[SUGGESTION] Mines or Grenades

I think it would be interesting to add some sort of mine or grenade weapon into Xonotic. However I'm not sure how practical that would be considering Xonotics genre.

It would be a great way to break a pursuit though.

I was just playing Counter Strike Source, and that reminded me of the flashbang. Of course CSS is a tactical game not a run 'n' gun, I still think it would be interesting.

EDIT* I also think (this is off subject.) that it would be neat to have a standard assault rifle with a grenade launcher. But then again, this isn't COD.

Tell me what you think.

i think there are much pressing issues than mines, anyway i think xonotic its a fast game not based on static defense, but its my opinion

Mortar, secondary lifetime very long, health 1, there you go!

i think there are much pressing issues than mines, anyway i think xonotic its a fast game not based on static defense, but its my opinion

I never said this was a pressing issue, remember that this is the suggestion box.

And I wasn't talking about static defense mines either, more like timed or motion sensitive sticky grenades to take out pursuers. Just a thought.

---

Mortar, secondary lifetime very long, health 1, there you go!

I don't understand what you mean.

I think some sort of proximity mines or even remotely detonated bombs could be fun. Especially on CTF games They should be easily visible to not make them too deadly.

Yes because the proximity mines in Quakelive didn't piss me off enough already

I think this would change the style of the game a bit too much, especially in DM or small CTF maps...
But maybe it could be considered for the "onslaught" mode (not sure of the name...) Since the map I once saw was very big and with "objectives" if I recall corectly

Something like TF2's sticky bombs would be cool.

After playing Unreal Championship 2 I can honestly say that MINES IN AN ARENA GAME IS A BAD IDEA.

If I want to put mines in a map I make I should be able to put mines in that map. The players shouldn't dictate what doesn't get in. The developers should make whatever they want.

I agree with Lee_Stricklin. From my point of view mines wouldn't fit a fast-paced trick-jump weapon-combo first-person shooter, which I gathered Xonotic intends to be in order to be a worthy successor of Nexuiz.

We need to fork Xonotic then if all it is going to be is a "fast-paced trick-jump weapon-combo first-person shooter" rather than that PLUS whatever new ADDITIONS the devs want to add.

The existance of a mine weapon doesn't hurt you unless you are a do-nothing player who refuses to even use the g_weapon_replace commands.... which is what most are.

Another fork to get away from you "don't add feature" demanders?

Edit:

We need to fork Xonotic then if all it is going to be is a "fast-paced trick-jump weapon-combo first-person shooter" rather than that PLUS whatever new ADDITIONS the devs want to add.

You seem to be putting the devs in front of the players. Let me put it this way.

This is the players' game. This is not the devs' game. There are many more players than there are devs. Doing something for the devs is like a president doing things for himself.

The existance of a mine weapon doesn't hurt you unless you are a do-nothing player who refuses to even use the g_weapon_replace commands.... which is what most are.

I hope you realize that g_weapon_replace is a server side cvar, not a client side command.

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute...

Wasn't the whole POINT of Xonotic to make a better version of Nexuiz that put the players first? I was under the impression that we forked because the Nexuiz devs kind of ignored the players' wants and needs.

In fact, as the Xonotic homepage says,

While technically being a direct successor of Nexuiz, the Xonotic project is a rethink of the Nexuiz project that recognizes the community around it as its principal driving force and will restructure itself to respect that. This means that there will never be a single person with total control over the project.

"...The community [is] the driving force..."
I agree that bad ideas are bad ideas and should be controlled, but the community's needs must be paramount.

The developers should make whatever they want.

With all due respect, Trees, I highly recommend a game called Nexuiz. I think you'll like it a lot.

Nexuiz was forked because LordHavok was disallowing and deleting features and additions the other developers had added or wanted to add: he was nullifying their hard work.

The fork was planned before the illfonic thing happend. Happily, the illfonic thing caused the whole community to support the fork.

Specific examples of problems:
LH Deleted Tzorks new weapons
LH Wouldn't allow other new weapons.
It was believed that LH wouldn't allow other useful privacy and security features either.
LH also didn't appreciate vehicles.

It was the narrow vision of what Nexuiz was or could be that forked the project.

