Messages

1

Discussion / Re: Trying to contribute to manual ... made a small mistake -> need help fixing that

« on: September 28, 2010, 01:11:09 am »

i  do agree with bayo, that maybe the pics should be without text, because text in the image has the mayor drawback, that it's hard to change, while the benefit of not having to scroll isn't so essential.

i mean: i see your pount h-hour, but i think in the cost-benefit analysis a seperation between pics and text may be slightly more favourable

But thats just my opinion ^^

Moony

2

Discussion / Re: Trying to contribute to manual ... made a small mistake -> need help fixing that

« on: September 25, 2010, 02:03:42 pm »

Thx for the answer H-H

yeah ... i was planning to do the battlescape one anyways.
it was just a lil bit more work so i did the others first ...
I hope my crude MS-paint markings are OK... i'm not the artistic type ^^

is the above link now the correct one? you want me to mark up that one?
[EDIT] i updated the Battlescape page in the manual ... its still rather crude .. but its a start and i included the marked up screenshot[/EDIT]

and what about making a media category for educationally marked screenshots?

Ah and i replaced the File:Manual_LOS1.png with File:Manual_LOS1.JPG ... so maybe you want to delete the PNG as thats 2 MB of space wasted
[EDIT] thx for deleting the superplus file mattn, you are a fast [/EDIT]

Moony

3

Bugs prior to release 2.3 / Re: flashbangs missing in 2.3?

« on: September 25, 2010, 09:07:00 am »

IIRC there was/is a problem with the flashbang and they are currently disabled

I think it was the TU reservation system..... or the new RF system

When they fix that, they'll be back i guess

4

Discussion / Trying to contribute to manual ... made a small mistake -> need help fixing that

« on: September 24, 2010, 10:44:48 am »

Hi,

i was trying to give the manual part of the wiki some love and wanted to upload some screenshots. I uploaded rather big png files (1 MB) instead of JPGs. (File:Manual_LOS1.png)

Maybe some1 with sysop rights may want to delete that.

Ah and btw i think a media category for screenshots to be used in the manual would be nice.

Thanks

Moony

5

Discussion / Re: Issue with MG performance

« on: September 23, 2010, 11:12:06 pm »

Sarin:
It's not about the MG being usefull or not.
My point being that in the current state the MG lacks in the definition of its core role. Which imho should be suppresion fire.


Hertzila:
After RF gets fixed, my point is still valid.

6

Discussion / Issue with MG performance

« on: September 23, 2010, 08:44:08 am »

Hi folks,

I’ve got to say I love 2.3, great job!
I have a small issue with the ways my heavy fire support performs though, as explained below:

Assumption:

As I understand it every weapon has its specific purpose in the game. For machine guns and similar heavy fire support weapons the main purpose should be to provide suppressing fire, which in UFO is simulated by reaction fire.
As far as I know the current RF system, which is great (in theory ^^), compares the TU cost for my RF with the TUs spend by the enemy (I’m not sure about that, if that is not so, than please explain and disregard my post).

Problem:

The machine gun’s fastest mode of fire (5 shot burst) still needs a LOT of TUs. Therefore usually the enemy will walk into the MGs field of vision, shoot, walk back into cover and the MG won’t react. -> no suppression fire -> sad MG

Proposed Solution:

Quick and dirty (could be implemented with very little effort):
Give an additional mode of fire to MGs, some kind of snap shot with low TU cost, maybe a 2 or 3 shot burst. This solution has the major drawback of giving the MG a lot more mobility which gives it more versatility and therefore a less defined role (that’s bad).

Better solution (but more work):
Add a new mode of fire to every weapon which will exclusively be used for reaction fire. This new mode of fire may or may not be similar to the already existing modes of fire. For the MGs I’d propose a 3 shot burst for 8 TU’s cost. This would give the MG great suppression fire while maintaining it’s more stationary role. And I think this would benefit the other weapons as well. For example I think assault guns feel way more assault gunish  if they shoot short burst for RF.

Please let me know what you think. And thanks for your time.

Moony