Difference between revisions of "Talk:Proposals/Smoke Inhalation"

From UFO:AI
Line 4: Line 4:
 
** I don't know about this. Partly I feel like we're talking about such short bursts of time that a soldier ought to be able to be in smoke temporarily without any adverse effects. Partly I think that it would be very difficult to communicate this effect to players. On the other hand, I have thought about a basic accuracy penalty if a soldier has no line-of-sight to their target. But I've hesitated because I fear it will undermine smoke too much (and we still need it in badly). --[[User:H-hour|H-hour]] 16:27, 21 March 2013 (SAST)
 
** I don't know about this. Partly I feel like we're talking about such short bursts of time that a soldier ought to be able to be in smoke temporarily without any adverse effects. Partly I think that it would be very difficult to communicate this effect to players. On the other hand, I have thought about a basic accuracy penalty if a soldier has no line-of-sight to their target. But I've hesitated because I fear it will undermine smoke too much (and we still need it in badly). --[[User:H-hour|H-hour]] 16:27, 21 March 2013 (SAST)
 
*** Hehe, I was thinking the same about the accurace without a LoS. The skill malus was just an idea. I am fine with the proposed way. --[[User:ShipIt|ShipIt]] 17:32, 21 March 2013 (SAST)
 
*** Hehe, I was thinking the same about the accurace without a LoS. The skill malus was just an idea. I am fine with the proposed way. --[[User:ShipIt|ShipIt]] 17:32, 21 March 2013 (SAST)
 +
 +
 +
== Smoke Points (SP) and Stun Damage ==
 +
DarkRain brought up some important points in a PM, so I'm copying them here:
 +
* If it is OK to (ab)use the stun damage, system it should be pretty easy, on the other hand, while implementing separate SP isn't that hard, it would be fairly more involved. (DarkRain)
 +
** I'd rather not use the stun damage if possible, simply because it is one of those solutions that will lend itself to a lot of questions about why the two things are linked. But I think it's fine if this doesn't make it into 2.5. It's not a necessary balancing mechanism. But since you bring up the stun damage, that will lead to some UI confusion too. Doesn't stun already cover the HP bar in grey? (H-Hour)
 +
*** Yes, it does. And since we are discussing stun damage vs SP, what would be the relation between stun and SP damage, would they interact in any way? (DarkRain)
 +
**** I don't know. To be honest I hadn't really thought that through. And I must confess when you said "stun" before I was confusing it with "shock". I will have to think about this some more. Maybe it's not such a bad thing for smoke to cause stun damage. We've already got stun_gas which is basically smoke that stuns. I guess the first major issue I can think of is that if a unit is stunned they should stay down for several turns, but my plan for the smoke was for it to be a pretty quick recovery once out of the smoke. But since we can't pick up soldiers and move them, maybe the smoke would accumulate and it would be several turns before a soldier recovered anyway. (H-Hour)

Revision as of 13:59, 24 March 2013

  • Would there be a resistance system, like the one for the gas grenades? The Power Armour is supposed to be airtight, so if a soldier wears one he cannot be affected. --ShipIt 12:16, 21 March 2013 (SAST)
    • Good point. --H-hour 16:27, 21 March 2013 (SAST)
  • How about a malus for skills/stats? Standing in smoke and the resulting lack of oxygen might lower the soldiers stats by using the proposed SP-system. So instead of falling unconscious he will have e.g. a lower accuracy until recovered? --ShipIt 12:16, 21 March 2013 (SAST)
    • I don't know about this. Partly I feel like we're talking about such short bursts of time that a soldier ought to be able to be in smoke temporarily without any adverse effects. Partly I think that it would be very difficult to communicate this effect to players. On the other hand, I have thought about a basic accuracy penalty if a soldier has no line-of-sight to their target. But I've hesitated because I fear it will undermine smoke too much (and we still need it in badly). --H-hour 16:27, 21 March 2013 (SAST)
      • Hehe, I was thinking the same about the accurace without a LoS. The skill malus was just an idea. I am fine with the proposed way. --ShipIt 17:32, 21 March 2013 (SAST)


Smoke Points (SP) and Stun Damage

DarkRain brought up some important points in a PM, so I'm copying them here:

  • If it is OK to (ab)use the stun damage, system it should be pretty easy, on the other hand, while implementing separate SP isn't that hard, it would be fairly more involved. (DarkRain)
    • I'd rather not use the stun damage if possible, simply because it is one of those solutions that will lend itself to a lot of questions about why the two things are linked. But I think it's fine if this doesn't make it into 2.5. It's not a necessary balancing mechanism. But since you bring up the stun damage, that will lead to some UI confusion too. Doesn't stun already cover the HP bar in grey? (H-Hour)
      • Yes, it does. And since we are discussing stun damage vs SP, what would be the relation between stun and SP damage, would they interact in any way? (DarkRain)
        • I don't know. To be honest I hadn't really thought that through. And I must confess when you said "stun" before I was confusing it with "shock". I will have to think about this some more. Maybe it's not such a bad thing for smoke to cause stun damage. We've already got stun_gas which is basically smoke that stuns. I guess the first major issue I can think of is that if a unit is stunned they should stay down for several turns, but my plan for the smoke was for it to be a pretty quick recovery once out of the smoke. But since we can't pick up soldiers and move them, maybe the smoke would accumulate and it would be several turns before a soldier recovered anyway. (H-Hour)