Lethal weapon crafting.

2

Comments

  • SeldkamSeldkam Join Date: 2014-01-01 Member: 191213Members Posts: 801 Advanced user
    Kodasa wrote: »
    So, we're sent in to explore and terraform. Terraforming in itself is, as @Davidhen said, relatively hostile. People seem to not be able to distinguish the difference between what the Aurora was sent to do, and colony ships. The Aurora was NOT full of scientists, it was NOT full of colonists, it was full of construction workers with high tech bulldozers.

    To link it to a real life example... The Auroras crew was not coming in to study and preserve the rainforest, they're the guys who come in and cut the rainforest down to make way for humanity. The Aurora would absolutely have brought lethal weapons with it. It's human nature that when we're venturing into the unknown and potentially hostile territory, we take guns with us, we take something to deter predators and ensure that we stay on the top of the food chain as this ensures our survival. We haven't even mentioned the energy pulse that crashed the Aurora. What about that? Enough energy, pulsed no less, not a constant stream, with enough power to overload and crash a high tech spaceship. Something tells me that's not a natural pulse. If it is, why does it never reoccur while you're on the planet. That much energy discharging into the atmosphere would be very dangerous, or at least put on a damn pretty light show.

    The Devs need to seriously change up their story plan if they really want to continue to avoid lethal weapons, otherwise it's a considerable plot hole on par with the idea of a builder not bringing half of his tool kit to the construction site. But all of that aside. People truly are taking the hippie space survivor thing WAY too far and getting WAY too worked up about it.

    I don't care if lethal weapons are added, chances are I'll just find a mod for them if they're not, someone will make one. But people need to look at it like logical human beings, instead of harping on like a bunch of 26th century hippies about how the big bad leviathan that just tore our cyclops apart and ate us as a pre-lunch snack, really just wanted a hug all along. I for one would happily give him that hug, in the form of high velocity tungsten slugs propelled by electromagnets. The difference between my hug and the hippies hug, is I walk out the other side with all my limbs still attached.

    Hell they don't even have to be lethal weapons, they can be "lethal" things, you know, large guns with big bullets etc, but they could be programmed to be so inaccurate they'll rarely hit the target, but they will scare the living bejeezus out of it. However if they do hit it, they'll wound it and make it think twice about messing with the submarine again.

    The devs need to do nothing, it is the people like you who do not understand the artistic image and demand it be changed, who need to Change
    leopardsp0ts
  • leopardsp0tsleopardsp0ts Canada Join Date: 2015-04-27 Member: 203887Members Posts: 6 Fully active user
    edited April 2015
    Kr0nos wrote: »

    I must say I find it interesting how the major proponents of the lethal weapon idea comes from people in the USA with the OP being from Texas...just makes ya think. I for one and plenty happy with non-lethal means of survival. Keep it to exploration. There is absolutely no need for weapons other than those we currently have.


    This is the most unproductive thing I've ever read on a forum post for this game. Are you trying to start offending people and subsequently a political debate?

    Now for the actual discussion, I don't think the game should be oriented towards getting an arsenal of deadly weapons, HOWEVER I do believe that if they add huge aggressive monsters, we need a lot more defensive options. No nukes, No huge explosions, but perhaps nets, cloaking, a small harpoon to fish, a small electric baton that scares big fish away.

    I wasn't trying to be offensive, I was stating a fact that USAmericans tend to be much more pro weapon than anyone else. That's not being offensive, political etc. It is a straight up fact that the United States ranks #1 in the WORLD for guns per capita. A WHOPPING 88.8 per 100! My point was more in stating that the OP was biased in wanting lethal weapons, not prompting any kind of debate.

    Now back to discussion. A lot of people are bring up good points that we shouldn't have to teddy bear aggressive creatures that are trying to kill us and that's completely true. The Aurora is a sophisticated machine and the technology at our disposal is quite advanced. We know nothing of the philosophical, moral or political standing that currently exists within the culture that sent the Aurora. We cannot just assume that because we are sent to colonize a planet that the ship would obviously be carrying/or not carrying weapons. It seems to me that the only way we can make any assumptions is through the tools we are given.

    If the devs have stated that they do not want to include lethal weapons and encourage killing of the native life on the planet I think it is safe to assume that the Aurora comes from a non-violent society and would therefore not likely be carrying lethal, offense based weapons (point furthered by the fact that we are given STASIS rifle tech instead of traditional lethal rifle). Of course being an advanced civilization they would have SOME kind of way of defending themselves. This is where non-lethal forms of defense come in. Stasis rifle, sonic defense to deter predators, cloaking tech even lights set up to flash and temporarily blind aggressors are good ways to protect yourself while not harming life that is simply doing what it evolved to do. While the taking of some life is warranted by the direct need to feed yourself and survive there should be no need to simply kill because you need to defend yourself. Even the killing and eating of fish while necessary at first could easily be overcome by later developing tech to scan the local flora and determining which plants can be eaten to supply the necessary nutrients needed to survive or by setting up some kind of farm. The point, I think, that the devs are making is that we shouldn't immediately jump to "OH CRAP A HUGE MONSTER, KILL IT!" and instead think of ways to keep yourself AND your environment alive.
  • Cynder_DragonbornCynder_Dragonborn United Staes Join Date: 2015-04-17 Member: 203557Members Posts: 50 Fully active user
    Kodasa wrote: »
    So, we're sent in to explore and terraform. Terraforming in itself is, as @Davidhen said, relatively hostile. People seem to not be able to distinguish the difference between what the Aurora was sent to do, and colony ships. The Aurora was NOT full of scientists, it was NOT full of colonists, it was full of construction workers with high tech bulldozers.

    To link it to a real life example... The Auroras crew was not coming in to study and preserve the rainforest, they're the guys who come in and cut the rainforest down to make way for humanity. The Aurora would absolutely have brought lethal weapons with it. It's human nature that when we're venturing into the unknown and potentially hostile territory, we take guns with us, we take something to deter predators and ensure that we stay on the top of the food chain as this ensures our survival. We haven't even mentioned the energy pulse that crashed the Aurora. What about that? Enough energy, pulsed no less, not a constant stream, with enough power to overload and crash a high tech spaceship. Something tells me that's not a natural pulse. If it is, why does it never reoccur while you're on the planet. That much energy discharging into the atmosphere would be very dangerous, or at least put on a damn pretty light show.

    The Devs need to seriously change up their story plan if they really want to continue to avoid lethal weapons, otherwise it's a considerable plot hole on par with the idea of a builder not bringing half of his tool kit to the construction site. But all of that aside. People truly are taking the hippie space survivor thing WAY too far and getting WAY too worked up about it.

    I don't care if lethal weapons are added, chances are I'll just find a mod for them if they're not, someone will make one. But people need to look at it like logical human beings, instead of harping on like a bunch of 26th century hippies about how the big bad leviathan that just tore our cyclops apart and ate us as a pre-lunch snack, really just wanted a hug all along. I for one would happily give him that hug, in the form of high velocity tungsten slugs propelled by electromagnets. The difference between my hug and the hippies hug, is I walk out the other side with all my limbs still attached.

    Hell they don't even have to be lethal weapons, they can be "lethal" things, you know, large guns with big bullets etc, but they could be programmed to be so inaccurate they'll rarely hit the target, but they will scare the living bejeezus out of it. However if they do hit it, they'll wound it and make it think twice about messing with the submarine again.

    THANK YOU!!!!!!
    http://dragcave.net/user/Cynder_Dragonborn

    Dragons in desperate help:

    Dragon I've recently gained:WK3pU.gif
  • VindhlerVindhler Florida Join Date: 2015-03-19 Member: 202300Members Posts: 12 Fully active user
    what then need is a had held sonic pulse or just some kind of pulse weapon that stuns its target for small things like 30 seconds and bigger things like 15 seconds so you have a chance to collect or get away from the target because the stasis rifle can be kind of tricky to aim and get the range right IMHO
  • SuburbanCamoSuburbanCamo New York Join Date: 2015-04-17 Member: 203565Members Posts: 30 Fully active user
    Kodasa wrote: »
    So, we're sent in to explore and terraform. Terraforming in itself is, as @Davidhen said, relatively hostile. People seem to not be able to distinguish the difference between what the Aurora was sent to do, and colony ships. The Aurora was NOT full of scientists, it was NOT full of colonists, it was full of construction workers with high tech bulldozers.

    To link it to a real life example... The Auroras crew was not coming in to study and preserve the rainforest, they're the guys who come in and cut the rainforest down to make way for humanity. The Aurora would absolutely have brought lethal weapons with it. It's human nature that when we're venturing into the unknown and potentially hostile territory, we take guns with us, we take something to deter predators and ensure that we stay on the top of the food chain as this ensures our survival. We haven't even mentioned the energy pulse that crashed the Aurora. What about that? Enough energy, pulsed no less, not a constant stream, with enough power to overload and crash a high tech spaceship. Something tells me that's not a natural pulse. If it is, why does it never reoccur while you're on the planet. That much energy discharging into the atmosphere would be very dangerous, or at least put on a damn pretty light show.

    The Devs need to seriously change up their story plan if they really want to continue to avoid lethal weapons, otherwise it's a considerable plot hole on par with the idea of a builder not bringing half of his tool kit to the construction site. But all of that aside. People truly are taking the hippie space survivor thing WAY too far and getting WAY too worked up about it.

    I don't care if lethal weapons are added, chances are I'll just find a mod for them if they're not, someone will make one. But people need to look at it like logical human beings, instead of harping on like a bunch of 26th century hippies about how the big bad leviathan that just tore our cyclops apart and ate us as a pre-lunch snack, really just wanted a hug all along. I for one would happily give him that hug, in the form of high velocity tungsten slugs propelled by electromagnets. The difference between my hug and the hippies hug, is I walk out the other side with all my limbs still attached.

    Hell they don't even have to be lethal weapons, they can be "lethal" things, you know, large guns with big bullets etc, but they could be programmed to be so inaccurate they'll rarely hit the target, but they will scare the living bejeezus out of it. However if they do hit it, they'll wound it and make it think twice about messing with the submarine again.

    Loving this idea, plus the Aurora is exactly that. Another comparison (without reality) would be the movie Avatar. The objective is to harvest a material, not to "kill everything in sight". also @Fireclaw please give it a rest with the "its in our nature" line. I really doubt i walk outside everyday, see a threatening looking dog, and go and kick it in the chest. That is completely absurd. Also, just because "THE DEVS SAID HURHUR TOO BAD" doesn't mean people can't talk about it/ idealize it. what if the game is mod supportive? then all these ideas can and probably will come true, whether or not it was the dev's plan, all while being optional. Which leads me to another point: crafting weapons would still be OPTIONAL. so just because me and Tarek built a defense grid that obliterates sand sharks and stalkers, doesnt mean YOU have to. you can easily let them chomp on your face, without anyone ruining your experience, and vice versa. Do you know why there are so many threads about weapons/defenses? because that is the logical solution to a 300-foot 4 ton mammoth coming to tear us in half. as i said earlier, i wouldnt kick a dog in the chest if it provided no purpose. i probably wouldnt even if it did provide a small purpose. however, i WOULD if that dog was threatening me so badly that i was starving to death in my home because its outside, or it interrupted my daily life by a major degree. im not a sadist, neither are the people looking for weapons. they're logical, rational people who want an answer to a problem. in your opinion, sure they're wrong to you. but its a single player game anyway. their opinions literally carry no weight to your experience.
    Just a touch of foam to extinguish your comment there
    Dreacospapragu
  • SuburbanCamoSuburbanCamo New York Join Date: 2015-04-17 Member: 203565Members Posts: 30 Fully active user
    also. @Seldkam , just because people dont take your (and yes even the devs way of creating this game is by opinion so dont say it isnt an opinion) doesn't mean they dont understand what your side of the argument is. you've said that to me in another post, and ive read a lot of Kodasa's posts, finding almost all of them to be extremely thought out, and in some cases, he even AGREES with you, same as i have. We don't misunderstand the concept. He's posting that the way the devs have started this game out makes the player feel like the antagonist (at least thats what i got out of it) by making just about every creature in this game that is over 3 feet long want to kill you, arming you with a butter knife. sure, there's a stasis rifle, and yes, its a defensive, non-lethal tool, but like someone else in another thread said, it doesnt work on bigger game like the reaper leviathan. and burn me at the stake if im wrong here @Kodasa and @Seldkam but being eaten alive and having my seamoth torn to smithereens doesnt seem or sound very "artistic". people dont want weapons to kill the little guys. some people feel unsafe underwater in real life, and rightly so. we arent at the top of the food chain once our clumsy bodies get below the surface. but if were stuck in a foreign situation, and everything wants to come and get us, at the very least we should be able to make defenses and evasive tactics. No, a defense isnt a lifeless cargo bay surrounded by predators, and no evasive tactics do not include running away with your sea glide, scared out of your mind. the way this game is being developed is literally asking for proper mechanical defense to be set up.
    Just a touch of foam to extinguish your comment there
    papragu
  • Kr0nosKr0nos USA Join Date: 2015-04-27 Member: 203889Members Posts: 11 Fully active user
    Is the player supposed to be a vegan marine biologist?
    Davidhen
  • T855_1_R1pP3D_UT855_1_R1pP3D_U Florida Join Date: 2015-04-28 Member: 203927Members Posts: 1
    I think having a current generator in the seamoth or a flashbang type of ability to initially ward off the leviathan something to give a chance flare launcher would be nice have it only lethal if you shot it down a creatures mouth or maybe a remote controlled robot that is about the size of a constructor and have a range limit also maybe even an inventory let it put down light up path markers and beacons.

    just my ideas.
  • 2cough2cough Rocky Mountain High Join Date: 2013-03-14 Member: 183952Members, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Supporter Posts: 1,025 Advanced user
    Phalaguim wrote: »
    Everyone knows americans love guns. "it's why we sent them there in the first place" ;) It's hardly offensive and certainly not a political debate. Americans don't debate. They use guns. ;)

    From an article 2 years old now.
    The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.

    Violent gun crimes have actually plummeted in the past 20 years in America. Americans have a long history of owning guns, as we've had the right to bear them since our nation's birth. It is a right Americans will not give up, despite the governments efforts to scare people away from and take people's guns through many different means*... Anyways, maybe that's where the perception that we're gun crazy comes from.

    *
    A Pew survey of Americans in March found 56% believed gun-related crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% said it's lower. The survey said 26% believed it stayed the same and 6% didn't know.
  • WrattsWratts The Sweet Surland Join Date: 2015-04-28 Member: 203906Members Posts: 38 Advanced user
    I don't think anyone is saying stuff about nuke's, but we need more than a small knife and a "Stay here while I run away" gun. Something like a small pistol or a rifle or even a machete would be an effective defense without going overboard. :) Creative survival is fine but hitting things with a knife isn't surviving, its desperately trying to kill something that's hostile and hoping it works. We need at least something!
    Someone literally mentioned a mini-nuke torpedo upthread. No exaggeration.

    Kodasa wrote: »
    So, we're sent in to explore and terraform. Terraforming in itself is, as @Davidhen said, relatively hostile. People seem to not be able to distinguish the difference between what the Aurora was sent to do, and colony ships. The Aurora was NOT full of scientists, it was NOT full of colonists, it was full of construction workers with high tech bulldozers.

    To link it to a real life example... The Auroras crew was not coming in to study and preserve the rainforest, they're the guys who come in and cut the rainforest down to make way for humanity. The Aurora would absolutely have brought lethal weapons with it. It's human nature that when we're venturing into the unknown and potentially hostile territory, we take guns with us, we take something to deter predators and ensure that we stay on the top of the food chain as this ensures our survival. We haven't even mentioned the energy pulse that crashed the Aurora. What about that? Enough energy, pulsed no less, not a constant stream, with enough power to overload and crash a high tech spaceship. Something tells me that's not a natural pulse. If it is, why does it never reoccur while you're on the planet. That much energy discharging into the atmosphere would be very dangerous, or at least put on a damn pretty light show.

    The Devs need to seriously change up their story plan if they really want to continue to avoid lethal weapons, otherwise it's a considerable plot hole on par with the idea of a builder not bringing half of his tool kit to the construction site. But all of that aside. People truly are taking the hippie space survivor thing WAY too far and getting WAY too worked up about it.

    I don't care if lethal weapons are added, chances are I'll just find a mod for them if they're not, someone will make one. But people need to look at it like logical human beings, instead of harping on like a bunch of 26th century hippies about how the big bad leviathan that just tore our cyclops apart and ate us as a pre-lunch snack, really just wanted a hug all along. I for one would happily give him that hug, in the form of high velocity tungsten slugs propelled by electromagnets. The difference between my hug and the hippies hug, is I walk out the other side with all my limbs still attached.

    Hell they don't even have to be lethal weapons, they can be "lethal" things, you know, large guns with big bullets etc, but they could be programmed to be so inaccurate they'll rarely hit the target, but they will scare the living bejeezus out of it. However if they do hit it, they'll wound it and make it think twice about messing with the submarine again.
    What if the player character was just a janitor on the Aurora? Someone who barely knows how to use the tools and resources from the Aurora. Aren't you over-interpreting things yourself if you think the player character is a construction worker?

    I don't really see the plot hole. Well, not yet. There's way too little to go on about the setting in Subnautica, what parts of space are explored, if humans ever encountered alien life, what mankind's stance on using lethal force is, et cetera. I think it's perfectly plausible for a sci-fi setting to be the way it is here, it wouldn't be the first. And by the by, terraforming isn't inherently hostile if you were unaware that there was alien life on the planet targeted for terraforming.

    Also, yeah, you can eventually use mods if you want lethal weapons. Thing is, I'm not even trying to over-interpret the setting when I speak in favor of having no lethal weapons in the game. I'm thinking of it mostly in terms of a game aspect, where survival is more challenging without it and you have to be a creative player. It forces you to make decisions, like weighing whether you want to risk death through fauna or live longer but miss whatever resources you could find amidst the danger. If you have a weapon that easily trumps all dangers in the game, the decisions thin out and the most efficient path is taking out those threats with your weapon. When I hear people asking for firearms and other lethal weaponry, I hear easy ways of dealing with all the creature threats in this game. I don't like the sound of that, because dealing with things like starvation, thirst, and so forth, is already fairly simple in this game.

    For example, I really like how the latest experimental build has made it so your health doesn't automatically regenerate and you need to use medkits. This adds to the difficulty of survival. Or to just spitball an idea, but what if you can create an extremely effective defense by obtaining Reaper DNA and using it against them somehow, like using it to upgrade a Cyclops horn so it sends them fleeing for a bit when you sound it off? Same effect as having an inaccurate gun that deters them... equally effective but much more dangerous to obtain because you need to get up close to one of those abominations to get a DNA sample. I'd love that, but I get the feeling that people who want guns in the game have interests that are orthogonal to that kind of game design ethos.

    Not sure whether the Subnautica devs are approaching this subject matter from a scenario or a gameplay perspective. But from a gameplay POV, I'm in strong favor of not having directly lethal weapons.
    Reefseeker
  • InogoodatUsernameInogoodatUsername Join Date: 2015-04-13 Member: 203377Members Posts: 29 Fully active user
    YOU WILL GET MODS* (said in an all powerful voice)

    *the devs may not want this but people will do it anyway.
  • DavidhenDavidhen Join Date: 2012-10-13 Member: 162225Members Posts: 20 Fully active user
    Also as a side note, the radiation suit says 'Alterra' on it. Now this could be a third party company that only sells radiation suits/suits for explorers but i think its more likely they are all made by the same company that sent the Aurora to this planet in the first place. A company. Probably hoping to make huge amounts of money from this planet to cover the cost of going there.

    I haven't read anywhere or seen anything in game that you are a formal representative of the human race. You seem to me that you are a humble worker for this Alterra company that just happens to be potentially the last survivor.

    I haven't seen many big companies giving two peepers about the environment, aside from some PR stuff. So perhaps while you are terraforming the grassy plateaus into hotels, resorts and condominiums you can make a nature reserve as well to placate the Space PETA.
  • KodasaKodasa New Zealand Join Date: 2015-04-17 Member: 203545Members Posts: 73 Fully active user
    Wratts wrote: »
    What if the player character was just a janitor on the Aurora? Someone who barely knows how to use the tools and resources from the Aurora. Aren't you over-interpreting things yourself if you think the player character is a construction worker?

    The vague ambiguity surrounding the player characters terms of employment are... well just that, vague. However it's a safe assumption, considering your character not only has the skills necessary to not only construct a tool for building and terraforming, but use it efficiently to construct bases, submarines and change the natural landscape. Combine that with the fact that the player character has an understanding of structural integrity and has advanced knowledge about computers and wiring. He's either a construction worker, or the ships mechanic.

    I'm not saying "yea give me lethal weapons so I can murder things" but with the current vagueness of the story, it makes perfect sense that the Aurora would have had a contingent of soldiers on board who carried armament, someone has to protect the construction workers. Or are you suggesting we sent the construction workers in unprotected and didn't care if they got themselves eaten by a big scary nasty.

    Terraforming is inherently hostile regardless of knowledge of life on the planet or not. You're literally shaping the natural landscape to suit your own needs. It doesn't matter if there is life there or not, I'm surprised the hippie crowd isn't angrier about the whole terraforming thing since it's basically playing god with mother nature. It's not preserving nature, it's tearing it up and putting it down in a way that suits us, humans, it's shaping it to our will. That in itself is hostile no matter how you look at it.
  • aeroripperaeroripper Join Date: 2005-02-25 Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation Posts: 2,416 mod
  • Kr0nosKr0nos USA Join Date: 2015-04-27 Member: 203889Members Posts: 11 Fully active user
    Kodasa wrote: »
    So, we're sent in to explore and terraform. Terraforming in itself is, as @Davidhen said, relatively hostile. People seem to not be able to distinguish the difference between what the Aurora was sent to do, and colony ships. The Aurora was NOT full of scientists, it was NOT full of colonists, it was full of construction workers with high tech bulldozers.

    To link it to a real life example... The Auroras crew was not coming in to study and preserve the rainforest, they're the guys who come in and cut the rainforest down to make way for humanity. The Aurora would absolutely have brought lethal weapons with it. It's human nature that when we're venturing into the unknown and potentially hostile territory, we take guns with us, we take something to deter predators and ensure that we stay on the top of the food chain as this ensures our survival. We haven't even mentioned the energy pulse that crashed the Aurora. What about that? Enough energy, pulsed no less, not a constant stream, with enough power to overload and crash a high tech spaceship. Something tells me that's not a natural pulse. If it is, why does it never reoccur while you're on the planet. That much energy discharging into the atmosphere would be very dangerous, or at least put on a damn pretty light show.

    The Devs need to seriously change up their story plan if they really want to continue to avoid lethal weapons, otherwise it's a considerable plot hole on par with the idea of a builder not bringing half of his tool kit to the construction site. But all of that aside. People truly are taking the hippie space survivor thing WAY too far and getting WAY too worked up about it.

    I don't care if lethal weapons are added, chances are I'll just find a mod for them if they're not, someone will make one. But people need to look at it like logical human beings, instead of harping on like a bunch of 26th century hippies about how the big bad leviathan that just tore our cyclops apart and ate us as a pre-lunch snack, really just wanted a hug all along. I for one would happily give him that hug, in the form of high velocity tungsten slugs propelled by electromagnets. The difference between my hug and the hippies hug, is I walk out the other side with all my limbs still attached.

    Hell they don't even have to be lethal weapons, they can be "lethal" things, you know, large guns with big bullets etc, but they could be programmed to be so inaccurate they'll rarely hit the target, but they will scare the living bejeezus out of it. However if they do hit it, they'll wound it and make it think twice about messing with the submarine again.

    Spot on.
  • Cynder_DragonbornCynder_Dragonborn United Staes Join Date: 2015-04-17 Member: 203557Members Posts: 50 Fully active user
    edited April 2015
    Wratts wrote: »
    I don't think anyone is saying stuff about nuke's, but we need more than a small knife and a "Stay here while I run away" gun. Something like a small pistol or a rifle or even a machete would be an effective defense without going overboard. :) Creative survival is fine but hitting things with a knife isn't surviving, its desperately trying to kill something that's hostile and hoping it works. We need at least something!
    Someone literally mentioned a mini-nuke torpedo upthread. No exaggeration.

