reduce the space required for the ion cannon, it still took an entire frigate chassis to hold it.
Well, the developers decided that an anti-frigate/desty platform was needed, so they put the code together with the graphics so that all the "0's" and "1's" worked properly so that the Ion Plat worked w/out a frigate chassis.
Then the writers failed in their technobabble mumbojumbo to get rid of the contradiction, or at least to properly explain it away.
Here's what the Prima guide says about the Ion Gun Platform,
"A more advanced version of the Gun Platform, the Ion Beam Platform unleashes four high-energy ion beams at any Frigate or Capital Ship within range. Once deployed, it cannot be moved again."
The Prima guide does not say that the Ion Beam mechanism required a minimum of a frigate chassis, though I recall that from the original HW manual.
However, the guide that comes with the game does mention that after a century, . . . the size of the ion cannon has been reduced, it still takes a frigate chassis to house the enormous array. . . "
Perhaps there is new technology to make the platform Ion Cannon smaller but less powerful (which I believe the stats show), And in the rush to get the game out the door, the Technobabble Mumbo Jumbo specialists at Relic forgot to address the platform Ion issue. . .
In any event, they work. No further explanation is needed, AFAIK.
I forget what AFAIK means. Could you remind me?
btw, I think it's because they're 4 really small and weak (compared to other Ion cannons) Ion Cannons, and that's how they fit on. But how would that explain the Hiigaran BC? Hm, maybe they have the main array underneath, and it shoots up and out the turret?
My Interceptor is better than your Interceptor.
AFAIK = As far as I'm concerned. At least that's what I've always thought it means.
I thought of the same thing with the BC. . and I figured if I were writing the technobabble mumbo jumbo, I'd have it set up like a reflective system, much like with lasers in the HS physics lab.
I think that after 100 years they could've found a way to reduce the size, while sacraficing firepower. Compared to the ion frigate and BC, the ion plat's beams are not very strong. They could just be a cross between the pulsar and a full ion beam too.
I like it when fighters and corvettes *especially bombers and lasers* Go in front of the ion frig when it is firing and it gets sprayed and then fried.
Anyway, if you look at the game, you'd think they DID sacrifice power for space. But why do that if u can still have only one? Doesn't make sense....
Same time post............................wow.......anyway I need to edit the moderator's post. Svk make me a moderator so I can change what u just said to AFAIK not AFIAK
Remember pulsars are also a form of ions...but it is a rather large logic gap.
pulsars are low powered ion beams, so it can be mounted on corvette chassis...
Fallen, why do you bother to even post for these topics? All you even seem to say is that everything is made of 1's and 0's... Please, we do get the point, and it's rather unconstructive to keep saying it over and over.
Boy, you better get on your knees and worship those 1's and 0's, they're what just made your post possible!
All Hail 010101110111101110111010110001!!!!!11! :d
No one EVER programs in binary, so stop it.
Originally Posted by SvK
oops, my bad. I should have typed "AFAIC"
I find it rather unconstructive for forum posters to try to rewrite the HW2 manual. I believe that should be left up to the development team.Originally Posted by Link_of_Hyrule
Perhaps it's just that the wording that I find unconstructive. Instead of asking how something works or why this or that was included/excluded, one should properly ask how the decision to include/exclude this or that affected game play.
We are not the fiction writers for this game, and IMO, we don't have any business spouting off explanations like we're authorities on HW2 ships and science. Statements like "The heat sinks on the platforms are modified to allow the extreme heat of an ion cannon to be dissipated." are complete and utter Bullsh!t when it comes from someone on these boards. Explanations like that are for the develpement team, and if they don't address it, we can't make it up.
For other threads, threads that ask why this or that won't work in HW2 or why this or that was included/excluded; questions like, "Why doesn't the MS have supercapital ship build capability?", "Why are the MS guns just lousy pea shooters?" or "How does HS work?" the aswers do not lie in explanations about the technology of the races or real world physics. The answers are not to be found in the imagined "structure" of the MS, or any kind of discussion as if the MS were real and the game had to obey real world physics and such.
The answers to questions like those lie in decisions made by the development team, and how they imagined that HW2 game play should be carried out and how their fiction writers address them in the official game documentation. The answers regarding why some ship does or does not do this or that, or how HW2 hyperspace works are not based upon the technological limitations of the Higarrans. . . they are based upon decisions regarding game play made by the develpement team. After the game play is set, then the fiction writers can make up a technobabble mumbojumbo explanation regarding how it works.
