General > Discussion

Weapons jamming

<< < (8/9) > >>

Serrax:

--- Quote from: eleazar ---Anyway, adding optional modes of play makes a lot more sense
--- End quote ---
... 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:

--- Quote from: Doctor J on March 15, 2008, 11:12:59 pm ---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.
--- End quote ---
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:

--- Quote from: Serrax on March 16, 2008, 01:26:11 pm ---@Doctor J:
...I cannot understand your problem ... no one runs around crying. So, why you?

--- End quote ---

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:

--- Quote from: eleazar on March 16, 2008, 12:29:48 am ---Wesnoth has a saying: "Options are Bad".
--- End quote ---

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.


--- Quote from: eleazar on March 16, 2008, 12:29:48 am ---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.
--- End quote ---
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!  :o 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?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page