The default rocket AI seems pretty good to me, which mod is this?

A player of a game should always be made aware of the rules by which it is played. (Except in special situations, where the object of the game is to deduce the rules, in which case the player should not be penalised for breaking them.)

A game should never punish its user for making reasonable tactical or strategy decisions. Where possible, a game should tell its user what will happen if a certain condition is fulfilled, preferably by letting them deduce an outcome given the rules. Above all, a game should never penalise a player for following the rules that they are aware of.

Some illustrations:

-In maginot, the game told me if I bought my brain to a certain location, the victory condition would be fulfilled. I bought my brain to that location. Nothing happened. So I walked next to the escape rocket. Then I touched it (gently, intensionally, thinking touching it would fulfill the victory condition) and the escape rocket fell sideways on to me, destroying my brain. I was penalised for fulfilling the games instructions, but at least I was penalised in-context, I could have worked out what would happen given what I know of CC's rules.

-If the game does not tell a player the rule that their actors will fall off the end of the world there is no way for them to know that without trying - I couldn't even guess that that was a rule of the game, and there is no suggestion anywhere that I could use to deduce that rule, and I was punished - penalised - for trying to find out. That should never be allowed to happen. Some maps loop round, so this rule isn't even consistent...

-Relatedly, in one of the first games I played I told my brain to dig for gold. (Actually I've seen other players on this forum say that this is a good strategy, so I prided myself on good thinking there.) The mission was lost entirely unexpectedly when the brain fell off the bottom of the map. Again, there was no way I could have deduced that rule without stumbling across it -- and losing -- for myself. This violates the principal that I should be able to work out what will happen given what they know of the rules.

-OTOH the same thing just happened to the AI so at least its a rule the AI isnt aware of either..

I would have thought that adding barriers to the end of the maps would be one of the easier things to fix actually..

Moreover, I think a better way to approach any situation like this is by asking "Does this rule make sense?" "Is this rule fun to play with?" "Will this rule make my players happier, more fulfilled individuals through playing my game?" Having actors plummet off the end of the map is not a rule which fulfils most of these conditions.

@stormsaber: I wholeheartedly agree with your statements.

If it upsets you that greatly, write a quick little script that teleports an actor back on to the battlefield when he leaves the edge of the map an add it to anything you plan on playing with.

Or I can just stop playing the game and spend my time on other games, which is what I've done. My interest in this game from now on is going to be proportional to the developer's interest in it, which for now seems quite low.

That violates the principal that user modifications should be used to add functionality to an already-working system, not amend (or fix) core game rules.

So you stopped playing CC because you can fall of the edge? Nice one.
Can I ask what you expected to happen?

No,seriously tought,if you stopped playing CC,its your loss really.

I have absolutely no problem with falling off the edge TBH. Quite happy to have that in a game. But:



I'd have thought that was a fundamental starting point, to be honest.

No, I stopped playing because the developer doesn't care about the game enough to give it the polish it needs and deserves.

I believe I've already covered in previous posts what I expect of the game.

It's also not a loss, because I've had lots of fun playing other games instead of this one. I have too many good ones waiting to be played to feel the need to dwell on a single disappointing one. The developer is happy too, because he has your money and doesn't have to care about the game any more either.

You don't get that explanation with Mario, now do you, even if it is a tactically advantageous to avoid the monsters, or obstacles the game puts in the way of Mario.
You don't get it from Skyrim, as far as I know, when you try to kill what turns out to be quest-necessary npc, until after the fact, likewise.

...

And HunterZ, if you are so thoroughly convinced of the badness of the game, and the developer, why would you tihnk dwelling upon it even more helps your situation, we certainly know of the pitfalls too, even the developer too.

Anyways come back when CVE is made into a game or something, and there should be more to show for it.

And as a tidbit, the developer [and the key licenser] have made the game free again [a few months back?], there should be a universal steam key, or game key around.

With such a high ratio of community interest to developer interest, it's too bad that the developer doesn't just open-source the code so that the community could polish it up. If Cortex Command is now free, then it's a double shame.

As for CVE, I'll wait until it's been released and reviewed. I'll judge it on its individual merits, but also on its state near launch because the only expectation I can have is that it will have a slow and/or limited post-release development arc (a la Cortex Command).

No, it's a shame you have to continue discredit the game, community, and developer, even when you say you are thoroughly done with the game.
The dust has settled deep. And the game being free isn't much of a shame, if that were the case, steam summer sales would be bemoaned for different reasons.


For CVE, it doesn't matter if you aren't going to stay around.

ITT: Some ♥♥♥hole complains about the game, makes a dramatic statement about how he is not going to play the game, and quits. Nothing of value is lost.