that's a brazen statement.
putting a dot in this message is aminor thing for me:
.
there, nothing special.
The campaign "maps" suggested by the guy back then was more boxes with an icon for terrain type in them with some text on the side to describe the mission layout if you choose to go there.
Yes, icons ARE minor as far as graphics goes.
Heck, you could just take a snap of one of the real maps and just cut a hexagon of a green patch of grass from it and use that as icon for grassland terrain.
If that is NOT minor, then you are working with people that overcomplicate things.
HBS Connor on game development, and adding "simple features":
[peripheral note, they did indeed add 'ejections']
"To clarify, in order to make Manual Ejections an option in game, this is what I would consider when making a design request internally.
These and possibly more things would need to happen (In no particular order or organization):
- Get code in place for non-automated ejection. Could be easy as we already have some stuff going on in the background (as Tyler pointed out earlier in this thread), but I never assume ANY code ask will be easy or quick. That's a sure fire way to be wrong.
- Make new space on the abilities bar, or elsewhere in the already crowded UI, to put this new button. That requires rework and reflow on the UI to ensure that people see it and can understand it. There are parts of the existing UI that beta feedback has shown to not be fully clear, adding more to that makes things clear as mud.
- Create the necessary VFX, Sound, and Animations to support the gameplay of 'A Pilot Punching out of a Mech'. Of which there currently is none. So it's entirely new. This may not be totally necessary, but as most things in the game have some sort of grounding, it can be expected we'd want to do this. This also assumes we don't record VO for the pilot ejecting, which takes coordination and $. So when this happens there would be no "I'm punching out, boss!" bark.
- Create rules and specifications around how the player interacts with this ability. When can it be used. When does it get resolved. Are there penalties or bonuses. How is the pilot handled. Can they take injuries even on a manual ejection.
- Look into our turn order system to allow for best use by player. For instance our system ends your turn when you fire or use an ability. So you would not be able to say, fire with a Mech X, then immediately after have Pilot Y eject from Mech X. That's cuz your turn ends when you fire the rest is damage resolutions & animations & camera pans that are automated, you've essentially ceded player control when the 'Fire' button is hit. This would require additional code/work in our turn system to allow for you to fire then do anything without your turn ending. Let alone eject.
- Build into the AI decision tree some node that allows them to consider their survivability rate, and make a call to eject or not. As some of you have pointed out that you would like the enemy AI to eject to save themselves. We want them to eject when it makes sense, and not just at the first sign of trouble, which would consequently have all battles taking 2 minutes because the AI ejects once they take their first crit or big hit.
- We need sufficient tutorial-ization / messaging to educate players who are unfamiliar with Battletech TT (which will be a big chunk of who will ultimately plays this game) how to eject, what the trade offs and benefits are to a manual ejection, and when it is a good time to eject.
So in my hypothetical we have: (1) a UI designer/artist (possibly both), (2) gameplay programmer, (3) maybe an engine programmer (for the turn order stuff), (4) an AI programmer, (5) a designer, (6) our VFX artist (maybe tech artist too for lighting issues related to the new VFX), (7) animator, and (8) audio designer for this task. All of which will likely need more than 1 pass from each person for implementation and polish. And obvious bug fixing as no feature is ever bug free from the jump. So we'll take on 1-2 QA technicians if I'm being conservative.
We now have tasks for (at least) 8 people (not including the big dogs like lead design and production to make sure people are keeping track of this feature). And even though each of their individual part may be small or short in time required, it ultimately takes away from their already big lists of bugs and features to work on leading up to ship.
So while I agree.
I personally would love to have manual ejections. It takes away from the focus on other issues of higher priority and frankly the other unfinished parts of the game that we've made Kickstarter commitments to. This is not to say the idea is bad or to shut down any discussion on it, please continue as these things help inform our future decisions. Nor am I soliciting solutions for the hypothetical problems I've laid out. We have an incredibly talented team here at HBS, they can solve just about any problem you throw at them, and solve it well. I have no concern on that count. No matter which way you slice it, even if it was a silent operation with no VFX/SFX/Animations needed, and even if it was JUST for player and not AI, this is still a chunk of work. Though when you have time on the clock (and we do), you have to pick which problems you solve, "Focus equals Quality."
Now I am not our director, nor our producer. So even I am not fully qualified to make such a judgement. But that's my thought process if I was gonna push for such a thing (and it's sorta my job to push for features). I say all of this to explain that even a 'light' implementation of any new system is a risky proposal that must be weighed and decided on. Our current plan is not to support manual ejection.
In summation, some things that are PURELY data we can tweak with low risk. But if it is a new
interaction model we don't currently have, the best first assumption is that it would be non-trivial to build.
Hope that clarifies some.
"
