5,389
edits
AE talk:Training: Difference between revisions
m
typos and such
(i'm sorry, but...) |
m (typos and such) |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
[[User:Gumby|Gumby]] 23:34, 16 November 2008 (CET) | [[User:Gumby|Gumby]] 23:34, 16 November 2008 (CET) | ||
:I admit I'm taking it out on you a little bit (and maybe more than a little bit), but I'm understandably tired of how everybody is "systematically mucking about". Note that you didn't give me much to give ''you'' a shitstorm about up there, as I didn't even understand what your "main thought" was. I was reacting primarily to Iritscen's blurb, trying to respond in detail to every point: when I sensed scope creep, I said it, and when I could extract something constructive, I did so. | :I admit I'm taking it out on you a little bit (and maybe more than a little bit), but I'm understandably tired of how everybody is "systematically mucking about". Note that you didn't give me much to give ''you'' a shitstorm about up there, as I didn't even understand what your "main thought" was. I was reacting primarily to Iritscen's blurb, trying to respond in detail to every point: when I sensed scope creep, I said it, and when I could extract something constructive, I did so. | ||
:There is nothing wrong with unlocking one or several extra challenges based on the "ranking" of the training course; either at the end of the course, when the ranking is complete, or at intermediate stages, based on the ranking-so-far. So I did ''not'' reject the ranking-based "idea" for the training course (because the ranking is already implemented). I ''did'' reject the generalization proposed by Iritscen, because on the scale of the | :There is nothing wrong with unlocking one or several extra challenges based on the "ranking" of the training course; either at the end of the course, when the ranking is complete, or at intermediate stages, based on the ranking-so-far. So I did ''not'' reject the ranking-based "idea" for the training course (because the ranking is already implemented). I ''did'' reject the generalization proposed by Iritscen, because on the scale of the whole game the answer to Who The Frack Will Script It And When is obvious: no one any time soon. | ||
:I made an additional remark in response to Iritscen's points about "veterans" and excessive difficulty: Griffin's death (or another similar variable) can act as a global switch, changing Easy/Normal/Hard to Challenging/Insane/Impossible: the training course can be affected dramatically by that secret variable, regardless of the ranking-based non-linearity. That not shit-stormy in my book, that's constructive. Feel free to develop on that idea whenever "good inspiration" hits you. | :I made an additional remark in response to Iritscen's points about "veterans" and excessive difficulty: Griffin's death (or another similar variable) can act as a global switch, changing Easy/Normal/Hard to Challenging/Insane/Impossible: the training course can be affected dramatically by that secret variable, regardless of the ranking-based non-linearity. That not shit-stormy in my book, that's constructive. Feel free to develop on that idea whenever "good inspiration" hits you. | ||
:If you think the training level is not actually worth the attention, then I can agree with you in part: pimping up the training course is not the best way to improve Oni, especially not in the eyes of the "general public". It is, however, a convenient dump for otherwise embarrassing "cameos", and an opportunity for ''you'' to deliver in terms of scripting. There are clear guidelines, reasonable freedom | :If you think the training level is not actually worth the attention, then I can agree with you in part: pimping up the training course is not the best way to improve Oni, especially not in the eyes of the "general public". It is, however, a convenient dump for otherwise embarrassing "cameos", and an opportunity for ''you'' to deliver in terms of scripting. There are clear guidelines, reasonable creative freedom, guaranteed support from myself. Like for *cough* extra savepoints. | ||
:As for Karen losing to the robots more often than not, we can fix it, but we don't have to, as long as we pretend she isn't really dead. I still don't think shutting down the robots "manually" makes sense, because there was no malfunction. You can totally add TCTF troops in this spot or elsewhere (ahead of Konoko's progression, for example, as I suggested earlier), but, as I said up there, if you add too many people, you may have to develop the "backstory" of the training a bit: either a "realistic" tie-in (elevators, cyberspace) or deliberately random wackiness, but there will have to be ''some'' tender loving care, or the modified course may look awkward, neither serious or un-serious enough. I can't tell you what to watch out for more specifically: you have to actually start working on it and make some choices for yourself and then we'll see. | :As for Karen losing to the robots more often than not, we can fix it, but we don't have to, as long as we pretend she isn't really dead. I still don't think shutting down the robots "manually" makes sense, because there was no malfunction. You can totally add TCTF troops in this spot or elsewhere (ahead of Konoko's progression, for example, as I suggested earlier), but, as I said up there, if you add too many people, you may have to develop the "backstory" of the training a bit: either a "realistic" tie-in (elevators, cyberspace) or deliberately random wackiness, but there will have to be ''some'' tender loving care, or the modified course may look awkward, neither serious or un-serious enough. I can't tell you what to watch out for more specifically: you have to actually start working on it and make some choices for yourself and then we'll see. | ||
:In any case, I can't see why you should be put off by my first post up there. It ''is'' edgy, but I have my reasons and you know them. You want me to tell you what to do? OK, here you go: Gumby, you must implement cutscene skipping and extra savepoints. If you need more specific directions for either task, just ask. And you're relieved of having ideas until you're done with these two items. | :In any case, I can't see why you should be put off by my first post up there. It ''is'' edgy, but I have my reasons and you know them. You want me to tell you what to do? OK, here you go: Gumby, you must implement cutscene skipping and extra savepoints. If you need more specific directions for either task, just ask. And you're relieved of having ideas until you're done with these two items. You can refuse the task and work on multiplayer instead, but then I may not be of much help. | ||
::[[User:Geyser|geyser]] 02:07, 17 November 2008 (CET) | ::[[User:Geyser|geyser]] 02:07, 17 November 2008 (CET) | ||