OpenXcom Forum
Contributions => Programming => Topic started by: Fenyő on July 06, 2014, 04:08:50 pm
-
Hello folks!
I want to ask YOUR help!
Have you ever dreamed that you build a very large base?
Even BIGGER than 6x6!
Imagine it! You could build a base with several hangars, general stores, laboratories, workshops, and fusion defenses at a single base!
I have made this feature: Infinite base sizes.
Default setting: OFF
With this feature turned on (advanced settings) we can build a base of any size, not only 6x6.
I have made a little YouTube-video for illustration, click on the picture:
(https://kepfeltoltes.hu/140706/OpenXcom_-_Infinite_base_sizes_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.jpg) (https://youtu.be/m25iAtSM5QY)
I have a LOT of work in this.
If you think, we should include this feature to OpenXcom, then you just have to vote for YES to convince Warboy to merge this - already implemented - feature with a single push of a button.
-
i will not vote in any poll with such disgustingly biased worded options
-
Biased?? Why?
The choice is that simple!
If it won't be merged, then nobody can play with it!
If it will be merged, then anybody CAN (but doesn't have to) play with it!
What's your problem with this?
-
what's YOUR problem with this?
i've already explained that i am not interested in this feature, i do not believe it is warranted, and i will not support it.
there is no PROBLEM being addressed here, nobody has ever complained that 6x6 isn't enough, and anyone who does is not used to playing games, because games have rules and limitations.
there is no justification for this addition other than "just because we can" and this doesn't add anything other than useless excess.
conversely: this is going to cause more issues than it "solves", for example a base defense mission that takes 36 hours to play out because we didn't know when to say "enough is enough"
-
I would consider making the base larger, if we had more rooms needed per base - for example, if various new facilities mentioned all over the forums would be implemented.
However, even then I would rather see another layer of the X-Com base (bringing the map to a total of 4 levels) instead of spreading the base horizontally.
-
I have to agree that more depth instead of infinite xy-size would suit better X-com. Let's say you could upgrade or build expanded stores, living quarters, labs, and workshops that were double the size by expanding deeper.
For tactical combat infinite bases could be a bit overkill. Though it could suit the game if you forked it and coded it into a strategy game without squad level tactical combat. Something where you control thousands of soldiers instead of tens. Would it be any fun to play? Maybe, maybe not.
-
what's YOUR problem with this?
i've already explained that i am not interested in this feature, i do not believe it is warranted, and i will not support it.
You won't have to. I promise, that if any bug comes because of this, i will fix that!
nobody has ever complained that 6x6 isn't enough,
This is not entirely true! pmprog (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=25) already expressed (https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/pull/777) that he LIKES this idea.
and anyone who does is not used to playing games, because games have rules and limitations.
And why do you want to decide which limitations to be used instead of the people who actually play the game?
there is no justification for this addition other than "just because we can" and this doesn't add anything other than useless excess.
Wrong!
I already use this feature on a daily basis, i can not even imagine my game without these features.
But if you think i'm just making useless excesses every time, then i'm starting to think about leaving the whole project for all. I'm getting tired of that i have to make close combat with you every time i make a new addition. You always force your ideas to everyone, - not even offering the alternative for the people!! (good example: equal ammo loading in tanks) - since you have admin rights, but if someone else have an idea, you don't support that, even the possibility to play the game that way. I thought the OPEN word in the name of the game means that anyone can play the game he/she wants it to play, so everyone have the freedom to choose which way he/she plays.
Of course you can say that i can compile a version for myself anytime. But that means i have to rebase after EVERY single changes of the main repository. Do you know how much weekends i already spent on rebasing my features?
I don't want to rebase continuously to the rest of my life.
conversely: this is going to cause more issues than it "solves", for example a base defense mission that takes 36 hours to play out because we didn't know when to say "enough is enough"
The base defense does not have to take 36 hours, if you place the buildings smartly.
This was NEVER a problem to me, and i already played a LOT with this feature.
-
Open is the first half, XCom is the second.
