New ideas for tech

phantomfinch

So today I was daydreaming about stuff I remembered in the movie "the Martian", mark watney managed to turn hydrogen and oxygen into water and this gave me a thought. "If subnautica has a water filtration machine why not also have a hydrogen and oxygen filtration machine"

My idea is a machine that uses the process of electrolysis to separate water into their pure elements oxygen and hydrogen. To balance the oxygen production obviously the machine would need a lot of energy to work. The machine could either be reactor size or water filtration machine size but you may be thinking " what about the hydrogen" well to answer that question I have two words for you "concussion grenades"

In my vison they can be thrown for a short range or launched from the propulsion cannon for a better distance. I have also thought of modifications for the grenade "sticky conclusion" which is crafted using floaters ,"flash bang" which is crafted using 3 or 4 magnesium and "homing granade" which is crafted using a crash or other fish and detonated on command. I think the granade will be crafted using a hydrogen can, a oxygen can, magnesium and an air bladder in a modification table.

I think the parts to this machine could be found in the deep grand reef base because of two reasons: it is too deep for any plant life to grow and it is in a cave so they would need oxygen production. And two I think a hydrogen granade would be something Marguerit Maida would create (cause she's a rebel and rebels are cool like that)

Ps. The granade won't kill anything underwater because water is more dense than air and no flame could form and it will mainly be used scare of larger predators, think of it as a personal torpedo launcher.

Pp.s if I the granade is used above water it will create a large explosion so I think it could be used as a way of clearing debris on the aurora, like tnt is used to clear rocks from mines.

Thosar

The devs have been careful not to include much offensive in the game. I think anything labeled as a grenade would be too much. And concussive explosions are actually more dangerous to living creatures underwater than in the air because the water actually is more effective at carrying and delivering the concussive force. Realistically you'd be killing things all over the place, and even if these hypothetical grenades don't kill things, we already have the stasis rifle for stunning. I'm not seeing a great reason for including them.

Also, it has been speculated that the base uses hydrolysis (the act of splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen) anyway for oxygen production, when it has energy and no pipe oxygen access, and the process is just hidden from the player because there's not really any need to reveal it.

SanguisDiabolus

I get that the developers don't want the player to just go around killing things; to create an atmosphere of cohabitation mixed with survival. However, when you have 10+ hostile creatures in your game, many of them extremely lethal, it becomes exceedingly ridiculous when you don't give the player the means to defend themselves. Especially since it would seem that now stalkers and even sand sharks are encroaching on the "safe" shallows.
We can craft knives, we can craft pipes, but you're telling me I can't make a simple spear? Things like that completely break whatever "immersion" the game had. Any other game in any genre, you get some kind of reward for killing an enemy. Even in a mindless FPS, enemies will drop ammo or weapons as a reward. An RPG enemy gives you items, currency or exp. But in Subnautica, the hostile creatures are literally nothing but an obstruction, an annoyance. If something attacks me and I kill it, I don't receive anything to even give me any satisfaction from winning that battle.

Here's an idea off the top of my head: Stalkers are night hunters right? After you scan one the PDA tells you they have vision catered for darkness. How about if you kill one you could loot some of its genetic material and craft a consumable item that gives you better vision in darkness. Have it last 5 minutes or something.

Kill a Boneshark? Loot its armor plating and use it to craft an armored dive suit.

These are ideas I literally came up with in 5 minutes. They are things that would give lethal weapons a purpose, and allow the player to feel like they actually accomplished something when they kill an attacker.

DrownedOut

SanguisDiabolus wrote: »

I get that the developers don't want the player to just go around killing things; to create an atmosphere of cohabitation mixed with survival. However, when you have 10+ hostile creatures in your game, many of them extremely lethal, it becomes exceedingly ridiculous when you don't give the player the means to defend themselves. Especially since it would seem that now stalkers and even sand sharks are encroaching on the "safe" shallows.
We can craft knives, we can craft pipes, but you're telling me I can't make a simple spear? Things like that completely break whatever "immersion" the game had. Any other game in any genre, you get some kind of reward for killing an enemy. Even in a mindless FPS, enemies will drop ammo or weapons as a reward. An RPG enemy gives you items, currency or exp. But in Subnautica, the hostile creatures are literally nothing but an obstruction, an annoyance. If something attacks me and I kill it, I don't receive anything to even give me any satisfaction from winning that battle.

Here's an idea off the top of my head: Stalkers are night hunters right? After you scan one the PDA tells you they have vision catered for darkness. How about if you kill one you could loot some of its genetic material and craft a consumable item that gives you better vision in darkness. Have it last 5 minutes or something.

Kill a Boneshark? Loot its armor plating and use it to craft an armored dive suit.

These are ideas I literally came up with in 5 minutes. They are things that would give lethal weapons a purpose, and allow the player to feel like they actually accomplished something when they kill an attacker.

