• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About jamoecw

  • Rank
  • Birthday 04/10/1982
  1. if you never tell the developer what is wrong, how can he tell what needs to be fixed? besides only people that play the game care if a game is fixed or not, so people that say everything is great and wonderful might just be kissing up (even if they have nothing to gain). FTL is a good game, he should be proud of what he made, and not need people to tell him that. people that tell you what is wrong help you improve, people that tell you what is right make you feel good. if all you hear is what is wrong, eventually you'll be a god who thinks himself a man. if all you hear is what is right, eventually you'll be a man who thinks himself a god. i'd prefer the former to the later.
  2. i may not be the most responsive person here, but if you post it, i will test it. besides it would be nice to have a decent map for using the door breachers. it also bugs me about the lack of a secure layout on scifi ships in general, definitely a must with any military vessel.
  3. well overall i'd say the thing that sets xcom:eu apart from other turn based games are the in game scenematics. most elements that are done right are taken from other games, either fantasy turnbased games, tabletop rpgs, or xcomish games. most elements that are done wrong could have been done right if taken from those same sources. i doubt it will do well due to the fact that they are reinventing the wheel, instead of learning from what others have done. some examples of easily fixed flaws: movement - basically taken from tabletop rpgs, being able to move a little bit then move again in order to pick a path, until you are done is something that pretty much is always allowed, for obvious reasons made crystal clear when games decide for you. luckless shots - in tabletop rpgs having an interchangeable order for shooting and movement allows for deciding whether to increase odds of a successful shot in exchange for greater sacrifice for a failed roll, such as choosing to move forward to get a better shot then shooting, if it misses then the guy is going to suffer retaliation (how it is in eu), or one can chose to take the shot from where they are, resulting in the ability to move to a safer area should it miss. in jagged alliance 2 (not sure about the first game) the shots tended to follow more of a bell curve, with each shot calculated in a realistic way so that rapid fire wasn't just 3-4 shots at the same accuracy (which would just compound accuracy of a single shot, making balance tough). fallout 1 had the range determine the scale, while cover and such modifies the chance on the scale, which means that if you have a high chance of crit based on range you would have at least that amount of chance to hit, making close accurate shots less risky, while making far off shots more so (which gives benefit towards actually getting close, instead of just flanking or blowing them up). enemy activation - in tabletop rpgs when encountering an enemy suddenly, there is a surprise round, which is a half round, allowing the surpriser (and only the surpriser) to do something before others can react, sort of like as if before the enemy activated it would allow for either a move or shoot from one of your soldiers (providing he has the tick for it) before they run for cover. also in tabletop rpgs if someone does something on an opponent's turn, they end up using their own turn's action to do so (so no getting a double move). fallout had plenty of people walking around and being kept track of in realtime, in fact more so than there are aliens on a map, so the delay of simply having them move from point a to point b shouldn't be too much for the alien's turn, unless they decide to have random maps at some point (the trick is to not have the aliens calculate anything combat related until they are in fact 'activated,' which wouldn't result in insta move since they would already be in position, or properly ambushed). all in all i'd say it is a good first step for a modern AAA turn based game, the second game will probably fix all of the easy to fix stuff, and possibly make some innovations else where, though fraxis isn't known for making sequels to it's own games (unless it is civilization).
  4. just did a force update, and it worked. at least i am at the install stage, which is usually past the mcf error stage (download stage). i force updated desura: start menu>desura>desura (force update). after the client updated itself i was able to update the game.
  5. how long have you been diving chris, i have been diving well over half my life. p.s. enjoy the food, from what i hear the food is cheap plentyful and good in thailand.
  6. well the core of desura is better than steam, you don't have to be connected to get to your games, and the desura games don't need a desura load up shell. steam has some great features, a better network, and a much stronger line up of games with better sales. origin is new, and used mass effect 3 as its catch to get started. impulse is old, and never really took off, but didn't fall into the same coding issues that steam did. in short if you want to be sure you can play the game you bought, go for desura. if you want neat community features, go for steam, unless you fear a monopoly taking over the game industry, then go for either origin. impulse is not quite steam or desura, but fills a niche somewhere in between. i personally remember the days when big studios bought out little studios, and the games were either innovative and half done, or well polished and simply a clone. the time when blizzard was king of quality, before WOW (not saying WOW is bad). as a result i fear a monopoly and so i like any decent competition for steam.
