Renegade
09.10.2010, 13:37:51
Fight 1
I would like to have remapping walls, and I'm rather sure having the option would lead to some neat custom wall SHPs, but in overall impact of the game and playing experience, custom storms are just vastly superior to remapping overlays.
Kill: #925
Support: #957
Fight 2
Random damage seems to be splitting the comment base. One half seems to be of the opinion that it's pointless or even annoying, the other half seems to consider it a highly desirable feature.
Since I cannot decide for the community which side is "correct", I will base my decision on probable game impact.
If you have high randomization, say, fluctuating between 10 and 100, units become unreliable. This may be desired for some super unit's weapon, but I highly doubt it'll find much use in common battle units - even if the modder adds it, the player base will likely complain.
If you have low randomization, say, fluctuating between 45 and 55, the randomization becomes irrelevant. If you have few shots, the randomization may lead to a skewed outcome, but the numbers won't be so off that it really makes a difference - whether the enemy is shot to -4 or -13 health makes no difference - dead is dead.
If you have many shots, they'll just balance each other out, averaging the middle value.
The argumentation in the past has been that shots miss, not all body parts are equally important, etc., etc., and that is true.
But the question is: How much does that matter in YR?
If I have ten conscripts shooting at a building, rapidly draining its health, does it matter that it takes 0.5 seconds longer to kill it, because the randomizer decided they all suck at aiming?
We have talked about this before - in the dead/revivable request. This is the kind of feature that only matters in select situations.
If the unit is gonna die, it's gonna die anyway.
If you have 10 Conscripts vs. 3 GIs, random damage ain't gonna save them.
If you have 1 Grizzly vs. 3 Tank Destroyers, random damage ain't gonna save it.
If you have a single Conscript vs. a Sniper, random damage ain't gonna save him.
This kind of feature only strikes in fringe situations. If, for example, there is an incoming airstrike on the Sniper's position, he only has time for one shot before dying, and then misses. Then it would matter. But in practice, that rarely happens. In practice, the Sniper usually has time for multiple shots, and ultimately will kill the Conscript.
In general, it simply doesn't matter.
There's a different danger, though: Player frustration. Imagine the same situation - Sniper vs. Conscript. Imagine the randomizer randomly decides the Sniper misses again and again - it's possible. It could decide to deal 10 damage rather than 100 five times in a row - it could still balance out over a thousand shots.
Do you think the player would be happy?
Do you think the player would excitedly marvel over the "realism" of his Sniper being completely worthless?
So yeah. I understand that some of you would find it nice if you couldn't constantly pre-calculate how a fight will end and how many shots X will need to kill Y, but the truth is, in practice, if used moderately, this feature will make little difference, and if used to its extremes, the feature will be used rarely or lead to player frustration.
Yes, a certain element of chance would be nice. But let us be fully honest here: Even if we implemented this feature, and even if you used it moderately, and even if the fringe case happened and the randomization made a difference: Do you really think the player would notice?
Do you really think after any given battle, the player will sit there and ponder "Hey, that unit should be dead?! Lucky me!"?
It's just not gonna happen. We think in hitpoints and strength, because we can see them and we can modify them.
The vast majority of players only thinks in terms of "X is stronger than Y" and "A has more than B".
They calculate outcome in terms of "I have 5 Prisms and he has 5 Rhinos. Numbers are even and my guns have longer range and stronger damage. I should win this one!". They don't sit down and crunch numbers.
The fact of the matter is, even if randomization makes a difference, the player is not gonna notice. They might be happy if they won a fight they didn't expect to win, but they'll chalk it up to luck, not "the skillful modder's use of moderate randomization".
Random damage is simply not going to be relevant in practice.
Ranged drain weapons, on the other hand, at least allow the modders to create new units the players can use in their unrandomized battles - and that is something they will notice.
Kill: #378
Support: #556
I would like to have remapping walls, and I'm rather sure having the option would lead to some neat custom wall SHPs, but in overall impact of the game and playing experience, custom storms are just vastly superior to remapping overlays.