This thread seems to be pointing out a discrepancy in the documentation, and I can play along with that. It seems to me that the initial post on this thread actually asked the question in a somewhat construtive way, and doesn't step over the line of trying to bring real world explanations or made up HW2 fiction into the game. However, it opens the door to people on these forums to make up explanations - which is a realm for the development team, IMO.
I agree that is is a flaw in the game documenation. But we'll have to live with that flaw, becuase I seriously doubt we'll get any kind of revision to the official documenation.
BTW, while I find HW fiction to be less than great prose, that is an area where a person can elaborate on the hows and whys. But, it's a world in another forum on these and other boards. You won't find me posting in them criticising an author's elaborations for the purpose of game related fiction. That's a whole different ballgame.
actually, what's all these talk about binary coding and stuff? computer programs aren't programmed by 0s and 1s, they're programmed by a set of coded instructions...
and if the developers don't address the open issues in the game, its up to the community to address it, so we have a right to make up our own reasonings for those open issues...
But it all compiles into "0's" and "1's" in the end, doesn't it?Originally Posted by Progenitor
I certainly disagree. Who gave us the authority to re-write the HW2 manual?Originally Posted by Progenitor
It's clear to me that we have no such authority, and we'll have to live with certain deficiencies in the plot and in the technobabble mumbo jumbo.
It's fine to point out clear discrapancies, like the Ion Plat vs. Ion frigate issue.
But it's not for us to try to explain it away. Such explanations can always be rebutted and argued. If the explanation comes from Relic, or a member of the development team, then, to me, that would be gospel.
I might modify my position a bit - We could suggest possible explanations, with the caveate that everything we offer with regard to explanations are unofficial and not to be considered a true explanation. I would think that such wording should be posted with each suggestion.
Such as my reasoning that the platforms are underpowered compared to the frigates - thus they can be on a platform, not a frigate chassis. And the BC Ion Turrets could be explained away by having the mechanism for the Ion Cannon in the belly of the BC and some sort of "beam conduction" explain how the beam is shot through a rotating turret. That would cetainly take into account some of the BC's vast size. But those are speculative and not to be taken as truth.
We do have the right to make things clearer for ourselves and others, if it is written or not. I for one don't understand where the hell you got the idea we or somebody else would want to re-write the manual. Cause we're not doing that by far.
It's a plot hole. leat it be one. there really isn't much point in arguing about it. I could also say that the ion plats are based on cata MBF iion pulse things. That's another possibility. Albeit a worse one than a plot hole.
But a plot hole it remains.
*mildly disgusted with negative price discrimination*
Did you understand that Fallen? :jk:
Um, loosley translated doesn't it mean "STFU, you're just arguing for the sake of stirring up sh!t so stop it!"?
One septillion, one sextillion, eleven quintillion, one-hundred ten quadrillion, one hundred eleven trillion, eleven billion, one hundred and one million, ten thousand, one hundread one
One hundred eleven sextillion, one hundred trillion, ten billion, one hundred and one million, one hundread and one thousand, one hundread and one
One septillion, one hundred and one quintillion, ten quadrillion, one hundred and one billion, eleven million, one hundred and eleven thousand, eleven
1 septillion, 1 sextillion, 11 quintillion, 110 quadrillion, 111 trillion, 11 billion, 101 million, 10 thousand, 101
111 sextillion, 100 trillion, 10 billion, 101 million, 101 thousand, 101
1 septillion, 101 quintillion, 10 quadrillion, 101 billion, 11 million, 111 thousand, 11
Am I good, or am I good?
Ignoring all that more recent crap, talking about plot holes isn't really serious issue to be addressed as far as I'm concerned. It's a game, not a movie. It would be nice if there weren't so many but it's not like the plot of HW2 would be a particularly stellar one even if it didn't have holes. I just think it's fun to nitpick sometimes. Well, I guess it's technically stellar but I meant "good."
0111100101101111011101010010000001100001011100100110010100100000011001000111010101101101011000100000110100001010 :bandit: :bandit: :bandit:
Yes.....the recent crap *cough cough*
Remember, it's a game, not a history textbook. It doesn't really matter if one, or two, or three little things are out of place. But, don't plot holes and mistakes make this world more fun? We feel proud for noticing a mistake and like pointing it out. Then we get to pick on the producers and think of all the ways to fill it up!
