my thoughts

[Gorlom]

Ah you want to play it like that?

In that case I still think it should go in the soldiers foot if hes carrying 2 2handed weapons!

But on a serious note I think some people will have a greivance with how the game is trying for a semirealistic version of alternate timeline scifi and then your soldiers go around like the incredible hulk lugging around 2 rocketlaunchers. not really realisticly. (I know realism doesnt have anything to do with game mechanics but it is a petpeeve of some people)

Edited January 23, 2012 by Gorlom

[GrizzlyAdamz]

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.

[BigityBalzworth]

-many points and I hate multi-quoting- one by one...

-using weapons effectively has nothing to do with carrying things in each hand, commando is not reasonable as i've been stressing

-how many situations should i have to imagine? if i can think of them all day, i think my point is proven

- it is the maybe/occasionally moments that need to be stressed to acheive greatness

-more medkits? shit happens. and according to [unnamed] the best solution is to make it difficult to carry all desired items

-the quick throw/2 handed ideas are becoming (in many cases) one in the same as it seems to be a cheesy sneak around the 2 handed weapon idea. in and of itself i see nothing wrong with the quick throw as long as the rest of the inventory functioinality is included

-it is the proposed system that is one weapon, nothing with the other hand, not mine. im not sure how to respond to this. If you understand what im saying, I don't want our guys running around with a rocket launcher in one hand and a machine gun in the other(and i think you realize that). yes that should be possible, but not in a way that they should actually be used effectively in combat this way. check out a brilliant DOS game from 1993 called x-com that had it figured out perfectly. *sarcasm anyone?* And who would want to play like that anyway? it's stupid and should be so penalized in the game

-"All of a sudden I have a way of effectively using grenades!" ok i realize grenades were terrible in x-com but that's because it took half your turn to prime them. it has nothing to do with how you put one in your hand and then threw it. a quick throw doesn't make them any more effective, just arguably uses less brain power to use. and again i have no squabbles with a quick throw button that does with 2-7 clicks (cycle, cycle, cycle, cycle, cycle, throw ,aim) what people who use the inventory system can do with 6(open, get grenade, put in hand, close, throw, aim). and if you were carrying two rifles (or even pistols) at the same time, you probably SHOULDN'T be able to throw a grenade or anything else.

gorlom - decreasing the number of AP involved sounds like cheating, something to be done on the mod side of the game, not a well polished release. and in or out of the backpack wouldn't matter, you would still have to take it off, stow/remove it, put it back on. putting items in a backpack is supposed to take time, and thats what action points and the turn based idea is all about, time. dropping my rifle to save a mans life and then braving the same enemy fire that got him killed, unarmed, just to get it back doesn't sound good. ideally i wouldn't want to drop the weapon at all, i'm just trying to comprimise with any 'it takes two hands' ideas, which i may be willing to do in the medkit's case. but then you wouldn't have a combat effective medic, just a medic, pistol as backup

-weight restriction is absolutely necessary. ideally you would have plenty of spaces and the limit WOULD be the weight, not the slots. you are thinking backwards, if there's not enough slots, its NOT the weight thats restricting you!!!!!

[anotherdevil]

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.

Could you run around with 2 rocket launchers in the original?

Also my comment on realism, I believe still stands. If I wanted to carry around 2 rifles, then by all means, let me. But I am not my men. If I was a squad commander (which X-COM effectively makes you), and I wanted to order my men around the battlefield, then that's all well and good. But if I told them to use 2 assault rifles, well by all means I might expect them to say "WTF, I'm much better with just one." Now obviously X-COM gives you complete control, so you can give them 2 rifles, but Xenonaut's is taking a step back and implementing a system, that while not perfect, does make a whole lot of sense (to me).

Also that last sentence: 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...

-"All of a sudden I have a way of effectively using grenades!" ok i realize grenades were terrible in x-com but that's because it took half your turn to prime them. it has nothing to do with how you put one in your hand and then threw it. a quick throw doesn't make them any more effective, just arguably uses less brain power to use. and again i have no squabbles with a quick throw button that does with 2-7 clicks (cycle, cycle, cycle, cycle, cycle, throw ,aim) what people who use the inventory system can do with 6(open, get grenade, put in hand, close, throw, aim). and if you were carrying two rifles (or even pistols) at the same time, you probably SHOULDN'T be able to throw a grenade or anything else.

