Weapons jamming

[jeric]

In my opion skip it. Although interesting idea. If you must do it. Do it after full version release. Don't waste time on it now.

[nemchenk]

I see 2 problems with this jamming stuff, I just want to mention them before work is started
...

Hi kracken Here's the thing, though:

(1) While this is true, we could also apply the same argument to other aspects of the game:
  - Mis-threw your grenade and blew yourself up? Use a soldier more skilled in throwing next time.
  - Didn't get your RF shot like you hoped you would, and the aliens have cut your team to pieces? Put more Speedy soldiers in RF positions.
  - Got a weapons jam and your super-soldier got killed? Use more reliable weapons or carry a spare
The risk is manageable, and thus it is in the player's control.

(2) That is a very good point, but it has a very simple solution: don't put jam stats into UFO:AI weapons*.ufo files! All is then as it has always been But someone who wants to create a slightly different campaign with different weapons stats, a mod if you will, has the option.

I really like UFO:AI, but I would like to take it that little bit further. I appreciate that not everyone agrees, so I am proposing a way of doing this that will please everyone -- those who want to use the options do, those who don't, don't have to.

@ Doctor J -- 3% seems good to me. Won't happen every game, but enough IMO for the cautious to carry their spare shooters The chance would indeed depend on the fire mode, so that semi-auto weapons would be more reliable.

As to the way this would work, I was thinking the weapon would jam after the shot is fired, not before. Also, I was thinking an "Un-jam" firemode would replace all others which use ammo (thus any hand-to-hand firemodes would remain active). This firemode would give a chance based on the original malfunction number, modified by the soldier's Mind stat maybe, and take something like 25TUs. So, weapons that are more jam-prone are harder to unjam, and it is not guaranteed that a jammed weapon would get unjammed on the first attempt.

@ jeric -- well, I disagree with you there I agree that fixing bugs is more important than new features, but I think you are overly optimistic about there ever being "full release version". Do you think there will ever be a "final" versoin of Linux? Or Apache? Or any other Open Source project?

This is the beauty of it -- OS is a constant work in progress. It will be ready when it is ready, and it will be forever improved upon As a user OR developer, you should enjoy it!

[BTAxis]

I really like UFO:AI, but I would like to take it that little bit further. I appreciate that not everyone agrees, so I am proposing a way of doing this that will please everyone -- those who want to use the options do, those who don't, don't have to.

See, I don't agree with this. I don't like the idea of having different rules for the campaign set by the user. The rules should be set by the developers, and all users should use the same rules. If not, we'd get endless discussion about what the "proper" way to play the campaign is, how it should be balanced with or without the option, why nothing is mentioned about it in the UFOpaedia, and why other rules aren't optional (and of course multiplayer, as I pointed out before). It's going to be hell, and it's not worth it.

I know you want this feature, but I, and almost everyone else with me, don't want it. Adding it as an "optional" setting is not a solution. Like I said, make it a patch, but don't add this to the main game.

[Doctor J]

Not to be rude, but the feeling i'm getting from the old guard is that it shouldn't be done simply because they don't like it.  No doubt when the patch gets implemented the next version of UFO:AI will be done in such a way as to break the patch.  Then it'll HAVE to become a fork a la Angband vs. Zangband.  For those of you don't know, Zangband went on to become much more popular than Angband.

If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.  Make it something that's off by default, and only users who want it will suffer from the effect of it.  Or will you not be happy until we bow down to your infinite wisdom?

[eleazar]

Wesnoth has a saying: "Options are Bad".

It's pretty reliable, whenever it's clear that an idea doesn't have enough support to become "mainline", someone will suggest that it be included as an option.  In rare cases that's a good idea, but every option has a downside.  With every option you add, the difficulty of maintaining, learning, and debugging the code increases.  The amount of time it takes to learn the game increases too as each option should (or might be) considered by the player, in combinations with all others.

Anyway, adding optional modes of play makes a lot more sense

[Serrax]

Anyway, adding optional modes of play makes a lot more sense

... and increases the incompatibility for multiplayer games.