Mines AND Grenades.
(I should beable to put both, neither, or just one on a map I might make, the players shouldn't beable to veto a dev's decision or desire to ADD A FEATURE (players can always just not play that new map or use g_weapon_replace to "fix" it on the fly))

---

This is the players' game. This is not the devs' game. There are many more players than there are devs. Doing something for the devs is like a president doing things for himself.

Nope. This game is the devs game... because they make it. Players, by definition, don't do anything (otherwise they would be in the smaller, more precice set "devs") other than play the game.

The game belongs to: Divverent. Tzork Morphed. LordHavok(yes, he's still the engine dev), Samuel, Oblivion, I think you aswell, countless others.

Now, you can add something a player requested. But a player cannot veto a dev adding a new feature.

Yes I know it's a server side option but when you're playing on your own computer you can enter server commands. You can also put them in your map's config file. What you cannot do, as a player, is disable MY server from having whatever weapons I put there.

And... you can't tell some dev that he cannot add proximity mines just because YOU think they shouldn't be in "your" game. HELL NO!

And if you can veto the hard work of a dev to add an ADDITIONAL WEAPON WHICH YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PUT IN YOUR MAPS (oh wait, by definition, a "player" doesn't make maps, or anything, they just hate on the peeps who do... for not doing it "right") then we need ANOTHER fork.

To get away from the tyranny of the people who just "Play" the game.

The Devs are kings.
You can (and I think you did) choose to be a dev.
Anyone can.
Just make stuff.
Otherwise... well your pleas to "NOT ALLOW NEW WEAPONS OF SOME SORTS"... it better be ignored (this is not communism, this is a meritocracy: make stuff, it's accepted, choose not to make stuff... and then demand that others follow suit and not make what you don't like... no... no)

Ok, that post was too long.

Basically:

Player asks for additional feature --> Dev makes it ---> Good outcome (more features, choice etc)
Player (or anyone) asks for removal of features/weapons ---> Is obeyed ---> Bad/TERRIBLE/NONONO (less features, choice, stuff to work with)

Players can be listened to when they ask for new things, but when they ask for the _removal_ of things they should not be listened to.

First things first:
a) No, I'm not a dev. I do not work with and develop the source code to build the game itself. However, I love to map, so I understand the anger the community felt when the devs "ignored" them.
b) I'm sorry if I came off as a hard-ass in my first post. I wasn't trying to start a flame war or anything, and I may have said some things that I shouldn't have.

Now for the nitty-gritty:

the players shouldn't beable [sic] to veto a dev's decision or desire to ADD A FEATURE (players can always just not play that new map or use g_weapon_replace to "fix" it on the fly))

I wholeheartedly agree: the devs do have "final say" as to what gets into the game, but the players have the right to decide what to do with the dev's additions. I believe that if the players overwhelmingly respond to a change in a negative way, then the devs should listen to them and fix/remove the offending content.

This game is the devs game... because they make it. Players, by definition, don't do anything...other than play the game.

Yes, technically, this is the devs' game. They add content and, as mentioned above, ultimately decide what goes into the game. You claim that the players do nothing except play, which makes them unimportant. But it's the fact that they do play thatmakes them important. Without players, devs wouldn't be devs! The purpose of developing a game is for people to play it and enjoy it; if you manage to make your players leave, then you have failed at devving. The players are the voice of themselves, the populace to the devs' government. Devs need players to be important; a leader without followers is just an outcast.

But a player cannot veto a dev adding a new feature.

Not directly, no. But their actions can have an even greater impact than their words.

you can't tell some dev that he cannot add proximity mines just because YOU think they shouldn't be in "your" game. HELL NO!

I also agree completely; I'd be willing to hold a sign at the rally. You are right that the devs don't have to listen to anyone else, but they should. The devs should offer to give the players a choice, and refusing them that choice is bad devving.

Finally:

this is not communism, this is a meritocracy: make stuff, it's accepted, choose not to make stuff... and then demand that others follow suit and not make what you don't like... no... no

Hint -- there's a reason I like to make stuff.

In Summary (tl;dr):

The Devs are kings.

Yes, but any king worth his jewels doesn't ignore his subjects' wants and needs.

