H.A.R.P
tickera
Australia Join Date: 2016-05-06 Member: 216399Members
Australia Join Date: 2016-05-06 Member: 216399Members
The High Acceleration Razor Projectile (or H.A.R.P) is a primitive tool and form of self defense. Due to the lack of any weaponry whatsoever, I've come up with something that's not really a weapon, but more of a tool that can be used as a method of self defense. The HARP (from now on its just HARP) is basically a Harpoon, with a sci-fi twist. The HARP's primary purpose is for catching fish in early game. It would be a basic craft available within the first hour of gameplay and is used to shoot at small edible fish, kill them and reel them into your inventory. This also does damage to larger fish, and can potentially kill. Later on, the HARP is upgradeable and can be upgraded in the modification station to have various forms. Such as one which pushes the enemy back when shot, one that screeches a loud noise and deters predators, or a distraction projectile which lures predators away to the position that you fired it in. That is my suggestion.
Comments
Have you ever heard the conspiracies about HAARP?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Active_Auroral_Research_Program
But its not really a weapon, its more like the knife. A tool which can be used to kill; all tools can do that, forks, power drills, chainsaws they arent meant to kill but they can. You can kill a person with legit anything.
Am I summing up that idea correctly?
Don't forge quotes pls, I never said that.
Its the same as a knife, its like the grappling hook on the PRAWN and instead of pulling yourself towards it, its pulled directly to your inventory.
I'd rather be shot with a harpoon tbh
If that was the case there wouldn't be a knife, or collision damage or PRAWN damage. Anything is a 'weapon' if you want to make it so. Its literally the same as the PRAWN grapple hook but it pulls it into your inventory, and if its a larger animal it nudges it a little towards you.
Imagine a futuristic speargun. This speargun has modular projectiles, able to swap on the fly between retractable grapple claw for reeling in resource nodes, ore chunks, and small fish, and a sharp, traditional spearhead effective against small aggressive fauna, namely Biters, Bleeders, and Cave Crawlers; the grapple claw is reusable, while a regular spear is consumed, presumed damaged or simply lost in the sand. Useful for the brave explorer without access to Alterra™ propulsion/repulsion gun tech, no? Now further imagine our intrepid explorer has gained access to his or her very own Alterra™ upgrade bench; now this speargun, which had been losing relevance to higher-tech alternatives, can be upgraded to use the one and only H.A.R.P.™ - a slightly misleadingly named AI-guided projectile with on-board molecular deconstructor capable of stripping plant matter down to its base components for later utilization as raw materials in an Alterra™ Fabricator, assuming of course that said flora has been scanned into the database. Useless as a weapon thanks to built in safety protocols, it can nevertheless be caused to detonate and deliver a disorienting shock to hostile wildlife akin to a man-portable, ranged version of the Seamoth's Perimeter Defense System, strong enough to "discourage" Stalker-sized creatures that the base spears are ineffective against.
PROS: Low tech, available right off the bat, low base resource cost (mostly titanium/silicone), useful against small but very annoying hostile lifeforms that can be hard to hit with a knife, upgradeable to a time-saving remote resource gatherer and reasonably potent defensive option against Stalker and Shark sized lifeforms.
CONS: Not a replacement for the stasis rifle thanks to Leviathan-class lifeforms, not a total replacement for the propulsion/repulsion cannon, limited stock of projectiles, H.A.R.P. projectiles more expensive than just using a knife for gathering.
I'm not forging quotes, I am summing up your idea. I'm pointing out that you started yet another weapon thread. Because you did, whether you admit it or not.
It's a harpoon gun. The ability to attach noisemakers (or whatever) does not make it less of a harpoon gun.
You make a good point. I guess I should say that after reading on the forums, I believe that the developers are avoiding adding MORE lethal weapons because of the game ratings. I know that they recently had to change the color of blood somewhere in order to keep the rating they have.
