Bad suggestions

Ideas for expansions and improvements to Defcon

Moderator: Defcon moderators

User avatar
Kuth
level4
level4
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Keele Imperium
Contact:

Bad suggestions

Postby Kuth » Sat Oct 07, 2006 8:19 pm

Or annoying things that everybody brings up on a contiual basis, usually by the post launchday crowd.

So, some things I DISAGREE with:

Armies and land units:
No. Why? Europe for one reason. How can you cram some 20 units worth of land material in there and hope to select and move them. I'd imagine Europe would be nearly one entire landmass of YOUR COLOR at that point.

And if we introduce land based units, then we have to introduce means of defenses to, like fortresses or something. Else what's to stop these land units from strolling up to an unguarded city and blowing it away? Sea units can't do this because, well, they're costal only, and aircraft can only do damage to ground facilities if they're carrying nukes.

"Fixing" missile arcs:
No. It is part of the game that they arc the way they do. Defcon is a realtime STRATEGY game, you use STRATEGY to figure out how to get your nukes from point A to point B- circumventing the defenses along the way. If you're S. America and want to pound Russia into the stonage REAL BAD, then send bombers and submarines up there to make a difference- don't go whining and complaining to Introversion saying "F1x 7h3s3 p134s3!"

This is an ARCADE STYLE STRATEGY GAME, not a nuclear warfare sim. Perhaps it will be someday, but for now enjoy it as it is, and mod it on your own if you really want it that bad (good luck).

Bunkers and HQs:
I disagree with this one for personal reasons. I like the distance Defcon has from trying to make it look as real as possible. In it's base form, one could imagine Defcon being everything from yes, hacking into NORAD, to virtual simulator battles to classroom study projects. There's no stables that makes it definately one or the other.

Adding HQs, or a big YOU ARE HERE sign, to me, just takes away from the general feeling of Defcon. If we do assume that this is a sim of 1980s Cold-war nuclear conflict, then why the hell is the middle east cooperating with China? If you have one bunker that commands that entire area, you're implying that they do, which clearly they never did.

Individual units for countries/territories
This pops up a few times in a few threads, especially after kinping's wonderful work showed up. It's also been suggested as far back as pre-launch day I beleive, but like all stupid ideas it kinda flared up like a bad sore after launchday.

So let's say we could introduce individual graphics sets for national areas. Everyone's happy. How long do you think it'll be before those same heads (or the sim people) DEMANDED!!!!!! that we make individual stats for them, dropping such things as endurance ranges and maximum speeds in atmosphere, as well as going faster when the nukes were dropped (or holding more than one nuke!)

Let me make this clear, once again:
Defcon is a game. A real time strategy game. Defcon is a Real time Arcade style Strategy game.

Arcade, as in "to hell with reality, let's make this FUN!!! And SIMPLE!"

So it's a domino effect really...

The Big Red Button
This has largely been defeated, but added here for completeness. The lazyasses out there want the real BIG RED BUTTON that says LAUNCH NUKES!!!111 and what some people have as avatars.

And, as largely pointed out by the older communtiy, it would ruin the game.

Why? It would turn into something akin to a 4-year old child's arcade game: HIT THE BUTTON THE FASTEST, THE HARDEST.

Where the hell is the strategy in this?

Resources
This comes up under various forms, but I'll address this all under one heading. Basicly, the players want a system that dictates how much of what is deployed on the warfield, or what affects ending score. Be it oil, money, what have you....

Defcon is, again, NOT A SIM. It is not supposed to be simulating anything. If anything, it abstracts everything to the point of being base and iconic (Since fighters and bombers are clearly different designs, we cannot have a generic 'Airplane' unit, despite the nearly hundreds of designs for fighters and bombers across the globe.)

Secondly, it takes away from the basic-ness of Defcon. Defcon is not supposed to be cruddy or cludgy, caked with special additions and addons with features as long (and as complex) as your arm.

This is not civilization, nor is it Alpha Centauri, or anything made out of Sid Meyer's closet. If anything, this is an atari-level strategy game. Until we can change the code itself (into a sim?) then there shouldn't be resources allowed, other than the points system needed to dictate fleet compositions.

