General > Discussion
New autobattle
geisthund:
Personally I don't agree with penalizing people who do use it. I think it should just be an option for them, with a small degree of risk mixed in. It might be interesting to try to peg the level of risk with the player's playing style, ie a poor player has a higher risk in autobattle than a veteran- but I expect this would be way too complicated to implement.
I feel the majority of players (like myself) will avoid using autobattle and therefore be unaffected either way, simply because I feel that I can play it out better than the computer :p
Salvo:
The true problem with autobattles is the Medkits - you can heal all the damage in the world with a Medkit during battle. Fix that and people would be twice as cautious to resort to autobattle, even if no one dies, but rather several agents become severely wounded.
Another problem is that soldiers' skills develop way too slowly (max 1 point per battle per stat). Losing a soldier hurts. If they developed faster, much faster, getting a single soldier killed wouldn't be such a big deal.
I think that once a soldier dies, the game should scan all the savegames in the save folder and remove the soldier from existence permanently. No more reloading after deaths. If someone wants to make and keep manual backups of savegames, so be it. In fact, it would advisable to make a manual backup after 4 hours of playing.
There's a reason autobattle was put there in the first place. Who was it that coded it? Who supported it? Ask those guys why it's there.
A game can become a chore. We've all been there. Having autobattle is a good thing. But autobattle should have its drawbacks, such as less loot, less soldier development, more likely civilian casualties (already there, I believe), more displeased nation where the mission takes place, etc. etc.
We DO all agree that current autobattle mechanic is... too random, right? Right?!
Perhaps opting for autobattle would be more interesting if there was a prediction of the outcome, calculated by the game? The way it would work is that the game plays the autobattle a hundred times over and then makes a statistical prediction based on the results. The prediction would read something like "High probability of more than one casualty" or "It's more than likely that all of your soldiers will die if no combat supervision is provided". It could present the best case scenario and the worst case, such as "Best case: Light casualties. Unlikely deaths. Worst case: Several soldier casualties." Or simply print out the raw data in numbers: 42.8% chance of losing 1 soldier. 1.8% chance of losing all 8.
Jon_dArc:
--- Quote from: geever on June 03, 2012, 06:22:12 pm ---Your reasoning if wrong .We should NOT implement a feature to workaround a bug but fix the bug.
--- End quote ---
But this isn't a bug—it's an entire class of bugs. I haven't dug through to find the precise timeline on which they've been introduced, but apparently-new maps that don't load have shown up on a decently regular schedule. Especially considering that automission already exists, it seems a much more practical solution to use it to allow bypassing broken maps rather than whatever the alternative is—I guess it would be a much stricter quality-control and testing phase before permitting merging with HEAD. That sure sounds like a recipe for slowing down map development to me.
--- Quote ---The same as above. The fact that content is yet missing doesn't justify the need of the auto missions.
--- End quote ---
Especially with the existence of debug_setinterest, I agree that this is not a compelling use case. I do still argue that it is a use case, and one that at least needs some more widespread knowledge of the alternative to fix.
When you're depending largely on a volunteer community for testing, "it'll be not boring eventually" is a less than compelling line of argument—especially when alternatives are already in place.
~J
morse:
--- Quote from: Jon_dArc on June 04, 2012, 04:16:02 pm ---When you're depending largely on a volunteer community for testing, "it'll be not boring eventually" is a less than compelling line of argument—especially when alternatives are already in place.
--- End quote ---
But on the other hand — it'll be stupid to invest your time to some feature, which is there only as a temporary solution to the problem of the lack of content. I'd be more inclined to develop some actual content instead.
ShipIt:
--- Quote from: Jon_dArc on June 04, 2012, 04:16:02 pm ---... new maps that don't load have shown up on a decently regular schedule ...
--- End quote ---
What? Which?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version