No, it just makes it more useful than a regular harpoon gun. How much mileage are you gonna get out of a harpoon gun in Subnautica's waters? Beyond smaller fauna, Crashes and Bleeders and such, not a whole lot; I don't see any man-portable harpoon gun taking down a Crabsquid or Warper, let alone a Leviathan-class. Now, a harpoon gun that can also grab chunks of scrap, small fish, have a dive reel integrated, fire smart projectiles that harvest creepvines but can also detonate as a "smaller" version of the Perimeter Defense Field... that's not a harpoon gun, that's the harpoon gun. That's my version of tickera's idea, yeah, but it sounds like a solid addition to the old toolbelt to me, if only because it consolidates some of the other tools down into one package, which is almost always a plus in a survival situation.
Probably Germany, Germany has some extremely strict rules when it comes to violence in media.
The propulsion gun is very good at grabbing resources and small fish. Dive reels don't really need remote application.
Some sort of knife-level harvesting for Seamoth might be convenient?
Adding any ranged weapon would be extremely tricky. Either it does no damage and is useless, or obsoletes knife and propulsion-gun projectiles. There's no real middle ground.
Something like a flare launcher might work, or remote-sonar-pulse things, or various other toys would be neat, but once you attach a sharp point to it, it just opens a can of worms.
That about sums up what i was thinking.
Whats a noisemaker? and if you were 'summing it up' don't put it in quotation marks.
As DarkIntent said, its more expensive to use than the knife, its very early game so its pre propulsion cannon, and it has limited ammunition.
I do what I want with quotes, thanks. It was a small shot of hyperbole. Because you posted about adding a harpoon gun, and justified it by the ability to tie noisemakers on the side. That is literally what you did.
A harpoon gun remains a harpoon gun, no matter what other justifications are heaped on top of it. And they're almost certainly not going to add weapons like that, since they want to RETAIN that "mild-violence" tag. Which they desire enough to change blood colors.
You didn't have to say it, you're just being snippy.
No, hyperbole is an exaggerated statement made as a joke, whereas what you said is a strawman argument, which is an exaggerated statement meant to make a position easier to attack. The only similarity is that neither one should be taken seriously.
No, a harpoon gun is only a harpoon gun if it fires harpoons. It doesn't have to, the "gun" itself is just a generic projectile launcher. You would prefer that harpoons aren't one of those projectiles, fine; say so, then make some suggestions for useful non-lethal projectiles instead of sh**ting all over the idea. I managed it, so what's your excuse?
You're not wrong, but...
The player can be eaten alive in a fairly graphic way (Reaper/Sea Dragon). The player can die to forcible blood extraction (Bleeders). The player can now burn to death, they can drown (which is also fairly graphically portrayed), they can starve. But somebody wants to put a harpoon into a Stalker, oh no, all of a sudden we need to think of the children, all the while blithely ignoring the fact that you can already stasis them and go to town on their stupid faces with a knife like Aquaman's psychotic cousin. That is one hell of a bizarre threshold for what's "acceptable", and that's not even going into the twisted mental gymnastics you have to do to think it gives you some kind of moral superiority for only approving of this "clean" portrayal of violence. And no, EvilSmoo, I'm not talking about you specifically; I'm not talking about anybody specifically, just pointing out the facts.
Dude. Bad form. You don't just pick and choose what sentences you want to respond to, man up (or woman up, as appropriate) and respond to an entire post. If you can't manage that, perhaps you should think of a better reponse.
Looking further, I don't see a discrete "mild violence" tag in the ESRB search options at all, though. Just "violence" and apparently they're aiming for E or E10+, because it jumps pretty quickly to M. Some of the content descriptors are "mild fantasy violence" though? They don't count horror nearly as much as sexual content, creepy games get it way easier than sexual content.
Actually, you do if you want to be specific with responses and the whole, unaltered source post is readily available for reference.
Which doesn't negate the fact you were being snippy, or the fact that you were being snippy to somebody that may just not speak English very well.
I can use Google, too. And Wikipedia. I can even provide a link since the whole definition is too long for this post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Does that first example sound familiar?
First, spear and harpoon guns are comparable to crossbows, not firearms, in terms of operation, so your comparison doesn't fit, especially considering that a spear or harpoon gun will throw pretty much anything that seats against the launcher and sits reasonably flush on the ramp; a firearm, on the other hand, can fire bullets or blank bullets, but it cannot chamber and fire a projectile it wasn't specifically designed to handle. Second, you called it a harpoon gun, not him; the closest he got was referring to a harpoon-like projectile. Third, I'm going to reiterate that loading a spear or harpoon into a generic launcher that could have been intended for any number of things does not make that generic launcher a spear or harpoon gun; all it does, is show that it is capable of being used that way.
Factually true, but irrelevant to the intended point, which was criticizing the standards by which "acceptable" violence is determined in order to then determine game rating.
We were, and you're right; there's no sense bickering about something that isn't likely to happen. I'm not apologizing, but I'm done spamming the thread with an ultimately stupid argument.
http://www.toymania.com/news/mach5/images/mach5_blades.jpg
Shit, sorry im an idiot.
Don't do what you want with quotes, that's illegal in some cases and it was not a hyperbole.
Thankyou ;D
If its a hyperbole, then make it look like its damn exaggerated, putting it in quotation marks is a sign that it's word to word. Not changed in any way.
If you took the time to read anything, it's not a 'harpoon gun' (or at least, the one you think of which i'm assuming is to kill sharks and spear fish) its a tool. Besides the point, a harpoon gun doesn't need to be a weapon, in most cases other than small fish its not. Its no worse than a knife, if the devs are going to get so fussed up about guns they might aswell protest about nerf guns.
Do you honestly think, that adding something that fires projectiles that damages or potentially mortally wounds fish, fucking fish, is going to give it an M rating. Honestly, if that's your reasoning the game is AO already, you can ram into fish and splatter them on the windshield of your seamoth, and drill gaping holes into the sides of gastropods in a bloody mess with your prawn suit drills. C'mon.
That's true for now, but as posted it isn't necessarily a projectile weapon, for the time being (as suggested) it doesn't have to have much of a firing aspect at all (although, i would personally like and support it to have a small aspect of projectiles to it.)
Brown Note eh, interesting comparison. But yes, that is one of the ideas suggested for it.
https://esrb.org/ratings/ratings_process.aspx
Who said that harpoons would give it an M rating? There are plenty of games out there with things that are straight out weapons, (Ratched and Clank, Jack and Daxter, etc...) and those don't even scratch an M rating.
"If." The operative word was "if." Things are counted together, and everything contributes to the rating.
That said, it was the wrong argument, my bad.
http://steamcommunity.com/app/264710/discussions/0/523897653306355954/?ctp=3#c371918937268702725
They don't want to add guns.
This idea is a device to move a projectile at high speed, intended to damage a living creature. That is pretty much the definition of a gun. Calling it an acronym does not change anything.
Ok you got me, but theres a very thick line between a straight out firearm (gun) and a hunting tool, even if its not used as a hunting tool.
I mean, they don't call it a harpoon gun for no reason.
Uh, a line such as what exactly? The hunting tool has "not for shooting mans" on the side, while the gun has "for shooting mans" painted on?
But, some naughty person could cross out the "not" and suddenly... oh, wait...
Well, i've never referred to it in my own opinion as a 'harpoon gun'
If you were thinking intelligibly you'd know, a harpoon gun is incredibly inneficient at killing larger creatures (mans). It has a one time fire and launches a sharpened projectile at an average speed to incapacitate/kill small fish. Very slow reload, terrible weapon; great tool. A firearm uses ammunition (bullets) that are chambered and hit, igniting the pressure sensitive gunpowder in the bullet and propelling a shell at high speeds. Very fast reload, great weapon.
'Uh, a line such as what exactly? '
Humans have been killed by far less than harpoons. Why are you bringing up "classic" firearms in a discussion about a crappy SN idea? Do you really believe that people who play computer games don't know what a gun is, or do you just like coming off snobby?
The game already has the propulsion cannon for small fish and chucking things at big fish, and the fish can be caught by hand with minimal effort regardless. This entire idea is unnecessary, as it adds nothing new and does nothing for gameplay.
I did get curious and look up some harpoon videos, though. Kind of neat.