And even then, does anyone use that function in normal games?
Last edited by Kuth on Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:04 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Coltzero
level1
level1
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 7:52 am

Postby Coltzero » Sat Oct 07, 2006 9:03 pm

Im actually glad you posted this, it shows the downside of all those things.
I dont have anything to complaint about atm.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16868
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:35 pm

Thank you for posting this, Kuth. I would like to just add one more thing, in big ass letters:
Defcon is a game, not a simulation!

xander
yop
level1
level1
Posts: 53
Joined: Sat Oct 07, 2006 11:12 pm

Postby yop » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:44 am

does that post imply that you agree with the satellite idea?
btw you don't have to answer =)
User avatar
Hegemon Hog
level2
level2
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:25 pm
Location: Seattle, USA

Re: Bad suggestions

Postby Hegemon Hog » Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:18 am

Kuth wrote:Bunkers and HQs:


I think you've rather missed the point with this one. Most people in that discussion (including the OP) seemed to want this for aesthetic purposes only (i.e. better mood and immersion). I proposed not having any bunker icon visible on the map at all, so that it's really only about hearing the deep muted blasts of nuclear war "above" you, and maybe having the screen flicker or static.

If you don't want this because it "locks" you into the idea of real life war rather than being able to think of it as pure simulation, then do the existing features like this bother you? Things like coughing and voices, somber music, etc.
User avatar
Kuth
level4
level4
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Keele Imperium
Contact:

Postby Kuth » Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:58 am

I'm not bothered so much by the idea of the background coughing and music. That doesn't have so much of a heavy impact on gameplay as they can be removed quite easily.

yop wrote:does that post imply that you agree with the satellite idea?
btw you don't have to answer =)


Even before Defcon hit the shelves I concepted the idea of an orbiting Starwars sattelite orbiting on a parabolic orbit. After all, when I look at most modern RL strategic displays, they always have some parabolic orbits on them showing where their sats are going.

Sats are more like an overglorified air unit than a unit in of themselves, I proposed, as they would fly indefinately and never move off thier course. And like installations they have to be placed JUST RIGHT to be in the right place at the right time, or they'd be shot down by an opponent's SAM grid just like most other aircraft.

Point of that proposal (And why I don't see it as being proposterous), is that there ARE counters to it, and it behaves like an already existing unit, except it is designed to attack only nukes and other sattelites; NOTHING ELSE.
Drakkenfyre
level1
level1
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 3:54 am
Location: Lynchburg, VA, USA
Contact:

Postby Drakkenfyre » Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:40 am

What gets me is the repeated request for a "nuke all" button which would either (depending on which one you read) nuke random targets, or nuke all known targets, which would take alot out of the game and the challenge, it would be abused like hell and every single multiplayer game would consist of "click nuke all, click nuke all, click nuke all, click nuke all"

where is the challenge in clicking a single button and having your nukes automatically target themselves and launch? it is completely lazy as hell, you might as well have a single button in StarCraft labeled "Gather Resources, Build Units, Attack Enemy"

-Drakk )))
User avatar
Kuth
level4
level4
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Keele Imperium
Contact:

Postby Kuth » Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:03 am

Hopefully any outrageous suggestions threads will be re-directed here. Y'think we need a sticky for something like this in the Thinktank? Some obvious BAD IDEAS that the community at large (and maybe the developers?) do not wish to see.

And this is directed at all the newcomers out there who signed on just after Defcon's release, and are here expecting a carnaval of clowns and insta-mods to change Defcon into something else:

Thermonuclear warfare does not concern itself with territories, or resources, or occupying ground.

It concerns itself with surviving the inevitable nuclear attack that your opponent is likely to unleash.

THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is the purpose of DEFCON.

Anything conterary to this is a different game.
User avatar
MrBunsy
level5
level5
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:40 pm
Location: Southampton
Contact:

Postby MrBunsy » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:19 am

xander wrote:Defcon is an arcade style game, not a simulation!
Mind if I add further to that?

Too many 'games' attempt to be realistic these days. Some pull it off... most don't. Defcon doesn't even bother trying, it's almost purely about the gameplay, and it's all the better for it.
User avatar
unknown
level1
level1
Posts: 55
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:30 pm

Re: Bad suggestions

Postby unknown » Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:57 pm

Kuth wrote:Bunkers and HQs:
I disagree with this one for personal reasons. I like the distance Defcon has from trying to make it look as real as possible. In it's base form, one could imagine Defcon being everything from yes, hacking into NORAD, to virtual simulator battles to classroom study projects. There's no stables that makes it definately one or the other.

Adding HQs, or a big YOU ARE HERE sign, to me, just takes away from the general feeling of Defcon. If we do assume that this is a sim of 1980s Cold-war nuclear conflict, then why the hell is the middle east cooperating with China? If you have one bunker that commands that entire area, you're implying that they do, which clearly they never did.



I disagree - you kind of missed the point.

The premise of the game is that you are a general in a bunker somewhere, playing out the last hours of the world. That's what I've read everywhere I've been, and I think (though I'm not positive) it's even been stated by IV. The coughing, crying woman, and the other atmospheric sounds in the background only attest to this idea.

