A sad design flaw (that will be fixed hopefully)

General discussion about Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

reggo
level0
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:26 pm

A sad design flaw (that will be fixed hopefully)

Postby reggo » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:02 pm

Below are two paragraphs from the IGN critics of DEFCON (http://pc.ign.com/articles/740/740863p1.html):

''As much fun as we've been having with DEFCON, there are some obvious areas for improvement here. First, the huge arc of the missile paths really frustrates your planning and timing. While it certainly looks cool, having your missiles travel so far out of their path gives third parties a chance to shoot them down. Nukes launched from Cairo to Mexico City, for instance, will travel directly over London and Chicago, giving European and North American units the chance to shoot them down.

It's less of an issue that non-allied nations would even bother to shoot down missiles that aren't even targeting their own territory. (Shooting down the bombers, we can understand.) What bothers us is that our own defenses fire on missiles heading to one of our enemy's territories.
''

I'm not bothered with the huge arc missile paths since it's indeed cool and it respects the movie ''WarGames'' from 1983. I would even say it's essential for these two reasons. On the other hand, why didn't they code the game so that nukes fired by country A at country B are not shot by countries C, D or E, but only by country B. That would be far more logical, far more realistic, and it would allow far more strategy. It should be rather simple to correct that mistake in the game code so we could get a patch with this fix.

This game would be perfect if it wasn't for this big design flaw. I've tried to contact the devs on their web site but their ''contact us'' button doesn't work.

What do you think?
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:14 pm

This has been mentioned before. Many, many times. You have added nothing new to the debate. Most of the community disagrees with you. Go away until you can come up with something original.

xander
User avatar
DueAccident
level3
level3
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:30 am

Postby DueAccident » Mon Mar 12, 2007 7:17 pm

To me, I believe it not to be a mistake or design flaw, rather as something that adds more strategy/skill to a game.

As you need to work out where you missiles will travel, know if they'll get shot down by likely silo positions, and if you can't get past, you need to persuade the country to your side so they ceasefire. It's all about trust.

In a hypothetical situation, player A is North America and winning, Player B is Europe and Second, Player C is Africa and last. Player C can't get his missiles through, but Player B needs to decide if it is worth the risk of letting his missiles past his defences to potentially knock Player A off his 1st position and allow B to rise. That is how I see it.
reggo
level0
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:26 pm

Postby reggo » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:22 pm

DueAccident,

I see your point. And it's very valid once you accept the way the game is currently implemented. It does open new strategies for sure. And it's an aspect favoring alliances.

However, to me, these strategies still look as an afterthough. And I really like true to life simulations, that's probably why I find uneasy to cope with this 'issue'.

xander wrote:This has been mentioned before. Many, many times. You have added nothing new to the debate. Most of the community disagrees with you. Go away until you can come up with something original.


WOW xander! LOL!

With your 2648 posts, you are clearly a veteran around here!
Thanks for greeting me with such a warm 'welcome' in your community!

As you clearly are the DEFCON forum veteran, with all your experience, you should have spotted that I'm a newcomer and that I may not be fully aware of what have been discussed or not in the past.

Anyway, I don't feel like teaching you the 'respect and diplomacy 101' course, but if the rest of this community is like you my dear and venerable DEFCON master, you'll be happy to watch me 'go away', like you said. And I too will be happy to go...

Rather play with ''CPU player 1'' than you my dear xander... :lol:
User avatar
NeoThermic
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby NeoThermic » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:26 pm

reggo wrote:And I really like true to life simulations, that's probably why I find uneasy to cope with this 'issue'.


Then I find it strange you have an issue with this. Defcon uses Equirectangular projection. Ergo if you draw a line between two points, it'll be curved. Incidnelty, despite the fact that people flag this as incorrect often, it's one of the most correct things in Defcon!

NeoThermic
User avatar
DueAccident
level3
level3
Posts: 463
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 2:30 am

Postby DueAccident » Mon Mar 12, 2007 9:55 pm

Reggo -
To me it adds more depth to the game. It is frustrating if someone refuses to budge, but you just have to work around that, and toast them instead :twisted: It is also more satisfying if you manage to pull it off succesfully, and I see it as another skill of Defcon, along with micromanaging, bomber control, timing etc.

If you take away the fact that other countries can shoot down your nukes, I feel that you are removing a valuable part of the game - Persuasiveness. If you can persuade people to your side and manipulate them, by "offering support" but being sorry as "I couldn't get there in time" etc, you can win a match without firing a shot, which is an interesting element that is worth trying, instead of going all gung ho 100% of the time.
lukasbradley
level1
level1
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:22 pm

Postby lukasbradley » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:24 pm

NeoThermic wrote:Then I find it strange you have an issue with this. Defcon uses Equirectangular projection. Ergo if you draw a line between two points, it'll be curved. Incidnelty, despite the fact that people flag this as incorrect often, it's one of the most correct things in Defcon!


