UFO:Alien Invasion
General => Discussion => Topic started by: Darkpriest667 on June 16, 2008, 01:22:02 am
-
Continuing on my thought Daniel Trash and Doctor..
What is the rate of minaturization at our standard technological capabilities. I was almost sure there was a formula for it.
-
Formulas are prone to change, since you're bound to hit some limit and then later break it at some point.
And it's not just the question of what are we (humanity) capable of, the question is what we are WILLING to do. In todays world thing rotate mostly around profit. So some things, no matter how cool or amazing or possible, won't be made if people don't see some profit in it. Keep that in mind.
OFF TOPIC:
@Winter
Just a friendly critic Winter. Normally when you want to end a discussion or close a thread, I'd advise you to avoid trying to look like you simply must have the last word..and to avoid insulting the other side. Makes you look kind...immature or vindictive. I doubt that's the case, but that's the impression you're leaving. If you want to look neutral, the best way would be to lock a thread after someone uninvolved or mostly neutral posted.
Speaking of which, why was the tread locked in the first place? It was on-topic. ;)
-
Actually it has gone an offtop
All arguments for MG, and against it were said- you think it will be useful weapon, Winter says that it will not work for phalanx and the tread has died, im afraid.
These small tanks (UGV?) would be an interesting platform for MG, but I hope it will have module contruction and it will be possible to rearm them, just like aircraft(Would love to have one with a rocket launcher or a heavier variant of grenade launcher, and all these plasma and particle canons to chose from...)
-
As far as I know that is the plan.
-
He was right to close the thread it had gone off and back on topic so many times it was ridiculous
personally im thankful he did it gives me the ability to post a new thread (for epeen) and to kind of expand on the original arguments for or against the idea.
So the topics id like to into here is, miniaturization, power production, and yes bioware/cyberware. I see a place in the hospital for implants.. when do i get to put wired reflexes in my soldiers so they can have 6 reaction fire actions instead of 2 or 3 :-p heehee
-
These small tanks (UGV?) would be an interesting platform for MG, but I hope it will have module contruction and it will be possible to rearm them, just like aircraft(Would love to have one with a rocket launcher or a heavier variant of grenade launcher, and all these plasma and particle canons to chose from...)
The plan is to allow the player to build UGV chassis and weapons separately, and equip weaponry and ammo onto the chassis much like soldiers. Equippable armour for UGVs is also an option under consideration.
The default weapon for the Triax is a small minigun. We do intend to at least implement a rocket launcher, a laser gun and alien weaponry. A grenade launcher would also be interesting, but it would be a balancing challenge. We wouldn't want it to completely eclipse the infantry GL.
Regards,
Winter
-
i think that UGV with a grenade launcher will not be able to climb upstairs or move through a narrow doorway so it cant be fired from the window or any other high ground without a ramp. On the other hand it would reduce highly combat effectiveness of UGV. I like the idea of replaceable armor- how about starting with steel plating, advancing to nanocomposite one and finally constructing one with alien alloy.
I dont know what idea of ammo for UGV do you have, but i think that UGV shouldnt have any spare clip- instead would base on one large clip installed before the mission- and no reloading during combat. 12 rockets would still be Hell lot, minigun or grenades would have bigger capacity.
Is it possible, to implement 2 weapons for more advanced UGVs? lets say main gun as a rotatory machine gun, and some grenades installed on the vehicle armor- launched at short distance while the UGV would be immune to frag grenades and light weapons (if its possible to implement)
-
i think that UGV with a grenade launcher will not be able to climb upstairs or move through a narrow doorway so it cant be fired from the window or any other high ground without a ramp. On the other hand it would reduce highly combat effectiveness of UGV. I like the idea of replaceable armor- how about starting with steel plating, advancing to nanocomposite one and finally constructing one with alien alloy.
I dont know what idea of ammo for UGV do you have, but i think that UGV shouldnt have any spare clip- instead would base on one large clip installed before the mission- and no reloading during combat. 12 rockets would still be Hell lot, minigun or grenades would have bigger capacity.
Is it possible, to implement 2 weapons for more advanced UGVs? lets say main gun as a rotatory machine gun, and some grenades installed on the vehicle armor- launched at short distance while the UGV would be immune to frag grenades and light weapons (if its possible to implement)
UGVs will never have to reload. They'll be able to access all ammo of the same type at once, and (if possible) be able to switch ammo types simply by choosing another firemode. If that's not possible, we'll simply use the reload mechanism to change ammo types with a TU cost of 0.
We hope to implement more than one weapon for larger UGVs, but they'll be equippable as normal, nothing like what you describe.