The fact that you've taken them out of your game doesn't change the intent of them. I don't personally care to place a headquarters, or a bunker, or anything like this. But I do like the idea of having a random chance on a nuclear hit on your country to have the screen flicker just slightly, or hear a muted, distant rumble of some large explosion.

ndividual units for countries/territories
This pops up a few times in a few threads, especially after kinping's wonderful work showed up. It's also been suggested as far back as pre-launch day I beleive, but like all stupid ideas it kinda flared up like a bad sore after launchday.


I definitely agree with you here, and want to add one point. There's no reason to officially change the icons for each country - as it is, all the icons represent a unit type, and couldn't be classified as a certain fighter, or a certain battlehsip. They're completely representative of the TYPE of forces that you're applying, and not the specifics. So why add specifics? They're not needed.
User avatar
palehorse864
level2
level2
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:54 am

Postby palehorse864 » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:40 pm

I disagree with the original poster somewhat on the missile arcs issue and the implication that because this is a strategy game, any of the ideas would be bad or less strategic. The point of it being a strategy game is irrelevant argument in many situations because many of the things people suggest would leave the game as strategic as it is.


On the issue of missile arcs, I feel that altering the south of the hemisphere nuke launches to arc south instead of north could work. Also making the nuke arcs shallower could help in some cases when firing closer to the equator. The great circle suggestions have been great in my opinion and I don't think a blanket argument against any alterations helps much.

If anything, altering the arcs could make the game MORE strategic than less. It woudl free players up to consider their targets rather than being forced to settle for attacking the player north of them because that's all they can reasonably expect to hit. It is true that you sometimes can not fire reasonably well on an enemy because there is someone else north of you shooting down your missiles intended for the original target. Many times, you do not want to fight this person, wishing to target someone across the globe. Unfortunately, you are locked in to a choice of either attacking the person north of you or losing all your missiles. Little strategy goes into the decision in these cases.
The best solution would be to allow the player to choose their chosen arc. Let them decide if they want the missiles to go north or south. If they are south america and want to strike africa, they may want to arc their nukes to the south if the US and Europe aren't friendly. However, if the US and Russia are friendly, they may try a northward arc to strike asia.
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Re: Bad suggestions

Postby Feud » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:50 pm

Kuth wrote:Individual units for countries/territories
This pops up a few times in a few threads, especially after kinping's wonderful work showed up. It's also been suggested as far back as pre-launch day I beleive, but like all stupid ideas it kinda flared up like a bad sore after launchday.


I agree. As it is, the game has a very sterile feel to it, which I think is one of it's strong points. Adding more "fluff" would change the overall feel of the game, and ruin it's focus on the issue of war and survival.

In a way, having the same units for every side makes it less about Africa vs. America (or whatever), and more about fighting people who are just like your own, which I think gives it a much more unique atmosphere.
User avatar
palehorse864
level2
level2
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:54 am

Postby palehorse864 » Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:54 pm

Individual Units

I think, that if all possible, Individual units for different countries should be a client side option. They shouldn't be made by introversion, but, if you want to design a seperate unit set for Africa and a different unit set for Europe and put it into your game, so be it.

I don't see why people are so opposed about this making the game feel different when you can just make it an individual choice of graphics on the client side.


If they mean different unit stats, I agree it is a bad idea. However, if it is only going to remain graphical and client side, you shouldn't worry too much about what the other person sees on his computer screen.
User avatar
Kuth
level4
level4
Posts: 709
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 5:55 am
Location: Keele Imperium
Contact:

Postby Kuth » Mon Oct 09, 2006 2:59 am

palehorse864 wrote:Individual Units

I think, that if all possible, Individual units for different countries should be a client side option. They shouldn't be made by introversion, but, if you want to design a seperate unit set for Africa and a different unit set for Europe and put it into your game, so be it.

I don't see why people are so opposed about this making the game feel different when you can just make it an individual choice of graphics on the client side.


If they mean different unit stats, I agree it is a bad idea. However, if it is only going to remain graphical and client side, you shouldn't worry too much about what the other person sees on his computer screen.


Ever heard of appeasement?

As in, world war two? As in "Sure Germany, go ahead and invade neighboring countries... that'll make your little dictator happy..." as in, just before world war two, right before Germany owned Europe...
User avatar
Feud
level5
level5
Posts: 5149
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Blackacre, VA

Postby Feud » Mon Oct 09, 2006 3:04 am

Kuth wrote:Ever heard of appeasement?


What does appeasement have to do with this? Making a compramise isn't the same as giving in.

Return to “Think Tank”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest