GrizzlyAdamz
-
Posts
15 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by GrizzlyAdamz
-
-
you really think that standing up and putting your rifle on top of your shield is a good idea? =p That would expose you to fire, and they what is holding up the shield? One shot and it'd totally fall over, then you'd be screwed
No sir I mean one-handed, using one hand to hold the shield and the other to fire the rifle perched upon the shield.
And, one can aim and fire a pistol with one hand. Accurately even, if you are to recall how short the barrel is, and thus how wide the sights are. And yes, it does work, an ak47 with a full clip is 11 pounds, which would not be the case, so it would be more like 6 pounds. Also try to extend your right elbow while bracing your left wrist on the right side of it. Mind you, this would be the hand that is holding the forestock, not the grip, and this would be the case for the other method as well.
then I would expect him to do it with 2. Why?The crass use of language is irrelevant to my idea and I was using it to illustrate that the soldier would not, in fact, be asking 'why?' but outright refusing to do it. This is called insubordination. It is a punishable offense in the military. If you are a soldier, and your commander tells you to carry two rifles, you don't backtalk, you don't question, a quizzical look can be pushing it with a hardass commander and little quips about it can still be excessive for lenient ones. This is fact. Even with the feet one, unless your commander was absolutely bonkers, (and this case would be very touchy business), you would have to attempt to carry it with your damn feet. This is fact.
a) not been knighted yet,I address people online this way to try to remain civil. Also, I already apologized for being verbose. I do so to try to communicate myself as best I can.
Is it different? Yes. Is it better? Maybe.Isn't this what we're debating? We've presented more cases than just the one where you need to get a medkit. Perhaps we need to anticipate tossing the rocketeer a new gun. Perhaps my clip ran out and there's still a live alien in front of me, but I can't retreat with the tus I have left. Perhaps I want to pass a grenade to a friend. Operating with the backpack is costly and dropping weapons on the ground presents problems of retrieval and immersion. There are problems, there are improvements that could be made. And so what if a player wants to run around like rambo? If it wouldn't be an exploit, (and it wouldn't with accuracy penalties, as have been discussed), there is no reason to prevent a player from shooting himself in the foot if he wants to do it.
Really? you're placing yourself next to Einstein?I also placed myself next to MLK jr. My point was that If what I say is true the fact that I haven't played is irrelevant.
I will have to post a very lengthy reply later. My apologies but things are pressing atm.
-
Balancing a small, one handed weapon on the side of a combat shield that you are also pointing in the direction you are aiming, you can get pretty accurate at that... =]
Vs bracing it against your elbow or a part of the rifle? If the combat shield is large enough to sit on the ground and provide a solid buttress, why couldn't I perch a rifle on that sombitch and have a field day?
But in this game you are a squad commander, as well as a base commander. You may as well argue that it's silly you can't get your men to carry their guns in their feet. Sure there will be the hell of an accuracy penalty, but they're your men right?Except that insubordination is frowned upon, & one cannot carry a rifle with one's feet. "Carry this second rifle son, the rocketeer in your squad only has 1 shot and is gonna need a new firearm after that", "Uh, sir, I'm better with just one so fuck yourself".
Also you're not a god. Otherwise the game would be a whole lot easier. 'UFO battleship on approach!' oh NO! 'It's alright, I'll just throw some lightning bolts' =pTry to grasp my meaning sir. By god, I mean my authority should be absolute.
That last sentence should be: Cases do arise where it might be needed, because I'm pretty sure that if we reworked the numbers a little in that example, we could find a way where it is not necessarySo, you're saying that the decisions I've made in previous cases where this system was utilized are invalid because, after all, there was another way to handle it? Please explain what you mean again, in different terms.
Perhaps you should try that?Yes, and Einstein's predictions of blackholes were unfounded until he tested one out. Please, my ignorance can indeed help cause illegitimate concerns, but this has no bearing on concerns that are, in fact, legitimate. Content of my ideas, not the color of my skin chap, (green).
As you quoted me you might want to look closely at it.
The phrase was "the only one I have thought slightly reasonable..."
This is my opinion in response to your opinion, there is nothing unfair about it as I felt that your
My apologies.
For example:Grenades have a separate button so don't need to be carried in the hand to be thrown.
Passing items to team members is to have some kind of pass command, this is not yet implemented.
Carrying two 2-handed weapons for the "cool" factor has no real tactical use so why waste dev time making it possible.