But in the southern hemisphere, that shortest line would curve toward the south pole, not towards the equator.

Launch from South America to South Africa, and you'll see what I mean.
PsychicKid
level2
level2
Posts: 240
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 12:17 am

Postby PsychicKid » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:38 pm

You're all wrong. The shortest point between two paths is a wormhole.

Place a dot on a piece of paper, then place another dot on the opposite end. Now fold the paper over, with a little bit of space between the dots. Put a wormhole there.

Therefore, all the nukes should now travel through wormholes immediatly after launch and to the destination.
User avatar
NeoThermic
Introversion Staff
Introversion Staff
Posts: 6254
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2002 10:55 am
Location: ::1
Contact:

Postby NeoThermic » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:41 pm

lukasbradley wrote:
NeoThermic wrote:Then I find it strange you have an issue with this. Defcon uses Equirectangular projection. Ergo if you draw a line between two points, it'll be curved. Incidnelty, despite the fact that people flag this as incorrect often, it's one of the most correct things in Defcon!


But in the southern hemisphere, that shortest line would curve toward the south pole, not towards the equator.

Launch from South America to South Africa, and you'll see what I mean.


That is correct, yes, but then having the nukes always curve the way they currently do saves programming time ;)

But either way, the nukes should arch, despite what people seem to think.

NeoThermic
User avatar
caranthir.pkk
level3
level3
Posts: 265
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:03 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: A sad design flaw (that will be fixed hopefully)

Postby caranthir.pkk » Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:55 pm

reggo wrote:Below are two paragraphs from the IGN critics of DEFCON (http://pc.ign.com/articles/740/740863p1.html):

''As much fun as we've been having with DEFCON, there are some obvious areas for improvement here. First, the huge arc of the missile paths really frustrates your planning and timing. While it certainly looks cool, having your missiles travel so far out of their path gives third parties a chance to shoot them down. Nukes launched from Cairo to Mexico City, for instance, will travel directly over London and Chicago, giving European and North American units the chance to shoot them down.

It's less of an issue that non-allied nations would even bother to shoot down missiles that aren't even targeting their own territory. (Shooting down the bombers, we can understand.) What bothers us is that our own defenses fire on missiles heading to one of our enemy's territories.
''

I'm not bothered with the huge arc missile paths since it's indeed cool and it respects the movie ''WarGames'' from 1983. I would even say it's essential for these two reasons. On the other hand, why didn't they code the game so that nukes fired by country A at country B are not shot by countries C, D or E, but only by country B. That would be far more logical, far more realistic, and it would allow far more strategy. It should be rather simple to correct that mistake in the game code so we could get a patch with this fix.

This game would be perfect if it wasn't for this big design flaw. I've tried to contact the devs on their web site but their ''contact us'' button doesn't work.

What do you think?


Welcome to the community. I think everything you've mentioned has been addressed in detail beforehand, so really there's no need to restart the same debate again ;)

Good luck!

cara
User avatar
KingAl
level5
level5
Posts: 4138
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:42 am

Postby KingAl » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:01 am

reggo wrote:I don't feel like teaching you the 'respect and diplomacy 101' course


Ha. Irony.
Try using the search function.
reggo
level0
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:26 pm

Postby reggo » Tue Mar 13, 2007 12:41 am

NeoThermic, read my post again. I LOVE nuke's archs! Archs were not my issue.

KingAl wrote:Try using the search function.


That's the first thing that came to my mind but I was perplexed about the search terms to use. I've tried 'third parties nuke shooting', but I didn't get much success. :wink:
User avatar
MoonHill
level3
level3
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:41 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Postby MoonHill » Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:22 am

You guys all realize that he's not suggesting getting rid of missile arcs, right?

Right?
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:01 am

MoonHill wrote:You guys all realize that he's not suggesting getting rid of missile arcs, right?

Right?

No, he is suggesting that the player or AI know where nukes are going, so that nukes that are not threatening a given person's territory are not shot down by that person. I know exactly what he is suggesting. It has been suggested before, and it would break the game as it is currently played. Right now, there is a certain skill involved in either setting up cease fires to get nukes through other people's sky, or taking out their silos first. It prevents Africa from walking all over the game, as it is hard for Africa to hit the Americas with silos, and a bit of a challenge to hit China or Russia, depending on silo placement. Changing the way in which nukes are handled would fundamentally alter the balance of the game, and completely nerf Africa (as though Africa weren't already powerful enough...).

xander
User avatar
MoonHill
level3
level3
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:41 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Postby MoonHill » Tue Mar 13, 2007 7:22 am

No, he is suggesting that the player or AI know where nukes are going, so that nukes that are not threatening a given person's territory are not shot down by that person.


Just wanted to make sure of that. Because some of the commentary (not specifically yours, xander, but since you were being somewhat taciturn on details it was hard to tell) seemed to be stuck on the "arcs is bad" thing.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests