I rather like not having lethal weapons beyond a knife. I think it enhances the exploration aspect of the game by making animals you encounter things to look at rather than things to kill. I'm worried that adding in more lethal weapons would bias players more towards a "shot first, ask questions later" mentality.
P.S. You spelled it "lethatal" in the first option.
You don't explore without being prepared. Even if you go through the wilderness. You would be a fool to just have a knife and nothing more as if you happen upon a predator. A good chance it would kill you. Therefore more lethal weapons beyond the knife would be warranted. As for how other people play it would be of there own choosing. But the option should still exist if one needs it. Then they have it. I would like at least a harpoon with me just in case than to go without one and to need it but then it is too late.
yea but u didnt come prepared u crash landed the only tech u find is ones that fell off the ship and since this was a terraformer ship they may have not carried weapon tech
yea but u didnt come prepared u crash landed the only tech u find is ones that fell off the ship and since this was a terraformer ship they may have not carried weapon tech
If you can make a knife, a builder, a cyclops, a base, a fabricator, a seamoth, a terraformer and etc. Is it really that far fetch to build a harpoon? I think future scify tech can make a harpoon so that you can have a better offensive or defensive weapon whatever the situation. Even if you go unprepared. You are building to prepare so that you can survive. Weapons increase your survival efforts so that you can explore.
A good chance it would kill you. Therefore more lethal weapons beyond the knife would be warranted.
Nope. This would warrant defensive weapons. Which can be also non-lethal.
OK. So what do you suggest?
Nothing.
Looking at how the game has been developed so far, I think the developers seem to have a well-founded and clear vision regarding self-defense/weaponry.
If something, I'd suggest that the devs keep up the good work.
A good chance it would kill you. Therefore more lethal weapons beyond the knife would be warranted.
Nope. This would warrant defensive weapons. Which can be also non-lethal.
So your resolution is to do nothing. To just repulse and if the predator wants to come back and take a chunk out of you. Hope that you are vigilant enough to repulse yet again instead of taking it out of play. I don't think that would work very well. I would rather kill it and not have to worry about it and I would then probably eat it. Ever wonder what reaper would taste like? That's exploration to.
Looking at how the game has been developed so far, I think the developers seem to have a well-founded and clear vision regarding self-defense/weaponry.
If something, I'd suggest that the devs keep up the good work.
Cool, thanks for trying to shut down discussion of things you don't like.
Not at all. I would rather deter, stun, anesthetize, scare or knock out (etc.) the dangerous predators away. There's plenty of things to do between killing it and doing nothing. And I do believe those things could work very well.
Not at all. I would rather deter, stun, anesthetize, scare or knock out (etc.) the dangerous predators away. There's plenty of things to do between killing it and doing nothing. And I do believe those things could work very well.
So not even going to consider the possibility of eating predators? Why not being able to take resources from predators too? Why would you rather deter, stun and etc. a dangerous predator instead of killing it?
04LeonhardtI came here to laugh at youJoin Date: 2015-08-01Member: 206618Members
I feel that "No weapons at all!" could be justified if there were far less frequent hostile creature encounters.
But currently the Red Plains/Grassy Plateaus, usually the 2nd Biome you visit, is infested with Bone Sharks, Sand Sharks, Biter Fish, Spike Plants, and the rare Bleeder.
If they made predators less common, then it'd require less fighting them off, while making their encounters more exciting.
Not at all. I would rather deter, stun, anesthetize, scare or knock out (etc.) the dangerous predators away. There's plenty of things to do between killing it and doing nothing. And I do believe those things could work very well.
So not even going to consider the possibility of eating predators? Why not being able to take resources from predators too? Why would you rather deter, stun and etc. a dangerous predator instead of killing it?
I might, in the future when/if they become edible or an irreplaceable source of some material. But primarily I like the ocean with more creatures in it. I play survival and it does get very boring if you don't have any challenges (predators) left. At the moment there's not really a need for lethal weapons, since there's no creature you can't survive. But this can't be a sufficient argument for or against lethal weapons.
However, the developers have here a unique opportunity to show players (kids especially) that human interactions on an ecosystem can be disastrous (as it often is in the real world). For example the consequences of removing too many specimen/species from an ecosystem faster than its recovery rate. Now here lies the thing that irritates me: having lethal weapons in the game would probably be a good way of showing this, and yet adding them may result in age restrictions in many countries. So we should perhaps have lethal weapons, yet on the other hand maybe not.
Of course ecosystem-mechanics could exist in the game without lethal weapons. But having lethal weapons in the game, and the possibility to use them is an effective way of showing the consequences of human interaction on an ecosystem. You could kill creatures, but killing too much might have potentially harmful and unintended consequences; for the environment and to the player himself. It would also show that weapons, although instruments meant for wounding/killing, are not evil, but can be used wisely.
Still, in a way the discussion about whether we should have lethal weapons or not, is a part of a bigger thing; the basic environmental mechanics of the game. I hope the developers take some time to focus on that. I mean, I've literally emptied the Safe Shallows of small, edible fish, and it does not have any kind of real effect in my game. If they manage to implement a working ecosystem-mechanic, the discussion about lethal weapons becomes way more fruitful, as killing creatures would then have a meaningful effect on the Subnautica world.
DEVS PLEASE READ THIS! I think this game just needs something to hold back huge creatures. Something like a harpoon to fend them off and maybe a harpoon trap that they need to break to get to you. And maybe even some sort of turret mount, that can fire harpoons at stalkers that are around your base. It would come in handy to set a big trap full of harpoons to slow down a sea dragon so I can escape. And I mean harpoons with a tether of some sort. And for those people who just want a knife, don't make the harpoons! Its very simple! Because some people want things like that, but you guys just say "Nope. They wont have their fun with harpoons. We will just run and hide." But people don't like that! So just don't make the harpoons and play your way and let others play the way they want to.
Everything is an evolution in this game, you get your beginning stuff, then late game oyu have upgrades to you original items. It would only make sense to get a normal gun for an upgrade to a knife. Even getting a spear.
If this guy can create ENTIRE SHIPS, he can create weapons. Otherwise this makes no sense. What space exploration race leaves home without guns? Not putting it in game, is purely pure breed fan service. This isn't Minecraft, and shouldn't be either. It's a little stupid to think that a guy that can create entire Underwater utopias, can't create weapons.
I rather like not having lethal weapons beyond a knife. I think it enhances the exploration aspect of the game by making animals you encounter things to look at rather than things to kill. I'm worried that adding in more lethal weapons would bias players more towards a "shot first, ask questions later" mentality.
P.S. You spelled it "lethatal" in the first option.
Dude, if you like exploring, just make the knife and don't make the harpoons. Its very simple!
Check out my recent thread. It's very relative to the current discussion, and I think it has some good alternatives to lethal weapons... although, some of them could be considered lethal. Hey, I even suggested a few passive methods for more timid players.
How about implementing lethal weapons with a game changing effect? Two ways to play:
1. the ecological friendly players who only stun or scare off dangerous fish. When they seee a huge creature they craft an expensive anasthetic in order to get its DNA and mutate themself to adapt. DNA-extraction should take some time so that you have to stun them.
2. the big game hunter who shoot and eat everything that moves. But if you kill a bigger creatures they will bleed and attract even bigger monsters who will stay there since they found food. So unless you are prepared to play hardball you really should not sound the feeding-bell. DNA-extraction would still be possible but only if you don't mind being temporarily defenseless near a huge bleeding chunk of meat in open water. (anything from bone- and sandshark upwards should drop a trophy)
>this hilariously bad strawman again
>opinion discarded.
I didn't mean it as a negative description. But people who demand weapons so they can shoot things dead even in self defense despite the fact that they can stun or avoid them, do seem trigger happy to me (like said hunter). It isn't my style but with my idea I tried to make a compromise between the two play styles so that everyone can have what the want.
>this hilariously bad strawman again
>opinion discarded.
I didn't mean it as a negative description. But people who demand weapons so they can shoot things dead even in self defense despite the fact that they can stun or avoid them, do seem trigger happy to me (like said hunter). It isn't my style but with my idea I tried to make a compromise between the two play styles so that everyone can have what the want.
as a hunter im offended that you think we are trigger hapy murderers.
taking a life isn't fun, the sport is in the tracking, hunting, and the reward of a warm meal.
as a hunter im offended that you think we are trigger hapy murderers.
taking a life isn't fun, the sport is in the tracking, hunting, and the reward of a warm meal.
Then I apologize. I only related to the game not to real life.