@Doctor J:

Not to be rude, but I cannot understand your problem. Dozens of suggested ideas are not in the game (look at the comment of BTAxis in regard of the airstrikes) - and no one runs around crying.

So, why you?

Even open source projects need an authority, otherwise they split off into several - mostly incompatible - ones with less cooperating developers.

cu

[Sacrusha]

Not to be rude, but the feeling i'm getting from the old guard is that it shouldn't be done simply because they don't like it.  No doubt when the patch gets implemented the next version of UFO:AI will be done in such a way as to break the patch.  Then it'll HAVE to become a fork a la Angband vs. Zangband.  For those of you don't know, Zangband went on to become much more popular than Angband.

I think this statement is entirely true.

But you should also consider that since you couldn't "sell" your idea, is it really as great as you think it is? Currently you can get close to the enemy and get a 100% guarantee to take that enemy down (depending on it's current hp and your weapon). Alternatively you can stay away and take a risk, but you have to have a plan for when you miss.
I do not think "jamming" will have a negative impact on long range fighting, because it is similar to the normal miss chance - but if you get close to kill an enemy, "jamming" will not only introduce a X % chance of not killing an alien, but also a guarantee that your soldier will be killed on the aliens' turn if that happens.
I do think such a change would make close and very close combat tactics even more risky than they already are.

Overheating was also mentioned in this thread, and I don't see a reason that speaks against it.

[nemchenk]

@Doctor J:
...I cannot understand your problem ... no one runs around crying. So, why you?

You seem not to understand the issues here, so perhaps you should look, listen, and learn. What Doctor J and I are saying is that we don't want to cause a fork of UFO:AI, but we are given very little room to maneuver by the current system. We are asking the powers that be whether they truly believe that the only way forward is via a fork -- quite a costly, painful, and usually unnecessary process. If you want to read a succinct summary of what a fork is, please do so here.

Nobody is running around and crying here, and your suggestions to that effect is insulting.


nemchenk

[nemchenk]

Wesnoth has a saying: "Options are Bad".

Perhaps. My experiences on MegaMek and mekwars has led me to hold an entirely different opinion. The main reason for the mekwars split off from the parent MegaMekNET was that project's leader's refusal to implement options which would be of use to other people who wanted to run the software. The mekwars team, IMO wisely, decided that they would make their project as inclusive as possible. I think their success speaks volumes.

The other point that has been brought up is that these ideas will somehow make multiplayer games more unmanageable. Again, not my experience in the least. MegaMek has literally dozens of play options, which multiplayer opponents agree on before a game. Even the simple UFO:AI multiplayer model we have now has options -- how do you suppose opponents decide on what kind of equipment to allow in the game? Or what the highest stat may be? Or how many soldiers per team? Morale? All of these are game options.

It's pretty reliable, whenever it's clear that an idea doesn't have enough support to become "mainline", someone will suggest that it be included as an option.

Heheh Touche, except... How many times have I read on this forum "this will be done this way because we have decided to do it a long time ago. Discussion is useless. Next topic please." The definition of "mainline" is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

My arguably-unpopular proposals are actually not all that new (most RPGs have had these kinds of rules for decades), some are even canonical in XCOM "game lore", and my gaming group is already looking forward to playing with them. Sure, my group may not be the scores of players world-wide that the mother project may have, but I'm quite happy coding these up for my group. It's my hobby. So, for me at least, I have gathered enough support to justify my efforts.


Finally, regarding options increasing bugs: while technically true, it really does depend on the implementation, doesn't it? My proposals are all designed to default to a state where the new code that is being executed would be one logic test. And if you are talking about maintaining the code within that test, the code that does control these suggestions, well, you would have a developer on your team who had a vested interest in doing so And if I should drop out, and nobody picks up that code, then you can always... disable the option again!  But I'm sure you have already thought of that!?