They have the cool factor, they allow for passing (tactical use), non-tactical content has a place in games, (crazy haircuts anyone?), and if we wish to argue logistics, again, then which would be more time-consuming: removing the ban on two-hand usage and utilizing the already-in-place carrying/throwing mechanisms or adding 2 new mechanisms for throwing grenades/passing items?
Pistol use in the off hand with a rifle in the main hand could have some use I guess if you run out of ammo on the rifle. Again I don't feel taking time and resources out to make this possible is necessary when you could just swap out the pistol and rifle as easily via the inventory.And, how many tus does it take to put your rifle in your backpack & take out your one-handed pistol to fire with both hands? You run out of ammo you aren't going to stow your rifle before taking careful aim downsights with your pistol, and the time consumption of these actions in rl reflect in the tu consumption in-game.
On my first point of this post though:
My feeling was that you downplayed the significance of our good points and accentuated those you disagreed with. This is biased.
As I felt the medikit was not adequately addressed I put forward a suggestion on how this could be done.At the end of my post I will detail exactly what I proposed on page 6.
As for the combat shield being a special case I would also add that all heavy weapons such as the flamethrower, machine gun, rocket launchers and possibly the precision rifles would also need to be special cases or risk overpowering the breaching side of the game.How so? Are you talking about a combo of any two of those? These circumstances are/would be balanced by significant aim penalties, extreme weight and even the possibility of hurting or killing yourself.
a lot of effort for no gain (dev wise).I refuse your assertion that there is no gain and also refuse your assertion that developer time is too valuable to waste on something that does, in my opinion, have merit. Whenever you claim this please keep in mind that you are discarding my assertions regardless of the fact that I'm not convinced they should be discarded. This only serves to insult me, sir, and I ask you to please focus on proving me wrong instead of proffering a casual off-hand slap.
No powerful weapon should be allowed alongside the pistol, especially if it retains a bonus to reaction fire.Why?
"I think you also need to look back at your own post and change the word "needed" with "desired".The current system gives you options for dealing with the situations you have mentioned as far as I can see.
That means the way you wish to do it is not needed it is simply a different way that you would prefer."
For fuck's sake people, 'seeing as how you could have taken out those bandits with magic or rushing in cudgel swinging, we should eliminate the ability to sneak.' Or we could just not implement that combat shield because you could toss a grenade in there. Fuck it, you can do just about everything with rocket launchers, BAN EVERYTHING BUT ROCKET LAUNCHERS.
There are many things I would like to see the limited dev time and budget used on, this change seems so minor to me that the time would be better used elsewhere.The dev is the sole proprietor of his time & budget. It is perfectly fair for you to want him to spend it elsewhere, but this in and of itself isn't a detractor from the merit of a suggestion at all; you're merely asserting what your own priority for changes is. Stifling innovation in one corner to spur your own priorities is a very selfish thing to do, and that's what this argument you're pushing is all about.
The proposition I've put forth is that the belt should be replaced with a quick-slot area, which you can place any host of compatible items in. This would be the source of quick-button grenades, allow for specialized roles involving medics & demo men, (sidearm out while moving about, quickslotted medpack takes over hands while in use), and could also allow for a sidearm for rocketeers/snipers/even out of ammo commandos, (again thus the whole 2-hander = fused hands = problem bit). Further this would allow for a very tactical use of inventory slots, (something which will please the hell out of inv managers), and yet also give a modicum of inventory management reduction, (quickslot instead of shuffling around in inv).
And with that note I sleep. Good day sir.
-
Could you run around with 2 rocket launchers in the original?
Yes, in fact, you could. Problem was they were heavy, (gl running around), two-handed (gl aiming), and you can’t have enough tus to fire them both, (I think snap shot is 55%).
You wouldn't be able to accurately fire your sidearm with your other hand holding your rifle. That's why they teach you how to support your pistol with 2 hands. That's why they don't teach police officers to go around carrying their guns akimbo...Excuse me, what I meant by accurately was as accurately as having a shield or medkit or what have you in the other hand. (this is the main draw of the one-handed pistol...)
well by all means I might expect them to say "WTF, I'm much better with just one."If you were a squad commander, you would expect your soldier to backtalk if you told him to carry 2 rifles? I doubt this. The same argument would be used to deny you the option of ordering your troops off ledges likely to incur falling damage.
