• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

50 Excellent

About TrashMan

  • Rank


  • Location
  • Interests
    Modding, anime and stuff
  • Occupation
  1. JA2 is a stellar game. The king IMHO. TFD was OK. Apocalypse was a breath of fresh air. Everything else was trash.
  2. This is not accurate.There is no such thing as totally free of bugs and the simulation doesn't have to be 100% accurate - rather it has to be a convincing simulation. You don't have to take into account things like wind speed or falloff (I guess you can already file that under "less accurate at longer range"), but the basic concept of stability of the shooting platform, cone of fire and surface area to hit (and obstructions) And I have to have confidence in the developer to trust your displayed % too. Jagged Alliance has shot accuracy IIRC. That's not a bad system either. One way to do it could be to check how much of the enemy is visible/hittable (hitting an enemy in the open, one who has 10% of body sticking out of cover and one who has 50% body sticking out of cover) and add to that the gun/shooter accuracy. At the end of the day, accuracy is always displayed as a chance. You can get unlucky and miss 5 90% shots in a row. Is it a bug? A railed calculation? At the end you still don't know without a lot of testing. "Go ahead an make it yourself" Stellar argument my man. Why indeed comment on anything or argue for anything when every single one of us could spend time building our own dream game? Let me just get my 50 million out of my bank.
  3. It's not been done, therefore it cannot be and shouldn't be done? With arguments like that, creativity will surely reach new heights. And you think MMO's having health bars is a good thing? News flash - they didn't always. Some of the first one had a rough description (Healthy, slightly injured, Injured, Badly Injured, Near Death) and they were better for it. "Better fit the narrative" is nothing more than your personal taste, a taste that you developed by consuming a specific, same-y products. In other words, a habbit, that leads to thinking that system X is the only system that works. Perhaps you should heed your own words. Right back at you.
  4. Please, don't assume I want to remove all data. That's driving a point to absurdity. But I could do with removing some if I get something better (a proper accuracy/ballistic model) in return. And you could guess much. A simple cone projection or a line from the gun barrel to the enemy, along with a rotating map, and there's no way you wouldn't have a good idea of how clean of a shot you have. The idea that a strategy game requires 100% accurate and complete data is bogus. What is strategy by definition? Where is that definition is perfect knowledge? Besides, you speak is if the player has no data at all - it's not gut feeling, but rather approximation from data you have.
  5. Well, weapon statistic is something you CAN get in real life. Things like caliber, muzzle velocity, ammo capacity, weight, etc..
  6. Wouldn't it be part of the basic game description/tutorials and something one can find out by observation and practice? "Realistic ballistic modeling" would be on the game cover. So many old games didn't even have any tutorials or detailed explanations of mechanics. And they certainly didn't have numbers. You learned them by observing. Getting the "feel" is more important that having exact calculations and spreadsheets. For example, do you really need to know the exact HP of the enemy, when you can know the approximate? Not only by observing the visual cues (bleeding, wounds) but also by simply having prior experience with the enemy (AHA..this one usually takes 4-5 bullets and I shot hims three times). Just saying, any accuracy model worth anything will have increased accuracy from logical actions anyway (for example, getting closer; fireing from a more stable position; shooting at a static enemy) - the difference is that with realistic simulations those are more accurate rather than approximations. How does having a % solve that, given that that can be bugged too? A game can show you a wrong percentage (happened in NuCom). Bug are something to fix, not something to be used as an argument against a system, given that ANY system can be bugged.
  7. The lowest common denominator? Alas, we live in a world were you can sell garbage and convince people they need garbage. Powerful advertising and peer pressure, and people will purchase crap just because everyone else is doing it. And they will convince themselves it's not crap. Those are informations those veihilces transmit - give freely. Normally, via radar you can only have limited information, like current speed and course. Aligment, name, tons? Not unless it's transmitted. Although you can say they have "names" as every contact that doesn't transmit it's ID is assigned a temporary one
  8. @Ninothree - it's a non-argument because it's can used to justify anything and nothing. Just like saying "it's fantasy!" @Sheepy - I single it out because generally one tackles one thing at a time. A thread about EVERYTHING would be incredibly non-specific and bloated. A game needs rules and sometimes abstractions depending on complexity. Do I think view distance is necessary? No. I'd be fine with seeing from one end of the map to the other by day (without obstacles, of course). However, if ranges are compressed it makes sense to compress view distance - it also adds to the atmosphere and sense of danger. Also, a crash site doesn't have to be smoking. But why do you think having such calculations is better? It certainly gives the player more information, but why is it better? Is more information always better? Is relaying more on your brain and common sense worse? Take for example MMO's - you always see the name, alignment, level and HP of other NPC's and player. Why is that good? Wouldn't it be more interesting and exciting not having all the info served? Suddenly, you're not sure if that guy you see is a player or a NPC. You're not sure how strong he is, so you rely more on information gathering, observation and deduction, rather than just knowing everything. Suddenly, in a MMO you start acting more cautious and more "real". Suddenly, there's an extra layer of unknown and danger in every raid or fight. Suddenly, the only people who's names show up are people you actually talked to or have seen before.
  9. Cover penetration? Yes, a thousand times yes. Cover would have material type and thickness, which would determine how it reacts to damage. Wood would be penetrated easily by bullets, and can burn and splinter. Metal would bend (melt when plasma'd). A bullet punching trough a wall cover would also loose speed and thus damage. Plasma itself would be shit at penetrating cover, due to no density to speak off, but it would be great at destroying it (and due to splash damage, the sorounding too) Hypervelocity weapons are an interesting question though - would cover act as whipple shielding? Interestingly enough, it might cause a shotgun-effect, as the hypervelocity bullet fragments