In a game I find it more exiting and as a game mechanic refreshing to not have the ability to take everything head on. But because there are people who think of such a scenario as unrealistic, there shoul be a game mechanic for both groups.
Everything else in my comment was bad phrasing and I hope that no one feels offended by my words. If there is one: again I apologize.
In a game I find it more exiting and as a game mechanic refreshing to not have the ability to take everything head on.
You realize that it would be entirely your decision to take everything head on if you had a weapon to do so with, right? Having the capacity for different playstyles is a good thing.
You realize that it would be entirely your decision to take everything head on if you had a weapon to do so with, right? Having the capacity for different playstyles is a good thing.
I know. My idea was that the game should reflect that with a changing enviroment or different benefits for different playstyles. Because knowing myself there would always be the temptation to "just" (would still be hard to do) kill the sea emperor leviathan instead of e.g. powering down the sub and wait for it to pass by because then it would be out of the way forever.
But wouldn't you agree that the defense only way would be slightly more difficult?
So they should include an achievement of reaching a certain goal (maybe some kind of escape-end or reaching 3000 depth) without killing anything bigger than a peeper when they include lethal weapons. That way the non lethal guys won't have to build weapons and the lethal guys won't have to go after that achievement.
I feel like the only one who is thinking about if you don't want the stupid harpoon, you just don't make it. It seems so simple but not to the people who voted no weapons. We need to protect ourselves and when we get bored of building and that kind of stuff, what do we have to do? Nothing. But if we have weapons... *looks at sea full of floating dead bodies* big game hunting!
Because knowing myself there would always be the temptation to "just" (would still be hard to do) kill the sea emperor leviathan instead of e.g. powering down the sub and wait for it to pass by because then it would be out of the way forever.
Are you going to kill the colossal Sea Emperor Leviathan with your piddly little speargun?
Because knowing myself there would always be the temptation to "just" (would still be hard to do) kill the sea emperor leviathan instead of e.g. powering down the sub and wait for it to pass by because then it would be out of the way forever.
Are you going to kill the colossal Sea Emperor Leviathan with your piddly little speargun?
That would be something to see. A toothpick taking down a big Sea Emperor.
Comments
You don't explore without being prepared. Even if you go through the wilderness. You would be a fool to just have a knife and nothing more as if you happen upon a predator. A good chance it would kill you. Therefore more lethal weapons beyond the knife would be warranted. As for how other people play it would be of there own choosing. But the option should still exist if one needs it. Then they have it. I would like at least a harpoon with me just in case than to go without one and to need it but then it is too late.
Again, this is a hilariously stupid argument that needs to stop being referenced.
If you can make a knife, a builder, a cyclops, a base, a fabricator, a seamoth, a terraformer and etc. Is it really that far fetch to build a harpoon? I think future scify tech can make a harpoon so that you can have a better offensive or defensive weapon whatever the situation. Even if you go unprepared. You are building to prepare so that you can survive. Weapons increase your survival efforts so that you can explore.
i never go in the woods without A. my hoyt ignite compound bow, B. my lakefield .22 C. either a winchester pumpaction or a browning auto 5
and i cannot forget my trusty tramontina machete.
i don't go out to hunt most times, that being said.
im not looking to be hunted by any of these fuckers.
Nope. This would warrant defensive weapons. Which can be also non-lethal.
OK. So what do you suggest?
Nothing.
Looking at how the game has been developed so far, I think the developers seem to have a well-founded and clear vision regarding self-defense/weaponry.
If something, I'd suggest that the devs keep up the good work.
So your resolution is to do nothing. To just repulse and if the predator wants to come back and take a chunk out of you. Hope that you are vigilant enough to repulse yet again instead of taking it out of play. I don't think that would work very well. I would rather kill it and not have to worry about it and I would then probably eat it. Ever wonder what reaper would taste like? That's exploration to.
Cool, thanks for trying to shut down discussion of things you don't like.
Tastebud exploration is best exploration.
Not at all. I would rather deter, stun, anesthetize, scare or knock out (etc.) the dangerous predators away. There's plenty of things to do between killing it and doing nothing. And I do believe those things could work very well.
So not even going to consider the possibility of eating predators? Why not being able to take resources from predators too? Why would you rather deter, stun and etc. a dangerous predator instead of killing it?
