SpecOps 0.1.5

(SCDS_reyalP) #21

how about having them reduce number of explosion per AS instead. That would simulate not as many planes getting passed ack, and also make the airstrikes a lot weaker.

(Currahee) #22

This makes sense because even the best AA gun team could never shoot down every plane. The guns were horribly bulcky and hard to manouver. But having said that i think maybe the ratio should be 40-60 or 30-70 just to make lifea little harder for the FO.

(DG) #23

might make sense for realism, but for gameplay I’d stick with AA-gun = no support fire.

(MadJack) #24

I’m wondering if more than 1 AA can be put into a map. If so, how is the game react to that? If, let’s say, it gives a 30-70, will that become 60-140? I think it should be set that no more than one AA for each team.

(S. Monkey) #25

I appreciate the suggestions, but I’m going to stick with it completely stopping airstrikes. This will give the other team a very visible disadvantage they will be motivated to remove

At the present time, mulitple AA guns are not supported, but I could put them in later.

(Mr_Tickles) #26

I think it would be a good idea if when an objective was triggered, you had the name of the person involved with it show up on the screen aswell. For example, if “BobthenotverygoodBuilder2” destroyed the Oasis old city wall, it would be good if it displayed “Old city wall destroyed by BobthenotverygoodBuilder2”. Also, in Goldrush, instead of just saying Allies have stolen the gold crate, display the name of the person who has it. I think it would be good because then people can get the recognition they deserve for actually going after the objectives. Maybe even put in another skill which every class has (like light weapons and battle sense), which can be increased by getting objectives. Get those xp whores to work for you! The skill increases could be something to do with stamina, speed, energy or such like.

Also, as I’ve suggested, maybe adding a bit of regen to Soldiers so we get rambo soldiers, as it should be, and not rambo medics. Makes much more sense.

(bacon) #27

The objective thing: Those objective strings are stored in scripts. It’s not up to the coder, but the mapper, what is done.
I think it would be near impossible to do the name thing :confused:

(MadJack) #28

Could the name of the player be used from a script? I mean is there a way for us mappers to use some kind of params returned by the engine that would be used to print the name of the player stealing/building/destroying an objective? AFAIK that doesn’t exists.

(Mr_Tickles) #29

Why not? it can’t be that hard can it? I think it’s in shrub at the moment, (I may be wrong), where a player can bind a say function to take a players name, I’ve seen many people saying “Move! Mr_Tickles” or “Stop so that I can heal you Munkei”. Can’t be impossible to do that with the objectives surely.

(MadJack) #30

I think what you’re talking about Tickles is the ability to use the “pointing at” name. Though you could be right.

Actually, in my last post I meant the way ET is right now, without any mod. I’ve haven’t seen the name of the player doing something being linked to what is printed but that doesn’t mean the way to do it isn’t there. Maybe just that it’s unknown to us mapper.

(bacon) #31

But that’s not scripted.

(Tavington) #32

Great idea Mr Tickles, about the player being mentioned in the objective message.
Maybe colour code it so if it was an Allied player it would be:

Bobthebuilder has secured the East Radar Parts!

For Axis it would be:

Bobthebuilder has secured the East Radar Parts!

It would need to be a mod change though as I don’t think it can be scripted atm.