project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: 2.3 Don't Flame  (Read 10417 times)

odie

  • Guest
Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2009, 05:36:14 am »
You can read the story here And even download a - not yet ready - patch.

-geever
Haha, how nice. how nice!

I am glad its committed. I have compiled this and uploaded into filefront le. :) See the sticky. :P

Now i will start a new game (again.... for the hmmmm i thnk 14th or was it 15th time in 3 months lol.... i tracked). Hehe.

Offline geever

  • Project Coder
  • PHALANX Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 2561
    • View Profile
Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2009, 08:02:37 pm »
That patch is already committed to trunk. Stairs workin', but experienced some regressions again :S.

-geever

odie

  • Guest
Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
« Reply #17 on: March 22, 2009, 01:48:06 pm »
That patch is already committed to trunk. Stairs workin', but experienced some regressions again :S.

-geever

Ooooo, i got my first mission last nite. And i noticed that the stairs have some 'wierd' behaviours...... wat kind of regressions are we supposed to be looking out for??

Looks like i need to spend more time on this. Lol. :P

Offline geever

  • Project Coder
  • PHALANX Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 2561
    • View Profile
Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
« Reply #18 on: March 22, 2009, 02:26:29 pm »
RMA. Some tiles are not accessible again even if they're flat. I suppose it's an old bug been reintroduced. :(

-geever

odie

  • Guest
Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2009, 03:22:27 am »
RMA. Some tiles are not accessible again even if they're flat. I suppose it's an old bug been reintroduced. :(

-geever
Ah, that sounds unfamiliar..... I am not aniwhere into the map engines..... But i did noticed last nite at one of the mission, that THAT tile for going up seemed wierd.

I leave u folks to meddle that whilst i still check the other areas i am familiar with. :P I will keep my eyes peeled and glued to that stairs development! Gosh, i am sure this has been ABX*@#&*(## for the developers. *chill*.

*offers a cool cup of nice fruppucino to each team member*

Offline homunculus

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 387
    • View Profile
Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2009, 06:35:43 am »
[...]be more vocal in the forum and share any ideas you have.[...]
yeah, why are we naming skills 'accuracy' and 'explosives' (as if the grenades would explode better) instead of basing them on the types of actions you make, which would give us 'snipe', 'burst', 'recoil', and 'throw' skills.
any means any, right?

i wonder how many contributors are at least somewhat dedicated and how many are like me.
you know, maybe play ufo:ai when bored of some other game, then maybe read this forum if bored of playing, and when bored of the forum, then maybe make some minor contribution.

maybe a poll would be nice.
might give a pretty good idea about how far the next release might be.

odie

  • Guest
Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2009, 09:12:45 am »
yeah, why are we naming skills 'accuracy' and 'explosives' (as if the grenades would explode better) instead of basing them on the types of actions you make, which would give us 'snipe', 'burst', 'recoil', and 'throw' skills.
any means any, right?
Woooooo..... I guess the terminologies are military in nature and i thnk most are good.
Generally, there are 2 types of stats i believe - Attributes and Skills.

If u r a RPG player (Role Playing Gamer), you will pick this up immediately.
Attributes are like - Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma.
(Which i thnk maybe we should model after....)

As for skills - these refer to the things they are good (or bad) at....
Eg, Magic, Swordsmanship, Blunt weapons, etc.....

For UFOAI context, these are under the skills category including - Sniper, Assault, Explosives, etc.
These are simply proficiencies of weaponary which can be and definately will be affected by the soldier's intelligence (Think complex weaponary), dexterity (think nimbleness in assaulting in FIBUA), and even strength (think of it this way, a poor 45kg skinny dude trying to manage a complex Rocket launcher which easily weigh 20kg.).

Maybe this could clear up something as to why the stats are as such?
FYI, the stats for ATTRIBUTES do not increase as quickly as would skills.....
Since ATTRIBUTES are quite there already and only increases over a VERY long time.
Whilst SKILLS, well, dont we all get real proficient in firing an M16 after just 1 week of constant practise.

i wonder how many contributors are at least somewhat dedicated and how many are like me.
you know, maybe play ufo:ai when bored of some other game, then maybe read this forum if bored of playing, and when bored of the forum, then maybe make some minor contribution.

maybe a poll would be nice.
might give a pretty good idea about how far the next release might be.

Haha, that i dunnoe. :P I cant even say i am uber dedicated (as i do get sidetracked by real work in life and occasional interesting programs like open sourced stuff). :P But u do see many folks like myself ard. Haha. So I guess everyone here are generally pilgrims of UFOAI? :P

Offline BTAxis

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *******
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2009, 09:26:18 am »
There has been any amount of discussion on the naming of the skills, and everyone wanted something else. That leads to conclude that any naming convention is as good as any other, and that means the current one is preferred (because it doesn't involve renaming everywhere).

Offline homunculus

  • Sergeant
  • *****
  • Posts: 387
    • View Profile
Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
« Reply #23 on: March 24, 2009, 10:24:02 am »
uhh, lol, btw if you (@odie) notice the 'any' that was highlighted red in the quote in my previous post, the skills suggestion (although i like it myself) was given as an example of a retarded suggestion.
continuing the same style as about the stats and rpg-s i should also helpfully mention that in order to see it red, you need a color monitor and some appropriate settings and confs ; )

why i posted it at all was because the idea of posting any suggestions is not so bad in itself imho.
a list of what kind of suggestions are actually wanted might be suboptimal, though.
i read somewhere in the forum about making a list of suggestions that are _not_ wanted, i think this sounds like a nice idea.

as for "lazy" contributors, i hope the numbers compensate for that (actually, assuming the contributors have a rl, they rather need to be lazy to contribute).
but it would be reassuring to know that there are at least 10 people that are somewhat reliable.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 01:02:42 pm by homunculus »

Offline Captain Bipto

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
« Reply #24 on: March 24, 2009, 08:09:31 pm »
wait, is someone making fun of me?

Anyhow, i'll freely admit that I only play this game when I want to.

odie

  • Guest
Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2009, 11:13:41 am »
uhh, lol, btw if you (@odie) notice the 'any' that was highlighted red in the quote in my previous post, the skills suggestion (although i like it myself) was given as an example of a retarded suggestion.
continuing the same style as about the stats and rpg-s i should also helpfully mention that in order to see it red, you need a color monitor and some appropriate settings and confs ; )
Haha, as a matter of fact, i dun. lol. I see only the words and main points. :P

why i posted it at all was because the idea of posting any suggestions is not so bad in itself imho.
a list of what kind of suggestions are actually wanted might be suboptimal, though.
i read somewhere in the forum about making a list of suggestions that are _not_ wanted, i think this sounds like a nice idea.

as for "lazy" contributors, i hope the numbers compensate for that (actually, assuming the contributors have a rl, they rather need to be lazy to contribute).
but it would be reassuring to know that there are at least 10 people that are somewhat reliable.
Dun worry abt this though. Haha. I thnk all ideas are good to suggest..... that is unless they are plain dumb. Urs not one. :P

As for contributors who dun really search the forums for ideas already contributed, (i.e. repeated debates), well.... cant help those, but point em to read previous discussions. Lol.