Author Topic: UFOs in Crop Circles  (Read 1028 times)

Offline Juku121

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • We're all mad here.
    • View Profile
UFOs in Crop Circles
« on: March 17, 2023, 01:48:07 am »
Well, this was kinda going in circles, so I'll move it over.

The proposed mission being argued about:
After reading Rezaf's Recap, I was struck by the idea of having somewhat more diverse crop circles/cattle mutilations, and perhaps even abductions? Namely, offering some mission sites where you get a very early warning and the UFO is still there, making circles, molesting cows, impregnating Earth women, or whatever it is that they do.

Would need a pretty tight timer, comparable to UFO landings, or perhaps double landings. 10-12 hours, tops. The three varieties of scout ships and maybe Abductors/Harvesters look like a natural fit for such missions.

As time goes by, the balance would shift from traumatised farmers towards MiBs and then bigger and bigger farmer-traumatising-UFOs, with everything still possible at any stage, but weighted towards different target mixes.

This would sorta solve both of rezaf's complaints about there being a lack of early UFOs, and crop circles sticking around way too long. And also incentivise building transport coverage for time-critical missions earlier.

An additional aspect that came out of the non-crop circles continuing below was that it'd probably be a good idea to make this into a 'terror' mission with a UFO spawning first and then proceeding to their target, so there's potentially some early warning.



I already laid down why I don't think that - as proposed - this is needed or beneficial...
The 'needed' thing is a red herring. A rare, non-progression-critical mission can't by default be 'needed'.

The benefits have been enumerated. You having reservations about their applicability to every player does not mean they do not exist.

...claiming that this would "incentivize" anything is in my oppinion not a valid argument, given what's already in the game.
It will not incentivise the development or improvement of a transport game. It'll incentivise the speed at which one does that. How strongly, well, largely depends on the player.

I am not here to convince you of anything, really. I am aware that that rarely works when people are invested into an idea.
What exactly are you trying to accomplish, then? Because the whole thing is a textbook example of non-constructive criticism if I ever saw one.

I am also not married to the idea of strict early timers. But these already exist for early UFOs, and I don't see a good, lore-consistent way around those. And you have not come up with one, either. And Solarius does care about his lore.

I don't get the part about the despawn timer and UFOs landing or taking off. We are specifically not talking about UFOs here.
We are talking about UFOs doing a mission, even if it's technically a terror mission. And UFO landings are functionally a despawn timer, and one of the more common tight timers post-invasion.

It is unfortunate that the engine does not support UFOs taking off after 'terror' missions, but we work with what we have.

If this would spawn as an actual UFO this would be a different matter.
That could also be done, making it a UFO with a special 'terror' mission. If that alleviates or resolves your reservations, all the better.

I also don't understand why you think that "this covers more than early game" changes anything.
Because for most of the game, the timers are not a big issue? Also because:
...I would have less objections to these were popping up later in the game...


Your claims regarding "incentives" makes even less sense the further the player gets into the game.
Well, yes, when the player has done what they've been incentivised to do, the incentive is gone. Strange, huh?

And when I say "incentivize" or "incentives" I do in fact mean those words and not something else.
I am not saying anything about your terminology. I am saying your reasoning turns the discussion into one of (not) requiring the players to do something. Which this the source of our disagreement AFAICT.

New players "already getting frustrated and savescumming in other missions" still isn't an argument in favor of implementing another mission that is prone to causing frustration because of overly short mission timers in the early game.
But it's an argument for not considering that criticism too important if there are other aspects to the mission other than simply causing frustration. Which there are.

And funny how I...
Yes, that seems the common theme here. Your whole argument is essentially "I don't like it, some others might not either". The solution to that is to make your own modifications, not block everyone from a thing only some might dislike.

Again, I think the "this needed to incentivize ..." is really more of a pretext.
This is not my argument. I said 'would incentivise', and never how strongly (because that kinda depends on the player more than anything), not that 'incentivisation is necessary and this is necessary for incentivisation', which is what you've been strawmanning my position into for a while. Again, 'incentivise' does not mean it must apply to everyone nor that the incentive needs to be strong.

As far as I can tell both craft have their uses and "some people do ... and don't play the game correctly" is a pretty weak argument in my oppinion.
But this is again not my argument. The argument was "This would make the Dragonfly more attractive, because empirical information shows it is sometimes ignored altogether".
« Last Edit: March 17, 2023, 02:05:35 am by Juku121 »

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: UFOs in Crop Circles
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2023, 07:56:42 pm »
Seriously,  can you at least try to keep your replies concise - if not for my benefit, then for the benefit of whoever is still following this?