Also, I’m a damn gamer, not a squad commander. As irritating as insubordination would be coming from a human being, the thought of it coming from a programmed fucker is infuriating, as extreme as that sounds. I figure it’s because, I’m the one that’s playing, I want to carry the rocket launchers, there is no other presence, no other will, there; I am loath to utter the words but I should be goddamn god. If you type a command into a dev console that would kill all your men, do you expect it to ignore you & chastise you for your attempt? My apologies for being verbose, but I am attempting to express emotion, (not quite as easy to do as one would think).
One major thing I see being missed is the balance of the game.Good point, dually noted. But I see the combat shield as a special case, and in this case couldn’t one add an additional weapon type which precludes two handers, (as the current two-hander system does), while allowing one-handers? Shit, I could see this type working for every two-handed item in the game, (with the penalization for everything but the combat shield), if not for my stand on the principle that I should be able to lug around two rocket launchers if I damn well felt like it. My opinion is that special measures should be made for the combat shield in particular to compensate for balance.
The only one I have thought slightly reasonable is swapping to a medikit etc.You attribute only the arguments that you dislike to our position, that’s hardly fair.
It’s not that ‘someday, sometime, I might want to use it’, its ‘I have used this system before, and I anticipate having to use it again’. Cases do arise where it is needed, as have been illustrated in this thread.
The entire point of dev is to spend time and money making changes that are needed. The fact that these things are consumed is already assumed and do not classify as a reason not to do something, instead only whether or not the change is needed is contested and relevant. This is what we are debating.
In that case you wouldn't need to run round with it in your hand, it would be fine to have it in your pack and have the option to use it when required, for example from the grenade button/quick inventory slot or a button on the weapon pane (maybe something opposite the fire mode for the current weapon if that isn't too confusing?).See my first post on page 6. I can see this taking a chunk of quickslot-belt slots, just as pistols & grenades could.
Have you actually tried the system as it stands thoroughly to see if it has any of the drawbacks you fear?Nope.
-
But cept realism backs their ability to use both hands though. If the launcher is designed to require two hands, (location of the trigger), that's a different thing, but realism dictates you should be able to run about with two assault rifles failing to do a rambo impression. I wholly back the realism, and realistically unless the soldier actually is rambo he should fail just about as quickly as he would irl. And in this regard you should be able to see where I'm coming from wanting the ability to unholster a pistol once I've spent my clip and fire it (accurately) without needing both hands clear.
-
With that many ifs and this level of luck, it sounds like a lot less overpowered and a lot more like a tactical decision---and awesome one.
-
Even with a range of 180*? I may not have played the game, but could that be overpowered? I could only possibly see that work in closequarters, and then your guy would die as well. sure would be fun though.
-
@gorlom
meh, that's a strawman argument, no one proposed such a thing. I considered taking it seriously & emphatically laying out why it is different and how it would be infeasible, but I'll save that for if/when you claim it is a serious proposal.
@Ad
That's the thing though. Despite whatever testing is done, or how extensive the dev is, unanticipated situations frequently arise. Look at the russian satellite that just crashed back to earth a few weeks ago. No one can anticipate every contingency.
You miss the point on the dual-wielding rocket launchers. If I want to tell my guy to carry a damn rocket on each shoulder and shoot 'em off without aiming, since when should that not be at my discretion? Quit tellin me how to play the damn game.
So, let me get this straight. No one should have the ability to easily throw grenades because you want to maybe/occasionally carry a medkit with one hand? A more elegant solution might be to equip more medkits perhaps?
The medkit was an example. Having 2 useable hands and being able to easily throw grenades aren't mutually exclusive.
Also, I'm now getting confused what the quick throw selection has to do with carrying rifles in one hand... they're separate things I think. I get that you can throw with one hand with the button, but now you want everything to be done with one hand as well? And for you it's everything with one hand, or nothing with one hand? Is that it?You think right, they aren't the same thing. What? I'm arguing that each individual hand should retain it's abilities independent of the other hand. Two-handers shouldn't fuse both hands to the weapon.
@gorlom
The only problem with that solution is that it still precludes random-firing 2 rocket launchers, and what you stated involving slot management. I protest in principle only.
-
Euch, I see I'm now one of 'you guys'.
I think the reason the two-handed system was opposed was because it precluded doing anything with only one hand. You shouldn't have to drop your rifle to throw a grenade, you shouldn't have to drop it to fire a pistol. This is the problem the op took issue with.
For quickslotting, the proposed solution to the original problem, I can see this working, as detailed in my first post on p6.
