View source for Talk:TODO/2.1/Extend weapon and ammo combinations

I don't the point here - why not just another ammo definition with some other values but the same name?
:[[User:Mattn|Mattn]] 08:13, 28 January 2007 (CET)


Modifiers in the weapon entry is not good - they would affect other weapons, too - they should be in the ammo entry imo. something like this is imageable: '''Moved this to [[TODO/2.1/Extend_weapon_and_ammo_combinations#Ammo_modifiers]] --Hoehrer'''
:[[User:Mattn|Mattn]] 08:21, 28 January 2007 (CET)

I think something like that was what winter meant in the quote. As long as we can get all sort of combination (as listed in [[TODO/2.1/Extend weapon and ammo combinations]]) to work without problems, the _way_ of implementation isn't really  important, we just need to make sure we do not need to rewrite/extend it again in the future.  The solution above sounds good to me, but we still need to solve the issue with combined fire-modes like for grenades ... so this whole thing is finally resolved.--[[User:Hoehrer|Hoehrer]] 12:01, 28 January 2007 (CET)


== Comments on Implementation method 1 ==
=== firemode buttons ===
Implementation method 1 looks good to me. Perhaps we can set (in the weapon's firemode entry) the location of the firemode button on the modified interface? For example, if we have 6 buttons, 2 rows of 3, we could have something like this:

firemode_button = 3

Then we could grey out/disable any buttons that aren't used by the weapon as required.

--[[User:Winter|Winter]] 12:19, 29 January 2007 (CET)

@Winter: Remember that "Implementation method 1" is just the backend, and there is nothing about the GUI in it yet. I like you gui suggestion and I'll post an example of what I have in mind (GUI) for different firemode-actions (e.g. the lob&roll for grenades) as well  in the future for comparison. It's very similar to the original UFO:EU GUI (i.e. list/popup style) with some additional features for these things. I dunno how much combinations we'll ge5t, but for now I'm concentrating on the code- and data-backend to enable these things later on ;)

--[[User:Hoehrer|Hoehrer]] 13:34, 29 January 2007 (CET)

* An X-COM-style popup GUI would be fantastic, and I'd be happy to ditch my idea in favour of it. We'd need to make it look a bit better than it did 10 years ago, however. I'd be happy to create some more buttons or other graphics of that style if we can use them.

* --[[User:Winter|Winter]] 22:45, 29 January 2007 (CET)

=== All cases covered? ===
Implementation proposal 1 does not solve everything, if I understand it correct.
* We need:
** different firemodes per ammo
** different firemodes per weapon
** logical AND for 1) and 2)
* Look, an example:
** laser rifle primary mode name: snap shoot
** laser rifle secondary mode name: aimed shoot
** heavy laser primary mode name: burst
** heavy laser secondary mode name: overload
** both laser rifle and heavy laser uses the same ammo in this example, so that's ok if we define firemodes here per weapon.
* But then another example, what if we use two different weapons, both with two kinds of ammo (read: ammo1 and ammo2 can be used in both weapon1 and weapon2), and '''the firemode type differs for ammo'''? So, the situation:
** weapon1, ammo1, primary firemode name: "firemodeW1A1"
** weapon1, ammo2, primary firemode name: "firemodeW1A2"
** weapon2, ammo1, primary firemode name: "firemodeW2A1"
** weapon2, ammo2, primary firemode name: "firemodeW2A2"
* IMO if we want to change the current behaviour, try to do this as much flexible as possible, to cover ANY future ideas.--[[User:Zenerka|Zenerka]] 12:57, 29 January 2007 (CET)


@Zenerka: No, if I understand you right you can do that all right with this implemention ... the worst case would be a duplication of the firemode-information in the ufo file. The firemode definition(s) for each weapon is in the ammo. In your example: Remember that you have '''two''' weapon entries (weapon1 and weapon2) with '''two''' firemodes in '''each of the two ammo''' (ammo1 and ammo2) you can define anything you want.

If i understood you wrong we can discuss this on jabber later today or tomorrow (if you have time)

--[[User:Hoehrer|Hoehrer]] 13:34, 29 January 2007 (CET)

Example (quick draft) with the shotgun-shells:
<pre>
item Flechette_Shells
{

	weapon Micro_Shotgun {
		firedef { name	"_Firemode 1" ... }
		firedef	{ name	"_Firemode 2" ... }
	}
	weapon Riot_Shotgun {
		firedef { name	"_Firemode 1" ... }
		firedef	{ name	"_Firemode 2" ... }
	}
}

item Saboted_Slugs
{
	weapon Riot_Shotgun {
		firedef { name	"_Firemode 1" ... }
		firedef	{ name	"_Firemode 2" ... }
	}
}
</pre>
--[[User:Hoehrer|Hoehrer]] 14:34, 29 January 2007 (CET)
* Yes, with that concept (ammo definition contains weapon entries, which can use this ammo, and those weapon entries contain every fire definition, the weapon can use with this particular ammo) every case I can imagine is being covered - that's good. It should be remembered, though, that such firedef { } inside weapon { } inside item { } should contain more parameters, not only name (spread, range, damage, maybe particles...).--[[User:Zenerka|Zenerka]] 23:51, 29 January 2007 (CET)