Regards,
Winter
-
Will the UGV be "in addition to" or "in place of" the squad members?
-
thats a good question daniel... if its like the old xcom and it takes 4 soldier slots its not at all worth it..
although i did love using those hover tanks as scouts
-
UGV carrying space is entirely separate from soldier carrying space, the two don't overlap at all.
Regards,
Winter
-
I agree with Trashman, but with one exception:
And it's not just the question of what are we (humanity) capable of, the question is what we are WILLING to do. In todays world thing rotate mostly around profit. So some things, no matter how cool or amazing or possible, won't be made if people don't see some profit in it. Keep that in mind.
This leaves out prototypes. Many times a big company (or even a smaller one) will do a prototype that works in most cases as a "proof of concept", but will be way too expensive for mass production. But they will still exist.
So we should not forget that maybe very rarely we could have a unique prototype... of a weapon maybe... or a spaceship or something >:)
-
UGV carrying space is entirely separate from soldier carrying space, the two don't overlap at all.
Regards,
Winter
i love you lol
-
UGV carrying space is entirely separate from soldier carrying space, the two don't overlap at all.
Regards,
Winter
thanks! this rocks!
will the incrased firepower be compensated by larger numebrs of aliens?
-
It will if I have anything to do with it.
-
Or tougher (more hit points) aliens. Before I get told to play on harder setting - everything else I would leave tha same. No need to downgrade a MG to a pellet gun, make each alien gun THE ULTIMATE PISTOL OF DOOM, or turn each alien into a certified terminator. Just give Otnok's monstrous health and maybe toughen up alien armor. Suspect over all it will shift the flavor of the same somewhat, with human doing scout work and UGV saturating the target, maybe with the help of human snipers. The close enagagements will become less favorable.
-
Currently aliens don't have any difference in stats depending on their species, nor do they get the native bonuses they're supposed to be getting. They are also under-stocked in the armour department. All of this is on the TODO list.
-
Dang it...you guys need more contributors...calling all hands...calling all hands...
-
Damn you...Mass Effect....must...play.....Can't...resist!
-
Go play. Shouldn't take you long to beat it if you devote some free time to it. I beat it in a few days, though I didn't have any work to worry about on those days. I only did one playthrough though - the achievements didn't interest me.
-
Poor, poor aliens... They are trying to achieve the objectives while underfunded, underequipped, and clearly weakened by the smelly atmosphere...
Poor buggers
-
@Winter
Just a friendly critic Winter. Normally when you want to end a discussion or close a thread, I'd advise you to avoid trying to look like you simply must have the last word..and to avoid insulting the other side. Makes you look kind...immature or vindictive. I doubt that's the case, but that's the impression you're leaving. If you want to look neutral, the best way would be to lock a thread after someone uninvolved or mostly neutral posted.
Speaking of which, why was the tread locked in the first place? It was on-topic. ;)
I think you're over-stepping your bounds, and I caution you against calling a developer "immature or vindictive". To be honest, I think it's crazy to insult a developer. You're an armchair military "expert", and that's not a bad thing, but you're no expert just because you read Wikipedia articles and took a physics class. Your fantasy weapons are fine as a suggestion, but you insist on arguing something to death against a person who's helping create a game for free for you to play. I just hope Winter won't consider you a representative of a fan base that's a lot more respectful. He's hardly trying to get the "last word", considering your comments above (and he'd be entitled to, anyway).
Not everyone is interesting in deploying a weapon that some of us know is too problematic to accept. And frankly, as a former machine-gunner in a real army, having slogged the thing through the mud and on forced marches and having to sleep with one hand on the thing at all times, I've earned the right to say so. In the meantime, I think you owe Winter an apology. Keep in mind: these people are making this game as a labour of love, and we ought to preserve our respect for them even when they don't do everything we want. You can't say, "Thanks, but I think you're immature and vindictive." Don't ruin it for the rest of us.
-
I think you're over-stepping your bounds, and I caution you against calling a developer "immature or vindictive". To be honest, I think it's crazy to insult a developer. You're an armchair military "expert", and that's not a bad thing, but you're no expert just because you read Wikipedia articles and took a physics class. Your fantasy weapons are fine as a suggestion, but you insist on arguing something to death against a person who's helping create a game for free for you to play. I just hope Winter won't consider you a representative of a fan base that's a lot more respectful. He's hardly trying to get the "last word", considering your comments above (and he'd be entitled to, anyway).