As I have said before, the current dev team could really do us all new-comers a favour by posting somewhere a complete, concise list of goals, and a roadmap for the project. Make it clear what you want UFO:AI to be, and what sort of new suggestions will be entertained, if any. Don't sugar-coat it, have the courage of your convictions to say yes or no up front. It will make it easier for people who want to contribute to decide whether to do so, or not



Yours,

nemchenk

[Doctor J]

Okeh.  I've taken a little time off to cool down. and apologize for getting emotional.  Nonetheless, it is immensely frustrating that sniping against the very idea continued after the decision was made that nobody would have to use it who didn't want to install the patch.

@ Sacrusha: The original discussion thread where i first ran into this idea [at least in terms of UFO:AI] was another forum discussion about why knives [or secondary weapons in general] get so little use.  So if you end up next to a BEM, you have a decision about whether to use a gun [which might jam] or a monoknife [which won't].  If you choose the gun and it jams, and you don't have enough TUs left to prepare Plan B, then the death of the soldier won't be due to the jam.  Besides, there will be just as many times when the monster's weapon jams, too.

As to the multiplayer thing, i freely admit i haven't yet given that a go.  I do know that [for example] FreeCiv has a *ton* of options available to whomever is running a server.  It's mostly a matter of posting which options are on for any particular 'world' so that different players can find a server that caters to them.  Sure there's a little more debugging to do.  But isn't there with every new thing?

[Serrax]

@nemchenk:

You seem not to understand the issues here, so perhaps you should look, listen, and learn. What Doctor J and I are saying is that we don't want to cause a fork of UFO:AI, but we are given very little room to maneuver by the current system.   

I described exactly that issue in my posting:

Even open source projects need an authority, otherwise they split off into several - mostly incompatible - ones with less cooperating developers.

Nobody is running around and crying here, and your suggestions to that effect is insulting.

I considered Doctor J's posting as insulting too - I just answered the same way back. But thanks for the instruction...


@Doctor J:

You've also in mind that alien weapons jam? I can hardly imagine that by this kind of superior technology.

cu

[Doctor J]

You've also in mind that alien weapons jam? I can hardly imagine that by this kind of superior technology.

It would almost be required.  Otherwise you would have to have separate weapons descriptors for, say, a Plasma Blaster fired by an alien and a Plasma Blaster fired by a human.  The alternative would be to have some sort of conditional check in the firing that looks to see who's pulling the trigger.  Anyways, just because a particular item is high tech does not mean that it is bug free.  From the point of a person sitting in their home, the low-tech telephone wire is available almost 100% of the time, while the availability of the internet can be more problematic.  Often times more advanced technology means more things that can break.

[Serrax]

@Doctor J:

It would almost be required.  Otherwise you would have to have separate weapons descriptors for, say, a Plasma Blaster fired by an alien and a Plasma Blaster fired by a human.  The alternative would be to have some sort of conditional check in the firing that looks to see who's pulling the trigger.

Or alien weapons never jam - even if you build in jamming human weapons.
 

Anyways, just because a particular item is high tech does not mean that it is bug free.  From the point of a person sitting in their home, the low-tech telephone wire is available almost 100% of the time, while the availability of the internet can be more problematic.  Often times more advanced technology means more things that can break.

Well - the particle beam is high tech for humans. But this technology could be the "low-tech telephone" for aliens. Maybe they developed particle beams 1,000 years ago.

Malfunctions are strongly connected to mechanical elements of a weapon - which is human tech.

cu

[nemchenk]

@nemchenk:
I described exactly that issue in my posting:
Even open source projects need an authority, otherwise they split off into several - mostly incompatible - ones with less cooperating developers.

You speak the words Serrax, but you don't seem to understand the meaning. Would you care to explain how in your view an Open Source project would "split off into several" without "an authority"? Or are you content just to drop intellectual non sequiturs into the conversation and then leave it at that?


nemchenk

[Bost]

Todays' weapons are very relyable, they are designed not to jam, even under the worst circumstances.

The only exception are the worst circumstances when even today's weapons sometimes - I'm really sorry - sometimes they DO jam 
BTW what do you exactly mean with "today"? I have 18.06.2084... and you?