Necessary upgrades before launch

[SWi74]

1 minute ago, Lunokhod said:

unprofessional

Really? What do you do?

When you make cards with the same size and they have content of different sizes it's much better to scale the content.

Keeping the same scale for all faces would look a lot worse. You have to make all faces really small in order to accommodate the largest face. If a bald guy and a guy with an Afro were same scale most cards would be almost empty. It's the same with document pictures, badges, products, etc. You can't keep the same card size and the same scale for the content. THAT would actually be unprofessional.

Either way it really doesn't have to do with pricing.

Triple A games launch at 70 USD and I would much rather get this so 45 sounds good to me. And if it turns out well, I'd gladly pay 70 to support them, regardless of what it cost them. If 45 doesn't reflect the quality they achieved, that's easily solvable, too. Don't buy it. Get the other game you mentioned and be happy. It really doesn't look better to me, though.

[Image Miroir]

They want all portraits to have the same size...

For some of them it's like if you were zooming on the image (even if the final size is the same).

It seems monstrously disturbing for some people; obviously they left before the end of the therapy...

[Solaris_Wave]

I suppose Joe's head is bigger than Fidel's in the portraits but not by much. It certainly isn't worth such criticism over.

[DougS2K]

12 minutes ago, Solaris_Wave said:

I must admit, I don't really understand what I am looking at when I see those screenshots. Do you mean the way that the portrait is bigger than the box that is supposed to surround the portrait? Fidel's beret is sticking out above the box.

Is that what you mean?

I think what he's referring to is that Fidel's portrait is not just a headshot like the rest. You can see his shoulders and such which makes his head smaller. I think that's their issue but not 100% sure as I don't really see an issue myself.

[Solaris_Wave]

I understand now. I suppose you could scale them a little more to a standard but as others have said, there are things that would affect it. Any character that has a hat is obviously going to need more room in that portrait to show the hat. Otherwise, it would need to be removed to keep things to scale or for the headwear to be cropped in the picture, which would look weird. Tex's hat is large. You could hide an extra head inside it. However, if you cropped it, you wouldn't really understand what he was wearing and if you made the hat small enough for everything to be to scale, the hat would look like one of those cheap plastic joke ones that people wear at Christmas office parties.

[chr_isso]

Ofc, different people have different priorities but ...
isn't it a good sign if the thing to discuss is merc portraits instead of other gameplay things?

I mean .. i can live with almost every portait if they'd change the inventory.
(and yeah, i can already hear somebody scream CTH)

What I want to say: i'm happy that ppl want the small things, instead of the big ones changed...

[DougS2K]

21 minutes ago, chr_isso said:

Ofc, different people have different priorities but ...
isn't it a good sign if the thing to discuss is merc portraits instead of other gameplay things?

I mean .. i can live with almost every portait if they'd change the inventory.
(and yeah, i can already hear somebody scream CTH)

What I want to say: i'm happy that ppl want the small things, instead of the big ones changed...

We want big things too but they are unlikely to change at this stage.

[Remi1987]

Strategic elements need to be fixed.

• Less clunkiness, shooting own cover, grenade ending at ones own feet, super STUPID actions like that. Guys we are dealing with paid mercs, not with kids we grab out of a theme park rollercoaster and shove a gun in their hands instead of an icecream.
• Hiding player count before entering a sector. These "feats" are soo anoying. I want to be unsure after killing 2 people, if there are 2 or 20 more in the sector. There's the Thrill for me.
• Oppontent Intelligence. Let them hit us. Like for real. Ending out of cover, oops, dead. Not 50 verbal comments "oew, that was close" "ow I felt the wind of the bullet"(giggle giggle). I want to play this game on the top of my chair and get amped up. SERIOUS difficulty is what I want. I go play x-com style, once dead, no reload (unless it is by a bug, one of these stupid own hand grenade kills or other crap that shouldn't be there)

Here these icon sizings discussion; I'll bring in this argument. It does reflect real life as well. Some people have big fat faces, other ones are so cute which makes you want to squeeze their cheeks. Now yours turn again, bring it on!! (Zzzzz)

 

Edited May 20, 2023 by Remi1987

[Remi1987]

In terms of price. I hope it goes for 70 USD, and they make a came to live up for that, and if it's not yet on launch, they tweak it onwards.

