New Feature: Infinite base sizes, POLL

[Fenyő]

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:


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.

[Falko]

i will not vote in any poll with such disgustingly biased worded options

[Fenyő]

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?

[Warboy1982]

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"

[Solarius Scorch]

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.

[Muukalainen]

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.

[Fenyő]

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 already expressed 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.

[Warboy1982]

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.

[Fenyő]

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....

[AndO3131]

@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.

[Dioxine]

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.

[Sturm]

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.

[Yankes]

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.

[Dioxine]

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?

[animal310]

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.