The Transfuser will let you get DNA, and without killing anything. No need to add the extra effort.

Mind, btw, you are mixing up two arguments to turn an appeal into a demand for a benefit. It starts with arguing that defense is a necessity to play the game, then goes straight into wanting to be rewarded with goodies for slaughter. Goodies would encourage combat, which is explicitly not what the game is going for.

Vespertinestar

As far as I know the devs don't want you to think of creatures as things you can harvest and get rewards from. The idea seems to be that you find what you need from the environment, rather than "looting" living creatures for your own personal gain. The sense of accomplishment is supposed to come not from battling creatures but rather having the wit and skill to outmaneuver them and escape. You're always supposed to feel vulnerable. Making armoured dive suits that stop you getting killed would just encourage you to go and kill more and more creatures to "loot" them.

Also, you have the means to defend yourself from bonesharks etc without killing them and that is with the knife. If you slash them a couple of times they will swim away and leave you alone.

And for a "grenade" that scares of creatures, something that generated a bright strobing light and bubbles and interfered with the creatures ability to sense their environment using the cells along their lateral line or electroreceptors would possibly be much more effective and also harmless.

SanguisDiabolus

I'll tell ya right now: if they keep adding hostile enemies and subsequently keep the player toothless, the player base will begin to fall away, especially for the recent console release. They'll just go play and support Ark instead. A developer can't do anything if they don't make money from purchases. I'm far from the only person who feels this way. Only a matter of time, really.

Mirality

Vespertinestar wrote: »

And for a "grenade" that scares of creatures, something that generated a bright strobing light and bubbles and interfered with the creatures ability to sense their environment using the cells along their lateral line or electroreceptors would possibly be much more effective and also harmless.

Of course, a light grenade would just annoy the crabsquids and make them EMP you...

DrownedOut

I'm pretty sure the fanbase will be okay. You'd be surprised (or not) how many peeps around here predict the game will lose its fans if their personal wishes - which conflict with the wishes of others - aren't catered to.

And doesn't Ark still have that EA DLC matter hanging over itself?

Enderguy059

Why not just have something called "A Flashbang Grenade"? Those things are non-lethal and useful.

Rainstorm

SanguisDiabolus wrote: »

I'll tell ya right now: if they keep adding hostile enemies and subsequently keep the player toothless, the player base will begin to fall away, especially for the recent console release. They'll just go play and support Ark instead. A developer can't do anything if they don't make money from purchases. I'm far from the only person who feels this way. Only a matter of time, really.

Devs of this game surely knew, even before the game was released on Steam for EA, that there would be alot of complaints about the lack of weapons to mass-murder everything in sight. Yet they decided to follow their concept of a game that heavily centers on using your head and study/observe a predator's behaviour in order to escape it, rather than murder it outright.

SanguisDiabolus wrote: »

Any other game in any genre, you get some kind of reward for killing an enemy. Even in a mindless FPS, enemies will drop ammo or weapons as a reward. An RPG enemy gives you items, currency or exp. But in Subnautica, the hostile creatures are literally nothing but an obstruction, an annoyance. If something attacks me and I kill it, I don't receive anything to even give me any satisfaction from winning that battle.

You're right, its very different than most games out there. Games without gunz 'n spearz are a rare occurence and in this case its very welcomed. No doubt they knew that it would'nt appeal to everyone and that the sales would reflect that fact. I've read recently a post from someone that said that they probably would stop playing cuz there isnt any good weapons in this game, cant remember the name of that person tho .... If the lack of weapons is so hindering for you that it makes you dont want to play anymore then maybe its because that this game was'nt made for you. Ever thought of that? (im not targetting anyone specifically here, im speaking to anyone that it would concern)

Instead of giving into that they decided to go with their original plan and make a very different game. Some may call this folly, i personally think it takes balls to do this in the game market we have now. They decided it was a calculated risk and take the gamble that Subnautica, a game without deadly weapons, will be successful.

Will they win their gamble? time will tell i guess.

I have nothing but respect for a game company to take such risk in making a different kind of game than Ark and all its clones.
Anyone reading this have the right to disagree with me of course, thats just my opinion and its as good as anyone's.

DrownedOut wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the fanbase will be okay. You'd be surprised (or not) how many peeps around here predict the game will lose its fans if their personal wishes - which conflict with the wishes of others - aren't catered to.

And doesn't Ark still have that EA DLC matter hanging over itself?

Yeah, theres a demand for this kind of game. Im of those that thinks it will do great as well even tho theres no lethal weapons (the Seamoth's windshield in my opinion is a weapon of mass-murder if you ask me tho )

phantomfinch

Wow created a forum about adding non lethal grenades and ended up in a discussion about what would happen to the fan base if they kept adding predators and didn't add more defences.