As for opposing for the sake of itself, I take exception only in specific circumstances, ie making things 'easier and clearer' isn't always good. Case & point why I dislike apple; it makes things easier and clearer, at the expense of user control. Same thing here.
I want to be able to fuck myself over because: there may be a situation in which I'm not, in fact, fucking myself over by doing so. Situations can present themselves which were not apparent during dev; thus I like more control instead of padded rooms and safety scissors.
The only person I hurt by trying to use an AR and a combat shield is myself, so who is anyone to get between me and that action? Informing me that I'm hurting myself by doing so is all well & good, and most likely appreciated, but forcibly preventing it is just silly imo.
-
Wait, what? By stacking up, I meant being of comparable performance. I was saying that pistols shouldn't be just as viable of a primary weapon as a shotgun, (without, that is, a compensating off-hand item). I am confused as to what we are now arguing about.
-
The armor: More like lighter armor=shoulder/leg pockets while heavy armor limits you to belt etc. Would jive with assigning combat roles, if done nicely would be a cool feature. I'm thinking they would be inherent properties, not researched.
Pistols: We're basically in agreement. Pistols shouldn't stack up against other weapons; they have their own role. And in this sense, I proposed a system whereby the effect and usefulness of pistols would be expounded while their actual functionality remained the same. That is, so long as quick-equips are being considered.
-
Hmm, lemme go through and add my own two bits to a few of these. Mind that I am, in fact, talking out of my ass, (zero experience with the alpha, just showed up in forums), thus pardon me if my ignorance shows.
-The grenade button seems very convenient, I could see this helping grenade use. However, it may seem like a red herring if it is the only component that circumvents the inventory, and furthermore circumventing the inventory isn't necessarily a good thing.
-On the pistol, I too was a fan of the (plasma) pistol-stun rod combo, my captains used this. For making a pistol useful, relative to a shotgun or AR, I beg to differ. Instead, especially in light of the quick-grenade discussion, I would suggest allowing it to be quick-equipped to the off-hand, (at a significant penalty to the mainhand whilst it is equipped..), and in this fashion become a very viable secondary weapon for the sniper, rocketeer, or even a commando that runs out of ammo. It would take up a chunk of the belt or some-such thing, but this would be a tactical decision, and (I posit) xcom players love that.
Furthermore, as far as the pistol-grenade, pistol-medkit, pistol-etc, combos, the secondary item would need to have a significant tactical advantage to make up for a lowered killing power. Case-and-point the old stunrod, or arguably the motion scanner. And a pistol-grenade combo seems much, (accentuation on much) less intuitive than:
-Holding two rifles = decrease in accuracy--is pretty intuitive. Are the assumed 'newbies' of the adult, teen, or middle-schooler demo after all? In any case, I suggest an interactive stat-display for weapons while in-base, (you can see the accuracy drop or tu increase when you equip an off-hand) but I have no idea how feasible that would be, nor even if the base is where you set up equipment, (it's what I've heard, but not sure of it). But, just a heads-up, tool-tip, etc would work. If the newbies can't read the writing on the wall in this case, I wouldn't want to cater the game to them.
-How many tus does it take to drop/pickup a rifle? I remember dropping was only ~2 in xcom1, and picking up was heavier. Speaking as a player I wouldn't mind this system for other 2-handed, pre-occupying tasks like medkits/demo charges, but one-handed operations shouldn't req the action, breaks immersion so to say. Perhaps make secondary 1-handed tasks accessible from the inventory, or additional quick-slotting. ***
***Mayhaps turn the belt into a quick-slot-only area, whereby putting a pistol, grenades, motion-scanners, etc would delegate the actions to the appropriate quick-buttons. Again, though, these kinds of tweaks can upset we traditionalists.
-please please please pull some crazy dev magic and make alternate inventory setups for alternate armor sets. I'm drooling here, (at least thinking about how inventory worked in xcom1, dunno about in Xnauts)
mm, that's it for now, I must get up in but 6 hours, so I'll re-edit if anything else pops into my head. My thanks for your time.
-edit
ooh, ooh, and instead of that priming mechanism in xcom1, (which I never saw the point of personally), -I am in favor of bouncing grenades, and priming them for # of bounces seems like it would be a useful mechanism.
-edit
Actually, on hindsight such a mechanic, (bounced grenades), would most likely be a retarded undertaking unless a physics system is already in place. I retract my words.
-
Good to know kind sir; I'm not surprised, yet delighted that it was/is part of considerations, and also disappointed that my suggestion turned out to be redundant. Ha, mixed tidings indeed. I believe I may keep an eye on this game, looks good.