  7. well i hope lee's house is okay, not the best thing to be homeless with a new born. if no one has heard there was loads of flooding exactly as predicted by the experts, though some people are surprised that areas different than the katrina floodings got flooded.
  8. got a recent promotion to ET3 (E-4), USNR.
  9. in my experience (also lives in california) if the cops are hitting up honest people for ticket money then they probably are doing so for some shortfall in the law enforcement area of government. therefore the safest places can be seen by police not hassling honest folk, and also clean streets. look at walnut creek, martinez and oakland. in walnut creek the cops are around, but rarely do you see them pulling anyone over, typically they sit back and watch. in oakland if you call them they might ask you if you are getting robbed at this very second, and if not then they probably won't bother. in martinez you most likely will get pulled over if you drive a nice car, and if you dress nice you'll get a nice fat ticket. haven't really spent much time in irvine though, so maybe it is an oddity.
  10. at first i though they might do something innovative for air interception, but then it seemed like they were dumbing it down, and the screen shots make it look like it is pretty much the same thing. the news about multiplayer seems odd, like the guy never did actually bother to find out why the ME fans were worried about multiplayer. i hope he isn't the brains behind this new xcom.
  11. i've actually thought about this a lot ever since i beat halo 2 with a friend. short answer: yes. long answer: the end needs to reflect why you played the game, not story wise, but game wise. if you played the game for the cut scenes then you need to have a nice cut scene at the end. if you played in order to build your character up, you need that building to mean something in the end. if you played for the challenge, then you need the ending to be challenging. in halo 2 the end of the game played very different than the rest of the game, it was an adventure style puzzle level, so it didn't offer much of what i had been playing the game for. there were cut scenes as well, and the cut scene at the end was just a cliffhanger scene like what happens right before a mission, not even an act ending cut scene was played but one that told me i was going to get an acceptable ending, and then ... nothing. everyone knows about the flop of mass effect 3. in the first game it played out as a first person RPG first and foremost (slow paced, emphasis on skill/equipment use). the second game played out as a FPS first and foremost (faster paced, emphasis on shot placement/ammo conservation/smart though limited power use), it also added a lot to decision consequences, cut scenes, and character development. the third game had nearly the same core game as ME2, good cut scenes, many decisions from the previous game came back (as opposed to the less than 10 from the first to the second), characters that were still developing came to a nice stopping point for an ending. there was no ammo conservation, though there was still shot placement, there was many end game powers available, with preset 'combos' to amplify their power, so smart power use wasn't necessary. the enemies you did face were clumped together, resulting in fast spamming of combos and ammo, with less encounters overall in the game and frequent 'adventure' style mini bosses. overall ME3 was lacking, ME2 didn't have that great of a boss. ME2 made up for a poor boss with great end game cut scenes, so most people that were thrilled about ME3 came because of the cut scenes. ME3 had no end game boss, and poor end game cut scenes, while throughout the game, the one aspect that was consistently good were the cut scenes and wrapping up of characters. alpha centauri (by fraxis) is a civ like game, through out the game you have steady gameplay, punctuated with a screen of text at certain times or research points which are significant to the story (which isn't what is important to a civ game if you didn't already know). there are no bosses, but when you defeat other factions or become stronger the enemy gets more hostile, resulting in an increasingly hostile world. the game lacks any sort of boss, but you get story text with increased frequency as you get closer to the end, culminating with a end game story text telling you about your world after you win. this game has no special cut scenes or bosses or anything else that most people would consider a 'big finish', however you do get a 'big finish' with regards of what the game had in reaching the end. ME3 a 'finish,' halo2 had a 'small finish' and alpha centauri a 'big finish.' ME3 had a long cut scene, halo2 a short one (relatively), and alpha centauri none at all. people tend to notice the major flaws and lose sight of the minor ones, so if you are going to screw up make sure you have a major one that easily fixable, that way you can make a big deal out of it and then fix it, and people will see how much better the game is with the fix and not really notice the numerous small flaws for some time.
