After four days of uninterrupted play: Essential Changes

[xander]

That seemed like a pretty standard xanderpost. ;P

On reading it later, it does seem pretty standard... but I was trying to be nice. :(

xander

[KingAl]

... but I was trying to be nice. :(

xander

Awww, don't worry. You can never be expected to get it right first time!

[Montyphy]

If anyone takes any offense at this, I am sorry. The little censor that tells me when things are offensive is not working well.

I hate those censor-meters/offensive-raters! At work I use to frequently get ranked the highest rating of 3 chillis when writing my emails. "Damn" does NOT deserve 3 chillies!

[KingAl]

[blackwhitehawk]

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.

[xander]

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.

Who cussed whom out?

xander

[Radiant Caligula]

I think you need to visit the Butt of Bering to learn some MANNERS y'all!

Seriously (and again.)

http://forums.introversion.co.uk/defcon ... php?t=4164

[JohnnyFish]

I would enjoy more realistic play (Even just something simple like no AA fire), but only if it was optional. Same with the maps: optional. I like realistic things, I also like Defcon's less realistic play. So, why not have both?

[xander]

So, why not have both?

Because adding those features to the game is incredibly time consuming, and IV is a very small company. Because it would dilute the game, and make it harder to find people to play against using the settings that you want. Because there are other games on the market that focus on realism. Because the point of Defcon is not to be a simulation of the real world, but a simple strategy game.

Do you want more good reasons?

xander

[djdemo]

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?

[xander]

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 stand by my statement. Any design decision that is made entirely on the basis of making Defcon "more realistic," without addressing the gameplay ramifications, is a bad decision. When you make a change, you have to understand what those changes mean in terms of how the game is played.

Defcon is an arcade/strategy game. It is a simple game, like chess. It is not meant to be a realistic simulation of the real world. Changing it to more closely match the real world, without addressing how this affects gameplay is a bad idea. For instance, one idea was to remove AA. This would be more realistic, as, in the real world, there is not an AA system that can effectively deal with ICBMs. Okay, great idea, right? It is more realistic, right, so it must be good? But think about how this affects the game: there is no longer any incentive to not launch your silos as soon as Defcon 1 hits. If you launch all of your silos, you are guaranteed to hit all of your targets, and there is no chance that your silos can be take out before they launch. At worst, your opponent now knows where your silos are, and they destroy them fairly quickly, but at least you got a few nukes off. Removing AA from the game would ruin it. The same is true of other changes to the game to make it more realistic.

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.

xander

[emeyer]

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.

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.

[xander]

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.

Ah, but the curving paths of the SRBMs and the MRBMs reflect the curving paths of the ICBMs. That is the aesthetic reason. In terms of gameplay, it allows defending silos and extra shot or two at them, giving them a slightly better chance of shooting them down. Silos taking extra shots at nukes can also give fighters and bombers more time to scout an enemy's territory before they are shot down. The effects balance.

Is this realistic? Not really. Does it look exactly like the movie War Games? Probably not. But does it contribute to the overall fun, balance, and aesthetic of the game. You bet.

That being said, no aspect of the game really needs to be justified. The game is as it is, it is well balanced, and fun. Changes to the game do need to be justified, as they have the ability to wreak havoc with the balance, making the game less fun. Changes could also alter the balance and make the game more fun. I'm simply saying that this needs to be examined before you push for major changes.

xander

[emeyer]

But does it contribute to the overall fun, balance, and aesthetic of the game. You bet.

There you're only half right at most.

* Aesthetically, the small curve of SRBMs is a loss; they look stupid as hell, especially when you launch from very short ranges.
* Balance-wise, I don't think making SRBMs curve makes much of a difference; they could be made to fly straight but slightly slower to achieve the same flight times.
* Fun-wise, they're kind of fun when they randomly curve in a way that helps them avoid ABM fire (if you launched them) or into ABM fire (if you're defending)--and vice versa.

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".

Some of this applies to MRBMs as well, though in that case I think they are an aesthetic win, while having the same balance and fun effects mentioned above.

[xander]

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".

The Defcon engine is almost entirely deterministic. Hit chances against units are basically the only random factor in the game. The arcs of SRBMs and MRBMs are entirely predictable, you just have to know how to predict them. If you could tell me exactly what you are having trouble with, perhaps it would allow me to enlighten you as to what you are doing wrong?

xander