    Kodasa wrote: »
    So, we're sent in to explore and terraform. Terraforming in itself is, as @Davidhen said, relatively hostile. People seem to not be able to distinguish the difference between what the Aurora was sent to do, and colony ships. The Aurora was NOT full of scientists, it was NOT full of colonists, it was full of construction workers with high tech bulldozers.

    To link it to a real life example... The Auroras crew was not coming in to study and preserve the rainforest, they're the guys who come in and cut the rainforest down to make way for humanity. The Aurora would absolutely have brought lethal weapons with it. It's human nature that when we're venturing into the unknown and potentially hostile territory, we take guns with us, we take something to deter predators and ensure that we stay on the top of the food chain as this ensures our survival. We haven't even mentioned the energy pulse that crashed the Aurora. What about that? Enough energy, pulsed no less, not a constant stream, with enough power to overload and crash a high tech spaceship. Something tells me that's not a natural pulse. If it is, why does it never reoccur while you're on the planet. That much energy discharging into the atmosphere would be very dangerous, or at least put on a damn pretty light show.

    The Devs need to seriously change up their story plan if they really want to continue to avoid lethal weapons, otherwise it's a considerable plot hole on par with the idea of a builder not bringing half of his tool kit to the construction site. But all of that aside. People truly are taking the hippie space survivor thing WAY too far and getting WAY too worked up about it.

    I don't care if lethal weapons are added, chances are I'll just find a mod for them if they're not, someone will make one. But people need to look at it like logical human beings, instead of harping on like a bunch of 26th century hippies about how the big bad leviathan that just tore our cyclops apart and ate us as a pre-lunch snack, really just wanted a hug all along. I for one would happily give him that hug, in the form of high velocity tungsten slugs propelled by electromagnets. The difference between my hug and the hippies hug, is I walk out the other side with all my limbs still attached.

    Hell they don't even have to be lethal weapons, they can be "lethal" things, you know, large guns with big bullets etc, but they could be programmed to be so inaccurate they'll rarely hit the target, but they will scare the living bejeezus out of it. However if they do hit it, they'll wound it and make it think twice about messing with the submarine again.
    What if the player character was just a janitor on the Aurora? Someone who barely knows how to use the tools and resources from the Aurora. Aren't you over-interpreting things yourself if you think the player character is a construction worker?

    I don't really see the plot hole. Well, not yet. There's way too little to go on about the setting in Subnautica, what parts of space are explored, if humans ever encountered alien life, what mankind's stance on using lethal force is, et cetera. I think it's perfectly plausible for a sci-fi setting to be the way it is here, it wouldn't be the first. And by the by, terraforming isn't inherently hostile if you were unaware that there was alien life on the planet targeted for terraforming.

    Also, yeah, you can eventually use mods if you want lethal weapons. Thing is, I'm not even trying to over-interpret the setting when I speak in favor of having no lethal weapons in the game. I'm thinking of it mostly in terms of a game aspect, where survival is more challenging without it and you have to be a creative player. It forces you to make decisions, like weighing whether you want to risk death through fauna or live longer but miss whatever resources you could find amidst the danger. If you have a weapon that easily trumps all dangers in the game, the decisions thin out and the most efficient path is taking out those threats with your weapon. When I hear people asking for firearms and other lethal weaponry, I hear easy ways of dealing with all the creature threats in this game. I don't like the sound of that, because dealing with things like starvation, thirst, and so forth, is already fairly simple in this game.

    For example, I really like how the latest experimental build has made it so your health doesn't automatically regenerate and you need to use medkits. This adds to the difficulty of survival. Or to just spitball an idea, but what if you can create an extremely effective defense by obtaining Reaper DNA and using it against them somehow, like using it to upgrade a Cyclops horn so it sends them fleeing for a bit when you sound it off? Same effect as having an inaccurate gun that deters them... equally effective but much more dangerous to obtain because you need to get up close to one of those abominations to get a DNA sample. I'd love that, but I get the feeling that people who want guns in the game have interests that are orthogonal to that kind of game design ethos.

    Not sure whether the Subnautica devs are approaching this subject matter from a scenario or a gameplay perspective. But from a gameplay POV, I'm in strong favor of not having directly lethal weapons.

    He said it would be cool, I don't know who wouldn't think it would be to be honest. But he said nothing about getting it in-game, it would be cool. So, quiet you! :trollface:
    http://dragcave.net/user/Cynder_Dragonborn

    Dragons in desperate help:

    Dragon I've recently gained:WK3pU.gif
  • KodasaKodasa New Zealand Join Date: 2015-04-17 Member: 203545Members Posts: 73 Fully active user
    He said it would be cool, I don't know who wouldn't think it would be to be honest. But he said nothing about getting it in-game, it would be cool. So, quiet you! :trollface:

    Na, mininuke torpedoes wouldn't be that cool. I'd take a full yeild nuclear torpedo instead. Even though such a thing technically doesn't exist. Doesn't mean I want it in game, I just find nuclear weapons fascinating.
  • KodasaKodasa New Zealand Join Date: 2015-04-17 Member: 203545Members Posts: 73 Fully active user
    Seldkam wrote: »
    The devs need to do nothing, it is the people like you who do not understand the artistic image and demand it be changed, who need to Change

