1
Discussion / Re: Feedback 2.3
« on: August 29, 2010, 10:22:28 am »Hi Merlin and welcome from me as well
Well, geever was faster than me and said exactly what I wanted to say, so I saved some time
As you can see from those discussions, we have numerous 'junior game designers' around here. So simple approaches like yours (to get things started) won't stand the test of discussion.
As you are a professional, I see two major areas of work for you:
1) bugfixing. We don't have so many devs that are able to fix *any* bug.
2) encapsulation. We started the tedious task to work the code towards a more OO design. Maybe one fine day (2084 ?) we can switch to C++.
You can get much applause from the users for #1. For #2, you'll 'only' get kudos from a few admins. But #2 will always fit into your time table
Hi, thanks for the responses guys. I tend to prefer simple solutions because they actually get implemented. I've had a look at the medkit diffs and there's some interesting stuff there, however I can't help thinking it would have been nice to fix what is effectively a bug for the latest release, without getting so bogged down in multiple wound locations etc. I'd have thought multiple wound locations could have been added later, e.g. when it became possible to target particular locations (which would presumably require creation of a body graphic as well, so that could be reused to show where wounds were).
I'm more than happy to bugfix, it's a significant part of what my job involves anyway. It will take me a while to get up to speed though, bearing in mind I've never programmed in C before, never used SourceForge before, etc. We use quite low level C++, so I didn't have any problems understanding the medkit diffs, but there are C vs. C++ style differences (how something is done) as much as anything else. Bug fixing would probably make more sense until I understand how you want to do encapsulation, for example. When I'm a bit more comfortable with the code I might have a look at picking up the medkit stuff.
One final point on features (and I know you have more features than you have coders!): is armour facing anywhere on the ToDo list? I always quite liked that it in the X-Com games there was a tactical element to which way your soldiers faced. If you get hit on the front then even with quite weak armour you had a chance, whereas if you got hit from behind then even with the super armour you could get damaged. It's also quite realistic, as soldiers and tanks do have stronger armour where they're most likely to be hit, i.e. on the front.
Keep up the good work- I will try to help out where I can.