Jump to content


Photo

UFO2K Defualt Weapon Set


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

Poll: UFO2k Weapon set too bulky or not enough?

Your opinion?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Kratos

Kratos

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,113 posts

Posted 10 May 2010 - 02:59 PM

I'm setting up this poll because we need to know if game play is being affected by the default weapon set's bulk. It's a greatly designed set by Sporb, and we should all respect his work on the art. However, we also need to take in mind the player's (your) game play value.

Feel free to discuss your reason behind your vote.

Edited by Kratos, 10 May 2010 - 03:04 PM.


#2 Fomka

Fomka

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 11 May 2010 - 10:40 AM

I voted for adding more weapons since I like it when the choice is wide.

I think that having all possible weapon variants will be interesting, since players can organize bigger number of tactics. All possible variants = all combinations of major weapon features, like one-or-two-handiness, short or long auto burst, quickness, accuracy, damage, weight, cost.

I think that implementing all variants will not be made, though. :) But if the choice is wider, the game will be more unexpected and interesting, I think.

Edited by Fomka, 11 May 2010 - 10:41 AM.


#3 Serge

Serge

    Project Leader: UFO 2000

  • Xenocide Programming Department
  • 785 posts

Posted 18 May 2010 - 03:33 PM

So I guess poll results are averaging to "Everything is fine" at the moment (I have not voted myself) :)
ufo2000 development team
http://ufo2000.sourceforge.net

#4 Kratos

Kratos

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,113 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 03:39 PM

Someone else voted for "Too bulky" as well.

In my opinion, a standard set should not confuse a new player. Too much weapons can cause this. We should give the option for "more" weapons but as a different set. It's just too much... There's too much issues with balancing with such a high variety of variables as well. It should be fair, but simple. Throwing a "crazy overpacked" set in there is fine, but don't make it default.

We should have been keeping to our original balance from 0.6 stable with the x-com weapons. It was by far the best balanced weapon set. Seriously, what was wrong with it? Most of you never played 0.6 stable to know how balanced it really was. I played both stable and beta versions, it does not compare. Why did we change something that wasn't broken, but to just break it? This is one of the main reasons why I today still prefer 0.6 stable as a memorable version.

If Hobbes was here he'd probably explain it a lot further than I can. He's, I believe, the balancer of 0.6 stable weapon set.

This has been thoroughly discussed many times, but to just be argued that "More is better" and "I'm right you're wrong".

The fact is, game design should be simple enough to not confuse your players. Have any of you read game design theory and tried applying it to actual games? The more complex the worse it gets on some ends.

Edited by Kratos, 29 May 2010 - 03:49 PM.


#5 Fomka

Fomka

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 30 May 2010 - 04:45 AM

In my opinion, a standard set should not confuse a new player. Too much weapons can cause this.

I agree with this. I did not think of the set as a default. The Ufo2k Classic weaponset as the default is normal, not too bulky, not too small.?

We should give the option for "more" weapons but as a different set. It's just too much... There's too much issues with balancing with such a high variety of variables as well. It should be fair, but simple. Throwing a "crazy overpacked" set in there is fine, but don't make it default.

There will be many issues with balancing, but the work is not unreal. The result will be crazy for some person, favorite for some other. However, it is a general approach: if I begin such work, my opinion can change. :)


We should have been keeping to our original balance from 0.6 stable with the x-com weapons. It was by far the best balanced weapon set. Seriously, what was wrong with it? Most of you never played 0.6 stable to know how balanced it really was. I played both stable and beta versions, it does not compare. Why did we change something that wasn't broken, but to just break it? This is one of the main reasons why I today still prefer 0.6 stable as a memorable version.

If Hobbes was here he'd probably explain it a lot further than I can. He's, I believe, the balancer of 0.6 stable weapon set.

Oh, oh! If you are addressing me and Serge (the only ones who have participated in this discussion), you are wrong with the "most of you"! I've also played the stable version. :) However, my memories of it is far less solid that yours. I'll renew my experience.