To be honest I'm not entirely sure what it is you're arguing for now... It's that time of the day, and your posts are kind of hard to follow. But I'll respond to this one.

Grenades in the old one were underutilised because it took so long to get them equipped, not just the TU count. That's what this quick slot allows you to bypass, and that's why I like it. Not because it is cheaper, but because I actually have a hassle free way of using them. Am I lazy? Yes. But this method detracts nothing (you can still go into your inventory and manually grab the grenade etc.), only adds (IMO).

[Gauddlike]

One major thing I see being missed is the balance of the game.

If you are using a breacher with a combat shield to soak up damage strapped to one arm.

If both hands can use two handed weapons then he could conceivably walk through the door with a rocket launcher, machine gun, flamethrower etc in the other hand.

At the sort of ranges you expect to engage at any one of those weapons would be massively powerful with limited problems from reduced accuracy.

The pistol and other short range one handed weapons would lose their primary role.

The point is that there are exceptionally few situations where being able to use a two handed weapon in one hand would actually be useful and in some of those it could be incredibly overpowering and unblancing.

Why should the game be reworked (costing dev time and money remember) to allow it?

So far none of the "because I might want to use it for something someday" arguments are particularly convincing to me.

The only one I have thought slightly reasonable is swapping to a medikit etc.

I would suggest that you don't actually need to be holding a medikit in one hand to use it though do you?

You would probably have it mounted in a place that is easy to access and simply remove the items you need when required.

If that is the case maybe the medikit should also be used from the quick inventory/grenade button or the heal icon should be present on the weapon pane at all times when one is carried.

[anotherdevil]

One major thing I see being missed is the balance of the game.

If you are using a breacher with a combat shield to soak up damage strapped to one arm.

If both hands can use two handed weapons then he could conceivably walk through the door with a rocket launcher, machine gun, flamethrower etc in the other hand.

At the sort of ranges you expect to engage at any one of those weapons would be massively powerful with limited problems from reduced accuracy.

The pistol and other short range one handed weapons would lose their primary role.

The point is that there are exceptionally few situations where being able to use a two handed weapon in one hand would actually be useful and in some of those it could be incredibly overpowering and unblancing.

Why should the game be reworked (costing dev time and money remember) to allow it?

So far none of the "because I might want to use it for something someday" arguments are particularly convincing to me.

The only one I have thought slightly reasonable is swapping to a medikit etc.

I would suggest that you don't actually need to be holding a medikit in one hand to use it though do you?

You would probably have it mounted in a place that is easy to access and simply remove the items you need when required.

If that is the case maybe the medikit should also be used from the quick inventory/grenade button or the heal icon should be present on the weapon pane at all times when one is carried.

Well put, some good points I never thought of there!

Can you imagine breaching with a combat shield and rocket launcher? No matter how inaccurate you were, at least you wouldn't injure yourself!

Also, I believe that with medkits, you'd need two hands to wrap bandages properly etc.

[Gauddlike]

My point was that while using the medikit you wouldn't be doing anything else and while doing anything else you wouldn't be using the medikit.

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?).

You COULD carry it in your hand with a pistol in the other if you wanted it obvious who was carrying one though.

[BigityBalzworth]

rocket launcher/riot sheild. that. is. awesome!!! i still can't envision this not hitting something 2-3 squares away and killing you and destroying everything in the UFO. but i guess sometimes you gotta do it like that! riot sheild/demo charges!!! how far should you be able to throw those?!?! I'm sure Im not the only one who has done the suicide bomber, either. especially in Apocalypse. explosions will set off other explosives, right?

but you know what would be fantastic? if you truely wanted to make weapons unusable without both hands: a tastefully drawn red "X" right over the weapon when something is in the other hand.

[Gauddlike]

Why bother?

Weapons are unusable without both hands now and it seems to work quite well in the game.