    Yes, because dying over and over again, having half the game locked off to me while I desperately try to fend off starvation is an artistic image I enjoy. I play survival games to survive, not appreciate the "artistic image" of dying over and over again. I do appreciate the scenery and the effort put into creatures. I'm all for capturing, containing, studying them. Hell I'm all for non-lethal solutions, but that doesn't stop me from wanting a lethal solution to fall back if/ inevitably when the excrement hits the oscillating ceiling device and all hell breaks loose.
  • Nuki255Nuki255 US Join Date: 2015-01-06 Member: 200658Members Posts: 73 Fully active user
    edited April 2015
    also. @Seldkam , just because people dont take your (and yes even the devs way of creating this game is by opinion so dont say it isnt an opinion) doesn't mean they dont understand what your side of the argument is. you've said that to me in another post, and ive read a lot of Kodasa's posts, finding almost all of them to be extremely thought out, and in some cases, he even AGREES with you, same as i have. We don't misunderstand the concept. He's posting that the way the devs have started this game out makes the player feel like the antagonist (at least thats what i got out of it) by making just about every creature in this game that is over 3 feet long want to kill you, arming you with a butter knife. sure, there's a stasis rifle, and yes, its a defensive, non-lethal tool, but like someone else in another thread said, it doesnt work on bigger game like the reaper leviathan. and burn me at the stake if im wrong here @Kodasa and @Seldkam but being eaten alive and having my seamoth torn to smithereens doesnt seem or sound very "artistic". people dont want weapons to kill the little guys. some people feel unsafe underwater in real life, and rightly so. we arent at the top of the food chain once our clumsy bodies get below the surface. but if were stuck in a foreign situation, and everything wants to come and get us, at the very least we should be able to make defenses and evasive tactics. No, a defense isnt a lifeless cargo bay surrounded by predators, and no evasive tactics do not include running away with your sea glide, scared out of your mind. the way this game is being developed is literally asking for proper mechanical defense to be set up.

    Good luck trying to reason with him. Seld wants this game to be his idyllic world where no conflict ever exists. Despite the devs clearly designing the game with elements of death, aggression, and conflict that necessitate the need for defensive style weapons. But Seld clearly understands the devs "artistic image" so well that we all need to change our opinions.
  • FireclawFireclaw oopboop Join Date: 2015-02-06 Member: 201235Members Posts: 100 Fully active user
    Kodasa wrote: »
    Seldkam wrote: »
    The devs need to do nothing, it is the people like you who do not understand the artistic image and demand it be changed, who need to Change

    Yes, because dying over and over again, having half the game locked off to me while I desperately try to fend off starvation is an artistic image I enjoy. I play survival games to survive, not appreciate the "artistic image" of dying over and over again. I do appreciate the scenery and the effort put into creatures. I'm all for capturing, containing, studying them. Hell I'm all for non-lethal solutions, but that doesn't stop me from wanting a lethal solution to fall back if/ inevitably when the excrement hits the oscillating ceiling device and all hell breaks loose.


    You're making a big deal out of nothing, Yeah, you die over and over again, but it's not like you lose everything, the solution to that is simple (and it's also why we have lockers) to store important stuff in. Just don't tear the lockers apart with stuff in them .-. learned that the hard way.

    The Devs could have made only one game mode, where if you die, poof. You have to start completely over, as a completely different character (which would actually be a cool game mode now that I think of it o3o)

  • Nuki255Nuki255 US Join Date: 2015-01-06 Member: 200658Members Posts: 73 Fully active user
    Fireclaw wrote: »
    Kodasa wrote: »
    Seldkam wrote: »
    The devs need to do nothing, it is the people like you who do not understand the artistic image and demand it be changed, who need to Change

    Yes, because dying over and over again, having half the game locked off to me while I desperately try to fend off starvation is an artistic image I enjoy. I play survival games to survive, not appreciate the "artistic image" of dying over and over again. I do appreciate the scenery and the effort put into creatures. I'm all for capturing, containing, studying them. Hell I'm all for non-lethal solutions, but that doesn't stop me from wanting a lethal solution to fall back if/ inevitably when the excrement hits the oscillating ceiling device and all hell breaks loose.


    You're making a big deal out of nothing, Yeah, you die over and over again, but it's not like you lose everything, the solution to that is simple (and it's also why we have lockers) to store important stuff in. Just don't tear the lockers apart with stuff in them .-. learned that the hard way.

    The Devs could have made only one game mode, where if you die, poof. You have to start completely over, as a completely different character (which would actually be a cool game mode now that I think of it o3o)
    You do realize there is a hardcore mode correct? You also realize this is a SURVIVAL game. When I play a SURVIVAL game, I try to survive. Whether I lose stuff or not, I'm trying to avoid that restart, or that reload, because I didn't survive.

    I think ultimately what everyone wants here is the ability to level the playing field, because it starts out stacked against us, but doesn't progress along the same survivable curve. As a new threat appears, normally its human nature to develop a way to overcome it. Whatever great prize those big nasty things are guarding, we need a way to (defeat/destroy/evade/avoid/circumvent - choose your own) them.
  • SeldkamSeldkam Join Date: 2014-01-01 Member: 191213Members Posts: 801 Advanced user
    edited April 2015
    Nuki255 wrote: »
    Fireclaw wrote: »
    Kodasa wrote: »
    Seldkam wrote: »
    The devs need to do nothing, it is the people like you who do not understand the artistic image and demand it be changed, who need to Change

    Yes, because dying over and over again, having half the game locked off to me while I desperately try to fend off starvation is an artistic image I enjoy. I play survival games to survive, not appreciate the "artistic image" of dying over and over again. I do appreciate the scenery and the effort put into creatures. I'm all for capturing, containing, studying them. Hell I'm all for non-lethal solutions, but that doesn't stop me from wanting a lethal solution to fall back if/ inevitably when the excrement hits the oscillating ceiling device and all hell breaks loose.


    You're making a big deal out of nothing, Yeah, you die over and over again, but it's not like you lose everything, the solution to that is simple (and it's also why we have lockers) to store important stuff in. Just don't tear the lockers apart with stuff in them .-. learned that the hard way.

    The Devs could have made only one game mode, where if you die, poof. You have to start completely over, as a completely different character (which would actually be a cool game mode now that I think of it o3o)
    You do realize there is a hardcore mode correct? You also realize this is a SURVIVAL game. When I play a SURVIVAL game, I try to survive. Whether I lose stuff or not, I'm trying to avoid that restart, or that reload, because I didn't survive.

    I think ultimately what everyone wants here is the ability to level the playing field, because it starts out stacked against us, but doesn't progress along the same survivable curve. As a new threat appears, normally its human nature to develop a way to overcome it. Whatever great prize those big nasty things are guarding, we need a way to (defeat/destroy/evade/avoid/circumvent - choose your own) them.

