![]() Gameplay's gotta trump verisimilitude at some point, and that point is when it stops being fun. But the way they're implemented (ubiquitous, numerous, very hostile over long ranges, at least toward noise sources) means having that ability utterly ruins use of the Cyclops in or near many surface biomes, so they've got to stop, and I support the change in that respect. I can actually agree with some of the "rational thought" arguments people put forth about them being ABLE to damage a Cyclops they're clearly capable and it doesn't seem nonsense that they could. I'd say that makes them more than dangerous enough to small craft, wouldn't you? 20% to 45% from a single hit to a Seamoth without Reinforcement, when you take hits fast and furious in a swarm of the things? Some Reaper grapples don't do that much, if you get lucky anyway. ![]() But those things remain no joke, Cyclops threat or not. I admit that 5% was much more common than 15%, and there were a number of 10% hits in there as well. I had Bonesharks attacking for anywhere between 5% and 15% damage per hit, which (at the upper end) I thought was a little bit nuts, given that they can come at you 5 at a time without breaking a sweat. This means that for every 1% damage that gets through on a Reinforced PRAWN, 4x that much will get through on a stock Seamoth. Remember that the PRAWN has either twice the HP or takes 50% less damage than the Seamoth (depending on how you want to look at it), both unmodified, and the Reinforcement halves that again. I was just bumping around the Crag Fields in a PRAWN with a Hull Reinforcement upgrade. I'm not sure which direction you're going with that comment, but to be fair, there's already a fair amount of randomness to Boneshark damage that I didn't used to notice was there. Unless you want your other vehicles taking more damage, then I'm okay with that. ![]() Originally posted by Alkpaz:Then they (bonesharks) should one shot a Seamoth and take 50%-75% off a PRAWN. what was that you were saying about logic again? No part of that creature was meant to damage a much larger organism or object - the mouth and spike on the tail are offensive and defensive for smaller engagements.īut. Many of those might be effective against a Seamoth or Prawn however, due to their size. The tail doesn't have enough mass to damage on a swipe, and the lateral spines growing to the sides are curved, so would be ineffective when swung. See any weapons in particular that can damage a large titanium hull? It has a blunted nose which wouldn't do the job, a bite couldn't either since it has a flat mouth. Here's an image of the boneshark from Subnautica. Aggression determines frequency, not effectiveness. Not a weapon, but a defensive adaptation.Ĥ) Incredibly aggressive? Aggression has zilch to do with the ability to cause damage to the Cyclops. The boneshark doesn't have enough mass, nor weapons to attack larger objects.ģ) Extremely thick shell plating: also irrelevant. Without the right weapon(s), attacking would be ineffective. Labeling them 'whiners' is a cheap passive-aggressive troll on your part, and not helpful to the forum discussion at all.Ģ) Size boost: irrelevant. If someone says something about this, it's either a legitimate complaint, or arguing the issue. I'm ok with this.ġ) No one's whining out here. ![]() But people couldn't really seem to handle that logic so they've removed it.īut this is balanced by increasing the aggressiveness of some leviathan class creatures. Oh and Its naturally incredibly aggressive. They don't take into account how the Boneshark has actually had a size boost and has extremely thick shell plating. Too many people whining that "well the sub shouldn't be damaged by small creatures". dont think this is the right way to go about it. ![]() Sure, something had to be done about the cyclops but. Originally posted by test:Wait what? Bonesharks wont attack the cyclops anymore? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |