General > Discussion

Building new bases. Request.

<< < (3/3)

Jon_dArc:
Given the state of gameplay documentation, my hunch is that it isn't so much that the devs don't play the game, but rather that they're working from a detailed knowledge of the game sufficient to mask many of these issues. Your small-hangar-building issue is a perfect example—I'd hazard a guess that any devs who play know off the top of their heads which buildings are base entry points, and probably haven't even thought about how a new player finds out about such things (or if they have, they've shuffled it down on the to-do list—which, for a work as in-progress as UFO:AI is, isn't entirely unreasonable).

Maybe if I get some time I'll see about volunteering to update some of the documentation…

~J

homunculus:
hmm.. what is the meaning of 'most annoying' in english?
maybe i should have said 'least awesome' instead, but this does not quite capture the tedium of walking the soldiers through those two empty rooms at every base attack, just to make sure that the aliens understand that the earth is a dreadful planet where sniper bullets fly out of the ground, and when they come down the entrance the bullets continue flying out of plain walls around them (shooting through walls, if some players do not know what this is about).
this is why i would rather get it over with quickly, and relocate the command center closer to the entrance.
i wonder which one the 'gameplay element' is:
1) me having to walk those two rooms every time, before the aliens meet the most miserable death without ever getting a chance to take a shot, is somehow supposed to challenge me tactically.
2) i need to make my base non-operational for 12 days if i want to avoid the tedium.
case 2 has a major flaw in my opinion: the more competitive way of playing (not relocating the command center) is the more tedious one.
it seems that 'least awesome' might be for native english speakers, but i would rather say 'most annoying', because everything else feels better than that.

there is nothing surprising about devs not playing the game much (i don't know, just asking).
for example, i read some freecol forum, and devs were quite surprised at a few things players wrote there about playing.
--- Quote from: Jon_dArc on December 07, 2011, 11:12:39 pm ---[...]my hunch is that it isn't so much that the devs don't play the game[...]
--- End quote ---
could be.
but maybe they walk their soldiers a mile and think: 'this works... this also works...' etc, which might not be like the players see things.

Jon_dArc:

--- Quote from: homunculus on December 08, 2011, 03:56:14 am ---hmm.. what is the meaning of 'most annoying' in english?
maybe i should have said 'least awesome' instead, but this does not quite capture the tedium[…]
it seems that 'least awesome' might be for native english speakers, but i would rather say 'most annoying', because everything else feels better than that.
--- End quote ---
It means what I think you wanted (and is used by native speakers in that context); "most bothersome", "chief amongst irritations", etc. "Least awesome" also works, but is more natural for cases where you're emphasizing that the whole is good despite a particular flaw; I don't think it's what you want here.

~J

homunculus:
the game is playable and quite fun and it crashes extremely rarely, so i guess 'least awesome' might be what english speakers would use.

H-Hour:
My opinion is that the campaign (the geoscape) has surged forward in development in the last two years but the tactical game (the battlescape) has not. Almost every gameplay element of the battlescape -- maps, AI, aliens, visibility, weapons -- has barely been touched in years. With the exception of bug fixes and tilli's work improving a couple of RMAs, there has been no progress developing that side of the game. (There have been serious improvements to the graphics capabilities, the graphics themselves, and the speed of RMA and pathfinding code, but these don't actually improve the game's mechanisms.)

But the game relies on the contributions of people like me who don't always have the time or the appropriate skills, so it's going to develop unevenly. Mattn and I hope to be able to improve the multiplayer side of the game for 2.5, which would focus on improvements to the battlescape, but if it is anything like 2.4 it will be another year and a half down the road.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page