General > Discussion

New to UFOAI have some questions / critisisms / suggestions

<< < (4/10) > >>

H-Hour:
You know, you really did make your point in the first post. I don't know why you keep repeating the virtues of a working RF system. No one has disputed that.

As previous work has shown, the devs are open to patches for how the RF programming works . But it's a work in progress, not everything is going to be perfect yet, and the devs are pretty focused on getting 2.3 out the door now. Since you're new to the forums, you may not realize that a dev has not yet posted in this thread, so you haven't really been having a conversation with anyone involved on the coding side of things.

I think you should calm down a bit and show a little modesty. This is a big game of which RF is one component. It's important, but there's a lot to do. If you want the game to get somewhere, please help out. But don't start accusing people of destroying game mechanics when you don't really know anything about what's actually happening with the RF system.

homunculus:

--- Quote from: homunculus on June 07, 2010, 05:49:46 pm ---[...]snipers (or anyone with an accurate long range weapon)[...]
--- End quote ---
it is not only snipers, but also, heavy laser, or in fact, almost any weapon.

and the fixes that you just suggested would need some more coding than changing one variable somewhere (i guess that would be the probability of reaction fire getting triggered on enemy move).

i would assume the devs would have nothing against having a few reaction fire desingns, some simple and some more complex, so that when the 'who' (i.e. someone who might want to try coding it) appears, there would be some spec-s ready that might be at least somewhat detailed and consistent (at least some designs that have been looked at by several people in an attempt to remove inconsistencies).
we are wasting time here anyway, uselessly ranting about it, maybe we might try to become at least a little bit more constructive and make such reaction fire topic in design forum.
i think i would find such discussion interesting, i might be able to maintain it (by editing the first post) for quite some time.

the first post in the thread would be something like:

**** 1. ****
(date)
short description / main idea
features / how it would work
maybe what variables and functions would be required

**** 2. ****
(date)
...etc.

if someone like yatta who has looked into the reaction fire code could participate or at least comment on what might be easy to do and what might be near impossible, i think it would be awsome.

H-Hour:
If you do start a thread, please first cover those proposals that already exist in the wiki here and here. And get in touch with a dev on IRC or somewhere to learn the status of the RF project. If ideas are going to be useful, they do need to be coordinated.

Gantoris:
Fair enough, i apologize if i seem abrasive because im genuinely impressed with the project but every time i play it in its current state i rage within 5 mins and feel like ranting somewhere :P. I just feel that some small tweeks to TU costs and Line of Sight ect from the 2.2 version would have been preferable than a complete new system but i guess thats a topic for elsewhere. Ill read through those links suggested by H-Hour and make a proposal of my own, which i know works and is balanced because its tried and tested elsewhere.

I still cant seem to get the fix to reset the system back to how it was in 2.2 to work however, no matter what i do my men VERY rarely RF yet the aliens have no problem at all which is contributing to the aforementioned rage problem so if one of you gents could help me with that id be grateful.

homunculus:

--- Quote from: H-Hour on June 07, 2010, 07:44:14 pm ---If you do start a thread, please first cover those proposals that already exist in the wiki here and here.[...]
--- End quote ---
thanks for the quick input, and indeed i was not aware about those texts in the wiki.
i was thinking about discussing the way reaction fire could be triggered, which would be a subset of what is written in wiki.
having read those texts, it looks like a nice rf system, and i am getting doubts about starting the thread, because there might not be enough to discuss there.
could be a collection of various rf proposals maybe, but atm it seems people have already written about their concerns, and the thread might end up inactive.

especially i like this part in the wiki text:

--- Quote from: wiki ---Soldier A is on reaction fire, holding an assault rifle which is set to 3-round Burst for reaction fire. This costs 12 TUs per shot. Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the reaction time penalty is 3 TUs. Soldier B, who is soldier A's enemy, strays into the line of sight of soldier A. Soldier B now has 15 TUs to take action before soldier A takes a shot at him. Should soldier B use this time to dive for cover, Soldier A will not take the shot and no TUs will be taken from his next turn. However, should soldier B stay into soldier A's line of fire for too long, for example because soldier B himself is trying to fire or because another soldier of that player uses more than 15 TUs for actions, soldier A will shoot at soldier B and will pay 15 TUs for this. At that point, soldier B has another 15 TUs to move, providing he survived the attack and providing he has that many TUs remaining.
--- End quote ---
i think it is nice that the tu that counts is only the tu that starts in the line of sight of soldier A (moving from around the corner into los of soldier A does not count), and that the reaction fire is triggered before soldier B gets to perform the action with the tu cost that would exceed the reaction fire tu of soldier A.
as i understand it, if soldier B is doing something that is exactly the same tu as the reaction fire tu of soldier A, then soldier B gets to complete the action (would apply to both shooting and moving out of los by soldier B).

other than the proposal for special treatment of burst reaction fire, it seems like all that there is to say is:
the tu of a shot involves targeting (the tu before pulling the trigger) and the recoil (the tu after pulling the trigger).
with the current proposal, not only targeting but also the recoil happens before the shot.
now, if the first thing the soldier B does after appearing in the los of soldier A is shooting, then if targeting tu and recoil tu have the same proportions for each weapon, it would not matter.
but should soldier B be able to run around in los of soldier A for the whole time it takes for soldier A to both point the gun and recover from recoil?
i think the tu to trigger the rf should be less than the time to shoot (including the recoil).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page