  12. actually if you are the commander of a global military force pretty much every decision laid before you will have numbers attached up the wazoo. sitting in the command center with a report saying that if you give the go ahead on the shot that it will have a ~65% chance to connect will be very realistic. what is unrealistic about the numbers presented is that it doesn't give numbers on what will happen when you connect with the shot, especially on that completely unknown alien that no one knows anything about. really exact numbers aren't really necessary in games like this, jagged alliance did away with the numbers. the problem is what people consider to be 'low' 'moderate' 'likely' and 'certain.' which is why numbers are generally preferred. Alien Invasion went ahead and used the engine they were using to allow a first person perspective on characters so they could judge a shot before it was made. one could even autocalc the battle, as far as immersion goes that is pretty realistic for the 70's, as satellite coverage is supposed to be nonexistent, and real time battlefield command and control didn't exist. as for medkits, the original xcom didn't have the medkits do any healing at all. they stabilized a region on the body, and countered to a limited degree the degradation the injury had on performance. a lot of people didn't bother with medkits, since they didn't do much, and generally speaking if you were hit hard enough to get through your armor then it was probably enough to kill. only in cases were the armor and weapon strength were fairly balanced did the medkit come into play (assuming you didn't chuck it for extra ammo). if i were to make a dream remake of xcom, i would have the chopper flying around with troops in it at the start of a mission, and i would have to deploy them either by rope or by landing, while having a door gunner and what ever other choppers i brought to support the mission. all the while having to worry about the aliens and their unknown anti air capability, do i drop my troops right on top of the ufo, or start them half a mile or so back? on the geoscape i would have to decide if i wanted to paradrop them or allow more time to pass in order to get a chopper out to the site. do i do scorched earth around the ufo in order to keep the aliens penned into their ufo, or do i try and keep the infrastructure intact? do i arm a nation in hopes of them helping against the aliens, or do i keep control in order to ensure that they don't start a war with their enemies? do i give away artifacts to various scientists around the world in hopes of making my own weapons, or do i focus on adapting them in order to equip my soldiers with them? do i start building super bunkers in order to concentrate the my defenses later on, or spend the money on better coverage? do i focus on being able to deploy hundreds of troops per ufo, or just an elite handful?
  13. the ufo: X games were a big let down with their non endless supply of troops at your disposal, in a game like that i can see having your soldiers getting knocked out instead of dying (i dislike the term permadeath). the biggest factor in xcom is the equipment being used, you retain the tech level, and might even recover the equipment itself, so the loss of a troop, no matter how elite is significantly different than the games that actually coined the term permadeath (JRPGs). in those games when your character died it was game over, have to restart from the beginning, this game is nowhere close to that. so all in all, no this game does not have permadeath, though it does have death. why doesn't it have permadeath? because you only suffer an experience and money loss with each death. if you compare this game to diablo 1 (a western RPG which isn't considered to have permadeath, aside from hardcore mode) you can see that only the ufo: X games had permadeath. what you are asking for is somewhere between godmode and just plain old death, sometimes referred to as the party death system (only death of the entire party results in any penalty what so ever).
  14. in the original xcom this tactic was able to be used, but instead of total disregard for adjacent friendlies, it was a significantly reduced chance for friendly fire. similar to shooting through an adjacent window, sometimes you still hit the frame (which is pretty bad for the situation of adjacent friendly). tanks were also a great source of mobile cover, a miss into cover rarely resulted in damage of any significance early on. the thing that gets me currently with adjacent friendlies, is grenades. you can't throw a grenade over someone else if they are right next to you. i am sure chris will have this sorted out before the final version.
  15. i think Thothkins suggestion is the best solution, though Gorlom's would be the easiest to implement (using Flying Disc's map of course).