Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378
#22
(13.08.2010, 09:39:59)Blade Wrote: Slight inaccuracy is irrelevant as the variation would need to simulate it would hardly be noticed in game making it pointless

With 'slight' inaccuracy I meant more as in simulating hits to different body parts (not just infantry, also vehicles), of course 2-3% variance in damage would be pointless, but 15-20% would be a different story.
Also, this would be the perfect solution for simulating 'shotgun' type weapons where each bullet has a somewhat random course of flight.

(13.08.2010, 09:39:59)Blade Wrote: and the critical hit implementation is the suckiest possible use since suddenly it becomes possible for a single GI to somehow get lucky and destroy that tank that is about to crush him in one hit which is a case of do not want! This is a real time STRATEGY game, not roulette.

Besides the fact that I would never use this for something like a GI, I already mentioned that it would allow for some more unique mods apart from the run-of-the-mill "YR+50 units" mods. You may not want this in a conventional mod (though that's a matter of taste), but for more unique total conversions, random damage and critical hit may both be worthwhile features.

(13.08.2010, 09:39:59)Blade Wrote: If you want a chance to hit system, go request one on the tracker, don't support random damage because you think you can use it to sort of hack together the feature you really want.
I want both, and since CriticalHit is included in the request, I'll support it.

And in any case, I still think #1003 is too complicated and of too limited use to justify it's survival.


Messages In This Thread
DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Renegade - 11.08.2010, 01:35:40
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 11.08.2010, 13:23:15
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 12.08.2010, 10:28:26
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by mt. - 12.08.2010, 20:56:37
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by DCoder - 12.08.2010, 21:10:01
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 12.08.2010, 22:43:49
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by mt. - 12.08.2010, 22:54:24
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 12.08.2010, 23:32:23
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 13.08.2010, 09:39:59
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by reaperrr - 13.08.2010, 14:23:06
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Guest - 13.08.2010, 15:04:19
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 13.08.2010, 17:34:13
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Guest - 13.08.2010, 19:36:28
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 14.08.2010, 12:55:40
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 14.08.2010, 17:45:51
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by mt. - 14.08.2010, 17:55:51
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by Blade - 14.08.2010, 19:03:50
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by AlexB - 01.09.2010, 16:31:47
RE: DFD-R3: 237 vs. 925, 1003 vs. 378 - by DCoder - 03.10.2010, 20:37:15



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)