Stop being obtuse, this is specifically not about the battlescape.
...
But, again, this harks back to you equating this to battlescape behaviour, which this simply isn't - on multiple levels.
You seem to have something against analogies, huh? The points I was responding to were 'different damage distributions' and 'takes longer'. These have a
direct analogues on the battlescape, ones that aren't in any way controversial that I know. There is exactly zero
inherent reason why these could not be ported over to other parts of the game. There may be
specific reasons, but you've raised these objections as if they were self-evident and universal, and they are not.
And if it doesn't all of this is irrelevant. Why bring up a moot point? Have you actually tested this or are you just speculating?
You asked what this would add to the game. I manufactured a scenario that would be a somewhat interesting addition using this feature. If it needs other code to do so, well, it's a mark against
implementing it but not an argument for not
considering it at all. Which is what you've been doing with your previous arguments. 'Too much work for too little gain' I entirely agree with.
The 'do', actually.
Not in any sense that would meaningfully prolong the firing animation, the direct analogue of 'takes longer to play out'.
Are you honestly asking why 50 damage rolls per facility on the base defence screen take longer to go through than a single damage roll per facility?
Yes. Because the software needing another ms to do its work is irrelevant to the user.
How would this even work in regards to the information presented to the player, either on the base defence or the base information screen?
Base defences can just add the total value, same as any other defence facility regardless of hit chance. Defence screen: same as auto-shot in the Pedia? Mock-up in the attachments.
The outcome of the base defense screen is literally either "UFO IS DESTROYED" or " ".
Oh, now we're arguing about the base defence
screen, as if it's something quite on its own and not tied to anything else at all?
Yes my man, that is a binary outcome.
You can draw arbitrary lines onto anything that's not binary and call it 'essentially binary'. Doesn't make it so.
Battlescape is also a "Either you win or you lose" 'binary' outcome. Doesn't mean there's not a whole lot of nuance in
how.
There is no "continuum of possible outcomes".
Yes, there is. I literally spelled it out for you. Your inability to see things in context is your problem.
The outcome is either "base defense mission happens" or "base defense mission does not happen", and lessAliensDuringBaseDefense has zero impact on this.
No, the actual end result is 'base is defended' or 'base is overrun', and both 'lessAliensDuringBaseDefense' and if the latter is on, then the actual proceedings in the base defense screen have a
massive impact on that.
Nor does the proposed 'idea' impact how lessAliensDuringBaseDefense works.
Not in a technical sense. Very much in the '
how do you defend your base with
both facilities and troops' sense.
What you are referring to here has nothing to do with what is being proposed.
You're literally complaining about an "underused" feature that has nothing to do with the changes to base defences OP is requesting, not to mention that you haven't even bothered to check if your proposed "justification" for all of this actually works.
Everything you have been trying to bring up in defense is independant of the mechanic being proposed here and it would not add anything meaningful to the game that isn't already possible.
This is
a proposal. If it needs more code and proposals to be meaningful, it's something to discuss, not to dismiss.
And if you bothered to actually read what I wrote, using that underused feature is
essential to making my made-up scenario work. No
multiple shot defences (the proposal) +
different retaliation UFOS (the underused feature) + armour on said UFOs + armour working during defences (probably an additional proposal) means the scenario makes no sense.
FYI, I did not propose it as working. I specifically said "
If so...".
a) you might want to actually try this out yourself before using theorycrafting to push an idea which might not actually work
This is a
suggestion. It's
entirely about theorycrafting new possibilities. I don't know why you think it's some sort of 'gotcha'.
...no point in only overkilling unarmored UFOs if your defense can instead kill all UFOs
But it might not. Facility slots are extremely limited. If one facility (over)killed all weak retaliation UFOs, and that's all you'd have to worry about for a few years or for new bases, that could be a massive space/time/money saver.
Why would you ever go for less than the maximum protection possible, given that you can manually "allow" a UFO to land if you want/need base defence missions?
Base slot tax.
c) taking a) and b) into account, "interesting tradeoffs" would already be possible
The tradeoff right now is 'do I have base defences at all?' and optimising a Battleship-proof scheme with your available tech. Quite close to being 'binary', in fact.
The 'CIWS&light retaliators' scenario would add 'what
kind of defences do I want'. Heavy-duty for anything without dedicated troops; only light defences for your strike bases to stave off the tedium of fighting it out on the Battlescape against the 153rd Large Scout trying to take out X-Com HQ
without eating the space for the Large Workshop, etc; CIWS first for outposts, etc.
It'd be a not trivial amount of work, both on the code and modding side, of course.
I already pointed out why that is fallacious thinking, not withstanding that you can already do all of the above using existing mechanics.
So, where's my example of a 50d5 base defence setup? Or, more specifically, an example of a
single base facility that will 99% kill all Scouts and will do absolutely
nothing to anything Medium or above, even if you cover your entire base with them? Another example that will 99% destroy a Battleship yet won't touch any high-evasion scouts and missiles?
Remember, 'all of the above' includes "the ability to build 'shotgun' base facilities
vs 'super cannon' defences".
d) still needs to be balanced against crafts&craft weapons
Yes. It'd be difficult and probably not worth all the work. But if someone
really wanted to, they could make it work.
Which is why Meridian tends to take such suggestions with a modder raring to go and a specific use case in hand, and I fully agree with that.
Again, I see nothing that would justify the time being spent on rewriting base defense mechanics...
Neither do I. I have not been arguing
for the suggestion, rather against your reasoning for it.