Kill: #925
Support: #957
Fight 2
Random damage seems to be splitting the comment base. One half seems to be of the opinion that it's pointless or even annoying, the other half seems to consider it a highly desirable feature.
Since I cannot decide for the community which side is "correct", I will base my decision on probable game impact.
If you have high randomization, say, fluctuating between 10 and 100, units become unreliable. This may be desired for some super unit's weapon, but I highly doubt it'll find much use in common battle units - even if the modder adds it, the player base will likely complain.
If you have low randomization, say, fluctuating between 45 and 55, the randomization becomes irrelevant. If you have few shots, the randomization may lead to a skewed outcome, but the numbers won't be so off that it really makes a difference - whether the enemy is shot to -4 or -13 health makes no difference - dead is dead.
If you have many shots, they'll just balance each other out, averaging the middle value.
The argumentation in the past has been that shots miss, not all body parts are equally important, etc., etc., and that is true.
But the question is: How much does that matter in YR?
If I have ten conscripts shooting at a building, rapidly draining its health, does it matter that it takes 0.5 seconds longer to kill it, because the randomizer decided they all suck at aiming?
We have talked about this before - in the dead/revivable request. This is the kind of feature that only matters in select situations.
If the unit is gonna die, it's gonna die anyway.
If you have 10 Conscripts vs. 3 GIs, random damage ain't gonna save them.
If you have 1 Grizzly vs. 3 Tank Destroyers, random damage ain't gonna save it.
If you have a single Conscript vs. a Sniper, random damage ain't gonna save him.
This kind of feature only strikes in fringe situations. If, for example, there is an incoming airstrike on the Sniper's position, he only has time for one shot before dying, and then misses. Then it would matter. But in practice, that rarely happens. In practice, the Sniper usually has time for multiple shots, and ultimately will kill the Conscript.
In general, it simply doesn't matter.
There's a different danger, though: Player frustration. Imagine the same situation - Sniper vs. Conscript. Imagine the randomizer randomly decides the Sniper misses again and again - it's possible. It could decide to deal 10 damage rather than 100 five times in a row - it could still balance out over a thousand shots.
Do you think the player would be happy?
Do you think the player would excitedly marvel over the "realism" of his Sniper being completely worthless?
So yeah. I understand that some of you would find it nice if you couldn't constantly pre-calculate how a fight will end and how many shots X will need to kill Y, but the truth is, in practice, if used moderately, this feature will make little difference, and if used to its extremes, the feature will be used rarely or lead to player frustration.
Yes, a certain element of chance would be nice. But let us be fully honest here: Even if we implemented this feature, and even if you used it moderately, and even if the fringe case happened and the randomization made a difference: Do you really think the player would notice?
Do you really think after any given battle, the player will sit there and ponder "Hey, that unit should be dead?! Lucky me!"?
It's just not gonna happen. We think in hitpoints and strength, because we can see them and we can modify them.
The vast majority of players only thinks in terms of "X is stronger than Y" and "A has more than B".
They calculate outcome in terms of "I have 5 Prisms and he has 5 Rhinos. Numbers are even and my guns have longer range and stronger damage. I should win this one!". They don't sit down and crunch numbers.
The fact of the matter is, even if randomization makes a difference, the player is not gonna notice. They might be happy if they won a fight they didn't expect to win, but they'll chalk it up to luck, not "the skillful modder's use of moderate randomization".
Random damage is simply not going to be relevant in practice.
Ranged drain weapons, on the other hand, at least allow the modders to create new units the players can use in their unrandomized battles - and that is something they will notice.
Kill: #378
Support: #556
Forum Rules
(01.06.2011, 05:43:25)kenosis Wrote: Oh damn don't be disgraced again!
(25.06.2011, 20:42:59)Nighthawk Wrote: The proverbial bearded omni-bug may be dead, but the containment campaign is still being waged in the desert.