Open denotes public source code, meaning anyone is free to make their own version and change anything they don't like/agree with,
it does not mean "do whatever".
liking the idea is not the same as having a legitimate problem.
why do i decide? because someone has to. without someone steering this project, it would simply descend into an incomprehensible mess of feature hell - see every game that's ever been made in the history of mankind. the designers dictate the rules of the game, not the players. the players make suggestions, and the designers take the feedback on board, but ultimately the decision rests with them.
your personal use of the feature does not a justification make. the fact is there's no PROBLEM with the current 6x6 restriction.
you think YOU'RE getting tired? you think YOU want to throw in the towel? i'm not the one antagonizing here; you proposed, i said no, instead of moving on, you're making polls to prove how wrong i was to say it.
i'm dealing with this every damn day from 50 different people. i'm sick of having to justify trying to make xcom into xcom, and i'm getting fed up having to justify saying "no". this isn't the ultimate gaming experience tailor made for each individual, it's xcom.
as for tank/ammo thing, i already explained that to you: a) bugs. b) vanilla. c) more bugs.
i'm sorry that you have to rebase your branches, but that's the cost of progress, and i'm never going to apologize for making progress.
you personally may not have had a problem with excruciatingly long base defense missions, because you've been intentionally mindful of your base layout, but this doesn't invalidate my point. surely you can see how easily this could happen if someone wasn't as meticulous.
and in case anyone ever wonders why PRs sit in limbo: let this thread stand as a testament - this is what happens if i say no.
certainly, i appreciate the effort you (and indeed everyone else) put into these things, it pains me to turn them down as much as it does you (well evidently not QUITE as much), and i appreciate all the good you've done for the project, certainly there are several features already IN with your name attached, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with everything; someone has to draw a line somewhere.
-
You know what?
I unburden your job.
I will NOT contribute ANYTHING EVER AGAIN to this project!
And this is the last time you guys saw me.
Do whatever you want....
-
@Fenyő, this feature is very interesting from coding point of view (i like the word infinite :) ) and i understand you've spent many hours working it out and appreciate this effort.
Don't be so hard to @Warboy1982, as the devs have to point the direction a project is heading. New features generally distract some attention from the goal, so it may be beneficial to not include them in master branch. On the other hand:
Open denotes public source code, meaning anyone is free to make their own version and change anything they don't like/agree with, it does not mean "do whatever".
I don't fully agree with this statement. You may "do whatever" in your forked branch, however devs don't have to merge it to master. I would call it freedom ;). People may have different opinions on the same subject, but it does NOT mean one of them has to go. Don't take it this far @Fenyő. Your code may be used by other developers in the future.
-
Despite insultingly worded options (in the vein of the oldschool propaganda), I voted "no" - even though OpenXcom isn't, and shouldn't, be democracy. Games are defined by their limitations. 6x6 base, not getting into more detail, is one of the few core limitations in Xcom. Taking this limitation away, you take away some of what makes the game good. Ever tried playing "come on guys, let's do anything, no rules"? It gets boring really quickly.
-
As a simulationist, I find the gamist ideology alien and repulsive. It reminds me of nerds playing silly games like World of Warcraft and worshipping their silly rules that don't represent anything. Rules that don't serve to represent reality are beneath dignity of a true grognard.
I see no logical reason for larger bases being infeasible besides the whole putting all eggs into one basket thing.
-
You know what?
I unburden your job.
I will NOT contribute ANYTHING EVER AGAIN to this project!
And this is the last time you guys saw me.
Do whatever you want....
Warboy reject my pull request too and I dont rage quit. Its his job to maintain code base, and reject code he dont see good enough for OpenXcom.
-
As a simulationist, I find the gamist ideology alien and repulsive. It reminds me of nerds playing silly games like World of Warcraft and worshipping their silly rules that don't represent anything. Rules that don't serve to represent reality are beneath dignity of a true grognard.
I see no logical reason for larger bases being infeasible besides the whole putting all eggs into one basket thing.