 

[Stuurminator]

41 minutes ago, Remi1987 said:

Oppontent Intelligence. Let them hit us. Like for real. Ending out of cover, oops, dead. Not 50 verbal comments "oew, that was close" "ow I felt the wind of the bullet"(giggle giggle). I want to play this game on the top of my chair and get amped up. SERIOUS difficulty is what I want. I go play x-com style, once dead, no reload (unless it is by a bug, one of these stupid own hand grenade kills or other crap that shouldn't be there)

Jagged Alliance isn't XCOM. It's messier by design and doesn't allow combatants to capitalize as heavily on an opportunity. it's just not the JA style for being caught in the open (or flanked) to be a death sentence.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Stuurminator

[Remi1987]

A difficulty to make enemies more though or the game more unforgiving. I am going one playthrough and i wanna make it an unforgettable one.

[Solaris_Wave]

Hiding enemy player count is a good suggestion. Why would you know how many enemies there are unless you were ambushing them? Do you have a satellite showing them all? Have they got tracking signals? Did the enemy commander ring you up and say, "I've got five men! Guess where they are!"

Short of the remaining enemy soldier hiding in a cupboard and spending 50 turns trying to find the bastard, it shouldn't be a problem to generally clear an area yourself, keeping the tension going of not knowing if any are left. The game could give you a rough idea of enemy group size, which could be small, medium or large. Then, each term could be a random number (Small = 4-8 men, Medium = 9-15 men, etc.). Once all enemies are dead, it could then say 'Area Clear' and switch back to real-time, just so there is no situation where the remaining enemy is hiding in the corner of the map, or running around a building searching for you while you do the exact same thing on the opposite side of the building.

 

Throwing grenades in games can sometimes be breathtakingly stupid. I 'love' it when in a game like this, your soldier throws a grenade and it bounces off something right next to them, lands at their feet and splatters them to the four winds. Not every throw requires a bowling arm. Sometimes you just want to toss a grenade round a corner or pop it through a window next to you, without standing right in front of the window, triggering enemy opportunity fire and getting your eyebrows shot off. Games don't always handle it well, even the good ones. Not only that but even soldiers with poor throwing ability are not going to suck so much that they drop the grenade at their feet, get it caught up in their shoelaces and turn themselves into a firework display.

Edited May 20, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[Image Miroir]

Concerning the intelligence of the opponents, you should enjoy people and take advantage of enemy stupidity. JA3 is most probably the last Jagged Alliance game not buffed by "modern AI"; soon every single opponent will be a West Point graduate!

So, it's most probably the last time you'll outsmart a tactical game AI before experiencing the fate of Garry Kasparov in front of Deep Blue...

[DonBilbo]

I think that would be really cool as the AI has the ability to adapt to your playstyle so that you still might have a chance. Like a classic DM. I don’t mean you should always win if you play like a moron, but at least it could help create some memorable close call encounters that you barely survived. 

[MateKiddleton]

Wasn't there mention of an intel or scouting strategic map assignment (like assigning milita training, repairing items, doctoring, etc) for mercs? Maybe that reveals enemy numbers.

[DonBilbo]

You have the option to scout in operations. This only reveals additional info about the sector. The number and type of enemies is always shown when entering the sector no matter if previous scouting is done or not AFAIK. 

[Solaris_Wave]

Sometimes it is easier to create artificial intelligence than it is to create artificial stupidity. I have played games where you have to play by rules that the AI doesn't and you come off worse for it. I have played FPS where the enemy can see you through tall grass, even when you are prone and can't see anything because of that grass. I have seen enemies throwing grenades with too perfect precision. In the first Operation Flashpoint, I was spotted when it should have been impossible. There are beat 'em-ups where the AI doesn't have to remember combos, can execute their own instantly and can read your inputs as soon as you do them.

Then, you've got AI concessions such as rubber-banding in driving games or their cars inexplicably going faster than yours (why is that police SUV accelerating past my Bugatti Veyron?) or in RTS games where they start off with more resources than you, more units than you, build faster than you, know which part of the map your camera is looking at so they can surprise you with an attack, don't need to probe or scout your defences and know perfectly how to get through them, and even grab more resources from you that they don't seem to need. I am thinking of Starcraft 1 and Company Of Heroes 1 for those two cases.

AI cheating in games has often killed my joy of a game and I will either quit or finish the game in an angry mood. Therefore, I will be interested to see if the next wave of true AI makes games more challenging in a logical way. Harder difficulties could just mean better thinking without restriction, instead of harder difficulties meaning having you instantly shot at with perfect accuracy as soon as your eyelashes peak out from behind a rock, or seven grenades immediately bouncing off of your head after being thrown precisely at where you are hiding.

[Remi1987]

Would be nice if we have a few different options to increase our enemy opponent difficulty:

+10% +20% extra enemies and/or hitpoints and/or hit chance.

Still feel this game is too easy, I've gone through quite a lot of footage.