Have you actually tried the system as it stands thoroughly to see if it has any of the drawbacks you fear?

[Gorlom]

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.

Do you have any firearms traning? (for clarity: I don't)

But as far as i can determine fireing a pistol singlehandedly will not be realistically accurate. It is a onehanded weapon but you still need stability by using 2 hands for accuracy.

As far as I know police is required to shoot pistols with both hands because they risk hitting the wrong targets and injuring civilians or whatnot.

You are going to need both hands clear. the difference is if you can use a sling for your rifle or need to stow it in your backpack right? Feels like you can solve your problem with apmanageing from and into backpack and from and into belt.

gorlom - decreasing the number of AP involved sounds like cheating, something to be done on the mod side of the game, not a well polished release. and in or out of the backpack wouldn't matter, you would still have to take it off, stow/remove it, put it back on. putting items in a backpack is supposed to take time, and thats what action points and the turn based idea is all about, time. dropping my rifle to save a mans life and then braving the same enemy fire that got him killed, unarmed, just to get it back doesn't sound good. ideally i wouldn't want to drop the weapon at all, i'm just trying to comprimise with any 'it takes two hands' ideas, which i may be willing to do in the medkit's case. but then you wouldn't have a combat effective medic, just a medic, pistol as backup

What? Aren't you contradicting yourself? You want backpack manageing to take TU but you also want to cheat by haveing a primary and secondary weapon loadouts in your hands bypassing the TU management.

-weight restriction is absolutely necessary. ideally you would have plenty of spaces and the limit WOULD be the weight, not the slots. you are thinking backwards, if there's not enough slots, its NOT the weight thats restricting you!!!!!

/facepalm. Did you read what I...

I was suggesting changeing the system to what you want it to be why are you saying I'm thinking backwards?.... You're trolling me arent you?

Edited January 23, 2012 by Gorlom

[GrizzlyAdamz]

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.

Edited January 24, 2012 by GrizzlyAdamz

[anotherdevil]

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...)

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... =]

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 to drop off ledges that will likely hurt them.

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).

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?

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' =p

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.

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 necessary

Nope.

Perhaps you should try that?

[Gauddlike]

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.

As you quoted me you might want to look closely at it.

The phrase was "the only one I have thought slightly reasonable..."

I was not attributing anything to your position I was remarking that I didn't feel the other arguments that I had read (and I don't rule out the fact that I could have missed some) were reasonable enough to change the current system to another one.

This is my opinion in response to your opinion, there is nothing unfair about it as I felt that your other concerns were adequately addressed by other means.

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.

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.

As I felt the medikit was not adequately addressed I put forward a suggestion on how this could be done.

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.

That leaves only the shotgun and assault rifle to be dual wielded, seems like a lot of effort for no gain (dev wise).

No powerful weapon should be allowed alongside the pistol, especially if it retains a bonus to reaction fire.

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.

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.

[GrizzlyAdamz]

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' =p

Try 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 necessary

So, 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.

Edited January 24, 2012 by GrizzlyAdamz

[anotherdevil]

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?

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 =p

Also, switching from a pistol to a rifle would require you to pull out your pistol, yes, but most likely you'd also have to do the whole switchin hand thing in there too, so that would take extra time. And balancing a pistol in the crook of your elbow, that being the elbow attached to the hand that is supporting a rifle? The rifle that is only supported by one hand and therefore has the ability to be nudged around with your every movement? That's your stable firing platform? =p

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".

I don't know mate, I'm pretty sure I could find someone on the internet that could carry and fire a rifle with their feet =p Also, I don't think your crass use of language is a) relevant or b) appropriate. If I was a squad commander, and ordered my rocket launcher guy to fire his rocket launcher with only one hand, then I would expect him to do it with 2. Why? Because the other way is dangerous, and stupid, and could end up with friendly casualties. So convince me why I should have stupid soldiers? I can understand me making mistakes, me being stupid, but that coupled with generally dumb soldiers?

Try to grasp my meaning sir. By god, I mean my authority should be absolute.

a) not been knighted yet, b) I got what you meant, but you should state your meaning, not beat around the bush

So, 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.