Well Ill say something to the original topic of the ion cannons not this binary crap so 0 to that.
In cataclysm (argh run i mentioned cataclysm) the multibeamers used coiled ionbeam arrays to fire more weaker beams. Now with that techmology you would think they could have improved that onto the frigate chasis and maybe have two turreted ion beams??
I assume the coild fire mechanism would be used on the BC to fire it through the turret.
And i thought that the higgy Destroyer was gonna have two ions on the front, meanies with their torpedoes
if the MBF of cata could have the technology to fire ions through mutiple barrels, why can't the hiigs, with seemingly more advanced tech, make a high powered multi beam frigate?
the hiig destroyer should have ion turrets, with the advanced tech...
[Sarcasm] ...And the Battle cruiser should have Flak cannons.... [/Sarcasm]
And ion frigs should shoot 2 beams
And laser vettes should stand still and fire
And interceptors should shoot more
And BCs with flaks
And And gunships should have better aim
And bombers should be faster
And assault frigates should be better and stronger and better aim
Frigates should have 50, 000 armor
Ion frigs could be a little stronger
BCs a little weaker
Add to the list!
Scouts should be able to kill a BC in one volley
Motherships should be able to kill anything in one hit
I should start out with 10000000000000 ru's and evevryone else with 1.
I guess one thing that I liked about Cataclysm was that the game had some real wildcards. The obvious ones are the Siege Cannon and the Infection Beam. Both were tough weapons to get with certain risks, and for opposing players, both were counter-able. But if you were going to just go for a big fleet and do nothing else, you'd find all the ships in the world could be either torn apart by one cannon explosion, or stolen from you by a well timed infection.
Furthermore, the crystals could be used for mucho RUs or as deadly bombs that could ruin a fleet if not dealt with in a sensible and adroit manner. To me, nebulae hardly make up for that, and in HW2, if you build up your fleet, there is no way for an out resourced and out-produced opponant to win - it's just a matter of time.
I'm not saying that things from Cataclysm should be in HW2. Far from it. But I would like to have seen twist in HW2 multiplayer where an outproduced player can use clever tactics to turn the tide of battle and win the game. Currently, I simply don't see that this possible like 98% of the time.
Finally, for both HW1 and Cata, with multiple production lines in each build capable ships, it allowed a player to counter a offensive effectively and relatively quickly, while at the same time working toward their own offensive action.
I wonder if HW2 could have benefitted from multiple production lines by allowing a player to get bombers out to counter the BC they see coming out of the shipyard across the map?
The final point is paraphrased from one of my clanmates that, unfortunately, does not play HW2. You see, he liked micromanagement. Not FS, or any other micromanagement exploits, but things like setting up a supported corvwall, or clever use of frigate support and other things like that. While I recognize that there are some micromanagement aspects to HW2, I don't know that we can say that it is truly micromanagement intensive.
Why do I type this? I guess it's just to expound upon my thoughts on what makes HW2 not quite as gripping in multiplayer as HW1 or Cata was.
Maybe I need to practice more.
Last edited by FallenSoloSLS; 16th Apr 04 at 1:03 PM.
:iws: :jk: I agree. Now where was I......
Make a gamemode which kills all players but you
Give the vaygr an infection beam that can take 10 BCs at once
My 8 year old sister vs. Drunk-TLSC when she has 999,999,999,999 RUs and he starts with 0
<el censorita> Karen and Makaan "fuse" to make the ultimate mother-father-flag shipamabobber</el censorita>
Being able to finish your homework by paying teachers RUs :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic: :offtopic:
Sometimes....you just gotta post! I mean....we're all :buddies: aren't we?
No, it all compiles down to the CPU instruction set (assembler), it's only STORED in "0's" and "1's"Originally Posted by FallenSoloSLS
lol. Actually the only thing that really matters in HW2 is:
1. Who are you.
2. What are you.
3. who do you know.
4. who have you won.
5. who do you think have you won.
6. how many units you lost VS = = = = killed.
[Edit] Ok thats 6 things.
I think that, since the beam's strength is around 14 on the plat, it's safe to assume that the Hiigarans were able to compact it down at the cost of firepower.
THE RAIN TRANSFORMED
Originally Posted by ilia1986
Actually, two flak turrets(one on bottom and one on top) would be a godsend.
perhaps some weapons systems at the VERY vulnerable pasrt of the BC...the part between the front Arbiter cannons and the ion turret...
maybe some torpedo launchers would be nice? or flsk cannons up and down the hull...