  10. And what's wrong with not having 100% accurate data or all the information? When in life do you ever have them? Use your own brain and judgment - even without the computer calculating it for you, you should have a rough estimate of how difficult it would be to hit someone based on cover and angle. Spatial reasoning is something a human brain does naturally. Do you need an exact number? Does a commander in the field have those numbers? No. But you can judge comparatively (I'll have a better shot from point A then from point B, but C would probably be best - you can make those judgments without even knowing the exact value at any of those points). And don't give me the BS "but it's a game" non-argument. Where does it say that you need those numbers because it's a game. You just got accustomed to having them, even though you don't need them.
  11. Does it make ANY difference? You still can't see what's happening and can't interact. Frankly I think the hidden movement screen hides more and thus creates more tension. Alternatively, you can darken the whole screen, especially at the edges, to give a more opressive/ominous feeling.
  12. Nope. I never said there should be no tiers, nor resistances. Maybe you should read my posts in weapon upgrade thread? Lasers tier 1, lasers tier 2, lasers tier 3 - continous or pulse? X-ray laser? UV laser? Ballistics tier 1, ballisitics tier 2, ballistics tier 3 - improved rifles, more efficient gunpowder, caseless ammo, rail/coil tech (???), advanced munitions (AP, incendiery, FMJ, tracer, etc..), etc.. Plasma tier 1, plasma tier 2, plasma tier3 - improvements in cooling and weight mostly. Given that each weapon type would have strengths and weaknesses, that in itself would be an incentive to mix weapons. * * * Lasers - long range, superbly accurate, damage falloff with range (defraction/diffusion) Standard ballistics - reliable, highest RoF, different ammo types Coil/rail weapons - high armor penetration, lower RoF, overpenetrates soft targets, no advanced munitions Plasma - massive damage, short range, low RoF, unwieldy, splash damage You can play around and have differences not only between weapon types, but also tiers, which makes even a lower tier weapon useful sometimes. For example, pulse laser vs. continuous laser - continuous is a beam that you can sweep over an enemy or an area, making it impossible to miss (unless the enemy is in cover), but damage is lower and depends on hitting the same spot, which is difficult. Thus instead (or in addition to) of accuracy determining if you hit or miss, it instead determines the % of damage (from the weapons maximum) you do. Pulse lasers (think 40K lasgun) function more like normal rifles, so its' easier to miss ,but each pulse delivers more energy on target. Even after you research coilguns/railgun, advanced "regular" kinetics would still be usable - heck , I see them as separate weapon branches, not tiers. This works even better, as you have 2 weapon categories with 2 different weapons in each category and 2 defense categories (thermal/kinetic) Because the capacitors need to be charged and high energy requirements, coilguns can't compete in terms of rate of fire, especially for heavy weaponry (power armor + minigun, which IMHO, should be the most potent standard human weapon), nor can they use various ammo types, but coilguns/railgun are more accurate and have insane penetration. Heck, railgun and coilgun can easily be different tiers (I see coilguns as superior to railguns) In fact, instead of researching the entire FAMILY of weapons, I'd rather research them individually, with each research weapon reducing the cost of the next one (laser rifle, laser pistol, laser sniper are different researches). It might also prevent the "fakeness" of each weapon type having all weapon categories (pistol, rifle, shotgun, sniper, heavy), even when it should totally suck in it - like a plasma sniper or a laser shotgun * * * Straight upgrades are BORING AS HELL - I'd rather have no upgrades at all (and indeed, I remember playing fantasy games that subverted the typical weapon hunt by having you stick with just 2-3 basic weapons trough the game. I liked it far more than I thought I would.) Besides, what's wrong with fighting with mostly your preferred weapon? What if I don't like plasma weapons at all - both in visual design and conceptually? I HAVE to use them
  13. Strictly technically speaking, laser and plasma are both heat-based (direct energy transfer), so armor that is good against one would also work against the other. Rather than rock-paper-scissors play, simply have the weapons with pros (lasers have accuracy, plasma has damage) and cons (lasers have low damage, plasma has short range and long cooling sycle)
  14. You can write whatever you want Chris, but I (and the rest of the player/fans) can only draw conclusions based on information that is available to us. The premise, as it currently stands is: 1) Aliens can't take on the combined human armies - this puts a limit to their technologies. If they can hide themselves from our radars, can easily infiltrate our ranks and posses travel, defense and offense capabilites far above us, then the first premise fails. 2) How good they are at disguises, I can't really tell. You can say "it's magic" and it would be an explanation. But there has to be a limit. At the first hint of infiltration, any sane government would initiate strict tests to important personnel (blood samples, DNA tests), which is why the changeling/plastic surgery concept of iniltration never sat well with me. They are alien and their body language and biological processes will be different, there WILL be tells. It makes far more sense to simply have human traitors that willingly work for the aliens (for personal gain or ideological reasons). It might add a bit more suspense, as you could even have traitors in some missions - for example, local military force turns against you suddenly. As for the "a dozen soldiers and three or four jet planes stop the entire might of an interstellar alien civilisation" - it's only like that if you make it like that. If xenonauts are not the entire spear, but the tip of the spear, then it's not just a dozen soldiers? If it's made clear that the rest of the world is not sitting idly, then there is no problem. Everyone is fighting - you're basically Special Forces, leading the way. If it's not the entire alien interstellar civilization, but a rag-tag remnant? A tiny scout fleet? Tiny changes can have big effects.
  15. I'm using what is known about X2 so far and logic/common sense. IF you think I made a mistake, point it out.