Engine v.95, scripts v.198
|
*sam* Posted Jun 19, 2008, 8:10 pm |
* Improved the ?find my car? and cycle-thru cars functions
* The M key now brings up the manage screen on your selected ped * < and > cycles thru your peds (the same as cars) * Fixed (I think) the strange ?collision with scenery? damage that peds were still taking * You no longer have to manage a ped before its weapons become usable * Red paint guns for the red team in paintball combats, blue paint for the blue teams * AI peds now do collision avoidance so they won?t end up stuck in a comical 'locomotive' line anymore * Armour bars on vehicles other than your own are now shown at a lower level of detail (4 levels only) * I have removed the billboard trees/bushes again. The code will be useful for insects though, I think. * I?m pretty sure I fixed the source of the 2 crashes we had this morning (apologies again) ? both were on Gates of Somerset btw, which gave the hint I needed |
||||||
|
Zoltan Posted Jun 20, 2008, 12:14 am |
Thanx for the hard work Sam 
|
||||||
|
*Ayjona* Posted Jun 20, 2008, 2:07 am |
Many nice improvements, but I like this one in particular. Eventually, it would be really nice if the details we receive on vehicles and entities other than our own are based on our scouting skill. |
||||||
|
*Lugal* Posted Jun 20, 2008, 2:55 am |
All sound excellent - thanks! | ||||||
|
Valiance Posted Jun 20, 2008, 10:26 am |
Unlike Ayjona, I don't like this one. I can see why it exists.
Would it be possible to make a minor tweak. I often use the fact that a car has taken *any* damage at all to see which cars are already being targeted by my companions. Would it be possible to switch the top level report to being that it showed a tiny bit of damage if that facing has taken any damage at all? Just my thought. |
||||||
|
*sam* Posted Jun 20, 2008, 10:31 am |
That's easily done Valiance.
Right now the 4 levels displayed are "about 100% health", "about 66% health", "about 33% health" and "very low (about 0%) health" I can make it so "about 66%" is shown as soon as any damage is taken, rather than (as it is now) when it drops below 75% |
||||||
|
Parduz Posted Jun 20, 2008, 11:08 am |
For that purpose, a 5th level saying "below 100" should not ruin this attempt to "fog"
I think that the gunner that's repeat firing at a car will know how much damage he's doing (i mean; visually he should have more "precision" to 4 level to evaluate the damage)... he should have eyes only for that job. So i don't like so much this change....but it does not hurt so much, so i'm just complaining a bit
|
||||||
|
Alocalypse Posted Jun 21, 2008, 9:36 am |
I dislike this, now I'm left to counting hits and estimating the exact damage on my own (this will be impossible for any newbies). This is made harder due to not showing hit counters on similar damage messages ( ex "Minor damage (4x)" ). This makes larger scouts where there's more to keep track of harder (especially large solo scouts). Unless of course you're ok with randomly blowing everything up. There's got to be better ways to make the game harder than just limiting the info. Also if you're going to leave it like this having just text saying none/low/medium/high might be nicer. |
||||||
|
*sam* Posted Jun 21, 2008, 9:58 am |
It was intended as a realism thing alo... you wouldn't realistically have an exact idea of your enemies' armour would you?
We'll see what people think over the next few days; I can always revert if if necessary |
||||||
|
*viKKing* Posted Jun 21, 2008, 10:08 am |
I haven't tested it out, as real life caught me yesterday before we could start scouting with jimmy, longo and Darth (sorry guys).
Our third child, Julie wasn't agreeing on sleeping until 11:00 pm. Anyway, this feature sounds valid to me. |
||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Jun 21, 2008, 4:03 pm |
I have no problem with "estimated" damage. I would, however, like to see the following information added to Inspect:
Number of characters in a vehicle and a gross approximation of their condition (Uninjured, Lightly Injured, Heavily Injured, Critically Injured, Unconscious, Dead), since we DO get information about that in the damage floaters. |
||||||
|
*Zothen* Posted Jun 22, 2008, 2:07 am |
I dont like this new feature very much! Maybe it would be ok for me if a hit on a side would at least show a little scratch, but instead Im too often wondering if Ive really inflicted damage or not. Quite confusing! |
||||||
|
*viKKing* Posted Jun 22, 2008, 7:53 am |
I disagree. And to get flamed: why not removing such information from the bubbles instead, when it is not related to your squad? |
||||||
|
Alocalypse Posted Jun 22, 2008, 8:22 am |
That'd make the game less fun, since the damage messages are such a great feature. Showing just the number of characters (and the weapons the vehicle carries, since that can be looked up on the website anyway and it'd just remove some alt-tabbing for some people) would be ok. Keeping track of injuries/weapon/engine damage should be consistant with armor so we should get an indicator of those. Also I've been campainign for butting death-messages in the popups (you only get them in chat, but they're hard to notice in bigger scouts) |
||||||
|
*viKKing* Posted Jun 22, 2008, 9:05 am |
hehe, I was kidding of course. 
I strongly agree.
It sounds good, but should be linked to the current system Sam has integrated. IMHO, it gives NPCs a little more chance by adding doubt on the player side, this is why I strongly support this new feature (* Armour bars on vehicles other than your own are now shown at a lower level of detail (4 levels only)).
Seconded. |
||||||
|
Dr Mathias Posted Jun 22, 2008, 3:38 pm |
I've always wondered if the pop-ups could somehow be reduced to just have some highlights, with a feature where they enlarge with full information when they're scrolled over. I like injury messages, but man sometimes they take up sooo much space. It might be nice to have a feature like:
Left Armor Destroyed! Internal components damaged! Bill Forsyth is critcally injured! Then when you scroll over it, the pop-up enlarges saying: Left Armor Destroyed! Major damage to engine Damage to front mounted weapons Damage to cargo Bill Forsyth has two toes blown off in the blast Bill Forsyth is stunned Bill Forsyth is bleeding heavily Bill Forsyth receives massive internal organ damage Too much coding work to do this? Do most people like the massive amounts of information? One argument might be "I wont have time to look at all the damage to the cars" .... but that might simulate the need to make a quick decision in combat. You're obviously going for an attempt at realism by messing with armor visibility, although it makes it harder to know when to stop shooting. I'm not happy about the new armor feature but I'm not going to suggest removing it either. I say lets live with it for a while and see what happens. Death notices in pop-ups! |
||||||
|
*viKKing* Posted Jun 22, 2008, 4:07 pm |
Time to add a new scouting specialism: intelligence.
The ability to report accurate data by observation in any means of a target. The higher the skill, the better the details on the vehicle (including damages) and the crew (including wounds). It would compensate very well the new system I think. |
||||||
|
Parduz Posted Jun 22, 2008, 6:16 pm |
I don't get it:
if the reasons to hide the precise status of a car are good ones, then the "intellicence" spec. is like a game hack. If the info we have got until now were goos, there's no reason to hide them... I still don't get this change: if we're not knowing how much a car is damaged, how we can know that the occupant are demoralized? are they telling us this? We can't ever know this by their behaviour: they still stay in the heart of the battle instead of running away (why they act in this manner is another mistery, for me). |
||||||
|
*viKKing* Posted Jun 22, 2008, 6:44 pm |
The reason of my proposal for the Intelligence specialism is to offer people unhappy with this new feature an affordable alternative.
It is some kind of a deal. To my eyes, hidding such info is not enough - remember I'm the one proposing a real Fog Of War -; but this is a step I'm appreciating and I'm trying to find a balance for all kind of players. For the rest of your comment, quoting myself in an other thread:
|
||||||
|
simonmaxhill Posted Jun 22, 2008, 7:36 pm |
I absolutely love the detailed injury reports - half of the fun of using a new weapon is seeing the way it mangles the npc drivers!
Think of all the table top RPGs where literally half the rulebooks are simply charts of critical hits. Super fun, super bad! simon max hill Portland, OR |
||||||
|
Parduz Posted Jun 22, 2008, 9:31 pm |
This is what i can't get
I still love the boardgame part of DW: in a boardgame you know your rolls, you know the damage, there's no "fog" at all. You make your choice knowing all, your faults are not 'cause you don't know, but 'cause you make a bad choice. Again, is a matter of where DW is going... if the way is "fog of infos", then make it complete: don't show the "version" of the car, but get it by looking at what is shooting; don't show who's demoed until the loot screen; don't show crew damage (they're inside, how can you know?); show damage info as said here.... imho, it will lead to a total carnage with almost no tactic choices, and far away to any kind of boardgame. The other way is to keep it as it was: know everything, and choose what to do based on that infos, then blame yourself only, if you loose. |
||||||
|
*viKKing* Posted Jun 22, 2008, 9:50 pm |
Wrong. There are some boardgames (wargames related) in which you don't necessary know which units are used. You do have an idea of the location, but nothing more. Fight Leader and Fire Power from Avalon Hill, and Crusader from Games Workshop, a light version of Space Hulk. You may also know the roll, but not necessarily the table used to resolve it, hence different results. I think it is very unfair regarding Sam's work to merge many concepts and game systems in one, to limit Darkwind to known games and rules an of course gameplay. There are known elements, and there are unkown ones. Why should they all be belong to the same category? |
||||||
|
*JD_Basher* jd.basher@charter.net Posted Jun 22, 2008, 11:09 pm |
Darkwind is a game unto itself!
It is only BASED on a boardgame.... It IS NOT a boardgame! Ideas for the DW/game are many....... Most of them cannot and/or should not be added to DW. MANY people degrade this MMORPG into a "game". "Role-Playing" means playing an ongoing role in an event you have some basic control over either with characters, actions or events... Or all 3! With Darkwind we have all 3 and more, because it IS a continuing calendar on a continent. We as paying players should realize that we only control a small part of our online gaming. The MAJOR part is in the decisions made by our developer based on ideas we the paying public give him. He does not have to use our ideas.... I'd almost guarantee he has them written down somewhere for future use in a stack of 3-ring binders! GOOD JOB SAM! Thank you! |
||||||
|
Parduz Posted Jun 22, 2008, 11:12 pm |
I admit that i find very hard to explain myself, so i try to reply to the most important part without going down in the boargame examples which is too difficult to arguing, for me (apologize for this, i'd like to go deeper even if a bit OT).
That's exactly what i'm saying. Here we can read that we can still know when someone dies or loose a toes inside a car, when we can't know how much damage we do to the exterior of that car. Imho, it's not coherent. So, for me, it's a matter of choosing if we want to know what happens, 'cause it is fun to read the "critical hits" and 'cause we like to know what we're doing, or to if we cant know nothing or almost nothing 'cause it is more realistic. Imo, thinking how this will affect the gameplay, is better to know as it is right now (and before this change). Staying in the middle is the worst choice 'cause it is somewhat non coherent. |
||||||
|
Nekojin Posted Jun 23, 2008, 1:25 am |
Personally, I think that the game works just fine with vague information. You don't need a point-by-point breakdown of damage. You don't need to know what "Heavy" damage is (and it varies depending on damage vs. armor, anyway). I don't have any problem with descriptive phrases substituting for (and somewhat obfuscating) the exact numbers.
Yes, the game HAS exact numbers. It's a computer game; they don't generally work on abstract concepts very well, but they can translate exact figures into abstracts. But just because it HAS the numbers doesn't mean that WE have to have the numbers.
Which is why I was suggesting vague Crew injury comments, rather than the specific health descriptors. Only the owner/driver of the car should get the exact injury descriptors (and anyone else in the car, in the case of rare multi-Gang crews). Getting NO information at all isn't fun for much of anyone, because it turns it into a guessing game ("That car decelerated and went straight - is the driver dead, or just stunned?"), not a combat simulation. How do we know that the driver took a hit? Well, maybe we're all just a leeetle bit psychic, thanks to the Aurora... 
And in counterpoint, I have to say that it IS fun to say, "Man, I blew that guy's head right off his shoulders with that shot!" So, I'd rather have anything but NO information regarding enemy crews. Friendly crews/cars should be a known quantity, so that we don't have to waste time relaying information. |