No, it doesn't.Originally Posted by NemesisChiken
The CPU instruction set is simply strings of 1 or 0 (two states of voltage, present or not), each bit corresponding to switching some part of the die on or off.
I have a little experience here, as at uni we made a simulated 8bit computer with 512bytes of memory and five registers of which one was wired to some input mechanism. There was no control unit (which is among other things instruction storage) so they all had to be entered manually (otherwise known as microcoding). From memory, there was something like 20-30 switches that activated various features, like a cross-bus gate, shifter, adder, registers, comparator, memory, inverter etc. We used unlimited size instructions as a CISC machine does.
8 bit values were entered into the input register and manipulated using the switches.
16-32bit numbers could be used too, thanks to the memory, as there was enough registers to do this.
A typical sequence would be to enter the value, open the input register (registers always output, but must switched on to input) to capture it, clear the input. Open the first or second xbus gate to send it down to the ALU (imagine 2 parallel vertical data busses, data always going straight down. If a xbus gate was on, it would allow data to come onto the bus from the left from one of the five registers. Each register had it's own xbus gate on either bus. The top of bus1 was a constant 00000001 input, and 0 on bus2).
Then the latch of the corresponding bus was opened and the value stored (a latch is a register directly on the bus that captures data and presents it to the ALU), and the corresponding ALU input was opened (there was two, one for each bus so that you could add). We then want to multiply it by 2, so we do a left shift (which in binary is equivalent and had a specific function code in the ALU switch settings), moving all bits to the left, and adding a '0' bit to the right end. Then it goes to the single ALU output which is switched on, and back up to the registers which were arranged vertically to the left of the main bus. It was then accepted into any available register and the ALU output was switched off. Next instruction please.
Basically Assembler isn't the CPU instruction set, it is an english-like version of microcode with a 1:1 correspondance to the microcode instructions, meaning for every instruction the CPU supports, there is one Assembler instruction.
This makes it easy and fast to compile, but most importantly, it makes a much better programming environment than microcoding. Higher level languages like C++ and Java take this further, allowing simple (EG: Math.Random()) phrase to represent hundreds or thousands of Assembler/Microcode instructions.
it's getting out of topic...this thread is supposed to be about ion frigs...not programming code...
That's why I put OT in the title But seriously folks, them frigates are great.....
My opinion is that the ion frigates should have some small cannons as well (reduce ion cannon machinery=room for more stuff....) or limited anti-fighter turrets of some sort, or it should be a turreted beam, or something more than the HW1 model.
The torpedo frigate and flak frigate are about right, although I beleive that there should still be an Assault frigate for the Hiigarans.
Destroyers should have ion beams or anti-fighter torpedoes.
Maybe the Vagyr should have a light tactical carrier that carries 5-8 wings, has 2 anti-fighter beams or flak turrets and 2 medium mass drivers, is fast and cheap, fairly sturdy, no building capability, so relies on a real carrier for replenishment. It fits with a more offensive style of warfare.
It sounds great to me, but it would really work well with a fuel limitation on fighters (like a more capable support frigate). It would be awesome for resource defense. They could be what warps in in some SP missions instead of fully fledged carriers that are doomed to die, warping out again for reinforcements.
And then they should probably have a standard Taiidani style forward firing Ion frigate, seeing as Taiidani elements are apparently now Vagyr.
I reckon that would balance out.
the ion frigate should have a flak cannon turret somewhere on its hull, the flak frigate should have a weapon system that is good against capital ships (delayed burst cannons?) and the torpedo frigate should have some hull defense guns, or even a plasma bomb launcher turret...Assault frigate should have like 4 kinetic cannons, and maybe 2 plasma bombs(homeworld variant) or even one with pulsars and torpedoes...
the vaygr light carrier sounds like a beefed up version of a support frigate...
I like the idea of the Vaygr assault carrier. As for mounting all those guns on all ships frigate size +, that would not be good. I would simply suggest adding point defense lasers like the bc has. That should give all bigger ships better defense.
yeah, frigs and cap ships with PDS...nightmare for bombers...
*insert a large chunk of sarcasm here* I think that we should make one ship, that does a jagabillion damage, and is twice as powerful as a bc, and has every damn weapon possible on it and if it explodes, eveyone dies, etc. etc. etc. *end the large chunk of evily good sarcasm* Haha, newbs said this once too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)