General > Discussion
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:
--- Quote from: kracken on March 15, 2008, 01:36:42 pm ---I see 2 problems with this jamming stuff, I just want to mention them before work is started ;)
...
--- End quote ---
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 :D 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 :P 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 :P As a user OR developer, you should enjoy it! :D
BTAxis:
--- Quote from: nemchenk on March 15, 2008, 05:28:45 pm ---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. :)
--- End quote ---
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version