project-navigation
Personal tools

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.


Messages - Vio

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4
16
Mapping / Re: Impressions about base defence
« on: September 03, 2009, 11:44:23 pm »
The battle did not start outdoors (although I met one or two tamans on the surface near the entrance).

I was just wondering why the surface looks like it does, instead of being, you know, a *secret* base.

17
Artwork / Re: Symbols for the geoscape
« on: September 03, 2009, 11:29:33 pm »
I'm back.

What do you need?
Once we agree on a concept, I'm glad to help.

18
Feature Requests / Re: about realism
« on: August 18, 2009, 11:55:23 am »
It's just bugged. Often you can't even see through them.


Talikng about realism, I actually like the idea of needing to team up against the first aliens. It incrases the feeling of accomplishment when you win your first battle, or when you research more competitive weapons.

The story talks of entire batallions needed to repel a few Tamans, and the tech descriptions say things like "1 in 20 rockets hit". Considering that, the starting weapons are surprisingly effective.

There is of course the issue of gameplay, and new players' expectations. To them it has to be made absolutely clear that even the elite units are not supposed to be equally strong, and that they should plan on loosing a few men/craft, so they won't be frustrated by it.

To that end, it would also be helpful if planes could be damaged and cost money/time to repair instead of the current "all or nothing" approach.
This would create a more even expense of resources even in successful missions (as opposed to random losses) and encourage people to include this in their planning instead of making them save-load until things go perfectly.
The same holds true for auto-battles btw.




19
Discussion / Re: How you can help to speed up the next release?
« on: August 16, 2009, 07:00:56 pm »
My concern was less about entirely new features (for which this would certainly be a good solution) than modifications to existing things.

Say somebody had a good idea, but is unsure about just going ahead and coding it. He doesn't know whether someone else is already working on that particular part, whether there are concepts to follow, or plans that have already bee decided on, and is generally new to the area.

Searching and posting in the forums is a way, but it is tedious and unreliable imo. The info may be outdated, and some post saying "I'd like to help with x" could easily be missed by those it concerns.

A talk with the most recent author, otoh, could fill him in on the situation, future plans, other contributors, and the ways they could work together in a matter of one or two messages.
It would make things quicker and easier. That's all I'm saying.



20
Bugs prior to release 2.3 / Re: Whoa! Game-Crashing bug...
« on: August 16, 2009, 06:32:27 pm »
I did try it again once but then they were "solid" again.
I think the first time I saw this it was when the civilian was blocking a door, so there was no way around him. Not reproduced so far.

21
Coding / Re: New Campaign Intro Sequence
« on: August 16, 2009, 06:20:31 pm »
I'll see what I can do. It certainly is an important step towards user friendliness.

Just little time right now.
And I have to learn how to create and implement text. - So far I used the strings already in the script.

22
Design / Re: My comments on the design/gameplay
« on: August 16, 2009, 06:14:15 pm »
This sounds great.

I have some interest in neuroscience / game theory / psychology, as well as game design, and creating AI would be something new. Plus I think this is what really makes or breaks the tactical battles. So once you start doing this I'd be glad to help.

Good luck out there.

23
Design / Re: My comments on the design/gameplay
« on: July 30, 2009, 02:11:03 pm »
Hey

Before I'm off to, as it turns out, visit Odie in Singapore, I wanted to drop a few more lines about my experience with the dev version. It's still R25186 from Jul 16, and some of the things I will say or have said may have been resolved already (I hear the intro sequence is now better, for example... haha).
But I assume that not too many people play the latest dev versions from start, through the entire campaign, and as a first time player, so I'll share a few impressions from that point of view.


All in all, it's a great game - which is most important, before pointing out only what needs improvement. It succeeds well at stealing time which was intended for other important things, like sleeping. ;)

The only real (and known, but big) problems are within the battlescape. One is the pathfinding, aliens shooting walls, and the "action camera" not showing things (as in: knowing someone has been injured / reaction fired only from the sounds while watching the edge of the map). The other, most grave one, are crashes back to geoscape during the AI's turn, which were rather frequent especially in farm maps - and made me ignore some missions which kept doing this.