I already told you that I don't have a problem with the mission per-se, just with introducing an early-game mission that has mid-to-late game despawn times and trying to push this using faulty arguments regarding incentives that are supposedly needed because people don't play the game correctly. And using "but people savescum anyway" to dismiss criticism isn't a valid argument.

>That could also be done, making it a UFO with a special 'terror' mission. If that alleviates or resolves your reservations, all the better.

Like I said, if this was implemented as an actual UFO which in turns spawns the mission site I this would be different matter. I would not have any reservations, provided the despawn timer for the generated site is not shortened even further.

Offline Juku121

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1510
  • We're all mad here.
    • View Profile
Re: UFOs in Crop Circles
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2023, 08:30:59 pm »
Seriously,  can you at least try to keep your replies concise - if not for my benefit, then for the benefit of whoever is still following this?
Anyone still following this is not interested in the executive summary. One can be found in the top post of the thread, for that matter.

And I can't really make any sort of short or generic response since you've already proven you'll twist any ambiguity at all into your own imagined arguments.

... and trying to push this using faulty arguments...
All the 'faults' you've pointed out basically amount to
  • You don't like it.
  • New players might get frustrated.
  • It's not a hard counter to an existing problem or otherwise strongly impactful change.
XCF is already on record for not caring too much about any of these, especially for what's essentially a rare, optional encounter.

...early-game mission that has mid-to-late game despawn times...

And using "but people savescum anyway" to dismiss criticism isn't a valid argument.
Both of these have already been refuted once, and merely repeating your argument will not make it valid.

...incentives that are supposedly needed because people don't play the game correctly.
I have already told you to stop strawmanning my arguments. Neither is what I said or implied. Quote me where I say something about this proposal being 'needed' or that someone does not 'play correctly', or stop.

Like I said, if this was implemented as an actual UFO which in turns spawns the mission site I this would be different matter. I would not have any reservations, provided the despawn timer for the generated site is not shortened even further.
Frankly, I don't see how this is an improvement with regard to the tightness of the despawn timers since without radars, the chance of actually getting to see such a UFO before 1998 (and Dragonflys and Ospreys) is as minuscule as getting lucky with a current early UFO landing. So the despawn timer is likely going to be all you have. But if a chance to get some more warning is all it takes to remove all your reservations, so be it.

It'd be better for immersion's sake to not spawn landed UFOs out of thin air, anyway.



Edit: I think I'm going to go and cool down and not touch this for a few days. The topic seems pretty much concluded anyway, apart from purely debating-related arguments.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2023, 10:00:48 pm by Juku121 »

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: UFOs in Crop Circles
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2023, 10:55:45 pm »
Anyone still following this is not interested in the executive summary. One can be found in the top post of the thread, for that matter.

And I can't really make any sort of short or generic response since you've already proven you'll twist any ambiguity at all into your own imagined arguments.

>Complain about others misrepresenting your arguments

>Do the exact same thing you just complained about

I wasn't asking for an "executive summary". I was asking to keep replies concise to keep the thread from ballooning. While I understand being frustrated at having an idea critized and me not wanting to agree with some of the points, breaking up statements into single citations and answering them at length helps nobody and just leads to threads that devolve in to page spanning citation contest that achive nothing.

You haven't so much refuted as simply dismissed my concerns in regards to frustration caused by overly short mission timers in early game - by claiming that because savescumming exists it is okay to implement frustrating missions. That is still a nonsense argument that can be used to justify or dismiss pretty much any flawed mission design. Comparing existing mission times and chosing them appropriately is a valid request. What is being proposed here are mission sites that stay active for a shorter time than even the cult assassination sites - which are meant to serve as an actual incentive for something - or the cyberweb heist, which to my knowledge are basically the shortest regular missions the player can encounter in the early game.

>But they are also meant to stay around for later in the game

Then maybe they should spawn at a later date.

As for incentives, "but I saw (x) skip the Dragonfly" still isn't a valid point to make, which is what this basically boiled down to. Existing missions already incentivize if not downright require the player to spread out, unless you are either very savvy or very (un)fortunate. Claiming that the mission design would "incentivize" this by implementing even shorter spawn timers isn't a strong argument, given what is already in the game.

Again, I have no trouble with the mission itself, only with very specific aspects of it which are being oversold and which don't fit in with stage appropriate mission design.

The reason I would have less trouble with implementing this as a regular UFO is because I can at least pretend that this gives the player an early chance to react  :P

If anything I'd rather see additional missions implemented than removed (bye EXALT, was nice knowing you), but if possible I like to have them implemented in a more consistent way.

Juku can have the last word on this if he cares to, I don't see much that could be added that hasn't already been said.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2023, 11:07:01 pm by krautbernd »