I mean that in the case of 'he needs help, let me get the medkit,' it can still work by putting your rifle in the backpack (or on the sling if that what it represents) and picking up the medkit. Is it different? Yes. Is it better? Maybe. Does it make more sense than having the ability to run around like Rambo? I think so. And nothing you've said has changed my mind yet =]

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).

Really? you're placing yourself next to Einstein? Wow. Um, well, you know, he had facts and theories of physics that were not proven wrong by other, just as do-able solutions. But you know, we'll just gloss over that =p

Hope you had a good sleep, and I look forward to continuing this discussion tomorrow =] A lot of your ideas are good, and I agree with them, just not the necessity for them. Or the whole rifle in one hand thing. Don't agree with that one at all =p

Edited January 24, 2012 by anotherdevil
I did something silly

[Gauddlike]

You are assuming that a lot of the systems you want to be there are in fact already there.

For example you refer to already existing carrying and throwing mechanisms.

There is currently no throwing mechanism (except grenade use) and the only carrying mechanism is the inventory and carried weapon system that you wish to replace.

My suggestion does not involve replacing your mechanisms with a new one, it involves the mechanism, that is currently not implemented, being able to be used by you to do the things you want without reworking actual existing mechanisms, such as two handed weapons taking up two hands.

You also refer quite a lot to how many AP (not TU, that is x-com not xenonauts) swapping weapons etc take when these values have not yet been balanced.

My suggestions are there to work within the current system and try to resolve some of the issues you may have.

I personally don't see a need for dual wielding weapons except in the case of using weapons designed for one hand.

My argument is no more or less selfish than anyone elses.

You wish time and money to be spent on a minor change which you see as important. That is selfish by your own definition.

I wish that time and money to be spent somewhere else that I see as more important, that is also selfish as you see it.

Please do not put your own idea so far above others, we all have an opinion.

I have been trying to resolve your problems with the current system by using examples of how the system can be tweaked rather than replaced.

I have continually said that the opinions are mine and have never expected or required you to agree.

You also seem to feel that I should address every point you raise in every post I make.

This is not possible I'm afraid without leading to huge walls of text.

I have selected the issues I see as being the biggest problems and tried to give ways they could be worked around.

When you have taken exception I have tried to explain why I feel these points were the biggest problems and why I feel others are less important.

I have read your quickslot inventory suggestion and feel that you have missed my point in responding to it.

You do not need to swap a grenade to the hand in order for it to be thrown, you have a quick throw button.

You do not need to put the medikit in your hand in order to use it, you just need a use button.

Quick swapping an item to the hand is not required in xenonauts.

Yes you can put them physically in the hand of the soldier before using them if you wish to but it is not necessary so should probably not have a whole new mechanic developed around doing so.

[Gauddlike]

So, 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.

Just remembered this bit, I think it sums up our differences of opinion on this subject quite nicely.

What I am actually trying to get across is that you acted in a certain way because that was within the limits of the system you had available.

In Xenonauts you have a different system available so you would have different options.

If you were playing jagged alliance 2 you would have a different set of options again, and possibly have chosen yet another path.

To take it to the extreme you would more than likely have chosen something completely different if you had the freedom to do anything that you had available to you in real life.

Because you have played a certain game in the past and found certain things work doesn't mean you wouldn't find another way of playing just as much fun, and fulfilling, without having to stick to the same old controls, inventory system, weapon types etc.

I think this thread is getting into a bit of a rut so probably come back to it at a later date when some other new ideas have been thrown in

[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.

Edited January 24, 2012 by GrizzlyAdamz

[anotherdevil]

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.

Really? You think a soldier would run around with 2 guns, exposing himself to oncoming fire (which you would have to do if you wanted to fire with both guns) just because someone tells them to? Is it insubordination? Maybe. But I'd rather be out of an army that was trying to get me killed than dead. But maybe that's just me. =p

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.