As for the rest of the game, the campaign scripts could be improved. For one, there are lots and lots of weaker ufos as opposed to, say, some stronger/grouped ones that one has to leave alone at times. This gets a little tedious, especially if the missions are all the same. I now finally started seeing some Ortnoks (in August 84)... a point where I have, in the rest of the game, researched everything (except particle rifles, which haven't shown up yet) and covered the globe with bases. Too late, I think.

Alternatively, even if the aliens were all the same - what makes it repetitive is that they all act the same. I.e., shoot direct fire-weapons and hide in predictable places. They never use grenades (unless they carry one when you spawn next to them), or any other variety of weapons. I know that improving that is somewhere at the bottom of the AI todo list. But I wanted to stress how important this is. There are more than enough weapons for the Phalanx - give some to the aliens, and make them use them in less predictable ways!
I would love it if they had, say, a grenade launcher. Or some kind of flamer, and someone who charges your flank with it. Where is the scary Chryssalid? That alone, some more variety there, would keep those missions interesting ENDLESSLY.
At least, again, let those aliens who use differnet combat styles (Bloodspiders) see some action earlier.

The repetitive missions made me use the "auto mission" feature a lot. In combination with save-cheat, of course, since for now it's an all-or-nothing blackjack gamble that invites this kind of tactic. Obviously, a better design soultion here would be an intermediate result based on numbers, equipment and maybe the players' average performance, plus laziness penalty.

Finally, there were some minor difficulties like finding out how to destroy base installations (that one took me a while... and it's possible to cut off your entrance), aircraft particle beams having no ammo, abovesaid ufo recovery/yard issues and, naturally, a few gaps regarding the airplanes in development (Starchaser has Stiletto stats and flies backwards, and creates incomplete log messages, the others don't start at all yet, even with antimatter in store).

Apart from that, or even with that, I had much fun. And I'm looking forward to getting back to it at the end of the month.


See you around
Vio


24
I completely agree, also about the article discussing "good art".

Though this applies to all kinds of contributions. My motivation to help with Ufo2000, for instance, died when they released a new version that rendered all the maps I made the month before unplayable. This was fixed at some later point, but by then I had moved on.

On a positive note, while reading, I recognized many things this project is doing right. Constantly providing new dev versions, for example, even for other platforms.
So... keep up the good work.

25
Feature Requests / Re: Model for reaction fire
« on: July 27, 2009, 09:54:22 pm »
It has no use in getting it implemented, if you think that was his goal.
But let's assume that he just wanted to share the idea anyway, and maybe get some feedback.

Because I think the basic idea is not bad, and it's always good if people get creative.
It's just too complicated for casual players to use well imo. And looks like a bitch to code.
So I also understand why it was rejected.

26
Coding / Re: New Campaign Intro Sequence
« on: July 27, 2009, 09:42:13 pm »
Actually, because those crosses appear later, they are above the text. It took me some tweaking to make them appear between the lines. ;)

They are less prominent, but that is deliberate. They also last not as long as the Mumbai one, because they are meant to be an "etc. etc." background thing.

If you have an idea how to improve the sequence, go ahead - it's still open, and the code is easy. But I agree that it is probably not so simple. Especially because whatever you do, it also has to work with all the translations.

27
Feature Requests / Re: Proposal for 2.4 TODOs
« on: July 26, 2009, 12:10:00 pm »
@Mattn
What exactly would that look like? Isn't there some kind of AI in the works that generates missions based on "alien interest"?

Apart from that, the .ufo scripts really are easy to understand. I would encourage anyone to give those a try.

28
Coding / Re: New Campaign Intro Sequence
« on: July 26, 2009, 02:12:10 am »
Scratch that... looks like it was just a typo.

I had another look at it, and now have an updated version with a nicer ending.
Besides, I found out a few more things that allowed me to clean up the code, tested it with other languages and tweaked some timings.

So here it is. Enjoy.

29
Coding / Re: New Campaign Intro Sequence
« on: July 25, 2009, 07:31:03 pm »
I know. But the bigger version is a .tga and apparently only .jpg works.

It's more like a placeholder at the moment.

30
Quote
But the gun shot ended at the wall of the ship or some building, thus this is different as described here

I don't think it is. It's the same behaviour.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4