Let me put it that way. Limitations force decisionmaking. Take the base size limitation away, one decision level gone without anything to replace it, because there will be nothing to stop me from building unlimited research labs and workshops now, and everything under an umbrella of infallible defence. Take the movement limitation away and first pawn kills the king, game over, although you might argue that we have snipers and ICBMs in real life which work exactly like that.
I've never even played World of Warcraft. But I admit freely that I am a nerd and I wasted too much life on strategy games. Strategy is always about limitation. Limited conflict is the core idea of XCom. It's not a grand strategy which tries to simulate as many aspects of a conflict as possible. Surely in real life we can build sprawling complexes of labs and barracks, but we don't fight wars with 14 men in a dropship either, we use armored divisions, bomber wings, political pressure, resource denial and nukes, to name a few things "missing" in XCom. Is that silly?
-
Open is the first half, XCom is the second.
Open denotes public source code, meaning anyone is free to make their own version and change anything they don't like/agree with,
it does not mean "do whatever".
liking the idea is not the same as having a legitimate problem.
why do i decide? because someone has to. without someone steering this project, it would simply descend into an incomprehensible mess of feature hell - see every game that's ever been made in the history of mankind. the designers dictate the rules of the game, not the players. the players make suggestions, and the designers take the feedback on board, but ultimately the decision rests with them.
your personal use of the feature does not a justification make. the fact is there's no PROBLEM with the current 6x6 restriction.
you think YOU'RE getting tired? you think YOU want to throw in the towel? i'm not the one antagonizing here; you proposed, i said no, instead of moving on, you're making polls to prove how wrong i was to say it.
i'm dealing with this every damn day from 50 different people. i'm sick of having to justify trying to make xcom into xcom, and i'm getting fed up having to justify saying "no". this isn't the ultimate gaming experience tailor made for each individual, it's xcom.
as for tank/ammo thing, i already explained that to you: a) bugs. b) vanilla. c) more bugs.
i'm sorry that you have to rebase your branches, but that's the cost of progress, and i'm never going to apologize for making progress.
you personally may not have had a problem with excruciatingly long base defense missions, because you've been intentionally mindful of your base layout, but this doesn't invalidate my point. surely you can see how easily this could happen if someone wasn't as meticulous.
and in case anyone ever wonders why PRs sit in limbo: let this thread stand as a testament - this is what happens if i say no.
certainly, i appreciate the effort you (and indeed everyone else) put into these things, it pains me to turn them down as much as it does you (well evidently not QUITE as much), and i appreciate all the good you've done for the project, certainly there are several features already IN with your name attached, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with everything; someone has to draw a line somewhere.
Well Warboy I for one (and I’m sure many many others) really appreciate what you are doing here and I really hope you don’t throw in the towel. Xcom is the best game and your recreation is superb. As it happens I think the rejection of the unlimited base thing was the correct decision to make for the reasons already stated by yourself and others.
-
Good idea or bad, I just hate "if-you-don't-like-my-idea-I'll-force-you-via-democracy" stance.
But I'm not fan of such additions to game. I'm not even sure what to think about current Advanced rules inside of OpenXCom. I would rather opt for leaving OpenXCom as much vanilla as possible with strong modding support. Don't get me wrong Warboy, you did great job and you obviously know it. I just think you might did too much :)
-
The problem is, you can't have "strong modding support" without actually adding stuff to the code. You can't for example have shotgun pellets, which many mods use.
-
I think the vast majority of stuff that has been allowed has really added to the game and made it better. There is still the option to play vanilla so I don’t see the issue that Nattfarinn has? But yes I do think that certain stuff, like unlimited bases should be excluded. It’s a judgement call and I think Warboy1982 SupSuper and Daiky have been doing a great job in that respect.
-
It's true we tend to have very floaty reasonings on why we let some options in and some options out, but if we're forced to draw a line it's gonna be all or nothing.
