So you're still going on about this?
Why, yes. I don't have much time to regularly show up on the forum so there's a few days of pause between my replies for for the closest foreseeable future, but you yourself invited me to continue earlier, in one of your posts, earlier or the last, edited one. For the sake of being respectful I've decided to assume it was a genuine invitation, not an off-hand stab. Though I do sadly now suspect otherwise.
In case you haven't noticed it yet, the feature you're complaining about was implemented in OXCE, not in XCF. Which is why I pointed you to the OXCE subforum. I'm pointing you in that direction again, NOW.
Yes, and I started the whole thing expressing concerns in regards to application of the feature in XCF. Also, if it was implemented, it should be fine, shouldn't it be? But I am pretty sure you were claiming that there are mechanical issues earlier and just now?
Your proposal entails ignoring actual game mechanics (UFOs during base defence aren't recovered), pretending that fighting less aliens penalizes players because they get less loot, which they should - somehow - be entitled to as long as their base defences aren't strong enough to destroy incoming UFOs. Which makes absolutely no sense considering that having a strong enough defences doesn't net you anything.
A thing worthy of consideration in its own regard, though difference as stated I based on damaged but structurally still in relatively-one-piece UFO reasonably would yield some things as compared to what presumably seems to be completely disintegrated one.
Getting less loot and having to fight less aliens is simply a natural progression of that. You actually admitted as much by mentioning how shot down UFOs don't net as much loot, but only some parts.
Yes, and now I consider different ways such mechanics could be approached. Which may or may not be to liking of some but certainly shouldn't prompt emotional response.
Treating base defense missions along the same lines, with a full alien contingent being 100% loot, damaging the UFO reduces the numbers and the loot you get. Since you don't recover any UFO parts during base defence missions, fighting less aliens and accordingly recovering less total loot is the expected outcome.
Yes, it is expected but that doesn't make it better or reasonable on its own when the idea as presented earlier when you asked me to elaborate, touches upon what/how much loot one could should be getting in general from base defence as compared to current system.
This is also why you mentioning "Mechanics and balance considerations" is kind of amusing, since what you're requesting is the exact opposite of how the mechanics should work, and probably why they were implemented this way (apart from the fact that it's infitiley easier this way than the hare-brained scheme you're proposing).
Hardly a logical argument, "they were implemented this way because it's opposite of another way". Whether it's easier I am really not sure. It's certainly a simpler mechanics but that doesn't make it better - may be a taste of how much complexity one enjoys.
Apart from all of that what is keeping you from simply disabling that feature if you feel victimized and disenfranchised by it?
The fact that such feature of base defence doesn't bother me and I don't want it disabled. I'd like to ponder and discuss if different solutions regarding the loot could be used, though.
I'm saying you're acting like you're being forced to use this option because you are.
And I say that I am neither acting nor claiming I am forced. The fact I may appear somehow to you is one thing, but when I already stated earlier where I come from on this and you keep making assumptions about my intentions, it won't lead anywhere.
The logical and sane way to go about this would be not to act like you're entitled to loot you didn't fight for, but simply fight for the loot. Problem solved.
No, that's not how the logic of it works. If the idea is to also be able to acquire some loot from damage wrought upon aliens by base defences, "the problem" (not really that as much as openly pondering alternative, IMHO better way of handling it, despite your incessant approach toward it as if it'd be some attack) is lack of loot from destruction cause by said defences. Not using defences would be solution if my problem would be "there's not enough loot", but that's
not the problem, the problem is that turrets completely obliterate potential loot when used, thus leading to loss for what should provide only net benefit (construction of functional defences). It's related to balance from the standpoint of using said defences. That's a difference.
As far as i can tell you have no idea what implementing these features would entail.
But you can't really tell now, can you, not in any way that'd be based on anything tangible. You just make assumptions based on your opinion on the idea and/or me, don't you?
I don't know how many times I have to point this out to you, but this is not a matter of a mod author "including" or "being interested" in such a feature. It's impossible to implement given the current game mechanics, as there is no way of parsing randomized 'resources' or the UFO damage state to the base defense battlescape mission, yet alone spawn items based on that. The implemented feature simply reduces the number of spawned enemies.
And I already addressed that, as you may also understand that I wasn't giving Solarius any hard time about it. It's you who wanted to continue this and addressed the idea on its own, as hypothetical as I already made it to be. Assuming you don't address it just to be a malcontent (or any other more vulgar word for a type of person who goes out of their way to berate people or things) or that you're not confused, it follows logically that you address me because you still want to discuss it on its own merit for some reason.
I remind you, in the very beginning of this exchange I literally simply explained what my was thinking behind it, then thanked for the input and moved on, not planning to continue with this thought/idea further:
Anyway, thanks for the answers, folks, and the suggestion.
It's
you who started turning it into personal attack and increasingly hostile, emotional opposition, like if you'd have something to prove. I am not responsible for whatever issues you may be suffering that have you act this way and if you plan to take things personally and then demand further explanations of the idea on my part, don't then also act annoyed that you get some. I am not an aggressor here nor did I wish to escalate.
Your initial request was for "bodies and loot" - something you're now denying.