1. As Gauddlike has already stated, passing will probably occur with only those who are next to you, and will probably be done through the inventory screen. =]

2. So you run out of ammo, and you don't have enough AP to retreat. But you do have enough AP to pull out another gun and shoot an alien a few times? Perhaps more realistic examples might serve you better =p

3. How do you know how costly operating the backpack will be? It may be cheap as chips in the final game, we just don't know =]

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.

But it is irrelevant, because there is a system that works, and you are flat out refusing to try it. I on the other hand have tried it, and the original, and this that this new system can work fine. I have something to compare it with, you're just saying "this is what I want because this is what I know"

[GrizzlyAdamz]

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.

One major thing I see being missed is the balance of the game.

If you are using a breacher with a combat shield to soak up damage strapped to one arm.

If both hands can use two handed weapons then he could conceivably walk through the door with a rocket launcher, machine gun, flamethrower etc in the other hand.

At the sort of ranges you expect to engage at any one of those weapons would be massively powerful with limited problems from reduced accuracy.

The pistol and other short range one handed weapons would lose their primary role.

Which I addressed in the following.

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.

This also addresses the pistol problem indirectly.

To which you replied

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.

That leaves only the shotgun and assault rifle to be dual wielded, seems like a lot of effort for no gain (dev wise).

No powerful weapon should be allowed alongside the pistol, especially if it retains a bonus to reaction fire.

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

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.

&

Why?

This is where the first part stands.

Second, you opened with

The point is that there are exceptionally few situations where being able to use a two handed weapon in one hand would actually be useful and in some of those it could be incredibly overpowering and unblancing.

Why should the game be reworked (costing dev time and money remember) to allow it?

So far none of the "because I might want to use it for something someday" arguments are particularly convincing to me.

The only one I have thought slightly reasonable is swapping to a medikit etc.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

As you quoted me you might want to look closely at it.

The phrase was "the only one I have thought slightly reasonable..."

I was not attributing anything to your position I was remarking that I didn't feel the other arguments that I had read (and I don't rule out the fact that I could have missed some) were reasonable enough to change the current system to another one.

This is my opinion in response to your opinion, there is nothing unfair about it as I felt that your other concerns were adequately addressed by other means.

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.

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.

&

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.

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.

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:

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?

&

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.

&

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.

Subjective

My apologies.

&

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.

&

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.

&

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.

And now we get to your last reply, which I will reply to at the bottom.

Third, you proffered the following suggestion

I would suggest that you don't actually need to be holding a medikit in one hand to use it though do you?

You would probably have it mounted in a place that is easy to access and simply remove the items you need when required.

If that is the case maybe the medikit should also be used from the quick inventory/grenade button or the heal icon should be present on the weapon pane at all times when one is carried.

And also

My point was that while using the medikit you wouldn't be doing anything else and while doing anything else you wouldn't be using the medikit.

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?).

You COULD carry it in your hand with a pistol in the other if you wanted it obvious who was carrying one though.

Which I thought couched well with what I had suggested earlier in the thread, thus

See my first post on page 6. I can see this taking a chunk of quickslot-belt slots, just as pistols & grenades could.

And I assumed your response was

As I felt the medikit was not adequately addressed I put forward a suggestion on how this could be done.

Which seemed redundant, and hinted nothing towards you reading what I had suggested.

However, upon inspection

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.

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.

Preemptively addresses much of what I said in

At the end of my post I will detail exactly what I proposed on page 6.

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 then came your clarification

I have read your quickslot inventory suggestion and feel that you have missed my point in responding to it.

You do not need to swap a grenade to the hand in order for it to be thrown, you have a quick throw button.

You do not need to put the medikit in your hand in order to use it, you just need a use button.

Quick swapping an item to the hand is not required in xenonauts.

Yes you can put them physically in the hand of the soldier before using them if you wish to but it is not necessary so should probably not have a whole new mechanic developed around doing so.

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

Why bother?

Weapons are unusable without both hands now and it seems to work quite well in the game.

Have you actually tried the system as it stands thoroughly to see if it has any of the drawbacks you fear?

Nope.

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,

You are assuming that a lot of the systems you want to be there are in fact already there.

For example you refer to already existing carrying and throwing mechanisms.

There is currently no throwing mechanism (except grenade use) and the only carrying mechanism is the inventory and carried weapon system that you wish to replace.

My suggestion does not involve replacing your mechanisms with a new one, it involves the mechanism, that is currently not implemented, being able to be used by you to do the things you want without reworking actual existing mechanisms, such as two handed weapons taking up two hands.

You also refer quite a lot to how many AP (not TU, that is x-com not xenonauts) swapping weapons etc take when these values have not yet been balanced.

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

Please do not put your own idea so far above others, we all have an opinion.

because I have been arguing, all along, under the pretext that you were holding your own opinions of dev time priority above mine, (and by extension all others others...the whole self-righteous defender of my peers thing started revving in my head), and was feeling quite slighted that you weren’t giving my position a fair opportunity. This in regard to the way you referenced the consumption of developer time. Instead of offering any reasons for why it is so precious, what else should be prioritized, you instead only interlaced declarations of the wastefulness of this thread’s contents and debating about the finer points of the ideas. You were appealing to knowledge you had not presented, and still have not. (this is how the ‘defender’ feeling started; if this was the case, that your unstated, unvetted priorities constituted detractions from ideas, then this view would extend itself to all other ideas which you were not in favor of already). I am still struggling to wrap my head around this, but understand I was acting under the impression that I (and of course others, that whole psychological babble included) was being belittled by what I believed to be a narcissist. And if this is in fact the case and I've managed to sort this out, then I give you (and the other fellows here) my humblest apologies for my behavior. In the meantime, please excuse me but my head is overloaded.

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.

So you run out of ammo, and you don't have enough AP to retreat. But you do have enough AP to pull out another gun and shoot an alien a few times? Perhaps more realistic examples might serve you better

Please give me more details on how it is unrealistic. I cannot provide anything more concrete as I’m working with theory.

How do you know how costly operating the backpack will be? It may be cheap as chips in the final game, we just don't know

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?

But it is irrelevant, because there is a system that works, and you are flat out refusing to try it. I on the other hand have tried it, and the original, and this that this new system can work fine. I have something to compare it with, you're just saying "this is what I want because this is what I know"

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.

[anotherdevil]

@ GrizzlyAdams, you really need to stop swearing. We're not attacking you (well I'm not), I just disagree with your ideas. I don't see the need. Please try and remain more civil.

As for your analogy with the thousands dead if I don't hold rifle with my feet, I would certainly do that if that was explained to me. If however I was just told to hold a rifle with my feet for the officers to have a laugh, you can see why there might be some contention there. No?

Also how do you know how high the cost is for operating the backpack if you haven't played? And you may not know, but shot costs are quite high now, but there has been a lot of talk about lowering them, to allow for more, but less powerful shots. So nothing is set in stone yet.

[Gauddlike]

Hmm I really did try to get through that wall of text!

Not saying I managed to read and understand every word though.

I am not trying to belittle you or your ideas.

Your suggestion comes down to using a system very similar to the original x-com system I think it is fair to say?

My suggestion is that the current system works and can be adjusted to suit any problems you may have with it.

I am sorry if it came across as me putting you down, that was not the intention.

I was simply trying to show that there is another alternative and why I prefer that one.

It is (as always) my personal opinion and I never claim to post anything else.

If I suggest something as a better alternative it is because I see it that way.

It does not always follow that it is actually better, just that I personally prefer it.

Starting with two different ideas is (almost) always a good thing.

When you eventually meet in the middle you can sometimes end up at a completely unexpected idea that works really well.

Or sometimes you end up in an argument that goes round in circles and accomplishes very little.

At the end of the day the chances of the former outweigh the risks of the latter to me.

You should have a look at some of the threads featuring Gazz and myself for example!

[nutbarz]

- The tech tree is much larger, and Chris is looking at making sure there aren't any 'useless' techs (Like alien entertainment or the autopsies). Ideally, everything would have some benefit. There are also multiple paths to any tech.

I Liked the Autopsies, and selling the Alien Bodies always was a great source of Income after a mission. In teh Future, will they not all come back destroyed?

