Point Defense Systems 7.0 out

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2005-10-09 12:36pm

Nephtys wrote:Huh. So each PDS version eliminates ships from the previous? I can't get any ship based on the 'classic' Destroyer anymore.

Also. That 8000 Resource support ship bites. It's got a ton of guns, but zero defenses.

And they tell you its got little in the way of defense, that's why you're supposed to keep it with your fire support ships and make sure it's supported.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-10-09 01:47pm

Nephtys wrote:Huh. So each PDS version eliminates ships from the previous? I can't get any ship based on the 'classic' Destroyer anymore.

They've been relabelled as cruisers.

Also. That 8000 Resource support ship bites. It's got a ton of guns, but zero defenses.

Well, that's why it is a support ship

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2005-10-09 02:44pm

Uraniun235 wrote:
InnocentBystander wrote:I totally agree. Maybe I should do it again?
No, seriously, dude, come on. There's free image hosts out there. If you use Firefox and Imageshack, you can even download an extension that lets you right click on an image at another website and directly transload it into Imageshack, and it'll automatically pop up with a page full of links pre-formatted for a variety of purposes (including BBcode formatting!) for you to choose from.

There is virtually no excuse for image leeching these days.

I, sir, am what you would call "Excessively Lazy". This precludes me from engaging in tasks such as "Hosting Files" or "Cleaning Up", even "Doing homework well in advance", these are simply not things that I, as a lazy person, do. There may even be spelling errors in this very post, but I'm not going to bother with fixing them, I've already typed out this message.

Manus Celer Dei · Post by **Manus Celer Dei** » 2005-10-09 02:55pm

Uh, are the system requirements for PDS much higher than the normal specs for HW2? I'm running HW2 on my 1.7GHz lappy with a 64Mb integrated graphics card, will PDS be ultra-laggy?

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-10-09 03:06pm

PDS7 seems to be about the same in lagginess as vanilla HW2, mainly because they cut back on trails. It's certainly an improvement over 6.1... I had a midsize fleet battle with no slowdown (6 capital ships, assorted escorts, etc)

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-10-09 03:28pm

I think PDS7 improved preformance in large battles simply by cutting max zoom range, zoom out enough and everything dissapears, certinely didn't happen in PDS6.1.

Uraniun235 · Post by **Uraniun235** » 2005-10-09 04:31pm

Manus Celer Dei wrote:Uh, are the system requirements for PDS much higher than the normal specs for HW2? I'm running HW2 on my 1.7GHz lappy with a 64Mb integrated graphics card, will PDS be ultra-laggy?

I think PDS' extra requirements aren't so much graphical in nature as they are in the vastly increased number of projectiles flying about during a battle (which would be more CPU-centric), but that's a guess and I could easily be wrong.

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2005-10-09 06:10pm

Manus Celer Dei wrote:Uh, are the system requirements for PDS much higher than the normal specs for HW2? I'm running HW2 on my 1.7GHz lappy with a 64Mb integrated graphics card, will PDS be ultra-laggy?

I'm running it on a similar system and it runs okay for me. I used to only get lag when I zoomed in real close during engagements in 6.1 and the system requirements have gotten lower in 7.0 thanks to the removal of trails.

Manus Celer Dei · Post by **Manus Celer Dei** » 2005-10-09 06:23pm

SylasGaunt wrote:
Manus Celer Dei wrote:Uh, are the system requirements for PDS much higher than the normal specs for HW2? I'm running HW2 on my 1.7GHz lappy with a 64Mb integrated graphics card, will PDS be ultra-laggy?
I'm running it on a similar system and it runs okay for me. I used to only get lag when I zoomed in real close during engagements in 6.1 and the system requirements have gotten lower in 7.0 thanks to the removal of trails.

Ah, that's good to hear. I only just got HW2 today though, so I think I'll try to finish the vanilla campaign first.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2005-10-09 06:29pm

The HW2 broad storyline is okay, but there are a lot of missions that I just don't really care for.

Running P-M 1.6ghz, 64mb mobility radeon 9200; mostly no problems running the game.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-10-09 10:05pm

The last mission is a jewel though. As are half of the 'BSG style omg run for it' missions. When they start going mid-game though... wince. GRINDING TIME!

