UFO:Alien Invasion
General => Discussion => Topic started by: nemchenk on March 12, 2008, 11:30:47 am
-
One of the main reasons soldiers carry secondary weapons is in case their primary malfunctions. This is not an issue in UFO:AI, and I think while it simplifies the game, it means we loose another level of gameplay.
What about putting malfunction numbers on a weapon's firemode? Before a shot is made, the jam or malfunction number is checked, and if it is rolled the weapon is now a high-tech club. Could add an "Unjam" firemode on jammed weapons, expensive in TUs.
Would add a reason to carry those Secondary weapons...
What do you think?
nemchenk
-
It would make the game frustrating IMO.
"hi-tech club" LOL! Nice one! ;D
-
I also think it would make the game less enjoyable.
-
I agree, but only for a given definition of "less enjoyable" :)
Here is how the game would be more enjoyable:
It would give different kinds of weapon different uses: automatic weapons could jam relatively often, while high-tech lasers could be very reliable; secondary weapons would have a use, other than "coolness factor"; squad tactics would become even more important, to ensure that someone with a jammed weapon would have other troopers ready to cover him.
It all depends on your POV :)
-
You have a point there with making secondary weapons more usable but gameplay elements that introduce substantial amounts of randomness into a strategy game more often than not mess it up.
-
Todays' weapons are very relyable, they are designed not to jam, even under the worst circumstances.
-
gameplay elements that introduce substantial amounts of randomness into a strategy game more often than not mess it up.
That's true, but again it all depends on the level of randomness, and the amount of control a player has at compensating for it. Why do we roll to hit, or have damage spreads? Why bother with random maps, or missions? Why not play chess instead? :P
A little bit of "predictable randomness" is challenging, and makes us work harder at coping with unfavourable results, or exploiting them to our advantage.
Like I said: if a player wants to nullify the risk of a weapon jamming, he can carry a backup, or use more than one trooper in a formation, or probably some other tactic I have not even thought of ;D
Just food for thought....
nemchenk
-
but again it all depends on the level of randomness, and the amount of control a player has at compensating for it. Why do we roll to hit, or have damage spreads? Why bother with random maps, or missions?
Haha! True, true! I'm not saying your suggestion is wrong but sometimes when there are already random elements in the game, adding more would mess it up. I oftentimes grumble already when a grenade bounces the wrong way or a shot with a good probability to hit misses. Adding jamming would annoy me to no end.
But that's me. I don't know with the others.
However your point about using secondary weapons more should be pursued. Seriously.
I don't think jamming is the solution though IMO.
-
Let's have a look on the situation today... how many regular soldiers and how many special forces carry secondary weapons?
Afaik nearly none of them.
I share Ildamos's opinion:
Adding jamming would annoy me to no end.
cu
-
Secondary weapons already have a use.
First they can be used when the primary is out of ammo, or for close fighting when the primary has an area effect (bazooka, grenade launcher).
More importantly They generally require fewer TUs, and thus can be used when low on TUs and will be a much better reaction fire choice with the new reaction fire rules. IICR, you will need to save as many TUs for reaction fire as it would normally take to fire the weapon.
-
IICR, you will need to save as many TUs for reaction fire as it would normally take to fire the weapon.
That's correct.
-
I think Jamming could be fun and should be part of the game, although at a very low rate ;)
And I think secondary weapons outrule primary weapons except on tough aliens and difficult maps >:)
-
Maybe it will be more actual to add overheating, not jamming?
Yes, when weapon wlll be overheated it will be as disabled as in jamming case, but that will be more pedictable and less nervous.
-
@eleazar:
Secondary weapons already have a use.
As they are so useful - why don't have every soldier one?
First they can be used when the primary is out of ammo,
If I waive a secondary weapon - I can carry more ammo for my primary weapon. Which is generally more powerful, accurate and reliable.
or for close fighting when the primary has an area effect (bazooka, grenade launcher).
Secondary weapons for the 'special weapons' squad aren't news and hardly the topic. But for example the grenade launcher is often integrated in the primary weapon - like the M203.
More importantly They generally require fewer TUs, and thus can be used when low on TUs and will be a much better reaction fire choice with the new reaction fire rules.
At first, you need to draw the secondary weapon. Imho the use of two weapons isn't punished (yet) in UFO, as the rocket launcher is the only weapon you need to drop on the ground.
cu
-
I let my medics carry SMGs though.
Those are secondary weapons right? Haven't checked back in a while; vidcard got fried a week now.
-
I let my medics carry SMGs though.
Those are secondary weapons right? Haven't checked back in a while; vidcard got fried a week now.
The game puts them as a Secondary rather than primary. They require two hands, however, so i consider them [and the shotgun] to fill a intermediate position between rifles and pistols.
-
I like the idea of an occasional weapon failure due to jam/overheat. The key being it should happen very rarely, perhaps 1:100 or less. I also think that the high tech toys will be susceptible as well. They have fewer moving parts, but also less time to engineer in improvements. If you were a soldier, would you like to have your life depend upon a "beta test" weapon? Anyway, given that there is resistance to the idea, perhaps implement it as an option the user can turn off/on from the configuration screen.
-
Let's have a look on the situation today... how many regular soldiers and how many special forces carry secondary weapons?
Afaik nearly none of them.
Do you have any way to back this statement up? When i served in the infantry during the 80s, every rifleman carried a bayonet as well. Every heavy weapons gunner carried a pistol AND a knife. I haven't yet talked to any servicemen coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, but i'd be willing to bet that they want options when their life is on the line...
Concerning elite troops i can't speak for them but i consulted a book i had handy: NAM. According to it, U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers routinely carried the .45 caliber pistol in addition their main weapon and bayonet/knife/machete. There is a personal account in the book from a SpecOps soldier who carried an SMG, had both pistol and knife on the belt, and a sawed-off shotgun on top of his pack. U.S. Navy Seals were similar, except they replaced the .45 caliber with a silenced 9MM.
-
Do you have any way to back this statement up?
Yep. I served around 2000 in the Light Infantry of Germany. No one carried a secondary weapon - but the antitank squad. But these poor guys carried the (standard) G3 AND the rocket-launcher. ;D Furthermore, we met some american and european troops (light infantry) and none of them had secondary weapons.
BTW: I don't count a knife as 'secondary weapon'. A knife is a tool - and afaik the most modern 'bayonets' are simply knifes mountable on the assault rifle. Afaik have only the russian and chinese army still bayonets as standard equippent.
Concerning elite troops i can't speak for them but i consulted a book i had handy: NAM. According to it, U.S. Army Special Forces soldiers routinely carried the .45 caliber pistol in addition their main weapon and bayonet/knife/machete. There is a personal account in the book from a SpecOps soldier who carried an SMG, had both pistol and knife on the belt, and a sawed-off shotgun on top of his pack. U.S. Navy Seals were similar, except they replaced the .45 caliber with a silenced 9MM.
Secondary or special weapons are justified for some special forces - like SEAL. But hardly for 'no-stealth' troops - like the PHALANX squads.
cu
-
All of the suggestions (weapon jams, encumberance, recoil, etc) I am planning to code up as completely optional features. If the UFO:AI devs and players do not want to use them, they would simply leave them at their default values. For example, weapons jamming/overheating would be set to 0% by default. The option would exist, however, for an alternative campaign to set them to another value.
@ Doctor J: I was thinking something like 5% jamming for full-auto or burst fire, less for semi-auto; it would depend on the weapon. Good point about the PHALANX-made weapons jamming -- they are indeed beta-weapons :P Would also be an excellent way of keeping the older "black powder" guns in the game, as backup weapons!
@ Serrax: Your own argument proves that while mainline troops don't really carry secondary weapons, special troops do. I think this is to do with their intended use. Special troops (and police units, for another example) have been carrying body armour for a long time as well. Longer than mainline troops anyway, precisely because of their unit size, vs the expected strength of their enemy.
So, it all boils down to whether PHALANX is a covert organisation fighting the Unknown Threat, or an elite army unit that is a part of the Big Picture. I prefer the covert idea, but I respect the fact that other players may prefer the army idea. I believe it is about choice -- code that can be used either way with a simple option.
I know I will be enabling the option myself :P Some may say that it makes the game more luck-based, but I like a slight edge of unpredictability -- keeps me on my toes! :D
Yours,
nemchenk
-
Please don't. Make it a patch instead. It's not a good idea to make the game have different rules according to the options the player has set. We'd never live it down in multiplayer.
-
Sure, I will post up a patch. Although, I would say it is not ideal -- patches are one step away from forks in terms of maintenance and duplicated effort :(
Should we be looking at the way multiplayer is done? The server should be distributing this kind of stuff prior to a game. Tech level, damage rules, map, music, skins... All should be set from the server.
Of course, you then end up with players crying foul because they suspect the server is a modified version :) Has UFO:AI reached that critical stage yet? "He keeps hitting with every shot, while I only shoot my own feet... Haxx0r!!" Ah, the goold old days of MegaMek... *chuckle*
-
@nemchenk:
@Serrax: Your own argument proves that while mainline troops don't really carry secondary weapons, special troops do.
Sorry, but light infantry does exactly the job, that the PHALANX squad does. 'Fight in urban area' - and no special force.
Physical superior and/or armored enemies even worse the situation. Secondary, smaller weapons are nearly useless.
@ Doctor J: I was thinking something like 5% jamming for full-auto or burst fire, less for semi-auto; it would depend on the weapon.
My experience: 5% jamming was normal for full-auto/burst fire and semi-auto for the G3 assault rifle - but these weapons were 15-35 years old. I consider the same jamming rate for the medium machine gun MG3 - at an age of 15 years. I never ever saw a new G36 jamming.
Would also be an excellent way of keeping the older "black powder" guns in the game, as backup weapons!
At a rate of 5% jamming?
I prefer the covert idea, but I respect the fact that other players may prefer the army idea. I believe it is about choice -- code that can be used either way with a simple option.
I cannot detect any convert tactics used by a PHALANX squad. Furthermore, the target - the aliens - are not a classic target for convert ops. And they know that the PHALANX squad arrived - a landing dropship is hardly to overlook.
cu
-
@ Doctor J: I was thinking something like 5% jamming for full-auto or burst fire, less for semi-auto; it would depend on the weapon. Good point about the PHALANX-made weapons jamming -- they are indeed beta-weapons :P Would also be an excellent way of keeping the older "black powder" guns in the game, as backup weapons!
So you're looking into applying this 'per fire mode' as opposed to 'per bullet'. Okeh. Perhaps an average of one jam per twenty firings is still a might high, however. As a point of reference, the great board game "Squad Leader" started with a jam occurring on a roll of 12 with two six-sided dice, and modified the chance [mostly downward] as the game evolved. The 12 works out to be an average of one jam per 36 firings, or roughly 2.8%. This was higher for certain weapons, for example the failure rate of flamethrowers was 28%. Perhaps 2% for auto-fire and 1% for semi-auto, 3% for full-auto? Then again, this would be a good place for selective weapon balancing; cut the SMG down to size, for instance.
As a further thought, is the patch going to be applied so as to affect both reaction fire and normal fire? If it simplified the code base, i would be happy with it only taking effect on normal fire...
The next question is inevitably as to what happens with the weapon after a jam. Here are some ideas:
1) weapon is declared broken and removed from inventory [way harsh, but easy to do]
2) The weapon status becomes 'malfunction'. This would require that all firearms descriptions be amended to include a new status variable, as well as a decision on clearing/repairing. It also needs a way for users to check weapon status.
2a) weapon remains jammed for duration of mission, is automatically repaired upon return to base [still harsh, but easier to implement than following ideas]
2b) The weapon is automatically repaired after a certain number of turns. I don't yet have a suggestion as to how long this should be.
2c) The weapon carries the malfunction status until the soldier clears the jam by using his/her weapon skill. This is the most complex option to code, but forgiving to the player. It would require some modification to the user interface so the user can click on "Repair". At the end of the mission the weapon [if still broken] will have to be automatically repaired or automatically eliminated.
-
Sorry, but light infantry does exactly the job, that the PHALANX squad does. 'Fight in urban area' - and no special force.
<snip>
I cannot detect any convert tactics used by a PHALANX squad. Furthermore, the target - the aliens - are not a classic target for convert ops. And they know that the PHALANX squad arrived - a landing dropship is hardly to overlook.
I don't think it's so much about being covert. It's about not having a defined front line, reserves in the rear, etc. I suspect the reason the elite troops carry so much junk is that they have to be self-sufficient for the duration of the mission. This completely applies to PHALANX. Also, unlike a modern infantry unit, PHALANX troops are unable to call upon artillery, air support, and such like.
-
@ Serrax: Your own argument proves that while mainline troops don't really carry secondary weapons, special troops do.
No. He's simply provided evidence that not all "mainline" troops carry secondary weapons.
So, it all boils down to whether PHALANX is a covert organisation fighting the Unknown Threat, or an elite army unit that is a part of the Big Picture.
I don't see why that is important to this question.
What it really boils down to is weather the player finds secondary weapons worthwhile. If he doesn't, he's free to ignore them, and save the space and money.
Personally i've found them to be useful... not necessarily in every mission, but frequently enough to consider them worthwhile... especially for troops that carry TU-hungry or area-effect main weapons.
As long as secondary weapons aren't totally useless, there's no compelling reason to change the rules so they become more important. After all, they are by definition "secondary".
-
@Doctor J:
I don't think it's so much about being covert.
The choice of weapons is depending on the used tactics. And you don't sneak in and kill an alien from behind with a knife or a small, silenced weapon. As you cannot attack by surprise, small powerless but silenced weapons are useless - you need high firepower for open combat.
It's about not having a defined front line, reserves in the rear, etc. I suspect the reason the elite troops carry so much junk is that they have to be self-sufficient for the duration of the mission. This completely applies to PHALANX.
How long do you believe takes a PHALANX mission? Half an hour? One hour? Two hours?
Also, unlike a modern infantry unit, PHALANX troops are unable to call upon artillery, air support, and such like.
Not yet.
@eleazar:
Personally i've found them to be useful... not necessarily in every mission, but frequently enough to consider them worthwhile... especially for troops that carry TU-hungry or area-effect main weapons.
I also equip some troopers with laser pistols, especially the soldiers with flamers and grenade launcher. And they are not very effective using a secondary weapon. A lack of training for secondary weapons is another counting issue.
cu
-
Not yet.
Not ever.
-
I see 2 problems with this jamming stuff, I just want to mention them before work is started ;)
- As we don't want to allow saving during mission, I'm afraid jamming won't be that fun. If your gun will jam at a critical time and your best soldier gets killed because of that, you'll probably just be sickened to start the game again just because of a damned random number.
- Game is already rather hard to balance. I guess you plan to have a different probability to jam for all weapons. That means that it would be a parameter to balance like damages, chance to hit,... If you want to implement jamming as an option, that would mean that balancing wouldn't be the same with or without jamming. And therefore that you would need different damages, spreading parameter, and so on, whether the jamming option is activated or not. So IMO, this is not a good idea to make jamming an option, at least on long time range.
-
@Doctor J:
The choice of weapons is depending on the used tactics. And you don't sneak in and kill an alien from behind with a knife or a small, silenced weapon. As you cannot attack by surprise, small powerless but silenced weapons are useless - you need high firepower for open combat.
Again, secondary weapons are not only for covert uses. Let's think about early in the campaign, when you only have Combat Armour. Your soldier carrying the Rocket Launcher comes to a corner or doorway, and suddenly you have a Bug Eyed Monster facing you at point blank range. You COULD fire the rocket, but you're in the splash radius and will die as well. My "Rocket Man" drops the launcher, pulls the SMG out of its holster, and saves the day. I have personally done this maneuver many times. It could be argued that the Rocket Man shouldn't be going into those sorts of places, but that's another conversation...
It can also be useful when the target is highly resistant to the damage type of your primary weapon. Let's say the Laser Rifle isn't cutting the mustard, well you're also carrying a Plasma Pistol.
To summarize, secondary weapons are useful whenever you can't or shouldn't use your primary weapon. Lack of jams doesn't doesn't eliminate the need for secondary weapons, it just reduces the need.
-
In my opion skip it. Although interesting idea. If you must do it. Do it after full version release. Don't waste time on it now.
-
I see 2 problems with this jamming stuff, I just want to mention them before work is started ;)
...
Hi kracken :) Here's the thing, though:
(1) While this is true, we could also apply the same argument to other aspects of the game:
- Mis-threw your grenade and blew yourself up? Use a soldier more skilled in throwing next time.
- Didn't get your RF shot like you hoped you would, and the aliens have cut your team to pieces? Put more Speedy soldiers in RF positions.
- Got a weapons jam and your super-soldier got killed? Use more reliable weapons or carry a spare :)
The risk is manageable, and thus it is in the player's control.
(2) That is a very good point, but it has a very simple solution: don't put jam stats into UFO:AI weapons*.ufo files! All is then as it has always been :) But someone who wants to create a slightly different campaign with different weapons stats, a mod if you will, has the option.
I really like UFO:AI, but I would like to take it that little bit further. I appreciate that not everyone agrees, so I am proposing a way of doing this that will please everyone -- those who want to use the options do, those who don't, don't have to. :)
@ Doctor J -- 3% seems good to me. Won't happen every game, but enough IMO for the cautious to carry their spare shooters :D The chance would indeed depend on the fire mode, so that semi-auto weapons would be more reliable.
As to the way this would work, I was thinking the weapon would jam after the shot is fired, not before. Also, I was thinking an "Un-jam" firemode would replace all others which use ammo (thus any hand-to-hand firemodes would remain active). This firemode would give a chance based on the original malfunction number, modified by the soldier's Mind stat maybe, and take something like 25TUs. So, weapons that are more jam-prone are harder to unjam, and it is not guaranteed that a jammed weapon would get unjammed on the first attempt.
@ jeric -- well, I disagree with you there :P I agree that fixing bugs is more important than new features, but I think you are overly optimistic about there ever being "full release version". Do you think there will ever be a "final" versoin of Linux? Or Apache? Or any other Open Source project?
This is the beauty of it -- OS is a constant work in progress. It will be ready when it is ready, and it will be forever improved upon :P As a user OR developer, you should enjoy it! :D
-
I really like UFO:AI, but I would like to take it that little bit further. I appreciate that not everyone agrees, so I am proposing a way of doing this that will please everyone -- those who want to use the options do, those who don't, don't have to. :)
See, I don't agree with this. I don't like the idea of having different rules for the campaign set by the user. The rules should be set by the developers, and all users should use the same rules. If not, we'd get endless discussion about what the "proper" way to play the campaign is, how it should be balanced with or without the option, why nothing is mentioned about it in the UFOpaedia, and why other rules aren't optional (and of course multiplayer, as I pointed out before). It's going to be hell, and it's not worth it.
I know you want this feature, but I, and almost everyone else with me, don't want it. Adding it as an "optional" setting is not a solution. Like I said, make it a patch, but don't add this to the main game.
-
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.
If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. Make it something that's off by default, and only users who want it will suffer from the effect of it. Or will you not be happy until we bow down to your infinite wisdom?
-
Wesnoth has a saying: "Options are Bad".
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. In rare cases that's a good idea, but every option has a downside. With every option you add, the difficulty of maintaining, learning, and debugging the code increases. The amount of time it takes to learn the game increases too as each option should (or might be) considered by the player, in combinations with all others.
Anyway, adding optional modes of play makes a lot more sense
-
Anyway, adding optional modes of play makes a lot more sense
... 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
-
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.
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.
-
@Doctor J:
...I cannot understand your problem ... no one runs around crying. So, why you?
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)).
Nobody is running around and crying here, and your suggestions to that effect is insulting.
nemchenk
-
Wesnoth has a saying: "Options are Bad".
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.
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.
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
-
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?
-
@nemchenk:
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.
I described exactly that issue in my posting:
Even open source projects need an authority, otherwise they split off into several - mostly incompatible - ones with less cooperating developers.
Nobody is running around and crying here, and your suggestions to that effect is insulting.
I considered Doctor J's posting as insulting too - I just answered the same way back. But thanks for the instruction...
@Doctor J:
You've also in mind that alien weapons jam? I can hardly imagine that by this kind of superior technology.
cu
-
You've also in mind that alien weapons jam? I can hardly imagine that by this kind of superior technology.
It would almost be required. Otherwise you would have to have separate weapons descriptors for, say, a Plasma Blaster fired by an alien and a Plasma Blaster fired by a human. The alternative would be to have some sort of conditional check in the firing that looks to see who's pulling the trigger. Anyways, just because a particular item is high tech does not mean that it is bug free. From the point of a person sitting in their home, the low-tech telephone wire is available almost 100% of the time, while the availability of the internet can be more problematic. Often times more advanced technology means more things that can break.
-
@Doctor J:
It would almost be required. Otherwise you would have to have separate weapons descriptors for, say, a Plasma Blaster fired by an alien and a Plasma Blaster fired by a human. The alternative would be to have some sort of conditional check in the firing that looks to see who's pulling the trigger.
Or alien weapons never jam - even if you build in jamming human weapons.
Anyways, just because a particular item is high tech does not mean that it is bug free. From the point of a person sitting in their home, the low-tech telephone wire is available almost 100% of the time, while the availability of the internet can be more problematic. Often times more advanced technology means more things that can break.
Well - the particle beam is high tech for humans. But this technology could be the "low-tech telephone" for aliens. Maybe they developed particle beams 1,000 years ago.
Malfunctions are strongly connected to mechanical elements of a weapon - which is human tech.
cu
-
@nemchenk:
I described exactly that issue in my posting:
Even open source projects need an authority, otherwise they split off into several - mostly incompatible - ones with less cooperating developers.
You speak the words Serrax, but you don't seem to understand the meaning. Would you care to explain how in your view an Open Source project would "split off into several" without "an authority"? Or are you content just to drop intellectual non sequiturs into the conversation and then leave it at that?
nemchenk
-
Todays' weapons are very relyable, they are designed not to jam, even under the worst circumstances.
The only exception are the worst circumstances when even today's weapons sometimes - I'm really sorry - sometimes they DO jam ;)
BTW what do you exactly mean with "today"? I have 18.06.2084... and you? ;)