BigityBalzworth Posted January 21, 2012 Author Share Posted January 21, 2012 what about throwing other items? to redistribute weapons and ammo. some sort of "throw" button in the inventory, perhaps? and would it be possible to throw an unprimed grenade? i would hate to try and throw another soldier a grenade if it exploded at his feet! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 I think passing grenades and items is in, but throwing no. And that would be from the inventory screen if anywhere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyAdamz Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) 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. Edited January 21, 2012 by GrizzlyAdamz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigityBalzworth Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) GA, I agree. I wouldn't mind the different inventory slots for different armor. im not sure its nessecary and it may make equiping soldiers a bit more complicated. I just woudn't want to have to research my way towards an armor set that actually has vest pockets. As we are supposed to the the best of the best, it seems silly to have to wait for the ability to hold whatever equipment you want. like working as hard as you can to get the 5-pocket vest in jagged alliance. and pistols are what they are. twisting the game mechanics to make them more viable doesn't really make any sense to me. they are great if you are carrying something else in the other hand, and they are absolutely necessary as a backup weapon for soldiers carrying rocket launcers and such Edited January 22, 2012 by BigityBalzworth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyAdamz Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 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.Agree with you herePistols: 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.But you see the thing is,well the 2 things are a) this is a game, rifle ranges are shortened considerably, so for pistols to work, some things need to be fluffed over, like bonuses (or lack of detriments) for using pistols, how it has such a long range compared to the rifle, etc., and b) pistols can be inreadibly powerful, so why shouldn't they stack up? And they very much do have their own roll, that of the scout and the breacher (with shield) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigityBalzworth Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 I not sure I agree with that ^^ I think that pistols, being one handed weapons, already have their special capability. If you have a riot shield(nice addition) in one hand, what are you gonna put in the other? A stun rod, or pistol, or some other one handed weapon. The pistol doesn't have to be any stronger, because the fact that you have a riot sheild equiped makes the soldier more defended, and gives him the special attributes. Isn't that the tactical descision to be made? by raising the defensive ability, you may be reducing the attacking power. your scout might be holding the motion scanner, giving the whole squad a tactical advantage. he may just want to stay very low weight in order to carry lots of support items. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 No one said that the pistol would be stronger, it's not as it is. However I was just remarking that pistols CAN stack up in a number of ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyAdamz Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggarius Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 The system doesn't shift anything around. It allows you to use a grenade from anywhere in your inventory for +12AP if you have a weapon in both hands. If you don't have a weapon in your hand, it is free.Your system would allow you to carry a gun and a grenade, but would effectively make the gun useless while you held a grenade. So you're basically just holding a grenade. Once you've thrown it, you're holding a rifle again. Exactly like our propsed new system....except how are people meant to know intuitively that having a rifle in one hand and a grenade in the other gives you an accuracy penalty? Is there one in the original X-Com? If there is, I'm not aware of it because it's never been communicated to me. Also, the original X-Com never really had to deal with single-handed weapons. Or, rather, it dealt with them by making them totally useless. That's not really an option for us. In the original X-Com, you could have a grenade in the left hand with a 2h rifle in the right hand. And it does carry an accuracy penalty, a fairly hefty one at that even though it's not communicated in-game. (Might be in the manual, not sure). I actually recently got back into playing X-Com since I was having too many CTDs with Xenonauts. And I ran into that issue, I went "Sweet, i can have a grenade equipped in off-hand with my 2h rifle". Then went "wtf, I can't kill anything!" and didn't realize it until I checked the ufopaedia site and looked up accuracy calculations. I slightly disagree on the one-hand weapons in X-Com, early there were lots of reasons to use one. Especially if you research a laser pistol right off. It had auto-fire, and it cost stupidly low amounts of TUs to fire compared to the basic rifle, and hit nearly twice as hard as the basic pistol. The problem was that Heavy Plasma just outstripped everything in damage potential and had no "one-hand" variant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I actually recently got back into playing X-Com since I was having too many CTDs with Xenonauts. And I ran into that issue, I went "Sweet, i can have a grenade equipped in off-hand with my 2h rifle". Then went "wtf, I can't kill anything!" and didn't realize it until I checked the ufopaedia site and looked up accuracy calculations. Isn't that what Chris wants to prevent? Because the situation isnt intuitive enough hes leaveing it out. And how accurate are you at throwing something with something with the same weight as a rifle in the other hand? Instead of haveing to code the accuracypenalty on the 2handed weapon and the granade throwing, wouldnt it be simpler to just not let you carry the grande around and have quickslot with the AP penalty instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigityBalzworth Posted January 22, 2012 Author Share Posted January 22, 2012 easiest way to keep track of accuracy in xcom was to just look at the percentage when selecting a fire mode. if you put something else in your hands while using a rifle you will see it drop. if you use one properly, and crouch before you fire you will see it shoot up. This was also a great way to keep track of whether or not that soldier was a good shot or not. eventually you would end up with a soldier with a 115% chance to hit though and still miss you target. I never quite understood that, but it was funny. and yes, maybe it wasn't communicated and some of you never realized, but what in x-com was? x-com never told you anything. you were just dropped into the game and had to figure it out. if thats an issue I think adding some tool tips would be a much better idea than changing the whole inventory system around. maybe while the missions are loading, you could flash tips on weapon usage and other items Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I stil havent gotten what the pros of X-coms system over the quickslot is. Aren't you guys just oposing change for the sake of oposing it? While sticking to the original is admirable i think you guys are going a bit far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Yeah if you want the original system, play the original. If you want an updated game, then sorry but this is a nice (IMO) update. It makes things easy, and it makes things clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyAdamz Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 