-
I haven't played the alpha yet, but based on the screens & video, the current gui reminded me of a turn-based, 2d tactical air combat flash game I played a couple months back: "Steambirds". If I may--
1. Was this already known, and will more of it be seen?
2. I can certainly dig this gameplay if this is the case. On reflection I can see it complementing the whole xcom experience very well.
Here is a link:
my thoughts
in Xenonauts General Discussion
Posted
alright, @gaudd, originally I began this breakdown as a means to argue, but instead it may be of some use as reference, in particular the second item of contention.
First, you brought up valid concerns.
Which I addressed in the following.
This also addresses the pistol problem indirectly.
To which you replied
Note that you did address the possibility of a pistol off-hand, but you did not provide anything to support it.
At which point I said
&
This is where the first part stands.
Second, you opened with
Which proposed a few different arguments opposed to my position. I took exception in particular however to one facet of these arguments which set the tone of your case. I replied in the following.
Note that I failed to address the balancing issue directly here, but I had just discussed the same issue with gorlom prior to my opponent’s entrance
btw I’ll look at that argument tomorrow gorlom
And then it merged into the last two segments of the first issue.
Continueing on, in response you said
&
Of this I did not take out the replies to some of my other concerns but instead once again the tone, which I bolded.
I will now split my response into the objective and subjective responses.
Objective:
&
&
Subjective
&
&
&
And now we get to your last reply, which I will reply to at the bottom.
Third, you proffered the following suggestion
And also
Which I thought couched well with what I had suggested earlier in the thread, thus
And I assumed your response was
Which seemed redundant, and hinted nothing towards you reading what I had suggested.
However, upon inspection
Preemptively addresses much of what I said in
And then came your clarification
Now that we are on the same page I can offer a proper response, but I will retain my effort here unless you wish to do so.
The fourth item broached is
In summation, and in response to your last reply.
I must explain my behavior. Your replies stuck into me a sort of impression not constructive nor even ‘oppositional’ but only as negative, and a major factor in this was the support I did not see behind it. If you inspect the breakdown, I bolded the sections in particular that gave me this impression. In your latest post you address the root of my position,
Which finally supported your positions in a way that had not been done before; coupling this with my piece-by-piece review of the exchange, and I now have grave doubts as to my position. It is thus ironic that you say
I’m a raging fan of walls of text, as you can clearly see. My goal is to build consensus, whether that involves changing my own beliefs or trying to change others’; I’m determined to see what the right course of action is and take it, or perhaps through communication convince others of it. Thus the debating. (yes yes I know, narcissism, I try to keep that in check as well)
Yesyesyes, I understand what you mean here. However the argument was that my ‘decisions’ are just as perfectly valid for determining future game rules as are yours or anyone else’s, so the ‘you can do something else’ is an argument that can be used to discard any game mechanic whatsoever, depending entirely upon one’s previous ‘decisions’. It’s fluff. And besides that, we have yet to see if we can, in fact, do something else, as many of these mechanisms have yet to be implemented yes?
My thanks for your patience
@AD
Yes, they would, because if they refused, it’s insubordination, a courtmartial, and hard-labor for a very, very, very long time. And so, if it were you, you would be removed from military service because they need men that follow orders. To get into the nitty & gritty, they need this because sometimes you get advanced or unusual directives where ‘fuck, you need your men to try to carry their guns with their feet, otherwise the crazy insane dictator will detonate a bomb killing thousands yadayada’ and if that soldier goes ‘fuck you, that’s stupid’ those thousands will get blown the fuck up. This is how enlisted vs officers work. One does thinking and issues orders, the other follows those orders.
Excuse the horrible analogy, but it was the best I could come up with for carrying rifles with feet, and the message is still the same: shit happens, improvisation is needed, questioning orders throws a monkey wrench in this with sometimes severe consequences.
Please give me more details on how it is unrealistic. I cannot provide anything more concrete as I’m working with theory.
It was high in the previous games, it is high currently. Seeing as how neither of us know the future, my position is stronger due to the previous and current situations. Objects at rest yes?
I’ve been here for a few days, I’ve never yet ‘refused to try it’. Also, remember how it takes money?
Yes, this is true, so if I’m wrong explain it to me. In the meantime fuck it.
Screw you guys, I’m going home. (I’ll come back for you gorlom)
Honestly, I'm in no condition to edit this any more, adieu.