[anotherdevil]

you sell corpses automatically (and keep one for research). And alien autopsies provide damage boosts to your troops against the appropriate enemies

[plucx]

Why you guys keep automating stuff all the time ? Because we are imbecile? You can do it so newbies are not gonna whyne? So what, thats how learning is aquired ... by getting failures?

BTW, I loved to keep one aliens of each types in the freezer, just for kicks! Holding my hand is not going to cut it in any game.

Anyway, for the two hand weapon there are several point that I needs to talk about:

I played X-Com since it came out, never quite stopped playing it. I know all about x-com util and the game quirk, bugs and i still keep learning.

1st-) Pistols in x-Com are not totally useless. They are usefull in the beginning, mid game (laser, infinite ammo!) and are a must for grenadier. Flame me all you want, i played this game for a lot of time, i know pistols are useful used in conjunction with other things.

Pistols does less damage than rifle per shot, but the AP cost is less and several game simulator made with x-com util crew showed that the damage output was similar but not the range. Back in 2000, it was a big deal and a hot topic. I always had one or two guys with grenades and pistols for ufo entry. Can't miss with a grenade! Also, make sense to have a primed grenade in one hand, throw it, fire a shot or two then BOOM, they are dead, for sure!

Now, Why use a pistol? No free hands??? Ill go with the shotgun!

In UFO, if you had a Two hand weapon and something in the "off hand" your accuracy was lowered. Try it.

Why a secondary item in the other hand?

To draw out nades, med pack, Hi-Explosive, rocket ammo ...

How do you think a squad carry enough missile to destroy 5 tanks with one laucher? Well the missiles are spread amongs the team members and when the demo guy is getting low, the other guys get the rocket out and throw it to their buddy.

Let say i'm a support weapon in the squad (Close combat, machine guns, sniper) I might want a quick acces to another weapon that is fast to draw. Thats how the other hand is used for, pick up stuff on the ground. Did you fire rocket laucher? It's a boon when a buddy is giving you a missile to load the thing or to pick it from the ground (risky beacause of dirt, but it's not that slow btwm, especially for top shape guys)! Thats why snipers and demo guys carry pistols in holsters, easy acces weapon that are tactically more adept at the job. That is why heavy weapon ammo is spread amongs the team members. It's basic tactical gear in any nato setup.

Now, the empty hand for the pistol, I kept it empty! When i needed a grenade, I took it in the empty hand, armed it, threw it. The countdown start when the grenade is released (like real life grenade) or kept it for the next round start. What happends if I get shot with an armed grenade or got berzerk, well I blew up !! Sucks to be me, i took the risk of doing that with the benefit of having more AP next round. Also, since it's a time delay grenade, I could chain up a grenade. Ie : I threw the armed grenade to a buddy, he picked it up (empty hand), then threw it to the other guy wich has just enought AP to throw a grenade to the alien face! I think it's a BASIC utility in X-com to pick stuff and throw it, really one of the most usefull stuff in the game. Try it, have your rearmost guys prepare stuff like rearming a launcher then throw it to another one in point with a better firing lane. Also, I sometimes got carried over and did a chain with stunned aliens, get them out of the ship, stacked them and blew them out with a rookie wich then got the kills (exploited a little but sick fun).

I always used pistol to some extend just for that. Trowing stuff (weapon, dead bodies, ect). Not every member got one, but at least one or two have one, at all time.

Dead bodies you say? Yes ...

Why? When you had to retreat from a mission going bad, to cut your losses you could put stuff on the ground of the transport and bring it out of the mission! Soooo, that really hard mission that you just retreated from just got you a plasma rifle, two elerium and why not bring back the bodies of your friends? Even if they are stunned they might like not being left behind? Might not have enought space in your backpack, but you got the carry weight for itm and it's way easier to carry a body in your arm than in a back sac ... right? It's not that hard to carry a guy on your back while keeping your rifle slung on your shoulder. Just watch for the guy eye. You are slow, you Puff like rocky but you can lift at least your weight that way if not more.

