Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248750]
|
Thu, 08 April 2010 00:27
|
|
DepressivesBrot |
|
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009 |
|
|
I think one of the main drawbacks in real life, besides those you mentioned, is quite simply that you have to carry this gun all day long (especially in the military) and everyone will think twice if he takes this additional, cool attachment if he has a bunch of other stuff to hurl around and from what I heard, every kilogram matters under such conditions. It would be hard to simulate this properly without getting serious protests as some people just like to be prepared and load their mercs to the limit (me to). The weight you can carry in game might be realistic from an isolated perspective, but normally you would also have loads of other, not combat related stuff to carry which basically would restrict your mercs to a rifle and a sidearm.
I could also imagine that the weight would make it harder to keep the rifle readied for extended periods of time. Another thing that can't be simulated in game.
Quote: equip all my forces with contender encores and let them assualt them in whole platoons.
that sounds hilarious, one day, I'll have to try this
btw: yeah, I ran out of cheesy ideas for balance, at least for now.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248753]
|
Thu, 08 April 2010 01:00
|
|
systemfehler |
|
Messages:117
Registered:September 2007 Location: Hanover, Germany |
|
|
DepressivesBrotI could also imagine that the weight would make it harder to keep the rifle readied for extended periods of time. Another thing that can't be simulated in game.
Maybe they just lose energy over time and by shooting a lot. And forces the merc to lower his weapon once turn based is over, I remember mercs doing that without me telling them.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248865]
|
Fri, 09 April 2010 12:14
|
|
Faithless |
|
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009 Location: The safe end of the barre... |
|
|
The old merging system will stay for the ones that already exist, for now.
But the possibility to make attachments that alter the slots that are on a gun is already in NAS.
People who want to make attachments like that are free to do so.
Merges will have to stay for the old attachment system.
EDIT: This feature is a bit broken right now, but it's been fixed and will work correctly in the next version.
[Updated on: Fri, 09 April 2010 12:17] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Master Sergeant
|
|
|
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248924]
|
Sat, 10 April 2010 01:11
|
|
Faithless |
|
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009 Location: The safe end of the barre... |
|
|
Removing any attachment that adds extra ammo now unloads your magazine.
This means mag adapters can be removeable now.
EDIT: Well, this goes for the next update. It will also work without NAS.
[Updated on: Sat, 10 April 2010 01:11] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Master Sergeant
|
|
|
|
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248945]
|
Sat, 10 April 2010 11:06
|
|
Faithless |
|
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009 Location: The safe end of the barre... |
|
|
Not... quite...
Ammo is still read from a special place for ammo on the gun. You'd have to change this, also.
I've just made it possible to de-attach mag adapters without exploits.
This new ammo system would probably interfere with the old attachment system though, and separating it would probably also be messy.
[Updated on: Sat, 10 April 2010 11:08] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Master Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249044]
|
Sun, 11 April 2010 18:58
|
|
Wil473 |
|
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004 Location: Canada |
|
|
I would favour penalties defined at the attachment slot for the following reasons:
1) it is more transparent than some formula based on weight
2) the same attachment will have a different effect depending on which slot it uses; ie. a RIS LAM attached on the "optics" RIS is going to have a different effect on balance than say attached to a RIS right at the very end of the rifle
How about something that took into account both weight and position? ie. if slot type A is occupied by attachment with weight < X then penalty = Y1, else Y2 (or some formula that calculated penalties based on weight of the attachment)
EDIT:
I've put the NAS files into the correct places and the UC-113 Hybrid does not crash, a very good sign. Alt-W cheat coded my way to view some items, aside from the fact the XML's were designed for Data-1.13 items, looking good so far. In particular Default Attachments seem to be working, as long as things in Data-1.13 line up with the mods. I see quite a bit of data entry in my future just to get the basics working, but at the same time, it seems to be less as it looks like I can define an attachment slot for all RIS items to fit onto and then just make sure each gun that needs this slot has it.
I'm going to see if I can get my implementation of folding stocks to work first, this should end any complaints about me sacrificing one attachment slot for the sake of my alternative to the main 1.13's 1/3 of the time the stock is folded system.
[Updated on: Sun, 11 April 2010 19:07] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249046]
|
Sun, 11 April 2010 19:09
|
|
CptMoore |
|
Messages:224
Registered:March 2009 |
|
|
wil473I would favour penalties defined at the attachment slot for the following reasons:
1) it is more transparent than some formula based on weight
...
+1
Allowing to understand the rules precisely should be the first priority of any game.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #249111]
|
Mon, 12 April 2010 04:54
|
|
Wil473 |
|
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004 Location: Canada |
|
|
Well that was a bit easier than I expected, I got my folding stock system working with NAS in only a few hours. Works perfectly, though I also in the process removed all the other slots.
Specifics so far:
- Default attachments defined in items.xml work as long as a compatible attachment slot is on the item
- mergers to swap stock items and in the case of MP's weapon items as well work flawlessly
- I only need one slot specific to the folding stock system, and I've figued out how to place it on the end where it intuitively belongs
I imagine the fun/pain will be in filling in each item's slots individually. Thankfully most items do not need an attachment definition, but I am guessing that any item involved in a combo merger (ie. Vanilla JA2 X-Ray Detector) will require that attachment defined in NAS before it works. However before I do that, I'm going to see just how many different slots I am actually using. I am suspecting that philosophical differences I have with Starwalker concering balance and attachment logic may have streamlined things a bit for me.
MS Excel 2003 seems to have no problems manupulating the XML's except ItemSlotAssign. That one seems to work best for me in Notepad.
A questions, I noticed that some of the slots have a list of possible attachments, while others just say Attachments. How is that controlled? (So far in testing I'm using Slot Index 88 for the folding stocks, and 87 as a slot specific for the KORSAK-1 LAM).
Thank you WarmSteel, now that I've had a chance to decipher the XML's this is effectively the attachment system I've been hoping for. If all goes well, I think I can have a basic mini-mod for the UC-Hybrid done in a relatively short time.
EDIT: Oh and I don't mind the XML work, seems more straght forward than additional coding. Besides, as I said before, if it is just simple penalties, the XML's already allow for that. Just drop the maximum allowed negative values and those seeking the "Uber weapon" via excess attachments can be shown the error of their ways without too much effort.
[Updated on: Mon, 12 April 2010 05:12] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|