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2005-10-09 10:42pm

I stopped playing when (post-Sajuuk) the AI had A DOZEN battlecruisers. Fuck that lame difficultly-balancing cheating bullshit.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-10-09 11:38pm

Bah, Higaaran AI on 'Hard' was too easy. I saw it gunning in for one of my resource ops and intercepted the raid, crushed the raid and proceeded to blow up the rest of their forces. Someone it built a PoH but it was no match for my swarms of strikecraft + BV.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-10-09 11:42pm

Stark wrote:I stopped playing when (post-Sajuuk) the AI had A DOZEN battlecruisers. Fuck that lame difficultly-balancing cheating bullshit.

Yeah, when I beat HW2 vanilla my first time... between battles, I'd only keep my capital ships and fighters. I'd scrap frigates... and immediately start pumping out frigs and gun turrets.

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2005-10-10 02:47am

There's an official trailer up on the website.

Oh and plans to modernize the Bloodhound.. mmmm, Bloodhound.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-10-10 08:57am

SylasGaunt wrote:There's an official trailer up on the website.

Oh and plans to modernize the Bloodhound.. mmmm, Bloodhound.

Modernize it again? That thing is lethal as it is!

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2005-10-10 10:40am

phongn wrote:
Oh and plans to modernize the Bloodhound.. mmmm, Bloodhound.

Modernize it again? That thing is lethal as it is![/quote]

And here we just had it mentioned that some thought the R&D should be trying to anticipate enemy technical advances.

Bloodhound III modernization summary:

• 5g armor is stronger, lighter; destroyer-grade plating

• Other 5g materials advances have resulted in smaller and stronger
components, namely more powerful primary and outrigger drive arrays. Drastic
increase in maneuverability.

• 2x Capital-grade SRAC140 turrets to replace existing SRAC140s.

• 4x ICA180 to replace Gatekeepers.

• HVM, MRAM2, SRAM launch capabilities will remain the same.

• Pulsar and other kinetic armaments will remain the same.

Of course what I'm really stoked about is the Block 16 Liirha's.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2005-10-10 11:49am

Why, are they going to not be sucky?

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2005-10-10 12:21pm

SylasGaunt wrote:And here we just had it mentioned that some thought the R&D should be trying to anticipate enemy technical advances.

Well, yes, but the tech curve is far too fast for my tastes.

InnocentBystander · Post by **InnocentBystander** » 2005-10-10 01:03pm

I've about had it with the fighters, not only are they the source of the game's lag, but the absurd amounts of fire they take to blow up. How long should a dogfight between two fighter squadrons take? In PDS, I don't think one side would ever win. Fighters have thousands of hitpoints, guns do low hundreds of damage (not above 300) and accuracy is absolutely pitiful (the 4x140mm AC, likely the best PD gun out there, 5% acc).

I think that any game I play, simply cannot include fighters. This has come to me after HGN single player mission 5, I've simply had enough of it. Great mod, love the ships, missiles, etc, but the fighters I just can't take anymore. I'm thinking of going into the .ship files, and cutting a 0 out of all fighter hitpoints. Maybe if they were more clearly named...

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-10-10 01:04pm

I'm with you, aside from their missle volleys their useless and a Khopesh fits that role(havn't played with the Assault Frigate in the corvette menu yet).

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2005-10-10 01:18pm

phongn wrote: Well, yes, but the tech curve is far too fast for my tastes.

Well that's homeworld for you.. look what happened in the first game.

SylasGaunt · Post by **SylasGaunt** » 2005-10-10 01:25pm

InnocentBystander wrote:Why, are they going to not be sucky?

Increased manueverability

The slow, clunky 557mm dual IC mount is being replaced with a triple 300mm Pulse Ion Cannon

It's getting another battery of 140mm ACs, Broadside medium Ion Cannons, and SRAM pods.

There's also talk of a variant where the PICs are replaced with HVR launchers.

Ace Pace · Post by **Ace Pace** » 2005-10-10 01:29pm

I'm asking myself, a question relating to alot of mods.

Isn't it time to stop pushing features in, but to polish, optimise and bug fix?

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-10-10 01:47pm

SylasGaunt wrote:
phongn wrote: Well, yes, but the tech curve is far too fast for my tastes.
Well that's homeworld for you.. look what happened in the first game.

Fleet Intel: They seem to be using some sort of ion beam, which is superior to our mass drivers.
Fleet Command: Attack! Shoot! Boom! Violence! Salvage!
Fleet Research: Because the beams are blue, we can now reverse engineer them, despite them being totally advanced alien technology....
Fleet Intel: We can design a ship of the line identical to a major galactic powers', given a couple of days.

*rolleyes*