Yeah, so what about carrying a gun in one hand and a body in the other? Ever heard of a sling. It's a basic piece of gear that all weapons have and it is the trade mark of any experienced rifleman. May it be machine gun (require a little training for show-off stuff) rifle of launcher, they all have it. it's a basic pice of gear designed to help carry the damn thing. You dont want a rifle in your back pack, you want to have it slung on you elbows or in our hands. It's your new found love, like it or not! ! Talk to any experienced Army troop, he can talk to you a long time about slings and how they can be configured. How Anal staff can be about how to use it and fix it. You could all be surprised how fast a m-139 machine gunner can go from back sling to shoulder position, under 2 sec average and firing.

Let say you pick up a friend wich is badly wounded (fireman technique, google it ), you put the gun on your elbow and pick him up! You can fire also (fun to do, chuck norris style) from the hip but dont expect to hit something.

Now, close combat? Well yes, i loved close combat! Early or end game, just loved it! Especially tftd, was a must with crabmen. Anyway, close combat AKA stun(t) man was selected for it's hi AP score. Always used the empty hand to throw grenades or to use a stun launcher. Might seem dumb, but i you stunned yourself and 3 other guys, it's well worth it.

Alternate weapon acces (holster or empty hand) represent the equipment configuration for a team member. As such, if I am a rifle man with medic duty in the squad. I am expected to have some kind of quick acces to my gear. Usually a smaller weapon that can be holstered on the fly and belt pouch, droppable med pack, ect.

As a Sniper, I want a quick acces to a smaller secondary weapon wich is faster to shoot and does not tunnel my sight like a sniper rifle.

As a heavy weapon, i want to have a weapon with faster response, non AOE damage to enter buildings.

Holsters were not present in the X-Com game, but might have been balanced with the belt space (could put pistol there) and having extra space on the legs (hips pouch like one in combat gear) and elbow pouch (grenade and ammo pouch on standard webbing, WW2 stuff). These are usefull for it's quick access in AP point for things like grenades, flare, ammo. I used these legs pouch a lot as the mag holster or the grenade hook on the old webbing. There is nothing weird to throw a grenade while holding a two had weapons btw. This argument is vain and I used two had weapon with smokes, nades and well, it require some prep but it's the way you what to do it. In a battle field condition, you what the ability to keep your rifle in either one handed locked sling stance and throw a grenade wich pin is hooked to the webbing or put the gun on your shoulder (sling) and do the grenade drill as intended since ww2.

NEVER will you see a soldier drop his gun ... NEVER EVER EVER!! If it's done it's for lauchers or a rare case scenario, not the other way around.

Now, if you look at the belt of the X-COM soldier, the pistol used a space of 2 square vertical. In your game, the pistol use 6 square rectangle in horizontal position.

A middle ground might be the grenade button idea (like it) wich let you pick up a grenade from inventory and throw it. This might work very well as a work around but might stop you to pick up a item from the ground and throw it. Why not allow to pick up an item in the inventory/ground then throw it.

Call it the throw button. It is a vital thing in X-Com when you consider all the options. You get low on ammo, a buddy throw you his gun. You pick it up, fire it (nice action movie stuff) or the tech guy in the team arm the Hi-explosive for you, give it to you, then you walk 5 ft, throw the grenade , get back, BOOM. All the stuff that can be combined this way is pretty varied if you think about it. All the looted weapons, nades, medic bags, looted elerium, stunned civilians (yes, you don't what them to blow right?). What about destroyable walls? Well combine this with that kind of team cooperation and you can get a impressive result in a few turn.

And also, why on earth does the newbie argument get any grounds? You are not targetting the newbie audience, do you? If yes, please by all means do a Justin Bieber game! If not, let the player get a clue that having two machines guns is not a good idea. But let them do it if they whant, what do you loose? You won't have to code all the items int he game. Just have to drop the Hit % so much than anything other than carryng stuff in both hand is not worth it.

X-Com like many classics was ruthless. It let you die without regrets. It let you do the wrong stuff and you learned from it. Even today i'm getting new clues and idead to play the game. I will never master it, since there is so many way to play it! But X-Com also gave you freedom, like no game ever did before.

Edited January 29, 2012 by plucx