-
Personally I've always subscribed to the idea of having lots of options open to the player to use or disregard at their own judgement, relying on their own willpower or self-limiting of actions for game balance. Plus, as mentioned previously I can see that there would actually be a fair balance of pro's and cons. You can put all your eggs in one basket in a high risk strategy, or you can hedge your bets and decentralise, or develop some kind of specialisation....point is, it alters defensibility considerations, redundancy and economy. How you split your supplies and manpower. How you split your time and money. That's something that could be further tuned by messing with costs (access lift included) to shift a bias towards certain types of behaviours, assuming the code is externalised to an ini file. From a gameplay perspective I have no issue.
That said however, I do understand that as the leader of a project you do have to consider the overall stability of the platform - it's no good introducing one thing if it's going to result in an inundation of bugfixes and compatibility problems with other mods, thereby making openxcom less 'open', as it were. Tricky.
Is it not possible to compromise and release this as a standalone mod, or does it require that the code is committed to the core build?
-
Sorry, because of my bad english it's hard for me to explain and express feelings. :)
I have no issue, it was my opinion as a developer that it is much better (in general) to have as "vanilla" engine as possible with script language as modding base. It's just more flexible for both, core and mod developers. It's not a vote, request or argument for or against anything. :)
As a gamer and huge fan of original X-Com games I am totally fine with OpenXCom as it is right now.
-
1) infinite base sizes: hell no. bigger bases: well maybe, but I see a lot of trouble coming our way (base-selection mini-icons, base defense missions, you-name-it)
2) wording of the poll: completely biased. no-no.
3) warboys explanation: good points, and yes, somebody needs to draw the line and make the important decisions... that's up to the core programmers. the alternative isn't democracy but anarchy. sad but true.
4) fenyo: seriously, you are letting this get to you? or is there something else going on? if your ideas are rejected, don't be mad - maybe they really are a bit too wild. but I have seen good additions made by you, and quitting like that isn't helping anybody (and neither is it punishing anybody, really, except yourself)
-
The bit that made me like this idea was that if you wanted a 4x4 base, it would be cheaper than a 6x6 base, which would be cheaper than a 10x10 base (for example). So this opened up the ability for you to afford more bases, just with fewer stuff in them.
But I can understand why Warboy doesn't want it.
-
Personally I've always subscribed to the idea of having lots of options open to the player to use or disregard at their own judgement, relying on their own willpower or self-limiting of actions for game balance. Plus, as mentioned previously I can see that there would actually be a fair balance of pro's and cons. You can put all your eggs in one basket in a high risk strategy, or you can hedge your bets and decentralise, or develop some kind of specialisation....point is, it alters defensibility considerations, redundancy and economy. How you split your supplies and manpower. How you split your time and money. That's something that could be further tuned by messing with costs (access lift included) to shift a bias towards certain types of behaviours, assuming the code is externalised to an ini file. From a gameplay perspective I have no issue.
That said however, I do understand that as the leader of a project you do have to consider the overall stability of the platform - it's no good introducing one thing if it's going to result in an inundation of bugfixes and compatibility problems with other mods, thereby making openxcom less 'open', as it were. Tricky.
Is it not possible to compromise and release this as a standalone mod, or does it require that the code is committed to the core build?
Warboy dont limit anybody, all Fenyő code is public available and anybody can compile/fork from that. Git & GitHub dont discriminate branches.
Only difference between branches is with get more attention in development and forking.
Another interesting aspect of this situation is different branches that try be up to date with master branch. Every change in master branch made harder to do it, its natural but if changes arent useful enough they put burden on everyone else.
-
Exactly, more code almost always means more things to maintain. If SupSuper and Warboy would accept every feature, in couple years, OpenXcom code could just be lots of ugly hacks.
Also, this topic and whole situation can lead to one conclusion. If any developer wants to develop some new fancy feature, he should FIRST discuss it with community and ASK core team if it is interested in committing it to main / official branch. Otherwise one has to accept that his work can be rejected and lot of hours can be wasted. Of course there's always option for unofficial branch.
-
There's the whole long war movement that has ideas like more research needed, longer research needed, weaker facilities, etc. I think that it may end up with bases being needed to be quite bigger to do anything.
For example I use 20 man living quarters, 10 man laboratories, 10x longer research times, Elerium and Alien Alloys being required by many techs, etc.
In a long game with less powerful individual facilities greater space to growth are very desirable. Getting new crafts could require massive laboratory and manufacturing complexes. In my last game, my main research base was composed almost entirely of laboratories and living quarters.
Radars could also be made weaker, introducing many difficult choices.
-
I always played in exactly the same way, using the aforementioned self-limiting playstyles in lieu of any actual hardcoded mechanics.
Things like deliberate avoidance of the usual laser-cannon mass production, or having smaller numbers of scientists/engineers spread across several projects to drag things out. Or even just the old xcomutil ini tweaks to alter storage capacity etc.
It's a legitimate option gameplay-wise, but as said it's just the difficulty of actually coding it all in.
If I understand yankes correctly and this could instead be released as a standalone then it'd be nice to have the option.
-
There's the whole long war movement that has ideas like more research needed, longer research needed, weaker facilities, etc. I think that it may end up with bases being needed to be quite bigger to do anything.
For example I use 20 man living quarters, 10 man laboratories, 10x longer research times, Elerium and Alien Alloys being required by many techs, etc.
In a long game with less powerful individual facilities greater space to growth are very desirable. Getting new crafts could require massive laboratory and manufacturing complexes. In my last game, my main research base was composed almost entirely of laboratories and living quarters.
Having more base space would change the point of making those facilities weaker. Having the same size bases and weaker facilities is "let's make the game harder." Having a large base and weak facilities is "let's make the game longer." Different end results. Thus, if this suggestion is every relevant, the two changes should be different options.
Also, where did you get the weaker facilities? Did you make them?
-
True democracy is not by vote. As a good libertarian once said:
"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and one lamb voting on what to have for dinner."
A vote is not enough...put the tool for consumption and let those who consume it judge its value. Other than that, voiting to force Warboy or anyone's hand is garbage.
I will say this to WayBoy and others: You've all carried the ball, and continue to do so. If the burden of choosing is too odious or tiresome, then perhaps its wise to assign someone or a group the task of judging and sorting before it bubbles up to you. These requests filter through them and he/she/they if it should bubble up to you. If and/or when it bubbles up to you, you are the final arbiter and not the only arbiter who has the bear the weight alone. Its simply not fair to you, and not worth the burden/load that leads to burnout. I am sympathetic to the plight, as I've been there. You are displaying real leadership. Its noted and appreciated, though it can be cursed as "tyranny". A very unfair personal shot on you.
-
You know what?
I unburden your job.
I will NOT contribute ANYTHING EVER AGAIN to this project!
And this is the last time you guys saw me.
Do whatever you want....
@Fenyõ, I am interested in this feature
But if dev say no, we have to trust them
We have to never forget this project would never have become what it is, if dev people were different
Thanks to them, most of us are very very satisfied to all new features and modding possibilities they provide
Stay by us, dude, we need your contribution ;)
-
Is there a coding limitation why this couldn't be a downloadable mod rather than a built-in toggle feature?
And if it has a light, clean code, I don't see why it couldn't be introduced as an option once it's been tested thoroughly as a mod. I'm sure a lot of mods could benefit from something like this being a basegame option available in the advanced options list or the mods list sitting beside the UFOExtender options.
-
I'm sure there isn't anything we can do to bring Fenyõ back. He has to make that decision himself. People always say things they don't really mean when they're upset. I can understand that. So if he comes back, we'll delete this thread. How about it :-)
I voted yes I want this feature in without even thinking of the consequences. Very human of me. This would be an awesome feature if it wasn't for Base defense missions. You'd be fighting in some huge underground city with no end. Unless you set your facilities in a straight line hahahaha. Would make for a weird base though.
-
Light and clean code :)
You people should try and write a simple tetris game. Then you should write that kind of option that allows infinite area and a way to scroll that area.