Not everyone is interesting in deploying a weapon that some of us know is too problematic to accept. And frankly, as a former machine-gunner in a real army, having slogged the thing through the mud and on forced marches and having to sleep with one hand on the thing at all times, I've earned the right to say so. In the meantime, I think you owe Winter an apology. Keep in mind: these people are making this game as a labour of love, and we ought to preserve our respect for them even when they don't do everything we want. You can't say, "Thanks, but I think you're immature and vindictive." Don't ruin it for the rest of us.
Just drop it, eh? I don't want anyone carrying on the argument in this thread.
Anyway, claims to army experience cannot go unqualified. Name, rank, unit and tours of duty please! :P
Regards,
Winter
-
I think you're over-stepping your bounds, and I caution you against calling a developer "immature or vindictive". To be honest, I think it's crazy to insult a developer.
I didn't say he was that, just that the last post leaves that impression. Big difference.
You're an armchair military "expert", and that's not a bad thing, but you're no expert just because you read Wikipedia articles and took a physics class.
That's just the point. No one on these forums is military/weapon design expert.
Keep in mind: these people are making this game as a labour of love, and we ought to preserve our respect for them even when they don't do everything we want.
Don't forget I'm conitributing too ;)
EDIT:
Hm...ME done. That was short and sweet. :D
-
Speaking of that, any word on the armour models?
(Talk about offtopic.)
-
Will get back on them.... Patience..I have first aid and driving classes this week.
-
thats not offtopic BTaxis this thread was about discussing our ideas... and i thought since daniel called it necromancy it should be called that.
Really powered armor would be nice lol. But i believe it should be directly resulting from alien weapon or alien powered armor technology.
Also remember the old mechs from xcom.. the ufos had them but we couldnt get them.. any thought into bringing that into play and the hover tanks for the aliens.. those hovertanks were mean
-
Hey everyone, I haven't checked the forum for several months, and I see that you are still arguing over miniguns and power armors :)
I haven't checked it because I got the feeling there is nothing I could contribute with, other than disagreeing on some concepts here. My impression was that the devs really know what they want to do and they only need time or help to complete their project, so ideas like miniguns or whatever are just a waste of forum space.
So I'm waiting to see if I'll like the game in the end, and if not, I'll play something else...
I think that many fans here want a reincarnation of X-Com, JA and Fallout in one game, but this is a different game.
I didn't like much the idea of miniguns, because they aren't very realistic as a human carried weapon, but the idea of powerarmors is great, no matter how you want to counter it with wiki articles and such. No matter what the limitation are now, in the future, with the increasing development of robotics, there will be viable powerarmors that will protect the soldiers not only from bullets and debris, but from chemicals or radiation too. Besides, soldiers will be able to carry heavier weapons and more equipment.
My impression is that there is alot of emphasis on the scientific and techologic "realism", like the devs are trying to build a simulator, not a game. I read alot of debates over technical details and I think it's a waste of time to research this much when you are developing a game, but that's just my opinion. X-Com had many flaws in terms of realism and the combat engine had its problem, but it's still considered the best game of its kind, because it was fun to play.
Good luck with the development
-
Bigger problem with powered armours is the maintain cost. It has to be fuelled and needs a lot of maintenance -oiling, cleaning and so on.
While it would be MUCH to expensive for military mass use, it still would be available for special forces having access to all weapon research of the humanity, like phalanx.
The only drawback of powered armour will be its weight- soldier would be really heavy and so many "bridges" maid of single board will collapse under him
-
Bigger problem with powered armours is the maintain cost. It has to be fuelled and needs a lot of maintenance -oiling, cleaning and so on.
While it would be MUCH to expensive for military mass use, it still would be available for special forces having access to all weapon research of the humanity, like phalanx.
The only drawback of powered armour will be its weight- soldier would be really heavy and so many "bridges" maid of single board will collapse under him
You are getting to technical here, and I don't think this game is about let's have a science lesson while shooting aliens. I see alot of threads where valuable ideas are discussed and soon the discussion is transformed into a science lecture which doesn't help anyone. Bottom line, powerarmors (complete suits) are a great concept, they are cool, and imo they should be in this game, however it's just my opinion, not even a suggestion.
The problem of cost is a flawed way of thinking, because any army in the world would love to offer the best protection possible to it's troops, because people are very hard to replace (I mean well trained and experienced soldiers). So, even if one suit would cost 1 million dollars, but it could be produced, any army would fit their soldiers with them. Ofc, not every soldier, but at least their best, like it's the case here... basically you take care of a squad or two... not of several divisions. The problem right now is that such armors can't be produced, but rest assured that people in the military are working on this as we speak.
