shinygerbil wrote:That seemed like a pretty standard xanderpost. ;P
On reading it later, it does seem pretty standard... but I was trying to be nice. :(
Moderator: Defcon moderators
xander wrote:If anyone takes any offense at this, I am sorry. The little censor that tells me when things are offensive is not working well.
blackwhitehawk wrote:I wonder why some people find it so easy to cuss other people out for there ideas.
Back on topic I like some of your ideas like makeing defcon a little longer, but to me defcon 2 and 3 would be better. So that you could exporle and probe the enemy before you attack.
JohnnyFish wrote:So, why not have both?
xander wrote:Any design decision that is made entirely on the basis of making Defcon "more realistic," without addressing the gameplay ramifications, is a bad decision.
djdemo wrote:xander wrote:Any design decision that is made entirely on the basis of making Defcon "more realistic," without addressing the gameplay ramifications, is a bad decision.
Only in your opinion!
For those of us that want it to be more of a simulation, it's a good decision.
No one is going to make you play these mods, so I do not undertand your continued and almost religious opposition to anything you personally disprove of?
I am all for changes to the game to do not fundamentally alter the balance of the game, and I am all for realism, to a limited extent. However, you need to address the gameplay when you consider making changes. Furthermore, I would also say that you need to address the aesthetics of the game when you propose changes, but that is a topic for another discussion.
emeyer wrote:In general, I agree with you. So could you address the gameplay reasons for making SRBMs curve in basically random and goofy ways, and also the reasons for similar behavior on the part of MRBMs? I get why ICBMs curve--it doesn't look like "WarGames" otherwise. Oh, and I suppose it's realistic too, though that doesn't seem to be a driving factor. But the behavior of SRBMs and (to a lesser extent) MRBMs make no sense to me, either in terms of gameplay or aesthetics.
But does it contribute to the overall fun, balance, and aesthetic of the game. You bet.
emeyer wrote:I wouldn't mind so much if their behavior were predictable, because then it would become part of one's tactics. It isn't, so far as I can tell (though I'm willing to be enlightened), and that makes them as much frustrating as fun. And here, I don't mean "frustrating because it's hard to coordinate strikes". I mean "frustrating because they act as needlessly randomizing factors".
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest