|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248441]
|
Sat, 03 April 2010 14:28  
|
|
 Minty |
 |
Messages:110
Registered:July 2009
Location: UK |
|
|
Sure, no worries. Give me a moment.. Signing up to mediafire now..
savegame linky
Okay.. Not sure if I've done this correctly. Let me know if I've messed anything up, this is the first time I've ever uploaded to mediafire.
Yet another edit: Oh, and I should probably mention that I've edited the .ini to allow for more units in the field.. 30 each of militia and army.
[Updated on: Sat, 03 April 2010 14:49] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248472]
|
Sun, 04 April 2010 12:16
|
|
| Faithless |
 |
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre... |
|
|
Thank you for the save, it pointed out a bug when trying to verify if inseparable attachments were still valid.
Upgraded the whole system now to make it clearer, new exe is up.
EDIT: just clearer in the code, the player won't notice it.
[Updated on: Sun, 04 April 2010 13:30] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Master Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248526]
|
Sun, 04 April 2010 22:42
|
|
| CptMoore |
 |
Messages:224
Registered:March 2009 |
|
|
WarmSteel can you attach several items of the same sort? Like having several plates inserted into armor?
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant 1st Class
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248556]
|
Mon, 05 April 2010 11:59
|
|
| Faithless |
|
Messages:439
Registered:October 2009
Location: The safe end of the barre... |
|
|
Can someone with knowledge about saving and loading, as well as the class OBJECTTYPE please contact me?
I need to add something to OBJECTTYPE and I'm afraid it will break stuff.
The most convenient would be in IRC.
[Updated on: Mon, 05 April 2010 12:07] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Master Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248670]
|
Wed, 07 April 2010 06:53
|
|
| usrbid |
 |
Messages:1506
Registered:December 2008 |
|
|
Hi WarmSteel, The magazine adapters (like the beta c mag) were made inseparable as a result of what Hairysteed explained, removing the magazine adapter leaves the larger size mag amount of bullets in the weapon.
This can be exploited as a cheat of sorts, the concern back then was that people would attach the magazine adapter, load the bullets in the gun, then detach the mag adapter, keep the bullets in the gun, and then attach 4 attachments to the weapon as usual. This way you can prepare most ARs to hold 100 rounds and easily make it through one or two sectors before having to reload.
The limitation of 4 attachments will be lifted with the new attachment system, as a result the restriction of making the magazine adapter inseperable should be lifted assuming that removing the mag adapter will take care of the extra rounds in the gun. I believe back then unloading the gun was a challenge, this is why inseperable was chosen as a work-around.
Taking care of the extra bullets in the weapon can be done in multiple ways, here are just some of the ideas we talked about on IRC last weekend:
- Removing of the magazine adapter automatically unloads the larger size magazine and (attempts) to put it into the soldiers inventory (and if that fails drops it to the ground). I believe this is what Warmsteel has at the moment, however we can petition to change it, now is the time for that.
- Clicking on the magazine adapter (in an attempt to remove it) first unloads the weapon and makes the players mouse cursor the larger magazine (same way as if the player unloaded the gun herself)
- Removing of the magazine adapter automatically unloads a partially full magazine of the previous larger mag size into the soldier's inventory and leaves bullets for a normal size magazine in the weapon. For example removing a 5.56mm C-Mag Adapter from a Colt M4 Commando attempts to put a 5.56mm C-Mag with 70 bullets remaining into the soldier's inventory and leaves 30 rounds in the Colt M4 Commando.
Everyone feel free to chime in and post your opinion. Warmsteel wants to do the right thing here, just needs a few pointers of what should be done.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248683]
|
Wed, 07 April 2010 14:01
|
|
| razer |
 |
Messages:26
Registered:April 2007
Location: Germany |
|
|
Unload the weapon (C-Mag) and then detach the adapter, leaving zero rounds in the weapon would be most realistic. In real life you would also need to unload the gun in order to get rid of the c-mag adapter.
---------Edit------------
Will there be any penalties for overloading the gun with attachments? E.g. reflex and scope should be restricted to a few optics with ris on top. I can't imagine how a reflex sight could possibly work with a pso-1? Side by side? In a row?! To many attachments should also increase draw costs. And maybe we should get rid of the trigger group (or allow just for few weapons) as the new system could allow overpowered weapons. Are there any restrictions for trigger group and ARs yet?
[Updated on: Wed, 07 April 2010 14:09] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Private 1st Class
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248695]
|
Wed, 07 April 2010 16:29
|
|
| DepressivesBrot |
 |
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009 |
|
|
I would go with option 1, getting one full (or whatever status it currently has) c-mag is straigth forward and intuitive.
option 2 has potential to confuse new players/ those who don't read the change-log and option 3 adds - in my opinion- unnecessary complexity which provokes errors (like vanishing mags).
My favorite would be option 4, having actual magazines  (I know this is at least as complex as NAS, probably requires even more work and strongly recommend finishing NAS before even thinking about it, but I felt someone had to mention)
@ razer
1. As far as I know, c-mag adapters don't exist in real life. They are there to circumvent a limitation of the code, there is no 'like you would do in RL' in their case.
2. We should probably wait till fine-tuned xmls for NAS exist before deciding if there is a need for additional penalties. I could imagine something like small drawbacks on every attachment that don't matter with 1 or 2 but with the full array of possible attachments, a carbine gets the drawcosts of a .50 Barret or something could already do the trick.
3. Trigger groups are already tagged as scifi, then again it's a matter of tweaking the xmls to adjust balance to the new system, perhaps restrict them to certain families of rifles.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248725]
|
Wed, 07 April 2010 19:45
|
|
| DepressivesBrot |
|
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009 |
|
|
It's pretty difficult to solve this on a theoretical basis. You would have to find values that on one hand don't render even single attachments useless but on the other hand add up fast enough when a 'critical number' of attachments is reached, and that to an extend that can't be countered by an other attachment ( 3kg of stuff rendering your gun unwieldy should not be neglected by the draw bonus of a folding stock).
To stay with draw costs:
What are they used for? Obviously readying your weapon, HAM has aiming costs partially based on them, uhmm.. probably some check I can't remember and don't want to look through all those HDIWs to find it yet.
So is it really such a big penalty to increase them? Maybe for advancing teams changing positions every other turn, but the rest?
So something else, how about accuracy, cth, to-hit modifiers?
Accuracy is kinda minor as range seems far more important in the current system.
to-hit gets pretty big bonuses from lasers, but only up to certain ranges, so something like -5 per attachment would hurt from the 5th one upwards. But goes over the top past this range and
1) forces you to use lasers on every gun (hard, especially in the beginning when every attachment is a treasure)
2) can't be properly justified with many items (scopes, pods/grips, some small stuff)
So maybe I have been a little bit optimistic about the possibilities of the xml part.
So how about some small but effective code adjustments?
Something like attaching
if (total weight of attachments > x% of weapons basic weight)
then decrease effective marksmanship by y
to the cth calculation?
If yes, flat or scaled, the higher the % the more penalty? Perhaps with a lower limit (!=0) with no penalty? some nice nonlinear function? (just a spontaneous idea)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248736]
|
Wed, 07 April 2010 21:18
|
|
| DepressivesBrot |
|
Messages:3658
Registered:July 2009 |
|
|
Quote: I may not have the time or the will to do this.
Sure, no one presses you to do anything, you already accomplished a lot on this matter .
It's finally a theoretical discussion until we get actual feedback on what needs balancing.
Quote: This is not a good idea in my opinion, because it would make heavy guns easier to aim.
This is weird, unless perhaps you're on full auto.
hm, yes the basic idea was that an attachment of a given mass would affect an already heavy gun less than a light one, basically a substitute for an additional 'balance' value.
However, I only know guns from a theoretic point so I could be totally off.
That said, what about a (simplified) balance system? ( just throwing around some thoughts)
If an attachment goes in front of the center of mass, it gets a positive balance modifier.
If it goes behind it, it gets a negative balance modifier. If it is installed more or less above or under the center of mass, it gets no modifier (or zero). Than the values are summed up and *somehow* (directly or indirectly) affects cth. (no matter if >0 or <0, it lowers cth if it's not 0 and the value will most likely end up positive anyway as fewer stuff goes behind center and front has stuff like gl and nades)
(yes, I am aware that 'in front of' and 'behind' aren't necessary the same for every gun, it would be a solution of the lowest common denominator except you want a complete calculation of forces and lever rules for every gun)
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: New Attachment System Alpha[message #248744]
|
Wed, 07 April 2010 23:34
|
|
| Flugente |
|
Messages:3509
Registered:April 2009
Location: Germany |
|
|
What exactly are the drawbacks (in reality) of, say, a fully kitted-out M4 against a 'stripped' M4?
Seems to me the only drawbacks would be the higher weight (resulting in a higher drawcost), perhaps a different balance ( a bit less accuracy) and... well, the price of all the stuff.
So, wouldn't it be more realistic to counter these overpimped weapons by the price and avaibility of attachments? Problem is that you get a lot of attachments very fast... hmm, I don't know.
Another problem are the enemies attachments. So far, an enemy weapon can have a maximum of only 2 attachments (with the exeption of certain hardcoded snipers in Meduna). I mean, the enemies equipment has always been worse than yours, because in the end, you own everything you loot from those thousands of corpses. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love the idea of being able to customize my weapons more. But, as Majek pointed out long ago, this'll screw the balance even more.
Funny thing is, if i was Deidranna, it equip all my forces with contender encores and let them assualt them in whole platoons. That way, the mercs would either have to use these ridiculous guns themselves and have a really hard time, or ruin themselves by importing tons of proper ammo  . It would take 'em longer, at least.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Blog
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