-
As one of the people who did the aforementioned lecturing, I would somewhat disagree that it "does not help anyone" - some folks might actually enjoy it and, in fact, have posted to that extent. The science content both in the game and in the forum can be easily ignored, I think. Having well-explained concepts in the game helps the "immersion", makes the game world more belieavable. And if it does make someone curious - hey, why not?
-
I agree with you that it might be interesting to read some pop-science on the forum or in game, however this isn't the issue - people are concerned about gameplay issues and items which could affect the gameplay and fun factor in a way or the other. Anyway, you can't sustain everything in a game with science, otherwise it will become a PhD thesis.
The fact that the game world is plausible is OK, but there are alot of tones of grey here, because having something "wild" doesn't make the game absurd. I think there is a trap here, wanting to back up everything with pop-science bits - not everyone will agree that a certain theory or deviation from fact is valid from the current scientific point of view, and so you have people with PhDs comming and arguing about the game's scientific story (which is somehow silly). However, if you emphasize less on theory and science, and you say it's SF, then none can say anything. To me threads where people debate if some weapon technology is realistic or not are somewhat useless, because I don't care that much about how some SF weapon really works. I.e. lightsabers from Star Wars are totally unrealistic and silly, but as a concept are an awsome idea and the vast majority of people like them alot, even though many realize that such a device can't exist.
To me it's important to see cool things in the game, weapons that make me want them and use them, fun and good gameplay concepts, that sort of thing. When you are creating something in a SF setting, it's really not difficult to tie something "wild" to the story. That's creativity.
-
Well said Sirg.
fun >>>>>> realism
cool >>>>> possible
But one shouldn't overdo it. A healthy dose of fun and a healthy dose of realism are the best mix.*
*not saying that realism can't be fun, but it most often isn't.
-
Sirg,
Not sure if "pop-science" is a compliment here... I can only speak confidently for Babunito and myself... I assure you that both of us (we are, in fact, PhD's in physics) are meticulous about not BS-ing and we do provide disclaimers if we might BS.
Honestly, there is no conflict at all between having science content and beautiful, fun flight of fancy. Yes, of course the premise is fiction and the game does not intend to be a scientific journal. But what makes a difference between good science fiction and drivel? Among other things, homework and details. The world, while fictional, should net offend common sense. I call it "being internally consistant".
You brought up light sabers - thank you, great example. Surely, there are several things "wrong" with the design. And yet, why does the idea not offend? For one, light sabers have limitations. They do not cut through material (like blast doors) instantly. The blades have finite range. How much fun would that world be if the light saber could extend into space and cut a star destroyer in two right in orbit? Well, that, somehow, would be even *more* rediculous than the concept of a light saber itself. I'll bet you that there were a few physicists and egineers working as consultants on all six movies.
Which is why several people (and not just us eggheads) enjoy the science of sci-fi. Not to mention that in a few years me may actually get to same technology, or something close, in daily life.
The science content really does seem to bother you. Well, the concept of a forum is that there is room even for those who want to see more science stuff. I can only remind you that you should feel free not to read it.
-
TrashMan,
I suppose the definition of "healthy" may vary.
-
the powered armor would eliminate the weight problem of a human carrying a minigun
also someone mentioned the military is working on it.. yes they are very hard. and it comes back to a huge scientific discussion we had which id like to bring up here
POWER SOURCES - so far i have these 3 ideas capable of providing the power quantities nuclear, fusion, zero point. Antimatter would not be reccomended however if the game would like to incorporate anti matter as the future power source thats fine with me too :D
secondly i like the science posts.
so carry on :D
-
@DanielOr
I didn't know you were the one with PhD here... I haven't read these forums for several months, so I am not familiar with everyone yet. The reference to pop-science wasn't meant to offend you or others. All games are built on some science facts, so it's a good thing. Besides, I'm not against science here... or in general. Even more, I am quite fascinated with these topics and more, reading alot of science related books since I was a kid. But because I was poor with maths (I have an artistic talent that compensates) I couldn't go study physics at the University. But nevermind that...
My point was that we are talking about the game here, and that should be more focused on gameplay and design issues, rather than scientific talk. Sure, we can have a big forum thread about science and FTL physics, but I would rather talk about the game. The science talk doesn't bother me, but I think it's out of place. People are developing a game, not a jet fighter simulator. Ofc the science background is important, but secondary.
I had this post because I saw some good ideas dismissed just because they aren't totally valid from a scientifical point of view, and that's bad, because in order to have a game, you have to make some compromises and create a crude model of what happens in reality, or even ignore how things happen in reality.
One example is the medkit. According to UFOpedia, the effects of a plasma hit are so gruesome that not even the best surgeons in the world could heal such a wound. Besides even a small hit would incapacitate the victim completely due to the pain and shock. However, in game you can take alot of hits, heal, and continue with no probs. Is this a bad design idea? I think not. Is it totally unrealistic? Yes. Do I care? Not really. The soldier has a number of hitpoints and you don't have to translate hitpoints into health. You can imagine that your soldier isn't really hit until his hitpoints reach zero, and then he is lethaly hit, and so he dies.
Regarding lightsabers, I heard Lucas saying that he knew the swords are unrealistic, but he liked the idea so much that he had to put in in the movies. He is a creative person, and knows when something is so good that it has to came on film no matter how silly is from a scientifical point of view. The Jedi are the SF version of the medieval knight or monk, and the lightsaber makes it all. If Vader had a broadsword then that would have been stupid, even if the sword is more realistic than the lightsaber.
@Darkpriest667
Regarding the minigun.... Even though they look cool, they are totally impractical as a personel weapon. Even if you are very strong with the help of a power armor like in Fallout, the minigun eats alot of ammo, so unless you are carrying a cart with ammo around, it's totally impractical. BUT, one solution could be a plasma minigun, so you don't have to carry a truck with bullets with you.
OMG wall of text ;D
-
Or a laser minigun...but the ammo problem, even using regular mass driver tech can be solved in multiple way. For instance, check out the workings of Mass Effect weapons.
@DanielOR - yes, I'd say the "healthy" is rather open to debate.
But, something I found out while talking to the devs from Bioware and Kerberos (I'm always on those forums, got to know the developers good since they post REALLY often) is that most players appreciate science, but if it stands in the way of cool and fun, they'd rather not have it.
Granted, a comercial game should appeal to a bigger audience to boost sales, while you are free make a game that only you and a small nieche will appreaciate it - nobody is paying you anyway.
I myself like games with internal consistency an a certain dose of cool.
-
Actually there is no need to make a laser minigun, as there is no barrel that would overheat and there is no need to increase the RoF as laser can fire as long as it is suplied with power.
Id really welcome laser canon shooting like a long range flame thrower- did anyone read Frank herbert's Dune? in one of the later parts there was a battle where guy used to scorch entire area with a single burst from a laser rifle- cutting and burning quite a lot of enemies. Of course such a firepower would be imbalancing but a cone shaped firing mode would be great - the soldier just presses the trigger and moves slightly sideways his laser until the battery runs out
-
Lasers don't overheat? :D
-
Sirg,
I don't see much point in continuing the debate - we have expressed our views and there is little else to be gained. It was certainly never my intention to detract from game option by adding science content. I was, in fact, trying to put plausible science behind the game's sci-fi gear. It was the very real (though not hand-held) minigun that I was opposed to.
Medikits: while they do provide a hell of an edge, I think they are somewhat too powerful in their present incarnation - soldier is at 2 HP and 2-3 heals later are at full health and need no recovery at the hospital? I think the UFO:EU had a more realistic behavior of medikits - they stop the HP loss, recover some of the stat loss, but the soldier is still very much a walking wounded.
-
Sirg,
I don't see much point in continuing the debate - we have expressed our views and there is little else to be gained. It was certainly never my intention to detract from game option by adding science content. I was, in fact, trying to put plausible science behind the game's sci-fi gear. It was the very real (though not hand-held) minigun that I was opposed to.
Medikits: while they do provide a hell of an edge, I think they are somewhat too powerful in their present incarnation - soldier is at 2 HP and 2-3 heals later are at full health and need no recovery at the hospital? I think the UFO:EU had a more realistic behavior of medikits - they stop the HP loss, recover some of the stat loss, but the soldier is still very much a walking wounded.
It's OK to back up in game sci-fi gear with scientific fact, but I got the feeling that people got to technical and some topics were drifting away from subject because of the scientific talk. I'm not against it, yes, it's an interesting subject yet there can be a separate thread called "scientific talk concerning in-game stuff".
Regarding the healing system, let's keep in mind that even though UFO-EU had this more realistic system implemented, it also featured the option to save during the battles, while this game doesn't have this feature. For me it's quite frustrating to play 30 mins clearing a map without any casualty, and after that, spending more 15 mins hunting the last alien, that lonely alien to kill my best soldier. It happened to me alot.
Because there is no save game feature, and there won't be any, there has to be a simpler system of "refreshing" your troops. I am so and so about this restriction of saving the game while fighting, because this doesn't allow big large maps like Terror from the Deep had.