Take the highground, get cover, almost all torso shooting except the high marksmans guys.

Haven't seen a SINGLE squad member got hit over 60% damage. 
No grenades exploding on them.

I don't sense any danger from anything and anyone. Mostly sitting ducks who seem to have always the disadvantage. The opponents miss a lot, they rarely hit mercs. And a lot of 1-6-7 damage type of shots IF they even get hit.

Serious issue. I miss the challenge ( based on what I do have seen thus far)

[Lunokhod]

3 hours ago, Remi1987 said:

Serious issue. I miss the challenge ( based on what I do have seen thus far)

Im sure there will be several difficulty levels, personally I would prefer game without save/load in combat. Someone said that in beta was only easiest level.

[chr_isso]

On 5/20/2023 at 7:40 PM, Solaris_Wave said:

Sometimes it is easier to create artificial intelligence than it is to create artificial stupidity. I have played games where you have to play by rules that the AI doesn't and you come off worse for it. I have played FPS where the enemy can see you through tall grass, even when you are prone and can't see anything because of that grass. I have seen enemies throwing grenades with too perfect precision. In the first Operation Flashpoint, I was spotted when it should have been impossible. There are beat 'em-ups where the AI doesn't have to remember combos, can execute their own instantly and can read your inputs as soon as you do them.

Then, you've got AI concessions such as rubber-banding in driving games or their cars inexplicably going faster than yours (why is that police SUV accelerating past my Bugatti Veyron?) or in RTS games where they start off with more resources than you, more units than you, build faster than you, know which part of the map your camera is looking at so they can surprise you with an attack, don't need to probe or scout your defences and know perfectly how to get through them, and even grab more resources from you that they don't seem to need. I am thinking of Starcraft 1 and Company Of Heroes 1 for those two cases.

AI cheating in games has often killed my joy of a game and I will either quit or finish the game in an angry mood. Therefore, I will be interested to see if the next wave of true AI makes games more challenging in a logical way. Harder difficulties could just mean better thinking without restriction, instead of harder difficulties meaning having you instantly shot at with perfect accuracy as soon as your eyelashes peak out from behind a rock, or seven grenades immediately bouncing off of your head after being thrown precisely at where you are hiding.

Watch Call of Duty DMZ Youtube Videos. Even a billion dollar company is not able to make AI play by the rules.
COD AI shoots you through walls, doors, even if you're in houses. From a hundred meters away. It's unbelievable how bad the enemy KI sometimes behaves. So if we have halfway decent/intelligent enemies, maybe with AI that does some flanking and not running straight into your ambush that would be great.
I would also love to see some tactical retreat with smoke grenades or something similar.

Operation Flashpoint however was quite hard anyway. One hit could kill you if you were unlucky, but OF will always be a core memory for me. "Move to - bush" is stuck in my head forever. OF is also 20 years old or something? So I would guess KI is smarter by now, if you don't re-invent the wheel.

[Remi1987]

7 hours ago, Lunokhod said:

Im sure there will be several difficulty levels, personally I would prefer game without save/load in combat. Someone said that in beta was only easiest level.

Well, weather or not that option is there, I go play it myself that way. Iron Man type of style, except bugs, blunders, misclicks etc.

[Elite77]

Ain't much to do at the current stage, just fix bugs, add a Pavel poster to some wall somewhere 🤣

[chr_isso]

15 hours ago, Remi1987 said:

Well, weather or not that option is there, I go play it myself that way. Iron Man type of style, except bugs, blunders, misclicks etc.

Once I'm familiar with the game, that's definitely how I'm gonna play a playthrough for sure!

[Solaris_Wave]

I have never played any game in Iron Man mode myself. I always get concerned about bugs, glitches, crashes or even suspect calculations. Also, some battles can go on a long time. The only occasion I was forced to play Iron Man-styled difficulty was the final assault in X-COM II: Terror From The Deep. You could not save at all once you were in the base.

The finale was kind of an anti-climax. The base had wide corridors and big square rooms. There were lots of tough Lobstermen but the base seemed rather empty. I was waiting for some kind of Leviathan to come crashing through behind my squad but nothing really happened. I just had to blow each door away with explosives, kill Lobstermen, avoid any problems due to no save option, and make it to the end room.

Maybe it was a lot different on the higher difficulty.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Solaris_Wave

[MagicShadow]

Over a page worth discussing the size of mugshots the most important aspect is being overlooked..
NONE of these characters show any resemblance with the original ones except for their names.

Look at my profile pic.. THERE you see Shadow. Not that Dancing Bear - Toy Boy variant in the game 🤣