A thing that could be done as simplification, but fluff wise wouldn't have to be, not as bodies on the battlefield, but stuff you can recover later, being stores 'off map'. I also, given that I actually didn't come to argue as you seem to assume, am willing to listen to feedback to refine it. Why, would you rather have me go with personal threats/warnings about how on thin ice you are and how you'll be in trouble/wet you'll end up if you won't start agreeing with me? I'll pass on that.
This is also kind of amusing, since you're blaming me for using that as a strawman argument.
No, not exactly that. The strawman is in the claim that I'd imagine aliens dragging the corpses out into the battefield when I did not suggest that.
I also even explained to you what a strawman argument is on an example and you still seem to be not understanding what the logical fallacy is.
Pointing out obvious flaws in implementing that idea, you switched over to some - not further described - kind of 'resources', with no idea how to implement or balance this.
Why, do tell what items and bodies would be lost in hypothetical situation and, just for you, I can easily offer some examples with explanation what guides my decision to offer such and such loot. Also, bodies and items are resources, too.
The whole reason you're requesting this is because of a perceived penalty for the reduced number of aliens during base defence mission - because you should somehow get the same, or at least additional loot for aliens you didn't fight, disregarding that having strong enough defences don't net you any loot. Instead of simply accepting this as part of a natural progression - which you actually seem to be aware of, given your insight considering shot down UFOs - in your head this somehow amounts to players being 'rewarded less'.
With the exception of it being hardly any natural, it's extension of certain mechanics arbitrarily implemented on part of the developer. One which I very much understand you prefer, which is fine, but that's another matter altogether.
If I understand you correctly, you're actually trying to cite game mechanics and balance to defend your idea, when it actually breaks both - not only can't it be implemented using current mechanics,
Yes, but
you ask me to explain how it would work, so as - as you also claim - the current mechanics doesn't support the idea, I explain - for your convenience, not mine - how and what would need adjustment so it could work.
it goes against established lore (as in, the UFO isn't recoverd after a sucessful base defence)
That's not lore, at all, neither established nor hinted at. That's purely balance/mechanical consideration, with no official fluff behind it. Fluff
could be likely added but that'd be one added to explain the mechanics, not mechanics stemming from previously established lore.
and it would also break game balance, as rewards are normally tied to difficulty and risk - which are actually lowered by having less aliens during a base defence.
With the exception of how the player is encouraged normally to research and use progressively better equipment like rifles and armors to overome difficulty of the enconuters and decrease that risk while getting the loot. I apply it to base defences by logical extension.
And instead of actually acknowledging any of that, and taking my advice of simply disabling that option, you end up going down a rabbit hole to somehow make your proposal work in spite of all the inconsistencies and fallacies that it entails.
Name fallacies. Most of your... complaints now more than even arguments anymore are either stemming from how you'd like/expect the game to work, or personal preferences. As for rabbit hole, it's not me who seems be keen on biting into it and has a bone to pick, I present my thoughts and refine them in response to your continuous intent to contest them. As I'd like to assume here you don't just write this to have the last word.
I warned you about being on thin ice. I'm re-iterating that warning, because your feet are starting to get wet.
I tried to politely and diplomatically approach such unconstructive personal remarks in my earlier posts, including this very thing when you last tried it but perhaps I'll try something more direct: spare me such bullshit, your warnings are useless for this discussion and you're of no importance or position to issue me warnings on grounds of veracity of an argument. Offer arguments with some detachment from personal trips or be aware that no stock will be put into what you write.
I don't know you personally and I don't want to pass any judgements on you as a human being. Maybe I simply pushed your buttons unknowingly and you're otherwise a great person but you seem to be keen on making this whole exchange progressively more personal, with practically every post of yours about this thing - again, which we discuss due to your continued interest and raised issues - containing some attempt at ridicule or other personal remark. Why, do you
want to simply cause some issues?
Let me point out again that implementing this isn't on the mod author.
Let me point out that I already acknowledged and addressed that.
Let me also point out - again - that you're whole conundrum can easily be solved by simply disabling this feature, something you're apparently too dense to understand:
No, it wouldn't, because the problem you think it'd solve is subtly different from the one I posed. But sure, blame your inability or unwilligness to acknowledge that subtlety on me being supposedly dense, that's a great way to prop up your claim.
No, my offered solution would actually solve your 'problem' without touching base defences at all. It would do exactely do what you're requesting - restore the loot that you're 'missing out on' - you just have to fight for it.
Then it wouldn't
at all do what I spoke about. Refer to the, once again, my explanation where I actually see the problem. Or better yet, let me try to simplify it further: the problem isn't that I get this or that much loot, the problem is because of what the loot pool is decreased.
It's the easiest way, it doesn't require any additional work and it doesn't brake game mechanics or balance and your not going to have to drag yourself out of that lake you're about to fall in.
Eh, more of that, eh? Don't worry, I won't have to drag myself out of the lake because I won't fall in, I'll spring back by bouncing off you as you fall into it. Was that sentence silly? Yes it was, as silly as pointless as your continued remarks and personal warnings/threats how I am about to be like this or that. If you simply cannot do without that and just want to argue because you've got personally commited to it rather than actually wanting to discuss things, do tell, there's no point in it if all it does is getting you annoyed.
