StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Uraniun235 wrote:No, PDS has grown increasingly obfuscating and unintuitive.

That seems to be what happens when you have armchair admirals fascinated by buzzwords and a fast tech curve.

Christ.

I hate to tell all the PDS fans, but what the weapon is CALLED is TOTALLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT.

I don't give a fuck if it's a 'plasma inverse tachyon warlord beam integrator'. All I care about is 'can it engage fast-moving targets' and 'is it a long ranged weapon' and 'how much damage does it deal'? None, and I mean *NONE* of this information is available. I have to build everything once to work out what it's loadout can DO, and then try and apply what I've learnt to all the other ships' loadouts.

I don't want to read their laughable fanfiction to play the damn game. Is it REALLY so much to ask to have weapons descibed in such a way to make it clear that the ship has a pair of point defence missile bays, a long-range projectile cannon for engaging CAs and up, and some rapid-fire medium-range weapons for keeping the DDs and lower away? I bet if they did a survey most people just judge the ships by build cost more than anything else.

Since the nuances of similar loadouts can make a significant difference to how ships should be employed, the massive smokescreen erected around this information is retarded.

phongn wrote:

Uraniun235 wrote:No, PDS has grown increasingly obfuscating and unintuitive.

That seems to be what happens when you have armchair admirals fascinated by buzzwords and a fast tech curve.

I'm going to get into a bit of a rant here, and I want to assure you it's not directed against you, Phong. That said...

I think what's really happened is that the PDS developers and community have allowed themselves to become "inbred", in a sense; that they've become insular, so deeply focused on themselves that it's no longer easily approachable by someone unfamiliar with PDS, or hell, even someone who's dabbled in it but hasn't kept up to date with all the changes they keep making.

Where's the changelog? Where's the tutorial - not on manuever warfare, mind, but on how to build an effective strike force with which to conduct manuever warfare? The "Hiigaran Tactical Manual" does a passable job on detailing some of the roles of the ships, but things have changed quite a bit since 6.1 - and the complete absence of a Vaygr counterpart guide is simply shameful.

Furthermore, the willful inclusion of obsolete craft is simply confusing. Are they still worth building? Are they complete wastes of resources? What exactly should be built in their place? Who knows, beyond the development team and the PDS forum regulars?

Buzzwords and even a fast tech curve can be accessible - but it requires an effort towards making it accessible primarily in the form of complete, up-to-date documentation. For all the time spent writing fanfiction and role-playing, someone could be writing guides and tutorials.

Instead, they choose to jerk each other off.

You can still play the game, of course. You simply don't know teh Ub3r combinations, which makes things interesting anyway

Yes, but it's frustrating having to guess at what works, and a lot of people simply quit in the face of such frustration.

Uraniun235 wrote:I think what's really happened is that the PDS developers and community have allowed themselves to become "inbred", in a sense; that they've become insular, so deeply focused on themselves that it's no longer easily approachable by someone unfamiliar with PDS, or hell, even someone who's dabbled in it but hasn't kept up to date with all the changes they keep making.

Oh, absolutely. It's highly annoying -- but since I've played PDS since the v4.8 days I probably don't notice it as much as you might. The whole 'buzzword' syndrome grates on me since they're trying to ape "modern" naval warfare and failing miserably to someone who has more than a "OMG TOYS" knowledge of things.

Stark wrote:Since the nuances of similar loadouts can make a significant difference to how ships should be employed, the massive smokescreen erected around this information is retarded.

Well, generally if you go by the idea that bigger=more powerful that serves as a useful guide. Smaller weapons tend to be more accurate at range. Beam weapons are more accurate than non-beam weapons. As for missiles ... yeah, they're obfuscated. It wasn't always so bad - fusion missiles (Vaygr) and torpedos (Higaraa) were the powerful ones while others were weaker.

But yes, this information should be made available.