General > User modifications

Unbuildable squares

<< < (2/2)

Quizer:

--- Quote from: geever on January 20, 2013, 07:19:54 pm ---I always wondered: why? It is a game element, like research tree or the fact your soldiers can't fly...
--- End quote ---
Build space is already at a premium as it is, what with workshops taking up so much room. Having more than two interceptors or a second general stores are already luxuries I can't afford, so I don't need unbuildable squares taking up more of my valuable real estate.

As the game stands, there is no possible way for soldiers to fly short of coding in jetpack armors or something like that. But having a base without rocky squares is possible, if unlikely, so I want it. I don't really mind reloading a bunch of times to get the best possible outcome, but not to the point of ridiculousness. After a solid half-hour of reload attempts didn't get me a base without rocks, I've started looking for ways to force the outcome I want.

(Don't worry too much about it - people have different playstyles and so on. My sense of perfectionism just doesn't like to have those ugly, useless squares there if they don't need to be there.)


--- Quote from: geever ---Yeah, it is very low. As you see 1-4 blocked squares are placed. To have 0 you need to be very lucky as it is only possible if the location of the access lift and the only blocked square is the same, this case building overrides the block.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, I thought that might be the reason. If the distribution is equal, that means the chance to get a base is 1%. Pretty low, but it's nice that the chance exists (if this is by design).

H-Hour:

--- Quote from: Quizer on January 20, 2013, 08:15:17 pm ---Build space is already at a premium as it is... so I don't need unbuildable squares taking up more of my valuable real estate.
--- End quote ---

Geever was making a different point, one that is overlooked in most feature requests (and there have been several lately). You want this feature (ability to build on all squares) because it will make the game easier for you. But that doesn't make the game more fun. It just makes it easier.

Players usually want things that will help them win -- better weapons, more base space, larger squads, etc -- but the fun of the game comes from overcoming challenges. Good game mechanics typically involve simple problems with more than one way to solve them. That's why the blocked squares are there. Every base is a new challenge. Since replayability is key for us, the constant variation is important.

Quizer:

--- Quote from: H-Hour on January 20, 2013, 09:37:37 pm ---Geever was making a different point, one that is overlooked in most feature requests (and there have been several lately). You want this feature (ability to build on all squares) because it will make the game easier for you. But that doesn't make the game more fun. It just makes it easier.

Players usually want things that will help them win -- better weapons, more base space, larger squads, etc -- but the fun of the game comes from overcoming challenges. Good game mechanics typically involve simple problems with more than one way to solve them. That's why the blocked squares are there. Every base is a new challenge. Since replayability is key for us, the constant variation is important.
--- End quote ---
Don't get me wrong, challenge is important to me. I don't cheat lightly or indiscriminately - things like infinite money or hacking my soldiers' stats to something ridiculous doesn't appeal to me. But I do like to get the most out of what the game lets me do. To me, reloading my game a bunch of times to get a different base layout isn't really any different from picking the best soldiers out of the recruit list to make up my team.

But in this case, having the freedom to build my base how I want is more important to me than the extra challenge of making do with less space. I would mind the blocky squares much less if there was a base building that is just a regular square which you could build on top of them, letting you spend some time and money to get rid of them. I mind having the total square limit for my new base decreased for no good reason much more than I'd mind, say, getting 3-5 unbuildable squares in each base and having to pay 50,000 and spend 1-2 weeks clearing those spaces, though the economic cost of the latter may actually be higher than what the squares are worth in terms of gameplay benefit.

I don't mind variation, either. I'm taking care to build each base differently this time, with the entrance in a different location, so I don't have to replay the same base assault a dozen times over. But (for me at least,) it's an effort vs. reward thing. Having more space to build is literally priceless, so I'm willing to go to quite a bit of effort to secure that space. On the other hand, it's not likely I'm going to replay a mission because I'm not satisfied with the number of plasma pistol drops.

Random variation, IMO, is best used in places where the difference it makes is minor enough that it's not worth trying to force a specific outcome, or where other factors complicate things so the player is forced to compromise. The blocked squares, on the other hand, seem like a lazy mechanic to me, a cheap way to add more difficulty, but no real complexity. Fake Difficulty, to use tvtropes lingo. I'd rather find my challenge elsewhere.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page