I propose we introduce a system that shoots your soldier in the foot if he is trying to hold items that requires a total of more hands then he has! That way you get the option to fuck yourself over AND it's glaringly apparant to anyone trying you shoudln't do that. Would that apeese people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 Situations can present themselves which were not apparent during dev; thus I like more control instead of padded rooms and safety scissors. that's what all the testing we're doing is for! =] 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. Next you're going to want to dual wield rocket launchers... =p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigityBalzworth Posted January 23, 2012 Author Share Posted January 23, 2012 I stil havent gotten what the pros of X-coms system over the quickslot is. Aren't you guys just oposing change for the sake of oposing it?While sticking to the original is admirable i think you guys are going a bit far. absolutely not. I think most of the upgrades and additions in Xeno are fantasitic. I only really have a problem with this one. the primary/seconday weapon idea as opposed to a left hand/right hand limits functionality. it makes your soldiers more like chess pieces that can a) shoot , and b)throw a grenade. instead of soldiers being able to interact with the battlefield in whatever way you deem necessary. the pros to the left hand/right hand are countless. Reason #476 that 2 hands are better than 1: Frank Rizzo is bleeding out and in desparate need of medical attention. Sol Rosenberg is holding a rifle and is next to Jack Tors, who just was killed and was holding the only medkit in the area. so we need Sol to grab that medkit and get it over Frank ASAP. what are our options? I could simply pick it up and run it over there and even if it took two hands to use the medkit i could drop my rifle while saving Frank's life. But with the new system I would have to a)drop the rifle in the middle of a field and get the medkit instead(bad idea). Or I could stuff my rifle in my backpack and get back to...oh wait now I'm of of AP and I'm probably gonna die too(bad idea). As for dual-wielding rocket launchers, thats just rediculous... Until half your squad is gone and you run into the uber-alien and need to send big-ol-bad-ass-bob-the-cattlerustler out to fetch the 2 launchers your fallen brothers were carrying to help your unit take him down. carrying and using are completely different. GA's insight is right on the money, no safety scissors. shooting yourself in the foot? thats what you get. how many times have we all put plasma through the back of our buddy's heads because we were trying to do too much? I hear a lot of 'well I never did that so i don't see why it should be in the game' on these forums. thats what makes tactical strategy games great. you can devise and put into effect any battlefield plan you can come up with. we aren't all going to use the same strategy or tactics, some of us will push the envelope, even over think a situation. there's nothing wrong with that. some of us will carry too many weapons, bad weapon combos, poorly thought out attempts at gaining an advantage. we will all put our own style on combat planning. I'm not on here spreading hate speech. I am more excited about this game than any I have heard about for a good while. I'm just trying to get my point across. I want this game to be the best it can be. not a streamlined, simplyfied, "padded room" version of the one that brought us all to this forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) absolutely not. I think most of the upgrades and additions in Xeno are fantasitic. I only really have a problem with this one. the primary/seconday weapon idea as opposed to a left hand/right hand limits functionality. it makes your soldiers more like chess pieces that can a) shoot , and b)throw a grenade. instead of soldiers being able to interact with the battlefield in whatever way you deem necessary. the pros to the left hand/right hand are countless. Um the soldiers still have 2 hands, and can still equip weapons in each hand. But only if they are a one handed weapon. You know, 'cause it's assumed that your men know how to use them effectively in a combat situation, and unfortunately commando is not an accurate portrayal of how to use guns =p Reason #476 that 2 hands are better than 1 Can we have the other 475 before? And all the others afterwards too? =p Frank Rizzo is bleeding out and in desparate need of medical attention. Sol Rosenberg is holding a rifle and is next to Jack Tors, who just was killed and was holding the only medkit in the area. so we need Sol to grab that medkit and get it over Frank ASAP. what are our options? I could simply pick it up and run it over there and even if it took two hands to use the medkit i could drop my rifle while saving Frank's life. But with the new system I would have to a)drop the rifle in the middle of a field and get the medkit instead(bad idea). Or I could stuff my rifle in my backpack and get back to...oh wait now I'm of of AP and I'm probably gonna die too(bad idea). 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? 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? I am more excited about this game than any I have heard about for a good while. I'm just trying to get my point across. I want this game to be the best it can be. not a streamlined, simplyfied, "padded room" version of the one that brought us all to this forum. I too want that, though I have been here for a wee bit longer than you, mayhaps =p But you see, to me, the quick throw button is opening up more tactics for me! All of a sudden I have a way of effectively using grenades! Or have you gone off that now? Are you just talking about not being able to carry 2 rifles in your hands at the same time? Edited January 23, 2012 by anotherdevil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) So you want to choose where you will drop your weapon in a scenario where you have to pick up extra equipment form the ground? Wouldn't a really easy solution to that be to decrese the TU cost of putting something into the inventory (from your hands), and make the action of takeing something out of it (to your hands) be the costly action? If we make the limitations of the inventory management be centered around weight management instead of inventory slot usage you won't be ending up in the sitation that you cant stowe it either. Edited January 23, 2012 by Gorlom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyAdamz Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 @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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Randomly fireing 2 rocketlaunchers /even with abyssmal accuracy) in one turn is imo overpowered and should not be allowed for that reason. Edit: im curious about you argueing against my rather silly shoot in the foot propsal now. mind doing it for the giggles? Edited January 23, 2012 by Gorlom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyAdamz Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 180 degres? you mean he will turn left right before fireing? i can understand 100-110 degrees maybe but 180? All you really need is a wall stopping the rocket to have it be fairly accurate still. and if you're allowed to fire 2 you got a a man able to first of all breach a wall in a building and then kill whatever is inside (assuming they are close enough to the back wall) with firey death in one round. You should need to risk atleast 2 soldiers for such a breaching action imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrizzlyAdamz Posted January 23, 2012 Share Posted January 23, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.