Hosting Options - Homers - Fusion

by **Jediluke** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:07 pm

Drakona,

I understand there is some interest in having FUSION "nerfed"

as well as a reduction in the aggressiveness of homers (aka lowering the FPS a bit more).

This is something I would not be against if ...and ONLY IF ...it were introduced as a 'host' option.

Let's be honest, I don't believe either of these sort of settings/changes would get passed out right. It would need to be a hosting option. Only way to find out if either or both are going to be popular choices is by having a hosting option and then seeing if it takes off.

This is worth doing IF it's an easy thing to code.

FUSION:
I'm ok with ppl making it harder to fire their beloved fusion. Not like I'm a huge fusion user. I'd be willing to test this out.

HOMERS:
Perhaps more pilots would feel comfortable playing in homer heavy levels or x4 if the homers were a bit less aggressive?
I am personally ok with the difficulty level (spicy) that current homers present....but on the flip side...I would rather have the option to play someone in a less aggressive homer condition (mild) than to remove them all together. Just sayin. If this is easy to do and is a hosting option, I'm ok with this.

I dunno guys....what are y'alls thoughts?

by **Lee** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:39 pm

Yeah I agree, the 'host' option sounds fair. It would accomodate more people without alienating anyone in the process.

by **Jediluke** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 1:50 pm

The only addition to the rules that may be necessary is ....

when 2 pilots can't agree on on a level/settings. Then the button is pushed for the core levels which would be played with 'default' settings as they are now.

Any other 'hosting' options would have to be fully agreed upon by both parties prior to a match.

by **LotharBot** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:34 pm

Retro focuses on fixes and on meta-game options, rather than game mods. Fixes are making the game behave how it should -- how it was designed, or how it behaved prior to some technology change. Meta-game options are about allowing players to change the circumstances they're playing under -- difficulty settings, adding or subtracting powerups, playing in different levels, stuff like that. Mods are changes to the underlying behavior of the game, such as making double-damage vulcan or rapid-fire concs or removing trichording.

The main reasons Retro and DCL stay away from mods: (1) they take developer time, and our developer is busy with a more important project right now. (2) They take admin time, because we have to settle disputes about whether something should be counted, or whether something is "lame", or whether a particular line from chat constitutes agreement to a modified setting (also goes for Rangers). (3) They create community splits, where group A plays without the mod and group B plays with the mod and people don't want to play each other because they've trained toward different game physics. Contrary to Lee's statement, adding hosting options that affect game physics is *hugely* alienating.

-----

When it comes to homing missiles in particular, that was a fix. Homing missiles were originally designed to pursue a particular way, they became harder as an unanticipated consequence of higher framerates, and eventually we figured out how to make them pursue according to the original expectations. The community came together and tested a bunch of different builts, and agreed on the current value. It made homing missiles behave in a way that felt right, based on experience from playing back in 1995 as well as from the perspective of "these are mean but not too mean". It was fixed, and there's no reason to mess with it any further; if people don't like x4, they don't like x4, and it's not because homers themselves are too mean.

(As an aside, I think a lower-FPS homing mod would have some really strange unintended consequences in x4 -- like, for example, making it harder to "herd" smart blobs, creating more floaters, and generally making it even more unpredictable.)

When it comes to fusion shake, again, that could be a fix. If fusion isn't shaking like it should, then someone needs to convince the community that it's worth changing, and then we'll put out some test builds and get input (not just from ladder players, but from Rangers, SP players, etc.) and then figure out an appropriate value. Not as a hosting option, but as something the community deals with all together. (What do I mean by "convince the community"? For starters, get a discussion going with Rangers, one with oldschool Kali/Kahn, and one with DCL pilots, and see how many people think this is worth the effort to look into. And if the discussion takes off, then we can spend time on it.)

by **Jediluke** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:55 pm

Lotharbot: "To reiterate: gameplay changes in Retro generally take a few minutes of actual programming"

I respect the coder's current situation and priorities....but even you realize the actual coding of what is being requested would only take a few minutes. It's likely just changing a value then adding the hosting option menu.

Perhaps I just don't understand how adding these 2 things as a hosting option poses a great risk to the community. I'm not sure what harm a test build does that allows for people to see an actual effect in game and give feedback on it would pose.

Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly ok with retro the way it is. I do just fine in game with the current physics and meta.

by **melvin** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:07 pm

I second what Tom said, which encapsulated what I was thinking without getting confrontational. Descent doesn't have to be your version of perfect to be fun.

by **Jediluke** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 7:46 pm

Did you miss the part where I said that I'm fine with it the way it is? I just wanted to better understand the harm that could be caused by test versions of the mentioned hosting options.

by **Lee** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 9:12 pm

by **Behemoth** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 11:42 pm

To be fair lothar, how can people get together to agree on something that should be changed if they get shot down after speaking up about it in the forums?
And if retro is an attempt to make descent how it was meant to be played, then why was the fusion cycle bug removed, while trichording remains?
Some people wanna say "oh, it's good for the netcode" and other blanket statements that appeal to sound intelligible, but what it really sounds like is coming off like "I like D1 the way it is, and since you don't code you have to do it my way" in which case it's the coders perceived version of Descent being played, not the communitys.
That being said, I see no harm in offering test versions of the game with the aforementioned changes and seeing how the community responds to it, the only outcome whether it gains traction or not would be positive, considering not all the things that make D1 "D1" are in retro at the moment.

by **Sirius** » Tue Jul 26, 2016 12:20 am