You don't really have to even write the game. Just read the tutorials how to make a tetris game. After that take a look on the Openxcom code. You can read the source files even with windows notepad.
I am not against this mod. It would fit very well some of my mod ideas. But I totally understand if the devs don't want to bloat the code more.
We can have it as it is. As a fork. Bon appetit :)
And well, nothing is stopping somebody to combine all these forks and make that huge new Openxcom branch that has it all in it. Nothing else than the thing that it would actually be huge amount of work.
-
Light and clean code :)
You people should try and write a simple tetris game. Then you should write that kind of option that allows infinite area and a way to scroll that area.
You don't really have to even write the game. Just read the tutorials how to make a tetris game. After that take a look on the Openxcom code. You can read the source files even with windows notepad.
My first tetris i wrote long time ago. Write programs not so difficult. Exists much more difficult tasks than programming.
The code is not light and not clean, because was rewritten many times. For example: what does this code https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/blob/master/src/Savegame/BattleUnit.cpp#L1989 (https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/blob/master/src/Savegame/BattleUnit.cpp#L1989)
Is the code right? How much time did it take you to read and understand this code?
I want to say, do not blame people if they do not write programs.
-
The code is not light and not clean, because was rewritten many times. For example: what does this code https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/blob/master/src/Savegame/BattleUnit.cpp#L1989 (https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom/blob/master/src/Savegame/BattleUnit.cpp#L1989)
Is the code right? How much time did it take you to read and understand this code?
its a bit unnecessary convoluted
double tier = 4.0;
if (exp <= 2) {
tier = 1.0;
}
else if (exp <= 5) {
tier = 2.0;
}
else if (exp <= 10) {
tier = 3.0;
}
uses one line more
or if you want convoluted why not just do "double tier = exp > 2 ? (exp > 5 ? (exp > 10 ? 4.0 : 3.0) : 2.0) : 1.0;"
-
It is just example of not light and not clean code. Not more.
-
Funny that you mention that piece of code of all things.
I changed exactly that piece of code (toward more clean/understandable code, as far as I'm concerned) in this patch of mine (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php?topic=2474.0) which aims to make the whole stat gain logic accessible via ruleset.
Unfortunately the devs seem not to be fond of my patch either.
Of course, it's their codebase to maintain. I can understand that. They don't want every crappy piece of code someone contributed in their codebase.
But on the other hand I can understand that people are turned off to contribute if there is such a reluctance to merge in some new feature - or added flexibility for modders - only on grounds that it would be one more thing to maintain.
-
How about "infinite" terrain size? It would feel more real if one could wander "endlessy" into any direction. Alien movement could still be roughly restricted to the same old terrain size so mission complexity/length would not change much.
-
How about "infinite" terrain size? It would feel more real if one could wander "endlessy" into any direction. Alien movement could still be roughly restricted to the same old terrain size so mission complexity/length would not change much.
wollow - Ive thought of the same thing, for another game similar to xcom and the conclusion I reached was that in Real Time Strategy thats feasible but in Turn Based its a hassle. Also there are mechanical limitations after awhile.
As for the Base Size . . . yeah it should be bigger.
But the one I was thinking of also included Multiple Floors as well . . . different levels of the base structure that had basically facilities stacked on top of facilities (but I am not suggesting that for openxcom).
What I propose is the ability to INCREASE the Size Limits of things but NOT make them infinite.
Lets just say for now . . . up to 2 times the size allowed in both axes, for Base Development, and for Battlescape. (and in a way I think the two would have to be linked as well, since increasing base size would dictate a potential increase in battlescape).
And I think normal Battlescape missions should start out standard size, but if any of the player's controlled characters LOOK to a place which is off the map (say within 10 tiles of them) it extends the map by another line of map pieces. Same goes if someone Throws something near the edge of the map and because of inaccuracy it would get tossed off the map - put a Map Piece there to catch it (then after it lands, conjure up the other Map Pieces on that X/Y grid line)
That way it only extends the map on demand if it has to.