1
Discussion / Re: New Engine for successor?
« on: December 06, 2014, 05:52:37 am »
At that point you would not have a successor engine but a successor project.
News:
New board
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Discussion / Re: New Engine for successor?
« on: December 05, 2014, 05:16:24 pm »
This is not a bad idea in my opinion, just a bad execution. The 3 Taboos wiki page indicates that engine limitations are mainly what blocks destructible environments from becoming a feature. I do not think you can have a full spiritual successor with such a core feature missing as battle-scape destructibility.
But you have to get started on the right foot:
Prototypes speak louder than words.
But you have to get started on the right foot:
Quote from: 3 Taboos
If there was a dev who made a prototype based on Ogre, idTechX or whatever that shows a little map with a soldier, an alien, a weapon and a few buildings which proves that everything is oh so much better with that engine, several ufoai devs would take a closer look at that prototype and either drive it to its limits or decide that it's time for ufoai to switch the engine. Interestingly, nobody ever did...
Prototypes speak louder than words.
3
Discussion / Re: Remaking UI for 2.6 ?
« on: August 06, 2014, 04:17:23 pm »
Well no, but you quoted vuser saying something to that effect and didn't contradict the statement.
From that shred of evidence I was able to deduce the wrong conclusion...
From that shred of evidence I was able to deduce the wrong conclusion...
4
Discussion / Re: Remaking UI for 2.6 ?
« on: August 06, 2014, 03:54:35 pm »Actually "Stiletto I" is not "Stiletto 1" but "Stiletto Interceptor" and "Firebird D" is "Firebird Dropship".
I plan to change it to numbered names I'm just thinking about where to put the counters necessary for that...
Auto numbering the names would make far less of an improvement to recognizability than player controlled renaming.
Was it 'Stiletto 12' or 'Stilleto 22' that has the armor upgrade installed?
Vs
Was it 'Stiletto' or 'Stiletto Armored' that has the armor upgrade installed?
5
Discussion / Re: Using the alien crafts
« on: July 28, 2014, 03:07:00 am »Do you know how many people, tools and resources are needed for the construction of an aircraft? Ok, you have an super advanced workshop, maybe with 3D printers, even with that, is not an easy enterprise with a group of 10 technicians for workshop. And that is only manufacture, but, what about the design? An earth-tech craft could take 10 or 20 years to design and test.
You are thinking in terms of today's reality but the game is set around the year 2085 or so. It is as far from today in time as the second world war.
So design and manufacturing tools and processes could be greatly different. Plus it is possible social changes have made the global population more capable in the realm of science and engineering. You could have hundreds of millions working on research and development sub-projects farmed out to the world by the team of scientists under your command.
6
Discussion / Re: Using the alien crafts
« on: July 27, 2014, 04:38:40 pm »
This may be a hole in the storyline that was never covered.
With some difficulty due to mismatching ergonomics, your soldiers can all be cheaply outfitted with captured alien equipment. But intact UFOs cannot be used for interception or troop deployment even when they already contain enough anti-matter fuel for the job. I do not recall if there is an explanation for this discrepancy.
With some difficulty due to mismatching ergonomics, your soldiers can all be cheaply outfitted with captured alien equipment. But intact UFOs cannot be used for interception or troop deployment even when they already contain enough anti-matter fuel for the job. I do not recall if there is an explanation for this discrepancy.
7
Discussion / Re: Allow bases without dropship hangars to build and transfer dropships?
« on: July 10, 2014, 04:36:18 pm »Well... i don´t believe that all bases must be larger ones.
I wasn't actually suggesting that bases should enlarged. But the arguments that proposal made for doubling the size of bases, also make a good case for removing unbuildables (to free up useable space).
In other words, if bases are already too space-constrained as that proposal argued, then unbuildables are just adding to the problem.
8
Discussion / Re: Allow bases without dropship hangars to build and transfer dropships?
« on: July 09, 2014, 05:11:31 pm »
Even though it was not trying to, this analysis makes a good case for removing unbuildables to free up more space:
http://ufoai.org/wiki/Proposals/Larger_Bases
http://ufoai.org/wiki/Proposals/Larger_Bases
9
Discussion / Re: Allow bases without dropship hangars to build and transfer dropships?
« on: July 06, 2014, 06:41:57 am »Abusing the save system is not the way to deal with a feature, it's just what cheaters do.
Noordung, thanks for the bugreport, I'm thinking about how to fix that exploit...
-geever
Dean of User Experience Studies, Darth Vader Imperial Software Academy
While you are at it, think of a fix for the "corrupt unbuildable tiles appear randomly and inexplicably in new bases" bug.
10
Discussion / Re: Allow bases without dropship hangars to build and transfer dropships?
« on: July 05, 2014, 04:12:17 pm »save before you build new base. if you have too much rock load and build base again... reload and reply until you are happy with result.
If abusing the save system is the way to deal with a feature, then there may be something wrong with said feature.
11
Discussion / Re: Allow bases without dropship hangars to build and transfer dropships?
« on: July 05, 2014, 02:09:43 am »
Yeah, I think unbuildable tiles is a feature deserving of removal or at least made optional if it isn't already.
They annoy more than they challenge.
They annoy more than they challenge.
12
Discussion / Re: UFO:AI sucks ? Where ? (Part II)
« on: May 26, 2014, 08:59:55 pm »
I must go with UGVs. Unit variety and scale feel too limited without vehicles. Even with the assortment of light arms you can outfit your soldiers with, after a dozen missions or so, all the room clearing becomes tedious.
I imagine UGVs dominating the open spaces of a map while cover is dominated more by infantry, with an advantage held in one area helping the take over of the other. Like vehicles providing covering fire for infantry when they run from one building to the next across a field. Or infantry ambushing from cover a hostile vehicle that had chased an outclassed friendly vehicle around a blind corner.
I imagine UGVs dominating the open spaces of a map while cover is dominated more by infantry, with an advantage held in one area helping the take over of the other. Like vehicles providing covering fire for infantry when they run from one building to the next across a field. Or infantry ambushing from cover a hostile vehicle that had chased an outclassed friendly vehicle around a blind corner.
13
Discussion / Re: Several users needed for a small test (no special skill needed)
« on: December 22, 2013, 07:40:11 pm »
Okay the above was worded too harshly and I understand what an endless mess spam creates on forums. So I apologize.
I am just concerned that such an unorthodox screening mechanism as this will block many would-have-been future contributors to this game.
I am just concerned that such an unorthodox screening mechanism as this will block many would-have-been future contributors to this game.
14
Discussion / Re: Several users needed for a small test (no special skill needed)
« on: December 21, 2013, 02:08:07 am »The registration question is:
What is the name of Duke's latest girfriend ?
I have no fucking clue. What am I missing here?
Have any new forum registrants been able to get passed this besides your girlfriend?
15
Artwork / Re: UNO mark on armours and uniforms
« on: December 15, 2012, 12:59:10 am »This is a celtic fascist in Italy
Or maybe it is a martian communist in Poland?