Off-Topic:

a "player" doesn't make maps, or anything, they just hate on the peeps who do...

This is, sadly, the most accurate description of the average gamer that I have seen in a very long time. Go figure.

P.S. Long posts are fine! If a passive participant (a "player," in your words) isn't interested in what you have to say, they can choose to skim it or skip it.

"Hint -- there's a reason I like to make stuff. Wink"

That reason is that you want to make it, you agree that it's a good feature.

What players here are asking is that things (mines) /not/ be made and /not/ be allowed.
They should be ignored.

---

"I believe that if the players overwhelmingly respond to a change in a negative way, then the devs should listen to them and fix/remove the offending content."

No they SHOULD NOT.
If the stupid idiot players don't like mines then they SHOULDN'T PLAY MAPS THAT SUPPLY MINES, OR they should use g_weapon_replace to replace the weapon they don't like THEMSELVES IN THEIR COPY OF THE GAME.

They shouldn't have a say in taking away or not allowing some weapon that could be useful for mappers to place, or that other players might like.

I'd love to have land mines which I could place as a pickup in new or updated maps that I make. They don't have to play those maps, and even if they do they can g_weapon_replace.

Ofcourse, no, that's not enough, some players need to get their way and prevent others from having their fun. You know when it was decided nexuiz would fork? When the players got the ear of LordHavok and GOT their way.

The players wanted the Tzork's Tag Seeker out of the game. Eventually they got the ear of LordHavok and he removed it. The players went to the head dev and had him remove a feature that another dev added (and mappers were allready using in their maps). That was the start of the fork discussion. Because of that. Because the players got REMOVED what they wanted removed from the game. From then on it was seen that nexuiz was not a free developement enviroment for devs. There would be constraints on what dreams they could make a reality in-game... from the do-nothing players! (Proxied through Lord Havok). Fork();

Guess what, trees? The power and authority of the devs is more or less transient. The real power lies in the community ("the proles", if you understand that reference). If a large portion of the community does not like a change, the devs can either undo that change or the community can fork. While it is true that forking requires manpower, even without talent such as coders and artists, the community can boycott the game. As VNilla said, the devs don't have to listen to anyone, but they should.

If the stupid idiot players don't like mines then they SHOULDN'T PLAY MAPS THAT SUPPLY MINES

That's what I meant by "if the players respond to a change in an overwhelmingly negative way."

"the proles", if you can understand that reference

I was trying really hard to restrain myself from using that very reference myself when writing my last post, but changed my original "the proles to the devs' Party" to "the populace to the devs' government" at the last minute. (1984 ftw)

Guess what, trees? The power and authority of the devs is more or less transient. The real power lies in the community ("the proles", if you understand that reference). If a large portion of the community does not like a change, the devs can either undo that change or the community can fork. While it is true that forking requires manpower, even without talent such as coders and artists, the community can boycott the game. As VNilla said, the devs don't have to listen to anyone, but they should.

Nope, the power is in the developers.

If the players fork that means nothing: they (being players) cannot code, cannot make media, cannot make maps, and furthermore: WONT do any of these things (definition of PLAYER vs DEVELOPER).

If they did do those things they would be a dev.
But they don't.

Their fork would simply be a static fork that never changed.
Doesn't matter.

The players shouldn't have a say in removing things. They DID have a say in Nexuiz and that's one of the things that caused the fork (devs things were removed by LordHavok at the REQUEST of the do-nothing players.)

We don't need to forg the game again. We can develop a system for handling mods. Inside mods everythng would be possible.
http://forums.xonotic.org/showthread.php?tid=405

We allready have cvars that can disable and replace each and every weapon and each and every feature.

That is not enough for these kids.
They MUST have the features they DONT like not EXIST at all.
They MUST have it their way, even though they don't actually create anything (and thus totally don't matter at all (definiton of player))
They are childish tyrants who can't allow others to have their fun aswell.

Don't you want it your way? You HAVE to have it your way, where the devs to whatever the hell they want, and players rely on the mercy of mappers and server admins. Also, if everyone who is pissed off stopped playing, devs would have to do something, as I already said (you conveniently glazed over this)