    Well hopefully the devs will add countermeasures that do help you guys out, don't see any reason in arguing the devs will do what they think is right at this point
    leopardsp0tsNuki255
  • ZundyZundy UK Join Date: 2015-03-26 Member: 202589Members Posts: 34 Fully active user
    edited April 2015
    Good man Seldkam.
  • Nuki255Nuki255 US Join Date: 2015-01-06 Member: 200658Members Posts: 73 Fully active user
    Seldkam wrote: »
    Nuki255 wrote: »
    Fireclaw wrote: »
    Kodasa wrote: »
    Seldkam wrote: »
    The devs need to do nothing, it is the people like you who do not understand the artistic image and demand it be changed, who need to Change

    Yes, because dying over and over again, having half the game locked off to me while I desperately try to fend off starvation is an artistic image I enjoy. I play survival games to survive, not appreciate the "artistic image" of dying over and over again. I do appreciate the scenery and the effort put into creatures. I'm all for capturing, containing, studying them. Hell I'm all for non-lethal solutions, but that doesn't stop me from wanting a lethal solution to fall back if/ inevitably when the excrement hits the oscillating ceiling device and all hell breaks loose.


    You're making a big deal out of nothing, Yeah, you die over and over again, but it's not like you lose everything, the solution to that is simple (and it's also why we have lockers) to store important stuff in. Just don't tear the lockers apart with stuff in them .-. learned that the hard way.

    The Devs could have made only one game mode, where if you die, poof. You have to start completely over, as a completely different character (which would actually be a cool game mode now that I think of it o3o)
    You do realize there is a hardcore mode correct? You also realize this is a SURVIVAL game. When I play a SURVIVAL game, I try to survive. Whether I lose stuff or not, I'm trying to avoid that restart, or that reload, because I didn't survive.

    I think ultimately what everyone wants here is the ability to level the playing field, because it starts out stacked against us, but doesn't progress along the same survivable curve. As a new threat appears, normally its human nature to develop a way to overcome it. Whatever great prize those big nasty things are guarding, we need a way to (defeat/destroy/evade/avoid/circumvent - choose your own) them.

    Well hopefully the devs will add countermeasures that do help you guys out, don't see any reason in arguing the devs will do what they think is right at this point

    Probably the most reasoned response I've seen yet from you. Good on ya.
  • Cynder_DragonbornCynder_Dragonborn United Staes Join Date: 2015-04-17 Member: 203557Members Posts: 50 Fully active user
    tarek wrote: »
    when we eat peepers we are killing them with lasers... so I suggest we move the cooking laser to the rifle :D

    @Mr.Peeper You just don't want to get shot with a cooking rifle now don't you? XD
    http://dragcave.net/user/Cynder_Dragonborn

    Dragons in desperate help:

    Dragon I've recently gained:WK3pU.gif
  • KodasaKodasa New Zealand Join Date: 2015-04-17 Member: 203545Members Posts: 73 Fully active user
    edited April 2015
    Fireclaw wrote: »
    You're making a big deal out of nothing, Yeah, you die over and over again, but it's not like you lose everything, the solution to that is simple (and it's also why we have lockers) to store important stuff in. Just don't tear the lockers apart with stuff in them .-. learned that the hard way.

    The Devs could have made only one game mode, where if you die, poof. You have to start completely over, as a completely different character (which would actually be a cool game mode now that I think of it o3o)

    It's not a big deal over nothing. Lets take... stranded deep as an example. When you start the game, you start with basic supplies, just like a real survivor, lost and alone. The odds are stacked against you, sharks will kill you, they're terrifying, they make you want to stay out of the water. But you brave it anyway, with the odds stacked against you, you dive that shipwreck and find yourself some bandages, suddenly things don't look so bad, if one bites you, you can fix yourself, the odds have shifted a little bit in your favor. Then you head back to land, and you craft yourself a crude axe, now you can hurt those sharks that come after you, sure they're still scary, but you can defend yourself against them, this is one more thing that increases your chance of survival, the odds shift in your favor again, they're still immeasurably against you, but they're looking a little better than before. Now you become braver, swimming into deeper waters, diving deeper wrecks, and you find a real axe, now the odds are further in your favor, you can defend yourself well against the sharks, possibly even kill a great white if it comes for you. Of course you're still cautious, it's still their domain, not yours, and they can kill you faster than you can kill them, but you can defend yourself. You start with nothing, and you make something out of it, as the game progresses, the odds slowly shift to favor you, not completely, certain things will never favor you even if you have the biggest axe in the world, but the point is that progression aids survival, it stops that death, it stops that reload or that inventory reset.

    Minecraft is another, you start with nothing, and you work your way up from the bottom, progression is rewarded with a favorable shift in the odds.

    Now look at subnautica, progression is rewarded with an angry Leviathan tearing your precious cyclops to shreds to try and get at you, and you desperately running to cower in the corner of your escape pod while sucking on your thumb for some form of nourishment because your hyper-metabolic character ran out of salt and food several days ago. The point of a survival game is not to cower and hide, in the beginning sure. But not forever.