This has been thoroughly discussed many times, but to just be argued that "More is better" and "I'm right you're wrong".

Maybe I haven't understand you, since English is not my native language. Are you saying that I've showed too few arguments for "More is better"? Are you saying that I have stated "I'm right, you're wrong"? Has the expression of my opinion offended you?

The fact is, game design should be simple enough to not confuse your players.

Agree again.

Have any of you read game design theory and tried applying it to actual games? The more complex the worse it gets on some ends.

I've read only several articles on game design, haven't read a theory in a book. Can you point to such one?

As for complexity. UFO2000 is a turn based squad tactical simulation. A reference model for excellent tactical game for me is "Jagged Alliance 2: Night Operations" modification for Jagged Alliance 2 game.The modifications contains over 60 weapons that cover almost every possible variant of parameters. The other point is that the game is for single player. :)

I continue to think that "if the choice is wider, the game will be more unexpected and interesting", even multiplayer. Imagine a long multiplayer tournament where players advance in ranks and gain wider choice of weapons and items in the process.

#6 Tanki

Tanki

    Squaddie

  • Forum Members
  • PipPip
  • 2 posts

Posted 06 June 2010 - 08:57 PM

I voted to add more weapons. From my point of view when I first started to play UFO2k was most to all of the weapons still felt at home and were self explanatory (sniper rifle). Any X-COM veteran can glance at the stats of a weapon and understand its role. The problem wasn't the weapons it was tactics and how to use the weapons to their maximum efficacy. But I learned fast and adapted by watching replays and eventually started to create my own strategy's using my favored weapons. In light of that I think that one should be giving a full variety of weapons. Let them choose their own set of weapons that they feel comfortable with.

There is no way to make new players who might have played a TBS, but have never played an X-COM not feel alienated. A suggestion would be to add a short description of the general role and usage of each weapon, It would help new comers get started. That is of course if they read it, governments have been trying to get people to read for century's. ^_^

Edited by Tanki, 06 June 2010 - 09:10 PM.

Cap'a'Ton Tanki

#7 Fomka

Fomka

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 12 June 2010 - 05:52 AM

I renewed my knowledge of UFO2000 stable version, as I promised before.

I've also played the stable version. However, my memories of it is far less solid that yours. I'll renew my experience.

Renewal happend a while ago, when version 0.9.1129 was the latest beta version.

Obviously, there are differencies between weaponset from stable (stable weaponset) and any weaponset from the 0.9.1129 beta version. The weaponset closest to stable is "Modified X-Com weapons" (beta weaponset). This weaponset was not modified in the latest 0.9.1142 version. So, that beta weaponset can give general information on the stable one.

I've assembled UFO2000 0.6.627 with XCOM demo data and a preset squad that shows differencies between the stable weaponset and the beta weaponset. You can see for yourself what the exact differencies between game versions are: just run two game versions side-by-side. Doing this you will move from large group of "most of you" into smaller group of those, who played both stable and beta versions :)

Most of you never played 0.6 stable to know how balanced it really was. I played both stable and beta versions, it does not compare.


My opinion stays the same: UFO2000 Classic weaponset is OK as default but the more items the better.

The link to stable 0.6.627 version of UFO2000 with XCOM demo data and a preset squad

#8 lemm

lemm

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 31 posts

Posted 06 October 2010 - 07:28 PM

Personally I think there are enough weapons.

Is there a default weaponset that doesn't include explosives, and one that doesn't include smoke? I'm not a fan of explosives.

#9 Fomka

Fomka

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 07 October 2010 - 07:38 AM

...
Is there a default weaponset that doesn't include explosives, and one that doesn't include smoke? ...

The default weaponset for the current beta version 0.9.1142 is the Ufo2000 Classic Set, it consists of 6 sets but none of them is a special "no explosives" or "no smoke" set.
Stable version 0.6.627 has special "no explosives" set but lacks "no smoke" set. In addition, in that version you can set "explosives level" in match settings.