Yes it is
But currently the Red Plains/Grassy Plateaus, usually the 2nd Biome you visit, is infested with Bone Sharks, Sand Sharks, Biter Fish, Spike Plants, and the rare Bleeder.
If they made predators less common, then it'd require less fighting them off, while making their encounters more exciting.
I might, in the future when/if they become edible or an irreplaceable source of some material. But primarily I like the ocean with more creatures in it. I play survival and it does get very boring if you don't have any challenges (predators) left. At the moment there's not really a need for lethal weapons, since there's no creature you can't survive. But this can't be a sufficient argument for or against lethal weapons.
However, the developers have here a unique opportunity to show players (kids especially) that human interactions on an ecosystem can be disastrous (as it often is in the real world). For example the consequences of removing too many specimen/species from an ecosystem faster than its recovery rate. Now here lies the thing that irritates me: having lethal weapons in the game would probably be a good way of showing this, and yet adding them may result in age restrictions in many countries. So we should perhaps have lethal weapons, yet on the other hand maybe not.
Of course ecosystem-mechanics could exist in the game without lethal weapons. But having lethal weapons in the game, and the possibility to use them is an effective way of showing the consequences of human interaction on an ecosystem. You could kill creatures, but killing too much might have potentially harmful and unintended consequences; for the environment and to the player himself. It would also show that weapons, although instruments meant for wounding/killing, are not evil, but can be used wisely.
Still, in a way the discussion about whether we should have lethal weapons or not, is a part of a bigger thing; the basic environmental mechanics of the game. I hope the developers take some time to focus on that. I mean, I've literally emptied the Safe Shallows of small, edible fish, and it does not have any kind of real effect in my game. If they manage to implement a working ecosystem-mechanic, the discussion about lethal weapons becomes way more fruitful, as killing creatures would then have a meaningful effect on the Subnautica world.
If this guy can create ENTIRE SHIPS, he can create weapons. Otherwise this makes no sense. What space exploration race leaves home without guns? Not putting it in game, is purely pure breed fan service. This isn't Minecraft, and shouldn't be either. It's a little stupid to think that a guy that can create entire Underwater utopias, can't create weapons.
Dude, if you like exploring, just make the knife and don't make the harpoons. Its very simple!
1. the ecological friendly players who only stun or scare off dangerous fish. When they seee a huge creature they craft an expensive anasthetic in order to get its DNA and mutate themself to adapt. DNA-extraction should take some time so that you have to stun them.
2. the big game hunter who shoot and eat everything that moves. But if you kill a bigger creatures they will bleed and attract even bigger monsters who will stay there since they found food. So unless you are prepared to play hardball you really should not sound the feeding-bell. DNA-extraction would still be possible but only if you don't mind being temporarily defenseless near a huge bleeding chunk of meat in open water. (anything from bone- and sandshark upwards should drop a trophy)
>opinion discarded.
I didn't mean it as a negative description. But people who demand weapons so they can shoot things dead even in self defense despite the fact that they can stun or avoid them, do seem trigger happy to me (like said hunter). It isn't my style but with my idea I tried to make a compromise between the two play styles so that everyone can have what the want.
as a hunter im offended that you think we are trigger hapy murderers.
taking a life isn't fun, the sport is in the tracking, hunting, and the reward of a warm meal.
Then I apologize. I only related to the game not to real life.
In a game I find it more exiting and as a game mechanic refreshing to not have the ability to take everything head on. But because there are people who think of such a scenario as unrealistic, there shoul be a game mechanic for both groups.
Everything else in my comment was bad phrasing and I hope that no one feels offended by my words. If there is one: again I apologize.
I know. My idea was that the game should reflect that with a changing enviroment or different benefits for different playstyles. Because knowing myself there would always be the temptation to "just" (would still be hard to do) kill the sea emperor leviathan instead of e.g. powering down the sub and wait for it to pass by because then it would be out of the way forever.
But wouldn't you agree that the defense only way would be slightly more difficult?
So they should include an achievement of reaching a certain goal (maybe some kind of escape-end or reaching 3000 depth) without killing anything bigger than a peeper when they include lethal weapons. That way the non lethal guys won't have to build weapons and the lethal guys won't have to go after that achievement.
Are you going to kill the colossal Sea Emperor Leviathan with your piddly little speargun?
That would be something to see. A toothpick taking down a big Sea Emperor.