    I don't want a level playing field, I'm happy to have the odds stacked against me, it makes sense, but I'd much prefer a steep set of stairs over the current brick wall we have. The point of the game is not to die repeatedly... Like dark souls, that game is immeasurably difficult, you die a LOT until you find the right loadout that works for you, but again, death isn't the purpose of the game. Death or the threat thereof is an incentive to progress to a point where you no longer suffer death, even if the threat of it still looms. Subnautica doesn't have that reward for progression right now, no way to make the learning curve shallower, no matter how well you do, death remains an ever present problem, not just some threat you can do your best to avoid or work past, but an actual problem that prevents you from experiencing half of the game no matter how many cyclops and stasis rifles you build.
  • InogoodatUsernameInogoodatUsername Join Date: 2015-04-13 Member: 203377Members Posts: 29 Fully active user
    The reason why killing is not wanted in this game is because you gain nothing from it. If you kill a reaper leviathan its body sinks to the bottom, the threat is eliminated and it looks ugly. With the stasis rifle you can shoot it and have it temporarily suspended, threat averted and it looks nice. In stranded deep the killing the sharks is your only option and you get food. In minecraft it's the same thing. Imagine if you could kill the monsters in amnesia, this would take away almost all the scare away. In subnautica it's not scare factor as much as it is supposed to be awe inspiring with beautiful scenery and creatures. You are trying to explore this world without really damaging it. Buuuut... with a really persistent threat you should be able to kill it but this should be really hard or take a decent chunk of time. Imagine this you have this really persistent reaper leviathan it has followed you away from the wreck and won't leave you alone. You have tried everything else to get is to go away but it seems intent on destroying your cyclops/sea base. I could imagine having a really epic fight with it with some type of laser pistol that stuns but enough shots will kill. But it cannot shoot through stasis bubbles and takes some time to reload (automatically) through or eventually if you shoot it enough times with a stasis rifle it will be permanently frozen and bam new statue (perhaps you could manipulate its position with those gravity ball things). But as I said it should only be a last resort and there should only be two lethal weapons (knife and laser pistol) that take some tie to kill and it would be easier to just send the monster away or deter it.
  • ZundyZundy UK Join Date: 2015-03-26 Member: 202589Members Posts: 34 Fully active user
    The reason why killing is not wanted in this game is because you gain nothing from it. If you kill a reaper leviathan its body sinks to the bottom, the threat is eliminated and it looks ugly. With the stasis rifle you can shoot it and have it temporarily suspended, threat averted and it looks nice. In stranded deep the killing the sharks is your only option and you get food. In minecraft it's the same thing. Imagine if you could kill the monsters in amnesia, this would take away almost all the scare away. In subnautica it's not scare factor as much as it is supposed to be awe inspiring with beautiful scenery and creatures. You are trying to explore this world without really damaging it. Buuuut... with a really persistent threat you should be able to kill it but this should be really hard or take a decent chunk of time. Imagine this you have this really persistent reaper leviathan it has followed you away from the wreck and won't leave you alone. You have tried everything else to get is to go away but it seems intent on destroying your cyclops/sea base. I could imagine having a really epic fight with it with some type of laser pistol that stuns but enough shots will kill. But it cannot shoot through stasis bubbles and takes some time to reload (automatically) through or eventually if you shoot it enough times with a stasis rifle it will be permanently frozen and bam new statue (perhaps you could manipulate its position with those gravity ball things). But as I said it should only be a last resort and there should only be two lethal weapons (knife and laser pistol) that take some tie to kill and it would be easier to just send the monster away or deter it.

    I agree with your last comments. I too think fighting the Leviathan should be difficult/of epic proportions and we should even potentially get something out of it.

    I disagree with the comparison to Amnesia though as first you picked two survival games very much akin to Subnautica in which you do kill threats, and then pointed out a straight horror game which is as far removed as you can get...unless this is where the devs want to go, cosmic horror. That'd be cool actually.
  • KodasaKodasa New Zealand Join Date: 2015-04-17 Member: 203545Members Posts: 73 Fully active user
    edited April 2015
    The reason why killing is not wanted in this game is because you gain nothing from it. If you kill a reaper leviathan its body sinks to the bottom, the threat is eliminated and it looks ugly. With the stasis rifle you can shoot it and have it temporarily suspended, threat averted and it looks nice.
    Except the stasis rifle doesn't work on the bigger monsters, and you get something out of it, you remove it as a threat to you for a long respawn period or even altogether, in order to allow access to the aurora. Even if the stasis rifle did work on them, you'd pin them for 5 seconds or so, not nearly aversion enough to actually explore the wreck.


    In stranded deep the killing the sharks is your only option and you get food. In minecraft it's the same thing. Imagine if you could kill the monsters in amnesia, this would take away almost all the scare away. In subnautica it's not scare factor as much as it is supposed to be awe inspiring with beautiful scenery and creatures.
    Killing sharks is not your only option, it's just the best food in the game. You can also use a spear to fish, find tins of beans inside shipwrecks, climb trees for coconuts... Food is more common than simply killing sharks. In minecraft, hostile mobs do not drop food at all, with the exception of zombie flesh I suppose, but you don't kill them for that, most of the time you don't kill them for loot, you kill them for survival, because if you didn't they'd kill you. Amnesia is a horror game, and you're right that the scare factor would be taken away if that was the case, but the horror factor doesn't play a huge part in subnautica whereas amnesia is built entirely around it. As you said, awe inspiring envrionments and creatures, but what's the point in awe inspiring if I can't see half of it due to big monsters eating me?

    You are trying to explore this world without really damaging it. Buuuut... with a really persistent threat you should be able to kill it but this should be really hard or take a decent chunk of time. Imagine this you have this really persistent reaper leviathan it has followed you away from the wreck and won't leave you alone. You have tried everything else to get is to go away but it seems intent on destroying your cyclops/sea base. I could imagine having a really epic fight with it with some type of laser pistol that stuns but enough shots will kill. But it cannot shoot through stasis bubbles and takes some time to reload (automatically) through or eventually if you shoot it enough times with a stasis rifle it will be permanently frozen and bam new statue (perhaps you could manipulate its position with those gravity ball things). But as I said it should only be a last resort and there should only be two lethal weapons (knife and laser pistol) that take some tie to kill and it would be easier to just send the monster away or deter it.
    I agree killing it should not be easy, but a reaper leviathan is huge, with a thick hide and extremely muscular, tapping it with a butter knife or poking it with a laser pointer isn't going to do a thing, it'll be akin to trying to mine obsidian with a wooden pickaxe in minecraft. You need something large, and something lethal. That doesn't mean it specifically needs to be applied in a lethal fashion, but if I had my hands on a mass driver, or a large torpedo, that could wound the monster, I would use it to wound the monster, when wounded it would either flee, or have a weakspot for me to attack with my butter knife.
  • tarektarek lebanon Join Date: 2015-04-10 Member: 203241Members Posts: 290 Fully active user
    edited April 2015
    guys after the update ... it seems everything on the planet is trying to violently murder me and crush my subs then make powder from all the remains and then make human soup from them ....

    blood sucking leeches, deadly blue crabs, deadly stalkers, bone sharks, leviathans, reapers, acid pooping whales, exploding fish canons....

    for a peaceful exploration game the sea seems JAM PACKED with stuff trying to kill us, eat us, or just plane peel us alive then rub us with salt and vinegar and then make salad from our flesh
    Cynder_Dragonborn
Sign In or Register to comment.