Uncertainty Veil (Fog of War)

[AllenWL]

Or..

This is sort of the optimal thing to do anyways, for people who don't have a colony full of power armor. If you do have power armor, then rushing the base at night is still the better thing to do, FoW or no. Doesn't really change much there.

True, but it still ends up being simply sending soldiers there, then having them shoot them all.
Having to say, light up the field to widen your view, or even choosing between night and day(night lets you ambush, day gives you much better vision) could add some new tactics. Plus, it could also add to the mood, or have a slightly better emerging story.

Although, this is purely my opinion

[Johnny Masters]

There was one point, in another thread, when I crossed the line. I knew that I was crossing the line and I owned it. What you're talking about here is just vague alluding to nothing you've substantiated.. I suspect to dismiss my criticisms. I don't see this derailing as a coincidence when I press on a very simple question that still hasn't been addressed.

If by owning it - and i blame my non-native english - i hope you don't mean any sort of "win", because that would be far from the truth.

I'm talking about how you (ironically vague) dismissed every single post as either 'vague hyperboles' or some kind of reaching out-to-masses discourse. You didn't point out what exactly or how exactly they are so, and even if you didn't drop any names we know who you are alluding (including) to.

This leads back to why it was removed to begin with. Many of the elements that bring the world to live would be lost or would functionally cease to exist, not to mention the direction it would lean the gameplay.

Please, do cite them, so we could discuss if or how they would be lost, or rather replaced if its the case.
Which direction exactly would the gameplay lean to? Is it a bad direction? Why?

There hasn't really been a solid case presented for what FoW introduces that makes the loss of all that worthwhile. Just nebulous reaching about people being 'afraid' of it or some of the most vague hyperbole I've recently seen to describe horror or a wealth of other non-specific, poorly defined things it would bring in.

This is a discussion, not a thesis defense. Even so, there has been a lot o examples and descriptions and they are not any more vague than at least anything you've said here.

Then, never mind the P.A...

Nobody has really tackled the question of why this needs to be in core when the appeal is strictly niche?

There's nothing niche about fog of war. If you want examples on how FoW operates i suggest you play any game which features it in one way or another. Hint: There's a lot. They're not all rts games.

Why is a mod not sufficient for this, should Tynan introduce the structure for this? Nobody is objecting to that, if anything that's encouraged.

Basic structure is a given, and if investing in it, why not go all the way?
Nevermind the myriad of little balancing here and there to keep it running smoothly.

Why does this belong in core, given what it will remove, when anything supposedly gained is purely niche?

Nobody here knows this belongs in core, some people think it should and are trying to have a discussion on the potentials of it.

Again, there's nothing niche about fog of war, and what is it exactly that would be lost?

The only arguments made against FoW can be resumed in:

a)It will take development time
b)It will turn RW into a rts
c)We can't see all the stories unfold
d)it doesn't add anything interesting

While i absolutely concur with a, everything else is either a personal opinion or a misunderstanding of how FoW could work.

I'm still waiting for examples on how exactly FoW would turn RW into an (starcraft-like) rts

Fow doesn't so much prevent rather than delay the same stories we have without FoW, while providing their own potential stories.

There's a lot of interesting things that FoW adds, some have been suggested and more will be, if we spend more time in creativity instead of retorts.

On the flock of birds bit, I was meaning that with FoW, it's not much to tell a flock of fleeing birds from a flock of birds just flying by. Unless you're implementing that birds only take flight to disturbances that a colony should take interest in.

As i previously wrote, a telling sign would be that passing birds would fly in a said speed (slow, most likely) and in formation (V most likely), while startled flocks would just fly faster and without a formation (since they are not migrating, just fleeing).


-
I still would like to hear good stuff from either positions instead of focusing on the (arguably) bad.
Doesn't hurt to say one more, but there's nothing wrong with no fow, but there's also nothing wrong with it.

[Mathenaut]

Tynan's post has been cited several times throughout the thread, stating in no uncertain terms what he believes is lost through the implementation of FoW and why it was removed. I am incredulous at the sense that this needs further clarification - particularly from someone not new to the thread. Read the thread.

..and really, those three words are most of what I have to say to the length of that tl;dr because I'm almost certain that this is some level of concern trolling.

To what's worth addressing, again, no response I'm aware of in this thread is saying that the structure for modders to implement FoW should not be added to the game. Nobody is saying that. Literally, nobody anywhere in this thread has stated that modders should not have the ability to add FoW mechanics.

I'll eat my words if I overlooked something.

[akiceabear]

Tynan's post has been cited several times throughout the thread, stating in no uncertain terms what he believes is lost through the implementation of FoW and why it was removed. I am incredulous at the sense that this needs further clarification - particularly from someone not new to the thread. Read the thread.

..and really, those three words are most of what I have to say to the length of that tl;dr because I'm almost certain that this is some level of concern trolling.

To what's worth addressing, again, no response I'm aware of in this thread is saying that the structure for modders to implement FoW should not be added to the game. Nobody is saying that. Literally, nobody anywhere in this thread has stated that modders should not have the ability to add FoW mechanics.

I'll eat my words if I overlooked something.

If anything, you are the one trolling a thread discussing the implications of fog of war, if implemented. Reasonable discussion on that topic has been completely derailed by you (alone), so I'm going to stop posting in this thread after this. Once half the posts in the last few pages are bickering about your wording, you know you've succeeded in trolling what was a reasonable conversation.

I think it's worth highlighting that your positive feedback throughout this board is generally quite reasonable and tactful.

That said, your negative feedback (saying why something is a bad idea) could use a lot of work. I'd say most positive posters on this thread could easily misread your so-called idea-focused feedback as personal criticism. For example, saying "I disagree that this is a appropriate gameplay mechanic (full stop)" and "I'm not saying you are an idiot, just that only an idiot could come up with such bad ideas" are worlds apart in civility. Other posters have called you on this in other threads and, like I said, I think its worth stating here. Why post more than once in a thread discussing a concept you abhor?

A fun exercise in debate is to ask if there is anything, any scrap of argument, that could convince the other side to change their view. If the answer is "nothing", then there is no need to waste energy trying to change someone's faith.

[Mathenaut]

I'm approaching 330 posts on this board over the course of several months. There was, literally, one other thread a while back, totaling 1% of my aggregate posting was an issue because I lost my cool. I'm not passive when I'm aggressive.  Even in this thread, it's conspicuously long, tetris-stacked walls of text making flagrant accusations that stand out from the discussions.

That's the big difference here. I attack ideas that I think are bad and engage with people who raise points of discussion. You and Masters? You're just attacking me and riding that to dismiss criticism. That's cool, I guess.

I only regret my contribution by responding to a personal attack because some people take criticism of their suggestions personally, or get offended when people don't fully agree with them. I don't know what to say that. There simply are no kind words.

[RemingtonRyder]

This discussion is closed until someone has something new and constructive to add to it.